User talk:Paradiso

You can CLICK HERE to leave me a message. I will respond on this page. Thanks!

To Do[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy - Wikipedia:WikiProject Critical Theory - suffering servant -- CDN guitarists cat & bios Protestant work ethic - Dorothy Delay - Xn classics --cadillac fairview -- Bible books/authors -- messianic judaism -- Council of Jerusalem - Moses ibn Ezra - Knanaya - Jacobus (Jacob) Stainer - kickbacks - white collar crime - creation stories - Divine command theory - Charlie Farquharson (Don Harron) - dazed and confused - Philosophy of religion - John Dee - Wiley Wiggins - Stan Ridgway -- yellow (music group) -- grey owl -- Espresso -- Wikipedia:List of images/Places/North America/Canada Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion -- period piece films Kathleen Parlow, christ and christ types

paradiso | talk

Canadian classical music http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0002653

green red blue

Small Text.

german prison camp

Ehrenhain Zeithain or it could be Stalag XIII-D http://www.stsg.de/main/zeithain/ueberblick/einfuehrung/

Nurnberg (Nuremberg), Bavaria (Officers)

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:hrlFr8_7NWQJ:www.303rdbga.com/pow-camps.html+italian+prisoners+of+war+germany&hl=en http://www.b24.net/pow/The%20Nuremberg%20POW%20camps%201939%20-%201945.htm http://www.catholicleague.org/piusxii_and_the_holocaust/italmit.htm

"SS Conte Biancamano

http://www.chbooks.com/online/eastwest/index.html WP:CWNB

http://www.chbooks.com/ campus-co-op buildings own the old coach house on bpnichole lane just south of *rochdale - campus co-op has to sell, demolishing the historic structure, and maybe ba new res

tables ample http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oven_Fresh

improve: Neo-evangelicalism

Tendencies toward intrenching hierarchical ranks of administration with increasing levels of burocratic power should be avoided if possible. It takes away from the valuable ‘community’ nature of PW. Collaborative problem solving is part of the charm of WP and a lot more fun than a top-down management system. So keep the number of administrative levels to a minimum.

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 23:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Request[edit]

Over at Culture of the United Kingdom one of the main things that is stopping us from putting it forward as a featured article candidate is the fact that the art section is so small (one small paragraph). You have listed yourself on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest as someone with an interest in art. Would you be able to pop over there at some point and help us to expand the section please? Many thanks. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Heya, nice job at André Rieu! The style guide says that even if there's one link the section is called External Links by the way. Happy new year! --fvw * 20:25, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

The Roch[edit]

Nice job on the Rochdale collage article. It brought back memories, seeing as I lived there for 3 years. I wish I still had some of the original documents, newsletters, posters, and paraphenalia, so I could do jpeg's for the article, but I disposed of them decades ago.mydogategodshat 01:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope everything I wrote is true and correct. It seems to me that something like Rochdale could never exist today in Toronto. It must have been a part of the idealism of the 1060s, which is now entirely lost and can't even be imagined. I wish I could find more Rochdale paraphenalia, so far I've found slim pickings on the web -- but some great CBC films about it. Paradiso 22:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wang Ch'ung[edit]

The addition of his period and of the links were very helpful. I'm afraid that your changes to the grammar and style sometimes inadvertently changed the meaning, though, and sometimes made ambiguous what had been unambiguous. I've changed what needed to be changed. Some of your edits were merely matters of personal style (deprecated in Wikipedia, I think); I've sometimes left those, where it didn't matter. You changed my 'unself-inflicted' to 'self-inflicted'; do you have reason to believe that his poverty was deliberate? My understandiong was that it wasn't. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not intend to change the meaning (oops!). I thought the writing was awkward and wordy, so I was trying to make things read clear and precisely.

I thought that by 'unself-inflicted' you actually meant that his poverty was, in fact, deliberate, so I changed it to 'self-inflicted.' So how about saying 'non-self-inflicted,' or simply saying that he lived in poverty? Why do you want to mention that it was not self-inflicted? Why not just say he lived in poverty? Was it common for philosphers to be asetics or to be wealthy? If so, then that should be mentioned and not assumed that readers (like myself) would know.

