Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to write anything and I'll reply shortly. Ak-eater06 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ak-eater06! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. The UK does it their way. We Canadian do it our way. The BQ is a federal party, which is not barred from running 338 candidates across the country. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Crosbie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive Conservative Party. 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) 06:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit: FYI I'm not saying Bernier doesn't say this, I'm saying it's clearer to state what he means (like here where he pledges to lower the number of immigrants). "Opposes mass immigration" is vague wording that could mean anything from "doesn't want any immigrants" to "the number we take in now is fine but more is too many".Citing (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you explain what happened here? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are attempting to do. [1] and [2]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you attempting to open the exact same discussion? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay and User:Paul Erik because I didn't receive a proper reply before. Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's no acting leaders of the opposition. When the Opposition party has no party leader, the party leader is incapacitated or its party leader has no seat in the House of Commons? The person who fills in for them or fills in during a party leadership vacancy is leader of the opposition. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your post....norms are outlined at...

• MOS:LEADLENGTH (guideline) "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs..."

• Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section (essay)....Moxy- 01:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Brian Mulroney's lead, this seems like a good place to also point out WP:TLDR. Sometimes more paragraphs feels like less to slog through. In Canadian politics, like weather, I feel less slogging is better. But consistency is also "cool enough", and if you think most PM articles go on like that, your reversion's cool, too. Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ak-eater06, thanks for following my request to post the inquiry about bolding to the Trudeau Talk page. I’ve always thought that discussions about edits to an article should be on the article’s Tslk page, rather than on side-discussions on editors’ talk pages. Thanks for taking that approach. I’m curious to see if any other editors weigh in on the issue. That’s how consensus develops. Who knows, maybe there’s a different guideline that I’ve missed -if so, would be glad to get input.

By the way, I appreciate all the work you’re doing on the PM pages - well-done! I might pop in now and then with an edit or a «  cite needed » tag, but that’s not a critique of all the work you’re doing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz thank you very much :D Since you're an experienced editor, I do need a bit of a hand on 2000 Canadian federal election#Opinion polls, the x-axis is messed up. Do you know how to solve this? Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this question when you posted it. I'm afraid I can't help - my technical skills are very low indeed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, go to the wise one of WP:CANADA. That would be Bearcat, IMHO :) GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get you to use edit summaries pls. This may also help with reverts.Moxy- 23:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moxy context please. Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be helpful: explain for the relevant Wikipedia policy.... The box looks like this:

.

..Moxy- 23:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moxy heh, looking at your recent contributions I don't see you putting edit summaries ;) Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Graham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 November 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Must be honest with ya, that this one is a bit of a curve ball. But, as I've often mentioned before, editor Bearcat is (IMHO) the most knowledgeable, concerning Canadian politics. He just 'might' have the answers. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed, the fed elections from 1867 to 2008 use one type of electoral map of the country. While the 2011 to 2021 fed elections use another type. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay, thanks. But I'm aware that Bearcat sometimes doesn't reply as he's really busy with editing, so that's why I usually ping you and Moxy and others. Also, I'm wondering why you titled this "Reform & Canadian Alliance"? Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's currently separate articles on them. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay about that, I think that Reform and Canadian Alliance should stay separate articles, as the Alliance was created in an effort to "rebrand" the Reform Party and to push the United Alternative agenda. Though I do think that the Conservative Party (1867-1942) and PC articles should be merged. Ak-eater06 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the assistance on the federal election articles. I will look through the provincial & territorial ones, tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay, I believe most, if not all of the provincial/territorial ones don't have "formally the..." in the lead, but it's good to check. Also, for Tommy Douglas, I'm planning on just doing a collapsable template for his election results. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1993 Canadian federal election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regionalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Tkbrett (✉) 21:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tkbrett will do :) Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope you have a nice holiday season. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 21:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Why did you remove the RFC-tag & throw in the towel on the RFC you began on Dec 14? It barely got off the ground, with a 'tiny' number (5) of editors having chimed in. Then suddenly you (basically) shut it down. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay there were like four "C" responses and only one "A" response...I think it's pretty clear that the "C" side won.

