User talk:Canoe1967

This user may have left Wikipedia. Canoe1967 has not edited Wikipedia since 11 May 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Template:quicktemplates

• User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO archive
• http://www.philosophy.umn.edu/people/FacultyProfile.php?UID=kahnx009
• Censorship ref
• More
• Failure to yield
• Ag Sec foot
• Read later
• Check plot
• Archive of deleted articles.
• Wikipedia:(ignore previous link)
• World Architecture Festival
• Anthony Trewavas
• Scarlett Keeling case in UK parliament now, book written, movie released, so it now meets notability. Archive
• Wikipedia:ImageSize
• Correlative-based fallacies
• Westmoreland v. CBS
• #2013041310001871
• {{Citation |last= |first= |year= |title= |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url= |accessdate= }}
• <ref name="My Cat">Details of ref</ref>
• <ref name="My Cat"/>
• Kite aerial photography my lighest cam is too heavy
• Susan Bernard
• Greatrex Newman
• copyvio?
• Michael Behagen
• File:Marisa get out.png
• Defence Scheme No. 1
• Laurie Holden
• Michelle Thomas
• User:JackofOz/Unresolved questions
• https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50919224/clock.xml
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngawangchodron/3426239674/
• http://paulkrassner.com/
• http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation
• COI Essay
• COI actions

I find your edit summary interesting when all you did was revert the revert. On another note I live in Edmonton as well.Curb Chain (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe1967. You have new messages at ReelAngelGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank You!! It perfect! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nun killing a grizzly with a broom.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Get stuffed, hoser-bot!--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the guy was shoveling. Trolls here? On Wikipedia? Mugginsx (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for lending me your sandbox with the translated W. Stower WP:Germany article. It was useful, and I now have access to more information to help improve the English article. Feel free to delete, or whatever. ~Eric F (Talk) Don't talk:98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Did you ask in the de:talk page for the article for any Germans that may wish to help on en:WP?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought of that, sounds like a good idea. However, I think I have the translation situation under control. I just wish the de article had citations for the bio information. Btw...

If you must "improve" Stöwer's lithograph, please upload as a new version, not replacing the "faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art" (unless there is a consensus to do so). I would really like to have a copy for his page that hasn't been tampered with. [please, please!] Thanks, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert and chew my ass out in the comment section. You may also mention something like "Do not revert this image! Upload other versions as new files", type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either I can't figure out how to revert, or I don't have admin access, or something. Btw, I have a copy on my computer that I have adjusted (histogram) that is more of a digital restoration rather than "improvement". I'll figure out a way to upload to Google docs, or get a Picasa account or something. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC) -- Btw, that new image wasn't really "higher resolution", it was simply enlarged -- compare the two, the smaller one actually is much sharper and less grainy. ~E 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will revert it and leave a comment about uploading other versions as new files. I may be able to google the same image you have and upload that one for you. Can you not log in to your account because of lost password?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a WP account. The image I have is on my computer (not online anywhere yet) -- which is currently in the shop (HD crash) -- hopefully, the file will be recovered. Currently using a borrowed laptop; and need owner's password to access google docs; and if I remember correctly, you can't simply upload images to Google docs, must have Picasa "web album" or something,. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've set up a Picasa album, and set copyright stuff to 'Creative Commons' licence:

• Link to Picasa Album? ~E 98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On Picatom? ~E98.26.28.41 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Direct link to image from Picasa?

Can this image be uploaded as an "Other version", instead of replacing current file (unless/until there is a concensus)? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)21:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just replace the existing. The picacom one won't load in my browser. The picasa one does seem slightly better quality. We should have the best quality b/w version in that image page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the upload!

Can you access this signature image file? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk)184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see "talkback" here. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian wiki article he was killed on 1938 (shooted) or in 1944 (cancer of stomach). See articles on ru-wiki and de-wiki: ru:Булла, Виктор Карлович de:Wiktor Karlowitsch Bulla. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:ELBURDEN and please revert your edit to comply with WP:ELBURDEN. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ELBURDEN: "Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time looking over the policies and guidelines. There's no rush, and I see you're relatively new here.

I tend to be very brief and to the point, which some find upsetting. I'm happy to explain further and sorry if my editing or comments upset you. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we came to an agreement with the DMOZ link! --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well. I know WP has policies, but I think we can ignore all rules here. Many may look in WP first for a list of online directories. That is far better than getting all the spam from google for them. I added their postal code list to the postal code article. You may wish to spam check the other 3 links there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was inappropriate. My post there was a discussion of the sources and the way a COI editor should approach editing the article. Don't do that again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My edits (the ones you reverted) were not coatracking. I intend to be rigorous about the COI issue." <--This seems to be a statement made by an editor that doesn't seem to focus on the article and just focuses on another editor.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re this, please see WP:REDACT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments from Abhayakara and Nomoskedasticity that you deleted do not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:TPOC. The comments were about whether a particular text needs to be in the article and thus were entirely relevant.

In Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the section titled "How to use article talk pages" tells you what you should add. The section titled "Editing comments --> Others' comments" tells you what you can and cannot remove. That section starts by saying "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." The above comment by Nomoskedasticity is clearly an objection. You should respond by indicating that you will not do it again. Also, please follow WP:REDACT. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a clash in WP policies then. One says that they are subject to removal (the same as irrelevant material in articles). At this point we should use the 'discuss cycle' to reach consensus on whether I can remove all irrelevant material, just mine, or none at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given what these guidelines say about others' objections, I think it's reasonable to anticipate that others are likely to object. If you really want to remove your comments -- and certainly if you want to remove others' comments -- my suggestion is that you ask those affected first. You appear to do good work here in other respects and I don't want bad blood between us -- my suggestion is meant as genuinely constructive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording is confusing, and I believe that Canoe1967's removal was in good faith, although I disagree with his conclusion. I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#"Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)@Nomoskedasticity - I will avoid that article if I can and sorry if my edits seemed wrong to many. I can well understand why editors need to go off topic to help the discussion and article. It just isn't a thing that I normally do. You are a good editor and I hope we can just drop this with no bad blood.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar objection to your recent edits to the Magnotta talkpage. This wasn't even a sentence, let alone a claim. I get your general point, but I think you're taking it a bit too far here. If you must edit, keep other people's replies to what you're editing in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too mention the video as relating to a BLP is a violation of policy. There is no RS that confirms he had anything to do with the video.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's a big difference between someone claiming "Magnotta is the murderer in that murder video" in the article and someone typing the words "view magnotta murder video" (presumably intended as a question) on a talk page. Your intentions seem good, but I think you overestimate the defamatory effects of something so minor as this. We certainly do not need to verify our talk page comments with reliable sources! Anyway, I've changed it and you've said you're fine with the change, so we're cool. As for me adding the bit about changing it and the reason why, this is encouraged by talk page guidelines and was done in the interest of transparency. I would strongly advise you to NOT edit any more comments by others unless there is consensus on whether and how to do so. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is meant to be a helpful/friendly note, so I hope you take it that way. I urge caution to you when it comes to "agreeing" and engaging in converse with brand new editors whose first edits are at Sondra Locke. It has been a very contentious space for quite a while, mostly due to the high number of sock puppets that have been there. In the two or three years since the issues initially began, Excuseme99 has appeared with no less than 10 socks to "defend" and "agree" with his earlier opinions. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not accusing you of meat or sock puppetry with your most recent edits -- but I am urging you to proceed with caution. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is another sock or meat of the other socks. I still expect Rovi to change their date. I have sent their legal dept. an email recently which totals two sent to Rovi. I have yet to hear back from the publisher of the book. It does seem strange that I received prompt emails back from the sources that state 1944 and that the 1947 ones seem to just STFU. Although they may be just being thorough about their source checks before they respond. On the matter of the original sock. I went back in their edit histories and did find a few edits that were improvements to other articles and later reverted by admin after the investigation. They were good edits and I may just add the diffs to the talk pages and see if another editor wants to re-add them so I can avoid all the bullshit that I had to go through before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... let me get this straight. You're planning to re-add material of a indefinitely banned editor? You may be new to wikipedia, but that would constitute editing on behalf of banned editors. Furthermore, you really, really need to understand that your emails to various people constitutes original research and is therefore pointless. If you genuinely want to improve the article, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policies, rather than trying to rewrite the rules to make work that which won't. At this point I'll just take it back to the talk page, as my friendly note has very clearly fallen on deaf ears. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is good (RS) material that improves/expands the article, I see no reason not to add it back. I think admin just erred on the side of caution when they removed it. I will check the sources, discuss on talk pages, and possibly have other editors do the edit. The articles may have changed too much to just paste in as it was. Asking a source to check its source and possibly change it is not OR. She was not born in both years, and it would be nice to have all sources agree on one year. The book can not be changed until a new addition is printed but the publishing company may find another way to correct it publicly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article The luckiest man in Iraq has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An article on a non-notable video, used in a military press-conference like hundreds of other videos from aircraft targeting pods and probably fails WP:NOTNEWS as well.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please read why I keep removing this pic, follow the history and you'll find the story behind it. If you have any newer free pic of Rob De Luca,, you're welcome to suggest it to him and post it, if he agrees. Contact Lovemberrecords.com for approval!

Thanks, Moonslide (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Rob De Luca. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Canoe1967 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Consensus was not reached. Most editors are sleeping now including at least two more that disagree with the current image. Other editors have pushed the issue in the meantime. Canoe1967 (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your claims that this image violates BLP are absolutely unfounded, as several people tried to explain to you on the article's talk page. Max Semenik (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't believe this bullshit. The way wp treats BLPs is atrocious. I wouldn't be suprised if a bunch get together and file a class action suit in Florida. I may be first in line to gather evidence for them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem:

While it is not likely to be a harmful image, the BLP policy is clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

