Hi. As can plainly be seen in the original article on the topic, "Stormtroop(er)" was a german "new job description" in WW1.
Therefore, "Stormtrooper" naturally referred - during WW1 at least - to GERMAN soldiers, a supposed "elite".
I would claim that there is more than reasonable doubt that german soldiers should have, at the same time, used the term in reference to enemy soldiers IN GENERAL, according to your entry, the "common canadian soldier". I mean, you STILL would not call the russian common soldier a "speznaz" - much less "SAS" or "KSK", but still "Ivan", wouldn't you?
I have asked around on-duty (german active soldier here) and among the canadian soldiers i serve with (NATO earmarked force) and been unable to verify this claim of yours.
So please provide a source, or else remove the claim from the disambiguation page, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.1.79 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to hatnote from a disambiguated title back to a plain one, such as from Bruce Peninsula (band) back to Bruce Peninsula. Such links are only ever necessary the other way (i.e. from the peninsula to the band).
Hi. The Youtube link should provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain. IMO, the Youtube site for the Canadian Forces (the other gov't departments pages on Youtube look fine) is just a recruiting/advertising page. WP is not in the business of helping an agency with recruiting. So, essentially, the site is spam.BCtalk to me06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NorthernThunder: I tweaked your change that added Tim Ralfe's name to the entry. I'm glad you added his name. I changed the entry to read that Ralfe was a CBC reporter, not a CBC Radio reporter. He actually worked for CBC television. I realize the original error was not yours. Bwark (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed that you added a needs-sources template to the article Employment equity (Canada). I'm wondering if you would talk a bit about your reasoning. As it stands, it has 11 footnotes, and they're all from serious, reputable sources -- either government agencies or scholarly research journals. (By the way, if you check the history log for the article, you'll notice that a user, Wikguyincanada, keeps revising the article to emphasize his anti-e.e. views, but the earlier version of the article was IMHO a fairly solid piece of writing.) Canadian2006 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you verify that all current information on that page is sourced? I just glanced over it and though there seemed to be few citations for so much information. NorthernThunder (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you take another look at this article to ascertain if it still warrants the needs-sources template? I have increased the number of footnotes from 11 (each of which was unique) to 20 footnotes (of which 17 are unique). All of the footnotes are either to government agencies or to scholarly articles. (Well, to be exact, one footnote is to a newspaper article.)
However, there is the ongoing problem that the article is "vandalism bait." Being the Canadian equivalent to affirmative action, some users can't resist rant-like additions. Nonetheless, I think the article is substantially improved in terms of sourcing. Canadian2006 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Agar Rodney Adamson.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) 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Agar Rodney Adamson.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Agar Rodney Adamson.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) 08:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I've removed the {{globalize}} template which you placed in this edit. The article doesn't seem overly U.S. focused to me. The U.S. sectioon in the article points to the more U.S. focused Separation of church and state in the United States article. If you disagree, please explain your reasons for placing this template in the article more fully on the article's talk page. Thanks & Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia civility policy
This edit summary of yours: "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! WOW! DELUSIONAL!" was somewhat beyond normal acceptable language for Wikipedia. You weren't directly attacking a person - and I understand why the edit in question was wrong and agree with that - but it degrades the quality of conversation when people make comments and edit summaries like that.
I don't know if this is the best place to post my question, but I noticed that you had an issue with, Sottolacqua, who I have also noticed to be acting bizzarely on Wikipedia. What is the proper way to handle a rouge editor? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.161.33 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Trent Christopher Ganino, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Christopher Ganino. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
A tag has been placed on Combat Camera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. R00tTalk20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Genie Award winners for Best Achievement in Film Editing
A discussion has begun about whether the article Milkwood Films, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of municipalities in the Timiskaming area where I've had trouble locating any viable sources for the municipal election results. I've tried directly contacting both the Temiskaming Speaker (who haven't responded to me at all) and Northern News (who told me to contact the Speaker, sigh), as well as the Temiskaming Chamber of Commerce (who were able to provide me with most of the names but not any other information), and the municipal websites aren't being very helpful either. If you're still in the area, I wanted to ask if you have access to a source (e.g. back issues of the newspapers?) for any of the following:
Charlton and Dack: Actual vote totals for each mayoral candidate.
Coleman: Actual vote totals for each mayoral candidate.
Gauthier: I haven't even been able to find a winner's name at all, let alone whether there was a real election or an acclamation or what.
Harley: Was Gerald Roy acclaimed, or was there a contested election?
Hilliard: Was Morgan Carson acclaimed, or was there a contested election?
Kerns: Was Terry Phillips acclaimed, or was there a contested election?
Thornloe: Was Roy Vottero acclaimed, or was there a contested election?
And if you're not still in the Timiskaming area, do you know where else I might be able to look given that the newspapers haven't been very helpful? Any help you can provide would obviously be much appreciated. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in anything to do with Canada! Did you have something specific in mind? I have been on the NL-related board, lately, because I am trying to find a picture for Kathy Dunderdale. I don't think Canadian copyright laws would allow us to take an image from the Premier's website so I was hoping that someone in NL could take a picture themselves of her. NorthernThunder (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no specific area. I just want to encourage any Canada-related articles to be better. It is particularly difficult to obtain anything government-related, due to Crown copyright. What we need is someone who can find her in public and take a picture of her for the purpose of uploading to Wikipedia. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Would you be able to update the history section on the Newfoundland and Labrador article, it's poorly written now. There's a History of Newfoundland and Labrador article that has some info but it leaves out some information so you may want to look at the Dominion of Newfoundland article. I tried to do this last week but large chunks of both articles are supposedly copied so when I uploaded it pasted on the Newfoundland and Labrador article it was deleted. Would you be able to look at trying to do this? Even if the information was wrote up I could go back and cite what's not cited. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it. Just be careful about not copying and pasting copyrighted information. Here's a suggestion: If you want to copy copyrighted text, DON'T copy it as is. Change the wording but not in a way to change the meaning. NorthernThunder (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this image as replaceable fair use, missing a rationale, and orphaned fair use. All of these tags place the image for deletion.
