User talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive 11

This is an archive of discussions from January 2013 to present. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary. 6 7 8 9 10 Archive 11 12 13

Vandal is back

• 142.134.147.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

That IP you blocked came back after the block and made a mess again. I reverted one edit, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know if his others are contsructive or not. I read your user page and was wondering if you have any ideas on improving Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid. There must be more data somewhere, just not on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted another one at Rodney Weston. I didn't report it to AIV. Is this IP due for another block? It is a shared IP but the edits all seem to be the same type.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

re Deletions of party colours

Hi; getting your deletion templates; the last one's defective and doesn't show right btw.....but wondering what you're replacing these admittedly specialty/special case designations with. E.g. Independent Socialist, Liberal Conservative etc...Independent Opposition etc.....they were all unique to BC; are they being levelled to "Independent" in the "Independent Socialist" or "Independent Conservative" or are they being levelled to "Socialist" or "Conservative"......because those designated membership/caucus allegiance when they weren't...haven't looked at the affected pages, only recently returned, just wondering what the colours/designations are being changed toSkookum1 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The user notices are generated by WP:Twinkle, I'll ask them what's wrong. As for the party names, they should all be displayed with the same names they had before (sometimes with a grammar or punctuation fix), so it should still say "Independent Conservative" and "Independent Socialist". In cases where an independent designation has an article talking about it, the name is wikilinked (like for independent labour candidates linking to Labour candidates and parties in Canada). When a candidate self-designates an affiliation but isn't actually recognized by the party (or no party by that name exists), their colour is usually shown as the independent colour, but there are a couple exceptions for big movements that aren't attached to an official party. If I made a mistake in a specific article, let me know. If you want to propose changes to the party names or colours across all ridings, you can ask the talk page of Template:Canadian party colour. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review the early BC elections pages, where most of these occur....before 1903 there were no political parties, and there were candidates like "Opposition", "Government", "Independent Opposition" etc... Skookum1 (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Newfoundland People's Party/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Newfoundland People's Party/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Newfoundland People's Party

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Newfoundland People's Party requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Canada electoral district

Hi Arctic.gnome - can you please check your recent edits to Template:Infobox Canada electoral district ? I think there's an error in there somewhere, which is generating stray text ("{{#if:|") at the top of articles that use that infobox. I gave it a quick scan, but I'm not familiar with the code and couldn't pick out what's gone wrong. Thanks! PKT(alk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. If there is a page that still has the problem after making a WP:null edit, let me know. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - it appears to be fixed. Cheers, PKT(alk) 21:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

BC election results templates

Yo, I see you created the template series such as "British Columbia provincial election, 1920" /Greenwood etc.....not sure if there's one for Yale, I added a copy paste of the riding-page election results to John Duncan MacLean; if that could be done with your template code please change it for me; wiki'ing on borrowed time, writing for a living now...Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The 1920 election is done right on his page. The huge advantage of putting the data on a template page rather than on the articles themselves is that it keeps the tables on the riding page and all of the candidates pages consistent. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenated party names

Wouldn't a two ideology political party name (for example Farmer-Labour Party, Liberal-Progressive Party) be a compound with a hyphen (for example blue-green algae, Japanese-American traders), not one with a dash (for example iron–cobalt interactions, French–British rivalry)? 117Avenue (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