On Talk, Canoe1967 made a claim that the image violated some portion of WP:BLP and summarily removed it. Other editors reverted the image. This seemed to turn into an edit war over the inclusion of the image. Seems like this was poorly handled and not quite in line with how the BLP policy says to handle it. We may not always immediately see what another editor sees and a couple of the other editors in their edit summaries said "Reverted good faith edits by Canoe1967" (although this appears to be part of a templated response by Twinkle). Point being if they are willing to claim the edits were in good faith, why were they going against BLP guidelines and reverting without a consensus having been established? -- Avanu (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two editors with COIs. Every established editor on BLPN, the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page soundly rejected there was a BLP issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't appear that there was a conclusive consensus established. While I can't see a big deal with the picture, I don't think you can just say "I don't see a problem. Done deal." if someone raises a BLP concern. What I can see from the edit history is people edit warring over something that didn't need an edit war. If the image is gone for a day, how much does that hurt anything? Why did it have to be rushed? -- Avanu (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where this COI bullshit is coming from. The BLP requested an updated image. An editor uploaded one under fair-use. It was speedy deleted and the image that can possibly affect his career was placed back in and I kept removing it. I have sent an email to the BLP since my block to request a better free image and he is working on getting us one. I see no reason why we can't remove the existing image until the new one arrives. We could include both in that case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COI is that you are in contact with the subject and editing on their behalf. Fair use images cannot be used when free images are available. If the subject wants to use a different image, have them place it in the public domain and then suggest the change on the talk page and be fully up front that it is their request (declaring the COI).--v/r - TP 21:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only contacted the BLP after I was blocked. Some editors should read more closely. If you and others wish BLPs to look bad on wp then you may end up in deep, brown holes. See the image issue below as well. We are not in a hurry here. To have editors blocked for copy vio of images within minutes without waiting for OTRS is total bullshit. The uploaders are responsible for the images, not other editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke that was. Just like that <redacted> SPI that other editors tried on me. I still don't know why editors are stalking my edits and articles created and trying to piss me off. I even gave you huge assistance in a BLP article that you were alone in trying to fix. Not even a thank you for that. I still find this bullshit totally unbelievable. I will continue to edit but probably only in ref and help desks where some other petty, power-tripping editors are far below the line of any decent input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe1967. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics.
Message added 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help, just a question or 2 left. Bluefist ^talk 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me at the Canadian Forces Base North Bay Wikipedia page. Our air force base does not hold a copy of the video. Because the video deals with an event in Iraq, a theatre of operations that the Canadian Forces did not participate in, I doubt that a high-quality copy exists anywhere within our military. Best wishes in your search.22WHERO (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, it could be a fortnight or more! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Could you; as admin change my edit summary to reflect that? I wouldn't want to cause any confusion. Perhaps use the term '14 days or more' in case some don't know what a fortnight is?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I trouble you to try to explain this? Are you implying that I have a COI w/rt Roach? If so, I'll insist that you provide evidence. Since I don't have a COI on that article and you won't be able to provide evidence, I would strongly advise not repeating that edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to be rigorous about the COI issue." <--This seems to be a statement made by an editor that doesn't seem to focus on the article and just focuses on another editor. I would consider this as COI toward an editor and not the article. I offered to help you before on the article an you basically told me to fuck off. With an attitude like that I can see why you are alone with it now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe. I noticed you reverted my last edit on the article. I'm not going to edit war, or argue with anyone about the whole ordeal, since you have good faith. But the picture you cropped is actually the bad one, and its already on the article. The original one may be kind-of bad, but at least you can see her whole face. I hope you understand, and hopefully the dispute would end :}

Tribal44 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

That image looks like shit! I assume you know nothing about photography. You have had another editor banned because the BLP agrees that it is a shit image. If you want a BLP to look like shit in a wp article then you will have a hard time finding others to back you up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no need to be rude. Just pointing out the facts there, buddy. And apparently you're such an expert on photography, why don't YOU pick out another image you think its so great, huh??

Tribal44 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

Rude my fucking ass. You are the rude one that reverts edits on 'possible' copy vio that are still in OTRS. The uploader is responsible for the image not other editors. When that image passes OTRS I am going to laugh long and hard. Did you even bother to read the image page on commons? We are not in a hurry here. To block an editor, delete an image, and edit war like children, all within minutes is total bullshit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are being rude by cussing me out for reporting a user who kept uploading COPYVIO IMAGES WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED! I'm trying to be civil and you just want a fight, which you aren't getting one anyways. Get that stick out of your butt and pay attention. Good lord.

Tribal44 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

How do you know they are copy vio? Someone slapped a tag on an image that is still in OTRS. You may wish to look at that system closer. I don't know why this wikidrama keeps bleeding over to commons where most wp assholes lose very quickly. I still don't know why you were in such a hurry to bully the the other editor and their image. Again, all within minutes. Why does no one have any patience on wp? You did not upload the image, commons will deal with any possible copy vio, you just seem to be another focused bully that doesn't like it when others tell them to shut up and fuck off.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the link here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lisagerrard01.jpg It was from another webpage. Now tell me that is copyvio.

I'm not bullying anybody. I think you are butthurt over the fact that I reported that user for something they knew was wrong and kept doing it. You need to keep on your wiki facts there.

Tribal44 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

That is another joke. If you would take the time to pop over to commons you may notice that 90% of wp editors wonder why they can't upload every image they find on the net that doesn't have a copyright watermark on it. They are a new editor and they were bullied to the point of being blocked without anyone even trying to explain it to them. If I had been involved earlier I would have set them straight with a simple 'Learn the copyright shit!' type statement instead of playing edit war, image tag, block editor games with them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truce? :}

Tribal44 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

Lol ok. And I believe David Bowie is a lyric baritone. It was on the page, but it somehow got taken down.