Please understand we do not accept non-free media of living people for depiction purposes, as was done with this image. This image is copyrighted, and can not be used in the way you wish. Please obtain a free licensed alternative, or perhaps contact her office using these instructions. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry NorthernThunder but the fact that you didn't pay for the image doesn't make it "not non-free", you are confusing the free in "costs nothing" with the free in "can be re-used freely". If someone else has a copyright on an image where the terms don't allow it to be used here, it is simply not yours to give freely - so it is what we call a non-free image. And in any case, I'm able to understand the main facts about the person without seeing what they look like, I can just read our article about them - so it's not essential to understanding, it's just a decoration. If it were a green two-headed monster who was premier, yes I would need a picture to be sure, but otherwise it's just a picture of a person and I already know what they look like. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would make a lot of pictures on Wikipedia redundant, if you already know what they look like. What about the knowledge on Wikipedia that you already know yourself? Should that also be deleted? This is just getting silly. I welcome any reasonable suggestion to this issue. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are mixing up "knowledge" with the presence of an image that accompanies that knowledge. Yes, my statement makes a lot of pictures on Wikipedia redundant - all of the non-free pictures that are not esential to understanding. I can read in the article that Dunderdale succeeded Williams. Why do I need a picture to help me understand that? I'm actually trying to be sympathetic to your frustration but since you think that's silly, let's try this: read here. That is a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, them wut' control the servers. That is a fundamental aspect of this website, if you want to change it, get yourself elected to the Board and get it changed. If you think I'm not being reasonable, we certainly are done here, I'll leave you to read that link. Franamax (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax is correct. Just because you can obtain an image 'freely' from a web site somewhere does not make it free of coyprights. That's not being unreasonable. That happens to be copyright law. It is possible for you to download music videos of various performers in the world. Does that make you the rights holder of those videos, free to distribute as you see fit? Of course not. The same applies to images you find on a web site somewhere. See instructions from the upload area. Since we can't treat the image as free, we MUST use it under terms of fair use, and as such we MUST use it in compliance with our policy on using such content, and the Foundation's resolution on the matter as Franamx linked to. We do not use non-free imagery of living people for depiction purposes. There's an automatic presumption that while a person is alive, a wikipedia editor could obtain a free licensed image of the person and upload it here. We also do not retain non-free images of living people until free images are available. We simply don't permit them. Full stop. Now, you can contact her office to obtain release of an image of her, but you MUST follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ, as I indicated earlier. If all of this seems stupid, unreasonable, silly, whatever, I encourage you to not upload images to Wikipedia until you have a better understanding of copyright law, and the Foundation's stance vis-a-vis non-free content. Even if you could convince is that we're both somewhere completely wrong about this, you won't convince the Foundation. Please take the opportunity to read the links provided and learn our policies. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you contact Steve Bartlett (sbartlettthetelegram.com) you may be able to get permission to use one of his pictures of the premier for Wikipedia. He is a political reporter in St. John's and I have noticed his name attached to pictures of premier Dunderdale. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost everything here is copyrighted, and that includes all the creative text you contribute and self-made images you upload. It's just licensed under CC-BY so that anyone can reuse and modify it as long as they give you attribution. You would need to get Bartlett to release one of his photographs under CC-BY, as described at WP:donating copyrighted materials. If he does that you can upload it to Commons. Franamax (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]
He has to send an email himself to our WP:OTRS team, 'cause of course we can all write our own fake emails and claim someone sent them to us. It's described in the link above, if he agrees then you upload the image and put "otrs-pending" on it, he emails permissions@wikiwhatever, they log the OTRS ticket # and put a template onto the image description page, tickety-boo. It's a pretty painless process, so long as he is willing to make a "free" donation (and as I was saying above, it's not actually free-free, he still owns it - but anyone can do anything they want with it so long as they attribute him as the principal author). Good luck, it's great to get the pros involved in advancing our humble little encyclopedia. :) + added {{nospam}} to email address above Franamax (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note, the CC-BY license we use does not allow "non-commercial use only", so theoretically someone could put his image on t-shirts and sell them on a street corner, or I dunno, use it on a porn site or something, or design a building where the windows are her eyes. That is the big sticking point with Canadian government images, including a lot of the Library & Archives Canada images, I think maybe it was you who asked that at WT:CWNB after their recent change to permissions for use. They still won't grant commercial use, it's "for personal use". Wikipedia explicitly allows commercial re-use and I've seen where people actually try to sell books made mostly from Wikipedia articles, believe it or not. If Barrett is concerned about that, one solution would be to upload a lower-resolution version. Let me know if I can help in the process. Franamax (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy NorthernThunder's Day!
NorthernThunder has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as NorthernThunder's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, NorthernThunder!
Hi NorthernThunder. I see you tagged Princess Margriet of the Netherlands as a contradiction in her birth section. I read it a few times and couldn't actually see where the contradiction lay, so I've removed the tag. Can you have another look and if I've missed it, replace the tag and leave a note on the talk page? Cheers WormTT11:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator in this debate has charged that it was "written by sock puppets". Since according to the history, you created David Tristan Birkin back in 2006 and I see no evidence that you're anybody's sock puppet, you might want to chime in here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
