Welcome!

Hello, AshleyMorton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Khoikhoi 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[]

Populated Islands in CanadaEdit

I added those four over breakfast, and there were to be others coming which would outrank them, i.e. Graham, Moresby, Princess Royal are all inhabited, but larger than the Gulf Islands; I'll wait until I have the entire BC list done and then compare and insert appropriately. I thought this was about population ranking, not pure size (otherwise where's Banks Island, for example - where Resolute is)? Saltspring is on the current list, and while it may be the most populous of BC's islands (other than Lulu/Richmond) it certianly isn't the largest (not even in the Gulf, where it is exceeded - I think - by Texada and Quadra in size.Skookum1 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Newfoundland and Labrador WikiProjectEdit

There’s now a WikiProject for Newfoundland and Labrador. We hope you’ll join us in making Wikipedia a great source of information about the province and its people. OzLawyer 17:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[]

Demographics, "Racial" StatisticsEdit

For those who may notice an odd trend in my editing lately, I've been working on a number of Demographics sections for different populations (provinces, cities) in Canada. I found a number of the sections contained "fiddled" statistics that artificially bundled together a number of different groups and called them "White" (Canadian = white? I don't think so), bundled together African and Caribbean origins and called them "black", etc. We all know that discussions of ethnic origin are much more complex situations than that, and that, if done improperly, they can be very harmful.

As a result, I've taken the step of putting tables in to replace this information in a number of the articles that are effectively regurgitation (referenced, of course) of the 2001 Census data for those places. I believe that using Statistics Canada's descriptors and data is the most NPOV and respectful way to do this challenging task.

However, I would like to add the footnote that, in a number of these situations, I don't think that these numbers are really needed AT ALL. I put them in place because I don't like deleting entries outright, so I figured this was the least harmful substitute. However, I would be happy to have someone delete the ethnic origin information completely so we can get back to discussing culture and cultures, rather than race. AshleyMorton 21:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[]

I saw your comments on the British Columbia talk page. As far as I am concerned, you are absolutely and totally correct in what you are doing. This is the only referenced & NPOV way to go: use the straight Statistics Canada self-reported numbers on ethnic origin rather than fiddling with numbers to meet some USian or other concept of "race". Keep up the good work. Luigizanasi 05:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[]
I saw your revision of the Saint John, N.B. article. Good job. Those earlier stats really weirded me out. I'm not totally in favour of the StatsCan ones either, but as you wrote, it's a compromise of sorts. I think if StatsCan is asking those questions in the first place, why Is Canadian a choice? Or American? Maybe the purpose is to blur the lines. I don't know. Anyway, I like what you have done. DDD DDD 01:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Keep up the good work.DDD DDD 04:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Regarding your User Page comments on "Race," ethnicity and culture -- I too couldn't agree with you more. Good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. User:OldCommentator 17:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[]
Regarding your userpage - I agree with your principle, but you give the example of muddling together African and Caribbean to get Black - as far as I know, Black is the prefered term at Statscan ... do you have some reason to believe this is not the case? The 2001 census data for Scarborough, Ontario lists Black as an ethnicity [1] and I've been sorely tempted to move the current African + Caribbean currently listed to Black, but a bit nervous about one of the contributors there getting uppity about it. Anyways, in the spirit of this, and with your apparent interest in the issue, I wondered if you'd give me an opinion on the issue. WilyD 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Sorry for intruding.., but don't confuse ethnicity and visible minority status. They are two different things. If you look at the 2001 Census questionnaire (PDF), Question 17 asks: "To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person’s ancestors belong?" This is what determines the "ethnicity" data. The detailed responses to that question are here. Visible minorities are determined by a completely different question, No. 19, which asks: "Is this person: White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, etc.". Data on visible minorities is here. So the two sets of numbers are completely unrelated. You can't add African + Caribbean to get Black, or make any assumptions about the relation between people's ethnic origin and "Visible minority" status. On the page you linked, "Black" referes to people who have said they are a member of that visible minority, not to people who are ethnically "Black", whatever that means. Luigizanasi 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Well, sorry to talk here on your userpage, Ashley, but I think this is mostly the answer I was looking for ... that my language was imprecise. But doublechecking Scarborough, I see we explicitly say both Visible Minority Group and Caribbean and African-Canadian in a way that likely needs work. Thanks, such as it is. WilyD 00:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[]

