Talk:Seaton House

Untitled

What was changed was a start. Here is what needs to be edited:

Seaton House is the largest homeless shelter in Toronto, Ontario. Canada[1] Located on 339 George Street near Dundas Street East, several blocks from Yonge Street, it provides temporary lodging, food, clothing, medical care, for single men and also attempts to provide tools for establishing independence.[2] The shelter houses up to 700 men[1] though it has exceeded capacity and housed as many as 900 in the past.[3]

The shelter has no system of setting up "independence". The shelter runs on fear and intimidation of crackheads and criminals, and the social workers are immigrants who are desperate for work. There is a place called "Schoolhouse Hostel" next door, and now I can understand the fear in the East Asian man's eyes when he saw me trying to pay for a night's rest. He told me I was too young to stay there.

The original Seaton House was built in 1931, during the Great Depression[4][3] to provide a place to sleep and meals for transient men seeking work[5] and moved to its current premises in 1959.[3] There is room for 434 men in the main facility, 54 men are housed in the adjacent O'Neill House, a "time-out" facility for clients who are in crisis and unable to function within the main facility. During hot or cold weather alerts this facility is expanded to provide additional emergency shelter. An additional 140 men are housed in the Seaton House Annex through the Annex Harm Reduction Program.[6] Until the 1990s, the shelter operated on a highly regimented basis banning alcohol and requiring men to get out of bed by 5:15 am.[4] A review of the shelter in the early 1990s was prompted by complaints of staff brutality and authoritarian regulations at the facility.[7] Rules into the 1990s included a requirement to register for a bed by 1:30 pm. The hostel itself did not open until 4 pm and returning clients were expected to provide proof that they applied for at least three jobs during the day,[3] the doors were locked at midnight and cleints were expected to be in bed an hour earlier. Lights would go on at 5 am; breakfast was served at 5:30 am and 6:30 am and clients had to leave the premises by 7:30 am.[8] Clients were expected to spend their days looking for work. Over the years, the clientele changed from unemployed transients looking for what little work they could find to a population composed largely of ex-psychiatric patients, alcoholics and drug addicts[3] as well as the disabled,[5] refugees and others lacking family or community support have also ended up seeking temporary respite at Seaton House. In 1999, a sudden influx of Tibetan refugees resulted in 53 being provided temporary residence at Seaton House.[9] In 2002, several youths from Uganada who arrived in Toronto to participate in the Catholic Church's World Youth Day were housed in Seaton House after they requested asylum.[10][11]

The Tibetan and Ugandan refugees were probably placed away from the "General population" on the third or fourth floors.

Funded by the provincial and city governments, the institution now operates on a 24 hour basis. Since 1997, it has operated as a "wet shelter" in conjunction with staff from St. Michael's Hospital on the harm reduction principle. Previously, Seaton House banned alcohol resulting in many homeless alcoholics opting to stay on the street. Under the new "managed alcohol" policy clients enrolled in the program are served one drink every hour until it is determined that an individual is too inebriated at which point he is denied another shot. The clients have been found to gradually reduce their intake under this regime and many have quit entirely.[12][13] 105 of the shelter's beds are reserved for homeless chronic alcoholics.[13]

This is nonsense. Everyone knows that the government takes hundreds of millions of dollars from the United Way which is meant to pay for an individual who fell on hard times to have a warm, reasonable place to sleep, and is instead funneled to politicians wallets. Satan House is like a jail. Just walk by Satan House. I dare you.

Seaton House provides bathing facilities, delousing, a barber, delousing, laundry and lockers[14] as well as counselling and life skills training. Typically, a client will sleep in a large room with several bunk beds and shared bathroom. Three meals a day are provided. Clothing and shoes are available, if needed, as well as medical care from doctors and nurses.[6]

Nonsense!!! "Delousing"!!! "Barber"!!! The barber is the poor Mexican janitor who is so stressed out, it looks like he's going to die of a heart attack. The model of running government homeless shelters is just like the PFI scam in London. Take hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money, refinance, and then make the target project with the least amount of money possible. I will cite references to reflect this reality in later edits.

