User talk:AnnieHall

|Welcome!

Hello, AnnieHall, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help

Hello: My name is Ivan Robaina Bychko, I am 17 years old and I am very interested in the culture and history of your country. I am working on a summer school project about your country and I would like very much if you could help me a little bit. So, please, if you are able to help me please write to me at my e-mail address: nayesda.daria@medired.scu.sld.cu I apologize for my bad English and thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==========

RW - you should know better (being a member of the BAR and all) - you shouldn't go online posting information about people that you have current complaints against. You also shouldn't be posting links to "white supremacist" websites.

The most pathetic thing about A.L.'s and now also your campaign to spread misinformation on Wikipedia about ultra-nationalists is that these individuals like the spotlight and were never hiding in the first place. You are only stroking their egos.

I see your point Annie. Homey 04:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Bahr

A good start, but I put it on the wikify list for style. Cheers V. Joe 05:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)==GBII=== Hey again. The biggest thing it needs for style is to put the quotes in a more traditional form, without so much bold text. It also is only loosely NPOV, and could use some tweaking there. V. Joe 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

badfairuse image

As per Wikipedia's rules, I am notifying you that the image Northern Alliance & Friends 6 has been tagged as badfairuse. Dogmatic 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page for the photo in question contains my reason for tagging it as badfairuse. This would also apply to any other image from the Northern Alliance website. Dogmatic 20:59, 2006

I've just commented on the matter at the image talk page. Can you confirm that you uploaded the image from the NA site? If so, I fear it may have to be deleted. CJCurrie 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the first image momentarily. To the second: I'm not an expert on copyright either, but I imagine the most appropriate course of action would be to ask the LFP for permission. I believe there's a generic form available at Wikipedia:Copyright. CJCurrie 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Glenn Bahr article looks fine but needs to be sourced with footnotes. Homey 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Tomasz_Winnicki.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Tomasz_Winnicki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I highly doubt that the image is copyrighted, but if there is any problems, there is plenty of photos of Winniki that can be provided to replace that one. --Mista-X 23:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Homey was kind enough to fix it. AnnieHall 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouwendyk

Dunno, people on Stormfront seem to think it's him but - then again - you'd think the London Free Press would have covered it. Perhaps someone should call Randy Richmond at the LFP and ask if it's the same guy. BTW, we can include those photos as fair use, we just have to assert under the notice *why* they are fair use (ie non-commercial, needed to illustrate story etc). Homey 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)69.63.63.64 Hahaha..I can only speculate that DICK Warman is your protege?

-Another Ontario "Hater"- 88

Oh, by the way, I'm NOT Tara.

Nope, this would be Nathan Touchette most likely. In fact I've never met Mr. Warman, I've never spoken to him, and i don't really have a buring desire to do either. AnnieHall 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated on the discussion about Jason, this isn't Nathan Touchette. Interesting to read you do not want to meet Warman either. Why is that?

Why would I? My life doesn't revolve around anti-racism. AnnieHall 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok there. Either this is Shane,Or Matt Lauder.

Neither, though the fact that people are way off the mark does make me feel more secure. AnnieHall 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, you shouldn't have to feel fear, you're not an Anti-Racist. Just a person who 'researches' 'Hate' groups and National Socialists. Is my take on it.

Ah, Midland

Wouldn't it be nice to be back there now? I do miss it at this time of yearfMarie Tessier 12:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I was sort of the local shit disturber in my young adult life. My family's from there. I went to PSS many years ago. Marie Tessier 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Thanks very much. CJCurrie 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the template -

Second time around they seem o.k. Sorry! Mattisse (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Richard, could you please make a page on me..::

Why do people insist of thinking that I'm Warman? AnnieHall 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[abusive comments removed]

I'm neither actually. I don't even know who the last guy is. I would ask that you not blank either my user page or talk page. As for the information I use in writing the articles every last bit of it can be found on other websites. AnnieHall 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[abusive comments removed]

Vandalism

Yes, there is a way around this problem -- I (or another admin) could semi-protect your user page. CJCurrie 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary white supremacists

Hello from Australia. Our article on White supremacy currently lists as contemporary white supremacists 5 Canadians about whom we do not have articles:

Tyler Chilcott
Craig Harrison
Peter Kouba
David Ruud
Tomas Szymanski

(We do have an article about a quite different Craig Harrison.) I seem to recall that you added these names; if not, I hope that you know something about them. Are any of these people WP:Notable enough that we should have articles about them?

