User talk:Wellington Bay

Welcome!

Hello, Wellington Bay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Mike Bullard (comedian)

On 18 October 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mike Bullard (comedian), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 04:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Robert Fulford (journalist)

On 20 October 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Fulford (journalist), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Herron (New Brunswick politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Mary's University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Avrum Rosensweig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR notice

Hi there. While reviewing new pages, I noticed that a page you created, Bounce (radio network), does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, I've redirected it to Bell_Media_Radio#Programming. If you disagree, feel free to revert my redirect and we can proceed to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: thanks for the note but if you check the edit history you'll see I actually started the article as a redirect [1] - other editors turned it into an actual standalone article so you should leave your note on one of their pages. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Bay Thanks for the flag; will do. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Results of the 1977 Ontario general election by riding for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Results of the 1977 Ontario general election by riding 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/Results of the 1977 Ontario general election by riding 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.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Canadian Anti-Hate Network

added a link pointing to Antifa

Christopher Alexander Tonks

added a link pointing to Board of Control

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eric Marty (disambiguation)

The article Eric Marty (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK2 (talk; contributions) 21:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Eric Marty (disambiguation)

The page Eric Marty (disambiguation) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danièle Henkel moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Danièle Henkel. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High Park (provincial electoral district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to CITY-DT has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trudeau

Ok, I understand your point about former PMs still living in Ottawa but isn't Mr. Trudeau still technically and legally an active MP in the House of Commons? Not being Canadian I don't know what the requirements are for members of the Canadian Parliament whether they are required or not required to live in a specific constituency that they currently represent, I know here in the United States, for our House of Representatives you do not need to live in a specific congressional district to run and serve in that congressional district just live in the same state that the congressional district is located in and in the Senate there is no geographic requirements except that you live in the state where you are elected and served. So can you please provide clarification? YborCityJohn (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YborCityJohn: No, MPs aren't required to live in the constituency they represent. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Bay: Ah, ok so then you are correct it is too early to add his current residency then. Thank you for the clarification. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@YborCityJohn: And according to one site he sold his house in Montreal in 2013 so there's no reason to assume he'll move back to Montreal. Wellington Bay (talk)

@Wellington Bay: Gotcha ya. Thanks again for the clairfication. YborCityJohn (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Messianic Judaism

added a link pointing to Dean

Toronto Hebrew Memorial Parks

added a link pointing to Dean

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lawrence MacAulay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical assistance in dying.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of MPs