Tribal44 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

No, I don't. But I do get what you are saying. He does perform mostly in the lyric baritone range. Sometimes in the dramatic range, lol.

Tribal44 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

hiya,

i wish it was that simple but you have two sets of opposite biased editors one who wont accept to say the club could be alive and the other who wont accept the cub could be dead and they wont accept a medium ground hence the need to go to request for comment next to get uninvolved editors like yourself for input but it isn't live yetAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unfortnally neither side is willing to comp[rise i did put something similar prior to full protection but it was revert saying ld club liquidated for the one, and the other reverting saying isnt a new club no uncertainties,i think someone raise those point or similar but they where dismissed saying it was that person pov but it more i say because it doesnt suit one side of the arguments pov but i appendices your input it will be appreciated more as neutral person once the request for comment goes live--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes a relible source has been posted a few infact but any edit request is opposed because there no consensus, its been at ani but the admins dnt want to get involved one did and beraged with talkj posts saying this a scandel type things. i am hoping the request for comment will get more neutral with no knowledge or bias editors like yourself who will review it with the sources and make a consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have claimed several times that I once told you to get lost (and other less restrained versions of the same thing). Could you please provide a diff, so that if I have something to apologize for I can do so? I recall requesting that you abide by TPO and REDACT, but I don't recall saying anything like get lost. If I did, please remind me with a diff. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't be bothered to waste any more time on your childish antics. You are spewing crap in every dispute forum you can find on the matter. I hope you continue to waste your time on that article because this will prevent you from pissing off editors in other ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Canoe! Thanks for making the edit. But I left you a reply on the Usher talk page because you only completed part of my edit request. Thanks again. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --76.189.114.180 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Far better response than I get from other IP edit requests.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea looks to me like he/she is new when it comes to these type of articles, I put a message about article ownership on the talkpage. If the editor continues to cause trouble just give warnings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem =) Have a good day (Or night depends on where ya are). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A curious history, seeing the edit a few minutes later by the same IP. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image you just added to the Paris article is from 2011, not from 2008.EricaL2003 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look: http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Paris+Hilton/NBC+Universal+2011+Winter+TCA+Press+Tour+Star/Ikr_c4U1KsZ EricaL2003 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That picture would be a perfect one for the "early life" section - putting it alongside the part where we talk about her family. What do you think?EricaL2003 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok, it's actually pretty cool. EricaL2003 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. As you were previously informed, per talk page guidelines, you did not have my permission to move my comments. Feel free to brush up on Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Wikipedia:Civility, all of which you have violated. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my comments for a second time. If you add it again for a third time, I'll remove it again and file a noticeboard report. Again, I told you that I did not want my comments moved to that page. You are, of course, free to do whatever you like on your user page, including deleting my comments. But, you cannot move my comments wherever you want. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but bad analogy. The pea guy wasn't editing his own Wikipedia page. Crusio is.

WP:COI edits are allowed. If other editors wish to cite policy/guidelines they are allowed to seek consensus. Making inane, childish comments on the talk pages of articles and users does not help the project though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

• 04:01, 29 July 2012[1] -Removed a blatant BLP issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 01:27, 29 July 2012[2] -Removed a template that was WP:POINT--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 19:31, 28 July 2012[3] -Removed a very sloppy, incoherent, edit and replaced the good material in the next edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist, one of us is going to get reported, and it's not going to be me. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you WP:STICK? Are you going to piss off more editors and admin with your POV now by dragging me to another ANI? You may wish to read WP:PETARD--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page. If they won't cooperate, seek dispute resolution. Try to avoid reporting someone for administrator intervention when you are angry; wait until you are calm and then think about whether the report is appropriate. If you do report someone, be sure you are at the correct noticeboard and read the rules of the board before making your report. Finally, consider whether your own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless."--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space , a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the discussion the page has been moved to User:Canoe1967/Gun debates in article space. Hut 8.5 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service and dedication to your home country. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. The only reason I left is because the pay sucked.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately posting comments inside other comments quickly becomes confusing. In this edit you signed the sentence "Or this one?", but I wrote it. In the most recent edit its almost impossible to determine who wrote what. Please don't put your comments inside mine. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I am bored, I am going to do something else for a while.[reply]

Then please don't ask me questions I can't answer for you according to format policies. Format them in a way I can or don't bother asking them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer below my comment. Duh. Arcandam (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can sign each question in place, so I can answer them in place. Otherwise is looks very confusing as to which ones I am answering. Duh!--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being discussed for pre-deletion. If you wish to discuss intermediate deletion, full AfD, pre-rename, or pre-merge please select the appropriate template. Only Paris Hilton may remove this tag.

