User talk:Jord

Hi! Images that should be deleted should be listed at images for deletion. I moved Image:223.jpeg to there. Regards, Thue | talk 19:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi from your fellow Canadian troublemaker at the 08 US election page. :) You might want to consider joining the Canadian community at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board, as I just have. Cheers! Samaritan 21:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gary Hart

Well the source I found indicates he was a candidate officially from mid April 1987 [1] to the first week of May, when the Miami Herald story broke. Are you saying he re-entered the race after that? I don't recall that happening at all (I worked for his campaign in 1983 in D.C. and New Hampshire, but not during the second run. When I started with him, he was an asterisk in the polls and his hq was above a fried chicken outlet in the worst part of DC). -- Decumanus 00:44, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Yes, I see he did and got 4% in New Hampshire. I must have blocked that out, considering all the canvassing I did for him up there in 83. My, my. -- Decumanus 01:13, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I am also a bit hesitant about this and agree it would have been best if you had first sought some sort of consensus somewhere and/or posted this in a common area. Also, I am sorry if this sounds paranoid, but I am a little concerned, and find it suspect, that the information at Wikipedia:Multi-licensing has been almost entirely authored by you. I am going to refrain from making a decision until I can see some consensus about whether or not this is a good idea. I am by no means an intellectual property expert, but my nose smells fish. - Jord 01:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By all means feel paranoid, and if you choose not to multi-license, then don't. Actually the multi-licensing page is heavily based on the page on meta, which I did not author. I did add additional information and was hoping that others would contribute to it as well. At this point many people have looked over it, so it has been reviewed. As I mentioned on a talk page, I asked the first 400 people without using the bot and got at most 1 complaint about the message. In a sense, that was a form of consensus from those users who perform the most edits here. And right now we are having a discussion about it, which is constructive. And the bot is not doing anything while we discuss this. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 01:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

"Canadian politics" template

Maybe we can discuss this on the talk page for the template, I don't mind a re-design, but let me know what you have in mind, maybe we can do this collaboratively. I based it on the New Zealand politics template. Spinboy 06:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was fun working with you. If there are any other articles you'd like to collaborate on, let me know. Spinboy 07:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That reminds me, don't forget to vote for a Canadian collaboration of the week. Spinboy 07:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Governor Whitman

Sorry for not giving an immediate response I'm in and out. I took the notice off the article as it had been improved to some extent. Thank you for your work on the article and well wishes. :) Arminius on Vacation 00:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2005

I just updated it based on your comments. As for the talk page comment, I think probably nobody noticed it (can you honestly say you always notice these things? *grin*) Bearcat 19:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

British Columbia Unity Party

That was a fair question. I had to search for a bit to find the source,and it is not the best source available, but it seems to be alright: letter from delaney I would prefer something more concrete, but it seems that these BC fringe parties are really slack about updating their websites.Kevintoronto 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking at the BCCP/Unity fiasco from the other angle: BCCP gives up its long-established name, one that will have new value now that there is a federal party of the same name, but they get what? The numerically stronger Unity Party people would end up dominating the new party. I don't what the BCCP's stand on social issues is, but if they are Red Tories, being taken over by Unity, which seems to be largely old Family Coalition types, seem to be a bad idea - maybe they'd be better off in DRBC. On the other hand, there really doesn't seem to be much future for a tiny Conservative party anyway anyway. What is it about BC that causes it to produce far more political parties than any other province? Kevintoronto

British House of Commons

I liked the table that you made for the British House of Commons and have used it in a page called Seating Plan of British House of Commons however it looks as if it will be deleted. I am trying to save it and have reformed to be more appeasing. It is now on the page Party Comparison of British House of Commons. If you support this page then please voice your opinion if it too is threatened by deletion.

2005 New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership race

Jord, how would you feel about changing the name of this article to "New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership convention, 2005"? I have changed the federal Liberal, PC, Cons and Ontario parties articles to this format because: 1) it is consistent with the "Canadian federal lection, YYYY" format, and 2) a race is an athletic event. The word has been brought into the political sphere by analogy, and therefore really is not formal enough for an encyclopedia entry. I have changed the above-mentioned articles to "convention" or "election" as appropriate, although many of them already refered to one or the other. Your thoughts? Kevintoronto 18:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have been moving the date to the end to be consistent with the election article title format. This is even mentioned briefly in the Wikipedia naming convention guide as the preferred format, although the guide does acknowledge that some people put the year first. I recognize that the articles on leadership conventions/elections cover more than just the actual event, but the same is true of all of the election articles. An election is the act of casting ballots to choose a winner. The period before is the campaign, and not the election per se, but the convention has been that we have named the articles after the event that is the culmination of the the period covered by the article. I'm not crazy about "contest" either: it sounds like something on the back of a cereal box that you send in a ballot for to win a trip or a bike. So, actually I guess it sounds like a bigger prize than just the leadership of the NB NDP. I would using "election" until they decide what form it is going to take and moving the article to "convention" if they go to a delegated convention. There are my two cents' worth. Regards, Kevintoronto 21:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jord. I've now moved it to New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership election, 2005, and added a link to the page from leadership conventions.Kevintoronto 14:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MV Abegweit

