User talk:GrantNeufeld/2008

; Archives
	Posts from 2004-2005; Posts from 2006-2008; Posts from 2009-2016;
Current

This is an archive of past discussions from GrantNeufeld's talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on GrantNeufeld's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Try the new template

{{User green}} – Kaihsu 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary $ rules!

Grant--Great talking to you--if you ever want to talk (about politics, Wikipedia, whatever) feel free to email me...apriori_paul_hanson AT yahoo.com is the address. I have been looking into the Canadian work visa process for a while and if things work out, I might find myself dealing exclusively in Calgary Dollars...(incidentally, I added a category to that page...and, now that I think of it, you might want to add a birth year category to your own.) Anyways, I look forward to the Calgary Wikipedia roundtable and many fine brews drank therein. Paul 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary flag

Hey Grant, I know you're Calgarian, I was wondering if you'd be able to answer my question at Talk:Flag of Calgary, Alberta. Thanks. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against the 2003 Iraq war

My apologies! I was working through my watchlist, which I had run a few hours earlier and didn't notice that this article had been edited in between when I ran the watchlist and when I looked. So I presumed that since I was working 6 days back in my watchlist, that this material had been there for the intervening 6 days. I missed that this edit was not 5 minutes after the previous edit but 6 days plus 5 minutes after. Should have just reverted it, as was my first inclination. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD tracking

When clearing the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board of completed afds please wikilink the deleted articles in the Edit summary box. This is so we can see if the article is re-created after losing an afd. I have seen many re-creations, some are legitimate but those that are not can be speedy deleted. --maclean25 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Crummey

Given the repeated insertion of non-relevant material by an anon editor, it may be worth semi-protecting the article if it happens again. Since I'm now involved with the article, it would not be appropriate for me to do so. You might ask another administrator to do so if the problems recurs. So is this guy a nutter or something? I mean, more so than the average Greenie? ;-) Ground Zero | t 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I resemble that comment :-P —GrantNeufeld 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a sense of him being a nutter - he just didn't seem to understand that a Wikipedia article with him as the subject is not owned by him for him to put whatever content he wants on it. —GrantNeufeld 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver City Credit Union

You should have moved the page instead of copying and pasting because it also moves the page history as well. Ardenn 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Credit Unions (Canada)

Hi Grant

I was the one who replaced the random list that was there with the top ten. The reason is as it stands this whole page goes against wiki policy of random lists, and I was going to take this in hand and start editing it so at least it had some semblance of notability. However I won't bother if there are folks that will keep adding or reverting back to randomness. There are in Canada over 850 credit unions short of listing all of them I believe that the top ten are more than sufficient for each country (when that data is available). You can answer here to keep the thread readable, I will watchlist this page for the duration of our exchange. --DV8 2XL 20:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then, thanks --DV8 2XL 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Lest We Forget

Perhaps in future you will wait five minutes before micro-managing. Thanks SirIsaacBrock 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Canada

I have nominated it for peer review. Ardenn 07:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd

Just thought I'd let you know: someone is reopening the "minor candidates" debate.

CJCurrie 05:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Sorry about Calgary Buffalo. I did a search and replace, and should have checked my work. Thanks for fixing it. Ground Zero | t 22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome—it was no problem. Thanks for your numerous continued contributions! —GrantNeufeld 01:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPO address

Check out the GPO website - the new address is right on the front page. Ardenn 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth May

I slapped her page with a POV-check tag, while I don't specifically see any problems, I'm sure they exist. If you could take a look at it, I'd greatly appreciate it. Replace it with a POV tag if need be. Thanks. Ardenn 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like you did a superb job. Ardenn 07:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thanks for your hard work. Ardenn 07:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Great job with the clean up & neutrality work on Elizabeth May Ardenn 07:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Widget

Seems like a waste of hard drive space to me. Figured I would tag it for speedy. Ardenn 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Canada

Ongoing debate over it's "POV-ness" with the terms "eco-centerist", "eco-socialist" and "eco-capitalist". I've put it on POV-check. I don't wanna edit war with the guy. Ardenn 04:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for the recognition. Receiving accolades from an editor that I respect is very humbling. Ground Zero | t 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

exploitation of Wikipedia

The following statement was anonymously emailed to me from the IP address 134.117.196.61 (talk • contribs) with the subject “exploitation of Wikipedia”:

Wikipedia's credibility is becoming eroded. People such as yourself are using it for self-promotion. Wikipedia is intended to neutral in perspective, so using it as a resource to promote people by simply listing all their achievements blatantly violates this principle. You are clearly a supporter of Elizabeth May; this undermines your ability to objective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.196.61 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You can see my response to the POV edit by this user on the Elizabeth May talk page. As to unobjective editing, I believe it is possible to contribute to articles one has an opinion on and not compromise the objectivity and NPOV of the articles (otherwise I wouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia since I have opinions on pretty much everything :-) Finally, those reviewing my contributions will find that I have contributed NPOV edits to articles for political matters that I side with and that I oppose. —GrantNeufeld 19:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Party

Hello,

Could you please add Saskatchewan Party to your watchlist (and revert the current version, if someone else hasn't already done so)? Two SP partisans seem to have a very limited understanding of NPOV. CJCurrie 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very cautious in making reverts with respect to Saskatchewan Party. The actions of CJCurrie in requesting that you revert are not appropriate, per the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy that states, inter alia, that "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia."

64.110.251.69 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following response on that anonymous user’s talk page, and am copying it here:

You wrote: “The actions of CJCurrie in requesting that you revert are not appropriate, per the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy…” quoting that policy: “It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated.” To my knowledge, CJCurrie did not “externally advertise”. Posting to User_talk pages is not external to Wikipedia. If he had posted on some web discussion board or email list, that would have been external.