When that happens, you can use {{outdent}} Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used those often. I will wait for others to respond though. I think a discussion by only three people on the delete page, the article talk page, 2 times at a laughable ANI, my talk page, other article talk pages, Jimbo's talk page, 3 pages on commons, 2 on meta, Paris Hilton's face book, Obama's twitter, the Popes Sunday mass, etc, etc. is fine for a while. If you come up with any valid points at all I would be interested in how others will respond to them, but I don't think I will be responding to your repeats over, and over, and over, and over after I give you the same valid answers, over, and over, and over, and over.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'm making this request because you truly believe the personal essay you are writing could actually be elevated to a policy. I'm sorry to have to tell you this (but it will save you some time) that's completely impossible. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may also help if you read Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have answered this at least 10 times already, here, here, my talk page, the article talk page, etc, etc.. Why do you keep asking over and over. Drop the stick, walk away from the horse, take the article and my talk page off your watch list, and ignore them all if you don't like them. You and User:Arcandam seem to be focused on other editors judging by your recent contribs. If you have a problem with an editor it will not help by stalking them all over WMF and hampering their efforts in the project. I have spent more time defending my work from your improper deletion request than actually improving it. You both repeat the same questions, I keep giving the same answers. Much of the time within seconds you repeat another question and never allowing others to have any input. I have said the same to User:Arcandam: Drop the stick, walk away from the horse, take the article and my talk page off your watch list, and ignore them all if you don't like them. The article consists of policy therefore it is policy that can be followed. There is no POV on how to follow it so it is not truly an essay. It is a work in flux that others are free to edit, add examples, and offer ways to follow the said policies. If you keep bothering my talk page with more entries like this I feel I may have to formally ask you both to stay off my talk page and never come back--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

us meaning: User talk:Sensei48, User:HammerFilmFan, and myself. I have only had one interaction with Sensei48 that I can think of when they reverted an edit of mine and HammerFilmFan is similar except I may have responded to them on article talk pages. With Sensei48 you decided for some reason to join us on her talk page about the revert. With HammerFilmFan you filed a 3RR on one revert they did of mine plus some IP reverts. That 3RR was declined. With me this list is incredible if admin wishes to do a checkuser on your edits and mine they may feel as I do that you seem to be hounding me all over en:wp as well as User:Arcandam. It is very difficult for 'us' do do anything when other editors act like this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, if you won't fix a problem you introduced into the article, then I'm forced to escalate the matter. I'm sorry you feel hounded, but if you continue to ignore these issues when they are raised, then I will have to ask others to look at them. Since, you refuse to fix the problem, that's what I have to do. Your summary of Hammer's 4RR in 24 hours indicates that there's still a major communication problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for consensus for it on the talk page. If you would take your time to read the correct forum for issues like this I would not have to keep answering you on the wrong page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, local consensus does not at any time override or supersede core polices. NPOV and our other policies are clear on this. We don't replace the name of a source with a generic term. That you persist in this kind of disruption is troubling. I'm going to start composing my report. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even follow the wikilink? Pew Research Center, I may just speedy it for a few reasons that I think it is guilty of.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, I feel some responsibility for your behavior. I want to apologize for stressing you out. I'll try and give you some breathing room. Again, I'm sorry. BTW, feel free to speedy PEW. It might be a good learning experience for you. Talk to you in a few days. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now."

Thank you, I enjoyed that. Belchfire-TALK 02:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Most of the time my sense of humour gets bad response from editors who have none.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand this edit by you. The source, which is reliable, clearly states the charges being faced. I know that WP:BLP is a minefield at the best of times but this seems not to be speculative. Well, it is not speculative if you understand Indian English. Could you perhaps clarify, as I'm presuming some sort of WP:CRYSTAL might underly your quote of BLP. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With current events that are still unfolding it is best to remove contentenious material then seek consensus as to what if any should be added back. Possibly facing charges is wp:crystal, yes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not contentious. The only contention is whether the charges will become more serious (ie: murder). As for the "suspects", there is a thread on the talk page that explains the problem relating to the infobox template - "suspects" vs "accused". These named people are in the Indian criminal justice system, no-one else is being sought, some have already admitted guilt/complicity etc. I think that in this instance you are being over-cautious and, believe me, I am usually cautious <g> Maybe we should take this to the article talk page? It being 0330 here, I'm off to bed shortly anyway but, honestly, unless you want to strip all the names etc out of the thing then this looks like a well-intentioned but poor application of BLP. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll copy this entire thread over to the article talk page. My apologies for raising it here - it really is not the best venue, and I suspect it may end up at WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you Canoe1967 for your help in getting us started!!! James W. Pickens 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the image to the article! I was too hasty in removing it. I thought that an image of a similar statue might be confusing, but I can see that it aides the "copies" section. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 02:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I hope we can find more detail on the controversy for either article. It seems the images of the real one are up for deletion in commons. I think the copyright holders enjoy filing legal actions. They may yet file one on WMF. I would rather we avoid spending our WMF funds on defense lawyers though. It may be cheapest to just delete them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the best thing to do with images in commons is simply delete them. The article must have gone thought ten different images over the past few years, and the current licensing on the main image is the only one acceptable. The Eriksen family must be making a lot of money from aggressively suing what they see as infringement. -- 11:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Hazhk ^{Talk to me}

I have replied to you on Talk:Duck. Henrib736 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently removed from Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages so it may be safe to edit with your changes. Many will agree it should have a section like that, but many won't. If they give you a hard time like they try with me then you can either fight back or walk away.I doubt anyone will lose an eye.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you. Henrib736 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am aware of what makes a Rabbi and also aware that comments are being scrubbed from legit sources. The article they use where they say he is a rabbi if you click the link it says he's not a rabbi. They deny the holocaust in their very post.68.174.123.10 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The defintion of Rabbi is very broad. He seems to meet our wikipedia definition. In that case no editor can remove the term from the article. It will just cause edit wars and blocks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So at least make the article accurate. They are using obscure newspapers rather than stating what chief rabbi of israel said about him and wiki sources.68.174.123.10 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, this IP is a self confessed sock [4] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

abuse@rr.com then? I think I will go back to the duck article and edit war there. Far more important to the project.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe1967,

