Talk:2006 Vaughan municipal election

message: Please note this article is in an active content dispute.  Please discuss ANY potentially controversial changes before you make them.  Thanks! --mboverload@ 23:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Regarding the list of issues:
    * Gun-related crime and violence.
    * Transparency and tendering process.
    * Largest city in Canada without a Hospital within city boundaries.
    * Integrity in city council and closed-door council meetings.
    * Lawsuits against city.
    * Civic Centre construction and contracts.
    * Property taxes.
    * Public transportation and construction of subway extension.
I think the "transperancy and tendering...." and "integrity in city council..." can probably be combined into one, as they are sufficiently similar. something like; "Transperancy and Integrity in City Council" or something similar... Thoughts? pm_shef 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Issues

message: *Now that this page is up and running, I think that the individual pages for Gino Ruffolo, Elliott Frankl and Yehuda Shahaf should be deleted. pm_shef 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kadis holds elected office. Strelchik does not. Candidates do not deserve articles unless they're notable for more than being candidates. WP:BIO is already clear about this, and pm_shef has never once proposed anything in contravention of this fact. Donna Upson was not kept because she was a mayoral candidate; she was kept because her mayoral candidacy attracted national media attention as a result of her KKK links. You'd do well to keep the difference between those two points in mind; if she hadn't had national media coverage, she wouldn't merit an article. Bearcat 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody ever nominated John Greer for deletion. Somebody suggested that it should be, but nobody ever followed through on it. (For one thing, there would be a record of the deletion debate, which there isn't. For another, there would be an  on the John Greer talk page, which there isn't.) Bearcat 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You are the son of Alan Shefman.  Game, set, match.  That is why your contributions in anything related to Vaughan is politically motivated.  Judging by your profile, you'd like to take a similar career path as your father.  Another good reason.  70.29.239.249 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *For the last time, we've established that I'm his son, move on. Being associated with him does not make me politically motivated. I'd like you to point out one edit that I've made that does not conform to WP policy. You won't find one. pm_shef 16:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again: you are to cease and desist with the ad hominem attacks at once. If you want to assert that pm_shef has made biased edits, you will point out specific edits he's made and discuss why you think they're biased. Stating that an edit he's made is biased because of who he is is a logical fallacy. Bearcat 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've tagged all of them for deletion via the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion policy. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think merging these city councillors was a very good idea. There is fairly strong agreement that city councillors deserve articles, for instance we have 81 articles on Toronto councillors. - SimonP 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment What agreement? I don't see how they fulfill the requirements of WP:BIO. While there are other bio articles  that don't meet those requirements, I don't think that should be an argument to add more articles that don't meet those criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding my lack of redirect on the Shefman article, Wiki policy forbids blanking pages (which happens when you redirect a page) while an AfD debate is ongoing. To User:SimonP, I very much agree with you, but there are people on here who will never be satisfied until their political agenda is completed, this was the only way to avoid endless edit wars. pm_shef 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Pages 

message: As far as I can tell, all of these candidates (with the exception of Michael Di Biase ) fail the following WP:BIO criteria: (1)Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature; (2) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've tagged all of them for deletion via the Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion policy. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think merging these city councillors was a very good idea. There is fairly strong agreement that city councillors deserve articles, for instance we have 81 articles on Toronto councillors. - SimonP 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment What agreement? I don't see how they fulfill the requirements of WP:BIO. While there are other bio articles  that don't meet those requirements, I don't think that should be an argument to add more articles that don't meet those criteria. OhNoitsJamieTalk 05:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding my lack of redirect on the Shefman article, Wiki policy forbids blanking pages (which happens when you redirect a page) while an AfD debate is ongoing. To User:SimonP, I very much agree with you, but there are people on here who will never be satisfied until their political agenda is completed, this was the only way to avoid endless edit wars. pm_shef 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfDs of candidates

