Comments:Ontario Votes 2007: Interview with Family Coalition Party candidate Joel Kidd, Beaches-East York

Canada is running out of candidates to interview, I can't imagine there being many left. It would be interesting to see this many interviews from say Australia, or the U.S.A.. It seems like every media organization in the world is covering the U.S. election as extensively as Canada is being covered here. Contralya 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've already mentioned the "lack" of US candidate interviews, at least three times before (one Ontario Votes article, another, your own talk page), and each time have been given the same answer, and directed to Story preparation/US 2008. Also, these stories will be finishing on 8 October (as said here, in an (indirect) answer to a question of yours), and the first articles were only published on 13 September (first (article began on 10 September), second, category) - the election is 10 October. That's less than a month. What you want is interviews from candidates in an election that is over a year away. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that presumably as the election gets closer, there will be some interviews with US candidates - its probably just most people really don't care that much yet. And "every media organization in the world is covering the U.S. election as extensively as Canada is being covered here"? Apart from a few Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (names may or may not be spelt right) stories, I really have not seen that much coverage here - I couldn't even tell you the names of any other candidates without looking on Wikipedia. --81.152.100.112 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Do you watch any TV news? I can't find any news source besides Wikinews that doesn't mention the U.S. elections at least once a day. And YOUR lack of knowledge isn't my fault, if you have been looking at any other news source than THIS ONE, you can tell at least the front runners for Republican and Democrat parties. Get a life, and I am also talking about other elections in the world. But I would think that the U.S. one would be given some coverage here, since every other news organization seems to cover the U.S. elections as much as Wikipedia covers Canada's. Contralya 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It bothers me that we have users that want to report on the most reported about country in the world: the U.S. I would like to see some more content on rarely reported about countries like Africa, etc. And what's wrong with reporting about Canada. So, If I complain about too much U.S. stuff (which already gets tons of media coverage) will you freak out because the U.S. is so special, etc. Like I said, you can't stop users from reporting about what they want to report about. Zaminum has been doing a great job. He took him time to email these candidates and only hope that they email him back. He deserves alot of credit for this. No one in the U.S. seems to be doing this yet. And I am sure he is disappointed and disturbed after reading your recent comments which mainly reflect on his work as a contributor here. 69.157.3.133 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't listen to you, though you are right about the utter lack of reporting almost anywhere at all. Why I want the U.S. to be covered is because I would like this news to be a MAIN source of news for people, not just something that complements other news! And by the way, I bet there have been many requests for interviews with the candidates, they have busy schedules, again, you are wrong. Contralya 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Going back a bit, yes, I do watch TV news. The main difference, I would guess, is that I live in the UK, and you live in the US (I assume). You said "every media organization in the world" - TV news here has no reason (during daylight and evening hours anyway) to report on an election over a year away, in another country, except for, like I said, a few stories every so often (they're more concerned about the possibility of an election here). And I know more about the US than anybody else I know offline: I only mentioned that I couldn't name any other candidates to demonstrate the point that where I am, it really does not get that much coverage. I need to get a life? I would hope that not being able to name more than a couple of candidates in an election in a country thousands of miles away would suggest I at least had some sort of "sublife" - I don't actively search the internet to find stuff like this out. And I know you meant other elections as well, you made it clear - I was replying to your specific mention of the US election. Anyway, I now fear I'm going to get personal, because I really don't know how to say it any other way. But you have made 9 edits to actual stories, 2 stories to be precise. I have written more articles than you, and I'm not even registered. If you're that concerned about lack of coverage, you could try writing an article yourself, rather than implying there is something "wrong" due to the lack. There's probably some policy somewhere saying something similar, but I've no idea what it is. If that came across as too personal, my apologies, there was no offence intended. Saying all that, even then, if other news organisations manage to find something to write about every day, I would wonder whether it would all actually be considered news per the Content guide, or if it would just be some extended sort of candidate biography or similar (ie. not current events). I'm not saying either way, I'm in no position to. But you yourself have said they have busy schedules, and with all these "other media organisations" chasing them around for stories, why are they going to be any more likely to respond to the email of "just another reporter searching for news". --86.151.138.128 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC).