Jump to content

Talk:Jim Prentice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great work

[edit]

I just want to say that what has happened here with the re-adding of DMCA controversy, and addition of the wikipedia controversy is a shining example of why wikipedia is great. the truth shines through. Good work everyone.--Matt D (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lock this page?

[edit]

It appears that Prentice or his staff may be vandalizing this page. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2999/125/

Leadership possibility section

[edit]

From the current revision:

Some have suspected that Prentice, along with MPs James Moore, Peter MacKay, Belinda Stronach and Chuck Strahl, was one of the five "unnamed" Conservative Party MPs that Harper rebuked in November 2004 for attempting to covertly start raising funds and support for a future CPC leadership race.

Who are "some?" Wikipedia reports political speculation of sufficiently high profile, but is not a gossip board. As tempting as that can be. See babble at Rabble, Freedominion, electionprediction or the Franksters board for that. :)

neoconservative fiscal credentials

I'm not yet aware of his policy positions on anything besides SSM, but how appropriate is neoconservative? He made his name in the fairly fiscally neutral practice of law (or fiscally negative, if you're not a lawyer, tee hee), then he ran to succeed Joe Clark. The arguably neoconservative proposal that got the big spotlight in that leadership race was Scott Brison's, to disband ACOA and offer a lower tax rate in the Atlantic instead; he did go to Prentice, but soon enough would join the Liberals. So... what do we have showing Prentice's neoconservatism? Samaritan 22:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA

[edit]

Anyone have a suggested NPOV wording for his actions on the DMCA front. I liked the quote to the extent that "he only heard of facebook yesterday" when he delayed introducing this backwards bill.

In any case, its a hot button topic, but we need a better paragraph on it and yet, I don't think I could write it due to my POV (yes, I have one too) -- Tawker (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Someone please fix the link in the References section for me, I don't know how to make it appear a [1]

The actual link [1] also doesn't work, you will need this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071213.wgtweb1214/BNStory/Technology/home

Nicely done 99.234.69.64

[edit]

"P. E. James Prentice, PC, MP (born July 20, 1956, in South Porcupine, Ontario near Timmins) is a Canadian lawyer and politician. He is a traitor to the Canadian People and hopes to sell of Canada's copywrite law to struggling American conglomerates." AndrewMcinally (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's all true, just poorly written and incorrectly spelled. He really is an utter berk and he needs to be run out of town on a rail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.102.63 (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-content

[edit]

I've removed the following meta-content from the page. Maybe some mention belongs in the article, but regurgitating a CBC news item ain't the way to do it. --Calton | Talk 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy surrounding the Government changing Prentice's Wikipedia entry

By Peter Nowak CBC News

The government has been editing Minister of Industry Jim Prentice's Wikipedia entry, removing mentions of the recent copyright-reform controversy and hailing the minister as personifying "experience, confidence and competence, ability and capability."

The edits, discovered by University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist — a vocal opponent of Prentice's pending copyright legislation — have been anonymously made over the past week with several attempts to remove criticisms of a bill the minister is expected to table before Parliament breaks for its summer session some time over the next few weeks.

The complete story is at Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry Editors of this page will want to read this article - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP due to this and the heavy IP vandalism resulting from it. -- Reaper X 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations fixed

[edit]

I've fixed the citations and done some formatting changes to establish something of a chronological order. Hope this helps DSatYVR (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tiny proofread

[edit]

"When Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner and I have reached a consensus and we're satisfied, we will introduce a bill."
should read
"When (Canadian Heritage Minister Josee) Verner and I have reached a consensus and we're satisfied, we will introduce a bill."
can someone with priveleges edit that for me?Benjamander (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be square brackets rather than parentheses? - 142.167.65.170 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I split the copyright controversy section into the 'copyright legislation and controversy' and 'wikipedia controversy' sections. These two issues, while moderately intwined, are not one in the same, hence two different headers. TheIguana (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Citations can be found: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080604.wcopyright04/BNStory/Technology/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

"Last week a leaked document revealed that the Conservatives are also negotiating with a number of other governments, including the U.S. and the European Union, to establish a new international copyright agreement, dubbed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)."

Citations for the Leaked document: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_(2007)

Back story from Michael Geist about his reference when speaking of the leaked document: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2955/125/ Crazy Dave (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia controversy section trimmed

[edit]

I removed these statements from the Wikipedia Controversy section:

The changes were largely viewed as Industry Canada's attempt to mitigate the copyright debate that had extended to Prentice's Wikipedia page.

The CBC article was cited, but there's nothing in the article about the motivation behind the edits, or what the motivations are 'largely' believed to be.