message: * regarding "Another Vaughan Citizen  article, indicates Ruffolo promises to take a 20 percent paycut if he is elected." It seems that this is just a campaign promise... if we're going to include candidate platforms (which I don't think we should) then we should include what all the candidates plan to do, not just one. Alternatively, if you honestly feel that salaries are that important an issue, add it to the "Main Issues" section of the article. -- pm_shef 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's not my responsbility to find out campaign promises from everybody.  Ask your father for his and update that one.  This is quite a big announcement and in light of the Globe and Mail article, it is relevant.  You argued for other members to beef up the other councillor pages, so argue the same thing here, and leave that information on.  If you do not I will report you. 70.29.239.249 20:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *My comment wasn't for "you" to find out their promises, it was pointing out that if you plan on leaving Ruffolo's promises in, then you can't complain if I add other people's promises. Oh, and if you want to warn me, you need to use the official WP template, otherwise it is not considered valid. pm_shef 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why does everything have to come down to regulations and warnings.  You know you are in the wrong in deleting this.  Feel free to add major announcements from other candidates.  I haven't heard from any of the other candidates or the mayor as of yet or else I would have made additions to the page. 70.29.239.249 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, I don't feel I was in the wrong, on the same token, this is 100% not worth a fight. pm_shef 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. 70.29.239.249 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Pay Cuts 

message: *I say we delete his name off the candidates list.  Let's be honest, everybody knows Racco has no intention to run and probably can't based on the fact that he's an MPP.  I wonder what the laws are in putting your name for nomination while holding other office? Can we all agree to remove his name from here? 70.29.239.249 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mario G. Racco 

message: I'm not gonna get into an edit war here, but I suggest we have a civil discussion on whether or not to include incumbent status on the candidates in question. I believe it is, as it is germane to the discussion, an alternative perhaps is to wikilink the incumbents, which will redirect to the vaughan council page. pm_shef 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, perhaps you missed the part about a civil discussion. Also, you may want to refamiliarize yourself with Assume Good Faith. Anyways, I thought that since this is an encyclopedia, it would be helpful to readers to know who is an incumbent, as that is fairly topical information, however, you'll notice that I haven't changed ED's edits, and I really don't care either way, it's not that big a deal. pm_shef 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incumbency 

message: The corporate donations issue on the Vaughan election page was originally posted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him).  Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit.  Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits posted this then it would have been alright.  The corporate donations to members of council is a major issue in Vaughan (I personally know and spoke with many people living in Vaughan although I don’t live there myself  As this is major issue it should be put in the article as an issue and as a user that is permitted to conduct edits I will post this as an issue with two sources one from the Toronto Star and one from York Region.--JohnnyCanuck 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In fact, CheckUser has confirmed that IP (and another one) to have been VaughanWatch. Thanks for coming out though. - pm_shef 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corporate donations to municipal politicians are a standard issue everywhere; it's not an issue unique to Vaughan. I'd also like to see some evidence that it's actually been publicly presented in the media as a primary defining issue of the campaign...and I'm sorry, but VaughanWatch does not count as "in the media". Bearcat 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *No, the VaughanCitizen is writing a story on the electronic aspect of the campaign, not corporate donations. I'm close to 3RR, could someone please revert? - pm_shef 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *How on earth do you figure Wikipedia has had any impact on the issue of corporate donations in Vaughan municipal politics? 'Splain, Lucy. Bearcat 23:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *A reporter being interested in my edits make me notable, not the content of the edits. And for the last time, unless you can come up with more than just yourself who believes the content should be included, it won't be. -pm_shef 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's a matter of making a strong argument, which you've yet to make.  You keep saying "it's not an issue." ED209 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *$750 from each individual of a corporation could lead to thousands and thousands of dollars.  I suggest you check the books. ED209 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You still have yet to provide any evidence that this has actually been cited in the media as a central issue in the campaign, or that this is somehow a bigger issue in Vaughan than in any other city having elections this fall. Bearcat 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate donations 

message: *For the record, the Toronto election page contains a 'main issues' section.  There is no references on that page, however, there seems to be no argument over them.  The same is true with the recently deleted 'main issues' section of this article. ED209 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So then delete the ones on the Toronto page unless someone provides references for them. It's really not that complicated. - pm_shef 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main issues

message: What is the problem with linking to Linda D. Jackson's website?  -- JamesTeterenko 20:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no discussion, I am restoring the link.  -- JamesTeterenko 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If there are official web sites of other candidates, then I believe that they should be included.  -- JamesTeterenko 21:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'll include them.  To start with, I'll restore Jackson's web site.  I'll include any others that I find.  -- JamesTeterenko 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linda D. Jackson's website 

