Removed my comment after reading the page history. Apparently, I misunderstood. CanuckMike (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Removed unsourced POV" There were a few points made. One was supported by the content linked to @wikipedia Bill_Schulz - Bill writes for the show he produces while sitting in as a "regular panel member." That's not a valid source?

The rest was a summary of Canadian news media headlines, content, and commentary on Monday, March 23rd, 2009. Admittedly, no outside source (from 50+ available at the time, all moving targets) was provided. A new addition shows one aspect of the anger this has brought to the surface: tour date cancellation for safety reasons.

You removed the whole thing :(. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to partake in discussion at the Politics of Canada page, which I've done. I'm doing my best to follow Wiki guidelines and do not know the complete ins and outs. I'm wondering what authority you have to tell me to stop adding an external link page there, please explain.

If you do not have authority please note I am following Wiki guidelines and added 'edit notes' to my additions. As we have dispute I am also contacting you directly to see if we can reach compromise, as suggested by Wiki.

I await your reply, Thank you, Dancingwatersdancingwaters sept. 04'06,12:13am

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Cdn_Penny.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded Image:Cdn-penny-reverse.jpg instead)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Cdn_Quarter.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (I uploaded Image:Cdn-quarter-reverse.jpg instead) --Robojames 17:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I am following guidelines and have posted on the pages asking for support. I don't think 3 people reverting my links constitutes 'many', 'a few' would be more appropriate wording and perspective. Besides posting in the discussion on these pages Wiki recommends dispute resolution 'talking it out and reahing compromise', so I urge you to follow along. I've stated my case and feel my link follows Wiki guidelines. As compromise means 'giving' to reach peace, I will committ to building on a humour section for these sites. What are you willing to give? Dancingwaters 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you asked about coin images. Actually, I don't even have a camera, I used a flat-bed scanner and just scanned the coins directly. I cropped them and adjusted balance and whatnot if necessary.

Funny story, I work using the scanner, so i scanned them over a week, checking my change every time I got coffee for the coins with the updated portrait. Anyway, good luck, Robojames 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, I think people can make the argument that Canada is becoming less and less dependent on the US, maybe we should try and re-word it to that extent. Tawker 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On April 18, you made and edit to Canada with this summary "Changed 'referenda' to 'referendums' as per my explanation in Talk page". However, I could not find your explanation on the articles talk page. Could you please provide one? Andrewjuren(talk) 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did good work there! I looked for ways to help with the split, but you had already done everything I could think of. :-) Luigizanasi 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Norfolkcoa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar. I really appreciate it. But truly, it's been a team effort on the Canada article recently :) -- Jeff3000 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that after Norfolkcoa.jpg was deleted, you removed the link to it from the Norfolk County, Ontario article. According to a warning placed on this Image's page a week ago, it was deleted because it was only tagged as a Coat of Arms, which does not necessarily mean it is fair use. I'm the person who uploaded this image and I included comments explaining why I thought it qualified as fair use, and provided a link for the source. I thought that this would be OK, because the uploaded Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms is also only tagged as a Coat of Arms and provides a link to its source, but has no explicit justification for Fair Use.

Both Coat of Arms images (Ottawa and my deleted Norfolk) have the same source: www.gg.ca - City of Ottawa www.gg.ca - Corporation of Norfolk County

The point of my long-winded comment is:

• Do you know why these two images were treated differently?
• If there was no significant difference, does that mean the Ottawa COA image should be deleted, or that the Norfolk COA image should not have been deleted?
• Most importantly, if you don't know the answer to these questions, do you know where I should ask them?

Thanks! --thirty-seven 09:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation will be long-winded too, sorry :) First, to explain {{coat of arms}}, this tag is more an indication of the content of the image than a copyright tag. Just because it's a coat of arms does not mean we have a license to use it, or that the image is in the public domain. Often a coat of arms will be fair use but that is not a guarantee. Sometimes a coat of arms may even be in the public domain or licensed any other way. It's further complicated by the fact that in Europe there is a designation "coat of arms", which applies to a text description of the image, yet the actual rendering is subject to copyright by the creator. So the short answer is {{coat of arms}} is a useful tag but it does not replace either source or license information.