Sorry to revert you, but I did some clean up of this article, and an IP reverted all the changes without an edit summary so I reverted him and went to the talk page. Hopefully we can work something out. Do you think this article should even be kept? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw your last edit summary. I am sorry about that. --Malerooster (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are an involved editor in a content dispute on this article, however can you please explain how this revision relates to controversial information that requires consensus. I am coming over to this article in response to a merge discussion, and would like to help you guys work out the problems with this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will probably have time this afternoon to take a closer, critical look at the article to work to improve it. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also next time, please be sure to assume good faith before you make such blatant personal attacks like you did here. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have mentioned you on the talk page Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Teek_hain --sarvajna (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe, and happy new year. I wanted to ask you about your camera in connection with that fake photo. I've never had a Canon DSLR so I'm not sure what it does if you screw on a lens that's not programmed into it. Say a teleconverter and a telescope. Does it still measure the F-number and focal length somehow? BadaBoom (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed that 0 mm lens and 0 f-stop as well I see. I don't know how the camera got that. I will try to take a picture with no lens in the daylight and see what the EXIF data reads. I have a new 300mm Vivitar lens that I haven't tried yet as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, thank you. :-) I know that DSLRs don't "see" some lenses and you have to go to MF with them. But I'm not sure how the camera records the data. Please let me know how your experiment turns out. Nice lens btw. :-) BadaBoom (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI Canoe1967, thanks for welcoming me back. I have received both your messages (on my WIkimedia and Wikipedia account). While you were writing me, I also had asked the question with the copyrights village pump (per the suggestion in the help desk), which you can find here.

Great to hear that it's no problem uploading the logo to the English Wikipedia under the Fair Use Rationale. I've done it before with various album covers, so I will do it once I have a nice 300px version of the logo ready (in a couple of days). I think that in the mean time, I will look into the question of the copyrighting/trademarking a little more. Is it okay for me to contact you should I have any questions? Should everything run smoothly, I will at least keep you posted on whether it worked ;-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe1967. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, here is the siris search for John Weaver [5]; here is a photo of the artist on a blog [6]. because the artist is deceased, you can use a "fair use" photo that you upload here at english wikipedia (use upload file in the toolbox). 198.24.31.118 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I managed to upload a good cropped image under fair use. I hope to get more images of his sculptures though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a few more links on the talk page, but have you come across any other sources? I figure expanding the article with one source per day should get the article GAN-ready in no time! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award for speedily coming to the rescue (in a canoe, no less) of another editor who was floundering in a sea of formatting confusion. Life is good, and it is even better with folks such as you around. Carptrash (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent insights, I will try them out. Carptrash (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

retired from wikipedia for a bit, until I get over (emotionally) this latest copyright thing, but I don't want to be rude about it. I am very curious as to where where you may have seen the two pictures being discussed at my talk page, and look forward to hearing from you on this, or any other subject. Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! It may have been flickr.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me too. Carptrash (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to upload the one to commons with template {heir}. I can't see anyone coming out of the woodwork with the other. It does look like a professional shot that was taken by a government photographer though. I don't think regular press were in China at the time. The pilot had sent the photo, so I assume the government gave him at least the one copy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to check my talk page for the details of what other editors think/feel. Carptrash (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

I have changed the logo size in the infobox back to 150px . 300px is way too big for an ibox logo and made the ibox overpower the article's lead section.--ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Canoe1967. How's it going. Just a note to tell you I've manually uploaded most of the images I want from this collection, there's a couple more, I'll grab them later. To avoid any duplication of effort if you get your tusc thing together. He's got lots more good ones in his other collections, but some aren't labelled... The Interior (Talk) 05:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Storm naming controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm naming controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

