Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 18 July 2006

Please stop POV pushing in the articles on Ontario's regional municipalities. dcandeto 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario because it violated WP:NPOV. Please read the policy. Thank you. PCEevee 22:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your second edit Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario, not only because it violated What Misplaced Pages is not under "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox", but also because the content is utterly irrelevant and downright incorrect in the Niagara article. Please don't do this again. --Qviri (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly Stop Vandalising MY ARTICLE.... I am not touching yours. And I have created my own entry. My information is factual and correct. If you don't like the truth about the Regions then act to get rid of them and leave the messanger alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.134.91 (talk • contribs) .

It's biased and against two policies: WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. That's why it can't be on Misplaced Pages. PCEevee 00:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant information in the Niagara article. Period. I'm sad that Mississauga doesn't like being in the Peel Region much, but please do something real about it and stop vandalising totally unrelated Misplaced Pages articles. --Qviri (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also please be advised that articles on wikipedia are not "owned" by anyone. The Muskoka article is not yours. It's everyone's. Even if it was someone's, what would be your reasoning for claiming it's yours? --Qviri (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We have been explaining ourselves. What you are writing is in blatant violation of the WP:NPOV policy. I cannot see what you fail to understand. This is your last warning. The next time you post the propaganda, you will be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. PCEevee 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are being officially warned:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please stop before I report you at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Qviri (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstatng my editing rights. My article is about the Nine Regions and I am posting it only on those Nine Regions. The statements are factual and the conditions are real and therefore should be published on Misplaced Pages.

If there is something in the article that is incorrect I would appreciate hearing what is it and what is the truth is I am wrong. Thanks for your attention.

By the way, you can only edit your own talk page. Also, may I recommend registering for an account? It's easy, fast, free, and has many benefits.

I blocked you for violation of the Three-revert rule. Please review the policy before coming back to Misplaced Pages. Please discuss major changes you plan on making to the article. Realize that no one "owns" an aricle (see WP:OWN), but rather, is the result of a community's work. If you have any further questions, please e-mail me or contact me at my talk page. Have a nice day. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

IP

But it WAS MY addition that was being deleted by them. I captioned mine perfectly good article distinctly. I was not touching anyone elses work. They kept deleting mine without reason. If they dispute what I posted they should have had the courtesy of raising a dispute. Instead they kep deleting my post and then complained that I was a vandal. I warned them not to delete my article and to dispute or tell me what they don't recognize as truthful.

Blocking me was not called for. They are the ones that should have been blocked from deleting my work.

I tried reaching you but I am blocked from adding to your talk to me page.

You can stop bullshitting now. I was going to be polite about this but quite frankly I'm pissed off right now.

You have been told by both PrimeCupEevee and myself about WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. These are established Misplaced Pages policies your entry is in violation of. You still claim we haven't explained our edits.

Let's take a sample addition, , since I've witnessed the Niagara system work. To start up, you're inventing new phrases - "mezzanine layer"? wtf? - which incidentally violates WP:NOR. Next up, you say Both the Cities and Towns below it and the Province above it have democratic political structures but Ontario's version of Regions does not. This is patently false; the Niagara Regional Council is, to quote its own page, elected for three-year terms and also contains mayors of each municipality... Incidentally the mayor of a municipality is chosen democratically. Next comes a very importantly sounding complex sentence, The great amount of downloading by the province and uploading by the Cities, Towns under them all paying into this Interconnected Regional Network of Public Business Officials, when the citizens have no democratic right or and say in what the employed regional administration actually do with the money after they get it, but unfortunately I don't have a clue what you're trying to say? Are you saying that money goes where taxpayers don't have control over it? Again, patently false.

The last paragraph shows all there is to understand about your so-called "articles". (BTW - the entire page is the 'article'. What you were adding are called 'sections'.) A graphic example of this wholly unfair condition is found within Peel Region where the City of Mississauga that has always had as much as 75% of the population of all Peel, paid more than 75% of all the taxes, yet has only even had at most 40% of the vote on the Regional Government's decision. Similar conditions exist throughout the Regional Mezzanine Layer of Government in Ontario in the Networked Nine Region of Ontario.

I am sorry if residents of Mississauga feel they are ripped off by Peel Region. However, to say that similar conditions exist elsewhere is a gross exaggeration. No city in Niagara has more than 40% of the region's population. Ditto Halton, Durham and York. Biggest city in Waterloo Region, Kitchener, has less than 50% of region's population. This topic does not deserve a prominent mention in any article except the Peel Region. Even there, it has to be much more neutrally stated - wholly unfair condition is not NPOV at all. I will attempt to re-write the mention in the Peel article in the next 24 hours, and we can discuss changes to that section. Please keep your 'article' out of the other pages. --Qviri (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just finished re-phrasing the info on the Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario page. While there, I noted a number of things...