As to why the images were treated differently, we are dealing with a huge number of images in a very distributed fashion so variations are bound to occur. That doesn't mean we shouldn't follow policy, but we should probably err on not deleting images. In this particular case the image that was deleted was uploaded 11 May 2006 after the implementation of an automated system that checks for license tags after upload. This was done to try and help us address problem images faster and notify users in a timeline where they might be able to help rather than waiting until we could get to it. (usually we have a multi-month backlog with the manual system). Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms.jpg was uploaded before that system was implemented and we aren't currently looking at those images, so it has not been tagged as having no license. It does need a license though, and might be deleted in the future, but it's not tagged now, and there is no current system/project in place (except a random user seeing it) that would tag it. I'm also not going to tag it because I personally think it's weird to tag example images like this when they are brought to my attention, I like letting normal processes do it, because it seems mean to me otherwise :)

I hope I answered your question, and am happy to answer questions about this anytime, if you want a more centralized place though Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is useful, but there's a good chance I might answer you there also :D - cohesion 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that it was deleted some time ago and re-added by Artic.gnome yesterday. The discussion is archived at Talk:Canada/Archive4#Form_of_government. It goes back a ways. I guess the point is that "constitutional monarchy" reflects only one part of Canada's government, and the other part is equally or more important. Deleting "parliamentary democracy" seems to be a favourite hobby of a few people who want to promote the role of monarchy. This encyclopedia article should reflect the reality of government in Canada, rather than be used by one side or the other in the monarchy vs. republic debate. "Constitutional monarchy" is correct. "Parliamentary democracy" is correct. Let's use both to keep everyone happy, and help inform the reader. Regards. Ground Zero | t 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to insert those photos (Queen's speach from the throne -2006- )? I haven't a clue how. GoodDay 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have seen fit to Alter my latest contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web page. I see you only identify your self by the fictional name "Thirty-seven".

You have removed my contribution to this common-law web page without giving me the courtesy of discussing any possible errors in my research. You have left no feedback in the common-law "Talk Page"; you have left no feedback in my personal web page; and so far as i am aware, you have made no other good-faith efforts to communicate with me.

It appears to me that you have committed "Vandalism" against my contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web-page.

I have asked all others who are in any manner concerned with these issues, to involve themselves in this controversy, and to render public common-law judgement in their own words, concerning the merits of whether or not your editing removal of my text was "Justified", in this abrupt & un-discussed manner.

I will provide my personal phone number & email address, upon request, to you, if you evidence any good-faith efforts to resolve this controversy.

Wikipedai rules declare that we are to "Assume Good Faith" & that "No Personal Attacks" should be made. I see you made an attack against my personal work her by asserting that my work was "uncited", "unsourced", and composed with "poor writing", & a few other derogatory comments which attack my personal work through words the meaning of which i do not comprehend.

I am really up-set that you, who refuse to identify yourself with your real name, can come in here and gut my good work, without so much as any discussion at all of the merits of that gutting. I really do seek to resolve this controversy with you.

Please state clearly, & precisely, what you think is wrong with my contribution to the common-law web page.

Please do this in a timely manner, or put my editorial contribution back on that common-law web-page.

Sincerely,

Charles Bruce, Stewart Charles8854 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer of providing your personal phone number and email address as a show of good-faith, but I don't think that is necessary or appropriate on Wikipedia. My removal of your contributions to the Common law article and my comments when I did so were not intended to be a personal attack on you. Saying your additions were "uncited" and "unsourced" are definitely not personal attacks. I don't think saying "poor writing" is a personal attack, but it is my subjective opinion, unlike "uncited" and "unsourced", so I apologize if this was offensive or careless of me.

Disagreement over what belongs in an article, and whether something should be removed, are common on Wikipedia -- so I don't think this qualifies as a "controversy".

