User talk:CJCurrie

• See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 1 for 2004 correspondence.
• See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 2 for 2005 correspondence.

Outing contributors

Please stop doing it. Ceraurus 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ontario leader of the opposition

Do you have any idea why the Liberals formed the official opposition in 1923 despite the fact that the UFO had more seats? See Leader of the Opposition (Ontario)Homey 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

UFO

The story about Ferguson is quite outrageous! Anyway, I found this article on an unrelated topic that I think you'll find interesting. [1]. Homey 02:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuart Smith

Yes, I sent the Citizen a letter to the editor to that effect about a week ago. Don't think they've published it. Hopefully you'll have better luck. Homey 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert I has slipped up

This may interest you [2] Homey15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Double spacing

Don't know anything about it. Homey 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also

want to take a look at Alex Kulbashian, which is User:Imstillhere's other contribution. Is it reasonable to think that this user is a new name for someone who was banned? I can't figure out who, though. Ground Zero | t 02:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

John P. Manley

Thanks for fixing that title. Who on earth refers to the guy as "John Paul Manley"? -Joshuapaquin 05:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuels

What would you like me to do? --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Only needs a little NPOVing in my opinion, as long as it is credible information. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit out what you think is original research then. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 02:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would assume they're MPs until the next batch get sworn in. However, if we are putting raw dates in, then we would put in Nov 29, 2005 because it is impossible to tell if, say someone died after parliament closed but before the next election (for earlier elections of course), so for consistency, use Nov 29. But, for succession boxes, I'd suggest using 2006. --NDP logo Earl Andrew - talk 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please email me offline re: same. Important. --BradPatrick 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

=The problem

So what do you think we can to do resolve the problem. It does not look like the RfA is going anywhere. I expect that the avalanche of information is preventing arbitrators from being able to sort out who is right. Any ideas? This problem takes up way too much time. Ground Zero | t 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis on Liberal article

I noticed that you reverted the "see marijuana" change on the Liberal Party article. Perhaps the link should just be to marijuana rather than cannabis (it redirects there anyway) as marijuana is the term usually used in political discussion. --JGGardiner 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I might normally prefer the term as well. In Canadian political discourse marijuana seems much more common. I don't have a strong opinion either way but I thought it might maintain what the anonymous user had intended. --JGGardiner 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hey CJ, an editor has been changing the order of the results of an election in riding article from the current standard (ordered by the number of votes the candidates received) to alphabetical order. I think we should develop a consensus. Given your past interest in these articles, your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Election results. Ground Zero | t 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Angus

You need to edit the Charlie Angus page to reflect that he does not live in the riding he represents.

He lives in Cobalt which is 60 km outside of the riding boundary. This is verifiable in the January 21st edition of the Timmins Daily Press in which Angus said that he "technically didn't live in the riding".

R...

Elections tables

I understand that it makes sense to put the riding name in a table when you're putting tables in a person's article and you want to identify where they ran. But for my part, in the article about a riding, it seems like unnecessary clutter to repeat the riding name in every table, especially when it's at the top of the page as the article name. And do you think that User:Lightoftheworld is someone we know? Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1993

I assume it wasn't your intent, but your most recent edit to this article blanked the last half of it - possibly because of a bad connection? Or maybe a browser crash? In any case, I thought you should be notified. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Roger Carter

Hi - saw the redirect you created. Just curious : what's the link between Roger Carter and the article? Thanks. --OscarTheCat^talk 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike Wisniewski page

Hi, CJCurrie. I'm the author of the Mike Wisniewski page. Thank you for integrating my work into the page Independent candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. It is much appreciated. Eduard Gherkin 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Ontario

I'm one of the people responsible for replying to mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. As part of this, I have been told to take this action (deletion of relevant sections) whenever there is a legitimate complaint that may have legal connotations. It is better to have a section removed for a time that to have problem material on view. We can then repair and replace as needed.

I mentioned the main problems, as I understand them, on the talk page - The disproportionate representation of these "controversies", and the implication that gives. If an article on you has two paragraphs about the time you shook hands with a racist, that implies an awful lot about your views - even if the reality is that he was someone you met once and whose views you never knew.

This ties in with our NPOV policy - issues should be included in proportion. So the questions are, are they important, are they relevant, and are they balanced in relation to other information. And, of course, we need to check that they are also fully accurate and properly sourced.