Please note that while in Canada the parliament has been dissolved, the MPs are still MPs until the date of the general election, both in title and practice. While the parliament doesn't sit, they're still MPs as per the parliaments own documentation, and will act as such if necessity arises. Canterbury Tail talk 22:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: - please bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board as the consensus among Canadian editors for some time now has been that an MP's term ends with the dissolution of parliament. If they do not run for re-election, it is that date that is used as the end date and if they run for re-election and are defeated, the date that parliament was dissolved is still used. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_29#Infobox_for_MPs_term_end_date. @Bearcat: is particularly well versed on this question so he might be a good person to consult. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought I was linking to the more recent discussion. I can't find it at the moment but again, please bring it up on the notice board and/or discuss with Bearcat. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the government and parliament themselves state they're MPs until the election, who are we to argue. Plus that discussion supports the continuation of them being MPs until the election date. There isn't suddenly a lack of representation or people stop being MPs during the election period, it's just parliament doesn't sit. As pointed out even parliament themselves considers them still MPs and if there's a crisis they will still fulfil their responsibilities as MPs plus they are still paid for the job of MP until the general election itself. There's no real circumstance here that says they stop being MPs and all the entitlements, titles and duties that go with that simply because parliament has dissolved, and the legislation supports that. Canterbury Tail talk 00:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Again, please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and make your case there. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to follow WP:BRD, you haven't. You made a bold edit, you were reverted, you discuss rather than continuing to edit war over your preferred version. And no it doesn't have to be discussed there because Wikiprojects have no authority over articles in any way, they're simply a gathering of like minded and interested editors. Something decided on a Wikiproject doesn't have any weight of authority. Canterbury Tail talk 00:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've asked you twice now to bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have, but the appropriate venue for you disagreeing with my reversion of your edit is at the talk page of the article per BRD and not to reinsert your changes and point to somewhere else that doesn't even support your point. And the wikiproject has no relevance or authority to this as mentioned above. You keep reverting for your preferred edit. I have provided you with parliamentary documentation about it, you just have your preference and point to an old discussion where the consensus is against what you suggest it is at best, and is neutral to it at worst. Canterbury Tail talk 00:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've brought the issue there myself. Please take the discussion there as it is a more appropriate venue than my Talk page. Please direct future comments to Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Term_end_dates_for_retiring_MPs. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to revert your edit warring and abide by WP:BRD? It is incumbent on the person making the changes to get the consensus before making the edit again. Canterbury Tail talk 00:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how the discussion unfolds. I will go with whatever consensus is. Incidentally, I made it clear above that I had linked to the wrong discussion in the archives. There have been more recent discussions. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. As per that discussion and WP:CANPOL he's still an MP as there is no reference that he isn't standing for re-election in his article. So can you revert now? Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion there is a standing consensus which has not changed as far as I can see. If you like you can ask for a "vote" or post an RFC and we'll see if the consensus has changed. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not "vote" on Wikipedia. As per WP:CANPOL that that discussion pointed to. Kevin Vuong has not announced he is not standing again, there is nothing on his article. So unless every single MP in Canada is going to be updated right now, we cannot use a crystal ball to say he'll not be an MP after the election as we don't know if he's standing or not. There's ones that have announced they're not standing again I support per the agreed upon consensus of CANPOL. However he isn't meeting that criteria. It's a simple thing. Is Kevin Vuong referenced as not standing for parliament again? And if that reference can't be produced are we removing the MP from every single article of people who were MPs last week? We can't have it as one interpretation of the rule for one person and another interpretation for others. That's all I'm on about, you say it's because he's not standing again but there's no evidence of that. I'll leave it as there's no way he'll get elected again anyway, but in future please don't edit war for your preferred edit and follow WP:BRD and remember that Wikiprojects cannot make policy. Canterbury Tail talk 20:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Set aside the condescension. There is a standing consensus - I get that you don't like it but I'm not going to be persuaded by special pleading. If you don't like the consensus then appeal to the community, not to me as an individual to ignore it. Since there is a consensus you are the one being "bold" in BRD so stop trying to flip the script. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No special pleading whatsoever, just standard editing agreements and policies that an editor of your standing should be well aware of by now. You kept reverting to reinsert your preferred edit against BRD and wouldn't start a conversation on the talk page. The onus is on the person trying to make the edit to start that discussion and get that consensus. Otherwise that's edit warring, no matter who is with consensus or against it. And no there was no consensus on the talk page around it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were bold, I reverted and I'm telling you to discuss it with the community if you want to establish a new consensus-and yes by trying to circumvent the community and appeal to me directly you're engaging in special pleading. Sorry but that dog won't hunt so go back to the Canadian Wikipedians notice board. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus clearly didn't exist as you stated it as is very apparent from the talk pages. None of these consensuses you pointed out were anything of the sort. And as mentioned before, local consensus on a Wikiproject doesn't mean a consensus on an article, they don't have that authority. Look I'm willing to walk away from this and we agree to disagree with no prejudice for future edits and working together as productive editors, and I'm also not interested in any kind of getting the last word so feel free to respond to this. Canterbury Tail talk 21:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time go to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and argue your case there. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senate standings template: possible visual update proposal

Hi Wellington Bay — I’ve noticed you’ve been doing great work maintaining Template:44th Canada Senate standings change, and I really appreciate the attention to detail.

I’ve put together a possible visual redesign of the template that keeps the same data but reworks it into a vertical layout with sticky headers, colour bars, and proper `rowspan`. It scrolls vertically instead of horizontally, and is easier to follow across devices.

The full proposal is posted here, with a live version in my sandbox: 📍 Template talk:44th Canada Senate standings change#Proposal to Replace Horizontal Layout with Validated Vertical Version

Posting now because we’re in between the 44th and 45th Parliament — seems like a natural time to evaluate layout improvements.

Would really value your feedback or suggestions.

— Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social Credit Party of Ontario

That's nice work you did on that article. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 20:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donna Skelly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CKWS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gerry Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabbagetown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

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! Legend of 14 (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said before.