I think the concept I believe in has been clarified above - that is to say that you can use "visible minority status" if you want (as long as you use that term), but I believe "ethnic origin" is much more valuable, for several reasons. Here are some:

  • The StatsCan statistics do not include aboriginal-identity people as "visible minorities". I believe this is because they are generally trying to track immigrant populations, but you end up with the "non-visible-minority" category lumping together "white" and "aboriginal" - a weird combination, in my mind, when you are still going to specify black, Asian, etc.
  • The StatsCan stats separate out Korean, Japanese and Chinese, while lumping together all of "Black" and all of "Latin American". I don't understand the justification of this - some sort of analysis that Korean and Japanese facial features can be distinguished on the street while, say, Somalian vs. Ghanian can't be? I don't believe that the category choices are appropriate or neutral (not that I'm even sure what they're trying to prove, just that they don't seem appropriate to me.)
  • Many Canadian cities are >90% "White". To have a stat that says "97% White, 3% Other" is useless. As a result, the "Ethnic Origin" data give at least some hints as to the background of the city, in those cases.
  • If you want to know "racial" information, you can, to a great degree, discern it from "ethnic origin" stats. The converse can not be said.

AshleyMorton 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[]

HagenborgEdit

Thanks for correcting and expanding the article. I created it trying to knock off a redlink at the list of regional districts. I have never been to Hagensborg (or anywhere near it) :-(. --Usgnus

Cleanup of the article for St. John's, Newfoundland and LabradorEdit

Hi, great work on the article cleanup, it's starting to look much better. HJKeats 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

New Collaboration for Wikipedia:WikiProject Newfoundland and LabradorEdit

A new article SS Florizel of Newfoundland and Labrador context has been created and we invite you to contribute to the article to firstly get it up to DYK status and hopefully to feature article status. The article is about a bit of Newfoundland's marine history and the sinking of the SS Florizel and it’s many passengers including a little girl Betty Munn. If you have any knowledge of the subject please pitch in add/edit and if not specific knowledge of the article if you could help by generating articles on any of the red-ink (wikified) topics, would be great. Thanks so much to help on this article. As a suggestion, maybe every Monday we could offer up a new topic to collaborate on and then pool our talents on that one. Oh and BTW did you catch the article that OzLawyer create on the Newfoundland Tricolour that made it to the Did you know? column on 5 July, 2006.! HJKeats 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Students' unions category discussionEdit

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 22 ---Usgnus 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[]

DemographicsEdit

Thanks for your help with the religion stats on Alberta! I agree with your recent efforts and think that being more specific is always better. But that is why I have to disagree with your rvt to my changes at Prince Edward Island. The groups listed in the demographic tables should link to information about xxxx-Canadian (or some such) because it is more specific, even if it is a red-link because tells readers (and potential editors) where WP has holes that need to be fixed, it's also more consistent, and allows a new article on, for example, Togolese Canadians to be instantly linked to from relevant articles. Just a thought. Kevlar67 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[]


DemographicsEdit

Thanks for backing me up, if we were to change the name east Indian to something else or just Indian it would add to the confusion and then we'd also have to change every other page where we used stats can anyways. It wouldn't really make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TotallyTempo (talkcontribs) 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[]

Danny WilliamsEdit

I agree, a pic with his eyes open would be fantastic. However, there's a bunch of people enforcing a rule that says fair use images should never been used to illustrate living people. They've been slash burning a bunch of the premiers, from PEI to Nunavut. I don't personally agree with this, but I've been preemptively trying to make sure every important politican has a free image, by begging people on Flickr to license their images as CC-BY. I expect the people to come hacking through Danny's article in the next couple of months, so when they do, we do have a lesser pic to replace. -- Zanimum 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[]

