User talk:S-Ranger

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear S-Ranger,

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with two hyphens followed by four tildes --~~~~. The software that runs Wikipedia will automatically convert this into a signature which contains your username and the date and time you posted the message, so other users don't get confused.

I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself on your userpage. Please add {{User:PEAR/welcomed}} to your userpage.

--PEAR 01:12, August User:PEAR/FriendlyDay 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Toronto talk page

Hi there. I hope this doesn't seem rude - it's not intended that way. Could you make your comments more concise? Some editors (like me) have thousands of articles on their watchlists, so trying to read a number of extremely long comments really slows us down. You seem to make some valid points, but you then wrap them in irrelevant statements (eg: "but it's confederate, so the "Ontario" medieval parliamentary elected dictatorship's "GTA thing" doesn't exist there" and "StatsCan't"). Just stick to what you want to discuss, so the discussion can flow more smoothly - you're also likelier to get more responses that way. (BTW: I notice you've cleaned up some of the comments already -thanks!)

Anyway, I'll try to respond to your concerns when I get a chance in the next few days. I think you asked about some of the tables in the demographics section - although the editors that added the info used a reliable source, they didn't seem to cite it. For example, StatsCan released tables for ethnic origin for major urban areas (based on 20% sample rates, in this case). A whole bunch of other tables are available, with data by CMA, CD, or CSD (eg: Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada; here's a short list of other tables). I do wish StatsCan released more info for free. Mindmatrix 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mindmatrix. I had no idea that anyone but those who specifically went to talk pages would get anything but summaries of changes as in the history lists. Actually not even that much occurred to me because I only look at a few pages for editing purposes, not watchlists, so I assumed someone would have to go to the article in question, click on 'discussion' and read its talk page (and skip over anything that doesn't interest them; which should be the case; how many lines or characters of text you want to see in summaries, with a default of 4 lines or the like, then "..." then click on it to read more).

And sorry for the late, um, "reply" because it's not very clear how to go about responding to, sort of internal personal messages here. I didn't think I should stick it on your talk page, didn't think anyone would ever find any reply here, so still have no clue what to do, but others seem to be responding to posts directly on their own talk pages, so I guess that's how it's done. I hope no "snubbing" or any other offense was or is taken. Not new to Wikipedia, not new to "coding" (but in proper languages with proper reference manuals), I spent, well ask my wife how many evenings over how many weeks reading everything in the intros to Wikipedia but it's full of errors as with everything else around here, it seems. --S-Ranger

I happened to be the one who put the Centre of the Universe name into the article with its surrounding weasel words. It is something that people outside the city do call Toronto (and not a few inside in an ironic manner). I resent being called "hick" when I live firmly inside the boundaries of the City of Toronto. Your rather excessive response to the term is precisely why some of our more rural citizens find us to be rather overbearing and repellent. Dabbler 00:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dabbler. [Um, it just means hello, please to make your acquantance, etc.] Then I guess my point was made. I don't care what anyone happens to "think" about anything (just unbiased truth as close as is possible with basicaly free information for the public domain) and certainly not around an encyclopedia. It matters not who happens to call Newfies stupid welfare bums (their premier, most often, hyper-reacting to any comment regarding simple realities that they can't dispute -- so they throw smokeballs around mirrors to try to turn it into "poor, poor them" and invent nothing that was ever said by anyone but themselves) or, hell, look the word hick up at Dictionary.com: "provincial" and need I say more?

I didn't call you a hick. If you think I did then you imagined it, because I have no clue in the world who you even are. In the Centre of the Universe section of the City of Toronto's talk page, someone else had already removed "Centre of the Universe" (look it up in the history), then:

There is a source which clearly does imply that Toronto in a negative term is known as the "center of the universe". With that said I'm adding it among the nicknames Editor18

created the aforesaid section on the talk page with a squash club as some "verification", stating that s/he/it (a handle; it could be students testing some "artificial intelligence" software) was going to stick "Centre of the Universe" back up and then, well perhaps you should read the section.