I partly blame myself. Shoulda cold-cocked him long ago. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just thought I had to say something. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, his response was predictable.[2] Wellington Bay (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore Bbb23 for now. If you want to help, you can review his blocks and raise any you disagree with on WP:AN. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said my piece - and Bbb23 proved my point with his response, showing no lessons have been learned. Hopefully some admins at least will draw the appropriate lessons even if Bbb23 is unable to. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson I drew from that comment on his talk page is "Wellington Bay seems like kind of a dick". Is that the lesson you mean? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: No, you'll have to retake the course at night school and try to pass your exam again in the fall. Seriously though you have inadvertently hit on a good idea: Requiring admins to periodically pass an exam may improve the admin pool.

Incidentally, you gave Bbb23 good advice,[3] he simply never would have followed it - witness his behaviour after being criticized for misusing his CU authority when he had it. His inability to explain his admin actions or be accountable, his failure to admit his mistakes and try to do better is why he's losing his admin status. If that's not the lesson you take from his saga then that's a you problem, not a my being a "dick" problem. Indeed, if you think abusing one's authority while balking at explaining yourself or being accountable isn't being "kind of a dick" but pointing out that someone has fallen short of their responsibilities as an admin is, then you have things exactly backwards. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would like to thank you for your contribution, because it needed to be said. And it's a shame it was not said five years ago when Bbb23 lost his checkuser privileges. Had it been, Bbb23 maybe would have learned his lesson and avoided recent events.

Bbb23 has done tremendous good for Wikipedia, and there is so much more that he could give. That is the frustrating thing. The problem is that, in the name of fighting vandalism, he seems to consider himself entitled to act with complete impunity. And if, while fighting vandalism, a few good faith users get 'bitten' away or a few other have their privacy violated, he doesn't care.

The community does care, however, and rightly so. The rules matter, and we are all subject to them. If Bbb23 would only understand that, he would have a bright future here. However, while he continues to delude himself into thinking this departure has been somehow 'forced' (see his talk page) merely because the community has refused to permit him to abuse his admin privileges, he sadly probably has no future here at all - certainly not as an admin.

And the fact that Floquenbeam - a fellow admin - apparently doesn't understand this either is very depressing. 217.65.134.15 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burial place for Ruth Westheimer

In these edits, you specify that Ruth Westheimer was buried at Cedar Park Cemetery, New Jersey. What is your source for this claim and if you have a source, why not add it to the article? I have been searching on Google and in Newspapers.com and I haven't found a source to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC) @Alansohn: see [4]. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Find_a_Grave, the user-generated content at Find a Grave is not a reliable and verifiable source. It's a reliable and verifiable reference that's needed here. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband is also buried there so I think one can be certain to a high degree. Perhaps comment it out until there is a reliable source so that editors at least know where to look. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party (Ireland) edits

Your counter edits to additions to socialist party (ireland) regarding Direct Provision from the standpoint of NPOV, due to criticisms Direct Provision has recieved are in themselves extremely biased. Instead of linking to an unbiased external source that factually states what Direct Provision is, which I had provided. You linked Direct Provision to the Wikipedia for Direct Provision which is dripping in bias. Anti Direct Provision sentiment directly harms asylum-seekers as there is no alternative through which they'd receive aid. Why dont you target the NPOV of the rest of the Socialist Party (Ireland) and Direct Provision pages with the same strict adherence to NPOV? The context IS their claim that ending direct Provision would be supporting the right to asylum as they don't offer any alternative themselves. 188.65.190.66 (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have an axe to grind. There's nothing wrong with linking to a Wikipedia article on the a term used in an article. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My axe to grind is that the Socialist Party (Ireland) uses ignorance of Direct Provision to advance their anti- E.U. agenda; and in doing so are actively harming asylum-seekers (myself included)

Your policing of efforts to bring light to this are abusing "NPOV" further their agenda by attacking attempts to bring light to the ignorance they exploit.