I ask this because I'm not sure Wikipedia should list names in such a context without providing (1) specifying precisely who we are describing as White Supremacists and (2) giving some evidence for that description. (Hmm. Another option is to add a link or two after each name to WP:Reliable Sources calling them White Supremacists, but that's a bad precedent for future vandalism.) Or perhaps we should remove those names (and restore them if we get articles about them).

Cheers, CWC(talk) 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARA

AnnieHall, is there any reason you never do articles about the Terrorist Org. ARA,OCAP? You seem to be hellbent on doing articles on only Canada's Far Right and yet you seem to largely leave their opposition alone. Is this deliberate?

01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)8318 01:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Understandable. I'd like to know where you get your information,media,internet forums,personal knowledge? Just curious as to why their isn't Ruttle,Ichim and circus entries. They are very public. You seem to be very 1 sided.[reply]

Anti-White bias enforced in articles

Hello Annie,

My name is Bill Noble. I'm messaging you to ask what your purpose here on Wikipedia is. At this point I'm afraid that I'm strongly under the impression that you are deliberately attempting to cast pro-White activism and activists in a negative light.

I signed up not too long ago in an attempt to make Wikipedia entries on related topics a bit more fair and objective. I've noticed most of my contributions in this vein seem to be evaporating. As I learn how to better use the features of this site, I backtracked the changes in the Glenn Bahr entry and found that you seemed to be claiming responsibilty for the removal of the term 'pro-White' from that entry.

Those who hate Whites and supporters of pro-White activism constantly try to infer that pro-White initiatives are hate-based. This is a false and hurtful accusation against the pro-White movement.

If you have any humanity or compassion in your heart, I hope that you will in future take care not to alter content in such a manner. In the long run, such proliferation of anti-White bias can cause a lot of real pain and even cost lives, in a world increasingly unfriendly towards White people.

Hoping you will try to be a little more considerate in future, Bill Noble

I responded to your statement on your talk page, though I would add that it seems to me the pro-White activists you're defending may have cast themselves in a negative light since I'm simply writing about what they've done or said. AnnieHall 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Annie, I certainly won't deny that hate exists, or that it occurs in the rank and file of WNs. However, the occurence of hate in the pages of Stormfront hardly justify labelling Stormfront a 'hate site'.

Consider that White Nationalism is a cause which only needed to come into existence because the welfare and existence of the White race was in peril. The source of the peril lies in various non-White and/or anti-White groups, in a confluence of various contributing factors which can involve non-Whites who are not necessarily anti-White, and anti-Whites who are not necessarily non-White, as well as numerous non-White anti-Whites.

The definition of an anti-White is anyone who deliberately takes a course of action which is calculated to hurt the White race or any effort to preserve the White race.

Hatred, when it occurs, occurs for a reason. Many of those who hate Blacks do so because they have had negative experiences with Blacks. I myself might have reasonable grounds to hate Native Americans, as I've been assaulted by them often enough, most recently a couple of weeks ago. However, I make the intellectual choice not to hate them, because I see their behavior as being part of their nature, and thus, something they cannot help; they are violent and aggressive, and hate White people. There are exceptions, certainly; yet, there is also the rule to which those exceptions occur.

What hate you observe in sites like Stormfront is simply a natural response to the pressures of opposition, aggravation, and various other negative affronts non-Whites and/or anti-Whites commit against my people. Some WNs live near ghettos and have experienced violence at the hands of ghetto Blacks. an you blame them for developing negative opinions of Blacks as a result? And perhaps some fear, some resentment, some derision or contempt?

Other WN live near Native reserves, as I did, and have had unpleasant experiences there. Still others have been subject to violence by Asian gangs or various other ethnic delinquents.

None of this implies that all people of every non-White race is necessarily a bad apple. However, the fact that racial tension is naturally inherent in human beings means that forced integration or a 'program of multiculturalism' is going to expose people of one race to the dark side of other races.

If all races were separate, had their own sovereign territory and self-rule, and each took care of their own criminal element, then the word 'racism' would come to bear connotations of 'respect' instead of the connotations of 'hatred' that become apparent in the word's ciurrent everyday usage.

So long as White people are subject to having multiculturalism imposed upon them, without their consent, they are guaranteed to react to this cultural rape with strongly negative feelings and expressions.

If you want to end hate,

You must first end the rape of the White race.

It's either that or hurry up and slaughter us so that we are no longer present in this world to hate those who wilfully rape and slaughter our race.

- Bill Noble

P.S. If you should happen to peruse the Stormfront thread on Glenn Bahr's Wikipedia entry, you'll find some harsh comments I've made regarding you. These comments are based upon your apparent motives as viewed from my perspective. I see I was inaccurate in my guess that you'd avoid open discussion with the likes of myself.

"Yes Mr. Noble, I have been reading your post on the Glenn Bahr Wikipedia article with a great deal of amusement. You might wish to let “Teardown” (who I believe edits on Wikipedia as 8318) that there’s nothing that I’ve written about on Wikipedia that he himself can’t find online. There’s no inside information that I have access to (I wish I had access to such a source) and that the articles I write and edit are based on some very simple Google searches. They give me far too much credit."

'... with a great deal of amusement'. This indication of condescension suggests that I may not have been far off with my comment that you wished to avoid speaking directly to us 'because that would give them credibility' and that you plan to abruptly cut off this discussion in the not-too-distant future. Perhaps your entire response was delivered for the express purpose of proving me wrong in suggesting that you'd avoid open discussion altogether?

I do agree that most of what you post does appear to be derived from the public domain, however.

"It seems to me that you want to have it both ways Mr. Noble. On the one hand you say that Stormfront is not a hate site, but on the other hand you say that if some White Nationalists do express hatred on Stormfront then they have a reason, and a good one at that, which you then proceed to vaguely justify."

Perhaps I didn't express my point clearly enough: the expression of hatred on a site does not define what that site is. Pro-White sites exist to help pro-White activists network with one another. The adversity we are beset with will inevitably lead to expressions of hatred. We are after all only human, and it is human to experience emotional reactions to things which confront us in life.

"You know that I can easily provide thousands of links to posts made by Stormfront members who use vile language to describe non-Whites and Jews. Yes, I know that there is a policy that such language is not permitted on Stormfront, but that policy is administered sporadically at best. At the same time anything critical of White Nationalists whom David Duke or Don Black favour is often immediately removed from the forum by Stormfront moderators. To me this implies tacit approval of such language and the attitudes that accompany the language since it is not often expunged immediately, if at all. If Stormfront is the respectable face of White Nationalism, then the VNN forum and Blood and Honour forum don’t even make an attempt. If you don’t consider Stormfront to be a hate site, then how about these other two websites?"

VNN - which I personally have posted on, indeed using blunt jargon - seemed originally to place stress upon freedom of speech over outward appearance. As much as I appreciate the freedom and the honesty inherent in such a prioritization, I can see all to well that it does result in a crude outward appearance. Though my chief reason for abandoning that site is their endorsement of the traitor Glenn Miller.

Blood and Honour revolves around the British Skinhead sphere, where the talk tends to be tougher than on this side of the Atlantic. Largely because their situation is tough enough to warrant such talk.

Stormfront may have ended up being something of a censored environment, but if the end result is something civilized and productive, I see no reason to complain.

"You said that White Nationalists who hate have reasons for feeling the way they do. I agree that they have reasons, but the question then is whether their reasons are justifiable. I’ve never been victimized by an ethnic minority in my life that I can remember. I have been physically assaulted by three white men though. I realize that this sounds like a contrived example, but it is true. Would I be justified in hating all whites? According to your logic, such hatred would be understandable. To me it would be ridiculous to condemn an entire group based on the actions of a small sample. So, I don’t hate whites because I was attacked by three white men, though I will say I’m not at all fond of those particular three white men."

Intra-racial violence would best be dealt with by tribal law, i.e. in a White society, White assailants would be executed or otherwise punished for their crimes. Chances are, with the current regime's approach, the White men who assaulted you got minimal sentences (if any) and are now free as a reward for their assault upon, and resultant partial alienation of, a White woman. Had you been non-White, likely they would have been worse off. You would be fully justifiable in feeling resentment towwrds those who assaulted you, but were they merely White? Or were they White drug addicts? Or White drug dealers? Or White whiggers? Chances are, these lot had something other than race alone to define them. Most well-balanced White men don't go around assaulting the women of our race. Depending upon your clarity of mind, you could end up hating degenerate White males, or you could end up hating men in general, to the point of becoming a lesbian. The clearer your intellect, the better focused your dislikes.