Commons PhotosEdit

I have just spend one weeks vacation on the west coast of Newfoundland and photographed quite a bit of the small coastal towns, post offices, lakes and Long Range Mountains. I have started adding the photos to the article List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, you can link there from our Wiki article by the same name. I will be adding more later and feel free to use them while expanding the communities articles WayneRay 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[]

Canadian citiesEdit

Thank you for the edit to Trois Rivieres. We always get folks trying to bump their city up. I caught the Ottawa change, but missed the one for Trois Rivieres. Benkenobi18 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[]

Ethnic/Ethnocultural Group/Origin/Origins/Ancestry/Identity a.k.a. EthnicityEdit

Thank you for correcting the links in the stats I added to the Nfld demographics page. I agreed with 99% of them. However, I am distressed by 'Newfoundlander' almost self-referentially linking back to 'Newfoundland and Labrador'. I know thats the way I linked it but it still distresses me. I wish someone would write an article on it since Statscan has now included it as an ethnocultural option. And I also can't help getting the feeling that 'Black' and 'African (Black)' are somehow somewhat distinct, which of course would imply another article, but since neither of these are going to be written by me that is all moot.

I checked the actual Statscan questionnaires and I think probably the most accurate description for answers to the question would be 'ethnocultural ancestry'. I wish we could use that term altho' I haven't seen it anyhere on Wikipedia. Statscan does use apparently more or less interchangeably 'origin', 'origins' and 'group' none of which strike me as entirely accurate for various reasons. I do like 'origins' when there is a more pronounced geographic aspect to the groupings though. Statscan also uses the term 'Ethnicity' for the subject in general and I believe one can speak of Ethnicities. I really do not like the notion of a 'group' though ... I hope we can avoid that loaded term. I don't really have terribly compelling arguments for most of these semantic preferences however. I think Statscan is deliberately blurring the groupings which is why I like 'ethnicit(y/ies) which sounds vaguer and I much prefer the more accurate 'ethnocultural ancestry' but since it is nowhere about I shall try to adhere mostly to the prevailing consensus for now. --Paulalexdij (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I have actually now gone and used the term ethnocultural ancestry and I think I might have changed an ethnic origin or two to ethnicity. Of course they could be changed back if necessary. I am going to respect the prevailing standard on Canadian linking to Demographics of Canada ss well as the other points you brought up and will change them to be like that if I se them elewhere. PS. I'm not sure if I'm breaking protocol by writing all this on your talk page rather than mine? Cheers ...
--Paulalexdij (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[]

LodzEdit

I went ahead and moved the page, since it seems in line with WP:PLACE naming conventions. I've switched the bold title in the lead to match the new article title, but the rest of the "Łódź" terms in the article ought to be switched to "Lodz". Are you available to do that? Thanks, JamieS93 18:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[]

Ah, nice, I see that you're doing it. Now I can happily resume CAT:SD patrolling work. ;) JamieS93 18:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[]
Any time. :) sometimes these kinds of cases are deferred to WP:RM if it's a different spelling choice (i.e., possibly a controversial move). Even though this one takes some alterations to make the terms match the new title of a longish article, it was a clear case with the naming conventions so I gambled that an RM discussion wasn't needed. Ciao, JamieS93 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[]
Please revert those actions. At the very least such a major and dramatic change needs to be discussed on talk (and as the founder of WikiProject Poland let me assure you your edits are very controversial :) ). See also WP:Diacritics. If you want to move the page, please revert the changes and gain consensus via WP:RM first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[]
Right, the policy doesn't say what we should do with regards to diacritics. You can however note that there are plenty of English language sources using Łódź. With the singular exception of Warsaw, it has been the long standing (and hardly ever contested) policy of WikiProject Poland that we use the same names for places on English wikipedia as we do use on Polish. There thousands of Polish settlements using diacritics on English Wikipedia. If you'd like to rename them all, I'd suggest starting a discussion involving WikiProject Poland and possibly other projects. Till a conensus is reached on the decision to discard diacritics (and I very, very much doubt it will be) I would kindly ask you to revert your move. I don't know if you are familiar with the diacritics wars in the past, but I am, and I would very very much like to avoid seeing that particular hornet nest kicked over again. There are ways to gauge the community consensus that will not create any problems (RM from an estabilished name). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[]
This wouldn't involve just WikiProject Poland, but also tens of thousands of articles on places (and names) in Czech Republic (like České Budějovice), Slovakia, Slovakia, Hungary (say, Győr) and pretty much all of Eastern Europe and Balkans.radek (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[]