Also this was my first time doing this RFC thing. So next time I won't remove the tag quickly. My apologies. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You pulled the plug on it, too quick. Should've let it go a whole month. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, you've no intentions of re-opening it. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay so far I have no intentions of re-opening it.

Question, in my previous reply ("there were like four "C" responses...") did you get pinged? Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a consensus. I don't understand, why you're pulling the rug out from underneath yourself. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay My bad. I don't know what to do now. Because Wehwalt just agreed to change the specific dates to years on the condition I don't reopen the RFC. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry. But please, in future. Don't ping about any content disputes or RFCs you've opened, if the result's going to be that you make a big U-turn. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay will do. Also did you get pinged when I replied with, "there were like four "C" responses..."? Asking to check if the ping system consistently works. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But since, you're refusing to re-tag the RFC-in-question. The rest is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay I reopened it. Sorry for all the confusion. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. Since discussions are in progress elsewhere at your request, I see no need to open another.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wehwalt I have to ask, why do I always have to open an RFC? Why can't you? (I'm not angry by the way, just curious). Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to. There don't need to be RFCs. There is a compromise I've proposed on the Dief talk page. GoodDay says they find it acceptable. If you agree to it, we can close the RFCs and move on with productive editing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking why you have to start a RFC to try to get the change you want, and I don't to defend the original text, it is because Wikipedia works by consensus, and you need consensus for changes. Sometimes no one cares and consensus is easy. If there are objections to changes, then there are ways to work it out. When phrasing has remained generally static for a decade, and was originally approved by a consensus process such as WP:FAC, then opposed changes have to make their case. The status quo carries with it that it has been approved by FAC, which among other things looks for professional-level prose, as well as the fact that it has been considered acceptable for a decade. To say nothing of the fact that it's a matter of article style, not substance, about a matter not clearly laid down in the MOS, which means that opinions are going to differ. Again, I suggest we compromise and move on. That is how things are done around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should respond to @Redrose64:'s concerns. He's been trying to get your attention for several days. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodDay yep I responded. Ak-eater06 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ake-eater06, I just wanted to say thanks for your edits on Conservative Party of Canada, cutting, tidying and expanding the history section. I've long thought the section was poorly written, which is why I took a machete to it myself, so I was heartened to see another editor jump in. It's looking pretty good now, thanks to you! — Kawnhr (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kawnhr no problem. Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits to User talk:Toddst1, where you first made various complaints under the heading "Just a tip" (including the charge that Toddst "attempted to harass Daniel Case", which is ridiculous on the face of it), and then, when Toddst removed them, you posted a templated warning, Template:uw-npa3, saying they had attacked you on User talk:Toddst1. By this, it seems you referred to their removal edit summary "shove your tip somewhere else". That was hardly a "personal attack". (Certainly not if it's compared with your own bad-faith-assuming earlier edit summaries) What it was, on the other hand, was an impatient request for you to stay away from their page. Such requests are supposed to be honored; it's simply much better to do so. Please don't post on Toddst1's page again. Don't go around attacking them on other pages, either.[3] Also, is the actual issue at Andrew Scheer really worth all the anger? I think you'll do yourself a favor if you let it go. Bishonen | tålk 17:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

