User talk:Garywill/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, 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.

We're so glad you're here! —The-thing (Talk) (Stuff I did) 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 WikiDoo 1.1 He's ba-a-a-ack 2 Eliminating nonsense and following policy 3 You and WikiWoo 4 WikiWoo 5 Your 3RR on Brampton, Ontario 6 (Alphabetized -- I couldn't figure out how they were ordered (wasn't population) 7 3RR warning (Again, looks like) 8 Civility 9 Brockville 10 Warning 11 "Town of Bramalea" 12 Edit summaries and deletion of warnings 13 Image:Harrycollins.jpg

[edit] WikiDoo

You post a biased one sided crap on the Peel Region. You are regurgitating PROPAGANDA issued by the Peel Regional Gestapo. I edited it because it is full of crap... trying to make it simply factual.

You should post facts and not opinion... like you keep saying about my edits.

AND stop vandalizing my user page... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't much like what I've read about the regional structure in Peel, but as a life-long outsider of the community, I'm mostly disinterested in the debate. I never would have noticed or cared ... if you hadn't posted some fanatical 300-word rant onto the beginning of nine different Wikipedia entries, including that of Waterloo Region, where I live. A rant that said that regional chairs aren't elected (ours has been for nearly a decade), that regional councillors are less legitmate that city councillors because they are part-time (they're paid about 65% more than our city councillors here) and all sorts of other out-of-touch nonsense. You seem determined to turn Wikipedia into your soapbox. But it's not going to happen. --Gary Will 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to your post about the character of the issue over Peel Region and Mississauga. You are regurgitating PROPAGANDA and slated view against Mississauga. You view is not balanced. You are a hypocrite for deleting my edits claiming they are one sided and posting your one sided view which is not FACTUAL. You might as well get a job at Peel Regions PR department, if you are not already on the payroll.

I rest my case. --Gary Will 00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Waterloo is just as bad as the rest if not worse because the put in an elected puppet for Chair to appear more legitimate. You have no idea what Region are and do, on the otherhand you probably do and are here to run interference on the anti-democratic system of Ontario's Regional Structure.

Did I already rest my case, or can I present this self-contradictory rant as further evidence? Now appointed chairs are better than elected ones. And when they're elected, it's antidemocratic. And up is down. --Gary Will 05:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to take the next step and file an RfC on WikiDoo/WikiRoo/etc. He apparently has no interest in taking part in the MedCab case, so I don't think we have much choice. Although Ideogram intially suggested possibly waiting for Eagle101 to return [1], I'm afraid if we wait we'll just have a big mess to clean up, or we'll have to do a lot of chasing around in the meantime. As you seem to have been most involved with cleaning up, would you mind starting the process? I'll add as necessary. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added notation of his sock puppetry as well and have added my sig to the certified section. Otherwise I think it looks good. Hope I did this right, it's the first RfC I've been involved in. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok well we'll see how it turns out. At the very least, if it fails, we can take it to arbitration. Thanks for your help --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo 19:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) You seem to have a problem with people posting information and expanding Wiki. Maybe you should take up another hobby since you seem to be obsessed with keeping the public ignorant. If this part of your job to manipulate public information to twist it your way?

Hi,

You make a fair point on my talk page, but there is another distinct possibility. If the user, under "right to vanish", creates a new account and never does any harm, he will be able to put his past behind him. On the other hand, if he engages in similar patterns of disruptive actions, CheckUser can link the new name to WikiRoo, and his past misconduct and RfC will weigh against him in future hearings (at ArbCom, etc.) I do believe this is one intent behind the "right to vanish", and behind the policy distinction between a "block" and "ban." I could be wrong, but my first instinct is to give the user a chance to start afresh. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking one's talk page is an acceptable behavior iff one also asks to have one's account indefinitely blocked under the right to vanish. The two points I think you miss in your analysis are 1) WikiRoo is now blocked forever -- though voluntary, this amounts to account death, and is actually the second most severe punishment meted out at Wikipedia; 2) Generally, Wikipedia is kind to newbies who make errors in ignorance of policy -- the request to start fresh is respected as a hopeful sign of maturity, absent contrary evidence (eg. multiple such requests from a suspected common editor). I don't have any problem with the restoration of the talk page, but the RfC is moot. Perma-blocking is a far more drastic measure than would have resulted from an ArbCom case in this instance, much less an RfC. It is as if WikiRoo chose to "walk the plank" in order to avoid contentious discussion. Since vandals are routinely CheckUsered, any suspicious activity the person commits in the future will bring his past readily to light; his choice is no "get out of trouble free" card. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you for the confusion. :) There is an oft-missed difference between blocks and bans: a block forbids an account; a ban forbids a person. This is why I called permablocks the second most severe punishment in Wikipedia. WikiRoo the account is gone; the person behind WikiRoo is not banned, however. Weird as this sounds, it is basic to the concept of a Wiki -- blocks are used fairly frequently as preventatives (and can be imposed by any admin for good cause within blocking policy). Bans require either a community consensus, or -- normally -- ArbCom action. By design, bans are saved for the worst vandals. This is what I meant to convey. As for WikiRoo's old talk, I will undelete it after going through all diffs to screen out any personal information; I will also blank it, with a notice explaining what has happened; but, its full content (minus personal info) will be viewable in the last version in the history, to allay your concerns. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Actually, the most obvious personal information in there regarded you. Want it removed?