Also, your sentence "Unusually for a Chinese philosopher of the period" is not grammatically correct. It sounds very awkward and I had to read it twice before I understood what you meant. I do not think one should use “Unusually” in this way. Paradiso 22:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-self-inflicted is better (I don't know why I didn't use that in the first place). What made him unusual was that he was poor — not deliberately ascetic, but actually poor.

I'm genuinely puzzled by your last point, though; it's standard English grammar, a construction found in countless places in literature, academic texts, even journalism. I've used it in a popular book myself, and neither editor nor readers balked at it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it is a Canadian/American convention vs British convention, but "Unusual for a Chinese philosopher of the period..." sounds correct, while "Unusually for a Chinese philosopher of the period..." sounds very odd to me. If it is actually acceptable in British English then I certainly don't mind. Paradiso 22:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the grammatical explanation would be that 'unusual' is an adjective, so needs to govern a noun — but here it's governing 'he was', so we need the adverb 'unusually'. Your version doesn't look wrong to my eyes (you've changed it so that the adjective governs 'he'), it just reads less naturally. You're probably right, it's an Atlantic-rift thing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oxag vandalism[edit]

The vandal is using a known bug in Wikipedia software. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. -- Curps 04:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Aboriginal" vs. "First Nation"[edit]

Hello! In response to your question to me regarding the List of place names in Canada of aboriginal origin, I understand how the terminology of First Nation and aboriginal can be confusing. The Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has an excellent page defining key terminology such as this. You can find it here. Briefly, the terms "aboriginal" and "First Peoples" both describe collectively the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, all of whom have very distinct histories and cultures. I therefore renamed the article to use aboriginal instead of First Nations so that it accurately encompassed places in Canada named by the Inuit and/or Métis people, such as Nunavut. I understand that the proper use of these terms is hit and miss on Wikipedia, but I'm slowly working to ensure our terminology here matches the terminology used by the Government of Canada. I hope this helps, Kurieeto 03:21, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Another luthier[edit]

Paradiso, I see that you did much of the work on the list of luthiers. For me, this is an area of profound ignorance, although I do at least know a lute when I see or hear one, and I suppose that creating even a mediocre lute must be fiendishly difficult. I happened to run across Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quercetani, and found the nomination and first vote peculiarly fatuous. I knew nothing of Quercetani (but admit to a gut feeling that any luthier is intrinsically noteworthy). You may wish to vote one way or another on the article, or to improve it in some way. I don't suppose there's any need to reply, but if you do reply, please do so here (I'll be watching this page). Thanks, Hoary 04:01, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! My vote is to keep. I tried to add some stuff to the article, can still be imporved. Do you know of any other luthiers not listed on the luthier page? Paradiso 07:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. In some cobwebby box somewhere I do have a handful LPs of lute music, and perhaps the makers are mentioned, but that's about it. (I came across this article simply as it was in the "Newpages" list.) -- Hoary 07:51, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
  - Sorry, what I meant was, do you know of any other luthiers that have WP articles that are not listed on the luthier page? Its ok, I'll try to catch them. Paradiso 07:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    - Nope. I suppose you'd just search for "lute". -- Hoary 08:27, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Categories and subcategories[edit]

Paradiso, this shows you adding [[Category:Photography]] to a page that was already marked [[Category:Photography companies]]. However, the latter is a subcategory of the former. It's my understanding that for this very reason the article should not be marked [[Category:Photography]]. Let's take a, er, hypothetical example and suppose that a Mr Crabapple is a luthier and a violin-maker (neither of which implies the other), and that there are categories for luthiers, violin-makers, and (including the former two, as well as much else) musical-instrument-makers. Then Mr C should be added to the former two categories, but not to the third.