PS, thank you for this revert. I've blocked the IP. Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding this edit in which you revert my insertion of the reason the election is being held and you labelled as "unconstructive". Per MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADSENTENCE the first sentence should say what or who the subject is, as well as the when. It should define the topic and establish context. Your lead sentence only states the when "The 2022 Ontario general election will be held on or before June 2, 2022" but it doesn't say what the election is being held to do. Please explain here or my talk why you believe "to elect Members of Provincial Parliament to serve in the 43rd Parliament of Ontario." in unconstructive and needs to be removed from the article. Thanks. maclean (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maclean25 I thought this was some other article...my bad. Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK then. maclean (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ak-eater. Please don't be so quick to remove large chunks of information in longstanding articles as uncited, when it is probably solid and just needs citing. In your change to the Hawke government article, you actually removed some content that is cited. It would be more constructive to either find a source, or just tag the info with a cn template, unless it is questionable, or large-scale, or personal information. Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laterthanyouthink WP:Verifiability: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Ak-eater06 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USI, and please remember that we're all here to build a better encyclopaedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laterthanyouthink you didn't even address what I wrote. We are here to build an encyclopedia, however, we need to build it through accuracy. If additional citations aren't added tomorrow to back up those claims, then I'll reinstate my deletions. Ak-eater06 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same thing - if the content is not particularly controversial it would be better to tag the paragraph/sentences as unsourced rather than just deleting it. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And strangely, when someone else deletes material Ak-eater06 thinks should stay, Ak-eater60 says that they should instead just add a "citation needed" tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Instant_Comma#Instead_of_deleting_unsourced_stuff,_you_can_add_a_citation_needed_tag Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz this whole thing was an experiment. It wasn't my intention to remove unsourced stuff from Hawke government, I just wanted to see the reaction. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a pretty unfortunate "experiment", that you also performed earlier on the Howard government and Menzies Government (1949–1966). I have now spent considerable hours restoring and citing what I could find - and fixing a whole lot of existing citing deficiencies along the way, which I think is way more constructive. We really don't need experiments like this that waste other editors' time, when there is enough else to fix and add elsewhere. Thank you for restoring the removed content from Hawke, and I would appreciate it if you could restore any other content which you may have similarly removed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ak-eater06, you may wish to read WP:POINT. Instant Comma (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided retroactive attribution in this diff for the content you split from Jean Chrétien; just be sure to note it in the edit summary (with a wikilink to the original page) for future splits. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanCherek my bad, thanks for doing that. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eadership election requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pppery thank you very much. I was trying to change Next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election to "2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election" and then I fiddled around with a few things and accidentally ended up changing the name of the redirect. My bad.

Could you also please delete this redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&redirect=no so we can rename Next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election to "2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election"? Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything here, since I'm not an admin. If you want to request Next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election be moved to 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this guy from a hole in the ground, but his nickname is well-sourced, so it's not exactly a state secret. You want consensus; provide a counterargument. "Orange man" and "blackface" are irrelevant and WP:STRAWMAN. Show me any news articles that say, for example, "Orange man" does this or "Blackface" does that. Maclean's and the Ottawa Sun use Skippy in their headlines. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarityfiend Howdy, you can't go with your personal preference. We should follow WP:BRD and we need a consensus for this major change. Just because a few colleagues call him Skippy doesn't mean it should be included with his full name in the lead. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphilbrick I do think it's a mistake. I have cited Canadian Encylopedia often and never once got a copyright violation. Your edit summary is insufficient; it just says "copyright issue". I spent nearly an hour working on that...:( Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, are almost definition, summaries. I don't think it would be good practice to encourage edit summaries to include every conceivable answer to every conceivable question. A better place to provide more detail is in a note on your user talk page which I provided. I gave you a link to the relevant policy, and I suggested that you ask a question if this terse summary was incomplete.

The issue isn't that you "cited Canadian encyclopedia", citations are highly desired. The relevant page Canadian encyclopedia is Immigration policy. That page has a prominent notice the bottom of the page:

The Canadian Encyclopedia © 2022 | Historica Canada

Do you disagree that the material is subject to copyright? (There are some rare instances where a page has a copyright notice but the material is acceptably licensed or public domain)

Do you disagree that your edit was largely a copy and paste of the relevant material?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphilbrick yes I disagree that the material is subject to copyright. I believe nearly all Canadian Encylopedia articles have that notice at the bottom of the pages and I have often been citing Canadian Encylopedia and never once had a reversion.

I also disagree that my edit was largely a copy and paste of the relevant material. I would never plagiarize and I would try to write the material on Wiki in my own words. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I alluded to earlier, I am aware one situation where an organization slapped a copyright notice on every single page, but added a licensing statement on one page which overrode the copyright notice. This means it is theoretically possible to see a copyright notice on page yet have some of the material on the page be acceptably licensed. I find it difficult to believe that the Canadian Encyclopedia would make such a blunder, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that if you wish to assert that the material is not subject to copyright, the burden is on you to show why it is not subject to copyright.

