User talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of discussions from January to December, 2006. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.


Trudeau

What do you think of the new photo I put up for Pierre Trudeau? I knew you were one of the critics of the old one, so just wanted to see how you liked it.Habsfannova 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I love the CBC pic, but I don't know any copyright info...do you have any idea if it's useable or not?Habsfannova 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trudeau redux

Found a picture of Trudeau from the 80's...what do you think of that one? Shame there's no rose.Habsfannova 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 15% for major edits and 20% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 103 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 11:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

days

Prime Ministers and Parties. how did you calculate these? its complicated. both Harper and Martin are listed as having served on Feb 6th 2006. IMO you need to minus the first day in office (reduce everyone by one) and reduce one for each extra term. JohnA gets plus one as his first day was confederation. did you use the PM's list to calculate party time? if so this gets... complicated. took me forever to work it out at work. Pellaken 01:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to subst and sign templates!

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

Hello Arctic.gnome. When you use template tags on talk pages, it'd be much appreciated if you could substitute according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template substitution. Just add subst: to the tag; for example, {{subst:bv}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thanks. :) // Rory096 07:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition Speaker

The other opposition Speaker was Rodolphe Lemieux, a Liberal who remained Speaker after Arthur Meighen replaced W.L.M. King in 1926 without an election. CaptainCanada 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfather Paradox

Dear Arctic gnome. I'm new to wiki, so please tell me if there is a better way for me to be doing this...you seem to be interested in time travel. I am researching the possible level of interest in a popular science book about time travel, and would like to canvass your views on the topic if that's ok...

Firstly, are you broadly aware of the concept of spacetime, which is conceptually an extension of what we consider to be the 'normal' 3-dimensional space with an added time coordinate? In the same way that particles can move through a 3d space with coordinates x,y,z they move through spacetime with coordinates z,y,z,t (albeit conventionally they are not written in that order).

Suppose that there is a group of, say, ten stationary particles initially at a point in spacetime with coordinates x,y,z,t. Then imagine a hundred years pass, so the ten particles are now at coordinates x,y,z,t+100 (where t is in years). Suppose that time travel was possible, and one of the particles goes back in time by 100 years. That particle will now be the only one at x,y,z,t; the other nine will be at x,y,z,t+100. So, even if the particle can go back in time, it finds no other particles there to ineteract with.

Now, we are all made up of atoms. The atomes that you are made of are as old as the universe, and have been travelling 'forward' through spacetime ever since the universe began. Suppose it were possible for the trillion trillion particles that make up you to go back in time 100 years to a region of spacetime corresponding to the time coordinates that we called the year 1906. Then, as we have seen from the example of the ten particles above, you will have departed from all of the other particles that make up the earth, which are still at time 2006. Those particles you have left in 2006 will include all of the atoms that made up your grandfather in 1906. When you arrive at 1906 you will find absolutely nothing whatsoever there, so you cannot kill your grandfather, pass on technical secrets, make love to you great aunt or any other of the things that people imagine in conventional time travel paradoxes. Does this explanation make sense to you? I have a PhD in theoretical physics, and the concept I have described seems so obvious to me that I am struggling to understand why it is not more generally apparent (particularly to physicists, who should know beter). I would really like to know what you think.

Regards Doctor den 08:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

It's most kind of you. Of course, you caught me when I'm over three days late with the Doctor Who update! (I'll head over there and add New Earth right away, thanks to your reminder!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Articles like that don't work if people don't keep an eye on them. And what's this about the new season of Doctor Who starting? Last year's episodes were a couple weeks behind on this side of the Atlantic; I guess they are this year too. Arctic Gnome 06:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; the first episode ("New Earth") aired in the UK last Saturday. I watched it with my family on Easter Sunday here in Connecticut, via means which I'd best not mention... ;-) I suppose that since Jesus wasn't averse to borrowing a donkey that wasn't technically his, he wouldn't object to a little time-shifted viewing. :-D
I'm not sure when Canada is scheduled to get the second series, but it's sure to be long before the programme airs south of the border — the US Sci-Fi channel just aired "Dalek"!. Lucky Canucks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rvv made to Fast Food

Just wanted to let you know you reverted to an incorrect previous version. This may've been a result of an editing overlay, but I'm sure it was just a mistake. Make sure to use caution when reverting! Thanks for your contributions to the Wikipedia and happy editing! ••\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\•• 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-athlete-stub template

Hi there. I thought you might like to know that the above template has been renamed by WP:SFD to {{Canada-sportbio-stub}} for consistency with the other sports biography stubs, just in case you wanted to update your user page. --TheParanoidOne 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template request

Hi. I posted some suggestions for marking articles as 'fictional' in response to your question on the requested templates page. --CBDunkerson 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religions once classed as cults...

