Talk:Adrian Dix

Time to expand

It is time to allow changes to this article again. There have been significant developments in provincial politics in BC and this article is currently barely more than a stub.

Simple items like adding his political role as Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the BC NDP are both required changes. There are more significant additions required as well. Now that Adrian Dix leads the BC NDP this article simply needs much more work that can only be accomplished through community collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.175.244 (talk • contribs) 8:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

his birthday is April 20 1964

someone keeps removing his participation in a political "scandal" that he does not deny

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Someone+keeping+Adrian+squeaky+clean+Wikipedia/8219088/story.html

Hootie99 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it was presented in POV language and WP:UNDUE weight, that's why. Wikipedia is not a place to repeat attack ads.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Truly, Wikipedia is not a place to simply repeat attack ads. Then again, neither is it a place to simply delete facts. As I've commented elsewhere, the solution to a factual incident being described in a biased way is to rewrite the information in a non-biased way, not to simply delete it - and especially not to even delete the notice that there is an NPOV disagreement, without seeking much less achieving consensus. At least, not if you want to avoid ending up with Wikipedia being cast in a negative light. DanCooperPara (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment The person who did that was User:Sunciviclee shooting his mouth off in headline space after a cursory glance at what was going on and complete ignorance of how Wikipedia works, and a whole lot of suppositions and assumptions about my role and my political agenda. I was too busy reverting those damned POV bits (literally every other minute as they were constantly replaced, along with POV accusations against me) to have time to rewrite it; also taking it to BLP and 3RR so a block against the vandal/POV edits could be gotten in place (which happaned, along with the blocking of those making the POV reversions and insulting and assaulting me, which they have continued on the comments on Lee's article). Be careful where you point that 'making Wikipedia look bad' finger......I'm not the problem.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: currently the only source for the April 20, 1964, date is Lee's article, which can't be used because it is a self published source. 117Avenue (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really IMO. It's a direct quote from Dix published in The Vancouver Sun, which is not self published. CMAH (Connormah's Sock) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, if it will help end this argument, I am quite happy to supply the digital quote of Adrian Dix telling me his birthday is April 20, 1964. But frankly, if you can't take his own comment to me in The Vancouver Sun at face value, you're not inclined to want to make the correction. Sunciviclee (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is rather ridiculous. The Vancouver Sun is obviously not a self-published. TDL (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree in regard to the "self published" question: If being an edited news article on the front page of one of BC's top two dailies does not count as being "other published" or whatever term is appropriate, one has to wonder what is. I see that the corrected date has been added now with a reference to the Sun, but just in case there is any lingering doubt here is a link to Adrian Dix's official campaign facebook page, which includes the following: "Born April 20, 1964" https://www.facebook.com/#!/adriandixbcndp/info — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanCooperPara (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have taken another look at the policy, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." 117Avenue (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, 117, that policy does not even apply in the first place. Making a comment to the press is not self-publishing. He would be the primary source for the statement, but we are using the Vancouver Sun as the secondary source, as is appropriate. Resolute 02:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Skookum still editing the article?

