Hi Kawnhr,

I get your thinking in removing the above parameter from the infobox of the above article, but my thinking was we should leave the graphic illustration to indicate the seat count at dissolution, possibly with a footnote or some other notation indicating this was the seat count at dissolution?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[]

Dmehus, that's a fair point. I'll revert my edit and take it to the talk page (along with other changes I was mulling over). — Kawnhr () 22:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[]

Kawnhr, Okay, sounds good. Yeah, either option is a potentially valid. It's so wonderful to work with such a cooperative, positive editor. :) Doug Mehus T·C 22:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[]

Hey, just wanted to tell you that there's the QC Libs leadership happening soon, since I've seen you edit other leadership races. I saw the date recently for May but I need to find the source again. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[]

Cool, thanks for the heads-up! I'll be keeping an eye on it. — Kawnhr () 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Green_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election

Daniel Green said in french: «Pas du tout, tranche le principal intéressé. J’ai 64 ans et être un chef de parti, c’est un sport extrême. Je vais laisser à d’autres, peut-être plus jeunes, mener le parti vers d’autres horizons, plus grands et plus forts.»

Ref: https://journalmetro.com/actualites/national/2394859/le-parti-vert-a-fait-des-erreurs-reconnait-daniel-green/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.66.35 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[]

Good catch! I've added him back to the page, with that article as a source. — Kawnhr () 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[]

New here. Your NatPost ref to Kenney's endorsement of O'Toole is indeed a better one than O'Toole's Twitter, but I think I may have been editing the page simultaneously when it got published. The NatPost ref got nixed in the process and I don't want to take credit for re-adding it, but I don't want to undo mine either.

Is there a way the two edits can be merged? To give credit where it's due.

49thParallelUniverse (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[]

Huh, weird. I don't think there's a way to merge edits like that, so I went and restored it manually. Thanks for the heads up. — Kawnhr () 03:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi there. I've noticed that you've been contributing to a lot of pages regarding leadership elections for parties. I'd just like to let you know that there's a page for the Yukon Party leadership election that's happening right now. It's pretty barren, but I think it might interest you a bit.

Fulserish (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[]

Fulserish, thanks for letting me know— I wasn't even aware this was going on. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep my eyes peeled for any reports on the race. — Kawnhr () 05:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited By-election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preferential voting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Hello, Kawnhr! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time.

Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Thank you for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind from now on! --MisterElection2001 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Why shouldn't the party belong in the infobox?! Because they don't have seats?! They are literally fielding 300+ candidates plus Bernier himself! Ridiculous!

You are free to read the many, many discussions about it over at Talk:2021 Canadian federal election. I do not feel like repeating it. — Kawnhr () 18:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It depends on whether you prioritize official status or common practice. From a strictly legal perspective, by definition Parliament can't have any members if it's been dissolved and there isn't a Parliament to have any members — so from a strictly legal perspective, an MP's term does end with the writ drop. Of course, in actual practice things aren't actually conducted that way for the most part — MPs obviously don't lose MP-related privileges during the election campaign, MPs obviously don't close their constituency offices since constituents might still need non-election-related help with government stuff during the election, the media doesn't ignore the relevance of incumbency as an advantage for MPs who are running for reelection, and on and so forth — but technically speaking, all MPs actually cease to be MPs at the writ drop and even reelected MPs only become MPs again once the ballots are in. Of course, we've never bothered here to be technically precise about it when MPs are reelected — we don't start a new office field each time an MP is reelected to the same office, for example — but historically the consensus was that we should be more precise about the technicality of it if and when an MP retired from politics and thus their stint as an MP had ended outright.

I'm not all that strongly wedded to the idea that we have to do it that way, rather than just using election day itself regardless of the nuances of the situation — but because we did have the consensus to use the writ drop in the past, a lot of other MP's infoboxes would need to have the end dates changed from "writ drop" to "election day" if there were a desire to overturn the prior consensus. So we couldn't just do it for Catherine McKenna alone while leaving most other former MPs as is — we would need to implement a genuinely comprehensive project of changing a lot of MP end dates from "writ drop" to "election day". That's more trouble than I would be willing to take on, but YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I'll keep that in mind going forward. — Kawnhr () 16:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hey, do you think you could upload a cover for Grouper's Shade? I did, but I'm positive I did it wrong (copyright-wise). Isthistwisted (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the late reply— I'm usually relatively inactive on weekends. I'm happy to help, but I see that another editor has supplied the cover image in the meantime, so I suppose it's moot now. But thank you for bringing this page to my attention again; I had been intending to do some work expanding it but it completely slipped my mind. — Kawnhr () 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[]