Would you consider changing your vote to keep the information to a strong keep if it were merged with List of groups referred to as cults or expanded into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Prime Ministers religious affiliation

The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) which Harper is a member of is an Evangelical Protestant denomination. I have no proff if Harper actually is a member of the church, however, Harper was not raised in the United Church of Canada. In 1925, the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Methodist Church of Canada merged into the United Church of Canada, however the Harper family remained in a Presbyterian only church while growing up in Leaside according to Lloyd Mackey's book, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper. SFrank85 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it is up to you if you want to put it back to the way it was. SFrank85 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 2 & Radio 3

Hello. When you created the disambiguation pages for Radio 2 & Radio 3, it meant that over 100 articles are now pointing to those pages. Would you like to help disambiguating the articles so they point to their correct articles? I have already completely DABbed Radio 4. I find AWB invaluable. Cheers. The JPS talk to me 11:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The temporary alternative would be to have Radio redirect to BBC Radio 2, and create Radio 2 (disambiguation). The top of the BBC Radio 2 page could then have Radio 2 redirects here. For other stations named Radio 2, see Radio 2 (disambiguation). This might be better until all the links point directly to their correct articles. The JPS talk to me 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:ThomasKennedy.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style

You asked a question about date links in the Manual of style. In most cases, the date links are unnecessary and only put there by people that misunderstand date preferences. Feel free to remove unnecessary date links.

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. Regards. bobblewik 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bold text

Just a heads up, if you want to remove bold text, you should just remove the font, not the word itself. By taking out entire words you are leaving nonsense sentences that look like vandalism. --Arctic Gnome 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example? I think I know what you mean, but I'd like to see for myself. Alphachimp talk 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand what you mean. I've been trying to go through Wikipedia and remove accidental clicks of Bold Text. In the process, though, I accidentally removed bold text that was actually use legitimately. Most of the time I went back and fixed the mistake immediately, but I guess that I missed the Canada article. Sorry about that. Trust me, though, it wasn't vandalism. Alphachimp talk 17:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Paul Martin04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul Martin04.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Johndiefenbakersmall.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Johndiefenbakersmall.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Images from commons

Please do NOT upload those pictures to the english wikipedia. Just use them as if they were there. You will save yourself a lot of copyright hazzle. -- Agathoclea 16:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the filename that is used on commons. If that filename is not on enwiki it will check on commons. Agathoclea 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Billdavis.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Ernest Drury.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths of science fiction movie and television series on AfD

Hey, Arctic gnome. I thought you might be interested to know that Lengths of science fiction movie and television series is up on AfD. The discussion is here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, greetings from Vancouver

Queen's University? Wow, nice.

I answered to your question in Template talk:WikiProject Canada. We can work together to solve whatever problem there is. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request of The Harper cabinet

I have split the survey into two options: 28th Canadian Ministry, and 28th Canadian Cabinet, just to make the survey easier to read, and make sure everyones being understood. It would be appreciated if you would continue to participate. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment for WPCANADA

Just want to remind you that {{A-Class}} is a very high rating, it's near {{FA-Class}}, and should not be accorded lightly. Only a few of the articles you assessed as such deserve the rating, and those should go throgh GA-review and peer-review first (that helps to smoothen out the articles too). I suggest more conservative rating. Otherwise, thanks for the effort put in WP:CANADA. Cheers. --Qyd 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, assessment is subjective (it's the reason why I told you about this instead of just changing the assessment). I wouldn't consider A-Class some lists (like List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition), articles with abundant red links (List of Canadians by ethnicity), poorly formated articles with stubby sections (like Quebec), articles with very few references (Supreme Court of Canada, Conservative Party of Canada (historical)), articles with large trivia sections (John A. Macdonald). There are other elements that downgrade artilces (bulleted lists instead of prose, incomplete coverage of the subject, etc). Peer review, Good Article review and Featured Article review help a lot to improve the articles, and that's the reason why I suggest going through those stages before according A-Class status. Cheers. --Qyd 04:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the general assessment criteria, "A-class" is only given when the article is considered completion. So just give B-class for now, and submit them through GA review as mentioned by Qyd if they are very well referenced. Cheers! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nova Scotia general elections

Following your comments, I've done some work on the List of Nova Scotia general elections, and replied on its WP:FLC page. Tompw 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I'm a bit confused about the use of the templates. In Talk:Kelowna Accord I used the CanGov template. Should I instead have used the WikiProject Canada template with the CanGov parameter turned on? I want to get my understanding right before I run around tagging too many articles. Thanks. Deet 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of Canada

