User Talk: Politicsenthusiast06

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hi Politicsenthusiast06! I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  I dream of horses (Hoofprints) ↗ (Neigh at me) 18:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

2025 Canadian federal election and redistribution

Hi, I'm a confused about your revert of my edit here ↗. There is also a comprehensive separate page on the 2022 redistribution, 2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution ↗, so I don't understand what you're getting at; readers can go ''there'' for that information. As I said, the 2015 Canadian federal election ↗ article doesn't have all this detail on redistribution, simply mentioning the increase in seats and linking to the dedicated 2012 Canadian federal electoral redistribution ↗. If you feel strongly about the notional redistribution tables, sure we can have that, but I don't see why 2025 Canadian federal election ↗ ought to have a full explanation of the redistribution, or a breakdown on how every seat would have changed (especially since I did move that table over already). Can you expand on your reasoning? — Kawnhr (talk ↗) 20:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I apologize I thought you had just removed the table with the party seat change of the distribution. Which I think we should keep. The longer more comprehensive table of every ridings change should be moved to the redistribution page as it is excessive detail for the main election article. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
::I see, no worries. I'll make the edit again, then, but this time keeping the bit about notional results and the table. — Kawnhr (talk ↗) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Jäger Rosenberg ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Jäger Rosenberg ↗ 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/Jäger Rosenberg ↗''' 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.</div> <big><span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>🌙</big> 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Darnelda Siegers ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Darnelda Siegers ↗ 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/Darnelda Siegers ↗''' 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.</div> Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Darnelda Siegers ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello, Politicsenthusiast06. This message concerns the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "Darnelda Siegers ↗".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy ↗, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Darnelda Siegers|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions '''here''' ↗. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Canadian federal election in Quebec

5 % of the vote (WP:5%R ↗!), having a seat at dissolution or winning a seat has been the standard for election infobox inclusion forever now. The Greens have failed all these criteria in every Canadian federal election in Quebec. Yet you contest their obviously warranted non-inclusion for 2015 and 2019 (not 2021 and 2025 for some arbitrary reason you consistently refuse to explain, like you do for them failing WP:5%R ↗). Including them anyway defeats the purpose of the election infobox, which is supposed to provide an overview of the election, and IMHO violates the spirit of WP:UNDUE ↗; "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all '''significant''' viewpoints" and "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, '''prominence of placement''', juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery". The Greens' election results in Quebec ''are'' insignificant per criteria. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

:I appreciate you finally moving this to the talk page, where it should have been from the very start before you made your changes. Though this should be on the talk page for those pages rather then my personal page. As I have explained various times during the edit war, there are 2 main and clear reasons the Green Party should be included. Firstly in the 2021 Canadian federal election ↗ page, the PPC was included in the infobox despite not having won any seats or having any incumbents going into the election, or getting over 5% of the vote. This was because the PPC got more votes then the Green party, which was included because it won 2 seats. And the standard is to include a party with more votes even if it has no seats. Given this precedent, the Green party should be included in the infobox of the page, as it received more votes then the PPC (4.5% to 1.5%). And since the PPC is included in the main 2019 election article due to holding an incumbent seat, which was in Quebec, it obviously should be included in the infobox of the Quebec page. On top of that the Green party did have an incumbent MP in Quebec going into both the 2015 and 2019 elections, meaning it fits that bar, as well as recieving major media coverage. I hope this settles this debate and we can continue editing in a constructive way. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
::''"This was because the PPC got more votes then the Green party, which was included because it won 2 seats."''
::You are mistaken, the argument behind that asinine consensus was that they had a seat going into the election, were included in the debates and had significant media coverage. The consensus to include them was only for the main election page, so any reasons for their inclusion can't just be blankedly applied for the subpage and for the GPC regardless. You'd probably need a separate consensus, with proof of significant media coverage, for that.
::''"And the standard is to include a party with more votes even if it has no seats." ''
::Where?! 5 % of the vote, having a seat at dissolution or winning a seat or bust.
::''"On top of that the Green party did have an incumbent MP in Quebec going into both the 2015 and 2019 elections"''
::We've had this before, no they didn't, neither Núñez-Melo nor Nantel (who isn't even counted as GPC member on his Parlinfo page) are counted as "seats before", both on the main pages and the subpages. Legally speaking, they weren't "incumbent" after dissolution. Steve Paikin great made a explainer on this titled "Does Ontario have 'incumbents'?" that also applies to federal elections.
::''"as well as recieving major media coverage" ''
::not enough by itself for infobox inclusion if you don't win a seat (WP:5%R ↗!) and certainly debatable The standard for "major media coverage" has stooped really low, some even arguing Elections Canada counts as major media coverage, but I think they fail that. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
:::You’re still misrepresenting both my argument and basic Wikipedia practice. WP:5%R ↗ is not policy and has never been the sole standard for infobox inclusion, if it were, the PPC would never have been included in 2021 despite having no seats, no incumbents, and under 5%, yet it was included ''because'' its vote total exceeded a listed party. That is a clear precedent, and pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. If you disagree with that precedent, raise it on the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board ↗, your personal opinions about whether the decision was “right” are irrelevant here. Likewise, your claim that the Greens had “no incumbents” going into 2015 or 2019 is simply false; dissolution does not erase incumbency, otherwise no party would ever have incumbents in any infobox. You keep demanding rigid standards that Wikipedia does not use, while ignoring the actual precedent already applied across federal election pages. Finally, your conduct on this page and your history of edit-warring and prior blocks is concerning; if you revert again without addressing these points with policy, logical and precedent based reasoning, you will be the one violating edit-warring rules, not me. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
::::''Likewise, your claim that the Greens had “no incumbents” going into 2015 or 2019 is simply false; dissolution does not erase incumbency, otherwise no party would ever have incumbents in any infobox.''
::::You claim to be misrepresented yet you clearly don't get the point: MPs '''at''' DISSOLUTION are the ones counted for the purposes of "seats before".
::::''You keep demanding rigid standards that Wikipedia does not use, while ignoring the actual precedent already applied across federal election pages.''
::::Rich! WP:5%R IS the iron-clad precedent already applied across federal election pages and you continuously try to shove a 2.3 % fringe party into the infobox.
::::''your personal opinions about whether the decision was “right” are irrelevant here''
::::straw man
::::''your conduct on this page and your history of edit-warring and prior blocks is concerning''
::::straw man + stop embarrassing yourself by trying to pull a gotcha with a bogus block done three years ago.
::::''if you revert again without addressing these points with policy, logical and precedent based reasoning, you will be the one violating edit-warring rules, not me''
::::Again, you're the one ignoring long-standing precedents (across a lot of other federal election subpages as well, like for BC ↗) and violating WP:UNDUE 🤣. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
::::But let's, for the purpose of argument, go through the process. The GPC, both in 2019 and 2015, won no seats, had no seats going into the election per established "seats before" criteria and won way less than 5 % of the vote. You're entire argument for inclusion is seemingly based on "but they got more votes than the PPC", which even if it was enough, wouldn't even apply to 2019! Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
:(WP:5%R ↗!) applies to individual candidates, not political parties. There was an acrimonious debate ↗ on inclusion of the PPC in the 2021 federal election infobox which resulted in their inclusion.
:Whether inclusion in the main article warrants inclusion in all provincial articles is something that should be done on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board ↗ and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums ↗. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverted edits on 45th Canadian Parliament

