User talk:Canadian Paul/First Award to Adminship

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Canadian Paul. 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 the current talk page.

And Wow! cleaning up all the unassessed Canada articles that is amazing also! I was trying to clean up some SK ones the other day. SriMesh | talk 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also for the keen eye about Thorbergur Thorvaldson...the source was double checked and I typo'd 1823 instead of 1883. Thanks a lot.

		WikiProject Saskatchewan Barnstar
		WikiProject Saskatchewan barnstars are the official award for outstanding, extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to WikiProject Saskatchewan Or they can be awarded by anyone, to anyone who has showed significant efforts to improve WikiProject Saskatchewan. Awesome work on SK articles, Thank you! SriMesh | talk 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I added some thoughts on the peer review you requested. Tempshill 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. I was planning to do that after tagging a group -- for example, Premiers of Nova Scotia -- because it would be easier to work more systematically from the list of articles than to have to find each article one-by-one. I'm sorry if I unintentionally created unnecessary work for you. That wasn't my intention. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A great many of the articles on earlier political figures also lack infoboxes and photos, so I thought that at the same time as assessing them I could try and add these -- the article list just offers one-stop shopping so I cold go through the articles in a more systematic fashion. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See Battle of El Mazuco. mfc 12:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I shall check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 14:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And do check the dates -- it was exactly at this time in September, 70 years ago, that the events happened. Is there some way Wikipedia can mark that? mfc 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume for the moment that you're watching this page, since you responded to my last comment. I don't see that any changes have been made to the article... the last revision occurred on September 9, whereas my last comments on Talk:Battle of El Mazuco were on September 11 ([1]). As for Wikipedia marking the event, consider inputing an important event or marker at List of historical anniversaries. I don't know exactly how it works, as I've never done, but from what I understand, the "On this day" section of the Main Page is updated with entries from the daily selected anniversaries. As far as I know, there's no particular mechanism for commemorating something that happened X years ago, unless there are significant events noted in the media that commemorate the event, in which case it might be acceptable to list it on the 2007 page, under a heading along the lines of "The 70th anniversary of the end of the Battle of El Mazuco is marked with *insert type of event* in Spain." Cheers, CP 00:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you added Robert Jordan to this list. Your reference will not work for me. Do you have a verifiable reference for his death? Into The Fray ^T/C 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By not work, I mean the page will not load. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disregard, I was able to get the link to work finally. I reverted my reversion. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add Jordan, I just inserted his age. The source that was used was his personal website that had a notice of his death, which crashed literally minutes after I got a chance to see it. Other than adding his age, I'm not particularly interested in adding or deleting him from the recent deaths list, per my comments on yesterday's Colin McRae fiasco on Talk:Recent deaths. Cheers, CP 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, apologies. I'll toddle off and read WP:AGF now. Cheers and happy editing to you. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all! I've already started a section on Talk:Recent deaths about this, because I suspect that an edit war may be nigh and I don't want any direct part of it! Haha. Cheers, CP 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed GA comments. This is my first time GA review, and I appreciate the feedback. I was actually motivated to nominate it because of the favorable comments in the AfD, and the close was a surprise that was fortunately overturned. There were no major changes as a result, and there is no reason to merge, though someone is likely to try it to make a WP:POINT. The Justine Ezarik article has been expanded with other material so it's no longer a candidate for a merge either way. So stability should not be a problem, but who knows? I do think your suggestion for additional background is a good one--the article should be able to stand on its own. The only impact I can source is the change in billing, but I suppose I could mention the her follow-up video. I wish there was a source for Apple's involvement, but they stayed under the radar on this. Dhaluza 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the article to address most of your comments. Have a look if you wish. Dhaluza 04:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I shall check it out and make comments in a day or so. Cheers, CP 05:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have left more comments on the article's talk page. Cheers, CP 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help. I was thinking of starting a new section on press coverage, collecting some of the info there, and expanding it somewhat, with another fair use image. Do you that that would help or hurt? Dhaluza 00:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've having a bit of trouble visualizing the press coverage section, although that doesn't mean that I don't think it's a good idea. Maybe you could sandbox it or be bold and just put it right in the article so that I can see exactly what you're thinking of. Apologies for my slow brain at the moment, but immersing yourself in Palestinian nationalism for a presentation that I found out that I had to do for tomorrow sucks away most of my gray matter.

As for the fair use image, as much as I'd like to see more images to break up the text, I'm a bit cautious when it comes to fair use. When scrutinized under GA or FA standards, Fair Use images more or less have to me absolutely essential to the article. For example, in my two current GA nominations I'll See You in Court and Major League Baseball (video game) I had to be very careful what images I used, since there's an incredibly high number that I could use (screenshots etc.) In the former, I used only one to illustrate a major plot point and left it at that. In the latter, I took shots of every aspect of the game that I thought was significant to illustrate. Neither have been reviewed yet, so it's hard for me to tell which style works the best. I guess this is my roundabout way of saying that I'm not quite sure. Having said that, unless you have something that really excellently illustrates something or is practically essential, I'd err on the side of caution and not include any more fair use images. If the GA reviewer wants you to add one or two more, the worst you'll get is a hold until you do that. Also keep in mind that images in general are not a requirement for GA, so even if you had none, it's not exactly something that they can hold against you. Cheers, CP 01:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I had seen one added by another editor in another article I worked on: 2007 Brooklyn tornado. Dhaluza 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that article's not at GA status, so it's hard to judge. Cheers, CP 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided not to split out the news for now, but integrated it into the expanded Video section, with a FUI that illustrates the news coverage. I think I'm going to put it back on GA tomorrow. Take a look if you like... Dhaluza 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good and that it is read to go back to being a GAC (or GAN I think is what they're calling it now)! I think the pictures are well used, and there shouldn't be a problem with them. Another reviewer might spot a few little things that I may have missed, but there's nothing now that should fail it outright (little things should put the nomination on hold, not fail it). A week later, I think stability can reasonably be assumed at this point. I think it's much better than when I reviewed it. Well done! Cheers, CP 22:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it's been nominated again at AfD. Feel free to comment at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination) Dhaluza (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Will have a look at it soon. Cheers, CP 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to explain why birthplaces can't be included in bio-stat info.Ryoung122 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been waiting for no reason, seeing as how I explain it every single time I employ it in my editing summaries: WP:DATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death.

"Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." Cheers, CP 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. What do you think we should do with Steve Fossett? He may not be found before RS report his presumed death. The NTSB has already released a preliminary accident report that assumes he had a fatal accident on the date he went missing. Would we use that date and qualify it somehow, or just list the date of death unknown? Dhaluza 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Steve Fossett's circumstances will bring this matter to full debate because, as far as I know, there's no specific standard for this kind of thing in WP:DATE. A quick glance at past cases highlights this:

• Lord Lucan (no mention at all in brackets)
• Joseph Force Crater (simply states that the date of death is unknown, the closest to WP:DATE's standards)
• Jimmy Hoffa (a mess of facts)
• Amelia Earhart (missing and declared dead dates in brackets)
• Donald Mackay (presumed death on day of disappearance)
• Harold Holt (includes date of presumed death with notice)
• James Gray ("lost at sea")

Of course, the circumstances are different, but there are as many different suggestions as there are missing people. Given that all these cases are over 30 years old (save for Gray), perhaps Fossett's death will give rise to a debate that will give us an answer in the MoS. My personal preference is the Donald Mackay example, but that's just because I think it looks neater and, after all, neatness counts. Cheers, CP 01:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to list the date the person was last seen (or known to be) alive. That is a WP:V fact, and would be most consistent with policy. Anything else is speculation, and could be included in the body as a sourced POV, but the lead and infobox should stick to the facts. So I would list it as:

James Stephen Fossett (born April 22, 1944 - last seen September 3, 2007)

-- Dhaluza 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, CP. I left a comment on your Edit for rhe above at Talk:Economics#Failed "good article" nomination. I notice that in your Edit there was a hidden note referring to the Template:QF-NPOV, which I take to mean that the article would fail the GA standard for that reason. Would you consider commenting on the Econ Talk page to point to what you had in mind (& other points if they seem worth mentioning)? Thx. --Thomasmeeks 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

In response to your statement:

[edit] Acceptability of World's Oldest Forum as RS I think that we should get a discussion going on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on whether you site is a reliable source and settle this once and for all. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way, but rather than have a big argument (not between you and I, but you and other editors) we should bring it up at the proper forum and settle it once and for all. I can help you set it up if you'd like. That way we can garner a community consensus rather that just squabbling needlessly any time you, Bart, myself or any one else wants to use it as source. The Myra Nicholson debacle has supremely highlighted the need for this. To highlight THIS IS NOT ME ATTACKING YOUR SITE AS SOURCE, just suggesting that we acquire a consensus to finalize things.

I agree it would be a GOOD idea to establish the "World's Oldest" Forum as a 'reliable source.' I find it incredulous that, if I were to call the newspaper and they print something, incorrectly (for example, Myra Nicholson was 11th-oldest in the world according to the GRG, not 12th) then that would be considered a 'reliable' source but if I were to cite something on the WOP forum it would not be?

Considering that often "I am the source" it makes little sense not to accept WOP as a 'reliable source.' I note that the site is MODERATED (only messages that I approve get posted) and there are a lot of other experts as well on a worldwide scale. Note, for example, the Myra Nicholson death info. came from Dr. John McCormack of Latrobe Univ in Australia.

In addition, the group has been in existence since 2002 and all messages are archived (unlike newspaper articles).

It seems that the problem with other Wikipedia editors concerning this is that Wikipedia gets rid of 'expertism'...everyone on Wikipedia can edit whatever they want. Yet I do believe that personal responsibility should require people to consider a little deference to those who know and study a topic from those who don't know anything about it and don't study it, either.

The real purpose of discussing this is so that future disputes like this can be minimized. Note that the media, in some cases, don't even bother with an obituary (even though they covered 'great-grandma's 112th birthday' earlier in the year). Finally, suppose someone died in Japan and their death was not widely reported...again if I happen to know that someone is dead, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect that? Now, I know that in some cases the family wishes for privacy, at least until the funeral...as happened with Marie-Simone Capony. I knew she died on Sept 16 but it was not reported on WOP until Sept 19.

P.S. If we are also using WOP as a source for WWI veterans, it becomes especially important to get citation recognition. Note we see quite a bit of WWI veterans from Ders Des Ders...should that be excluded also?Ryoung122 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, many people combine a large number of changes into one edit to make our changes easier to navigate in the history and to prevent ourselves from having an inflated edit count. No one will make you do it but, if you disagree with one aspect of a major change, please don't just be lazy and revert the good along with the bad (ala Helen Stetter). Take a few extra moments to manually fix the precise change that you disagree with, please. Cheers, CP 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. First off, many people combine a large number of changes in the same way that Congress stuffs budget bills with pork...making a 'line-item veto' difficult or impossible. This is disengenuous. Because Wikipedia seeks 'consensus,' not 'victory,' the correct thing to do is to make controversial changes separately, edit count or no. Note that deleted changes don't count towards the edit total. Neither did I even know there was an edit counter until two weeks ago. Finally, it is one thing to give advice; its another to 'tell people what to do.' Note that when you say 'take a few extra moments to manually fix the precise change that you disagree with' you are going too far. Such a statement is a command statement; it also PRESUMES and includes value-judgments ("just be lazy"). I disagree that my 'reverting' is due to laziness.Ryoung122 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have information to if and when he died. It would help if somebody can uncover that information, though, like one did in a related article John Semer Farnsworth: somebody actually came across a Time magazine obit online and pasted the information in the article before I have to edit it to reflect the new information. RashBold (talk · contribs) 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I currently have no further infomation about Robert Young than I included in the article. Waacstats 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No further info... Doma-w 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I also do not speak Japanese, but after the dash it says: Year of death missing - but no category is added. So maybe the author of the Japanese article also do not know exact, if he is alive or not... Kind regards! Doma-w 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about the {{prod}}. I see that Billgordon1099 added sources a few hours after the incident. <>< tbc 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't thank me, I'm the one who nominated it for prod in the first place. Now, however, I do think that his notability is at least present, which is good. Cheers, CP 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! To reply your question, I could get no information at all whether he is alive or not. Sorry! However, I added some tiny details to the article I found by this opportunity. Cheers! CeeGee 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry but i do not have any more information on him yet, but will have another look around and see if he is still alive. Tristan benedict 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey CB, here's what I think would work for images. I'd move the MLBPlaySelectionScreen picture to the development section, since that deals with being officially liscensed, as well as illustrate how the official teams and player numbers are used. Move the MLBBunt picture where the SelectionScreen is now, and move the GlandSlam picture to graphics, since that picture shows off the game's limitations. I would remove the title screen, foul ball, and intro screens, unless you feel like you could make them fit. The big issue is fair use, but some people see lots of pictures as "cosmetic" rather than informative, so it's good to just dodge that bullet right off. If the big text wall in the reception section bothers you, you can always add a review box. I don't think there's any policy for or against them, so that's entirely up to you. Nall 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have done everything you requested, and, in my search, I recovered a few more tit-bits that fit elsewhere in the article and added them in. Take a look- if you still aren't getting a feel for who the band is, I would be happy to give it another go. J Milburn 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm on it. Cheers, CP 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! One final question on the talk page before I pass it. Cheers, CP 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your help. If I can ever be of any help, please feel free to drop me a line. J Milburn 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I most certainly do not know if he's alive or not. I could find no trace of him via the internet after the yacht in Gibraltar, or via the Library of Congress. Have you tried the British Museum, or whatever the largest library is in England? Some Wikipedians seem to know how to find government records of people's deaths, but I don't know how to do this. If alive, he'd be 105 or 106, so it's unlikely. I read one of his father's books, so that got me interested in the family. If you find out, let me know. What are you studying in Texas, English lit.?Bruxism 01:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There are places in the U.S. where Wikipedians check people's Social Security records. I don't know if the British have such a record. You'd think it would be easy enough to find out, for an author with 30 books published. He must have had an obit somewhere. Bruxism 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