I will explain why I removed your contributions, and why I referred to them as "uncited" and "unsourced". By doing this, I am not attempting to argue with you about whether or not your additions should be in the common law article - I'm just trying to courteously explain my reasoning when I removed them.

• I removed your contributions because they seemed to be a major change to the article, and a break with the "mainstream" view of what the common law is. By this, I don't mean that I thought your additions were untrue, but since they were a significant change and contrary to some of the other statements in the article, I thought your additions should have some citations to sources to back up the claims. That is why I referred to "uncited" and "unsourced" in my comments.
• Your additions seemed very POV, unnecessarily using terms like "adulterated", "propaganda", and referring to "true" history and "true Common-Law" (implying that the others are false). My opinion was that these sorts of phrases were a form of editorializing, whereas I think we should just stick to stating the facts.

Suggestions for resolution:

There are several straightforward ways to resolve this, because I don't think this is a true "controversy". Here are some:

• You can re-add your changes. I will not re-remove it. It is possible that other contributors will remove it, maybe for the same reasons I did, maybe for some other reasons. No one has a right for their additions to remain, unmodified, in Wikipedia. These other contributors might or might not put comments on the common law discussion page if they remove or modify your contributions.Here's the text you had added, that you can copy-and-paste back in:

To discover the true history of "Common-Law", one must reach back beyond "Legal Memory", to before the "Norman Conquest" of England in 1066 ad. Even "Magna Charta", of 1215 ad, only gives glimpses of the true grandeur of this previously existing system of de-centralized responsible self-governing. That "Norman Conquest" completed a Military "Hostile Take-Over" of the previously existing communities of basically free people; and in its place was supplanted an authoritarian, coercive, top-down-hierarchy form of government. The people who executed this "Hostile Take-Over" brought in to England with them many court-room procedures which had been practiced for many years as "Civil Law", as exclusively practiced with-in the realm of the Roman Empire. Those "Civil Laws" were designed to control people in top-down authoritarian fashion. Yet the Anglo/Saxon & Celtic peoples who had previously self-governed in England, were constantly revolting against this new form of despotism. And so, in efforts to maintain control over their new empire; the new Norman/Roman form of government threw many concessions to the conquered peoples, in efforts to placate them. This resulted in a Hybridized and Adulterated form of the previously-existing and true "Common-Law"; and it is that adulterated version of Common-Law which is modernly propagandized to be our true Anglo/American "Common-Law".

• You can re-add your changes, and also add a comment in the common law discussion page explaining your contribution and asking for other contributors to discuss it there before they make any changes or removals to it.
• Before making any changes to the article, you could add a comment in the common law discussion page that includes the contribution you want to make in the article and asking for comments.

I hope that my reply here has answered your main questions, and has indicated good ways to resolve this.

--thirty-seven 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your measured and non-inflammatory response, Thirty-seven. I would like to respond to a few of your comments, as follows:

I was un-aware that such emphasis was placed on sources and supportive citations in the Wikipedia community. I am fairly new to this community, and i suppose i may be learning much of this "the hard way". But in my defense, i do think many of these policies are "less than optimal"; and that there-under, and eventually they should change. But that is clearly not a task to be confronted at this juncture; and because the present policies do have at least some merit, i will seek to conform with them, in all of my future editorial contributions here in Wikipedia. And although I do think you could have acted more gracefully in your past deletion of my contribution, I do thank you for your diplomatic and enlightening response to my objections here-in.

Next: I admit that my contribution to the common-law article is a "major change to the article, and a break with the 'mainstream' view of what the common law is", and that it is "a significant change and contrary to some of the other statements in the article". But please note that on 24-October i had asked for any objections to that precise addition to be voiced in the talk page; and that request remained in public view for you and all others, for over 6 weeks, until the 10th of December; with no objections to the lack of citations from anyone.

Please note that i am not alone in feeling frustration with what seems to be "Censorship", or what has been termed in common-law to be "a series of traps and pit-falls"; all of which seem to manifest when-ever good-faith but un-orthodox or anti-establishment forms of contributions are submitted here in Wikipedia. (I could write a lot more, and i do feel compelled to do so, but i need to move on, as my time is limited, and this is probably not the place to vent my frustrations concerning these less-than-optimal policies.)

