User talk:AverageGuy

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go back and look at the KINSELLA page. Kinsella's sock has reverted your edits to get rid of all the lawsuit stuff. 142.78.190.137 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Top Ten Jerks Page

Do not link to that page. It smears Bourrie, lumping him in with David Irving and claiming he was investigated by the Press Gallery. Wikipedia does not need this type of trash. The Bourrie blog link with the apology is enough. Retilian Kitten Eater 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is enough, you think it is enough, but given the page's history, I can virtually guarantee that someone (or someone's sock) will argue that it is not enough. In any case, I think I have found a way around this problem. Please let me know what you think. AverageGuy 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK with me. Hopefully we can all just ignore the page, and them, forever. Retilian Kitten Eater 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Kinsella "enemies list" thing is too shabby for Wikipedia. Sorry about the sock allegation. Obviously, it doesn't fit, and I must acquitRetilian Kitten Eater 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the talk page thing at least from my perspective. I'm glad to see that you two worked out the issue without me. --JGGardiner 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Retillian Kitten Eater is a sock of a banned user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis Kla'quot 04:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No surprise there, I guess. They both have the same approach: shoot first, ask questions later -- and always assume bad faith. He apologized on this page (see above), but continued to trash me on JGGardiner's talk page. AverageGuy 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on those pesky David Anber changes. I don't like having my comments changed. It is somewhat odd because he's twice changed my comment from "thanks for the Anber link" to "thanks for the Anber". He's also removed my mention of the January 23rd article. --JGGardiner 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anber.JPG

The photo Anber (editor) posted of David Anber (person) on Wikipedia.

Yes, and thanks to you on the same matter. I don't mind if Anber removes or edits his own comments, but the anonymous user doesn't have the right to change someone else's comments, whether yours or Anber's. He claims to be speaking for David Anber (the person), but the edit history for user Anber shows that he wanted the David Anber article and worked to keep it from getting deleted. [1] [2] [3] He even went so far as to post a photo of David Anber on Wikipedia. [4] AverageGuy 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove my name and my mention of my name. Despite me musing about the article posted about me, I never asked for this and would have preferred to not have so much junk about me on Wikipedia. Your cooperation would be appreciated -- also any e-mail to my username @ sympatico.ca would be welcome.Anber 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep posting stuff about yourself and your company, and then complaining about all the "junk" about you on Wikipedia. My post above merely repeats what you have done. If it's junk, it's your junk, not my junk. AverageGuy 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AverageGuy, will you please be considerate and remove the content about me. I'm asking you, not because you have to but because I'm hoping you'll just be a nice guy and remove it.Anber 01:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AverageGuy, why do you want to keep this on your page though. This subject appears to be wrapping up. Anber obviously screwed up and obviously he learned his lesson. Do you really need to teach it to him anymore? —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:44, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Average guy, I have been following this debate for a little bit and I agree with you. But remember there are real people behind these handles and he may have made a mistake, but maybe you should cut him some slack. 74.114.166.174 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the history of this problem is essentially the same as JGGardiner's.[5] That said, if you want others to help you out of your jam, you need to exhibit some good will. Specifically, you have to stop trying to "work the system," to borrow JGGardiner's phrase. This means:

stop claiming you didn't create the David Anber article, that User:Canpolijunkie created it, that you never wanted the article, and that you only mused about having the article;
stop using sockpuppets and meatpuppets to create the image that others are supporting you;
stop unilaterally altering other people's comments;
stop claiming that a consensus supports your actions, where no such consensus exists; and
stop using Wikipedia to promote yourself and your business.

Will you agree to that? AverageGuy 12:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Anber 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that Anber didn't live up to his commitment above: [6]. AverageGuy (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given this article, I would think that David Anber has bigger things to worry about than erasing his earlier foolish comments from Wikipedia: "Lawyer who posted confidential material caught up in police sting," Ottawa Citizen, December 6, 2012.[7] AverageGuy (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is okay with you, can I remove my Anb*r comments? He's requested it and I'd just like to get the whole thing over with. I don't want to remove comments from your talk page without asking you first. Thanks. And thanks for your work on that file. I'm glad to see that this thing is finally resolved and I think your agreement with him is the reason.

This all reminds me a little of the bzzr gardens (sometimes BEvERage gardens) at one of my universities. --JGGardiner 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem with me. I suspect the whole thing will be finished now that he has what he wanted. I only wish he had approached this in a more up-front way. I guess they don't teach that in law school. AverageGuy 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think Ottawa U has a mandatory [[alternative dispute resolution] course.