I'm sure I've read this somewhere; sorry but right now I lack the stamina to search for the explanatory page. -- Hoary 09:09, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Howdy Hoary! I know what you mean (re. stamina and everything else you said!). I'll explain to you my thinking, and if I am going against some kind of WP policy then I'll change things around. Categories help to direct readers to articles. Categories are always helpful as long as they are relevant. If there are several relevant categories that are similar or subcategories of each other, then add them all! (Since they are all helpful.) What do you think? The specific reason I put the general Category:Photography onto the Voigtländer article was because he helped develop the daguerrotype, and I thought this bit of info belonged in Category:Photography even thougth the thrust of the article is about the Voigtländer company. Should I ask an administrator if there are guidlines about this? (By the way, let's link daguerrotype.) Paradiso 09:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've already reverted. (Hey, let's get into an edit war over this! Then I'll be banned for 24 hours or whatever, and will get a much-needed (enforced) break from WP!) Nuthin' personal. Well, I agree in part with you, and disagree in part. I'm sure that a page explains this, but I can't find it. Yes, do please ask an admin, preferably a big ogre of an admin wielding a very big stick. (Or a small one with a stiletto.) -- Hoary 09:33, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC) ...PS I've just now corrected a disastrous typo in my first message ("Paradiso..."); if it didn't make much sense the first time, note that one category name has now been changed. -- Hoary 09:35, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I like the administrator in stilettos idea! Paradiso 09:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And fishnet stockings. Yes, I think Wikipedia:Categorization explains this one. -- Hoary 01:47, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Thanks for your support for my adminship. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 00:18, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

--for supporting my recent RFA, and for the kind words. Oh, and hello from a fellow violinist! :-) Happy editing, Antandrus 03:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV comments[edit]

Your page states: NPOV is a fallacy because it assumes objectivity. There is no such thing as objectivity. I don't think that the first statement follows from the second. The Wiki NPOV#There's no such thing as objectivity article itself agrees with you on point two: [the policy] "doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view". So it really isn't a "fallacy", because it does not assume objectivity. Rather it is a goal which we strive for. Wouldn't you agree that we can't be perfect, but we should still try? --Blainster 07:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, and I don't think that I'm using the term "fallacy" right either. But anyways, I know about the line you just quoted, and my little argument was something I just wrote out off the top of my head and at this point it's still only half-baked. But I think what I was trying to say was that the best we can do is consensus, because when an article's NPOV is disputed it ends up in a debate on a talk page and then it all comes down to consensus. Consensus therefore over-rules what any one person might think is NPOV. I think I was just tired with editors that have extremely strong opinions who are unwilling to compromise what they obviously believe is the objective truth. But, alas, consensus must over-ride personal opinion, since no one can agree on what the objective truth is. I think THAT is how we try to be "perfect," as you suggested. I guess I should try to rework my syllogism. Paradiso 07:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rochdale[edit]

I think you should go ahead and make your edits with the sources identified. I will keep an eye on the page and revert where necessary. Thanks for the good work. Ground Zero 17:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My very first NPOV tag ever, and you make it unnecessary within minutes. Nice work, and thanks. Adding in the references may not prevent further edits, but it means that we're justified in making quick reversions. We'll have to keep an eye it. Ground Zero 02:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netbux[edit]

Please reconsider your vote to delete the article Netbux, which has been completely re-written. Your delete vote reflects your attitute to the previous version of the page, but I am sure your vote will be to keep the current version. Thanks. THE KING 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biography Naming Conventions: Journalistic vs. Formal Style[edit]

I wanted to thank you for your help with Biography Naming Conventions: Journalistic vs. Formal Style. Although we may differ on style, it's go to be able to agree with someone about that difference. :-) --ghost 15:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OCAD[edit]

The Ontario College of Art & Design is not a community college, so can you explain to me why you keep reverting my changes? This link [1] says "Our distinct university education in art and design focuses on creativity and innovation." This link [2] says "With a large university campus dedicated exclusively to the visual arts, OCAD offers students more depth and breadth in course offerings in art and design than any other institution in Canada." This link [3] says "Today, OCAD is the third largest of the approximately 40 professional art and design universities in North America." That link also says "Its university status has led to a number of significant changes such as a renewed curriculum, a new professorial structure for faculty, a research mandate, a new system of governance, and preliminary groundwork for future graduate programs." Darkcore 22:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkcore! I wasn’t sure who was doing it, otherwise I would have spoken to you about it.