... shouldn't that be "An always-changing list..."? mfc 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You think you're sooooo clever.... :) Errr, yes, thank you. Actually, since I almost never get to see new movies anymore, it'd probably be more accurate to call it a "Permanently stale" list, but that's another matter entirely. Cheers, CP 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive GA review of Walter Adams (economist). Your notes are appreciated, and I'll get to work on improving the article as soon as possible. Kevin Forsyth 19:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the article. I am working on the comments now. I have just added a caption to the picture and will work on adding citations as well as some more detail through the afternoon. Please look at it in a few hours and tell me what you think. Regards. ludahai 魯大海 02:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I may be in bed in a few hours, but I will check it out once the detail has been added. Cheers, CP 03:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's great to know that my peer review and guidance was helpful to you, and it's even nicer that you went to the trouble of giving me a shiny barnstar! Don't forget, though, that you were the one who wrote the article, practically single-handedly, found references, took screenshots and did all those crazy things, some of which are borderline impossible for such an old game! Una Laguna^Talk 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

		The VG Barnstar
		Because, hey, getting an article about a twenty-year-old video game to GA-status isn't the easiest of things to do on Wikipedia. Una LagunaTalk 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The worst articles are my favourites to review. I can't wait. Una Laguna^Talk 16:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

CP, I disagree with the removal of 'running tallies.' Knowing that someone is 'alive' and knowing that someone is '113 years, 24 days old' aren't the same thing. The running tally gives a more accurate reflection of where someone's age record stands. It's like in baseball...they have a 'running tally' of stats for 'active' players. It's not enough to know that Jim Thome is active; to know that he has '507' home runs is the point. Likewise with the oldest people.Ryoung122 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple issue of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Every last detail and fact on this page should (ideally) be verifiable. Thus we can say that person X is alive until shown dead, because we can verify through many sources that they are alive until we can verify that they are dead. With exact ages, however, that is not the case. Right now, I am 21 years and X days old. Let's say I finish typing this, make no more edits and sign off for the day. Then I take tomorrow off. Do you know for certain that I made it to 21 years and X +1 days old? No, not unless you have some proof for verifying it. Your sports analogy is faulty because you can verify his home run totals as they happen. Technically, most of the list ala list of living supercentenarians, living national longevity recordholders, list of the oldest people etc. shouldn't have running tallies either - they should, by WP:V standards, only be updated every time we get some sort of confirmation that that person made it to x amount of days. Does it make me a hypocrite for not removing the tallies on those pages too? Absolutely, as has been evidence by the fact that many times we have been wrong (eg. for the few days between Marie-Simone Capony's death and the news release, it said that she was 113 years, 186, 187 etc. days old, which was absolutely wrong and had to be corrected). I also note, however, that I never go out of my way JUST to remove a running tally on a personal page - it's usually part of other edits I'm doing to a page anyways. While I have no problem with listing the amount of days when it's verifiable, WP:V is a pillar of Wikipedia. As you've probably noticed, however, I've too many other things to do than enforce this, but there is an absolute justification for it. Cheers, CP 22:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can you ever justify the placement of a stub tag in between several categories? Extremely sexy 23:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done all the time to keep everything in alphabetical order. Remember, someone reading the article doesn't see the "code" (so to speak) of how the categories and stubs get added - the stub will still appear in the same place on the page no matter if it's before, after or in the middle of the categories, but it's placement WILL effect the nature of the alphabetization of the categories. I did this too at first, so I can hardly criticize you for it, but it's something to be aware of. If you're really that against the policy, however, you have one revert left for the day and I don't, and I'll probably have forgotten about it by tomorrow, so you can "win" if you'd like. But that's the rationale. Cheers, CP 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are so funny, but I still think there will be some robot reverting your edit anyway, Paul. Extremely sexy 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you've already reverted it, although you seem to have no problem reverting bot edits yourself. Cheers, CP 00:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true as well. Extremely sexy 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose "request" was it to remove this GA nomination? Johnbod 14:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yours: "Please hold on this one - is in middle of ongoing improvements." The GA Nominees page is only for articles that are ready to be reviewed at any time. You may resubmit it whenever it is ready, without prejudice, as removing the nomination does not count as a "fail." Cheers, CP 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not my nomination, nor was my xcomment in any way a request to remove it. You should reinstate the original nomination without my hold comment, as the nominator thought it was ready. It no doubt won't get reviewed for weeks. The GA nomination page is full of "holds" Johnbod 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, the GA Nomination page only accepts nominations that are ready to be reviewed at any time but, if you're willing to withdraw your hold comment, as you say, then I will gladly put it back. Cheers, CP 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnbod 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I've covered all of your concerns. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nishkid64 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it from Social Security Death Index [2] (in the middle of the page). Gh 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Spiffy, thanks! Cheers, CP 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User Canadian Paul, regarding the below comment:

Note For Closing Admin: User:Bart Versieck has posted a message on the World's Oldest People Forum telling people to come to this page and vote against deletion: "Please, all of you, do vote against deletion of it at this page." In case the message is removed by the user, a screen shot can be provided privately. Cheers, CP 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never deleted a 'world's oldest person' message except in the extremely rare case of a duplicate message. The messages are archived going back to the year '2002.' I don't understand this 'salt-the-Earth' negativity. I agreed this article didn't have enough but the comments like this one (and the one about 'User:Statistician') are unnecessary. Neither are sock-puppets and both have had Wikipedia ID's for quite some time. Further, since Wikipedia articles for deletion is 'not a vote', I assume if someone doesn't give a reason, that's a weakness there already (need you say more?).

Further, it may be a thin line to tread but Bart's claim that I had 'done this before lots of times' is off the mark. I had previously informed voters that there was a vote...I didn't tell them HOW to vote. There is a difference. Bart gets over-excited about things; he is not 'on my side' or 'your side'; he is his own side. Sometimes I and Bart agree and sometimes we don't. Likewise I can agree with your thinking on Ida Frabboni-Saletta (if the Italians want to make a big deal about her, put her in the paper, please!).

That said, If you want to delete a few more 'barely' super perma-stubs, I agree. The purpose is that we shouldn't be starting articles without source material for expansion. Cropping the 'low-hanging fruit' is akin to PRUNING...NOT CUTTING DOWN THE TREE. So, if you wish to continue pruning marginal articles, I will support. Conversely, I will support keeping most articles that have reached at least 112.5 years old (why? look at the current 'top 10' oldest: 112 years 10 months is enough to be in the current top 10, but not 112 years 1 month).