• First of all, the population of Peel is 988,948, and the population of Missisauga is 612,925. This is nowhere close to Mississauga constituting 75% of Peel's population, like your additions stipulated. This does not leave me impressed.
• Much of the information was already present in the article, in the section immediately above it. While I find your determination to not mess with others' information admirable (your threats to delete our articles notwithstanding), that's not really how wikipedia works. We'd much rather have you add information to the existing section, keeping in with the style and format of the section, than to add a new one immediately underneath, that was edited to basically read as a rant deriding Peel Region and all the things it stood for.

Please take a look at the Peel article now and bring up on its talk page any factual points that you feel are missing. Let's co-operate on this; I did not enjoy my night on wikipedia tonight, and I'm sure you didn't either. Can we all get along? --Qviri (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP Guy

Ok, I will compromise with you. I see that some of the problem relates to the basic lack of understanding most people have about Ontario's Regional Network Structure. I have been a participat of it for many many years and I should be able to put together a whole Wiki page devoted to Regional Structure and history, major players, and current and past activities and the controversies over the years ever since Bill Davis put them in place back in the 70's against everyone else's wishes at the time.

What I intend to do is create a new page just on the Nine Regional Governments of Ontario as a Network and I will then put a link on each of the region's pages to that new page that will contain more historical and detail about the more specific structural problems that all Nine Regions represent to Ontario and in fact all of Canada; and explains why they result in the Mississauga Condition and others elsewhere, including the current Toronto problems after Metro Region annexed the cities and towns of Toronto under them.

Do we have a deal? We should be able to work together to make Wiki a more informative place.

BTW. if Peel population is what you say then Brampton must be 320K not 415K do the math. Caledon has always been 55K for more than 20 years because they don't allow development up there. If you read my post it say it has been as high as 75% yet only ever had 40% of the seats. It's less than 75% now only because Mississauga ran out of raw land years ago.

Could you specify what regions you were a participat of? Surely you must have been involved in a lot of them if you feel entitled to make sweeping generalisations of phenomenons that I, incidentally, have not noticed in Regions of Niagara and Waterloo.

You are certainly free to create your own articles. (Well - not without a username in this new Misplaced Pages.) However, you must ensure that its contents follow WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and other Misplaced Pages policies. Anyone is free to edit "your" pages in accordance with the line right under the editing box... "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

If the said page will be written in a policy-abiding way and will contain content relevant to the Regions, I will of course not oppose inclusion of a link to it.

Content-specific notes: I would consider always had up to 75% a purposefully misleading statement, and I wish you wouldn't use it. --Qviri (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The IP Guy

I've dealt with 8 out of the 9 for several decades and also many of the local governments and organizations under them. I am very qualified to write up factual reports on the subject. I will be more careful in my choice of words so it won't be interpreted as being biased due to the general public lack of knowledge about what the Nine Regional Governments of Ontario are, how they operate and their general history as a layer of government with unique properties not found anywhere else which all Nine share because of their baasic structure.

Please talk to me before deleting anything I write so we don't get into a pissing contest. If someone goes to all the trouble of writting something out here, it is offensive to just delete it without discussion. If something is writen up not to your liking we should try to resolve the dispute over the wording and clear up missunderstandings.

That certainly does sound just fine. Just don't go around spamming pages with material blatantly and rather one-sidedly slamming Peel Region... That just makes people unhappy, and we hit the revert button before we have a chance to find out your qualifications or what was really meant by always up to 75%. --Qviri (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Ixfd64 01:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

WikiDoo/WikiRoo/etc.: Before you make any further edits to Misplaced Pages, please review Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry in its entirety. Please pick ONE username and edit under that username. Thank you --AbsolutDan 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alphachimp 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with these warnings. I don't think though that removing the warnings is the best idea. Perhaps you could create a username or append the message below. Regards, Alphachimp 01:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please use the rationale parameter to explain why this user talk page should be deleted. (E.g., {{db-u1|rationale= }}.) Thanks!

Per the User page guidelines, user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libellous information posted to your talk page may be removed by making a request for oversight.

Users who have left Misplaced Pages may be added to Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. and also the WikiRoo page where I have been blocked from editing my own talk page without any reasons - You have a few administrators here who get off on pissing people off from participating in Wiki... I think you need to clean up some of this group enjoying pissing new people off.