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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]