User talk:DSatYVR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, DSatYVR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Contents |
[edit] NDP page
Hello,
I understand the point that you're making, but I don't think your choice of language is appropriate. We have to present information in a neutral and objective manner; yours is skewed against the NDP, and the issue is not even one which is primarily associated with the party.
(You may want to change your wording on the Flaherty page too.) CJCurrie 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand the requirement to present material in a neutral and objective manner, but all facts need to be presented around an issue. Feel free to add any cited information you think is relevant to the discussion. Is Wikipedia a platform for promoting political parties? No. Its a place to present a 'cited' history around an issue, whether it flatters the individual politician or not. Regards, DSatYVR 06:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The information should be presented, neutrally, on the Flaherty, Harper, and Conservative Party pages. I'm not certain it deserves any mention on the NDP page. CJCurrie 06:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jack Layton
Hello DSatYVR. I question whether your Feb. 16/07 addition to the Jack Layton page ("According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy") is really necessary. The page is about Jack Layton, and the article already notes his support for the change in the tax law. Why is it necessary to top it up with more stats on the income trust reversal, information that probably should be, or is, in some other article? Just my thoughts... Que-Can 20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm trying to show the number of everyday Canadians who are affected by the NDP support of this policy. Is there a better way to show this? I'm open to suggestions. I've asked for revision suggestions for several days on the Talk:Jack_Layton page with no response. I'd also like to insert Sentence 2. Basically showing cause and effect. Regards, DSatYVR 05:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Carney and WP:BLP
I probably cut some content that would be very useful for readers to know. But it does have to be sourced to reliable secondary sources (not blogs, even blogs of well respected people and organizations). WP:BLP is very strict about this. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CAITI
DSatYVR, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you a direct question. Are you affiliated with the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors? --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, but I'm very interested in how the Conservative government developed their policies on Income Trusts. DSatYVR (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