In your two hyphen examples, I'm reading the first noun as an adjective modifying the second noun (blue-green is a type of green, Japanese-Americans are a type of Americans). I'm not sure how to tell for which party names that's the case. Parties like Liberal-Conservative and maybe Marxist-Leninist might be analogous to Japanese-American, but parties like Liberal-Labour-Progressive and Farmer-United Labour both seem to be begging for an "and" in their names, which makes me lean towards a dash for them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the legal registry of party names that would determine that, not MOSHYPHEN's ideas about using dashes whenever possible......also the records as shown by Elections Canada or provincial bodies such as Elections BC....."Farmer and Labour" was not the name of that party nor was Farmer[dash]Labour Party.Skookum1 (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the compound names are self-designations and are at least 80 years old, so it's not easy to find official spellings for them, if any official spelling even exists. Most of the elections websites only go back to the begining of the Internet, so they aren't very useful. Even when they do go back further, they still aren't always useful because some public websites are kind of sloppy when it comes to spelling and punctuation (look at the number of publications where Elections Canada uses two hyphens rather than an m-dash in riding names). That said, I find this BC document to be pretty reliable. On page 357 it lists the parties, and it uses hyphens or spaces for most compound names involving liberal/conservative/labour/farmer/soldier. Interestingly, it does use a dash for "New Democratic Party – Co-operative Commonwealth Federation" (a designation used by some NDPers in the first election after the name change) which suggests to me that most names are compounds that use hyphens, but the occasional name really does have an implied "and", and thus requires a dash. I guess we should use hyphens by default and only switch to dashes when evidence points that way. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I read these names as two ideologies, centre-left or centre-right, not the compound of two party names, Yukon–Saskatchewan for a wild example. I concur with your reply to Skookum1, there were no official party names then. 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So what? There were no official style guides from WP:MOS either; imposing modern conventions on times and organizations is "not on"......and I checked re the regional districts with the Counsel General of BC, whatever their name is, as to what's in the legislation and other official records, and they have their own MOS to follow and, thankfully, that was enough to make the MOSheads back down and stop claiming that because they didn't have dashes then they should have. In this case, government websites DO have style sheets and conventions; it's not for Wikipedia to go making new ones out of the blue. Period.Skookum1 (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-read your piece AGnome.....yes, it boils down to WP:MOSFOLLOW and the sources are what should be used.......this particular group of parties kinda needs its own article, they were the post-Great War uprising, so to speak, against the labour imports and prohibition on booze and more they discovered had been done while they were away fighting the war......Grand Army of the United Veterans I think was the umbrella organization for them.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are arguing to change the names of regional districts, so I'm not sure what your point is there. Regarding government websites, it not as clear as you seem to think, and ending a statement with the word "period" doesn't make you immune to disagreement, although many people on this site seem to think it does. Yes, government websites have conventions, but they are not 100% at enforcing those conventions, so unless we have a copy of the conventions, we have to make a judgement call when different government webpages disagree. Regarding your request that I re-read my comment, could you please be a bit more specific? I still agree with what I wrote after re-reading it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

[undent] The re-read was to note that you had seemed to say hyphens were normal/usable in these contexts; I would hotly contest that Soldier-Labour and Farmer-Labour and their kin do NOT imply "And", however....about regional districts, that had to do with a WPMOS war over them, I think it was a CfD and I wound up having to prove that the hyphens were, in fact, parts of the legal name and also required by the Counsel General in their manual to legislation etc......different sort of body than EC or Election BC, true, but the point is that gobvernment websites constitute a kind of document, and a choice of formal/official style......if we dug deeper in this I'm sure we could even find some old ballots in the NAt'l Archives to prove it.Skookum1 (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I take that back; you said " the occasional name really does have an implied "and", and thus requires a dash" and went on about finding evidence to change them from hyphens to dashes when the time comes; finding evidence to prove something, that's original research, bro....if a historical party didn't use hyphens in their names and publications, and Elections Canada, it's not for Wikipedia to say that they didn't know any better, or should have used a hyphen....Skookum1 (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that hyphens were appropriate for most compound party names, that wasn't a mistake. If you don't think that those names imply "and", then you presumably also support the hyphen, so I don't understand what the problem is. I think that CCF-NDP may be an exception, and there may be other exceptions, but we should default to hyphens. Regarding the word "evidence", by that I meant reliable sources, not OR. My only point was that government websites intended for the general public are not always conclusive because some are sloppily written and don't match their own style guides (like with federal ridings spelt with double hyphens); when we can find an official style guide or a more formal statement of results, that source trumps other government web pages. I think we have fairly conclusive sources for BC and federal conventions, but it would be useful to find better sources for the styles of other jurisdictions. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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 template from the top of the article. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tommy Douglas.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Tommy Douglas.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of female first ministers in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Toronto template

I see the template was kept. Possibly because I never crossed out my "keep" when I later gave up and agreed it could be deleted. Since I think I was the only speaking in favour of keep, if you want to speak to the closing admin, I'd be happy to confirm that the last objection was withdrawn. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, Arctic.gnome! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly numbering versus Legislature numbering