Edit

Criterion eight of Wikipedia's guidelines for usage of non-free content (see WP:NFCC#8), state that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since the Air New Zealand Cup logo in question relates to the competition, the Air New Zealand Cup, and not any particular season, e.g. the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup, the logo is not even relevant to the topic, so it is impossible for it to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In this case, the logo is being used purely for decoration, which is not appropriate. – PeeJay 16:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[]

m:Global sysops/VoteEdit

Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:

This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Medicinernes Skiklub SvartorEdit

Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the quick reply. My understanding of disqualifying for speedy deletion means that it must make a reasonable assertion of notability. However, to remain, it must have at least two non-trivial independent, verifiable and reliable sources. I don't know if any of the sources discuss the club directly and significantly enough. Can you help me find out if the sources given will be enough to forego needing nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Thanks again! CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Reviewer Right GrantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 13:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[]

Progress Party (Norway)Edit

You may be interested in participating in improvements to Progress Party (Norway), based on the latest GA review that I have commenced here: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[]

NAI/MetisEdit

Just to note taht those of Metis background might well also self-identify as both NAI and French (or Scots/irish whatever) in origin, as well as Metis.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[]

You're right, of course, but I'm not sure that it matters in this situation...AshleyMorton (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia 10Edit

Your Iles-de-la-Madeleine editEdit

Please check out my comments on the talk page for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFlyChick (talkcontribs) 00:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Halifax, NSEdit

In the fullness of time, I think Halifax, NS and HRM will be merged, but its a can of worms right now, politicians, geographers and citizens do not agree on how the naming works here. Until there is an official name change (it almost happened last year) or common usage that we can point to, our job is to reflect the facts, and the facts are confusing. WayeMason (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[]