Like I said, if it weren't for the search engines, I don't think there would have been a removal effort. And I would have like to have seen some contrition or apology. I'm not at alll happy with the way he behaved. But I don't think he should have serious real-life consequences that he feared just for behaving badly on a wiki. I'm sure that many others have acted just as badly or worse but were smart enough to use an anonymous identity from the start. It's the same with the Bourrie thing. The ones who slink around anonymously don't have to worry about real consequences. But those two started out openly and honestly.

I think that there should be some sort of warning about using real names and identities. I'm not really a Gardiner of course. =) There was actually a bit on Jimmy Gardiner in one of Kinsella's books you know.

I agree on all points. By the way, given your editing interests and mine (and the fact that we both know who Jimmy Gardiner was!) there's a good chance we know each other, but I'm not about to reveal my identity and I gather neither are you. AverageGuy 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is possible that we know each other. I'm sure that people who do come into contact here. Maybe that should make users more conscious of their civlity. I wouldn't want to be rude to an anonymous editor that was actually my Mom.

My interests here have been mostly Canadian political and historical and fairly general. Both of those would cover Gardiner of course. Although I actually only edited the Gardiner article once, to remove his listing in the Canadian farmers category. He was a teacher by profession. I actually know about him more from his time in Ottawa than Saskatchewan, which is the period that Kinsella wrote about (the '29 Sask. election if I recall). I was given Kinsella's Web of Hate as a gift back when it was new, from a relative who was interested in hate groups and such. I did read it but that was quite a while ago now. I'm not enamoured with Gardiner. I just happened to be writing something about him around the time that I chose my user name. But Gardiner did show quite a bit of moral courage. In 29, in the Regina Riot, when he resigned as War Services minister over the "zombie" issue. His son was killed at Dieppe when his spitfire collided with another Allied plane and his wife drowned herself in the Rideau canal. He's really sort of a tragic figure. --JGGardiner 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am interested in Canadian politics and history. I have read Kinsella's Web of Hate, but don't recall the information about Gardiner. There is also some good material on Gardiner in Robert Wardhaugh's Mackenzie King and the Prairie West. AverageGuy 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion van de Wetering

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Marion van de Wetering, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Atlan (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mark Bourrie

Hi, The Mark Bourrie article was deleted because a PROD tag was placed on it and remained there for 5 days or longer. That means that nobody had contested to the deletion and it could therefore be deleted by an administrator at any time. So basically it was deleted on the basis that nobody contested the deletion rather than because the content was wrong or not acceptable. Although the concern was that it was about a "not notable" subject. Hope this helps. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a PROD template is added it can be removed at any time which makes that deletion proposal void. This one was left for days without any contest. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 14:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

In the interests of moving forward, I have made a rather long post on the Talk:Rachel Marsden page. It is my hope that you (and others) will participate in the discussion. Thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hortons invented the Double Double

This claim sneaks its way into the article time and time again. It is constantly being removed or revised, but sometimes it gets stuck back in there without anyone noticing. There must be a segment of the population that believes that double doubles originated at Tims -- who knows. No one has ever produced a source in support of it. Thank you for revising it (again).Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has doubts about this "fact." AverageGuy (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Tags

The problem is that you are selectively placing fact tags in articles that are generally lacking sources. So in this case, its better to tag the entire article as such. GoldDragon (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am selectively placing fact tags. I'm not going to tag stuff that seems to be common knowledge. I tag questionable material.

As has been explained on your talk page by at least five editors, you are not allowed to remove fact tags unless you are providing a source. If you think an article needs more fact tags, please feel free to add them. But do not remove the ones I have put there unless you are providing a source. AverageGuy (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Hockey Association

Hello AverageGuy. Please take the dispute to that article's talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hortons

Tim Hortons has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Liberal Party of Canada infighting

I noticed that their is an edit war ongoing here. Could you please explain your position at Talk:2004 Liberal Party of Canada infighting#Discussion so I can better understand the problem? Thanks, DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in a personal dispute and WP:Hounding now. I suggest that that is unwise and unhelpful. Stick to content and be specific. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have it exactly backwards. All these disputes were caused by GoldDragon, who reverts edits without explanation and violates Wikipedia policy. He has been repeatedly warned by admins, but no one seems willing to enforce policy. I'll gladly step aside and let you handle this. But you've got to handle it, rather than reprimanding me for trying to maintain the standards of this project. AverageGuy (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]