I can't say I'm entirely happy with how WikiRoo was handled, probably because I am an eternal optimist. I understand your frustration; but, in the future, don't post a history of a user's prior vandalism on his talk page. By rights, talk pages are for discussion, and an occasional warning when needed: they aren't a criminal record. To record a pattern of abuse, go straight to an RfC, or post a notice to an admin's talk page, (or WP:AN/I) detailing the problem, and let her/him handle it. WikiRoo doesn't seem like a good guy, but reminding him of all he's done wrong in condensed form is only likely to provoke him further. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, WikiDoo has posted a similar request to WikiRoo's. I have permablocked that account also; and blanked the talk page. It remains intact, however, to address your concerns. The IP address used by WikiDoo/Roo has posted this request as well; I will not comply with this third request, because blocking an IP can cause collateral damage by blocking innocent users on the same computer network. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He's ba-a-a-ack

I see that WikiDoo/Roo has apparently created an account under the name User:WikiWoo, this time vowing to fight "propoganda people" differently and more in line with WP policy. Hopefully that's true and he will eliminate the personal attacks. What I continue to worry about with this editor is that his tenuous grasp on reality leads to violations of WP:BLP with almost every article edit. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating nonsense and following policy

I can see we're on at the same time and are working on containing conspiracycruft on the wiki. Unfortunately, there's no {{db-crank}} template. The material User:Wikiroo is inserting is not copyrighted (correct me if I'm wrong) and it does assert notability (which gets it past a db-bio). In other words, we gotta do this the hard way. As always, let me know if I'm missing anything here. Best, JChap (Talk) 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Copyright does not have to be asserted -- putting something in the public domain does. There is no statement on the website the material is lifted from that it has been placed in the public domain so we have to assume that it isn't until told otherwise by the creator of the material or their assignee. 2) I disagree about asserting notability, although this could be debated. Providing someone's title isn't a statement of notability. Even CEOs aren't universally assumed to be notable under Wikipedia guidelines, let alone people well under that level, which is the case in the two instances I've flagged. --Gary Will 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention, you are correct up to the dash. However, govt works are generally not copyrighted (although I'm not all that up on Canadian law). I'm generally in favor of making it easier to shovel nonsense off of here though. Best, JChap (Talk) 20:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada's copyright law does not place government publications in the public domain. And publications of municipal governments are even trickier, since municipalities are creations of provincial government and we'd have to talk to a lawyer to know how government copyright rules apply to them. See Crown copyright#In Canada. --Gary Will 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll restore your version of the article. JChap (Talk) 20:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You and WikiWoo

You are not dealing with these edits properly. I have cited three and I will cite 50 links to different city and region websites which all say the same thing about what a CAO is and what a City Manager is. You prove my point in the need to have the distinctions in the article. People don't know and should know such simple facts.

There is no such thing as a CAO in a company or business setting. It is a Bureaucratic Civil Service Job of Administrative Management. What you are posting is FALSE and it is you that is providing NO cite to such assertion as fact that cannot be true. Anything suggesting that private companies or business have CAO's is fantasy. You are either confused about the difference between a CAO and CEO or you are trying to confuse other people about how municipal government works in Ontario. Read the links and do not delete good hard work like a vandal and substitute it with your fabricated info that is not accurate and is not founded on any fact or cites.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The quality of your "research" on this topic is a match for your earlier error-filled work on regional government (now deleted by Wikipedia consensus). Unfortunately, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you either don't read or can't comprehend comments left to help you, so I won't waste any more of my time. It took me three seconds on Google to find this CAO appointment from the corporate world [2]. Perhaps next time you could do likewise before leaving comments. --Gary Will 21:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiWoo

WikiWoo is making some ridiculous edits on Susan Fennell, using Google search results (not the pages a search provides, the search itself) as "reference" for his edits. He simply will not listen to what original research is or how to cite sources properly. Would you check out the page (his edits remain since I have reverted three times already), as well as the argument on the talk page, and put your two cents in? Thanks. OzLawyer 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. OzLawyer 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3RR on Brampton, Ontario

This is a warning that you have at least 3RR or more on this page. You know the rules as you blocked me before with them.