I am more troubled by your second assertion. It is not uncommon for people to think that making some minor changes to words eliminates the copyright problem, not realizing the close paraphrasing is still a copyright problem but that doesn't appear to be the situation. Your edit includes long stretches of word for word copying. Is not remotely the case that you wrote this in your own words.

The timing of the situation is unfortunate is going to be away for a couple weeks. Another case we could sort out why you think the material is not subject to copyright. I hope you're right, but I think the odds are low. I'm concerned that you suggested this is not the first instance of using material from the Canadian Encyclopedia, which means, unless there's some documentation somewhere that the contents of that encyclopedia are acceptably licensed, we may have to open an investigation into all your edits. Let's take it one step at a time now and see if you can explain why the material is not subject to copyright. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphilbrick Canadian Encyclopedia says: © COPYRIGHT OF THIS WEB SITE BELONGS TO HISTORICA CANADA. The use for study and research by students and teachers is encouraged. The commercial reproduction, storage or transmittal of any part of this site is forbidden, without the permission and proper acknowledgement of the copyright owner. Copyright of visual materials resides with the copyright owners described in the credits. here

What does the bolded part mean? I don't really understand it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that means we cannot use it. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For more information see the following Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. As a small side note the parenthetical comment in the first section which is what I referred to earlier. The table lists acceptable licenses. It is a common misunderstanding that because Wikipedia does not permit advertising, the Wikipedia is not a commercial site and therefore limitations on reuse of material for commercial purposes is acceptable within Wikipedia. This is explicitly not true. The bolded portion explicitly states that there material cannot be used in commercial reproduction, which must be allowed if it is to be be reused in Wikipedia. (My comments refer to text, there are some uses of copyrighted images that can be used in certain circumstances but this discussion does not involve images so that exception doesn't apply.)