Hello, (Answering your question, on dupty minister). See Deputy Minister, not sure if DPM has his/her own deputy minister. GoodDay 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper Copyvio

Please refrain from removing the copyvio tag, read the instructions in the template if you dispute the tag. Alan.ca 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

  1. Please do not edit this media for the moment.
  2. To the poster: If you hold the copyright to this media, or if you have permission to use this media under the terms of our license, please indicate so here (click Edit this page at the top of this page) and under the media's listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems - see our image use policy for tips on this.
  3. This media will be kept if Wikipedia or the poster is found to have copyright permission compliant with the license.
  4. If you believe that this media may be used by Wikipedia under the fair use doctrine, then please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page to justify this belief.
  5. If this media is linked from any articles, these links should be removed. To see a list of articles that currently link to this image, see the File links section below.
  6. Unless the copyright status of the media is clarified, it will be deleted one week after its listing. Material compliant with our copyright requirements may be uploaded after deletion. Do not re-upload the media that was here before. It will be removed.

BC Project Template

Thanks for your work on the Canada Project template which I have used as a model for Template talk:WikiProject British Columbia. Any comments or suggestions you might have about this would be most welcome. We don't seem to have types working and not sure about a lot of it. KenWalker | Talk 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

39th Canadian Parliament

Sorry about my mistake. When the House of Commons convened for the Holidays, I assumed that meant the first session was concluded. Sorry for the inconvenience. GoodDay 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election timelines as a featured topic

Thanks for your comments on the above. My original plan was to nominate the federal, provinical and territorial lists together, but as more work has been done on the non-Federal lists, I was going to nominate those first. Good idea about the pre-Condfederation ones - they should definately be included. The main difficulty is finding sources on the net.

I'm wondering what to call the topic... I was planning on "Canadian provinical and territorial elections", but you're right, this would include articles on individual elections... I'm inclined towards just "Timeline of Canadian elections", but this doesn't feel quite right. Any thoughts?

While I remember: do you know of a potential reference for New Brunswick, PEI and Yukon lists? I haven't been able to find anything online, so I was wondering if you knew of any useful books/websites that could be used as references. (The orginal editor used a book from the library, which they don't know the title of).

For the Timeline of Canadian elections article, I'm considering including federal elections (probably as a double-width column)... what do you think? Also, many thanks for all the work you've put in on that article - it's really helped it sparkle. :-)

Tompw (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus

Not a problem. I had just learned about the whole featured topic thing (not that it isn't a bad idea) and I remembered that article and wondered why it wasn't there (since it's pretty good). But it makes sense there would be a nominating process. Daniel Case 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan.ca

That person has no intention of giving up his crusade to delete the image. He seems to have a vendetta against Stephen Harper especially when he's using an outdated page to make the case for his argument. ViriiK 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the Prime Minister and in fact like the photograph. I want to clear up the copyright and until this can be done, the image should not be used. There must be a photograph somewhere that doesn't have this kind of copyright baggage. Alan.ca 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would get involved in this discussion and not get involved in the revert war any further. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue, officephoto.jpg

  • Note: despite what this user says, I am not a new user. I don't believe that I was participating in an edit war. The discussion seemed to have created a consensus against Alan's view. He, evidently, disagrees. --Arctic Gnome 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're new to wikipedia and I don't want to be responsible for making your experience displeasurable. On wikipedia, we try to be careful about not violating copyright. In fact, the founder Jimbo Wales, has made a formal statement that we are to seek out free use images. In the case of this photograph, we have two sections of the same web site asserting different copyright. In this case, we need to make certain that one or the other is removed. Failing that, permission from both listed copyright holders would be appropriate. The ideal solution would be for a wikipedian to snap a photo of Stephen Harper and release it as their own work under a free license. You're not helping anyone by continuing this revert war with me. You're simply flooding the edit history of both the Stephen Harper article and the history of the image. This makes it difficult for future editors to make sense of the edit history and it will not achieve anything for you. Please be patient, let the admin staff review the deletion request and copyright information. Alan.ca 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your vandalism warnings

Hey, Arctic.gnome. Thanks for keeping an eye on vandalism of articles. Please sign your vandalism warnings. It makes it easier for other vandalism watchers if you leave a visible timestamp so they don't have to check the History for it. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Ammends?

Are we able to make ammends? I'd like to join in on the Canadian wikiproject. Alan.ca 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard du Temple

Hi Artic gnome. I was wondering, per your comment on featured picture candidates, if this is one of your websites? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive_2"