Lets keep discussion focused on the article, not other editors. Resolute 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Based in the events over the last couple weeks is it really appropriate for skookum to continue his involvement with this article? It' appears there are serious ownership issues for skookum here. Wikipedia has thousands of editors. It's not on all skookum to police this page. i'm sure there are at least a couple out of the thousands of editors that can ensure npov here. He doesnt need to appoint himself as this articles guardian angel. Quite frankly this is having serious negative effects on wikipedia's credibility as,although skookum may not agreee, his edits are of a highly partisian nature and seem to be going unchecked by the wider wiki editorial community (ie. automatically overwriting or over ruling refs from MSM and substituting alternative media source which are held in a much lower regard and have but a fraction of the circulation of those MSM sources. Its fine to disagree with or having suspicion of MSM sources but they are still mainstream by virtue of their characterization which means they are more representative of broad consensus of the population. If The Tyee and Sun/Province are at odds with their reported facts like it or not the Sun/Province wins due to their being the more widely accepted reliable source amongst the general population. 108.172.115.8 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Although your crowd wants to have me blocked from Wikipedia if they could, and want me silenced in forum space, starting with my preventing Idle No More from remaining a right-wing and racist tub-thump, there are no bars on me editing this article, nor if I have evidence of things that "the broader consensus of the population" doesn't know because the MSM won't tell them is entirely beside the point. Your agenda is clear - and it's not me who has WP:OWN issues about this page, I've barely touched it since other editors came along to keep POV insertions out and monitor it more closely; if it hadn't been for me coming along, the I-am-not-a-Liberal Liberal supporters would have continued to twist this article....as they have tried to do to many others before. Targeting me is the new Liberal game, you're just taking shots in the dark; not surprising, since you're shooting from the dark and wanting to keep people in the dark.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Holy freaking paranoid censorship...resolutes attempts to surpress this very relvent discussion of the quality of the page and wikipedia as a greater issue just goes to show this is no longer a crowed sourced encyclopedia for all, but rather a pet ptoject for a group of inline buddies who happen to trend (sometimes very) left in their views. Skookum, why immediately jump to the conclusion that i'm part of a vast liberal conspiracy? Odd, skookumused to be sure i was part of a vast conservative conspiracy. In fact it is your agenda that is clear skookum and resolute you've come to his aid far too many times for this to be impartial in your observatios. Reolute's attempt to terminate and hide this discussion is quite disturbing. Wkipedia used to be great. But whats happened here on this page and on other canadian pages with political implications is concerning to the point that the media is now reporting on what in fact appears to be a vast left wing conspiracy to aggressively push their own agenda. You'd think Wkipedia was led by Arun Smith as opposed to Jimmy Wales but that might just be the direction were heading. Other editors have been blocked and or banned from editing other pages for far less controversial cnflicts than skookums here. Why is the wiki editorial community refusing to restore any credibility by asking him to avoid these sensitive topics at least for a short time? As mentioned there are many, many other editors (skookum admits they are sctive here) to ensure the "liberal conspiracy" is kept in check and npov is preserved. Macutty (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC) and before the paranoid come screaming sockpuppet I was the original ip editor. Forgot to login yesterday. Sue me. Macutty (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 381 total edits on 71 unique articles........wow I'm impressed, you're really qualified to speak to it, for sure, given that you made rankly POV edits that good editors have since come along and done right.....I was too busy reverting your insistence on your distorted and undue weight account to have time to rephrase anything; you should read WP:BLP a little more conscientiously. And gee, that's the first time anyone has ever suggested Resolute and I are "buddies". ROTFL. Good one huh Resolute?Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Your comment was nothing but an attack on another user which we don't allow here. Resolute's hatting of the discussion was appropriate as this talk page is for discussion about the article, not about other users. If you want to take action on what you see as bad behaviour on the part of Skookum feel free to take it through the Dispute resolution process. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Ok Macutty. If you want to play this game, I'm game. First, do you realize how absolutely hypocritical you come off by whining about Skookum1's jumping to conclusions when you do the very same thing in the very same paragraph? ("a greater issue just goes to show this is no longer a crowed sourced encyclopedia for all, but rather a pet ptoject for a group of inline buddies who happen to trend (sometimes very) left in their views.") Second, I am quite amused to find out both that I am Skookum1's "buddy", that I have "come to his aid far too many times" or that I trend left in my views. You need only to look at this talk page, but especially at WT:CWNB, to note that I am actually one of Skookum1's harshest critics and that I have repeatedly criticized him for his bad faith assumptions on the motivations of other editors. Well guess what? You are behaving exactly the same and showing yourself to be no better, and you're getting treated the same. Deal with it. Skookum1 will be the first to tell you that I also feel he is highly partisan. But I hatted that rant because this talk page exists to discuss the Adrian Dix article, not as a forum about an editor you dislike. I dislike a lot of Skookum1's editing style, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to comment or to participate with other editors on how to improve the article. And the only thing he's done to the article in the last week has been to fix a typo. Hardly worthy of your melodramatic rant. And while I could have let you and he get into it with each other, I made the decision to try and save this talk page from such nonsense. Now, are you prepared to focus on the article? Resolute 17:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC) uh, didnt jump to conclusions...this is atlk page so i didnt cite refs but the concept of wiki becoming a pet project for a small group of editors has been widely reported in the media and also is discussed on the wikpedia bias page. My point was that in the past (although i dont edit everyday like some...i work a lot, that said i've been around wiki for a long time) when editors get to close too heated or too bias with a page they are asked (or skmetimes banned) from editing a page. It seems that just doeant apply to skookum for some reason. Again, in the media, its been discussed at length how the small group of super wiki contributors tend to rally around each other in times of conflict or alternatively stay away when intervention against one of their own may be necessary. And to skookum...your having thousands of edits doesnt make you smehow superior to smeone was has few...it just means you have an excessive amount of time to spend on wikipedia. Skookum is harming wiki not just with his edits but with his conflicts no making it in to MSM. Hes doing damage to its reputation as well as its content by continuing to be jnvolved in articles its obvious he's just too close to. I'm get the sense more and more wikipedia is unsalvagable. Sme would prefer to rewrite both history and reality in their own view through bullying and wiki lawyering but i guess this is just a case of it is what it is. Frustrating to aay the least. Macutty (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Should let sleeping dogs lie but how very interesting...a history of POV edits hidden by IPs and whatever else.........watch where you point that finger, it will probably point back at you. What was that you were saying about not logging in when you made POV edit after POV edit here? Seems that's old trix for you, huh? Never mind, I see you have nothing to add to the Adrian Dix article; you were only here to attack/accuse me.........has me wanting to study your many edits to Canadian general election, 2011 to see what they were.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adrian Dix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130131040729/http://www.bcndp.ca:80/adrian/bio to http://www.bcndp.ca/adrian/bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)