And if hicks don't like being called hicks then they can stop acting like them and can also get a lesson out of DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NOTHING -- and that it pisses people off and the ONLY reason ever given for (as if the section is even needed, Toronto nicknames; in an encyclopedia no less) Centre of the Universe as being "legitimate" is that it is clearly derogatory -- which is called discrimimation.

If it's "okay" by Wikipedia that we all post derogatory crap in articles, nothing but discrimination, then guess what happens when we start shooting back? I don't care if you happen to find Centre of the Universe to be discriminatory, it is clearly the ONLY INTENTION of it (and as usual, a lame hick attempt, which is clearly stated in the Globe and Mail article, from 1994 no less, that "Thylark" put on the talk page, likely violating copyright, in an OP-ED that makes fun of the "Toronto-bashers" for being so lame that they can't even come up with a decent term that "stings" and if you want to see bashing, you'll see plenty of it if Center of the Universe ever shows up on the WRONG PAGE ANYWAY.

Or do you have "official maps" of the Toronto area documenting how, where and why invisible lines between west, west Toronto (former municipality of Etobicoke, west) and east Mississauga? Or across Steeles Ave or across or in the Rouge? Where or why does the "Centre of the Universe" begin and end in 2006 and if you prove it, we'll have whatever you use for proof up on charges of discrimimation in a Toronto minute (about a month due to the fact that our municipal revenues are stolen by the "Ontario" feds, as "Ontario's" federal revenues generated are stolen by the confederate feds; for nothing in return but endless bitching and moaning, so best of luck to them both).

BIAS has no place in an encyclopedia, let alone nothing but blatant discrimination; even though it's a joke (because the hicks of the Canadas are a joke and many, many studies prove so, but use different words), it's all it is. All I need is Statistics Canada and Finance Canada to prove the utter insanity of "Canada" (which Canada?) on every level imaginable. And no one will be able to dispute any of it, it will be the unbiased simple truth and the unbiased simple truth is not something that "Canadians" like to hear about -- but too bad for them.

And until they get some brains out there, which requires brains in here (the Windsor-Quebec City corridor or even the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor will do; with the U.S. of course, not that they have to do or say anything, just show the usual indifference because they are as fed up with the insults to the words medieval political DISASTERS of systems and structures in the poor, poor Canadas), who cares what they think they have to say about anything? And so what if they don't like it? Who cares what "they think" causes it? They have no care in the world about Toronto, so why would anyone in Toronto give a rat's ass about them? And they started this crap with their total obliviousness, hearsay based on rumors they also invented, not us.

Toronto has been far too accommodating to the Ontarios and Canadas, in every way imaginable, for far too long. But that's just political reality to stick in the Politics section. The Ontarios (south) have been far too accomodating to the Canadas for far too long and it's over. The political boneheads are either going to fall in line with the demands the (suddenly, quite south) Ontario Chamber of Commerce (backed by everything imaginable in all of the Canadas including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce -- just not the political boneheads yet because they have some "Canada" thing to try to market their bullshit to), where it counts at the business level here and in the U.S.

If you haven't kept up on it, well whenever I get a chance to flame the asses of the rest of these pathetic "federation", with skids of verifiable documentation to back it all up, you'll know all about it and it won't be discrimination, it'll be the simple truth -- something that "Canadians" don't like to hear about much because it all looks and is pretty bad on all of them outside the few city-regions in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (with 60% of the population/markets of the Canadas and over 60% of its wealth, combined with about 15% from the Lower Mainland-south Vancouver Island, expanded somewhat in some areas, cut in others as with the W-QCC) and then we've got about 70% of the markets in the Canadas and about 75% of its wealth to form another economic union with, get the hicks with the primary-based economies out of our faces and best of luck to them all with their endless loops of complaint in gripe-fests after that, becuse the only people they'll be able to blame for anything (as always) is themselves. It'll just be crystal clear. --S-Ranger 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Making one revert is not an edit war. I gave what I consider to be good enough evidence to back up Brampton's estimates (that they jive with the province's estimates). That we do not agree on what is significant enough evidence is perhaps an issue for an RfC. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on, Osgoode, but you are taking things that are public and assuming that they are directed at you. I wasn't addressing anyone in particular when I made the edit and edit comment. I hadn't even checked the history yet, and it still wouldn't have mattered, it doesn't refer to you. I don't know how an edit comment became an email to you. ;-) But I don't know how this is "to you" either given that everything around here is public.