There is no Neutrality against ignorance and bigotry. 188.65.190.66 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to grind your axe. Wellington Bay (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the place to shine light on ignorance. 188.65.190.66 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (see WP:SOAP). Wellington Bay (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being respectful with your latest edits in this regards. 188.65.190.66 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism needs to be included in the lede for balance. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta NDP

The Alberta NDP by definition ascribes to economic liberalism: "Economic liberalism is a political and economic ideology that supports a market economy based on individualism and private property in the means of production". The NDP does not advocate for an overthrow of private property or the market economy. Nowhere in the Alberta, Sask, or Manitoba NDP party constitutions is 'social democracy' mentioned even once. Describing it as merely a 'social democratic' party in 2025 – particularly the Alberta NDP or Saskatchewan NDP which formally severed ties with the federal party.– is categorically incorrect when party positions have shifted substantially in recent years/decades. Both federal and provincial NDPs conducts regular membership policy surveys to adjust policy positions. Please review the actual platform of current party leadership: https://www.edmontonchamber.com/2024/11/24/nenshikeynote-nov2024/. https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/naheed-nenshi-criticizes-federal-energy-policy-business-address. https://www.parklandinstitute.ca/envisioning_alberta_s_economy GlowingDesertRaven (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GlowingDesertRaven: Economic liberalism opposes state intervention in the economy - read the rest of the lede in the economic liberalism article:

"Economic liberalism can be contrasted with protectionism because of its support for free trade and an open economy, and is considered opposed to planned economies and non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism. As such, economic liberalism today is associated with classical liberalism, neoliberalism, right-libertarianism, and some schools of conservatism like liberal conservatism and fiscal conservatism. Economic liberalism follows the same philosophical approach as classical liberalism and fiscal conservatism"

so no, the Alberta NDP are not "economic liberals". Also, your claim that they are "economic liberals" has no source. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source:

It is official Alberta NDP policy for Alberta to maintain Alberta with the lowest personal income tax rate, corporate tax rate, small business tax rate, and sales tax rate in Canada:

"Alberta will have the lowest personal taxes in Canada. No income tax increases and no sales tax.

Since being elected, the UCP has raised your taxes and fees, making everything more expensive. Costs like electricity, auto insurance rates, and even parks fees have all skyrocketed under the UCP.

An Alberta NDP government won’t increase personal income taxes and won’t introduce a provincial sales tax.

We will eliminate the small business tax and remain competitive with the lowest corporate income tax in Canada.

Alberta's small businesses are the backbone of our economy, employing hundreds of thousands of people in good-paying jobs. After a number of very difficult years, they need a break. That’s why we will eliminate the small business tax - allowing this money to be re-invested in growth and innovation.

An Alberta NDP government will set the small business income tax rate to zero for more than 100,000 small businesses, including retail establishments, restaurants, mechanic shops, family farms and more."

The Alberta NDP does not believe in deficit spending and has official an official policy against it:

"We will maintain a balanced or surplus budget following the advice of former ATB Chief Economist Todd Hirsch.

Rachel Notley tasked former ATB economist, Todd Hirsch, with providing recommendations for the future. In his report, A Better Fiscal Future - Fiscal Recommendations to Position Alberta for Success, Hirsch recommends maintaining a balanced or surplus budget, an outer bound net debt to GDP ceiling of 30%, and establishing a fixed amount of non-renewable resource revenues, and an Alberta NDP government will do just that.

We will not increase personal income taxes in the next four years and we will not bring in a sales tax.

We will eliminate the small business tax rate for more than 100,000 small businesses.

We will maintain the lowest corporate income tax rate in Canada."

It is official Alberta NDP policy to increase funding to municipal police:

"We will restore municipal police funding and public safety.

The UCP cut millions of dollars from municipal policing grants, all while wasting time trying to replace the RCMP with an Alberta force that would report to Danielle Smith.

An Alberta NDP government will restore this funding. We will work with municipalities to ensure these funds will allow for 150 more police officers to be hired across the province. An Alberta NDP government will pair these officers with 150 social workers, mental health workers, addictions counsellors and community navigators to improve safety and provide support.

We will keep the RCMP in Alberta. We reject the UCP’s plan to cancel the RCMP and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a provincial policy force that they control."

On the UCP wikipedia page, 'economic liberalism' is included under ideology, despite significant state interventions in the economy (i.e., $15 billion for Keystone XL).

