Hi Kawnhr,

I get your thinking in removing the above parameter from the infobox of the above article, but my thinking was we should leave the graphic illustration to indicate the seat count at dissolution, possibly with a footnote or some other notation indicating this was the seat count at dissolution?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, that's a fair point. I'll revert my edit and take it to the talk page (along with other changes I was mulling over). — Kawnhr (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kawnhr, Okay, sounds good. Yeah, either option is a potentially valid. It's so wonderful to work with such a cooperative, positive editor. :) Doug Mehus T·C 22:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Kawnhr is a wonderful editor with whom to work and collaborate and who functionally exemplifies the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy. Doug Mehus T·C 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to tell you that there's the QC Libs leadership happening soon, since I've seen you edit other leadership races. I saw the date recently for May but I need to find the source again. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the heads-up! I'll be keeping an eye on it. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Green_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election

Daniel Green said in french: «Pas du tout, tranche le principal intéressé. J’ai 64 ans et être un chef de parti, c’est un sport extrême. Je vais laisser à d’autres, peut-être plus jeunes, mener le parti vers d’autres horizons, plus grands et plus forts.»

Ref: https://journalmetro.com/actualites/national/2394859/le-parti-vert-a-fait-des-erreurs-reconnait-daniel-green/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.66.35 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I've added him back to the page, with that article as a source. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New here. Your NatPost ref to Kenney's endorsement of O'Toole is indeed a better one than O'Toole's Twitter, but I think I may have been editing the page simultaneously when it got published. The NatPost ref got nixed in the process and I don't want to take credit for re-adding it, but I don't want to undo mine either.

Is there a way the two edits can be merged? To give credit where it's due.

49thParallelUniverse (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, weird. I don't think there's a way to merge edits like that, so I went and restored it manually. Thanks for the heads up. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clockdust, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed that you've been contributing to a lot of pages regarding leadership elections for parties. I'd just like to let you know that there's a page for the Yukon Party leadership election that's happening right now. It's pretty barren, but I think it might interest you a bit.

Fulserish (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fulserish, thanks for letting me know— I wasn't even aware this was going on. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep my eyes peeled for any reports on the race. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited By-election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preferential voting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kawnhr! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind from now on! --MisterElection2001 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the party belong in the infobox?! Because they don't have seats?! They are literally fielding 300+ candidates plus Bernier himself! Ridiculous!

You are free to read the many, many discussions about it over at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election. I do not feel like repeating it. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether you prioritize official status or common practice. From a strictly legal perspective, by definition Parliament can't have any members if it's been dissolved and there isn't a Parliament to have any members — so from a strictly legal perspective, an MP's term does end with the writ drop. Of course, in actual practice things aren't actually conducted that way for the most part — MPs obviously don't lose MP-related privileges during the election campaign, MPs obviously don't close their constituency offices since constituents might still need non-election-related help with government stuff during the election, the media doesn't ignore the relevance of incumbency as an advantage for MPs who are running for reelection, and on and so forth — but technically speaking, all MPs actually cease to be MPs at the writ drop and even reelected MPs only become MPs again once the ballots are in. Of course, we've never bothered here to be technically precise about it when MPs are reelected — we don't start a new office field each time an MP is reelected to the same office, for example — but historically the consensus was that we should be more precise about the technicality of it if and when an MP retired from politics and thus their stint as an MP had ended outright.

I'm not all that strongly wedded to the idea that we have to do it that way, rather than just using election day itself regardless of the nuances of the situation — but because we did have the consensus to use the writ drop in the past, a lot of other MP's infoboxes would need to have the end dates changed from "writ drop" to "election day" if there were a desire to overturn the prior consensus. So we couldn't just do it for Catherine McKenna alone while leaving most other former MPs as is — we would need to implement a genuinely comprehensive project of changing a lot of MP end dates from "writ drop" to "election day". That's more trouble than I would be willing to take on, but YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I'll keep that in mind going forward. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think you could upload a cover for Grouper's Shade? I did, but I'm positive I did it wrong (copyright-wise). Isthistwisted (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply— I'm usually relatively inactive on weekends. I'm happy to help, but I see that another editor has supplied the cover image in the meantime, so I suppose it's moot now. But thank you for bringing this page to my attention again; I had been intending to do some work expanding it but it completely slipped my mind. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with the new colour scheme you've implemented at {{Senate of Canada}} -- I don't know what it looks like to you, but at least on my monitor (and thus certainly for other people as well), the Independent Senators Group and Progressive Senate Group colours are nearly impossible to distinguish from each other at all, and even the Canadian Senators Group colour is marginally more distinguishable but still only with strain and effort. There needs to be much higher contrast between the colours than that — I'm not even colourblind at all, but some other readers of Wikipedia are. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I have to admit that I'm not seeing the issue — all three of those colours are clearly and easily distinguishable to me — but I admit this can vary according to monitor and such. That said, the colours were not of my choosing but the standardized colours of Template:Canadian party colour, so it'd be a good idea to raise your concern there; if these colours are problematic, it would be best to fix that at the source. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: now that I've had a look on my home computer, I see that the colour blocks are rendering much smaller than they did on my work machine. At this smaller resolution I do agree it's mre difficult to make out which is which. Is that the concern here? — Kawnhr (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think size could well be the issue. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Got it. The reason I went with unicode over {{colorbox}} is because colorbox is way too big for the number of times it'd get used in this navbox. I went looking to see if there was anything smaller, and found {{colorbull}}. I tested this on my sandbox and I think this works — small enough to be unobtrusive but large enough to be distinguishable. Let me know what you think. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, on my monitor I'm still not seeing a marked difference even in the sandbox version. It gets a little better if I reduce my screen resolution to something lower than my current 1920x1080, mainly because that counterintuitively increases the size of the colourboxes, but at my regular settings they're still hard to distinguish well. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Hmm, not sure what to do here. I like the line strip (inline=small) version of {{Rail color box}}, but that template was made for railways (and can't be display arbitrary colours besides). Once upon a time I proposed modifying {{Canadian party colour}} to have a parameter to display a block of colour, but it was met with skepticism and didn't go anywhere. Perhaps something to try again? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Eby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranbrook.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline of Newfoundland and Labrador premiers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kawnhr Have you ever been uploaded Noam Chomsky "Failed States" book published by Metropolitan Books to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuliadhi: Not familiar with it, sorry! — Kawnhr (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that was an interesting read thanks for pointing me there. I am comfortable with maps being in the main articale and not the info box.

Cheers Benawu2 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Benawu2: I apologize for the confusion I caused. I had been trawling through all the by-election articles and removing the maps, and after a while I figured linking back to the Project was unnecessary… not considering that, of course, some editors will only be watching some of these articles and not all! — Kawnhr (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I made the link directly show Opposition House Leader, in all the bios where its' shown. That way, folks won't confuse the position with Leader of the Opposition, as I recently did. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. That's a much better way to do list it. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Party of Canada (2018) 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/United Party of Canada (2018) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've changed the lead statement like here. I have worked on 100s of bilateral articles and the standard introduction is that. You have only changed this for Canada related articles, there are probably over a 1000 of these bilateral articles. Also this is the standard "See Also" section in 100s of bilaterals. If you want to make this change, do it for all bilateral articles not just Canadian. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion of this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations_articles. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your contributions!! :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 21:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attorney General of British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Wilson (Canadian politician).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]