User talk:Blotto adrift

Welcome!

Hello, Blotto adrift, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Flibirigit 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Wildnox (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings, Ontario

I think you are right, however, the village website still refers to Hastings as a village. I suppose I should make the changes. I will also redo the Trent Hills article so as to make it a bit more central. Dhastings 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

I see a bunch of editors have worked on Stephen Colbert Day. Maybe it will alleviate edits to Oshawa, Ontario and the Oshawa Generals. Flibirigit 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkommen

Good to see a fellow Canuck on Wikipedia. Hope you enjoy it as much as I have! Trekphiler 08:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townships

Hi, Current municipalities follow the "name, Ontario" format while historical (and geographical) townships follow the "name Township, Ontario" format. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously.

If you vandalize Wikipedia, you will go to Heaven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.36.38 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Counter-Vandalism Unit

Given your help in reverting vandalism done to the Invalid disambiguation page, I would encourage you to join the Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism Unit, if you are not already a member. Thanks for the help. Chiros Sunrider 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

My account has not been hacked...i've just been having very rough nights with my parents (which has been the norm ever since i was born), and i've also been reading about horrendous child abuse cases in the news, so i thought i should put the truth of parenting in the article. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Whitby Public Library

Hello. I have left a comment on Talk:Whitby_Public_Library, an article you recently created, regarding my reasons for tagging the article with a 'NPOV disputed' tag. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a reply to your message on my talk page. It doesn't matter that you just included its history; Wikipedia:Conflict of interest clearly states that editing articles about something you are affiliated to is conflict of interest. I believe that Whitby Public Library is a very good article (in fact, I was originally coming to your talk page to congratulate you on the article), it's just that it violates Wikipedia policy. It's my duty as a Wikipedian to request that the article be deleted. If you don't want the article to be deleted (I don't), please ask another editor to write the article. Obviously, the editor would have to completely re-write the article, since it's been biased. I would also like to tell you that the fact that others do the crime and write biased articles doesn't give you the right to do it. You stated that you knew of other biased articles. If this is true, I suggest you report them immediately. Finally, please remember to always add new comments at the bottom of talk pages. Don't let this incident dis encourage you. Please continue to contribute to this wonderful encyclopedia. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that I have made a mistake. I don't have to delete the article, just report it to the admins. I only have to do this if you don't follow my suggestion to have the article re-written. Please re-write the article or I will report it. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a reply to your message on my talk page. I must say you are incredibly and totally right. You exercised great caution and wrote a great article. I think this incident is the perfect example of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. However, I am being bold and following policy by reporting the incident to the admins. I'm almost sure they will keep the article as it is, but my gut tells me I have to follow policy and report the article. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

How may I be off assistance to you?..----Cometstyles 02:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for answering so quickly. An article I wrote has been flagged for COI at [1]. I don’t agree with the flag, but I’m not sure how to respond to this…do I reply? Am I expected to state my opinion? Or do I just let the admins do their work? Appreciarte your help. Blotto adrift 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'am not an expert regarding WP:COI, but I think it would be best if you asked an admin to read it and verify it because the reason for it being tagged was because the person thought its neutrality might get challenged because of your close association with Whitby Public Library and I have read the article and it's well written but I believe it might fail notability so I believe it should be re-written (because it is a bit bias) or it might get deleted..Cheers..----Cometstyles 11:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of WPL?

Hello, Blotto adrift. Are you able to take a photo of the Whitby Public Library? Because of our copyright rules, the easiest way to bring in pictures is to upload photos you have taken yourself. If you have a digital camera I could point you to the steps to follow. The old Carnegie library is also worth a picture, I think. The photo on WPL's own website looks rather promotional and you can't even clearly see the library, so a new one would be preferred. EdJohnston 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPL

Your work for WPL is good. Keep it up. After reading a couple articles about public libraries in Ontario, actually I was thinking about writing an article about Carnegie library. As pers EdJohnston's comment, if you need help to get a photo of WPL let me know. I may go to Pickering Public Library sometime next two weeks and can stop by Whitby to take it as well. Gerogia 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gilchrist

Thanks. I've been meaning to fix this page for a while -- I've just been too busy with other matters. CJCurrie 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to wait until our anonymous friend responds. If he's unable to provide any verification regarding the "Canadian Press" claim, then I suspect we'd within our rights to return the contentious passage. CJCurrie 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham-Kent, Ontario page

Nice work on the Chatham-Kent page Blotto adrift, that's been needing a solid clean up for a while now, looks good. Let's hope we can maintain it as a solid base for the article in the future. Thanks again for the great job! Way to be "bold'! cheers Deconstructhis 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits to what people NEED to know, not what some dipshit in Toronto THINKS people should know.. CHEERS!