This is the problem – and I am not sure how to solve it:

OCAD (my own alma mater, among others) recently started offering university (4-year Bachelor’s) degrees. This is the exact same situation with all the other “community colleges” listed in this section. They all offer degrees in programmes that suit their school’s own focus. These degrees are not offered in cooperation with any other institution but taken completely within the one school. The only exception is RCM’s Glen Gould School [4] that offers a degree in cooperation with another school.

“Community Colleges” that now offer their own degrees:

Seneca [5]

Centennial [6]

Humber [7]

Tyndale University College and Seminary [8]

Some are called “universities,” others are called “colleges,” and these terms used to mean something different in Canada, but I guess that isn’t always the case any more since BOTH kinds of schools offer degrees AND diplomas.

Therefore, do you think we should make any distinction at all between universities and community colleges, or just call them all “universities” (as you’re suggesting with OCAD, even though it has the word “college” in its name), OR, as they do in the US, call them all “colleges” and specify “community college” only when they do not offer degrees?

Sorry for the long response. Paradiso 22:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By my understanding, a community college is not necessarily defined by the types of degrees it grants, but rather, by its "open admission" status. That is, the community colleges you mentioned that offer bachelor's degrees are typically open to anyone that meets a specific requirement (e.g., Grade 12). (Though I realize that some high demand programs, such as Sheridan's graphic design program, are not entirely "open admission".) On the other hand, universities do not have an open admission policy. (I don't like the way Americans use the word "college" because of its ambiguity and, besides, that usage is not really widespread in Canada anyway.)

As such, I think it would be misleading to call Seneca et al. "universities" since they really aren't. As far as I can tell, they don't call themselves universities and I don't think you'll meet many Torontonians who would either.

I'm not sure if you saw my edit, but I didn't label OCAD as either a community college or a university, choosing instead the more vague "art school". I feel that this is an appropriate compromise. Let me know what you think. Darkcore 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally not a fan of lists in a city article, because they give very little information and offer limited flexibility, and an encyclopedia, I feel, should read more like prose.

That being said, I think there is still a strong distinction between community colleges and universities in Ontario. Community colleges are geared to vocational and applied skills training (hence their distinction as "colleges of applied arts and technology" [9]) while universities are geared more towards academic pursuits and research. The bachelor's degree programs that I reviewed at the various community colleges were applied in their nature and geared towards developing the necessary skills to enter the workforce quickly. (This is probably in response to the fears associated with receiving a "traditional" bachelor's degree and that many graduates are having difficulty finding appropriate work after graduation.) Bachelor's programs at "traditional" universities are much more general in nature and allow people to study a broad range of topics. We can even include this information in the article itself.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, and I don't think that the article is doing this either, but since there is a distinction between the two, it would be misleading to just lump together all of the post-secondary institutions together, since Seneca College, for example, is not the same as the University of Toronto, and is not the same as OCAD. Darkcore 16:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User categorisation[edit]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Italy page as living in or being associated with Italy. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Italy for instructions. --Army1987 21:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Wikipedia to Toronto[edit]

I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 16:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

BpNichol Lane[edit]

I just wanted to inform you that this article now redirects to B. P. Nichol. Many Toronto-area roads are being nominated for deletion because they aren't significant enough. While bpnichol Lane meets that criteria too, it has sufficient links to the author that a redirect was made. Let me know if you have questions or concerns aobut this. Mindmatrix 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania meeting tommorrow[edit]

Hello, and thanks for signing up at Wikimania_2006/Toronto. It has been announced that there will be a half hour meeting on the Wikimania IRC channel tomorrow October 2, at 20:00 UST (4:00 pm EST) to pick the 3 city shortlist. It would be great if you could attend. Also these are our last hours to ensure that our bid at Wikimania_2006/Toronto is as good as it can be, so any improvements to it would also be useful. There are now four cities in the running, so tomorrow one is getting cut. - SimonP 20:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Birthday Balloon[edit]

Award

Wiki birthday to you! Wiki birthday, dear Paradiso! Wiki birthday to you!