"Incidentally I do find it interesting that you claim that hatred by White Nationalist can be justified based on their negative experiences with minorities, and then say that Native Americans hate white people but provide no explanation. Since you seem to be saying that hatred occurs for a reason, I wonder if you’d explain the reason why Native Americans hate white people as you claim they do? If white hatred of Native Americans is justified, then is Native American hatred of whites justified? You said that you were recently attacked by some Native Americans? This would imply some animosity. Was their animosity justified?"

Native Americans hate White people because we occupy the same space as they do. Hence the slogan: END THE HATE... SEPARATE! It isn't necessarily because we invaded and conquered their land; it's mostly because they live in such close quarters with us. Different races need separation from each other if they are to be peaceable with one another, as delineated in the Twenty-Sixth Precept: Nature has put a certain antipathy between races and species to preserve the individuality and existence of each. Violation of the territorial imperative necessary to preserve that antipathy leads to either conflict or mongrelization.

"I have to say I’m worried about your definition of what an anti-White is. Using the Blood and Honour forum again as an example, there is a Canadian moderator who I won’t name who routinely calls for killing minorities and Jews if it means the advancement of the Aryan Master Race. Should he carry though with his boasts, and if you knew that he committed such a terrible crime, would you report his crime to the police? If you would turn him in then aren’t you, in a way, engaging in an anti-White act according to how you define it?"

I'm not sure if you grasp all the fine points of survival in the face of natural law, but the bottom line is: the end justifies ANY means. If anyone finds themselves feeling threatened by pro-White activists, they need to look at what they're doing to become the focus of our anger. I'm sure that in the current social environment, there are multitudes of individuals totally oblivious to the harmful consequences of what they percieve as normal and acceptable everyday behavioural patterns. But what if they paused to consider the eventual consequences of their actions? What if they realized that their actions negatively impacted the survival and/or freedom of another people? Might they not feel remorse at the reckless endangerment they were participating in, and seek to change their ways?

"I find your comments about multiculturalism to be interesting but I have to question them. Toronto is a very multicultural city and I know the posters on Stormfront rail about that fact and the murder rate in the city. But the murder rate in Toronto is a little over 2 per 100,000 people. In London the murder rate is around 2.4 per 100,000 and it’s at least as multicultural as Toronto if not more so. However Moscow, which is far more monocultural, has a murder rate of 22 per 100,000 people (at least according to 2002 numbers). Perhaps other factors are at play than multiculturalism? Levels of poverty and inequality? Maybe race has far less to do with crime than economic factors?"

No single factor can be pinpointed as the cause of any complex phenomenon. Multiculturalism is a significant factor, and the source of many negative eventualities, without any sufficient beneficial side effects to justify its being imposed upon a nation.

"I often think that those White Nationalists who express hatred towards non-Whites, and you yourself admit some could be described as hating non-Whites, feel the way they do because it’s easier to blame others for their own inadequacies. It’s easier to make an excuse for one’s failures than it is to think introspectively and come to the conclusion that, “Perhaps it is me after all.” Be honest Mr. Noble. When you read some posts on Stormfront by people complaining about how society is so unfair to whites, don’t you sometimes think, based upon how the poster presents himself, that perhaps the reason why that person is a failure is because that person IS a failure? You might not think this for all, or even most, but I think you’re intelligent enough to realize that you can’t blame multiculturalism for every sob story on Stormfront."

Most of those sob stories don't have anything to do with the poster being a 'failure'. It's probably debatable what a failure is. My own definition of the term might be someone who dies without reproducing, or someone who fails to avoid addiction to a non-beneficial, harmful substance. Many of the people on Stormfront have personally been victimized in one way or another by non-Whites or by the process of multiculturalization. Many of us are currently in situations where our liberty is at stake for no other reason than expressing our views, opinions and beliefs - I myself am looking at two years in prison, after a court date in late March 2007. That, and a lot of the other unreasonable persecution we have to put up with from the governments, media, manipulated public, and various other collossi that tower over us, certainly justifies resistance and protest from us.