You further quoted policy: “in order to attract users with likely known views and bias,” which is also not applicable since I have no “views and bias” regarding the Saskatchewan Party, not being from that province and having very little knowledge of Saskatchewan politics. What I do have is an interest in politics in Canada, and have contributed to a wide range of articles relevant to that subject. It is entirely valid to request that other editors take a look at a controversial article, particularly those editors with a track record of working on similar articles, in order to bring an additional third-party review to an article.

Your quoting of policy continued with: “in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion.” CJCurrie did not ask me to take any particular side regarding the article, other than Wikipedia’s side which is to maintain a neutral point of view.

—GrantNeufeld 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think our anonymous user has completely misunderstood the rules concerning Sockpuppetry. CJCurrie 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics in Canada

What do you think about starting a politics in Canada wikiproject? Ardenn 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps one that just focuses on the parties and candidates? Ardenn 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject!

Hi!

I wanted to invite you to join the new WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. The goal is simple. To create a project, to create and maintain high quality articles on Wikipedia related to Canadian politicians, and Canadian political parties. Come on over and check us out at WP:PPAP. Ardenn 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for helping out! I most certainly can't do it alone. Ardenn 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I think you need to very carefully read this. Ardenn 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. I only looked it up because of what was said about the naming conventions over at the project. I thought it odd that albertagreens.ca would be owned by an AIDS organization. As an aside, you might want to consider registering greenparty.ab.ca and forwarding it. Ardenn 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although not from Alberta, as a general voter, I'd love to see more info about the leader of the Alberta Greens on your website, and perhaps info on the executive, etc. (Don't mind me, I'm just using your talk page as a suggestion box.) Ardenn 16:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the barnstar, I have now been scouring to populate the clean tables with early nominations and candidates running for nominations, while i'm here are you taking another run at Calgary Buffalo or is there a future nomination meeting planned? I hope to finish the target ridings soon, and will work on making the MLA Incumbent bio stubs, which is hard some times, because most of the PC MLAs don't interest me much. --Cloveious 07:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

politician vs. political candidate

You removed a line I wrote in Jim Harris's article about him being a political candidate, reverting it back to politician. Mr. Harris was never elected to any level of government (ie he ran for municiple and lost, he ran for federal and lost). Since he never held any political office I can't see how he could be called a politician. If he goes on television regularly to discuss politics he could be called a political commentator or pundit, but I think political candidate is much more discriptive of his actual role. Dowew 17:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition of politician, wouldn't someone running as a candidate for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party be considered a politician ? Or the Death, Dungeons and Taxes Party ? Or the Donald Duck Party ? Do you see where I am going with this. Although the Green Party of Canada may not official be a fake party like the ones I mentioned, it has still never actually elected a member. The same goes for the Marijuana Party. Would anyone seriously call Blair Longley a politician (I realize his wikipedia page already lists him as such). Harris, like Longley has never even come particularly close to holding office, and was only ever a candidate who did little the alter government activities or broadly change public oppinion (I don't know what your feelings on the green party are, if you can show any evidence that Harris ever actually had a hand in altering legislation please direct me to it). The term politician, is far too broad to be used for everyone who has ever run for political office. Someone who has run and never won (and has little change of winning but keeps running anyways is usually called a perenial candidate). I still think political candidate is far more descriptive of Harris that politician. Dowew 19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Basham

Hi Grant,

I removed it for two reasons:

(i) It turns out Basham wasn't actually a candidate in the election(!). He originally registered as the GPC candidate in Elmwood-Transcona, but withdrew before election day. I don't know why.

(ii) Basham was chosen as leader of the Green Party of Manitoba earlier this week, and now has his own biography page. CJCurrie 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election issues page up for deletion

Issues in the Canadian federal election, 2006

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Issues in the Canadian federal election, 2006, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Issues in the Canadian federal election, 2006. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Joshuapaquin 02:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

calgary wikipedia meetup dec 13?

i've tentatively set a wikipedia meetup for dec 13 (wednesday) 6:30pm at (surprise!) haymarket cafe. that's at 1101 macleod tr se. if you're down with this we can get the promo rolling. frymaster 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you must have a photo of a meeting or something

okay, in the process of trying to get Consensus decision-making up to WP:GA (or at least not fail the review so badly that people call me "satan's sockpuppet" behind my back for a year), and one of the things on my to do list is get an appropriate photo. surely you have one of these? some surly-lookin' union dudes sitting in a circle or something? if you do, i'd appreciate it! -- frymaster 07:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cree syllabics

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Cree syllabics. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —GrantNeufeld 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entschuldigung, aber die Bibliography ist meine Arbeit, ein Zitat aus meinem Aufsatz. Bitte nicht mehr die Copyright geschützte Quelle löschen! --Dr. Steller 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Steller (now blocked) argues that the link has to be included as it is the the source of the copyrighted "quotation". As the work in question is her own, it could be alternatively argued that she released it to GDFL by placing it into Wikipedia herself which raises issues of WP:OR and WP:COI. HTH. Agathoclea 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus/False

Good edit! False is a much better word than bogus, (even though the b word was used in the CBC doc!).--Slp1 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Swann

Oops. Thanks for catching that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Kostuch

Nice new article. I nominated it at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on April 24 for the Main Page's Did you know... section. --maclean 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4/29 DYK

On 29 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martha Kostuch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the photo

Your freely licensed photo of the C-61 breakfast really does add to the article. Thanks for adding it and I hope we've done an ok job of describing C-61 on Wikipedia -- Tawker (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is archived from GrantNeufeld's talk page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on GrantNeufeld's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.