Congratulations on your first Wikibirthday at Wikipedia (November 4, 2005.). On behalf of the community, we'd like to thank you for your countless edits in the past year! Keep it coming!.

This Wiki Birthday Balloon was awarded to you by: SoothingR

Rochdale College[edit]

Hi Paradiso,

I'm doing some research on Rochdale colleg, but I cannot find any formal connection between it and Innis college. Can you please explain if there is any, as you implied, or if the 'association' is not based on any formal connection? thanks. Xuzicheng 22:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User categorisation[edit]

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater page. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians by alma mater for instructions. --Cooksey 22:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada[edit]

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow blogger[edit]

Hi,

I hope you're OK with this post. Please, remove it if it's not the right place to do this. I just started a blog on Blog spot and my first post is about Wikipedia. Since you're a user of both, maybe you could help me advertise it a little bit. If you can't that's ok. Here's the link.

A. W. Tozer[edit]

Paul, I've just done a bit of editing to Aiden Wilson Tozer. As you created the page, you might like to review my edits, and the earlier ones by other users. Also please look in Talk:Aiden Wilson Tozer. DFH 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RivkaGolani.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:RivkaGolani.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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
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 ☠ 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Penne.jpg[edit]

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RivkaGolani.jpg[edit]

I deleted it because it was listed as a Replaceable fair use image for more than 7 days.Geni 12:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello,are you canadian?

Hello. Yes I am. Paradiso 04:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Di Gangi and Daniel Band....[edit]

Not that we'd see them together in concert (although Dr D's pastor son-in-law did attend a couple of concerts...as a prayerful supporter), but I appreciate seeing that you participated in the Afd, resulting in KEEP. I've also updated Daniel Band's entry with a 2006 rehash of their 4 gigs this year (didn't mention the Pickering "dry-run" the week prior to Audio Adrenaline farewell)...thanks for your part in starting that a couple years ago! Bacl-presby 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you weren't notified of this ...[edit]

Actually, I didn't do the prod, but I wanted to be sure someone put a notice here. Pastordavid 02:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bayview Glen Church[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bayview Glen Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Bayview Glen Church. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Pastordavid 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churches Deletion[edit]

Someone did the Advent thing and put up a massive list of Churches recently, including a number of stubs I've worked on...(and all listed in Churches in Edmonton)...guess there are some Scrooges out there, uttering Bah, Humbug....' Bacl-presby 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Fleishman[edit]

Hello, I have been trawling through the Articles lacking sources from December 2005 and this one which you created came up, a quick search of the internet revealed nothing, my next move is to check the articles history to get a bit of a feel for the contributors. When I did this you came up as creator and you are still active, this is usually not the case. I am hopeful that you can provide those references and help clear this backlog, many thanks --Matt 04:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IggyPopTomWaits1.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:IggyPopTomWaits1.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 that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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 ☠ 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:ROM ceiling.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:ROM ceiling.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Image:VaticanCityentrance.jpg and several others. --Sherool (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Django&Grappelli.jpg[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Django&Grappelli.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Grappelli&Jean-LucPonty.jpg[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Grappelli&Jean-LucPonty.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2009[edit]

Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009 The University of Toronto is the planned host site, which I see is your alma-mater! Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.
Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009

-- Zanimum 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CoffeeandCigarettesSegment1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CoffeeandCigarettesSegment1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Wbrz 07:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...[edit]

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 23:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:LionaBoyd.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:LionaBoyd.jpg. I noticed 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 that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OrchestreMétropolitain.jpg[edit]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GinoQuilico.jpg[edit]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:NorbertKraft.gif[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:NorbertKraft.gif. I noticed 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 that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

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 even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JennyAgutterLogansRun.jpg[edit]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto)[edit]

An editor has nominated Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale[edit]

I lived in Rochdale and you did not from what you are saying , the drugs were not controlled by bikers. Bikers were a small part of it.Get your facts straight and yes I have a PH.D from there.