In less than two minutes, you fixed the problem I reported with the Christopher Jordan Dorner article. Rybec (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Seems they tried to delete the PD image over at commons. I re-tagged it as a slower review. It should be able to stay as a PD work by a CA employee.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup! I'm still getting used to wikipedia, where it seems the usual revision of my careful work is wholesale deletion of everything I've entered because it doesn't cohere with someone's or some gang's intended narrative. So thank you for the pleasant surprise. Mathematician0 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By now you may have already noticed that a number of students working with me (as their tutor) are exploring ways to improve machinima related pages across Wikipedia. The course details are available here. I'm sure that those who interact with you will benefit greatly from your experience and good spirit. Thank you! --ToniSant (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe1967. You have new messages at Eyesnore's talk page.
Message added 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Eyesnore (pending changes) 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call you an ignorant asshole, but wp guidelines frown upon that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the IP actually claim to be Jan Mak at BLPN? I don't think he did. GiantSnowman 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies - I knew I'd seen it somewhere. He doesn't claim to be Our Mr. Mak - he doesn't claim to be any Jan Mak at all. We should not take an anon's unsupported claim over a source. GiantSnowman 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't claim to be the Jan Mak we have an article on. He doesn't claim to be called Jan Mak at all. GiantSnowman 10:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be as clear as I can - what evidence is there that the IP was talking about the subject of this article? GiantSnowman 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources say 1948 - see Google - and this one is widely used/respected across Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 10:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an over-reaction, what crap will hit what fan if (and I doubt we have) got the date of birth slightly wrong. GiantSnowman 10:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you are an asshole! Why be such a prick and stuff the wrong date in there just to piss me off!--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning for your attitude/language/attacks, I've told you before. It is not the 'wrong' birth date, plenty of sources say 1948 - whereas your 'reliable source' for 1945 clearly cannot be trusted seeing as it says he is Swedish when he is actually Dutch! GiantSnowman 10:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer give a shit! Go ahead and fuck up the article! I will have a good laugh when egg hits face after shit hits fan.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, I'm sorry to say that you were wrong when you said (above), "He doesn't claim to be Our Mr. Mak - he doesn't claim to be any Jan Mak at all." He most certainly did. He signed his help desk comment "Jan Mak". Now it certainly doesn't prove that he actually is Jan Mak, but your claim that he never said it is false. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a signature, or is that just an example of the IP's obvious poor grammar? No way of telling which is which. GiantSnowman 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, who cares about the editor's grammar? I have to say that it really surprises me that you're an administrator based on the types of rude, sarcastic, defensive, and other inappropriate comments you've been posting. Admins should be de-escalating problems, not creating them. Very sad to see. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the poor grammar means it is near-impossible to accuratlely decipher the IP's intention/desire. My comments have been not rude, sarcastic, defensive, and otherwise inappropriate, if you feel differently some diffs would be welcome so I can re-phrase/apologise as appropriate. GiantSnowman 19:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call bullshit on that! Either behave or I will formally ask you to stay the fuck off my talk page. The original date I removed had no source and the one I replaced it with seemed to come from the person themself. You weasel added a google link for Jan Mak‎ 1948. I edited it to Jan Mak‎ 1945 and you whined like a baby. Of course your google link will match your POV in this case. I also feel you are very COI in this issue being an avid soccer fan. If you can't behave like an admin at least behave like a responsible editor and stop power-tripping with your status to win your edit wars with your POV, COI, and OR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time both dates were unreferenced, you were relying on somebody (possibly) claiming to be the subject but not providing any sources. I didn't weasel add anything - I founds sources which supported a DOB I believed, at the time, to be correct. Just because I believe that something, supported by sources, was correct does not mean I have a POV; just because I am interested in a sport means I have a COI - what a ridiculous thing to say. I'm also intrigued where my apparent OR has come from? GiantSnowman 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the date to the google search is POV and OR. Why would you believe an unsourced date in an article? The reason they are unsourced is because the editor probably couldn't find a source. As I have said before it is atrocious how wp treats blp articles. Far too many want them to be unsourced, undue, tabloids. Mentioning Mr. Mak's grammar is highly un-called for. What part of Dutch don't you understand? If you can't come up with better arguments and keep repeating the same lame ones, then I will remove them and ask you not to post on my talk page again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, Again, the IP clearly signed his comment with the name Jan Mak.[7] And if you don't understand why your "the IP's obvious poor grammar" comment was rude, then there's no point in anyone explaining it to you. That goes for other inappropriate and aggressive comments you've posted. Denying the obvious - about the IP's signature and your grammar comment - do nothing but decrease your credibility. For the record, the IP's grammar was perfectly acceptable for a help desk comment. He said, "Date of birth incorrect. 21.06.1945 is OK. Jan Mak". There are some really great admins out there. Hopefully, you will learn from their example on how to treat others. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clearly signed, the grammar is poor, and the intention is unclear. Who's the one with the rude behaviour now? GiantSnowman 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, you said "the poor grammar means it is near-impossible to accuratlely decipher the IP's intention/desire". I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The IP said, very simply and clearly, that the date of birth was wrong and that it should be changed to 21.06.1945. What, exactly, didn't you understand about that? If you honestly can't decipher that comment, then your editing is even more concerning. I'm not at all saying that the content should've been changed based solely on that request - it absoultely should not have been - but let's not pretend his request couldn't be understood. Finally, your latest barb ("Who's the one with the rude behaviour now?") only serves to substantiate what I've been saying about your inappropriate tone and behavior. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'll be as clear as I can - do we 100% know what article the IP was talking about? No. Do we know that the IP was the subject of oour article on Jan Mak? No. It is sensible to assume he is called Jan Mak, and sensible to assume he was referring to the article of that name, and probably the subject - but we cannot be sure at all. My barb was merely in response to yours. GiantSnowman 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, please stop this nonense. Of course we "100% know" he was talking about Jan Mak. The section title of his help desk thread was "Jan Mak" and the IP editor said the date of birth was incorrect.[8] How many Jan Mak articles are there on Wikipedia? One. And, as you are well aware, the discussion on the article's talk page now includes two sources which show the exact date of birth given by the IP editor claiming to be Mak.[9] So please stop what you are doing. I'm starting to think that perhaps you keep defensively repsonding to plain logic simply to be disruptive. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know I care about you. I think the ip does too. Personally, I don't mind your broo-tal way of talk page discussion. Sort of enjoy it. But the neolibs feel like a Hun is in the castle when they see that.