The edits were first brought to public attention by Michael Geist…

Geist's blog was cited, but it does not verify this info, and even if it did, certainly Geist himself is not a reliable source for such a claim.

…who accused Prentice's staff of editing his Wikipedia page.

This part of the sentence was redundant. (Also, Wikipedia has "articles", not "pages", and it's not clear whose was "his"; I thought "his" meant "Geist's" at first.)

I left in the basic info as reported by the CBC article, and I left Geist's blog in as a second source. —mjb (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the news article by CBC is Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry. It's not a big jump to say that CBC said they were whitewashing it. Geist is also a credible source. He has been used several times by CBC and CTV as the source of their news article. If the CBC is using him and we're using the CBC, therefore we should be able to use Geist as a reliable source (unless you're saying the CBC is not a reliable source). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geist is a very well regarded authority in this area. It's reliable and notable what he has to say. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Geist, the issue is not his credibility in general. It's just that he's not an acceptable or credible source for the statement "The edits were first brought to public attention by Michael Geist". Surely this is self-evident. Besides, his blog doesn't even make such a claim.
The main problem with The changes were largely viewed as Industry Canada's attempt to mitigate the copyright debate that had extended to Prentice's Wikipedia page is the unqualified "largely", which suggests that many people have been surveyed and conclusions drawn what some representative group of people believe. Although we'd like to believe it's not very plausible, the edits could've been a rogue act by some low-level clerk in Industry Canada's offices, so it's important not to imply that many or most people believe the edits were sanctioned by the government, whereas the source we have so far only suggest this belief is held by a CBC reporter or a particular tech industry guru, perhaps echoed here & there in the blogosphere. If the statement were changed to attribute the belief to just the CBC reporter, then maybe it could go back in. —mjb (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Put consumers first" quote

[edit]

I've been putting some work into finding a citation for this quote, with no luck so far. I thought I'd drop in a list of what I've done so far here, in case someone else is also looking.

First, I've been through all the Hansards from October through December 2007, which is the only likely period when Prentice might have said this in Parliament. Reports of the quote on the web all point to him saying it either in November or late October, but I decided to open the window a little just in case.

In any case, the only time Prentice addressed copyright in this period was on October 23rd, 2007. The Edited Hansard (Number 006), the one for that days, has Prentice saying this during the debate on address in reply to the Speech from the Throne:

Our government is aware also of the need for copyright reform and that this is essential to ensuring Canada remains competitive. We will introduce legislation in the next few months that will provide legal measures for rights holders, clarify the rules relating to copyright as they apply to Internet service providers, address the educational and research use of copyrighted materials, and address consumer interests.

At the moment, my suspicion is that the quote being used in the Wikipedia article -- if it's referring to something he said in Parliament -- is a mangled version of the final three words in the last sentence of this.

Another major possibility is that he made this statement to the media at some point. Fortunately (in this particular case) the current government keeps very tight rein on statements by ministers to the media, so there's not much to track down. I've not managed to find anything resembling this quote. As there's no central location to mine this possibility, it's entirely possible I've missed something, but I think that the only major article from October, November, and December that I've been unable to read is hiding behind a pay wall at the Globe and Mail's site: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20071210.INGRAM10%2FTPStory%2FBusiness%2Fcolumnists&ord=45369234&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true If someone has the ability to read that, it might be worthwhile.

Having failed so far, my next project is to watch the videos taken at the impromptu quizzing of the Minister on copyright mattres during his constituency office's December open house. If someone's already gone to that trouble, I'd appreciate knowing about it so I don't have to fire up YouTube for many hours while drinking coffee spiked with Red Bull to stave off sleep. -- Paul Drye (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Michael Geist

[edit]

I'm anonymous but not a vandal. Could somebody please add the following to the article in the "Copyright legislation and controversy" section: 

[[Michael Geist]] compiled a list of 10 questions he would like Prentice to answer about the upcoming copyright legislation.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2439/125/
|title=Ten Questions for Industry Minister Jim Prentice
|publisher=www.michaelgeist.ca
|accessdate=2008-06-04
|last=Geist
|first=Michael
}}
</ref>

76.10.147.117 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done 69.196.131.38 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the reference because it was self-published. I added it back because it was a mirror of an article in The Hill Times. I also added a list of 10 more questions Geist recently came up with. 69.196.131.38 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section Update

[edit]