And all the province provides is Peel: and you don't even have a source for Caledon and there is no source (nothing verifiable) for Mississauga either. --S-Ranger 20:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made in edit summaries when reverting someone generally will be understood by the person being reverted to be directed towards them. Who else would you be telling to not edit war but the one you're reverting? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "revert" anything. I simply edited the page. --S-Ranger 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census metropolitan area etc

Hi S-Ranger,
Thanks for your input to the above! You may be perturbed to find this page has now become a redirect to Census geographic units of Canada; however, "Don't Panic!", as:

You should find your edits here and here as part of Census geographic units of Canada#Census metropolitan areas;
Your edit here duplicated in {{Census metropolitan areas by size}} (the template replacing the table in the former CMA article);
Your hard work here now copied here and here.

Hope all this correct. I'm intrigued to see what might result from your work as (1) I'm not Canadian, so (2) know only too well that I'm not expert in this area! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all the info, David. It's strange because I'm still editing the census metropolitan area page by just entering that in a wiki-search, I end up right at the census metropolitan area article, talk page and everything seems quite normal. There are also lots of references to census metropolitan area and CMA in articles, but I'll try to figure out what you mean above (I know what a redirect is, I'm just not sure why anything has been or has to be copied; I'll have to look at the links you provided to get a clue).

And thanks for the input. I've got lots more to do with the table but do need a talk page that has some traffic on it for input and perhaps some help. :-) --S-Ranger 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...It's strange because I'm still editing the census metropolitan area page by just entering that in a wiki-search, I end up right at the census metropolitan area article...

That's odd; you should find yourself redirected to Census geographic units of Canada and one of the templates at the bottom of that page should be the list of {{Census metropolitan areas by size}}... Drop me a note if you're still finding you're not being redirected... Yours, David (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You meant just redirected. I had the page open (talk in one, the article in another) in two browser instances and still do, but I'll close them and I tried census metropolitan area in a wiki-search and ended up at a page I've never seen. Thanks for the personal notification. I would have ended up quite confused and am working offline (Wikipedia; I only need Statistics Canada and my handy text editor, which unfortunately doesn't have syntax highlighting for wiki-code) but probably would have saved my last changes to those pages, then had no clue what had happened, if I ever got off the pages I was on before I was finished... so thanks much. I hope the template is better than the unbelievably horrible table I was going to re-write. --S-Ranger 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the change didn't cause any confusion. Re the table, you could make it into (or add to or convert) a "List of..." article, then add a link to it from the {{Census metropolitan areas by size}} template, the Census geographical units of Canada article and any other relevant article you know/find. .. A neat way to do so might be to reclaim one of the redirects I made. Regards, David (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for correcting the abbreviations in the template.

I was going to ask about that, because I'd like for it to be a reliable source for authors to use in lieu of anything else, with direct external links (from a linked table/list as the template states nothing now, in any real context or with any real verifiability) to the revelevant Statistics Canada pages, sort orders and such, with no fiddling around to get at the meat. And I still will ask on the talk page, but not on the template talk page because I think I'd end up talking to myself. :-) Nothing unusual about talking to myself, but I could use a bit of help to turn it into a resource for the editors of, not any but all of the major Canadian articles. For now. Thanks again for the heads up and all of the info. Much appreciated. --S-Ranger 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If/when any feedback etc required, let me know. David (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the by. Nice user page. Why isn't it turned into the actual Editor's guide for Wikipedia? Everyone has to go all over the place to find all of the info/links on your user page (just click on David for anyone, interested in expanding their editing horizons) and much like at Statistics Canada, it can take a long time to track it all down. :-) --S-Ranger 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your generous comment! The page has no master design (i.e. it's just evolving) and I've other user pages with custom toolbox windows etc etc that are (far) more comprehensive, but by trawl anything you find useful. I agree that trying to keep track of or learn new tricks seems endless – also remembering to keep a link somewhere to past discussions and consensus that are useful points of reference. I'm ever more mindful, though, that time spent trying to contribute to Wikipedia housekeeping (including your own userspace) is time not spent contributing to the encyclopedia content... Yours, David (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Toronto

Those who don't pay any attention to Wikipedia at all most likely don't know much of anything about it, let alone read anything on it. Those who don't read the "Four Pillars" at minimum don't, so probably don't know what they even are so aren't following them [...]