Jord, this article is up for deletion. The text needs to be imporved, and the pictures are way too big. I figured as a New Brunswicker you might be able to help out. By the way, when they held a vote in PEI on joining the island to New Brunswick by bridge, was there also a vote held in New Brunswick on whether NBers wanted to be joined to PEI? It would only seem fair. Regards, Kevintoronto 16:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. We seemed to have saved it. I was only joking about the NB vote, by the way. Thanks also for catching my mistake on the 2005 budget. I had 2004 on the brain because I had come to the budget articles from the 2005 election article in which someone had put a link to the 2004 budget from the timeline, instead of to the 2005 budget, which is what had been intended. Kevintoronto 19:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Next Canadian election

With the budget backed by the Conservatives it is almost certain there will be no election in 2005, so 2005 Canadian election is a misnomer. - SimonP 17:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I have altered the naming conventions. - SimonP 18:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Our conventions are not written in stone. They were written by users with no more authority than you or I. Our choice is between having a title that is inconsistent or having one that is ungainly and factually questionable. Personally I will always sacrifice consistency for accuracy and usability. - SimonP 21:47, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup

Hey, just a quick note to let you know there is an Ottawa Wikipedia Meetup coming up this Saturday @ 2pm. If you can make it, please drop by the Meetup website and RSVP. If you can't, join up anyway, so you can find out about future Ottawa Wikipedia Meetups! --Spinboy 20:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Ottawa we haven't had a Wikipedia Meetup before, but from the other Meetups I have been to, we basically discuss Wikipedia, or whatever else comes to mind. It's a great opportunity to meet the other people frm Ottawa who also edit on Wikipedia. :-) --Spinboy 21:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Nbelection1995.GIF, Image:Nbelection1999.GIF, and Image:Nbelection2003.GIF. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. -- cohesion ☎ 19:04, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Elections tables

thanks again, Jord.

I have a couple of questions before I get started:

1. What happened to the "block" of colour at the beginning of the line? There now only seemd to be a thin line.

2. All of the tables except the 2004 one have a column for the # of candidates. Can this be incorporated?

3. What's with the funky spacing?

I haven't tried to muck around with it myself, because I'm afraid that you might be doing so at the moment. Kevintoronto 21:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay.... I'm not sure what's going on. When I view the page in the "difference" mode, the table looks fine -- problems 1 and 3 go away. But when I view it in normal mode, the block of colour appears only as a thin line, and each row is double-height with all of the text except for the last coloumn centred. The data from that last column is at the top of the space. Any ideas? Kevintoronto 22:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

Hi there, just a quick note to let you know that we've started a new wikiproject! WikiProject Ottawa aims to expand the amount of articles in Ottawa, and of the articles that are there, take them from stubs to something worthy of being a feature article. We hope you'll stop by and sign up! --Spinboy 03:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More election template fun.

I'm sure your watchlist has already pinged, but just thought I'd draw your attention to my latest attempt at a step-reducing template for those riding-by-riding breakdowns. It's on Talk:Canadian_federal_election_results_since_1867. My awayedness meant I missed much of the earlier parts of the debate, so I hope you won't mind me playing the role of Johnny-come-lately. -The Tom 03:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quebec

If you are interested in more Quebec-related collaboration, there is a Quebec wikipedians notice board and a Quebec collaboration of the week. Circeus 19:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bloc targets

I've run similar numbers (pause for nerdy laughter), but to be fair, there won't be a uniform swing as those massive Liberal majority-ridings are overwhelmingly federalist. Anyway, I thought that considering the Bloc only contests 75 ridings (and doesn't hold only 21 of the ones it contests), holding it to the same standards for "top targets" as the national parties was a bit odd. -The Tom 22:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your input, please

Some more ideas here on formatting of elections tables. I hope these won't be controversial. Ground Zero 19:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have been blocked from editing because of this edit, which is total vandalism. Radiant! ¸ 20:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)