Let's keep the Armistice going but I do hope you would not be so brusque in your 'win at all costs' approach. Ryoung122 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Sincerely Robert Young

Please don't take everything personally, I had no beef against you in this vote. I pointed out Bart's message as a commentary against him and, as you have mentioned and I fully agree, you have never told people how to vote, just that they should vote. I won't let violations of Wikipedia policy slide, however, whether that be the posting of a message on your forum telling people how to vote (by Bart) or if it be people voting without a reason. If someone had voted Delete without a reason, I would have added the same message to their "vote" as I did to Statician. As for nominating other Supercentenarians, I have no intention to do so unless I see another case like Ida Frabboni-Saletta, where there's absolutely nothing about her anywhere to write about. Thusfar, I haven't seen one. Cheers, CP 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A user created an article which is now a 'mess' and he doesn't want to fix it:

[edit] Last_veterans_of_World_War_I RYoung, I've read the comments on that chat page and I agree with you. I can't convert the article into something more meaningful and the information is best maintained simply and efficiently in the other veterans list. I decided to put a Request For Deletion on the page but unfortunately the template isn't working for it. If you could arrange that instead I will pop over and vote on its deletion. RichyBoy 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryoung122"

Should this be deleted or tagged with an 'improve' tag? I'm too busy to list this for deletion, so be my guest.Ryoung122 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems the rationale for deletion is that there is already another, similar article:

+ I agree really - I can't make the article what I wanted it to be - the information is better served in the [Last_World_War_I_veteran_by_country] list. I did just try a rfd template for this page (request for deletion) but it came out as a redirect instead. If someone else can arrange to put the rfd|REASON header on and so forth I would be grateful and support that as the article creator. RichyBoy 09:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you love to delete substandard articles, so be my guest.Ryoung122 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am looking into it now. Cheers, CP 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I blatantly stole the layout of this page from your userpage. Hopefully you don't mind. Una Laguna^Talk 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had 30 successful WP:GAC evaluations, but do not recall if you have done any. I have never requested an expedited review. Do you have any advice on my request for an expedited GAC review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could review your article tomorrow but, today, unfortunately I have already spent all the time I can spare doing GA Reviewing for the day. From a cursory glance, however, the things that I would first notice (images, citations et. al) seem to be all fine. The only thing I noticed from skimming it was that there is one sentence under the first table that is awkward placed. My first suggestion would probably be to either work that into the text above the table or incorporate more text underneath the table so that the line doesn't stand alone. If you can wait another day, I can promise to do a full review tomorrow, but as of now I've got to finish up a few quick tasks and head out. Sorry. Cheers, CP 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you look if there is anything else to correct or promote it? Can you look at our Thomas Cranmer as well. It is long but shouldn't need any work at all. Thank you for your interest in our work. -- SECisek 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks great now, and I will be passing it to GA status, congratulations and thank you for your hard work! As for Cranmer, I can give him a looking at, but not until tomorrow at the earliest. Cheers, CP 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again! Dealing with trolls and vandals make me wonder why I spend so much time here. When I can take a "stub" or a "start" class article and edit up to GA, I remember why this is my hobby! -- SECisek 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done...I hope...anything else? Thank you for your help with our work! -- SECisek 23:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now a GA. Congratulations on another job well done! Cheers, CP 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I edit conflicted with you while I was working on this article (which was a copyvio of another article). I see you assessed it while I was working on it. I think you might want to return it to a stub assessment, but not being familiar with those guidelines, will let you make that call. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I do. Thank you for pointing that out! Cheers, CP 16:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I am a pretty experienced wikipedian and have gotten articles on the main page using both WP:TFA and WP:DYK, I just nominated Chicago Marathon for WP:ITN. I suspect if it makes the main page it could be as highly vandalized as any other main page content. THus, I would suggest waiting on the GA final review until after main page exposure if it is coming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is going to make the main page. I should have it cleaned up by tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In the words of my good friend who lived in the forest for three months, whatever will be, will be. Cheers, CP 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

'tis done. Congratulations! Cheers, CP 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi CP. I actually have not worked on Lady Bird that much, but plan to sometime in the future, so I did not know how much work still needed to go into this article. I am really not willing to do all that right now, so please feel free to fail the article, and maybe I'll try again when I have more time. Thanks, Happyme22 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and about the SMCHS thing: my son actually goes to SM and edited that on my account. Now I have to change my password... haha. Thanks, Happyme22 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My wife and I are actually impressed with the new principal, Ray Dunne. He came from 17 years of being principal Servite in Anaheim, and all my son' friends are attending Sanra Margarita as well. I like it so far, but we'll see what happens. Thanks, Happyme22 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave comments on the article's talk page when I get the chance. Una Laguna^Talk 06:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a few suggestions on the talk page. Enjoy! Una Laguna^Talk 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely B as it is... I'll reassess it to B-class, Low-importance. Una Laguna^Talk 05:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! (Mixing it up by replying on my talk page) Cheers, CP 05:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As you are going to be reviewing December to Dismember (2006) soon, you may wish to comment on this. Davnel03 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have left a comment and will continue to do so as the discussion develops. Cheers, CP 15:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I took it there to get other opinions on it. Davnel03 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to totally delete it; just put it on hold. Thanks for catching me! Dr. Cash 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your comments about One Rincon Hill. I thought I would try this review process, but I am still so new at this process. Should I leave the reviews as reviews on the nomination page, or put holds on them for one week and then go back and look for potential updates? As per your note regarding the quick fail criteria, this article should be quickfailed because it does not meet the stability requirement. Future events, buildings etc. etc. are almost always disqualified from for stability reasons until they are complete. I will modify this point for the review, it does make sense, as if it is still under construction, then ergo, the article is still under construction. The other points I mentioned to them, have remained the same also. Once one reviews an article, can one go in and help with the improvements? And then as a joined in article contributor, would then another reviewer need be found...? Or is it best to mention possible changes, and then leave it to the nominator and etc. working on the article? Kind RegardsSriMesh | talk 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