Just avoid the aggravators and don't mess with anyone for a while. You don't have to crawl.

It's gonna be OK.

Peace, babe.

TCO (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I will tone down. It reminds of a talk the General gave us one time. "Remember boys and girls, when you go home on leave after this war try to remember the climate change. When your mother invites the Bishop to dinner, do not lean over to him and say 'Pass the fucking spuds, asshole!'"--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, Canoe. Was watching this whole imbroglio and hoping we wouldn't lose you to the Rage. This place is far from perfect, but it doesn't need to be. Just needs to be functional enough to build an encyclopedia. Next time you need to rant, feel free to use my talk page as a verbal dumping ground! The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well. Btw, if you are near John Hendry Park could you see if there is a statue of him there? It is for the article John Hendry (industrialist). If so see if it has the sculptor and other details as to its creation. I assume he has a statue somewhere in Van and that is the most likely place. The park itself could probably use better images as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, be driving past there on my way home from the Shuswap. Got some Drop photos as well, I'll link you when I've time to upload them. Heed the General, he sounds like a wise man. The Interior (Talk) 23:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is very wise. I trained his son who is a Colonel now. I still have the General on my resumes as a reference as well as the Chief of the Little Shuswap Indian band that I used to work for. I grew up in the Shuswap and keep trying to get back there but lack of good work and the 'sunshine tax' prevent it. If you are driving through Spuzzum, we could use a shot of their 'leaving Spuzzum' sign. One sign, same message on both sides.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That explains something - in a military situation, sometimes you've got to call someone an asshole (so they don't step on a mine and blow them and their colleagues up, f'rinstance), but round here you're much better off just shouting it into the monitor and not committing it to the "Save" button. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article may be in flux for a while. It was originally titled as a controversy and then consensus changed the title. We may have to revisit the title and scope. We could change it back to the controversy, re-title Tropical cyclone naming and then include the other naming material in that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The editor who removed the word "controversy" from the title completely changed the context of the article. (Was there consensus for that move? If so, I can't find it. Would you be allowed to move it back to the orginal title?) Further, I believe that the title should include "The Weather Channel" in it since (1) it was their naming system that apparently prompted you to create the article in the first place, and (2) it was in fact TWC that made winter storm naming notable and therefore eligible for its own article. With the very vague title "Winter storm naming", I agree with you that the article will be in flux; perhaps forever if the title isn't changed or its purpose isn't well-defined. I believe it would be very helpful if you, as the article's creator, would give your thoughts in the article's talk page discussion. I don't care which side of the issue editors are on, but I think it's vital that a determination be made about the article's defined purpose and title. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus was reached at the deletion discussion that is linked at the top of the talk page in the banner section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have no interest in helping to resolve the confusion about the purpose of the article that you created. Of course, that is your choice. You didn't even address what your intent was when you created the article; whether it was meant to be an article solely about TWC's winter storm naming system. The AfD consensus was simply to keep the article. And the closing admin's decision was without prejudice to rename, which means it's up to editors to discuss and reach consensus about a possible title change. Again, I found no consensus for the title change. Most importantly, the AfD decision had nothing to do with determining exactly what the article is about and what a winter storm is. Without doing that, a potentially solid article makes little sense. In any case, I'll leave any further discussion to the article's talk page. Feel free to participate there if you change your mind and want to help resolve the problems. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like many articles I have created it seems they are put up for AfD too quickly and for the wrong reasons. When that one was first put up for AfD I was trying to work on it at the same time as defending it in AfD. With Political gaffe, Jennifer Graylock as well as others, I ran into too many reverts and edit conflicts while in AfD. I usually let the dust settle to work on them. The title should be reached by consensus. Once that is decided then the article can be formatted to suit the title. I am neutral on the title at this point so my input probably wouldn't matter much.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I don't understand how the creator of an article can be neutral on its title. The title is precisely what determines how the article should be developed. Again, you did not answer what you specifically intended the article to be about. That in itself would go a long way to resolving the problems. If my hunch is correct, you wrote it specifically about TWC's winter naming, which I believe makes sense. After all, there is no other prominent naming system for winter storms other than theirs. It is notable. And the controversy surrounding it is also notable. It looks like participation in the article has almost completely stopped. Apparently, the editors previously involved have decided to move on now that the AfD is over. In any case, I hope appropriate improvements can be made to the article so that it won't continue to cause confusion for readers as to exactly what it's about. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't WP:OWN the article just because I created it. Others seem to have different views on where it should lead. Once they settle on a title then we can work on the article. Feel free to bring up a discussion about the title and how to expand the article to fit that title. My original was Weather wars but I decided to be more in line with wp naming policy. You could put a Template:Under construction tag on it so readers won't be confused by it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participating is completely different than owning. The current discussion already includes talk about the title. I'm not sure why you're so resistant to improving the article you started, but you have to do what you think is best. Weather wars... haha. That would be a good movie title. Suggest it to George Lucas. Or maybe Jim Cantore. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help on the Machinima Virtual Filmmaking page, you were the first to reply on the talk page and provided some very useful information JPeachman (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Let me know if you need any more help at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)