To be honest I have not read the Four Pillars; well, I have probably glanced through them multiple times without serious consideration. This may be a Bad Thing because I have participated in so many policy debates at Articles for Deletion, but whatever, reading policy is boring and common sense prevails.

Whether a cite was added a year ago is irrelevant. When it was last verified/checked, not just checking a link (if it's a cite web and has a link) to see that it's not a 404 [...] but to read the entire document if that's what it takes, to make sure that whatever is alleged prior to or after (around some tables) the cite is actually correct according to the source cited.

You can implement this idea by adding your own "last verified/checked" date after the existing "last retrieved" date in the citation. I'm not sure this is against policy. Surely, on the Talk page you could list your verifications. Talk pages are usually where sources are contested. If you want to do it at Talk:Toronto that would benefit us all.

Ideally you shouldn't have to read an entire source to see if a cite is correct. There's a quote = parameter in {{cite web}} {{cite news}} etc. If the source is long or the inference is hard to find, people should add the specific quote that is being interpreted/paraphrased.

The "last retrieved" date implies that the source was last verified on that date. Even if you have this "last verified" information, you would still need to verify that verification to know that it isn't lying. And even after someone else claims to have verified it, they could be on a bandwagon, etc, etc. A key is obviously to not trust any secondary source (and Wikipedia is a tertiary source most of the time) until you access it yourself to see whether anything has been misinterpreted.

After a while of it, we'll recognize good "verifiers" and if we know when they last verified what the article states is what the alleged source states, it'll make verification of cites much easier, for those interested.

Some might see it as overcomplicating the process, I don't know. There could be scheming verifiers who build up reputation verifying various sources, but for their own biased subject they intentionally mis-verify. Special interest groups could bandwagon on this feature. Of course, they could do it now and be caught either way.

What is the practical consequence of this? Say you come across a source that has been verified 3 times by 3 verifiers. Are you supposed to trust it and move on, automatically increasing your trust in that citation?

If someone wants to verify an assertion, they should look at the source regardless. Wikipedia is useful for research in that it provides a starting ground. Even if you're writing a paper, and citing Wikipedia is a big no-no according to professors, you can still check out articles to find some primary/secondary sources on the subject. Not necessarily the best ones, that's up to you to verify.

For the casual reader who is reading out of pure interest, their interest should lead to to clicking on the sources, or else they will blindly accept assertions in the article. If they're going to blindly accept, they'll do it regardless of whether the citations have been documented as "verified".

It'd be nice if we could define rules along with the above. Like for any cites of the 2001 Census it'd be nice if we could tell the wiki-software that there is a census in Canada every 5 years and define release dates of 2006 Census data so that when the data are released, and if a user bothers to click on a "verification" tab (which would just build a section, but the editor enters the number of days on the verification tab (not that it exists; yet) to only see cites that are X days old (like 365) so might need to be checked on again to see if the source cited still states what is alleged in the wiki-article.

If the 2002 census was reliable in 2005, it is most likely reliable now, so the source itself isn't the problem, unless it has moved location. If someone in 2005 knows that there will be a new census in 2008, then they can add an HTML comment within the citation, like "". This has less to do with verification and more to do with updating information.

For populations and other stats, most people don't really care about the exact calculation, only a vague sense of how big or how little something is compared to others. See this edit, for example. A quick search in that link gives the pop. of Toronto as "2.61 million in 2005", so I have no idea where 5.8 or 5.9 came from. Right now, all I can do is ignore it as trivial and leave it to someone experienced with that site, such as you, to figure out.

Thanks for the template but if that's Wikipedia's "strategy" (not stating it is or that you did; it's just what I got and everyone else reading got) to get proper sources cited then it's never going to happen. And cite web is not always the case so you need a few templates that will spin the heads of anyone who's never even seen HTML "code".