Typically, a client will sleep in a huge dormitory. There are two large fans on each side of the dormitory, which are there to mask the horrendous odor that wafts around the room air. The fans are switched on via a key switch, which can be circumvented with a sharp object, though you will find that someone has turned the unbearably loud fan back on due to near vomiting from the odor on their part. The dormitory structure works like this. Homeless people are restricted to the first and second floor. The first floor is seperated into three areas. The office area, the cafeteria, and the TV area. The TV's volume control knob is broken off, so that the television is on the maximum volume (Which was 40) from early in the morning until late at night. Outside is where people traffic in crack cocaine and then they come inside and do their "stealth smokes" where they check if there's a staff member around and then smoke that nasty shit.

Shut the fuck up troughton. You think you threaten me with your draconiam nonsense. I laugh and spit at wikipedia, the encyclopedia of tyranny. My edit is to show the people that people like me will not be silenced.

You want to lock the article? Good. You can't win. As soon as people see it's locked they go to the talk page and the history page and they see advice from someonw who slept at Satan house who had to sleep with a butter knife underneath his pillow and is shoes wrapped in his arms.

Fuck you and I hope your family dies a horrible death you tyrannical fascist. Wikipedia will go down in history as being the shittiest idea the internet ever had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.57.169 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with the requirement that information in our articles is verifiable by reliable sources and maintains a neutral point of view. It is not a discussion forum where you're free to state your personal opinion of the subject if that opinion can't be backed up with independent sources. It's not tyrannical or draconian; it's the rules of the place. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Wikipedia is a waste of time. I shall do as I please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.57.169 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you shall follow the rules or you will be banned. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You will try to ban me, but you will be unsuccessful. Are you familiar with what a proxy server is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.61.246 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is as follows: you do not, under any circumstances, have a right to add unsourced personal opinion to a Wikipedia article. All material here must be directly attributed to a valid and reliable media source. And for the record, I'm perfectly familiar with what a proxy server is — if it takes 50 separate IP bans to get you to stop you thinking you have any right to vandalize articles, then 50 separate IP bans it'll be. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So be it. You will need to ban a lot more than 50 IP addresses to keep me off wikipedia. Fortunately, people like you were occupied with other forms of fascism during the founding years of the internet to declare this kind of thing a criminal offence. :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.61.246 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't understand here. We're also not going to let anyone add unsourced opinions to articles. There is also semiprotection, which just locks out all non-registered and new editors, which you can't get around using a proxy server.

Shall I demonstrate to you how I get around these so called limitations?

It's also no issue to block an entire range of IP's you've been using, a block on 99.238.0.0/16 should do the trick. If you're using some kind of open proxy, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, we'll just indefinitely block those IP addresses.

there are thousands of free proxy servers all over the internet. It's like destroying an anthill by crushing each individual ant one by one. Forget about it. You will not be successful. Just for shits and giggles, entertain me.

Here is a list of internet proxy servers: http://www.proxy4free.com

Go ahead and ban all those ips and see how long it takes me to come back with an overwhelming vengence.

We can remove old revisions for a page, either by just deleting them or using more drastic measures. You need to understand that we will win in the end. Better get used to it.

By the way, I've already been called a fascist wiki-nazi more than once, so save your breath. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (another administrator)

The difference between you and me is that you're the one with the daunting, unthankful administrative task. I am one in many who don't like the tyranny of the wikipedia infastructure. Let me explain to you something. If hamas set up a system whereas anyone could modify the news on their website, I would be the first one to go on there and write about how the Israelis should bomb hamas into smitherines.

Like I said. Wikipedia - the way you envision it - can only be enforced under Orwellian law. You are simply a minion of a larger plan that will never begin to take form because of nuisances like myself. As long as there is a button on top of wikipedia pages that says "Edit", your life will perpetuate in futile misery.

