Saw your revert of that American/Canadian thing....the CBC citation says he's Indo-Canadian, I'm not disputing you; sounds like he could use an article though, given what you've commented on.Skookum1 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• He studied in Canada then left. I agree on the article, and will start working somehting up. regards, Ground Zero | t 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This proposal was posted on the article talk page for about 2 months. No objections or comments so far. I will repair links ASAP after this has been approved and fixed. Thank you. Weathervane13 22:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Why was the image deleted and instead it says 200px i undid first time and it was redone. Marvstig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvstig (talk • contribs) 09:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sorry - I made a mistake. Thank you for fixing it. Ground Zero | t 10:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the present tense indicates the present condition"
Thank you for quality articles on Canadian politics and their people, such as Parti Québécois leadership election, 2005 and Janet Ecker, for tireless copyediting, "there are lots of Democratic and Republican parties around the world" and "the present tense indicates the present condition", for a user page full of advice, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (24 December 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of York Region Transit/Viva stations 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/List of York Region Transit/Viva stations 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. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your editorial comments and pertinent corrections (reformatting, etc.) you’ve made on this article. I will proceed as you have advised before adding the prior information. Incidentally, the image (File:Esau Khamati Oriedo, circa 1990 Portrait Photograph at Nairobi, Kenya.png) in the article appears to have been erroneously deleted during revert, albeit permission for use being archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system as ticket 2014062410014475. I will link the file back to the article. Again thanks! U249601 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) U249601 (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that is what I thought (re "governorate") but in view of who changed several to "Governorate" (without the name of the governorate), I followed suit.

I understand your point about "It was reported", of course, but can't remember doing this; I will have to check.

Thank you for reverting the "Ideology and beliefs" edit to my version. I was staggered at how bad that edit was. I had gone to some trouble to tidy up the original version, which only appeared this morning, only to see it reverted almost word-for-word to the original (not by the author). In fact, most of what you reverted throughout the article was to my version. I haven't been editing for long in Wikipedia and it can be very disheartening sometimes, for this sort of reason. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have looked again at those "It was reported"s and they are not mine. The name at the head of the left-hand version on the "diff" page is mine, but some of the passages highlighted under it are not my edits. I have never been quite clear why this happens, that the left-hand version can sometimes have my name at the head of it when highlighted edits are not mine. --P123ct1 (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit once again shows your pattern of hostility towards those of us whose beliefs differ from yours. When will your incessant persecution end? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Indeed, I have no time for flat-earthers and seek to vanquish them from Wikipedia. You can all go jump off the edge for all I care. If I am accused of bias and hostility, then so be it. ;-) Ground Zero | t 17:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your support --80.181.225.114 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ground Zero, I see where you have blocked this IP User talk:63.135.13.69 numerous times, each time increasing the length until the most recent which was a 6 month block. Well, the block is up and the IP is back to old habits. I just reverted the same type of unsourced changes to both Conservative Party of Canada, and New Democratic Party (Canada) that the IP has been known to make. I'm not sure if I should be telling this to you or report it somewhere else, so I left the message here since you were the blocking admin. I think it's pretty clear even after only a couple of edits that the IP has no desire to be constructive here. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of interest these words "elite, influential and prestigious" were added by 41.15.115.141 (talk) at 15:42, 26 May 2011. I should have removed them with my last edit. Wayne Jayes (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fair enough. Thanks for letting me know. Ground Zero | t 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viva green is a 40ft route

http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=York_Region_Transit_route_606_%27Viva_Green%27

--Vivabusmarkham (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing a badly-written discussion board notice is not a justification for writing something badly in an encyclopedia. We simply have higher standards than the Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board. Ground Zero | t 03:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello. Not sure what the problem is here. I DID address your point. You just don't see it that way. I left a comment in the edit revert, as to why the word "presently" should be left...because of historical context. How is that "not addressing your point"? Don't lie, and claim "edit warring". I addressed your point, and I gave reasons. YOU are edit-warring also, if that's the case. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first time you reverted, you did no with an edit summary that stated only "reason for that wording...". After I provided a detailed explanation on the talk page, you reverted again with a terse edit summary that did not address my comments. How it the world can you accuse me of edit warring? Ground Zero | t 13:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ground Zero,
Your comment about overlinking on the V jazz (talk · contribs) talkpage struck a chord with me. AGF, but it's possible we may have another new Sayan Basu (talk · contribs) sock at Jalpaiguri. A new editor has been making un-sourced edits, including multiple links. Hmmm... -220 of ^Borg 11:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'fun' continues at Jalpaiguri, though a few other editors have now chimed in to keep the likely socks and IPs corralled.--220 of ^Borg 10:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks

Hello Ground Zero, thank you for helping to protect Jalpaiguri. I especially appreciated your comments on User talk:Mohan Bose about my 'good advice'! I fear it may have fallen on deaf ears (many ears as it seems there are many socks in the drawer!)