I noticed that you have recently moved a number of articles of the form "nth Legislative Assembly of province name" to "nth province name Legislature" with the comment "we number legislatures, not assemblies". I have no problem with that per se, but who is "we"? Is this a Wikipedia standard? Several provinces do refer to the "nth Assembly of province name", particularly when referring to the first one, and I noticed that the Manitoba Historical Society also uses the previous naming method. I realize that common usage of a term doesn't necessarily guarantee its correctness but whose norm would we be following here? --Big_iron (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Big iron: The "we" in that is what's technically being done in law. There are certainly a lot of sources that say "Xth Legislative Assembly", it might even do better in Google searches and some published sources. But official documents number the legislatures rather than the assemblies. For example, here is the Hansard for last week's meeting of the Alberta assembly, which calls it "The 28th Legislature First Session", and here is a bill passed in BC which calls it "2013 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 40th Parliament". This is a lot more obvious when we look at bicameral legislatures; we say "41st Parliament of Canada" or "113th United States Congress" rather than "41st House of Commons" or "113th House of Representatives". It's also more obvious on the east coast, where they used to have provincial senates and still number "general assemblies" even though they only have one house of assembly today. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia all had upper houses at one time, but I take your point.--Big_iron (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Big iron: Ontario and BC both got rid of their upper houses at Confederation, although BC didn't have a lower house at the time. I just made a table at Legislative assemblies of Canadian provinces and territories to help me keep track. :) —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Arctic.gnome! The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Toronto! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join! Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Parliament of British Columbia vs Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

I seem to remember a discussion somewhere about merging these, I see you've wiped the Category:Legislative Assembly of British Columbia but they're not the same thing; we do not have Category:Members of the Parliament of British Columbia or Category:Members of the Provincial Parliament of British Columbia, for instance. And the Legislative Assembly is only half of the Parliament of British Columbia, the other half being the viceregency. To me this is a very wrong thing, and even on the articles in "Category:Terms of the Parliament of British Columbia the Assemblies are listed individual within each Parliament; they are not the same thing. Was this a CfD? How many editors - BC editors?- were involved in arriving at this very sweeping change?Skookum1 (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Skookum1: I know the difference between Assemblies and Legislatures in Canada, I've been sorting them out on Wikidata for a while now. In en.wiki, I started out keeping the assembly categories separate from the legislature categories, but across the provinces there were too many cases where it wasn't clear whether certain articles belonged in the assembly category or the legislature category, and there were too many cases where one category would only have one or two articles in it. It seems best to just keep it simple and put everything related to legislatures and their components in one overarching category. Generally I don't see any feedback when I start discussions about cleaning up or standardizing the categorization tree of Canadian politics topics, but I'd be happy to have a discussion about the issue at CWNB if you want. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Who's "we"?? In British Columbia, we refer to sittings of the Legislature and sittings of the Legislative Assembly. WE do not refer to "sittings of Parliament" unless we are talking about Ottawa. I also note that the linked items on the Parliament of British Columbia page are named "Assembly"s and are linked to what are now redirects to your newly-renamed 1st/2nd/3rd Parliament pages, which were 1st/2nd/3rd Legislative Assembly pages. I also note the content of these pages pretty much replicates pages such as British Columbia general election, 1875 and what should be on them instead of a listing of members (Members of the Legislative Assembly not Members of the Parliament of British Columbia, as already noted), should be an accounting of the business addressed during each sitting. MOSTCOMMON applies, not a "we here in Wikipedia" over-generalization. I'll tell you what, because of the extreme and indepth inanity of having to defend the hyphen vs the emdash in regional district names, I got in touch with the Counsel-General of British Columbia's style/format department and got the legislation and the government's own styleguide. I haven't looked to see what Hansard use, or what might be on the order paper or on legislation, but I'd venture that those are the valid sources for the correct use; the other being the normal uses found in journalistic or academic writings. What "we" use in Wikipedia (whoever "we" is) is irrelevant, especially when it is contrary to common use and established conventions. I have no idea what WP:CWNB is, so I'm linking that to find out what you've referring to. These "read wrong" to me - your categories and new article names - and in the absence of discussion on the one hand, and the absence of sourced justification on the other, you should realize your error in being bold and revert these all for proper RMs and CfDs to take place. The terms you are imposing are not part of the political culture of British Columbia, nor in historical or current use; Wikipedia should not impose style, nor terminology; it should reflect what is in use, not what "we" want to standardize for our own silly wiki-purposes.Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The primary source currently on the page is the Electoral History of British Columbia provided by Elections BC. As an example of the PROPER usage, note the the title in Part Five on page 548, Sessions of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly, 1871-1987. The term "parliament" does not occur in that document, except in the adjectival form in the Sources section in the titles of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide and the Canadian Parliamentary Companion. So even your imposition of "Terms" instead of "Sessions" is not borne out by the sources. Tell me again what we do. WE refer to the sources, not make up convention flaunting them. WP:MOSFOLLOWSkookum1 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you deleted Category:Legislative Assembly of British Columbia at 5:35 a.m. on Xmas morning using your admin powers and without any discussion whatsoever. Tell me again how you don't see any feedback on such issues; easy enough to just do them by fiat at a time when no feedback is likely.Skookum1 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just reviewing the contents of the Election BC document and they do refer in an appendix to Nth Parliament with sessions within each one listed separately. Still, your change is not common use nor easily understood and I think it should have been discussed first and proper procedure followed - at at time when more CAnWikipedians aren't busy wrapping presents or shovelling snow or dealing with ice storms. I am holding back on a bulk RM on changing the articles back to "Nth Legislative Assembly of British Columbia" pending research on more sources as to the normal usage. As a British Columbian, your change looks/sounds very odd.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And I stand by my comment about how nothing was done to improve the content of the articles in question; I note you haven't changed "Members of the 1st General Assembly" to "Members of the 1st Parliament" and I should advise you that the composition of that membership changed from session to session (bench-jumping was common in pre-political party times) and that the content of the article is really only a replication of the 1872 election and has nothing about the doings and politics of that parliament; and as a parliament no mention is made of the other half of the parliament, i.e. who the viceroy was, and who the monarch was (Victoria at this time of course). Name-games in lieu of content stick in my craw, as also with Skeezix's campaign to remove "the" from before "HBC" as archaic, without actually doing anything to improve the HBC article itself.Skookum1 (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, per this google's results and the usage "40th Parliament of British Columbia" in media, I'm backing down from this for now. I still thikn "Sessions of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia", as articles and a cat name, are needed, because the composition and agenda of each session are often quite different. AGain, what is needed in all case is content improvement, not name-fiddling.Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Skookum1: I've started a discussion at WP:GOC to discuss the changes. Use of the term "Parliament" is based on the Hansards and bills. If it was completely unheard of in common usage we would have to go with the more common term, but when both are in use, Wikipedia generally prefers following the more authoritative source. I would agree with creating articles about individual sessions of BC Parliaments if there is enough information two fill each article without too much overlap. You should note, however, that even most comprehensive articles about terms like 112th United States Congress haven't been split into sessions, so I'd only split the BC term articles if you have tonnes of information. Hope you're having nice holidays! —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Title for article, "Bill 78"