Hello, I noticed you reverted my reorganization of the 45th Canadian Parliament page.

No information had been lost during the edit, it had only been reformatted to align with the previous Parliament pages, so that we would have some consistency.

I'm hoping you could undo that reversion, please. Jayden.grieve (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2026 New Democratic Party leadership election ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Moody-Coquitlam ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

2025 Canadian federal election in Ontario infobox inclusion

Hi there,

I noticed you reverted ↗ my edit on the 2025 Canadian federal election in Ontario ↗ article where I removed parties that won less than 5% of the vote. If I understand correctly, the precedent you used to justify this was the inclusion of the People's Party in info boxes in the 2019 election, which if recall correctly was the subject of much heated discussion back in the day. I just wanted to check, are you sure that the principle reason for their inclusion was due to Maxime Bernier having a seat at the dissolution, cause I was under the impression that exception was made more so due to the widespread inclusion of the People's Party as a major(ish) political party in secondary sources during that campaign.

I'll keep your edits in place for now, but I think this should maybe go to further discussion with the wider Canadian Wikipedia community, especially considering that the results by province articles are new without any established consensus as to how they should differ (if at all) from the main election articles.

Have a good rest of your day. <b style="color: #B02E26">Red</b><b style="color: #3B7FCA">Blue</b><b style="color: #69C05D">Green</b><b style="color: #000000">93</b> 22:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

:I wasn't editing yet during the 2019 election, so I don't know exactly how those discussions went, other than my impression of it being both that they had a seat and received major coverage. This is why Strength in Democracy ↗ was not included in the 2015 Canadian federal election ↗ infobox, despite having 2 seats, since they got no major coverage and got a tiny amount of the vote.
:In the case of 2025 Canadian federal election in Ontario ↗, I think it would be completely unreasonable to exclude the NDP and Green parties. They had 5 and 1 seats respectively going into the election, and absolutely received major coverage. Additionally the NDP had been in a governance agreement in the previous parliament. Past precedent from every article I've edited and read would have them included.
:And also from my understanding the 5% is not a rule for parties, more of a guideline for candidates. We are supposed to follow the sources, and I think it is pretty clear sources treated those parties as major. I think the whole debate for who to include in these subpages, based on which parties got enough seats or votes in a specific provinces for these pages, is unhelpful. Since it's a national election, the parties the media consider important enough on that stage should be includes, with room for additional regional parties added (and excluding parties that didn't run any candidates there). I believe that is how it is generally formatted for UK election pages and subpages.
:I hope we can get more editors to help beef up these pages. I like them, and enjoyed making several of them, but at the moment they don't serve very much purpose as their results are no more in-depth then the main page.
:(: Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Canadian federal elections in ??

Hi i saw you made 2025 Canadian federal election in Alberta ↗ and the other provinces. I was just wondering will you be making pages for the past elections for each provinces as well. Muaza Husni (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:I have made several for past elections, including 2011 Canadian federal election in Quebec ↗ and 2021 Canadian federal election in Alberta ↗. I haven't gotten around to making all of them yet, as it is a lot of work. @RedBlueGreen93 began the project of making these provincial pages. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::Yes in a perfect world, we could do them for every election, but it does take quite a bit of time; and the further back you go, the more difficult it is to find reliable secondary sources about the elections in each province. {{ping|Muaza Husni}} feel free to help out if you're interested. <b style="color: #B02E26">Red</b><b style="color: #3B7FCA">Blue</b><b style="color: #69C05D">Green</b><b style="color: #000000">93</b> 17:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:@RedBlueGreen93, @Politicsenthusiast06. Hi, I don't really mean all the way to the 1870s. I was just wondering How far do you think you can go where it could have reliable secondary sources about the elections in each province??. Maybe in the 2000s or even the 1990s.Muaza Husni (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
::The furthest back where I've been able to find sources or even details results is 2011 Canadian federal election ↗. If you can find them for further back that would be great, but I haven't had much success. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 5th Scottish Parliament ↗, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Douglas Ross ↗ and Mark McDonald ↗ were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)