IMO, Using the word 'passing' in place of death is not just a euphemism. Most people don't just 'drop dead' (unless they have a heart attack on a golf course or are killed in an accident). The death process often takes days, weeks, or months, and is often gradual. Saying 'passed away' seems to me to connote this idea a bit better than saying 'the death of'. Just my opinion.Ryoung122 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I use death mainly for clarity purposes; it leaves no doubt as to what actually happened. Also, it's a context issue. Using your definition of passing doesn't really fit with where it's used in an article: "Person X became the oldest person in country Y with the passing of Person Z." Person X doesn't become the oldest during the process, they become the instant that person is clinically dead – at their death. Cheers, CP 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made changes to the article as necessary. Please re-review it against the GA criteria. Your original points are located here. Thanks, Davnel03 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Added one more comment for you! Cheers, CP 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've added some more sources + a comment on the talkpage. On a side note, thanks for reviewing it, much appreciated! Davnel03 15:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have passed it now. Congratulations! Cheers, CP 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Davnel03 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 13th October 2007. Epbr123 13:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I'll try my best to keep living up to it! Cheers, CP 14:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for making my references look better on the page. I did not know one could do that. --Clhowson 21:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just seen your comments on why Fedora (Linux distribution) failed the GA review. Just one comment (at present anyway) - I can't what is different about Fedora7bluecurve.png's licence to that of Fedora 7 Desktop.png. Maybe I'm missing something obvious (don't know much about image licences, so sorry if that is the case). Other than that, I've had a read through your comments and I'll see what I can do to improve the article. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a major editing spree on the article today. Do you think you could take a look and see if you can provide any further pointers for improving it? I know there is still some work to do (the intro paragraph, overview etc). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at it later today. Cheers, CP 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I look forward to hearing your comments on it :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments left on talk page of article. Cheers, CP 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've had a brief read through, and I'll see what I can improve on the article. However, it would appear that I am the only person to have made major changes since your last GA review, not that I have a great deal of time to spend on this article. Oh well, I'll just keep making changes whenever I get some inspiration/time. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience while I attempted to expand the article on Gabriel Slaughter. I have finished my expansion from an article in the Filson Club History Quarterly. This article was much more detailed than any of my other sources, and the additional information required a modest restructuring of the entire article. There was still very little information on Slaughter's late life, but I believe I have been able to sufficiently expand the rest of the article to meet the broadness requirement for GA. Please re-review the article at your leisure, as much has been added and changed. I will await your decision on its merit as a GA with the same patience you have exhibited during my continued expansion of the article. Thanks! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at it a little later tonight. Cheers, CP 01:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and passed it! Mabrook as we say in Arabic! Cheers, CP 03:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That must set some sort of record for being out of date! Oh dear...still, better late than never I suppose!DerbyCountyinNZ 00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fixing everything you mentioned. Don't worry, the article is fine POV wise. There has been more bad than good about the man. In the early terms, it was a freefall for Belarus because of the transformation of the country. It was like that for many of the former Soviet Repbublics. There is not much of a domestic policy, since he does everything and everything. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More comments added on talk page. Cheers, CP 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded to those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your source for saying that Deborah Kerr died? I don't see anything about it in any news sources -- SteveCrook 14:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's now been announced on the news -- SteveCrook 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there was a news report on the Recent Deaths page when I made the changes. It had been announced when I made the change. Cheers, CP 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more or less done with expanding the article, but as a non-native English speaker I'd appreciate it if you had the time to have a look and maybe eliminate some of the probably numerous grammatical and spelling errors :) Abel29a 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll get on that a little later today. Cheers, CP 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to correct the errors and the suggestions. I'll work some more on the article as well over the weekend. Would be fun to push it to GA status. Abel29a 12:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on the article, as you passed it for GA status? :) Davnel03 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about FA, so I don't think that I'd be very much help. Sorry. Cheers, CP 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Davnel03 20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! The JPS^{talk to me} 22:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, your help was invaluable, so I extend great thanks to you! Cheers, CP 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the GAN articles. Thanks for the nudge. I started out kind of bold, and then reflected too much. So now I got bold again, I passed one article and failed two that I left under review too long. The other is under second and third opinion as of this time. I will try to just place on hold next time or if it is lots and lots to fix, will just fail outright. It is a learning curve this reviewing, very different from the writing. Kind Regards and thank you. SriMesh | talk 03:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CP, I have NO idea why this patent nonsense showed up on my watchlist, but since you like to delete things, perhaps you can zap this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Jackson

If not I can try later today.Ryoung122 12:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your instinct must have been right. Someone zapped it before I could get to it. Cheers, CP 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20th October 2007. Epbr123 15:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again! Looks like I kept my promise from last week! Cheers, CP 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

In regards to the following article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphia_Hankins

I note that I was rather blase about it, but apparently at least someone thought it was worth doing an article. Considering that we have an article on every person who ever played one game of 'soccer' in the professional leagues, such as this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Maidens

I don't think it too much to ask that any person aged 110+ could get their own article, IF the article at least is well-written and had more material than simply their 'ranking' information.

Thus, since someone decided to do that for Delphia Hankins, it should stay. I didn't bother creating the article; the fact that someeone else other than myself, Bart, or someone intimately involved with this seems to be an argument that perhaps '111' is notable. But I do question whether articles such as Kohachi Shigetaka should exist. If the article isn't expanded right when the person dies (or before), it runs the risk of never being completed. If deleted, the reason should not 'lack of sources' rather than 'lack of notability.' I do favor eventually creating articles/lists of the oldest woman and man for the most important nations, i.e. the USA, Japan, France, maybe the UK and Germany. Something to think about. Ryoung122 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, have I become so predictable? Yes, I was thinking about nominating Delphia Hankins, but I thought I'd wait to see if more sources emerged. Also, I completely feel your sportspeople argument. Why are they suddenly exempt from the requirement of multiple, non-trivial sources? There are dozens of articles out there that are literally only "So and So was an athlete from Country X who participated in the 19XX Olympic games in Sport Y. So and so placed 51st/67th/82nd etc. etc." and that's it. No other sources for them, nothing more could ever be written about them, and yet they stay on the simple basis that sportspeople only have to "participate in" the Olympic games, even though thousands upon thousands have competed without winning a medal. Why not merge them onto a list like "List of living supercentenarians?" Why not have a list of "Olympians who never won medals" or "Olympians who never made placed 10th or higher in any competition" and then merge all the permastubs into that? Anyhow, I've become a total deletionist lately - there are becoming more and more articles that I feel need to be removed from Wikipedia, and should at least have their day in AfD court. Hankins is on there, but I won't be doing that one for some time, as it should be given a chance for sourcing. And neither are they all supercentenarians, though I will be adding Shigetaka to the list if I can't find sources for him. Most are non-notable figures with few sources or the aforementioned minor Olympians/professional sports players who have zilch for sourcing. If I do get a plan for non-notable sports figures to be merged/deleted, I'll let you know. Cheers, CP 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Paul Fox used to have his own article, but it was deleted and redirected to The Ruts (I thought the original article was Paul Fox (producer), but apparentely not). Anyhow, there was consensus at some point that Paul Fox (musician) (or whatever the original article was called) should be a redirect to The Ruts. Cheers, CP 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi CP. Just my thoughts on the matter, but I think it sets a "dangerous" precedent if we allow death notices to redirect to other than the deceased's article. It's like having George W. Bush redirected to the Republican Party article (OK, that's an exaggeration). If the Paul Fox article was redirected to The Ruts then that is an admission that he is not notable as an individual. Therefore, using the same argument, I don't believe he should get a "blue" link on the death notices unless he has his own article. Regards, WWGB 02:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have added references to the EXIT Project article, but it seems tey dont enter right (just check the category section itself). If you can, please help me there. 79.182.17.93 19:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will check it out now and see if I can figure out what is wrong. Cheers, CP 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. I would suggest, however, that you use citation templates, as they (or a similar format) are required for a GA pass. Cheers, CP 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the help :-) Understood. 82.81.224.141 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Where is the source that his has passed away? Chaldean 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Right here. In my zeal, I must have missed the fact that it wasn't in the article. I shall add it now. Cheers, CP 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a few things I haven't found. Images on Canadian politicians that are freely available are hard to find., epecially since we don'T have the same advantages as in the US in which all governmental photos can be used freely on Wikipedia. I seen numerous MP articles that had images from the House of Commons site but were deleted gradually and I beleive Baird was among those. The best way, is that someone gets lucky to get an image but those occasions are rare.