message: The incumbent labels were just removed with the comment, "incumbents are not supposed to be indicated, this does not even show up on the ballot".  This is encyclopedia, not an election web site.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information.  When discussing an election, the fact about who is the incumbent is important information.  In most Wikipedia election articles, this is noted.  Some examples are:
* Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006: Ontario
* Toronto municipal election, 2006
* Ontario general election, 2003
* United States Senate elections, 2006#Complete list of Senate contests in 2006
I will restore the information, as it is clearly in line with Wikipedia practice on election articles.  -- JamesTeterenko 21:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You claim you're not affiliated them, yet your edits consistently lead us to believe that you are. However, unlike you, I will assume good faith and assume that what you say is true. Regardless, I don't feel that either fact is relevant to the page, as we see at the Toronto election page, where as you know, a current Councillor is running for Mayor, yet the contributors there do not feel that it is relevant. -- pm_shef 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Or, as usual, you're distorting the truth. The notation was made to Pitfield's name by JohnnyCanuck  after this latest content dispute began. -- pm_shef 00:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling incumbents 

message: *I would very much like to know how this relates at all to the Election? Simply the fact that she is running as a candidate does not mean that a confidentially settled lawsuit is germane to the election especially since (unless i'm mistaken) the article that is referenced doesn't even mention that Ruffolo is running for Council. Furthermore, if you actually read the newspaper article, she was suing for wrongful dismissal. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a news source. -- pm_shef 21:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It does not involve Gino Ruffolo beyond the fact that it's her husband. Furthermore, the mayor is not responsible for hiring/firing, the Department Head and City Manager is. Finally, simply because the candidate is involved does not make it relevant to the election. The incident itself happened, and was resolved, before the election and the two events are not related in any way. Furthermore, and most importantly the article does not even mention the word election. At no point does the article talk about the election or the fact that she is a candidate. -- pm_shef 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Please stop deleting information which are relevant to the main issues we have established. ED209 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Umm hello? The whole point is that we haven't established it. That's what this discussion is all about. You cannot simply add information without being able to back it up, as you have demonstrated in this case you are unable to do. -- pm_shef 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Its established as a main issue.  There have been more in the past and more awaiting to go before the courts.  The fact that three candidates (Jackson, Ruffolo, and Donofrio) have or had lawsuits make it significant.  ED209 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Added another candidate with a lawsuit that was mentioned in the Toronto Star on March 26, 2004. ED209 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Three candidates with lawsuits that are ongoing or settled are running, which is significant.  Also, the large number of lawsuits at the city (there are quite a few in recent memory that can be named) established it as a campaign issue.  Therefore, after we established this a several months ago, coupled with the story the biggest newspaper in our country, I believe this warrants an inclusion.  I believe much more work will be done to this page to make it one of the most comprehensive upcoming election pages around.  Every I wrote is fairly written and unbiased in its language and content.  If you find any lawsuits in which the city either lose or win in court, we can include them.  Also, any other news relating to the main issues section is welcome.  Please help to make this page better. ED209 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It has been addressed.  It has been sitting on the MAIN ISSUES section for months and months.  On the local TV newscasts, they did a man-on-the-street style interview with residents who all believe the manner in which lawsuits have sprung up and been dealt with represents a violation of taxpayer's money.  Plus, and please read this part because you have fail to address it, THREE candidates are running who have had or have recently settled lawsuits.  This is a significant and interesting.  This is why people get into writing articles here on wikipedia.  To document noteworthy occurances such as this.  ED209 23:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's something that could go into an "interesting facts" section. But to claim that it is a "main issue" and dedicating a full paragraph to it in the introduction is grossly misleading when you consider that your main source, the Star, has not seen necessary to mention the fact that the complainants are candidates, and even the Citizen, while mentioning it, at no point cites it as a main, or even an issue at all! This fact especially shows this that it is not relevant to the election and is simply NOT being discussed as an issue. -- pm_shef 00:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case, I would agree for a simple line, in an "interesting facts" section such as; "A number of candidates are or were involved with lawsuits against the city". However, to continue to characterize it as a "main issue" is nothing short of completely false. -- pm_shef 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Because I didn't notice it, plus that extra paragraph wasn't added until now. That, however, is not the point at all. The point is 
that they should not be there, and you have yet to provide a valid reason otherwise. -- pm_shef 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sex Scandal" 