There's a problem with the new colour scheme you've implemented at {{Senate of Canada}} -- I don't know what it looks like to you, but at least on my monitor (and thus certainly for other people as well), the Independent Senators Group and Progressive Senate Group colours are nearly impossible to distinguish from each other at all, and even the Canadian Senators Group colour is marginally more distinguishable but still only with strain and effort. There needs to be much higher contrast between the colours than that — I'm not even colourblind at all, but some other readers of Wikipedia are. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[]

Bearcat, I have to admit that I'm not seeing the issue — all three of those colours are clearly and easily distinguishable to me — but I admit this can vary according to monitor and such. That said, the colours were not of my choosing but the standardized colours of Template:Canadian party colour, so it'd be a good idea to raise your concern there; if these colours are problematic, it would be best to fix that at the source. — Kawnhr () 18:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[]

@Bearcat: now that I've had a look on my home computer, I see that the colour blocks are rendering much smaller than they did on my work machine. At this smaller resolution I do agree it's mre difficult to make out which is which. Is that the concern here? — Kawnhr () 14:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I think size could well be the issue. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[]

@Bearcat: Got it. The reason I went with unicode over {{colorbox}} is because colorbox is way too big for the number of times it'd get used in this navbox. I went looking to see if there was anything smaller, and found {{colorbull}}. I tested this on my sandbox and I think this works — small enough to be unobtrusive but large enough to be distinguishable. Let me know what you think. — Kawnhr () 15:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[]

TBH, on my monitor I'm still not seeing a marked difference even in the sandbox version. It gets a little better if I reduce my screen resolution to something lower than my current 1920x1080, mainly because that counterintuitively increases the size of the colourboxes, but at my regular settings they're still hard to distinguish well. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[]

@Bearcat: Hmm, not sure what to do here. I like the line strip (inline=small) version of {{Rail color box}}, but that template was made for railways (and can't be display arbitrary colours besides). Once upon a time I proposed modifying {{Canadian party colour}} to have a parameter to display a block of colour, but it was met with skepticism and didn't go anywhere. Perhaps something to try again? — Kawnhr () 17:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Eby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranbrook.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
Template:Timeline of Newfoundland and Labrador premiers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[]

Hello, Kawnhr Have you ever been uploaded Noam Chomsky "Failed States" book published by Metropolitan Books to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[]

@Yuliadhi: Not familiar with it, sorry! — Kawnhr () 15:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[]

Well now that was an interesting read thanks for pointing me there. I am comfortable with maps being in the main articale and not the info box.

Cheers Benawu2 (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[]

@Benawu2: I apologize for the confusion I caused. I had been trawling through all the by-election articles and removing the maps, and after a while I figured linking back to the Project was unnecessary… not considering that, of course, some editors will only be watching some of these articles and not all! — Kawnhr () 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[]

Howdy. I made the link directly show Opposition House Leader, in all the bios where its' shown. That way, folks won't confuse the position with Leader of the Opposition, as I recently did. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[]

Good idea. That's a much better way to do list it. — Kawnhr () 04:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[]

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I've noticed you've changed the lead statement like here. I have worked on 100s of bilateral articles and the standard introduction is that. You have only changed this for Canada related articles, there are probably over a 1000 of these bilateral articles. Also this is the standard "See Also" section in 100s of bilaterals. If you want to make this change, do it for all bilateral articles not just Canadian. Thanks. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[]

I have started a discussion of this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations_articles. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attorney General of British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Wilson (Canadian politician).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi again! I remembered our interaction before with Claire. I feel like you are quite familiar with RE2. Would you check if there are some errors (reception is obviously awful, but I already requested at copyguild), and/or maybe collaborate with me at FAC in the future if only you want to? Thanks and Merry Christmas! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[]

I'll give it a look when I can! — Kawnhr () 18:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[]

Thanks for copyediting some of the parts. Once the copyguild editor is done copyediting the article I will maybe invite some reviewers to take a look first. would you want to be a conom at the article for FAC in the future? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[]

Happy to help! You really deserve the credit, though; I was looking back at earlier revisions and you have seriously whipped it into shape, my edits are minor in comparison. — Kawnhr () 03:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[]

Thanks! There was a lot of cruft being added to the article before its removal. Your edits are not really as minor like my conom's edits at Chris Redfield during FAC =). Despite those edits, I still welcomed them to be my conom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[]

@Kawnhr Hi there. Last question, I was wondering if you have idea how to implement this source at the article since it was recommended by reviewer. Anyway, the article is looking good and ill nominate it to FAC after Ethan Winters is archived. Thank you! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[]

Going through the reception section, I notice that several the articles make special mention his hair: IGN, GameRadar, Nintendo Power. And of course, there's the article you just linked, which is entirely about his hair. Silly as it sounds, maybe Leon's hair is notable enough to warrant a paragraph? I'll see if I can write something for that in the next day or two, or you can do it if you'd like (I won't be offended). — Kawnhr () 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[]

I actually removed the hair part of PCGamesN because I have no idea what to say 🤣. It is really silly, and I would like to thank you for helping me that. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[]

The article United Party of Canada has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page with no target articles, as the two former targets have been deleted after separate deletion discussions.