I haven't found anything about who his parents are which is very surprising. Not even the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, nor the House of Commons site have that information. No blogs, no news articles, nothing as of yet.

As for as citations, I've got it for several paragraphs/sections demanded with the quality of the sources varying considering they are rare. The only bit I haven't found really anything is the Energy Minister section, although the phrase (epecially the first part may sound POV a bit.

Now the image, I can forget about it, but I can still check for the parents and the Energy Minister thing, in that last case, I may simply just change the phrase a bit--JForget 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will look at it again and see what, if anything, still needs to be done for a GA pass. Cheers, CP 15:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've expanded the lead to added briefly some of its policies he made such as the social program cuts, and Hydro One sell failure as well as the Federal Accountability Act, and his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol which means it added about 1 kb of text and one paragraph with two more sources including one that includes virtually all the first two lead paragraphs. The broken citations were also replaced and/or resourced. Now the ref numbers are now different since at least two more were added during the changes.JForget 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

May you allow me to ask you why it is necessary to change the order of the categories for the Olympic competitors?? Please allow me also to ask you, if you really like the WP:DATE-style? Only English wiki prefer NOT to add the place of birth/death in the first line behind the dates... To find this info somewhere on the page needs an extra search and is not helpful. This is only my opinion. Thanks and :) Doma-w 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replay. Doma-w 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Miner won bronze in featherweight and Laurie won bronze in flyweight not featherweight. I will correct and merge the Laurie articles. Thanks and :) Doma-w 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. While I am a bit disappointed that it did not meet the criteria for WP:GA, I would like to thank you personally for reviewing it and providing constructive criticisms which will help me improve the article. Who knows? It might end up as a featured article some day. ;) σмgнgσмg 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey dude, just a reminder, when passing a GA, remember to add |topic=xyz to the {{ArticleHistory}}. See WP:UCGA and CAT:UCGA for more info, and an example here. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know that you could add the topic to Article History - will do that from now on! Cheers, CP 15:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 27th October 2007. Epbr123 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite surprising this round, but thank you again! I shall not relent in my efforts! Cheers, CP 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. You know this game as well... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, I do think that Wikipedia is already biased/geared toward the young too much, so that we see lots of articles on things like 'high schools' and even 'high school football players'...many of which are questionable and which could be deleted.

Further, the subject of 'supercentenarians' is one that is relatively new/recent. I do think that there should be a little 'leeway' when nominating articles for deletion...is this person notable? Is it representative? What opportunities are there for expansion?

Clearly, the Nakanishi article was 'marginal' but in reality, it would have been better, I think, not to nominate it. I also note that there wasn't much discussion and the article was deleted...yawn. I did attempt to 'split the difference' but that didn't work. There is something in Japanese society that is more reserved than the American culture. We often see all kinds of family details about Americans, and that's great. But given that we have to find a Japanese article through a language and cultural barrier, that we were able to find, at least:

--a Japanese obituary --a listing on the MHW page

Should have counted for something.

One more problem: Japan tends to favor '#1' so we have articles like this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/04/asia/web.0704japan.php

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/07/04/1406644.htm

http://tudobem.uol.com.br/2005/10/14/morre-homem-mais-idoso-do-pais/

So even though this man was only 110, he had a lot more coverage.

But what if, in the future, Tomoji Tanabe turned out to be a fraud and someone went looking to find a replacement 'oldest man'...whoops, #2 is now gone.

I think that 'ordinal ranking' should count for something. I can understand deleting #7 or #9 but #2 is the backup, in case history needs revising. Kids will think that "Mr. Allingham" was #2 (much more coverage, much more famous...but he was only #3 until Aug 22, 2007).

Ryoung122 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is my main pet peeve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Dorsey

He is known for: dying on the football field. Somehow I don't see why dying at '19' is more notable than dying at 111 (1 in 8 million chance in the most developed nations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. First AfD was no consensus. I wonder how it would fare now that the event is months past and that he's faded from the news (ie. less sources about him). I'll have a look at it, and the arguments presented in AfD, and see if it might be worth renominating. It's interesting to note too that the precedent lately has been to delete articles like this. Cheers, CP 04:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what to do, but some clown keeps on editing the page, and replaces every metion of Toronto with Vancouver. This is the second time this user has done this, and I'm keeping it up so you can view this yourself. Not sure who to contact you were the one who gave the article a rating, so I only assumed to contact you. Is there anyway this user can be banned or the article locked? And how do I revert back to the old article?

Thanks!

BK October 30 2007, 11:14 (UTC)

Looks like you already reverted the changes. I have given the anon their final vandalism warning. If they do it again, they'll be blocked for vandalism. Cheers, CP 16:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all problems you pointed out. Una Laguna^Talk 07:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through all of your concerns. I have but one question:

• I cannot find a source for the Animal Crossing port of Super Mario Bros. Should I delete the mention entirely, or tag it with {{fact}} (though I don't think that would be the best course of action)?