Townships

Doesn't really matter where they get redirected. I was thinking in terms of "this township became part of this municipality", but the county would be a perfectly legitimate redirect target, too. My main concern has to do with pointing them to a logical parent destination instead of having an unsourced and unverifiable standalone stub on every single geographic township in the province — that would be unmanageable and more or less unnecessary. But I'm really not wedded to whether the redirect points to the municipality or to the county, as long as it points somewhere useful. On the other hand, townships which were actually incorporated as municipalities are certainly viable article topics if there are good sources to be had — but for an unincorporated geographic township, redirecting it serves pretty much the same purpose as anything we could possibly write about it as an independent topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility, especially for single-tier municipal entities like Chatham-Kent or Norfolk, would be to do something like what I did with the individual communities within Greater Sudbury — instead of fifty-odd unreferenceable permanent stubs about individual communities, each community (with the obvious where-on-earth-would-it-go exception of Wanup) now redirects to one of seven larger articles organized along the lines of the pre-2001 municipalities. It was a viable solution in that case because the old municipal names do still have currency as informal names for the different parts of the amalgamated city — and even without actually adding all that much new information, they already look like better and more substantial articles that way than they did as individual stubs.

So if the old township names of Kent County still have some local currency in today's Chatham-Kent (I'm not familiar enough with the area to know whether that's true or not), then one possibility would be to keep the former townships as independent articles, and redirect the hamlets within those townships to those articles, while keeping the places which were independently incorporated as towns or villages (Chatham, Tilbury, Wallaceburg, etc.) separate. Not something that has to happen, of course, but one option among many. It wouldn't be a viable approach to the various neighbourhoods of metropolises like Toronto or Ottawa, for example, nor would it be helpful on really small cities like Temiskaming Shores whose main articles are so short that it's more logical to just redirect the local communities straight to the primary article. It's an approach I view as most helpful for midsize cities which are large enough that the parent article does need to be fragmented, but not large enough that there's anything really substantial that can be written about each individual neighbourhood as an independent topic. So I guess it's really a matter of deciding what the most logical presentation is in each individual case. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenton, Ontario

"please do research before editing pages. for example city of trenton - Jason Michelakos is one of the few scholars the city has and you keep deleting him. (I wonder why academics do not let wiki to be sited)" (added to userpage by 67.70.41.80) Blotto adrift (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"change the page trenton ontario again without research will result in a ban from wikipedia." (added to userpage by 67.70.41.80) Blotto adrift (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have double checked some of the info you keep changing on several pages. Please do not edit unless you can source or Research the information you are changing. Thank you" (added to userpage by 67.70.41.80). Blotto adrift (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP banned blocked

Greetings, Blotto adrift. IP 69.***.**.*, the latest to be troubling the Trenton article and yourself has now got multiple warnings and a second block of one week. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Greetings. I was a bit slow today to help out with the antics on Trention (I did one rv) but I see that the IP is blocked and the page now protected. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trenton, Ontario

Re your message: You're welcome. Another couple of admins noticed your posting about the issue on WP:ANI and semi-protected the article for two weeks and blocked the latest IP address for 24 hours. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Yes, that's the same guy, though his modus operandi has changed a little bit, but not enough not to recognize him. Another admin noticed his trolling/canvassing and blocked him. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it seems

that Betacommand likes to delete other people's comments on the talk pages, when they don't particularly agree to his pro-gun control ideas. Now he's not only deleted the anon's comments on the discussion page, now mine also. It is mildly ironic, if not exasperrating, that I can state on the talk page that the article is most likely to be reverted without people discussing on the talk page, and five minutes later, look who reverts without ever talking on the discussion page.

--Jadger (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]