I haven't yet looked at the full range of articles about Halifax/HRM, but merging Halifax and HRM would not be a good idea. HRM encompasses the cities of Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford, Sackville, and all other small communities (Porters Lake, Lake Echo, Fall River, Sambro, Enfield - to name but a few) in Halifax County. Everyone still refers to these cities and towns, even though technically they may not exist as cities and towns - I guess they are still "regions" (I have lived here all my life and don't know the status). In terms of postal addresses, they all still exist - no one that I know of has Halifax Regional Municipality in their address.HiFlyChick (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Hi there. I understand what you're saying, HiFlyChick, but here's my core point - the primary article, located at Halifax, Nova Scotia should be about the place (you know, that area where people live around that big harbour. It's got a couple of bridges and a lot of sailors.) It should include reference to the various different versions of municipal government that have existed through the history of its development. However, Halifax, Nova Scotia at the moment is just disambiguation, and that's silly (imagine if Toronto, Ontario was a disambiguation page because you talked about "Greater Toronto" versus the "City of Toronto" - or if London wasn't allowed to go to a proper article, because there's the City of London, Greater London, County of London, Middlesex, the Greater London Authority, the London Assembly, etc...). At the moment, people are jumping through silly categorization hoops to keep their articles separate - For example, the place in the "primary" article, the Halifax Regional Municipality, is usually called "HRM" in the text of the article. That's fine, if it's really just about the municipality, but when we start talking about the climate, and the airports (some of which are in, some of which aren't), then we're clearly talking about the place, in the general sense, not just the municipality. Also, some people are, or at least were, hugely militant about this, and assume that anyone who wants to combine these, or use some system other than the one the militant ones devised has no idea what they're talking about. As a result, there hasn't been nearly as much editing and improvement of these articles. Victoria, British Columbia is about the same population as Halifax, and I would argue that Halifax is far more important, because of it's "regional capital" status (Victoria is overshadowed by Vancouver, while Halifax has no such "big brother".) Thus, in terms of importance, I would put Halifax more on par with, say, Winnipeg. Yet both the articles (Victoria's and Winnipeg's) are longer, better organised, and clearer than the one on Halifax (and they don't go through any silly disambiguation, even though the core City of Victoria is actually really small.) I think that if these Halifax-related articles were better organised, there would immediately be a greater interest in editing them. Of course there need to be several articles in the picture here - I just firmly believe that, in addition to all the specific articles, there should be one, central, core article, located at Halifax, Nova Scotia that covers the whole concept of the place, and doesn't play nomenclature games. AshleyMorton (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[]
p.s. But I'm not going to work on it until I move there. House hunting at the moment...AshleyMorton (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[]
I haven't had chance yet to see all of the discussion, but I can see where this will be an ugly edit. The problem arises from the fact that Dartmouth, Bedford and Sackville were all (reasonably good size) cities in their own right, and if you refer to a Dartmouthian as "being from Halifax", they will most likely correct you. I agree that the major article should be about Halifax, Nova Scotia, however, close attention should be paid to differentiating between the various areas. For example, if discussing the Halifax Stanfield International Airport, it would be good to indicate that it is not located in the city proper, but in Enfield, which is encompassed by the HRM (or something similar). Of course, can you even say "city" anymore (such foolishness)...? Statements like "MicMic Mall, located in the former city of Dartmouth" would go a long way in keeping the peace, especially in clarifying the fact that people in the region prefer their individuality region-wise. Having not looked over all the articles yet, though, maybe the info on Halifax does only refer to the former city of Halifax, though, and not Dartmouth, Sackville or Bedford. HiFlyChick (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[]
While I agree with everything you say, I don't agree with the scale of the problem. The same thing exists with Scarborough and North York (among others) in Toronto, Beauport in Quebec City - even the Goulds in St. John's. However, the primary city articles for all of those still understand the concept of the "place", as opposed to being bound by the municipal (or former municipal) boundaries. You're exactly right about the airport - but it isn't really a huge deal to say something like you said - although I would probably change "city proper" to be something like "original city boundaries" or, say, "... Airport, while lying within the boundaries of the municipality, is located some distance outside the urban core of Halifax, in Enfield." We're smart folks, I'm sure we can do this. (Once I move!) AshleyMorton (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Sure, go right ahead with renaming HRM to simply Halifax. However, I don't think it needs to be called "Halifax, Nova Scotia" because N.S.'s Halifax is much bigger than the Halifax of the United Kingdom. In any case the polticians have already made up their mind on the official name of the Halifax Regional Municipality. Halifax is a better name for the name of the county and municipality, because "Halifax Regional Municipality" is simply too long for people that aren't from the area to remember, and most citizens simply called it HRM anyways. Also I suggest changing the name of Halifax (former city) to Greater Halifax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denver & Rio Grande (talkcontribs) 10:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[]

St. John'sEdit

I reverted your edits to the demographics section on the St. John's page. I'm not sure what happened exactly but the chart ended up being all screwed up and not actually showing. Wasn't sure what needed to be done so I thought you could take a look. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[]

Just fixed the language chart which may clean it up a little.

re "North American Indian"Edit

per your edit comment, it's not outdated, and I know many native people who will use it especially when not meaning specifically First Nations or Native Americans, or both. In Canada, people of non-First Nations indigenous people extraction are common, relatively, and in the case of people claiming part-native this is all the more likely. I myself know people of Cherokee and Navajo and such in Vancouver, and the difference between an American Mohawk and a Canadian one is really only the national adjective. How to source out all those "white" and "black" and other changes across so many tables is the issue; and that IP user needs a block, and more and more I see the point of Bearcat's endorsement of the idea that only registered editors can edit, and it's not just to do with vandalism. Anyways North American Indian is fine and neutral; Canadian usage gets even more complicated when the French term is used instead (autochthone), and that number isn't mean to be people of only First Nations origin, but also from beyond Canada, or who might not otherwise acknowledge aboriginal ancestry as "First Nations", which as you probably know has decidedly POV origins in the first place.Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[]