The bottom line is this: We seek SURVIVAL and LIBERTY. We resist our EXTINCTION and our OPPRESSION. And frankly, if somebody gets offended because we used a derogatory term to describe them, or because we express concern at their crowding us out of our communities, or they don't like the colors and symbols of the flags we fly, their taking offense doesn't give them a moral high ground over us. We are human beings, and that means we will be rude, we will be angy, we will be resentful, we will be desperate, we will sometimes lose control and lash out... we will not be shining angels smiling away blissfully accepting the tramp of the tyrant's boots crushing us into oblivion.

We are human beings being subject to a deficit of freedom and the means to self-preservation, and we will do whatever we have to do to srvive. We will also often do stupid and detrimental things, because to do such is one of humanity's inevitable shortcomings.

I think I started to ramble at the end. I’ll post it anyways. I’m interested in your reply to what is likely the garbled ramblings of a sleep-deprived mommy. AnnieHall 09:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much rambling, but the comment about reading my post 'with a great deal of amusement' was perhaps ill-advised. It comes across as an attempt to assert intellectual and/or moral superiority over the person being spoken to, and is not a productive approach to open discussion.

- Bill

CHRT

An article is needed on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Would you like to help write it? Dimitrioff 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fame

FYI: [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=308573]. -Will Beback · † · 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnieHall. why did my name (8318) get dragged into this? You assume I am everyone from 'Teardown' (Whoever that is) to Nathan Touchette. You seem to lump these names to that person, why not just write an article on him?:::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 8318 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Will Beback noted that some people on Stormfront were talking about an article of mine and speculating that I'm Richard Warman. When have I mentioned anything about Nathan Touchette recently? I'm really sure I haven't said anything about anyone going by the name Teardown. I also haven't said a single thing about 8318 recently and I'm not sure if I ever have. I really don't give a flying fig who you are. Get over yourself. AnnieHall 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemire

The truly odd thing is, I once considered using "Zelig" as my login name. ;) CJCurrie 06:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lemire

I had to stub the article again. I hope you can help with it.--Jimbo Wales 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About stubbing...

I have to say I'm absolutely blown away by this decision to sub an entire article. The only thing I agree with is the removal of information where Stormfront is a source. Since it only deals with Marc Lemire's birthday it's can't be too difficult to find a better source. However, I fundamentally disagree with you statement that sources found on the Nizkor Project website is not acceptable. Most of the information from the Nizkor Project clearly show the provenance; government documents, newspaper articles, magazine articles, and primary sources (email correspondences). Even excluding the Nizkor Project, the majority of sources provided WERE government documents (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) or from other legitimate sources such as B'nai Brith and other similar sites. Warren Kinsella's book, Web of Hate is well-known to accademics and law-enforcement agencies documenting the far right in Canada from the early 1980s (actually, before then as well) to the mid 1990s. AnnieHall 03:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing is a common response, and ought to be a lot more common, to problematic biographies of living persons. The key is that it is not sufficient to simply tag random junk with a fact-tag and hope for the best. In this case, I started out with the intention of just removing the stuff that appeared to be badly sourced, but the article was so badly written, with random sources plugged in here and there, that it was impossible for me to do it in one pass. So, I stubbed it, and now we rebuild it. I will help. But it seems like you know more about it than I do, so hopefully you can do it more quickly than I ever could. I have no objection at the moment to references to Warren Kinsella's book... but do you have a physical copy? Can you confirm the information? Could you perhaps quote from it directly?

I fully support the use of carefully quoted information directly from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, B'nai Brith, etc. For Nizkor, the main things I object to are allegedly archived usenet posts and email correspondences... we have no good way to judge what scholarly standards they used, and anyway those things do not seem to add much. There is plenty in the reliable sources. --Jimbo Wales 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kouba

The page has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment. CJCurrie 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to devote more time to the Lemire article shortly. Unfortunately, I've been distracted with other matters in the last few days. CJCurrie 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lemire and Warren Kinsella

Thanks! Khoi khoi 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Watch Canada