Thanks for reviewing the article and giving me time to fix it up. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say remove it, as it can't pass for GA with unverifiable facts. Anyhow, I'll review it a second time now, even though someone else seems to have taken over the review. Cheers, CP 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. The only time I removed the references was when I cited it multiple times in the same paragraph. I made sure that every paragraph had at least one reference. I also removed references for things that don't need them, like in the "gameplay" section, I had a reference for "stomping" the enemy. When I went back through, I removed it. I can go back and re-add them all if you want. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do, as I am now entirely lost because I can't keep track of the changes you made for me and for someone else, who is not reviewing the article. Cheers, CP 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Doing... - I have just a few references left to restore, should finish by tomorrow afternoon at the latest (due to school). Sorry for any inconvenience. When I am done, the only changes since the review will be edits that address your concerns and me formatting the references using {{cite web}}. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 Question: I have another question: the website that I cited in the Jumping over the flagpole section is not TMK or NESVideos, but another site that has some screenshots and a movie. Is that enough to be verifiable? NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because the source doesn't cite the initial part of the paragraph "Dating from the time of the original Super Mario Bros. release, urban legend claimed..." and, if you removed that part, then the glitch wouldn't be notable. So no, that won't quite work. It does make it verifiable, but it doesn't verify the part that makes it notable, if that makes sense. Cheers, CP 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another  Question: Sorry if I'm being a bit naïve or stupid, but should I go ahead and remove it then? The only other sources I can find are youtube videos, very little actual web content - and then there's nothing to back up the urban legend part. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 00:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, always best to check. Yes, I would agree with Pagrashtak in this case; if there's no source to prove that it's been around since the game's inception, then it's probably no more notable than any of the other glitches. I would remove it and merge the Minus World as a Level 3 heading under game play. Cheers, CP 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And... Done. I've taken care of seven of your nine concerns. User:Pagrashtak knocked down the other two, one of which was the boxart image source concern. He has also changed most of the gameplay citations over to the instruction manual. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 10:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 15:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed your two final concerns. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will check it out shortly. Cheers, CP 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've knocked out your last concern. I've removed unverifiable material from the lead, and I've also rewritten the paragraph in question, primarily because I felt it sounded awkward and didn't flow smoothly. Again, thanks for taking time to review the article. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 01:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will check out out shortly. Cheers, CP 15:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mega-congrats on getting the "Good Article Review of the Month" award! Una Laguna^Talk 06:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Simply put, I'm honoured. Cheers, CP 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually optional for a user to keep their vandalism warnings. ie, you can discard what you regard as unwlecome. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully the issue won't be pressed further. Cheers, CP 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi CP, It seems you have editcountis, a condition that causes you to stay on Wikipedia for hours on end, making 'voluntary' contributions...

So, you blew right by me! Last time you were at 4875:

Contributions summary for: Canadian Paul Username Canadian Paul Total edits 9911 Image uploads 23 (20 cur, 3 old) Distinct pages edited 5478 Edits/page (avg) 1.81 Deleted edits 146 (browse) First edit 2005-01-23 06:53:32 Edits by namespace Namespace Edits Articles 6028 Talk 2488 User 473 User talk 373 Project 419 Project talk 24 Image 41 Image talk 5 Template 39 Template talk 13 Category talk 5 enwiki_p: Portal talk 3

But if I were about 'edit count' alone, I'd add my own cases to 'list of living supercentenarians'...most of the time I ask others to do it.

Question: think you can catch Bart Versieck?Ryoung122 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What spurned this? I care as much about my edit count as I do my age. It's a misleading signifier. Some of my edits are writing entire articles, others are undoing my own dumb edits. I'm going to assume that you were joking about me having editcountitis. Cheers, CP 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Spurred"? I was trying to make small talk. Whether you acknowledge it or not, I notice you edit a lot of articles that I do, and not long after I do...for example Alicia Craig and James Hard. Perhaps it's just coincidence, but I have noticed a pattern. Not that there's anything wrong with that; in fact I welcome 'teamwork' if we are working on the same team, for the same goals (i.e. a better Wikipedia). Like 'gravity', it is no accident that Bart continued to comment on Can't sleep, clown will eat me's page. Humans, as social animals, return to what they know and are familiar with. Now, I know you'd be delighted to be a 'robot' so if you wish we could make "CanadianPaulBot"...does a lot of editing work, shows no emotion.

So, yes, that was a tongue-in-cheek comment.Ryoung122 11:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I acknowledge it. I'm usually watching to see if you've added a notice to add something to a page (list of living supercentenarians, oldest people etc.) and I check out what else you've been doing out of curiosity. My compulsive desire to clean up Wikipedia pages pretty much does the rest. Cheers, CP 15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)\

I'm not a 'technie' and though I'm learning (for example, to use the two colons), I am a believer in a 'division of labor' that focuses people's efforts on what they do best. I'm extremely busy and juggle a lot of responsibilities. Unlike some, who have built their "Wikipedia" user page into a Wikipedia star (someone like Rich Farmbrough, 170,000 edits) I instead see my Wikipedia contributions as focusing on what I know and do best (supercentenarians) though I occasionally venture into other areas (for example, I started the article on 'willow oak' because there wasn't one). There were a lot of low-hanging fruit in 2004 but most of it is gone. I went through the same thing at www.emporis.com: there were a lot of missing buildings in 2001, but now they've gotten almost everything (in the USA, anyway) listed...but I still do new buildings. I acknowledge you are better at the technical things, that's why I asked for help with the 'longevity template' (which is still not fixed, thanks anyway).Ryoung122 21:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, do you think you would find the admin tools useful? You seem well-qualified and I'd be happy to nominate you if you are interested. Tim Vickers 18:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting offer, thank you, I'll have to review the policies and think about it. Most likely, however, I have past history of incivility that, despite apologizing for it, is probably too recent to put the voters at ease. Cheers, CP 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Who with and how recent? If you bring it up in your answer about things that have caused you stress and present it as an experience you learned from I wouldn't see that as a deal-killer. Tim Vickers 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk page, so that you don't have to keep flipping to mine. Cheers, CP 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't handle that conflict perfectly, but it was pretty civil considering the circumstances. I will still be happy to nominate you if you would like to accept. Tim Vickers 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The reason I'm trying to recruit more admins at the moment is that IP page creation is going to be re-enabled on Friday - we're going to need more people with a delete button! Being an admin isn't a big deal, just a few extra functions. Have a look through Wikipedia:Administrators and tell me what you think. Tim Vickers 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, have you given this idea any more thought while you were munching on Ramen in your spacious mansion? Tim Vickers 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I have accepted on the page. Cheers, CP 16:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've included it onto the main page. Good luck! Tim Vickers 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been here. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 23:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Thanks! Cheers, CP 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain that's entirely appropriate to remove the FL designation from featured lists? The precedent seems to be that lists that have passed FL standards are listed as FA articles as opposed to generic lists. Cheers, CP 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the 1.0 tables have "list" as it's own category, I was going through all the lists making them conform to the standard of "class=list" rather than the old "type=list". Now that most match the standard, you're right that it makes sense to again sort out the featured lists from the rest. Currently the 1.0 team does not recognize FL as a class, though I guess it doesn't hurt to put them in the FA row of the tables; either way we'll know that those pages are "complete". I think I will modify the {{WPCANADA}} template to allow the parameter "class=FL", and categorize the pages so marked with the FAs for the 1.0 tables. That way we'll be able to easily sort out all the the FLs from the FAs if we ever need to. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll start marking the FLs when I next get a chance now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. All featured lists in WPCANADA are now marked as Class=FL and are categorized with the FAs. If FL ever becomes it's own recognized class, we can switch all of them over with one edit. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw your complaint on User talk:TimVickers. I still do not understand, if you're intention was not destructive, why you insisted Frank Gaffney died. He's not dead. I've never seen anything attesting to his death. I dont understand why you would indicate otherwise. Perspicacite 06:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted an obituary on your page. It turned out to be a different guy around the same age with the exact same name. An honest mistake on my behalf. You decided that despite the mass of evidence against vandalism, to template me. A terrible violation of WP:AGF. Period. Cheers, CP 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, CP (the article is at the top of the list, though..) I won't put the comment back, and I do appreciate the voluntary work that reviewers do. Cheers, --andreasegde 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, I'm not surprised, because Wikipedia is a 'social experiment', not an encyclopedia, but the 'pot has boiled over':

Are the Oldest-Old or Final Few notable?