Hi Arctic.gnome, I'm wondering if you could make a few comments on the the talk page for Bill 78, whose name you just changed to its official title. As I noted on the talk page there, the title should remain "Bill 78" because that's the common name, because it's short, and because the official name given by sponsors is obviously an effort to "sell" the legislation. I'd like to read what you have to write about it though, in case you are thinking of something important, and might convince me, or be convinced. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Canadian Senators

Thank you for correcting the status of retired Liberal Senators. I accidentally overwrote them, but have restored the change. Cheers. --Natural R_X 17:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Natural RX: The page still needs to be edited to show the old party membership. The article List of current Canadian senators is where we list senators by current party. The article List of senators in the 41st Parliament of Canada is more like a historical document and should list all parties that the person belonged to at some point during the 41st Parliament. See this old revision to see how Patrick Brazeau is listed as a member of two parties using rowspan. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:40th Canadian Parliament standings

Template:40th Canadian Parliament standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 117Avenue (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Phi Gamma Delta page-edit

Hi Arctic Gnome, I was editing for language and grammar on the Phi Gamma Delta page, when i noticed that there was a section on hazing allegations that is not present on most other Fraternity pages. Therefore I feel that this addition adds a bias to the article that, of course, wikipedia hopes to avoid. Actually, i know for a fact that there are at least six fraternities who have faced judicial consequences for confirmed instances of hazing, but none of whom have that information posted on their wiki pages. Due to this bias toward negativity, I'd request that the hazing allegations section of the Phi Gamma Delta page be removed to avoid the aforementioned. It is especially important due to the public nature of these organizations - they rely heavily on both wikipedia and their own websites to inform potential recruits, therefore a biased slant one way or the other may cause opinion to be swayed, in opposition to the fact-presentation mandate of the encyclopedia.

Thank you,

Peraou

Peraou (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Peraou: That's a reasonable argument, but people have been removing and re-adding that section for a while, so you should get consensus on the article's talk page before removing it. If you can get a consensus about it, we'll make it official and add it to the FAQ at the top of the talk page. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Political_parties_and_politicians_in_Canada#Request_for_assistance_-_Alison_Redford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.172.8 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Allison Dysart dates.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Allison Dysart dates.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Sovereigns of Canada

Arctic,

I restored a previous version of the list from that which you worked on. I apologise in advance as I realise it probably took you a bit of time. I looked over it to try and incorporate your changes while maintaining the overall framework. I incorporated one element but left the rest for now. The central reasoning is simply that 1. This is a list. Adding in depth text which can be found on the respective articles is redundant here (and if it isn't there then we should be adding the material there, not on a list), and 2. This article is specific to Canada, not to the BNA. In depth discussions about colonies and territories outside of Canada are outside of the list's scope.