If you want to communicate the Truth to a wider audience, you've done your bit here as readers can certainly look in the edit history to read your input. Maybe your time now is better spent submitting your opinion to local news sources and passersby around Seaton House. If a reliable newspaper or TV station or whatever publishes your opinion in a neutral way, then the info can be added to the article. Good luck. –Pomte 07:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing the least bit "Orwellian" about trying to maintain the encyclopedic quality of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, what is your point of disruption for the sake of disruption? We are trying to create the single greatest database of encyclopedic topics for free use and reference by anyone in the world. What exactly is your problem with that goal? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Promte amd Royalguard, let me tell you a story. While I was staying at places like Satan house in the Greater Toronto Area, I used to frequent the Toronto Reference Library quite often. I stumbled across two articles which really bothered me. There was one about Reszo or Rudolph Kasztner, a nazi collaborator, and Chaim Weizmann, a traitor to the Jewish people.

Serveral months ago, I was watching the CBC on my pirated Bell ExpressVu sattelite feed, when I saw a commercial about a bit they were going to do exalting Reszo Kastner for his work in "saving" Hungarian Jews from the holocaust when in fact, the Israeli judge had ruled that he had "Sold his soul to the German Satan".

The amount of propagandizing that this "Encyclopedia" propagates, is just not worth its existence in the first place. MY word.

Nice to see you again. When did you get back from Thailand? Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.61.246 (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're acting a little too much like another past editor who operated under a similar combination of "misplaced sense of entitlement to insert unsourced personal criticism into articles", "I'll just do it again under another IP if you block me" and "anybody who tells me that there are actually rules here is a fascist". Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's so "anarchistic" of me simply trying to inform people that the original article that was printed (Probably by a minion of the Ontario government) is baloney. It seems like my efforts paid off, as someone went ahead and did some research and published it. Kudos to him. By the way, I was attacked on George Street, in the shelter itself, and the shelter is just a horrid horrid place. Probably beyond your worst imagination of what hell is. So keep that in mind when you're pleasing the Draconian Gods with your (And I quote) "Wiki-naziism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.53.238 (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What's "anarchistic" about it is that, as has been pointed out to you more than once, Wikipedia is not a place to publish claims of personal experience that nobody else can verify — all information in our articles must be verifiable, maintain a neutral point-of-view and be supported by reliable sources (i.e. documentable, footnoted media references). It's not "fascist" for there to be rules; it's the only way a project like this can run. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only way I can run a car with no engine is if I hoist a million ferrets to the front, and have a million female ferrets somehow - in unison - lure the males forward, allst the while finding someway of feeding them.

Humans are not robots. If you base the structure of an "Encyclopedia" on the principle that they are - it will fail miserably - as it has.

You fail to understand that you cannot change reality to suit your needs.

See Star Trek: TNG, Season 3 Episode 13:" DATA: Can you recommend a way to counter the effect? Q: Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe. ... Q: Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby altering the mass of the asteroid.

The internet is not a medium for people to bicker back and forth with on topics that require immense amounts of resources and research. At least not today it isn't.

Wikipedia creates a dangerous propagandizing medium on which governments can voice their political will. Wikipedia is also too vulnerable for vandalism. One must ask, who provides the financial resources for Wikipedia? Who provides the bandwidth? Qué Buono (sp?). Obviously what we have here is a knowledge "format" which is in the best interest of those who seek to disenfranchise the real truth and spread disinformation.

People like you are like a nuclear powered toilet. You're wasting your obvious talents for something that will never come to fruition. Why? You're being led on a wild goose chase. Trust me. Me. Someone like me who understands the nature of the internet quite well. It would be quite wise for you to let Wikipedia fall into disarray and decay. This is the only way that will allow the paper "information" tiger that it is collapse.

But then again, one must ask, what are your motives for administration? In whose interest is it to pay your salaries. You know what you are doing is wrong, I don't blame you. We all need to make ends meet. But please, search for other job venues. This is nothing more than what the lead character does in 1984. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.53.238 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you completely insane, or just mostly? Bearcat (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to respond to a couple here:

The internet is not a medium for people to bicker back and forth with on topics that require immense amounts of resources and research. At least not today it isn't.