All the above applies to the last section too. Is it in proportion? Are these really significant events? Or are they minor incidents that are thrown up to smear and make implications? This needs to be decided before the section can be put back in.

I hope this answers your questions -- sannse (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it seems that there is a lot of mail related to Canadian politics at the moment. I've got another three in my in-box, and know of another that has gone to the next level. I read that it's an election year - I guess we are likely to be somewhat in the firing line now that we are so popular. Anyway, I hope you will bear with me when I encroach on your area of expertise. Hopefully it won't all get to difficult. -- sannse (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews?

I would like to invite you to write stories for Wikinews... I've seen some of your research on the Raymond Samuels article and I'm quite impressed. - Amgine / ^talk 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FPO

Please see my statement to the ArbComm [3] regarding Freedom Party of Ontario. Feel free to add something if you like. Homey 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks much for the revert on my user page. Ground Zero | t 13:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Ontario again

Good work! That really seems to cover the problem well. Now we just wait and see if we get any further mail. But from my point of view, this was just what was needed. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I removed a sentence that I didn't think fitted the section by the way - see the talk page for more. Ta -- sannse (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it still seems to me to have little context and read oddly... But it doesn't seem as out of place there as where it was. And at this point, my objections to it are as an editor, and not in my role as part of the info team - and those objections, of course, you are fully welcome to ignore ;) Thanks for letting me know you've replaced it -- sannse (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Gold Dragon

No, you're quire on track with Gold Dragon. I have been concerned about his editorializing. I don't think that he is a genuine POV-pusher, but rather that he is writing in a more florid, journalistic style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This style is very prone to POV coming out. If I had more time on Wikipedia right now, I would join you in you watch, but I'm afraid that my time is very limiited. Keep up the good work. Ground Zero | t 13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

David Miller

The line: "noting that a fiscal self-examination was overdue while spending on new programs was rampant" also caught my eye as being blatantly biased/POV, and was actually part of my last edit, though I decided to postpone doing anything about it until I've checked out the reference, in the unlikely event McGunity actually said something to this effect (which I highly doubt).

Re: Royson James - I would consider him to be more of a free agent (better yet, a Lastman apologist). In any event, calling him a "supporter" of Miller is an overemphasis in spite of his stated preferences. A critic would have been far more appropriate.--AlvinofDiaspar 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to the Truce Offer

Not withstanding our recent disputes over the articles of several current politicians, I otherwise hold most of your contributions in high esteem.

I define myself as a moderator of extreme criticism and apologist articles. Obviously, certain articles are being used as attack vehicles and I commend your efforts for blocking vandalism to the Stephen Harper article.

Compare the articles of Jack Layton and David Miller. Yes, the Layton article is a lot less formal but it is more about the facts. Just facts. Andrew Coyne's editorial was brought in because I felt that his column best described Layton's election strategy. At the same time, the reader does not get a sense of whether his direction is right or wrong.

By contrast, the David Miller article is rather apologist and supportive. The facts are arranged in such a way so that the reader is driven towards a conclusion, whether it may be a sly dig at his opponents or a vindication of Miller's actions, even though the raw information might be NPOV on their own.

One example is the "police in jail comments" which was described at great length and ends with Miller having an 82% approval rating. Likewise, the garbage dispute which despite the Mayor's optimistic outlook has not been resolved and still remains at the mercy of Michigan politicians. In our recent dispute, I feel that while you afford lots of attention is given to the downloading issue and the board of trade criticism, the spending policies are barely discussed and they are reduced to a footnote despite the abundance of material.

Raising the formality of the article effectively sets that apologist tone in stone, and that essentially stiffles any potential criticism whatever. Because of these constraints, there is less room to manuever and suddenly those minor words become all important. That is what I feel is causing the impasse.

Another article that has a similar problem is Joe Clark. Although I do admire his policies and his style, I do take issue with the way that his PC leadership comeback has been presented. It runs contrary to many pundits who feel that the effort had mixed results at best, or even a failure.

Although there may not be a quick solution over the dispute with David Miller and several other current politicians, there are other articles that we have worked upon that have left no protracted diagreement between us. I await your response on my talk page.