I added some more detail to this section. Note, the draft legislation is "rumored" to be like the DMCA, it has not been tabled in the Commons yet, and until it is no one can comment definitively. Also made some minor grammatical edits. I will try to drop back in here later, got to check, I may have some more things to add. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"allegedly" and "is rumored to" have no place in an encylopedia article. If they haven't been proven true, they do no belong in the biography of a living person. Should these lines be removed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GaryColemanFan. UrbanTerrorist's language violates WP:NPOV, especially relative to previous version. (The more true and damaging an accusation is, the more objective it has to be to be credible.) Avt tor (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has to do with the Canadian Political system. Generally it will be known that a bill addressing an issue is being worked on, however the contents of the bill are not known until it is placed before the House of Commons. So we know that a bill will be introduced, but outside of the people at Industry Canada who had a hand in drafting it, no one knows what the bill will contain. The word "rumor" is probably not the correct word to use in the situation, but the original entry was written as if certain provisions (for example the Canadian equivalent to the American DMCA) are known to be in the bill, and this is not the case as yet (though based on the fact that we know Prentice has been meeting with the RIAA and the MPAA, and he has avoided meeting with groups with opposing opinions, this is likely). Feel free to re-word that section in a more acceptable manner, and I'll drop in again tomorrow, it's time for me to walk my dog, and go to bed. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know he was going to table the bill last December but didn't (CBC reported on it), and he said he was going to table one before summer (he said at least). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been tabled now. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm not sure if this fits within the bounds of WP as both these links go to organizations that argue the other side of the debate, so I've linked them up. I'm seeking comments from others on this. If they don't meet WP guidelines feel free to re-edit DSatYVR (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the external links to these two sites that were in the article, external links would be better placed on their respective wikipedia pages when they get created. TheIguana (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problems with the current article

[edit]

(1)Undue weight: The “Copyright legislation and controversy” is the single longest section in the entire BIO, although its hard to imagine that it is either the defining or even a defining moment in the life of the article topic. It should be included, but not given such extensive coverage here, rather it should have its own page within WP if it’s that important.

It isn't. It runs to two paragraphs and a list. The Member of Parliament section has 4 paras, and the Political career has 4 paras. An equal and opposite argument is that we do not have enough information on other aspects of his life & career, and should improve those, not hobble the copyright section so that it matches the paucity of other elements of the article.--Tagishsimon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of space given, it is the largest section. It should not remain in its current condition on the grounds that the article will eventually grow around it, and solve the undue weight issue via growth alone. It should be trimmed back so that it is balanced in its presentation. Brimba (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2)Again the “Wikipedia controversy” clearly is contentious material that has little to any long term relevance. Nor is proof given that the subject was directly responsible for the puffery; it could have been an underling that took it upon themselves to make the changes.

YMMV on that, I'm afraid. Blatent attenpts by an agent of Prentice, whether authorised or not, may well be notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(3)Material directly attributable to Michael Geist is used as a source. Geist is both a self published source and therefore can not be used as a source in a BLP per WP:V , and a primary source, not a secondary source, per WP:NOR .

WP:V states: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.
Geist is carrying on a public campaign against Prentice’s purposed legislation. Wikipedia should not be an extension of that, even when we agree with him. Per WP:RS Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources.
There are four Geist references.
  • The first references something about Geist, not something about Prentice
  • The second is a sole source
  • The third is a sole source, for a complaint which I;d agree is pretty irrelevant (how many ministers would agree at short notice to meet a self-appointed deputation?
  • The fourth is a redundant source --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the Geist sources Brimba removed were published in The Hill Times. Also, Geist has written numerous columns in newspapers and mirrored them on his homepage. Those do not violate WP:SPS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.155.195 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(4)The Minister of Industry section functions as a “controversies” section. There are four sections that in essence take him to task for positions that he has taken. Excluding the opening sentence, nowhere in the section do we include wholly encyclopedic material related to his government position. It is not Wikipedia job to get involved in disputes which is what is clearly being done here. We don’t take sides, we follow WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV states: “The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
There are - to my eye - a sufficiency of notable sources attached to each of the four to allow them to fly.
The issue here is undue weight, not the reliability of the sources. We give great detail to controversial positions he has taken, and his possible involvement with editing his WP article page, and all the while fail to cover single neutral or positive item for his time as minister. That’s not fair. What we do cover should be covered in a neutral unbiased manner with enough additional material included so that the section is not simply a controversies section under a different name. The material does not have to be positive per say; it simply has to draw a more complete picture of what the guy has done. Surely there must be more? Brimba (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(5)The article overall uses a considerable amount of loaded language such as “proposed and controversial” without giving a source to substantiate that level of wording. Brimba (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minority of the article uses such loaded language. THe more recent sections have indeed had many eyeballs in the last few days. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You would, in my view, and in short, better serve the article by amending the few questionable issues, than by slapping a huge tag on it & inviting a revert war by failing until challenged to document your concerns. And I have the awful feeling that you are now going sit as the arbiter of when the tag can be removed; presumably "the dispute is clearly settled" until you say so? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are functioning as intended. Wikipedia should not be used as a means of battling against legislation, and in particular, it should not be used against the individual who sponsored the legislation. We are not the press, let the press do its job and we will do ours. If I had not added the tags prior to cleaning up the article, I indeed would have sparked an edit/revert war. Brimba (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to take part in "cleaning it up", or merely tag it? Note, btw, that the first tag does demand that you remove the offending material. I'm reminded of another article on my watchlist - William C. Rogers III. By your argument about the copyright controversy, his should not labour on the Iran Air 655 incident. But that's nonsense: this is why Rogers is notable. Copyright is one of the major reasons that Prentice is now notable worldwide. Of course there should be adaquate coverage of it, in his article and, if neceesary, in its own article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