Wikipedia is not your conventional website. We require you to do your research, check your facts, and most of all provide a reliable source.

Wikipedia creates a dangerous propagandizing medium on which governments can voice their political will.

Actually, it's mostly the other way around. We prevent any political propaganda from getting here in the first place. We actually really despise politicians coming here and campaigning, adding slander to opponents, removing criticisms about themselves, or basically anything that they would do during their day job.

Wikipedia is also too vulnerable for vandalism.

See: Wiki.

One must ask, who provides the financial resources for Wikipedia? Who provides the bandwidth?

The project is mostly funded by donors, many of who are readers and editors of the encyclopedia. The whole project is owned and operated by the not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation (link). Bandwidth is provided by the WMF from the money donated, and bandwidth is also donated by other companies (who do not receive any kind of preferential treatment whatsoever).

Trust me. Me. Someone like me who understands the nature of the internet quite well.

I guess you don't then, because according to most tech pendents, the future of the internet is Web 2.0, which Wikipedia is leading.

But then again, one must ask, what are your motives for administration?

The nice warm fuzzy feeling that comes at the end of the day because we've helped so many people. Mostly though it's because we have extra time on our hands to wade through the administration of the encyclopedia, which includes deleting crap, blocking vandals, and protecting pages.

In whose interest is it to pay your salaries.

I almost fell over laughing at that one. None of us are paid one cent, and I would never take money to do this job.

You know what you are doing is wrong, I don't blame you. We all need to make ends meet. But please, search for other job venues.

As I said up there, this is all unpaid volunteer work. Actually, it's mostly anonymous volunteer work. 99% of Wikipedia's best editors will never get the credit that they deserve for the time they've put in. And most of them could care less. I know I don't. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. The World Monetary Fund..

Psalms 115:5 "They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.53.238 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you've gone off the deep end. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who keeps coming back for a thorough verbal thrashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.53.238 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

References

I used one article and a bit of common knowledge for the info from this article, does anyone know where else to find info on Seaton House?

Response:

You can find info from me. I STAYED there. Some asswipe deleted info I added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.56.124 (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The easiest way to battle that is keep re-adding it. They can't legally delete it with out discussing it, so you can just as easily put it back. I hate some of these wikinazis.

Mr.troughton (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources requirements, the only valid place to turn for information about an article subject is work published by an established media source of some kind. 99, if you want your criticisms of Seaton House to be present in this article, the only way that can happen is if you convince a reliable newspaper or TV station to run a report on how badly you were treated by Seaton House first.

For the record, this is 99's contribution which was deleted by "some asswipe": [1]. Unsourced first-person assertions are not acceptable on Wikipedia under any circumstances. These kinds of claims must be supported by an actual media source. It has nothing to do with "wikinazis" and everything to do with stated policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum or an op-ed page. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, stop "quoting" people. It's patronizing, and frankly irritating. Secondly, it was a discussion between that user and I, and I find the fact that you went out of your way to check what was said between us very telling about you. I don't claim to support that user's comments, and m yqualms are not with their deletion. My discussion with that user was based in good faith that he wasn't a vandal. My issue is how personally you take these edits, and the way you deal with those who make them. You need to chill. No one likes those people who get on everyone's case on the internet.

Mr.troughton (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia administrator; it's my job to get on the case of people who make inappropriate edits. And I didn't go out of my way to check anything; I already knew what 99's edit entailed, because I'm one of the editors who removed the repeated addition of it in the first place. And, for the record, it's never appropriate to tell someone that they have a right to readd deleted information or that somebody else doesn't have a legal right to remove it, if you don't know what the edit in question was or why it was removed. You're the one who needs to chill here, dude, not me. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[It isn't clear why you've even bothered sustaining a dialogue with this individual, given how perverse and transparent his motives are. Indulging someone whose avowed aim is to make a deliberate nuisance of himself is futile. When was it ever the business of reasoned arguments to persuade the unreasonable? You aren't dealing with anyone's 'reason' here but with pathological rage and mental illness.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.31.39 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)