Please feel free to review and constructively criticise my actions in reverting etc, as I was getting pi££ed off and was possibly heading for 3RR. I've also reverts a few edits by Madhurima Nandy (talk · contribs) (who reverted you!) whose only rationale seemed to be that I had reverted User:Moham Bose.--220 of ^Borg 12:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't expect to be able to make progress with this editor, but it is always worth trying. I don't think you've gone too far on this. It is difficult to get through to someone like this, and I understand your frustration. Starting off gently is always a good idea as some editors do actually respond to that. If that fails, then you have to escalate things, but at least you've tried. I want to demonstrate to him/her that this sort of behaviour is fruitless. We'll see where that goes. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jalpailguri, again!

User:Mohan Bose is back again! See [1] reverting Jalpaiguri back to their preferred unsourced 'version'. 220 of ^Borg 13:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user (Mohan Bose) is a persistent vandalism (sorry! I can't AGF) with multiple socks (12-15 socks have been blocked before, passes DUCK test). This page and certain other related pages have been vandalised for a long period (last 7-8 months). This user must have learned how to game the system, this user will make small genuine multiple edits in other pages and then come back after getting rights. (Semi-protection won't work for this user). Either the page need to be full protected for a longer period (say 6 month or so). PS, the page has been full protected for 2 months in the past). I request for full protection of the page and blocking the user (if possible a range block of the IP as well). Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the account for one week, which is a long time for a first block, but I think the pattern of behaviour shows that it is warranted. I will protect the articles if disruptive editing continues. Ground Zero | t 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kings Gap Environmental Education and Training Center

added a link pointing to Mountain laurel

List of Kings of Mithila

added a link pointing to Panji

Toronto rapid transit

added a link pointing to Subway

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Discussion moved to Talk:Sean Harris.]

After you deleted and moved the page title I think you have the obligation to deal with the conflicted items (Q17314433, Q1057599, which I have already done it for you) in Wikidata because I don't think there is any bot to handle such slightly complicated situation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue with Wikidata is complicated to explain but I will try. Before your involvement, someone had built a Wikidata item for "moral rights" (Q17314433) without any other language interwiki links and "moral rights (copyright law)" had its own Wikidata item (Q1057599, with other interwiki links already in place) as well. After your deletion and move, "moral rights" no longer had any interwiki links available because its Wikidata item (Q17314433) contained none other than the only en.wp entry. So what I have done immediately afterward was to remove that en.wp article link from Q17314433 and modify "moral rights (copyright law)" to just "moral rights" in Q1057599. This restores all the interwiki links for "moral rights". The exact procedure is very straightforward, you just have to make sure one article title in a Wikimedia project cannot appear in more than one Wikidata item (where all the interwiki links of one particular topic are being saved). I said it's an "obligation" simply because it's a very simple step but saves a lot of confusion, especially after the missing of interwiki links hasn't been fixed for a long time. I didn't mean to impose anymore hassles on your voluntary effort. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi GZ, thanks for closing this RM. When you made the move, the talk page didn't move for some reason. Could you fix that please? Kind Regards IJA (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. but please don't post on user pages. Post your comments on user's talk pgaes. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry mate, I don't why I did that. I've never done it before, not in my seven years on Wikipedia. I must half been half asleep. IJA (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Maybe you need this: Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope this technical move request was uncontroversial. Since you did the preceding move can you check that it makes sense? The request was "Talk:Hit-Girl (character) → Talk:Hit-Girl (move) (discuss) – Talk page name should match article name...". I've already done the move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could provide some clarification on this move request. It seemed that, with six people supporting a move to Viscera (wrestler), there was a good argument for a move. Could you please explain how you arrived at the conclusion that there was insufficient consensus? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposal was to move the article to "Nelson Frazier". There was a lot of debate back and forth. The proposer did not endorse another name. I closed the discussion on that proposal after almost two weeks as inconclusive. If you want to propose moving the article to "Viscera (wrestler)", there would be a clearer discussion about that proposal, and you may well get consensus. Ground Zero | t 03:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your closure of the RM discussion here. I appreciate it! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Ground Zero | t 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, your close didn't mention the relevant guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and its application to the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. It didn't. The issues were discussed in the discussion. The discussion is now closed and the result was that the article was not moved. Ground Zero | t 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mm. I think generally that when editors oppose a guideline in a RM it should be commented on in the close. Inevitably this one album sticks out in the project corpus as being counter to project guideline so it will come up again in six months and or year, for that reason only it might have been worth commenting in close. But no biggie. Thanks. As regards Parachutes (album), thanks, it appears most of the links left are from User space pages. We don't normally edit into User space I think? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously? There is no WP guideline that says "the topic with a separate article wins". That seems like quite a poor precedent. Aren't discussions supposed to be based on policy/guidelines? There is clearly no primary topic there (or if there is, it's not that one). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've re-opened the discussion. Ground Zero | t 12:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! —BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5 supports and 1 oppose which turns out to be by a sockpuppet. Can you please unclose and relist. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same at Talk:Ok (glacier) I'm afraid. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Talk:Choi Soo-young. Which was a second bite at the apple. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for fixing Bingo album, can you please unclose and relist the other two. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have closed and moved the Ok discussion because, without the sockpuppet, there was only support for the move. Choi Soo-young is another matter: while this was nominated by the sockpuppet, other editors supported the nomination too. Do you disagree with that move, setting aside who nominated it? Ground Zero | t 18:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do mildly disagree with the move now I look at the bulk of sources. But that isn't the reason for relisting/reopening it. The c-banned user had already tried once with that article, to succeed again with a sockpuppet sets a bad precedent. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the merit in your argument, but I also see that oitehr editors have voted for the move in good faith, and I am concerned about ignoring their views on the matter. The sock is now banned, and most of his work undone. Ground Zero | t 13:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Toronto Transit Commission refers to subway lines by numbers more often now a days rather by name according to their website www.ttc.ca which is why I tried them out on several on Wikipedia articles, by replacing line names to line numbers as a pilot project to see if it will work. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Toronto#Referring_to_Toronto_subway_lines. Alex R. (Toronto) (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The TTC's preferences are not our concern. We're not writing the TTC's website. We're writing encyclopeda articles to inform readers around the world. Which is more informative -- "Bloor-Danforth"? Or "Line 2"? Ground Zero | t 16:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random idea I just want to bounce off of someone, should Alberta separatism and Western alienation pages(both of which seem to be mostly a relic from 2005) be merged? Knoper (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, I know that u r an administrator, and I'm sorry for being a bit rude previously ..but being an administrator does that mean that u wud revert edits of just anyone simply.. Whoever, u may be u r NOT from Jalpaiguri or nearby.. & u have NO right to comment or to fix up any such issues related to these articles on which u're NOT involved.. U r NOT to simply abuse or revert such just like that, u get it?? & taking 'bout Jalpaiguri, well..day's my hometown & I don' t wish to see any of ur stupid tags hanging within or around the article's page relating to neutrality dispute or edit warring, etc etc .. Therefore, I wud like to request u to see to the matter and I don' t blame u for dis, coz it's just dat I don' t think if it's ur fault since u r just an administrator ..Anywayzz, if u do wish to keep the page secured and keep it's privacy I wud lyk to cooperate as well ..:) .. Android9 (talk) do reply for sure,, if in mood :p :))