4 out of 24 citations are to Geist's blog. I now invite Brimba to specify exactly which sentences require citations such that the {{BLPsources|date=August 2008}} tag can be removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started working through the sources. Under the section “Net neutrality” we state “refusing to answer questions about the government's position on throttling practices by national ISPs.”, while the source says “refused to be drawn into the simmering net neutrality debate”. Brimba (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative MPs Dean Del Mastro and Pierre Poilievre have edits originating from the the Canadian House of Commons

[edit]

It looks like there is more than one Canadian Government agency or Conservative MP who is using Wikipedia to scrub articles. The IP address(s) in question is 192.197.82.153 Dean Del Mastro and 192.197.82.155 Pierre Poilievre

DSatYVR (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lock This Page before damage is done

[edit]

Today, Jim Prentice announced a bill, Bill C-61. Below is a copy of the e-mail sent out to many people.

"The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age. What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:


expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner. For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.


The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Industry

The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister for La Francophonie "

I believe that since this is a VERY HOT TOPIC, many people may want to vandalize Mr. Prentice's page and write biased information about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PC helper online (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism will be reverted but I'm not protecting the page. It wasn't too bad after Industry Canada was caught claiming that the bill doesn't exist and I don't think it will be too bad now. I'll fork an article for this bill because I think it's notable upon it's own strengths now. -- 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
C-61 is up for editing, feel free to join in -- Tawker (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I also point out that WP:PROTECT states "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred". -- Reaper X 22:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There has been no vandalism so far, if there is, then we protect it. Otherwise, let Wikipedia function as it is supposed to do, even if we don't always agree with the edits. It's part of the process that makes Wikipedia so strong. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You jinxed it Terrorist. 3 instances of anon vandalism. If it persists, take it to WP:RFPP. -- Reaper X 04:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are kidding right? 3 cases doesn't even register. Got to wait a little while past that before even asking. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know it always rains after I wash my car... I read all the vandal edits, and all I can say is we get a really low class of vandal around here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook group

[edit]

Don't know if it is relevant to the biography page or not....I know its relevant to the bill, but I don't think there should be any further expansion of the controversy part on details more related to the bill than Jim Prentice, since Bill 61 already is about that....we don't need the same info in two places.....the one here should be more related to the person. Noian (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can join Facebook groups to express their opposition to the cause or idea that the Facebook group supports, so citing membership numbers is misleading. In fact, the *only* way to express opposition to a Facebook group (on Facebook, on that group's page), is to join it. So the number is a little meaningless. Further - is there a single study or shred of evidence that Facebook groups in general, or this one in particular, has any impact on policy or decision making? Or do they just put cute icons on people's home pages?198.161.2.211 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that both Noian and 198.161.2.211 have made good observations. This Facebook group is, for technological reasons, reduced to 536 members (https://www.facebook.com/FairCopyrightCanada/posts/204499936315952?stream_ref=10). But even if it was 80000, there would have to be a reliable source that says the number mattered and was specifically relevant to Prentice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing nobody jumped in to defend it or fix it, I have removed the talk about a Facebook group. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jim Prentice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and adding references

[edit]

Hello all, I've recently done a bit of re-writing on this page to bring it up to the standard of other First Ministers across the country. I've also added some other sources, and removed some of the more contentious and unreferenced claims. I'd like to think that the unreferenced tags can be removed now, but I'd prefer to have a second (or third+) set of eyes look over it first. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Prentice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Prentice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jim Prentice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Prentice&oldid=1208345390"