message: Arguing about whether or not an issue is important to the election is somewhat pointless.  If you can't agree, the argument can't be resolved.  Remember that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  If you want to make conclusions about the important issues in the election, you will have to find something written in an independent, reliable source, that describes the given issue as an important issue in the election.  You can't (even logically) have the article conclude that the issue is important: that's a new analysis or synthesis of ideas.  This means, unfortunately, that Wikipedia can't always cover things in a timely manner.  But it's really the only appropriate way for an encyclopedia to be written.  Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion 

message: *user:pm_shef expressed his inability to find certain archival documents from The Toronto Star.  This page allows you to find the leads and dates of all Vaughan-related lawsuit articles: []. ED209 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto Star archive search

message: Lawsuits have *not* been established as a main election issue, and ED209 should stop pretending otherwise.
Perhaps if evidence is provided as to the significance of lawsuits to the current campaign, the information could be returned.  Otherwise, this smacks of more partisan axe-grinding.  CJCurrie 00:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm glad this has been resolved properly. -- pm_shef 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "With lawsuits established as a main election issue"

message: What's the problem with his name being listed? Am I missing something?
Joe Levy
900 Steeles Ave W #316
Thornhill, Ontario
L4J 8C2
Date Filed: August 24, 2006
http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/vaughan/council/election/candidates.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmadilloFromHell (talk • contribs) 
:*I don't think James realized that Levy was listed on the Vaughan page. I have corrected the error. In the future, please bring discussion to the talk page first and try to avoid edit wars. -- pm_shef 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I am reverting all the edits of a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user.  -- JamesTeterenko 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP that made that edit is clearly a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user VaughanWatch/JohnnyCanuck.  As per the Banning policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing."  -- JamesTeterenko 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *My dad doesn't even know who Levy is, keep trying though. -- pm_shef 13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just noticed the edit war intitated by user:JamesTeterenko.  Methinks he should stay out of Vaughan-related edits until he gets more informed of what is going on. ED209 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *In all fairness to James, he was going on the "revert all edits by banned users" rule. Either way, not a huge deal - it's fixed now. -- pm_shef 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Again, I'll quote oficial policy, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."  Removing edits by a banned user is not an edit war, regardless of the merits of the edits.  See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *In any case, you have now again deleted factual information.  I don't think it is very hard to verify these changes, they appear on the linked Vaughan Votes site at the bottom of the page.  I had the heads-up on the Craig move, so I did it last night, but other then that, every change comes appears on the Vaughan Votes page. The job of an admin is not simply to enforce bans.  You should be making positive edits as well. ED209 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Levy

message: I just updated the page as it hasn't been updated in a while, I also added the notations of 2nd incumbents to the appropriate candidates.  2nd incumbent is a proper term to use for former incumbents. --67.70.148.253 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/10/08/1978342-sun.html  --  Zanimum 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article makes the Sun 

message: It is really, really sad that some people here think listing their preferred candidate's name first on this one stupid page is somehow going to equal a whole bunch of votes and their candidate being elected.  Please - it is time to grow up and stop making these meaningless edits.
Candidate names are always listed in the non-partisan alphabetical manner.  That is how it's done on every other Wikipedia page ... and, more importantly, that is how it's done by EVERY SINGLE MUNICIPALITY (including Vaughan) on the actual ballots for the very reason that it is the fairest, most non-partisan way to do it.  Anybody here pretending that they somehow know better is just acting ridiculous.
Please don't bother moving names around any more because it'll just be reversed. Wolfchild 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate names should ALWAYS be listed alphabetically 

message: *ED, I see you removed the descriptions of the results. Which parts exactly do you feel are PoV? It seemed to me to be neutral and informative, why don't we try and clean it up if you have problems with it. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't believe the ward races warrent writeups and some of the language used is better suited to newspapers, rather than an encyclopedia. ED209 18:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *What would the purpose of this page be if not to describe the outcome of the election? Would you be willing to give us an example of what you have a problem with? -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result Descriptions