User talk:007blur007

Richard Warman

Just popped over to warn you about your edits to this article, as you have reverted three times in the past 24 hours; a fourth reversion could be construed as a violation of our Three revert rule. I would encourage you to discuss your concerns with the other editor involved in the edit war, but - to your credit - You already have. I'll also leave a note for Frank Pais along these lines. Thank you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Taken From Canadian Human Rights Commission''

Hyperionsteel - I never suggested that Steacy's comments weren't significant (perhaps your question was aimed at another contributer?). I completely agree that the current controversy regarding Section 13 warrants inclusion in this article, but the problem is that it has TAKEN OVER the article. I am not suggesting this from a POV on the controversial manner - I find the sections for both sides of the issue to be too large in relation to the rest of the article. The "Response from the CHRC" section is huge! Actual information about the CHRC is included in the first three paragraphs of the article, while the next FIVE sections all deal in one way or another with the S13 controversies. In my opinion, this is not an accurate representation of the organization's mandate or execution thereof. The vast majority of work done by the CHRC does not involve S13 cases, but rather issues such as ensuring compliance to employment equity legislation in federally mandated workplaces. Given that some edits of this article have also confused/combined cases from provincial HRC's in this article, perhaps the solution would be to have a new "Human Rights Commissions in Canada" entry with broad inclusion of criticisms/controversy's, and then sub-sections detailing the actual commissions? What do you think? 007blur007 (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My Response 007blur007 - I appreciate your comments, but I think you are misunderstanding why I want this section in the article. The controversy section is not about Section 13.1 (although the events did occur during 13.1 investigations). Rather it deals with controversial (and possibly illegal) behaviour by CHRC officials. Whether or not this behaviour occured during a 13.1 investigation, it is notable. If these controversies occurred during different investigations, I would still have them posted. That's why I believe it should be placed in this article.

I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to discus this issue as opposed to simply deleting the material.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Elmasry

Hyperionsteel - I understand why you reverted my edits, but I disagree. This article is WAY too long for a minor public figure such as Elmasry and reads like a laundry list of his every thought and public statement. This is not the purpos of a BLP. 007blur007 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but I disagree. Elmasry is a very visible, vocal and controversial figure in Canada. He is the head of the largest Islamic organization in the country and he has made many controversial remarks and statements over the past 7 years. This article deserves to be detailed - but accurate. If you feel anything in this article is inaccurate or is overly bias, feel free to correct it or add additional information.

However, I don't believe that removing so much of the article is helpful. Elmasry is not a minor figure and all of the statements and citations in this article are properly sourced (if any aren't please let me know). I believe the article should remain in its current form. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Hello, again. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do not believe that the article is overly biased in either direction and did not mean to imply that. I just do not believe that it serves as a proper enclyopediac entry. We can agree to disagree on the prominence of Elmasry (which is fine) but, even if I accept that he deserves such a huge article, it should not serve as a laundry list of his every notable statement. His article contains more quotes and positions than Winston Churchill's!!!! Minor (praise for Joel Kovel) or long since newsworthy items (response to "Merrry Christmas") simply do not merit inclusion in the BLP. Elmasry's article now includes his quotes on the Omar Khadr situation. By comparision, the articles for Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion (or former PM Paul Martin for that matter) do not mention their public statements regarding Khadr. Why do you feel that Elmasry's opinions are more worthy of inclusion? 007blur007 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Elmasry is not commenting on speed limits or the building of dams. With regards to his comments on Omar Khadr, he essentially stated (although he later changed his mind) that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a racist. This is very notable and should be mentioned in Wikipedia.

The list of this statements, and the reactions of them, all deal with very important issues to which Elmasry has very strong and often controversial opinions. Israel, Homosexualty, the War on Terror, The Old Testament, to cite a few examples, are issues which Elmasry has been both praised and condemned for.

The response to Merry Christmas is notable because the issue of whether or not Canada's multicultural society made wishing someone Merry Christmas was cultural insensitive proved to be a topic of much debate among all Canadians. Although I'll admit that this may not belong in the article - let me think about it.

Elmasry's controversial statements on issues (such as those listed above) do belong in wikipedia. The fact that Elmasry makes lots of controversial statements warrants a large article. Elmasry represents himself as the leader of Canada's Muslim community - which makes his statements very important, especially in times like these when Islamophobia and terrorism on hot topics on the Canadian and world stage. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Canadian Human Rights Commission. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

CHRC

After a bit of contemplation, I agree with your position on the format of this article. My apologies for any trouble our conflict may have caused. Frank Pais (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Frank - no touble at all. Thank you for taking the time to let me know. 007blur007 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)