FYI... http://naziwatchcanada.blogspot.com/ --Mista-X 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t310/naziwatchcanada/ --Mista-X 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use any of the photos found here http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t310/naziwatchcanada/July%2025%202004/ for whatever you want. They where all taken by me. --Mista-X 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Rudd

I believe this is him... http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t310/naziwatchcanada/July%2025%202004/273e.jpg --Mista-X 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gostick

Could you please add Ron Gostick to your watchlist? One of his associates keeps rewriting the article with nonsense and I'm not always arout to catch it. Dimitroff 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance

Hello,

I thought I should inform you that both of these pages have been deleted, on the grounds of insufficient information. It may be adviseable to re-write and re-create them in the near future. CJCurrie 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem was that both pages included personal information that (i) couldn't be traced to a reliable source, or (ii) was inappropriate in and of itself. It shouldn't be too difficult to create new pages, if we take steps to ensure this problem doesn't recur in the future.

Please email me. CJCurrie 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AnnieHall 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Heritage Alliance

Could you please add a comment here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_8#Canadian_Heritage_Alliance ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by White Rose Remembered (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Update: Could you please add a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Heritage Alliance? CJCurrie 05:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 14#Melissa Guille. CJCurrie 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Annie hall(2).jpg is copyright

...and probably should not be on your user page. It's only fair use when used for critical commentary in article space, per our Fair Use policy. Please consider removing it. I'll watch here for a bit to catch your responses. Please do not be alarmed if someone else does remove it as it's a fairly clear violation. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go ahead and remove it. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sign your vote on the Canadian Heritage Alliance page? Black as pitch 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Ruttle Martinez

An user seems to have taken an interest in the Shane Ruttle Martinez page (following a complaint, re: vandalism at the hand of a neo-nazi who also edited the Alexan Kulbashian page). Can you please take a look at it, has content which is clearly a BLP violation. Thanks.

Refactored a bit. For the record, it's not a BLP violation. The material is sourced properly, and it's apparent that Frank Paiz has some interest in removing all negative information, sourced or not. Based on his contribution history, I don't think he understands what BLP does. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that there is a current vote on the talk page, and I wanted to make an argument: I do not know who the guy is, nor do I know anything about the politics. I have looked over what was said as a third party who knows no background information. All I can see is that a group produced a movie about him (a group that he investigated, apparently, which means that he was challenged in some form on what he said, which is notable) without expressing their point of view or putting forth anything besides that a video was made to challenge him. Also, there was a note that he was arrested, which is important, as arrest records, even without convictions, are notable for all political figures (and he is a political figure by the nature of his investigation and his campaigning). I hope you can understand that and how such information is needed to put Wikipedia as an encyclopedia without undue bias, and that Wiki pages are not to express/applaud people's characters, but just provide standard, basic information that people might need to find on said person. SanchiTachi 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Wikipedia shouldn't have any mention of Mein Kempf because its an attack on Jews? Just because it is an attack peice does not make it not notable or verifiable, which is all that Wiki requires. Furthermore, the piece was done by those he was investigating, which makes it notable and required to be mentioned. No where does any of the wording support the movie, say that the movie is accurate, or even say what the movie says. So any removal or disallowance of having such a thing is showing that there is an unfair bias against what is required for every other page. SanchiTachi 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide information that proves that saying merely that a video was produced about a person without citing what the video says is slander. Furthermore, provide information that proves that saying that a person was arrested, which is documented by the Canadian law enforcement agencies, is slander. I don't think you understand what that word means, or how the information is stated as a fact and endorses no opinion. SanchiTachi 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnnieHall, before you persist in making allegations of slander, you may want to iinvestigate what slander actually is. Slander applies to statements made in non-permanent media, i.e. speech. The term you're thinking of is libel. If you don't know, please don't make statements regarding legalities. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFd

Please go to [1] and vote for a speedy keep. --Mista-X 01:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SanchiTachi

You may be interested in participating in the WP:AN/I involving SanchiTachi. Finell (Talk) 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Rudd

I believe this is him... http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t310/naziwatchcanada/July%2025%202004/273e.jpg --Mista-X 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on Marcel, you can do better than that. :)

Greg Felton

Annie, I seen you on here writing articles about white supremacists for sometime now and doing a very good job at it. There is another rising star in this world, his name is Greg Felton. They deleted the page I created about him because they say he is not notable but it is my opinion that he is. He edited his own page everyday and has insulted me many times if you review his discussion page. He has said calling someone Jewish is a condemntion.