Replied on user's talk page. Ground Zero | t 13:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Grubbs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your correction for Congress was appropriate - I shouldn't have undone that. The issue of the designation date, however, is more complex. When an area is expanded or the boundaries changed, a new law is passed. Thus there may be multiple designation dates for the same area. For example, the Black Forest Mountain Wilderness was first designated on 10/19/84. It was expanded through a second designation on 10/18/88 and was expanded again on 10/7/98. So there are three designation dates for this same area. In creating this list I entered what I called the original or earliest date for the area. The second sentence does explain some of this but I felt it was not quite clear. Perhaps you could find better language to explain my point, or perhaps it is not as vague as I thought it was. Either way, I'm not going to change it again. Lexaxis7 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ground Zero! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with ((ping|DerHexer)). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ground Zero,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thanks. I am also working on the 1973 Liberal convention which will be available soon. When I can find the time I will be adding more details on the significant Ontario leadership contests. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ground Zero,

I would like to know your opinion about this proposal. --Keysanger (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Embassy of Guatemala in Washington, D.C. page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amadéus Leopold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johann Bach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This TTC Report is a reliable source for testing one-man operation with TR trains on Line 4. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I commented that sentence out ebcause I had trouble understanding what it is about. re-rerading it carefullly, it is making sense to me now, but it is about Line 4, so it really doesn't belong in the Line 1 article, from which I deleted it. There is a tendancy of an editor who isn't logging in to keep adding more and more extraneous details to every TTC article. This means the information is being duplicated across articles, and the articles are becoming more and more unfocussed and unwieldy. I don't think that statement belongs in the Line 1 article. Ground Zero | t 18:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oh, I'm working with you on keeping things clean. This is just an FYI so that you know that it was genuine. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The recent addition to the Transnistria article was great, but I have three thoughts. 1. The added content is similar to content that I previously added in a preceding paragraph regarding Moldova's increased enforcement on restriction of Russian military use of airports controlled by Moldova. Perhaps our content should be merged in one of the paragraphs? 2. Some of the new content seems very similar to that contained in the added reference. 3. The last line of content, while reflecting the reference, could be seen as non-NPOV without a reference that it is the Moldovan and western viewpoint. Just some thoughts.--Rpclod (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see that you did some editing on the Online Trading Academy page. I have no first hand experience with that organization, nor am I active at Wikipedia these days, but it seems to me the article has all the hallmarks of self-promotional advertising, and it's been allowed to remain in such a state for a couple of years. I did a casual search for the organization online and found several sites where people complain that it is basically a high-pressure sales outfit, a very different story than the article suggests. What's your opinion about the article? I don't know if it should be proposed for deletion or edited down to the nub of verifiable relevant info (something tells me that such an edit would be quickly reverted). --BTfromLA (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went through the same steps: OTA seems like quite a scam, but I didn't find any reliable sources to show that. A good step would be to look up the policy on using a company's own website as a source and see if we can use that to remove cut back on the article. Ground Zero | t 09:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]