Greetings, User Brown-Haired Girl has waged a campaign to wipe out the entire 'supercentenarians' field on Wikipedia. This has included:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28longevity_claims_researcher%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Epstein_%28supercentenarian_tracker%29

And, even, a man dead over 100 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thoms

I find it incredulous that one would attack even the man who invented the term 'folklore' and started the field of 'supercentenarian tracking.'

Such mass hysteria seems to be working. User BHG is one of the top-10 editors by edit count on Wikipedia and has lots of friends. I can't imagine most WWI veteran articles surviving if this trend continues. I do urge everyone who considers tracking the oldest-old, whether WWI vets or no, to chime in on these debates.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, I realize that, one, you might side with the other side. I think that's one thing that many haven't thought of...it's not 'vote-stacking' or 'canvassing' when you ask someone who has been, to put it mildly, an adversary.

So, here is your chance to either drive the stake further, or if you truly believe that some of this anti-supercentenarian push has gone to far, to help right the ship. Whether I'm notable or Louis Epstein is, is a matter of opinion.

Because to question the veracity of a man famous more than 100 years after death is simply ridiculous.Ryoung122 16:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching some of these debates but, I think that, given the circumstances, abstaining myself is the best way to avoid a WP:COI. That's not to say that I would vote to delete all of these articles, but it might not be appropriate for me to comment. Cheers, CP 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to point out, William Thoms isn't up for deletion, just a request for referencing. Cheers, CP 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope I've addressed your concerns, and think I caught everything you noted. Feel free to look it over when you have the time! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, fast work! I will check it out later today! Cheers, CP 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Keeley Dorsey for deletion again. Help with the technical aspects of a second nomination would be appreciated. I note that Wikipedia is not a memorial, the first article for deletion took place too close to the death event, and thus the result (no consensus) may have been skewed. It thus stands to reason that a second nomination should be successful.

Question: Wikipedians insist that Ryan Shay's article not mention that he died at 'only' 28, yet the article on Keeley Dorsey is in effect a 'memorial.' His coverage is based on his 'untimely death' at age 19. He accomplished...ONE career touchdown. That's it. Not notable in any way, shape, or form.Aslan119 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to be a hoax. A search of British records finds:

View Record Name Estimated birth year Year of Registration Quarter of Registration DISTRICT County View Image

View Record

Robert Gamble abt 1829 1887 Apr-May-Jun Leicester (1837-1974) Leicestershire  

View Record

Robert Gamble abt 1826 1891 Jul-Aug-Sep Chesterfield Derbyshire  

View Record

Robert Gamble abt 1829 1897 Jul-Aug-Sep Toxteth Park Lancashire  

View Record

Robert Gamble abt 1829 1900 Jan-Feb-Mar York Yorkshire - East Riding, Yorkshire - North Riding, North Yorkshire, Yorkshire - West Riding  

View Record

Robert Gamble abt 1827 1900 Apr-May-Jun Nottingham Nottinghamshire 

There is no evidence this person existed, and the 'official' records for the world's oldest person started in 1955, not 1932.Ryoung122 06:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All issues you brought up have been addressed, whenever you're ready and have the time to look them over, it'd be great! Thanks so much for the review! Ealdgyth | Talk 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I will look it over in a few minutes! Cheers, CP 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged the sentence into the preceeding. Anything else you can think of? Ealdgyth | Talk 01:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, CP. Nice to meet you. I will try to look at and finish up your list of necessary improvements in the next couple days. I really appreciate the effort you made to review this article for GA. Thank you very much. -Susanlesch 20:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry I may not get back to this in time. Or maybe I will. No idea, sorry to ping. -Susanlesch 09:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but at this time I'm going to have to fail it, as no work has been done on it over the past week. Cheers, CP 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi CP. I have replied to your GAC comments at Talk:T206 Honus Wagner. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, will check it out now! Cheers, CP 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Nishkid64 (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you previously failed my GA nomination on Jane Zhang. I've heeded on your advice and fixed it. Now it is a WP:GA. So I would like to say thanks for the helpful tips and the criticisms! As a result, seeing how there was a giant backlog at the time, I joined the Good article Wikiproject to help and gain experience in reviewing articles.

So, I am currently reviewing Raëlian history and beliefs. This is my first review and I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and read my review to give me improvements on what I should critique on as well as feedback for the article itself. Gotta warn you, the article is long though. ;) Thanks. σмgнgσмg 06:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll try and give you a second opinion later this evening. Probably won't go in depth as I usually do, but will at least point out any serious concerns. Thanks for participating in the project and congrats on your GA pass! Cheers, CP 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll have to be tomorrow actually, but I will get to it then if no one else beats me to the punch! Cheers, CP 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have provided a cursory but, in my mind, important rationale in my second opinion. The notes have been left on the talk page. Cheers, CP 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! σмgнgσмg 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at a request for comment on the St Mark's College discussion page.

This is the result of an ongoing dispute and I think the more people we get to comment, the better chance we'll have of resolving the issue once and for all. You're comments would be much appreciated. Cheers. Username nought 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If I have time later this evening, I will gladly check it out. Cheers, CP 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Paul Soloway. Whenever I create an article, it doesn't seem REAL until someone else has edited it. Sbowers3 22:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have to read up on WP:DATE. I had thought of the heading Biography instead of Early life but it didn't have enough stuff to be called a biography, and what was there was from the earlier part of his life. Oh well, maybe some day someone else will add more material (but looking at other champion bridge players' articles, it may never happen). Sbowers3 01:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought I was on the talk page, sorry. -- SECisek 06:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I got the message! Cheers, CP 06:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth | Talk 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, they're very interesting articles to read! Cheers, CP 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent GA review you did on Thomas Wilson (bishop). Nice to see such thoughtful work. Kudos. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the comments. I ask that you please give me at least one week on hold for this article to be improved. Thank youTourskin 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will look at your response to my concerns soon. Please feel free to address what I have brought up, as that will aid in my decision to apply a hold. Cheers, CP 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't check if he's dead or not. But I don't think so. Alektzin —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I left you a message chez Kerr --- Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded. Cheers, CP 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Canadian Paul. 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 the current talk page.