I don't know if you are interested in this person but I hope perhaps you can consider creating his page as you seem to know more information then the rest of us about these types of people. Please let me know if you have any advice on what I can do to create a new Greg Felton page or if you can support it. Thanks & your work is appreciated!

--Eternalsleeper 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hall: I suggest you ignore eternalsleeper. He has an odious reputation as an abuser of Wikipedia's rules, and persists in defaming me. He gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Voxveritatis 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you review Voxveritatis's discussion page you will see that he considers calling someone Jewish a condemnation. I only ask you to consider taking up his page because I see you have created and improved many pages about Canadian neo-Nazis.

--Eternalsleeper 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For babysitting Bisping and Hamill's articles. east.718 at 04:48, September 9, 2007

AfD nomination of Western Canada for Us

Western Canada for Us, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Western Canada for Us satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canada for Us and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Western Canada for Us during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merle Terlesky

Please help properly source this revision of Merle Terlesky if you are able. Most of the statements can be sourced by searching through google. Any little bit you can do would be a great help, as I am currently short on time. --Mista-X 16:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Please vote at [2] --Mista-X 19:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pocopocopocopoco 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tri-City Skins

Tri-City Skins, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tri-City Skins satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-City Skins and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tri-City Skins during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Pocopocopocopoco 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Thanks for the note. As it happens I noticed the nominations even before you'd commented or written. The nominator made a bunch of edits to Alex Kulbashian that caught my eye. BTW, make sure you've read WP:CANVASS before you ask for input. I don't see any problems but you may not have been aware that Wikipedia has a guideline on the topic. (So many guidelines and policies!) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you also ask folks who may disagree with you, and you don't try to slant the response, then there shouldn't be a problem. Project talk pages are a good place to post notices. Maybe there's a Candaian politics project that can help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-City Skins. Though allegations of canvassing were made, there was clearly no consensus to delete in either. In the future, it's really best not to do much, if any, similar activity--often the appearance of impropriety is more damning than the action itself. Read the guideline Will linked to above. — Scientizzle 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Shane Ruttle Martinez article

Hey, can you keep an eye on the SRM article? A user by the name of Cheap Laffs has been causing problems there as of late, and seems to be a fascist vying to twist things to his / her viewpoint. Thanks! Frank Pais 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Annie, behave! ;-) Frank Pais 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various nazis

First off, I must congratulate you on your work regarding the articles you have wrote concerning various nazis,bigots,fascists within Canada.Secondly,I am interested in contributing to adding other names/articles to Wikipedia. I come from South Western Ontario (but have since moved) and was interested in adding other articles in regards to other high profile peoples; Tara Drebenki,Kyle McKee,Nathan Touchette, Northern Alliance members,Jon Latvis (of Rawhowa fame). Would you be interested in contributing with myself?

Thanks for your time Annie!

Liberal canadian —Preceding comment was added at 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Levant siding with nazis against the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Hello, I added this to the Levant article, and it is being discussed here. Please contribute some input if you have time. --Mista-X (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Gershuny

As you are interested in anti-racism in Canada you might be intereste din an AfD on this article here. --Mista-X (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Shaidle

I'm the guy who recently edited the Shaidle article, including deleting the Controversy section. I notice in a recent comment on Paul Erik's page, you seem to think I reverted the characterization of Shaidle as "controversial". I didn't - I agree that she is controversial! I just rephrased the idea by removing the adjective "controversial" and adding a sentence about her views igniting "controversy". Same thing, really. My concern was basically stylistic, to avoid the "adjective pile-up" we were getting in the opening phrase.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the Controversy section should stay out, at least until we resolve the concerns around defamation. (I sincerely believe that if you read through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons you'll agree that, as drafted, that section had no hope of meeting WP standards.)

Cheers, Chris B. 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.187.193 (talk)

I've included you in a comment on Paul Erik's page. Cheers, Chris B. 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.81.91 (talk) [reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Tomasz Winnicki.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tomasz Winnicki.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Scott Richardson

The article James Scott Richardson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Need to find new sources or the article should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of James Scott Richardson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Scott Richardson 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/James Scott Richardson (3rd nomination) 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. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]