"X Municipality"Edit

I do this mainly to clarify the differences between a municipality and a village/town when they both have the same name. There are many municipalities that include a village or town with the same name and there are often separate articles for each. This, I think, helps to clarify which one we're talking about. For example, when an article says "Ørsta is located at the end of the Ørstafjord", are we talking about the village or the municipality. This is a similar set up to the Nynorsk Wikipedia which has "kommune" in the title for all municipalities. As to your point, usually if there is a list of municipalities I have not added the word municipality after each one since it is redundant, however I may have changed some in haste. I have been trying to clarify all the Ørsta and Volda links so that when I write articles on those two villages "Ørsta (village)" and "Volda (village)", all the links go to the correct articles. Feel free to reword to make it sound better. Cheers, jay1279 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Colin KenneyEdit

Kenney hasn't resigned from the Senate, he's been suspended from his caucus but he's still a sitting Senator and, in any case, he's a Liberal, not a Conservative. 198.96.85.105 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Right, which is why I increased the number of independents by one, and decreased the number of Liberals by one. I mean, it's quite possible I made a mistake - please feel free to correct. I'll check again. AshleyMorton (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Nuxalk vs Nuxalk NationEdit

Hi; just saw your edit in my watchlist, I'm on my way out, no time to examine it right now. Just a reminder that the single-name title is for ethnography and history of the people, the "Nation" title is for government-related materials; I know the Nuxalk themselves don't make a distinction in terms, but for article content and categorization the general principle is to keep formal governmental information, i.e. modern governance, separate from ethnographic and traditional/historical materials. I'll look at what you added later; sounds like it should also go on the language page.Skookum1 (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Replied re your edit, which needs citation, on my talkpage, but please note this, which I think is ill-advised and not viable, and is clearly by someone who has no idea about the valley or the place at all; same as with the folks who derailed the town RM on the premise that the town was insignificant because of its small population, and so could not be PRIMARYTOPIC; which it is; but it was closed by a dough-head who closed others on similar specious grounds, including ignoring the stats provided. The IR should no more be merged to the town article, or the government article for that matter, than Hagensborg or Nusatsum or any other subcommunity of the valley, no?Skookum1 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Changes to WP:QCEdit

You are receiving this message because you are listed in the active members list of WikiProject Quebec.

I have made a number of drastic changes to the project in an effort to bring some more life to it. I would appreciate hearing your feedback on these changes here. Thanks! - Sweet Nightmares 19:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Nope, meant to do that. It's the point of that category. AshleyMorton (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15Edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[]

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, AshleyMorton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[]

Every Province/Territory?!Edit

Hi there, just randomly stumbled across your user page and noticed you've been to every Canadian Province/Territory; cool!! That's one of my goals as well for someday! I really like road trips, you can hit multiple locations (not about the destination, it's the journey); already road tripped from where I live in Toronto to Halifax a couple years back..really nice trip. Almost impossible to road trip to St. John's as you'd have to take a 14 hour ferry or something from North Sydney so we said forget it for now. Probably need to fly to there and obviously to Nunavut as there's no roads – although I'm not keen in flying in one of the Northern airline's tiny planes. West coast is on my horizon's for this spring! Anyway, congrats to that achievement. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[]

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, AshleyMorton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[]

Because I have no lifeEdit

Things I've been editing because the quality of municipal pages is so poor and I am not really allowed to edit Halifax and area ones - can you have a good look at these? Kings_County,_Nova_Scotia - the history section has no references, really... just totally rewrote the rest and Cape Breton Regional Municipality where I totally gutted it and tried to make it not sad and past focused (history pages are for that.) heh. WayeMason (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[]

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, AshleyMorton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[]

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, AshleyMorton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[]

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[]