You correctly assert that much of my work contains "terms like 'adulterated', 'propaganda', and referring to 'true' history and 'true Common-Law' (implying that the others are false)". You conclude that these words should be prohibited because they are "POV" editorializings, and that they are at divergence from what can be commonly recognized as "the facts".

Please note that "Propaganda" is a well- recognized tool which aristocratic elitists in almost all societies commonly use to perpetuate their control over the disenfranchised working commoner classes. Please note that "Adulteration" and "Falsification of History" are common implements in the tool-box of these modern-day class-warfare slave-traders. Please note that every single communist on this planet recognizes these facts, and that every single capitalist on the planet believes that these very tools are used by the communists to control & mis-lead their respective populations. Regardless of which side is correct, "The Fact" is that these "Propaganda" events do take place, on a regular basis; and that almost everyone on the planet recognizes their existence to be a very real part of "The Facts".

Please note that the old ways of deceiving the masses through "Propaganda" is Breaking Down, thanks much to the internet & Wikipedia; and that here-under "Propaganda" is becoming more commonly recognized for exactly what it is (a tool for the oppression of the masses of the common people); and that here-under, the Wikipedia community needs to be making conscious decisions whether to embrace this populist-based information-flow change in favor of the common people, or to oppose it. I do hope you & the Wikipedia community will choose to embrace it; but that will require significant changes in at least your inclinations to define non-constructive "POV" editorializings, as being included in any editorializings which dare to mention the cold hard realities of the establishment's modern-day Propaganda wars.

The elitist establishment aristocratic classes will be brought down to the commoners level. This is a movement whose time has come. Discarding the Establishment's older Propaganda-Friendly Modes of "Censoring" Commonly-Recognized "Facts" is a Necessary Move for those who are to harmonize with the massive de-centralization of power which is manifesting on the eastern horizon.

I do appreciate your affirmation that you will not re-remove my common-law history edit, after i re-submit it. I will provide supportive citations for that addition in the common-law talk pages, before i re-submit it.

Again; i do appreciate your in-depth and courteous response to my frustrated and slightly angry message to you here in your talk page, concerning your removal of my edit on the common-law page.

Charles8854 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for your contributions on the Canada article. Samillia 01:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your deletion of posts to Talk:Canada. I can see your reasoning since it is improper discussion, but I feel it is better to warn against improper posts than deleting them (which I have done). I don't know, if it continues, we may have to delete them, but for now I have used them as an example of what not to do. Sometimes deleting posts like that is a real sensitive issue, I got in shit for doing it one time when I believed it was unconstructive. See this diff. Cheers. -- Reaper X 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I just found the statement here that "[An] example of appropriately editing others' comments...[is]...Deleting material not relevant to improving the article." So if it continues just go ahead and revert my edit eh? Sorry 'bout that. -- Reaper X 16:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't one hundred percent sure whether deleting the comments was appropriate. Thanks for the input. --thirty-seven (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cdn-dime-obverse.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cdn-dime-reverse.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A request for mediation has been lodged for the John Howard article, concerning whether information about an incident between John Howard and Barack Obama should be included or deleted from the article. The link for the RfM is Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard. The issue is still being discussed on the article talk page. Please go to the RfM page and list whether you agree or disagree to be involved in mediation of this issue. Thank you, Lester 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cdn 50 Cent Piece.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm trying to fill in all the election results, but I ran into some problems with 3 municipalities so far. No one has helped me out yet, despite me posting it on the Talk:Ontario municipal elections, 2010. I don't know if you feel like doing it, but they are:

• Chatham-Kent: [1] Ontario municipal elections, 2010#Chatham-Kent
• Prince Edward: [2] Ontario municipal elections, 2010#Prince Edward County
• Oshawa [3] (See Durham Region municipal elections, 2010#Oshawa

Thanks, -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NorfolkHoughton.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thirty-seven. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]