Talk:Simon Strelchik

message: The speedy-deletion was nominated for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review.  The record of that discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Simon Strelchik.  04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Old discussion on this page has been archived in the hopes of ending an ongoing reversion war. For discussion prior to March 21, 2006, see Archive1. 
Again, I remind all editors of this page that you do not have a right to alter or remove other users' comments without their permission. If you believe that a comment posted here is inappropriate, please review and follow Wikipedia's existing dispute resolution process, or contact a site administrator to review the matter. Removing the "offending" comments yourself is not appropriate, and will not be tolerated. Bearcat 03:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from administrator

message: Alright, regarding this link to the NDP external website. It is simply not appropriate for this page. There already is a wiki link to the NDP article, where users can access the external NDP site. The link currently on this page is a partisan spam link and should be taken down. pm_shef 21:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: *I just can't see removing his percentage of the vote in the race that got him this article.
*The CJN piece is not a discussion, it's an article. That article discusses their candidacies, but a link itself labelled "discussion" suggests something else entirely, and inaccurately.
*"A resident of Thornhill for 19 years" is bad form because it will require updating every year we know him to be living in Thornhill, on the approximate anniversary. Unless we have a "since [year]," it should be longtime. We write for the future.
*Similarly, "the" past chair. One day the chair who succeeded him will move on, and he will no longer be the past chair. Maybe it's happened already - do we know that Simon's immediate successor is still in the chair? Are editors really going to keep as close a watch on this committee as we would if he was past leader of a party or something? He is and will always be a past chair.
*We can't conclude or expect that a "no-smoking bylaw" governs "tobacco" in York Region generally, such as tobacco farming or the consumption of chewing tobacco. We can deduce that it governs tobacco smoking. Samaritan 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Whoops, my mistake! Sorry bout that. pm_shef 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits now

message: Maybe Leotardo would like to explain why he is so averse to having the total percentages of votes cast for Strelchik? It seems like a fairly germane piece of information - pm_shef 01:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote Total

message: Because it's obvious this fiasco isn't going to end, and it's also obvious that the Leotardo/Poche1 tandem isn't going to engage any discussion unless and until they absolutely have to, I'd like to propose that the article be protected from editing until a consensus can be reached on this talk page. I won't protect it myself, since I've been involved in the revert war, but if this is agreed to, I'm willing to make the request. Bearcat 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but not right now, as conflict seems to have quieted down. Samaritan 15:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nah, hasn't quieted down, it's just moved over to Elliott Frankl, these guys never stop, they'll just switch pages every so often -- pm_shef 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *In the meantime, since I'm one revert away from 3RR, would one of you mind reverting the latest vandalism? pm_shef 02:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: User:Leotardo and User:Poche1, because you two have been so eager to label anyone who had even a wording disagreement with you in this article as a vandal, I just thought I'd show you what actual vandalism looks like. This is what I just reverted from this very article just now: . 
Know the difference, absorb it, and don't conflate honest content disputes with vandalism again, 'k? Bearcat 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grr, and agreed. It's also something all of us who are honest, good-faith Wikipedians totally and completely oppose and will revert as soon as we see it. Let's keep our eye on the ball of creating a reasonably good article about Mr. Strelchik, whether it's entirely the way we would have worded it ourselves or not. Samaritan 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How does removing a verifiable and incontrovertible fact make an article "more neutral", exactly? Bearcat 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Percentages of overall votes are not an accurate gauge of how well a person did. The other articles don't mention percentages, only votes cast. Blink484 22:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, it mentions the percentage his vote total increased over Anthony Reale's [that of the NDP candidate] in the previous election. If his performance can be compared to Reale's (and it can), it can just as well be compared to, you know, the collective rest of the candidates in the actual election he ran in. Samaritan 03:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samaritan the increase is over the 2004 votes for the NDP, not Anthony Reale. the performance is not compared to Reale at all. I think you misunderstand. Blink484 05:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant. The NDP candidate in the previous election, Rick Morelli, who certainly wasn't Anthony Reale. I called him by the wrong name; mental twitch. Sorry. Samaritan 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Morelli received 3600 votes in the previous election, so the 25% figure is in relation to his result, not the recent election. I hope that explains things, thanks. Blink484 18:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samaritan knows that. He's not misunderstanding anything; he merely typed the wrong name by mistake in reference to the 2004 NDP candidate. The dispute is about whether Strelchik's percentage of the total ballots cast in 2006 merits a mention. Nobody thinks there's an inherent statistical correlation to the 2006-over-2004 vote growth. Bearcat 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is in reference to the 2004 result compared to the 2006 result, not the 2006 election itself. Blink484 10:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: This article is just crazy.  It is on an extremely obscure person--I actually created it, during the 2006 campaign--and has been 'hijacked' by pro-Strelchik writers.  It has no use on this website, and I shouldn't have even made it. Theonlyedge
:I'm going to vote to keep, again (once the afd is fixed per User talk:Theonlyedge, if the afd is still pursued); the silly reversion war is over and the article has reached a stable state. I hope I'm not here considered a "pro-Strelchik writer." :! At the very least, the consensus is clear that unsuccessful candidates in national elections should be merged; Strelchik, here, would go to New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election and the article location redirected. It could not be deleted, because the edit history must be retained under GFDL. Given the impossibility of an actual decision to delete per the snowball clause, I hope the afd is dropped. Samaritan 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion B 

message: This redirect now links to a redirect, since the target article has been moved.
Please update the link.
Regards
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request