I'm not going to revert your (wrong) edit now because it's futile and you seem to be intentionally starting an editing war, but you are mistaken. All Alberta NDP policies are demonstrative of economic liberalism. Here is further source material: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/economic-liberalism

Source:

https://www.albertandp.ca/plan GlowingDesertRaven (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GlowingDesertRaven: And where in your source is the term "economic liberalism" used? It's not. I'm sorry but you are misunderstanding the term "economic liberalism" - it does not mean "liberal" in the sense that it's used in US politics. At best, your use of the term is a violation of WP:Original Research as there is no reliable source that refers to the Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba NDP as "economic liberals". Wellington Bay (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All policies listed above are adherent to economic liberalism: "based on the principles of personal liberty, private property, and limited government interference. The term ‘liberalism’ should be understood in its historical context."

Where on the Alberta NDP website is the term 'social democracy' used? The answer is nowhere. By your logic there is no social democratic aspects to the party ideology either.

You seem to be editing in bad faith, which I would ask you stop – even though I will not be reverting edits at this time. You also replied three minutes after I did, proving you did not even read the reply: more evidence of bad faith editing. GlowingDesertRaven (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GlowingDesertRaven: Sorry, but AI is garbage and is not a reliable source. As for your question about where on the Alberta NDP website is the term "social democracy" used, you can try the Alberta NDP constitution. Article 1.03 reads "The purpose of the Party is to promote the principles of democratic socialism in Alberta and to establish and maintain a democratic socialist government in Alberta through the electoral process."[5] Wellington Bay (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be transferred to the article talk page. @GlowingDesertRaven you need sources that discuss both Alberta and economic liberalism. If you continue to edit without them you can be blocked from the aricle. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Canadian League for Peace and Democracy

On 3 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canadian League for Peace and Democracy, which you recently nominated. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canadian League for Peace and Democracy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Canadian League for Peace and Democracy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Sorry about the delay! We're clearing a backlog of missed DYKs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Jamaican general election

Hey, at 2025 Jamaican general election, you added a refname called "Gl" twice in the Timeline section, but didn't add any additional source information. Could you take a look and adjust? CountryANDWestern (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riff Markowitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marineland of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beluga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poale Zion

Thanks for expanding the electoral history on the Poale Zion page. Coconut0330 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marineland of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joanne Thompson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Richard Marceau when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Yuchtman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Landsmanschaft.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Engler NDP Leadership

Can you provide a better source than: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-new-leader-or-new-system-the-conservatives-ponder-life-under-two-party/ The Coyne article is an opinion piece and the fact of Engler's candidacy has been disputed in two papers of record (the National Post and Toronto Star). Andwats (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andwats: The fact that he declared his candidacy is not contested. He is not, however, an official candidate (and that isn't contested either). Wellington Bay (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Bay: that's fine, surely there's a source that says "Engler was announced as a candidate", otherwise the sentence should say "Engler declared his candidacy" and source to that effect should be supplied. In either case, an opinion piece is not a valid source in this context. Andwats (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andwats: please also see Wikipedia:Verifiability under § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves - it is acceptable to use Engler's or the Socialist Caucus' websites as sources for the fact that Engler announced his candidacy. There is no reasonable doubt that the Socialist Caucus nominated Engler as their candidate for the NDP leadership or that he accepted their nomination. What is a matter of debate is whether he should be recognized as a candidate as, by his own admission, he has not submitted his application to the NDP. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original article stated he was in fact a candidate and cited no sources. Your current edit is good. However, had the Socialist Caucus been used as a source, it could only be said that Engler was their candidate for NDP leadership and subsequently it would need to be clarified that he has yet to be accepted as a candidate. Whether or not the Socialist Caucus is a reliable source depends on the phrasing and the way in which their site is referenced since it is WP:RSSELF. TLDR the current version of the article is fine. Andwats (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steeles Memorial Chapel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thornhill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs

Hi there. You just opened two RfCs - I'm unsure if either was yet necessary to be honest (your edit still stands), but if you want to go through with this, can you please turn them into one and direct the discussion towards either article? It's effectively the same question, the same principle applies for both articles. It will be easier to centralize discussion in one place. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle: I'm afraid it is necessary due to edit warring by two editors who are very protective of the Perry article and are setting a personal bar for inclusion that goes far above WP:RS - they have been edit warring on both pages. I have deleted the RFC on the Trudeau page for now and replaced it with a link pointing to the RFC on Perry's page. Hopefully the RFC passing on Perry's page will be sufficient to stop the edit warring on both pages. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

39th World Zionist Congress

added a link pointing to Meir Cohen

List of longest-running radio programmes

added a link pointing to KMET

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]