Also, I think that you divided the list up in consequence to territorial and monarchical changes to the BNA. However, in line with my point above, the way the list is presently divided is to illustrate the changes in specific relation to the Crown for the Colony/Dominion of Canada. One example is "Monarchs of the BNA colonies" as outside the scope of the list, and another being that the list is not divided within 'English Crown' and 'British Crown', as this political change was largely transparent to Canada (ie. there was no change to the Crown in Right of Canada in 1707 as both the sovereign herself and the constitutional system within Canada remained unchanged).

Finally, the banners themselves as they are now (with the shields) were implemented by someone, I can't remember who, and thinking they looked quite nice, I expanded their use slightly. They also serve to break up the list once again according to the constitutional changes vis a vis the Crown that took place throughout Canada's history from simply a marked place on a map, to a colony, to a dominion, to the independent and sovereign 'kingdom' that it is today.

Please don't take my restore as malicious and I hope to hear your thoughts. trackratte (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing ±pp to ∆%

Hi Arctic

You made this change; so you might have an opinion on this suggestion.    Cheers — Who R you? Talk 05:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)   [P.S. Some nice work on those templates! (eh‽)]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yellowknife Post Office

I was just doing some categorisation on Commons, which included your Yellowknife Post Office images. I noticed that they were all included in Projet:Monuments historiques/Images de monuments canada non utilisées. However, the post office is still in use so they shouldn't be there. By the way, how did you manage to get the shot of the front of the post office with nobody sitting or standing around it? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that Bank of Toronto (Yellowknife) images are also on the "Images de monuments canada non utilisées" page but the building is still in use as a private residence. Which was its original purpose. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• @CambridgeBayWeather: It looks like fr:Utilisateur:ErfgoedBot did that, presumably based on one of the categories I used. I would say that a bank turned into a guest room is no longer "in use", but the post office is undoubtedly in use, to its inclusion on that project page is wrong. As for how I got the shot, the metadata says that I took the photo at 9pm local time, so that would explain that. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 02:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Charles Dow Richards.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Charles Dow Richards.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Maurice Duplessis2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Maurice Duplessis2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Woodrow Stanley Lloyd.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Woodrow Stanley Lloyd.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Amendments to the Constitution of Canada

Please see Talk:Amendments to the Constitution of Canada#§ symbol, commenting on some edits you made last year. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of post-nominal letters in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esq. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Conservative

you can delete Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BQ and Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BQ/row as well. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: Thanks for the note. I was wondering what happened with that. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of federal political parties in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marxist–Leninist Party of Canada. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Libertarian/row

You can delete this one. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

List of federal political parties in Canada

You broke the list. I don't want to revert your changes, but you gotta fix it man. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Me-123567-Me: Do you have any specific complaints? To my eyes, it looks better than it was before I started. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, just that it looked broken, like every party on the list is in parliament. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also look at the boxes at the end. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of Prime Ministers of Canada by age

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of Prime Ministers of Canada by age —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 154.20.100.208 (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Canada

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. Are we going to insert November 4, 2015 into Harper's entry, or shall we wait until he actually resigns as PM on November 4. For the moment, I'm in disagreement with another editor there, over when to insert that date. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women in the 14th–29th Canadian Parliaments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northumberland (electoral district). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia

I changed "At the Governoer-General's pleasure" to "At Her Majesty's pleasure", with an explantion at the talkpage. However, I'm not certain if & how long that correction will last. The Australians seem to do things differently from the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian order of precedence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minister of Veterans Affairs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Canadian monarchs

Arctic, thanks for the bold edit. It's a large edit, and I know it must've taken more than a few minutes so please don't think I did it out of malice, as I understand there must have been some time, effort, and thought volunteered on your part. I'm not understanding the logic behind it, but look forward to discussing it. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That article needs to be split up. Keep the post-1867 monarchs there. Put the pre-1867, in newly created articles like List of monarchs over New France for example. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, it is generally poor form to carry on the same discussion in multiple venues, particularly when sidebarring with individual users which intentional or not, gives off the impression of back-room dealing and logrolling. Which it seems you attempt to do in nearly every discussion. trackratte (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Order of precedence in Alberta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minister of Veterans Affairs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)