Flowerchild in modern world 24.82.99.248 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:PortiaWhite.gif[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me tell you sir[edit]

many of the "facts" as you present them in your piece on Rochdale College are incorrect.Your selection of "Yellow Journalism " pieces such as Rochdale had alliance between the Vagabonds and Rochdale Security are pure fiction. As a person who worked on that Security force from 1970-75 while attending York University at the same time, I can say with calrity and truth there was never any alliance and there never were any "bikers" serving on our Security force. The only deal ever struck with the Vagabonds was that they not wear their "colors" and they were not to cause problems when they came into the building. Very few ever did come. The fiction that they did and that hard drugs were sold openly in Rochdale was created by the Metro police and the Toronto papers. That stuff belied the existence of what was really going on in Rochdale. Re you ambulance reports etc_ I have photocopies of three years of those reports. The 3 DOAs included one mentally disturbed girl named Linda Thompson who had a long history of attempting to commit suicide. She had tried a total of 33 times before she was successful-most of those attempts had occured long time prior to her arrival in Rochdale. A second DOA was a 15yr old kid whose parents had thrown him out of the house in Hamilton. Looking for shelter and drugs he came to Rochdale and managed to sneak in past Security, rebuffed on his attempts to get drugs, even more depressed, he commited suicide by jumping out the 17 th floor laundry room window, he had no connection and was not known to anyone resident in the building. Autopsy reports showed no drugs in his system according to the police at 52 Division.The 3rd DOA was when a bank robber and his girlfriend using fake ID managed to rent an apartment on the 3rd floor of the College. 10 days later the bank robber killed his girlfriend. Again these people were totally unknown to the community at large and no connection to the building.

I read through your remarks when Nickie tried to set you straight. She was indeed who she claimed, our PR officer

It looks from your remarks that you would rather see Rochdale as something it wasn't rather than the place that it was. I assure you that if you were to actually meet some of the 10,000 or so of us who lived there over the course that 7 year span , you would find very, very few of us who don't look back with fond memories of what we went through in our Rochdale experience. That you appear to want to make our community look like what the Toronto papers said instead of listening to what we the residents say then you don't appear much interested in the truth. Larry Claypool Rochdale Security 1970-75 email Blackeagle@shaw.ca—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.217.228 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Rochdale again[edit]

If you are really interested in writing a more factual article on Rochdale I would certainly be able to help you. As I noted I am a former Rochdale Security guard Actually I was the longest serving PAID member of that Security force. I also have a fair amount of original material on Rochdale including most of the Toronto newspaper articles on us, the 1972 College Catalog,a Rochdale degree, 3 years of ambulance reports and a still pretty intact memory of most of the major events that occured there. I also have have most of the photos of our official photographer and College Secretary, Alex Macdonald. I am also a card-carrying member of the Rochdale College Alumni Association. I maintain contact with a couple hundred of the core group who worked on the Governing Council, Education Council, Eviction Appeals board, Rochdale Security and the Maintenance dept.

Most of the material on Rochdale that is out there is not very well done. For example, Ron Manns Dream Tower documentary is basically crap

Henry M's book is basically based on his interviews with Alex MacDonald who I mentioned above but lacks real depth because he did not bother to interview all that many people other than Alex.

Steves Sores site on Rochdale has some interesting stuff but suffers from a lack of hard resources.

Probably the most defintive work done so far on Rochdale is by my friend Brian Grieveson. Brian does a reasonable job but because he was a junkie back in the day he suffers from alot of predjudice particularly in the way he presents Security. He had to duck us back then because of being a junkie-had I or any of the rest of Security known at the time he would have been quickly evicted-we did not tolerate hard drugs or hard drug users after 1970. If you use Facebook you can find me in a couple of photographs under the group Rochdalians-you can also contact me at Blackeagle@shaw.ca------Larry Claypool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.217.228 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Paradiso! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 974 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Leila Josefowicz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Johannes Finkel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Erika Raum - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Ángel Reyes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mikhail Kopelman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:CanadianOperaCo.jpg[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Johannes Finkel[edit]

The article Johannes Finkel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for notability since May 2012

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thornton Hall for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thornton Hall is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Hall until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Laub–Petschnikoff Stradivarius[edit]

The article Laub–Petschnikoff Stradivarius has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't see why this particular violin is notable, particularly since there are 699 others just like it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donnchadh (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]