Unfortunately, I am running up against some time constraints. I'm going to apologize to User:Diannaa, for asking her to weigh in, But she is our leading copyright expert and happens to be Canadian so has far more likelihood that she is specifically familiar with the Canadian Encyclopedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphilbrick well I asked on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Anyone know if it's allowed to cite Canadian Encyclopedia on Wiki? and two editors replied that it's fine to use but I can't plagiarize it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Canadian Encyclopedia as a source of information and cite it as your source, but you can't use it as a source of text – in other words, it's not okay to copy their prose here unaltered or lightly paraphrased. To do so is a violation of our copyright policy. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please.— Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LemonberryPie (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed the 'Progressive Conservatism' ideology from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, with explanation 'just because it's in their name doesnt mean they adhere to that ideology, consensus needed'. It's obviously hard to use RS because it's difficult to know if they're being labeled as 'progressive conservative' as an ideology or if they're just being called their name. This is when precedent is used, and there are countless parties, including the Ontario Liberal Party, which is labeled with ideology 'Liberalism' without reference or consensus, for the same reason. So my question is, what is the goal with consensus? Because I always thought we used RS over opinions of editors, (although they do seem to match the definition of 'Progressive conservatism' well). Is there a specific Wikipedia rule that I'm unfamiliar with that deals with this specific situation? And finally, what was the criteria you used to determine that the label did not fit, and that more consensus is needed in this specific case, and not in others. It seems to me that you would need to gain consensus to remove a label identical to a name. But if I'm missing something in all this, please enlighten me. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WatchfulRelic91 it was called the Conservative Party before 1942. The only reason it's called Progressive Conservative is because John Bracken, the leader of the federal Conservative Party, wanted to broaden the base and appeal to voters who adhered to the agrarian Progressive Party. Thus, the provincial Conservative parties followed Bracken. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I think I've heard that somewhere. So in the case of party renaming, we always go with the original name? Why is the party not now Progressive Conservative? They've obviously changed a lot since then. What would be adequate to prove that they are, without opinions of editors, and can you prove that they aren't? Because, until proven otherwise, wouldn't it be easier to leave it there, to give context to readers as to what 'Progressive Conservatism' is? WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:WatchfulRelic91 you can put it in the "Internal factions" part of the infobox. I wouldn't mind that. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LemonberryPie (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I thought the consensus was to remove the bars the election articles. I remember seing the bars being removed in various articles --Yilku1 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ak-eater 06. At the WP:SIZE talk page, you set up a "survey" with non-neutral framing on a long-standing guideline page, although Amakuru had explained back in November that a site-wide RFC would be needed for a change of this magnitude. The (ever-helpful) XOR'easter came along and attempted to correct that, but the effect nonetheless remains non-neutral because of the prominence of one side of the discussion displayed via two large block quotes before any "survey". Now that a site-wide RFC is launched, this should be corrected; I suggest perhaps moving the original blurb to the Discussion section. Could we remedy this quickly so as not to have to ask for administrative help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, further guidance can be found at WP:RFCNEUTRAL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia we have already resolved it as there is now a neutral intro and a site-wide RfC in place. Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, XOR'easter's attempt to resolve the problem did not ... there is still a huge block of non-neutral text at the entrance to the RFC. I suggest moving it to the Discussion section. Expeditiously so that admin help won't be needed. There are further comments about it in the Discussion section there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought that the "huge block of non-neutral text" read just like a !vote, except for the minor point of not being indented (the sort of thing that people forget to do anyway often enough), but I have no objection to its having been moved. An "above" now needs to be changed to a "below". XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS permits both per cent and percent, and leaves it to national ties (Canadian English permitting a duality, although the Canadian Style Guide encouraging per cent). In saying that, firstly, per cent was already used in the article body (hence WP:ARTCON), and as was discussed in 2019, per cent was the first instance used (WP:RETAIN). The change from per cent to percent in the article lead was recent. Leventio (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page of his wiki for discussion on photo Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what you disagree with in my edits instead of just saying "go to the talk page and get consensus" (I waited 2 WEEKS after posting in the talkpage before changing anything), but of course reverting is easier than communicating it appears... CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:CanadianScotNationalist I explained why in the edit summary. If you can't read, that's your problem, not mine. Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you didnt you just said that it is unexplained,I explained my edits in the talk page, if you can't read, that's your problem, not mine. CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:CanadianScotNationalist you are deleting content because you personally don't like it. Just because you personally oppose it doesn't mean it should be deleted. There was lots of good information there. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Ak-eater06, I am not deleting information I don't like, I am pointing out that this information is needlessly wordy, or are you really going to say that we NEED to have all those exact numbers for every year he was in office? Also, I only deleted the last sentence because it had three lengthy references. Also, I'll be in that article's talk page from now onwards, so if you still care, see you there, otherwise I'll take it you only care about reverting and not discussing. Hope to see you there! CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to get into an edit war with you, but thought you might be interested in why I changed the Dion picture - I wrote about it on the talk page if you feel like weighing in. Thanks Tholden28 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ak-eater06. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Premiership of Stephen Harper, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ak-eater06, I noticed you added {{prod}} to this draft. Apologies for the bureaucracy around this, but if you'd like to have this draft deleted, please use {{db-g7}} instead (different deletion process). Jfire (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

noticed a reversion of a housekeeping edit, with the statement it was unexplained.

thanks for helping edit Wikipedia. the content we removed has to do with non notable offspring, given names, biography, living person.

hope that clears that up, Saintstephen000 (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LemonberryPie (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LemonberryPie (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've reverted some of their edits, as have I. See the discussion on the Macdonald talk page. The only edits by them not reverted on PMs seems to be Abbott. I looked it over and it not being my field, couldn't decide if it was all junk or if there was material worth keeping. Could you take a second look? Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're doing well. Do you have some opinion on this edit? There's a case to be made either way I'd say. Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wehwalt hey there again. Hope you're doing well too. That edit seems fine considering it's not usually referred to with a hyphen. Ak-eater06 (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ak-eater06. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Premiership of Stephen Harper".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Keep up the good work. Masterhatch (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]