GoldDragon 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

You asked about GLF's letter etc. I had my attention drawn to this by a friend at Chelsea. In the letter he refers to two constituency meetings (one of which he attended) where overwhelming support was made for two issues. After the meetings had said what they wanted their MPs (the "member for Chelsea" being one) stood up and said they disagreed and were not going to take those wishes any further. I am told that members of his Ward committee suggested he resign after the letter was published as they felt it was "disloyal". Clearly he did not. 86.143.82.10 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some anon user is reverting for the sake of harassment

You may notice anon reverts, that go by the IP 201.58.153.33[4] or something similar in Canadian politics. Daniel Davis has traced the IP back to Brazil4Linux whom I and several other wikipedians had a nasty edit war with back in December 2005 over some video game articles. Brazil4Linux's account has been permanently banned for personal attacks and sockpuppetry among other things, but as an anon user, he is still watching our contributions list and harassing some of us.

Brazil4Linux's recent anon reverts are likely for the sake of causing trouble to me, rather than being an endorsement of your work. I'm sure that he doesn't even pay attention to the content since Canadian politics is outside of his expertise on videogames, Brazil, and soccer. Chances are that Brazil4Linux will do you no harm.

GoldDragon 4:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason Crummey

This article is being turned by Mr. Crummey into an off-topic personal and family history. He has taken the surprising measure of personally phoning me to complain about my editing it to stay on topic. To avoid an edit war between myself and Mr. Crummey, I'm requesting some other active Wikipedians monitor the article and help bring it into line with Wikipedia standards. (I'm posting this request to some of the people who've previously edited the article.) Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lady Wall

Was kicked several times and had to be treated by ambulancemen. It was reported at the time in the local newspapers and Copping mentions it in his book on the Monday Club. Where is the "dispute"? How does a good kicking equate to "alleged"? Sussexman 10:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Axworthy/Vellacott

I stand by my version because it can be interpreted ambigously as a "he said she said", with both sides making their respective claims. The problem I find with your sentence addition is that it is a defence that the Axworthy camp would take, and putting it in a non-biased article would clear Laliberte of the accusations. GoldDragon 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Len Evans

Hello, CJCurrie- I've prepared an article on Len Evans, the "godfather of the Australian wine industry," and was trying prevent his name from redirecting to Leonard Evans of Canada. However, it was late at night and I didn't get to complete the transaction. I think a disambiguation page would also be in order, although I don't know how to set one up. Please share your thinking on this. Many thanks. David Justin 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking care of the disambiguation, which I appreciate.David Justin 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Name removal

Despite the heated edit wars that we have been having as of late, I nonetheless have to commend you on that astute observation. I have found that name in one mainstream source [5] but in this case, I'm willing to defer since I'm pleased that your wording leaves it in a "he said she said" ambiguous situation. GoldDragon 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Murphy

Please explain your comment about "watching Sussexman's contributions". Have I broken a rule? You have deleted a statement which places Murphy in a positive light - what he was arguing actually came true - and you have deliberately changed the entry to show, basically, that he was expelled by the party when it is a known fact, even reported in the Bradford newspapers, that Eric Pickles bragged that he (1) would have him expelled and (2) did. What, therefore, is offensive about facts and why have you altered them? What is wrong with my contributions? I have not been involved in politics for 14 years now. Sussexman 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham

If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the dispute on the Bill Graham page? I might be wrong in the position I'm advancing, but if so I'd like someone whose opinion I value to explain it to me in a rational way. HistoryBA 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Knesset

I don't know if parties in Israel are required to provide a "full list" of 120 candidates for 120 Knesset seats. I know it's customary for the "big" parties to do so as a point of pride but I suspect a number of the smaller parties would have trouble mustering a 120 person list. If there is no such requirement then, really, there'd be no need for most parties to have a list of more than a few dozen names (if that). Homey 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Daifallah

Yes, it is getting a bit old. I have that article on my watchlist after I spotted a copyvio and it keeps being vandalised or whatever that person does. Anyway, thanks for the revert. One day he/she will give up. I hope. :) Garion96 ^(talk) 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Moscoe sexist remarks

Why don't you rewrite the Pitfield and Nunziata controversies so that are according to the Vellacott page? GoldDragon 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CjCurrie revert. --Great Sensation 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

• Thanks for the confidence on Mario Racco, they don't really listen to me.. pm_shef 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Zanimum,

I'm somewhat puzzled by your recent edits on the Harper page, which have left two different sets of footnotes. Could you please explain your rationale for the change? CJCurrie 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to gradually transition them to the current standard of REF tags on Wikipedia. I simply haven't the time at this moment to do it all. -- Zanimum 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

I've left a couple of responses on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)