You wanting to say what people believe instead of what people did is Biased Propaganda and POV and misleading information. Try to be as factual as possible when the facts can speak for themselves. No need to slat things by replacing facts with supposition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Please learn how to count. That was two reversions. 2) Agree about replacing supposition with facts. That's why your edit has to go. 3) Please follow Wikipedia guidelines and sign your posts on talk pages. --Gary Will 18:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Alphabetized -- I couldn't figure out how they were ordered (wasn't population)

Some of them were listed city, town, township. I was just too lazy to fix them at the time (I was copying and pasting from the articles on each district, county, or regional municipality). OzLawyer 15:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning (Again, looks like)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't edited the page you're apparently referring to (not that you actually said what you were talking about) in over 36 hours, let alone 24, I don't think there's much danger. But maybe your keen precognitive abilities told you I was about to edit it four times. Weird. --Gary Will 01:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha -- Pilotguy responsed to this by giving me a 3-hour blocking (which I just found out today). Says everything right there. Here's an admin who writes a flippant heading (in fact, I've never received a 3RR warning except from one wacky user who's had two accounts perma-blocked and has been blocked repeatedly on his third account for repeatedly making accusations against ... pretty much every other editor he's come in contact with) followed by a 3RR warning for a page I hadn't edited or even thought about in over 36 hours. He could have apologized, or at least made some effort to explain his decisions, but why bother when you can just block someone? --Gary Will 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please see CIVIL. The message you left on Pilotguy's talk page was not civil.[3] You have also engaged in personal attack above on this page, calling an editor a hypocrite. This is not nice stuff and not necessary. You can say what you want without sounding or being abusive, so chill Tyrenius 03:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you didn't make the effort to see who that "hypocrite" comment was from. It was an unsigned comment, so that might have thrown you off, but the indentation should have been more than a hint to check the history, which would have shown you that the editor was WikiWoo -- calling me a hypocrite. What a bizarre night. First I get wrongly accused of being in danger of a 3RR violation for a page I hadn't touched in over 36 hours. Then, racing to join in the conversation is someone who wrongly accuses me of calling an editor a hypocrite. Your suggestion about chilling and not engaging in personal attacks sounds like a good idea. --Gary Will 04:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for misattributing that comment and obviously I withdraw my remark. I suggest making more use of the template {{unsigned|NAME OF USER}}. However, the main purpose of my post was to comment on your edit summary to Pilotguy, "Please don't leave garbage on my talk page".

I also notice on your talk page, you say your address when not logged in is WikiDoo. [4], as well as comments beginning, "You post a biased one sided crap on the Peel Region. You are regurgitating PROPAGANDA issued by the Peel Regional Gestapo. I edited it because it is full of crap..." In your next edit, you delete the mention of yourself and add a template to say the talk was placed by WikiDoo, when in fact you have just posted it yourself.[5] Would you care to explain that?

Also you have deleted warnings [6][7]. These should be kept as part of your editing history. Please reinstate them. If the page becomes full, you can archive it.

Tyrenius 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brockville

I did NOT ADD ANY nonsense to the Brockville page. I just reverted the page back to it's original state because that idiot with ip address 216.106.105.94 changed the whole page. Incase you didn't notice, that same person removed and added bogus information that should not be on the page. NOW what do you think of that?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.61.8.202 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did add nonsense [8]. That's why I asked you to stop. You then went and did so again. [9]. If it happens again, we'll be heading to an RfC at the very least. --Gary Will 14:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please do not remove facts from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rick James 11:11am, 11 August 2006 (UTC)—The preceding comment was added by Rick James (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, retaliatory warnings. Cute. If you continue to post material in violation of Wikipedia policy, we will bring the community and admins into the dispute. --Gary Will 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Town of Bramalea"

I removed the capital you added to "town of Bramalea". I actually don't think the term "town" is appropriate at all, since it is generally used for the incorporated entities in Ontario called "Towns", and I'm pretty sure that Bramalea never became incorporated and was in fact just a community within Chinguacousy Township. That said, I'm not sure the term "community" is correct either, since it was quite a large settlement, and people thought of it like a town. Perhaps a rewrite which says something like "Gore and Chinguacousy, including the then Town of Brampton, as well as Bramalea, were amalgamated into the City of Brampton"? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good edit! I'd never read the rest of that section until yesterday and thought the whole thing needed a facelift ... but I was just using the information that was there. Despite my paid role in the Peel Region Censoring Division, until two months ago I couldn't even have told you what municipalities were part of Peel Region! I loooked in the online Star archives, which only go back to the mid-80s -- and found this sentence: "Rural Chinguacousy [Township] and its 'instant' suburban community of Bramalea were amalgamated with the old town of Brampton when Peel's regional government was formed in 1974." So they went with community. --Gary Will 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I cleaned up my edit a bit more and used "community". The whole article needs a really good overhaul, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries and deletion of warnings

Don't make personal insults please. I'm just doing my job. This isn't about scoring points. You didn't label it as an unsigned comment by another user moved from your talk page. There was nothing in your edit summary (which simply said "WikiDoo") to indicate what you had done, so anyone looking at it would assume it was your words you had posted about WikiDoo. Please make clear what you have done for other users. You generally don't leave any edit summaries at all. You might like to set your preferences to remind you.

You have chosen to ignore the other points, namely a provocative post and edit summary to PilotGuy, "Please don't leave garbage on my talk page", and deletion of warnings, which should not be deleted. [10][11]. As I said, these should be kept as part of your editing history. Please reinstate them. If the page becomes full, you can archive it. Thank you.

Tyrenius 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Harrycollins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Harrycollins.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)