I think the template is easier to understand than HTML, because all you need to do is copy and paste it, then add the relevant information. I agree though that editing Wikipedia is a huge climb to make for people who don't know or care about code.

It seems a bit, um, mentally retarded on Wikipedia's part to me given how easy it would be to add a Cite button to the online editor.

But there are multiple citation methods. If cite.php, it'd have to figure out whether there is a <references/> tag on the page. If {{ref}} and {{note}}, it would have to insert code at two places. Personally I really like the simple text editing of Wikipedia to avoid accidental errorneous code.

no single page of documentation for the most important thing there is around Wikipedia; not that it would help much if all of the {{cite ...}} code were all linked to one main page

Pasting all the cite code in one page would be redundant, though you can always transclude their documentation into a user page, I think. Refer to Category:Citation templates for the various kinds.

totally self-created problems and no kidding it's not a reliable source and it never will be until the online editor is re-written at the very least.

Do you really think ease of editing will improve reliability?

Overall your idea is a good one. I'm interested in seeing what others think of them, especially the WYSIWYG cite button and the 404 check, so you should suggest elsewhere.

Also, I like how you formatted my first response, which was in list/paragraph form, into one big paragraph so you could read it better. No offense, I just found that odd. –Pomte 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testing templates etc

Hi there. I noticed you were testing the "Maintained" template on the Toronto talk page. You can do all sorts of testing in the sandbox, so that the talk page doesn't get cluttered up; the sandbox is automatically cleared out, and quite often too. As far as your question about getting template info, you can usually get it from the template page itself, or its discussion page - of course, this depends on the amount of detail the original creator has bothered to document. For example, the Maintained template and its talk page have a moderate amount of detail. (The talk page has an example in the first line, and its result is displayed just below it).

Also, I didn't quite understand another question you were asking, so let me answer what I thought you were asking: to find template definitions for any template in an article, simply edit that article, scroll to the very end (past the edit box, character sets and notes), and you'll see links to templates. From there you can of course get to their talk pages.

My apologies if I've misunderstood your query. I hope this info is useful. Mindmatrix 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, thanks very much Mindmatrix. That is exactly what the question was because whenever I see code or whatever template on a page I have no clue in the world how anyone is supposed to find the documentation for it. The most logical thing to me (aside from a proper Wikipedia Programmer's (not Editor's) Reference Manual with tested/working examples and on top of that) is to allow whatever wiki-code, "classes" (tables only? It's the only place I've seen a class= parameter), a tilde character, "<ref" (no quotes or perhaps force quotes for wiki-code entered into the main Search edit control on every page) to search the wiki-documentation for matches, ignoring tags that prevent wiki-code from being parsed, such as around all wiki-code documentation. But I suppose one could always read the screen and if I missed it, then thousands of others are also missing it, due to lack of proper documentation about that as well.

As for the "testing" I stated right under the template that it "should" be in a sandbox but it was either posting it where I did or right at the top of the talk page, given that's where it's going, with no dicussion, no documentation because the template should have an "Add me" button on it, not force code editing as usual around here. If it had an "Add me" button or link on it I would have put it at the top of the talk page where it belongs, added myself and that would have been that.

But how are others supposed to know how to add their user names? Anyone could look at that template and think that I was "appointed" or something and some admin added the template. I'm still going to have to put instructions under it, in an HTML comment if nothing else; after reading whatever "documentation" exists for the thing. Um, it's a wiki-issue, not directed towards you at all. All I have for you is gratitude. —S-Ranger 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa - I completely missed your qualification that it should be in the sandbox. I will punish myself in an appropriate Monty Python-esque manner. BTW: I completely agree about the lack of documentation for certain functionality (the contrary problem also exists - too much tedious documentation for certain functions, and duplicate functionality to boot). I think adding an HTML comment is the best bet for now, and you may as well shift the template to the top of the page. One minor note: you can refer to the user Example whenever you want to test something with a non-valid but functioning username - it's the Wikipedia equivalent of "example.com". Mindmatrix 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]