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.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[]

I am very shocked to see that someone wants me blocked because of the 2025 Canadian Federal Election article, which you also commented on the talk page today. Tell me what I did wrong? I thought I was waiting for others to respond and didn't edit the article page immediately but someone wants me out of Wikipedia. Your opinion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ErrorCorrection1_and_upcoming_Canadian_election,_redux

ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[]

Not true. Canadian political parties have always allowed youth members 14 and up vote in leadership conventions. For instance, a young Brian Mulroney was a Diefenbaker delegate at the 1956 Progressive Conservative leadership convention. I recall Tory and Liberal youth delegates as young as 14 at Liberal and PC leadership conventions in 1983 and 1984. 14 year olds voting as delegates has always been the case. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[]

I see, interesting. For the record, though, I didn't add that line to the article in the first place. — Kawnhr () 16:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[]

Hi @Kawnhr. Apologies. I don't know how it happened, but I accidentally reverted an edit you made to 2025 Canadian federal election (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Canadian_federal_election&diff=1281811205&oldid=1281808179). This reversion, as opposed to an earlier one I did on the article, wasn't intended. The reversion has been appropriately undone by @Tim_Parenti. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Coining (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[]

@Coining Thanks for the heads up; had I just seen the reversion by itself, I would have been very confused! But don't worry about it, accidents happen and it has of course already been fixed. Have a good one! — Kawnhr () 19:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
Coining (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for Canada, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[]

Your grammar edits were awesome, but why did you delete statistic like dates and other facts from the page? It is an encyclopedia; I don’t understand why people are going back and deleting statistics and information from Hogan’s page and making it so brief. Hi page is in horrible condition lacking tons of statistics and facts about him. Can you please help explain why you and other have deleted so much? Bighulkamania (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[]

This edit? I removed the reference to Ted Turner because I didn't see how it was relevant to Hogan's signing so it seemed like excessive detail; and I went with "the next month" instead of "On July 17, 1994" because the previous sentence (June 11, 1994, Hogan officially signed with WCW …) already started with a date, so I thought that the next sentence opening in the same way was clunky and awkward. But also, World Championship Wrestling and Bash at the Beach (1994) have their own pages, so I don't see the information as lost; my view is that any reader who's curious about the date, or any other details of Bash at the Beach, can click through to its page and read it there. If there weren't other pages to have these details, I would for sure have kept them on Hogan's page.

I can't comment on why other editors made their changes or not. I only see now that there's a topic on the Talk page about the length of the article; I wasn't aware of this discussion when I made my own edit. — Kawnhr () 16:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[]

I agree about those changes; hogan’s page is a chore to read. so thank you I. Making that effort.

I disagree about deleting dates and statistics. It’s possible readers don’t know Ted Turner owned WCW and the whole idea of hogan having a page, is the dates should be easy to access. The reader shouldn’t have to go on a hunt to other pages to access such relevant data about hulk hogans sports career. Hogans page is very hard to follow so it’s relevant dates and statistics are kept so the reader has an idea of the timeframe significant matches happened.

whats your opinion now after reading my response?

Thanks for your reply. I’d rather talk about this first than accidentally start an edit war. Bighulkamania (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[]

Sorry I’m advance for that sloppy reply. I was having wifi issues and I don’t know why it comes across so choppy. Hopefully enough is there for you to understand my points. Bighulkamania (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[]

Well, the thing about Ted Turner is that that's the only mention of him on Hogan's page. Shouting out that the WWF/E was owned by Vince McMahon, or the AWA by Verne Gagne, makes sense because they come back into 'the story', as it were, when certain decisions of theirs impact Hogan. But as far as I can tell, that's not true for Ted Turner — as I said, he's not mentioned anywhere else on Hogan's page. If Hogan had had previous dealings with Turner, or if Turner was responsible for certain creative decisions with his character during WCW, or if a legit feud with Turner drove him from the company, etc… then I would agree it's relevant. But if he doesn't, then I don't think it is. There's no mention of NJPW's ownership, for instance. (I'm not an expert on wrestling by any means, so I could very well be wrong, and Hogan and Turner did have a direct connection. In which case, the article should be edited to have that!)

As for the date, if you want to add it back in, I won't make a fuss or edit war over it. — Kawnhr () 00:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[]

What about the other points I bring up besides Ted Turner?

Also bringing up Ted Turner is relevant because Ted Turner owned WCW at the time. Your correct Antonio Inoki should be made reference as the owner of NJPW because Hogan brings him up in his historic 1993

speech. It also should be noted that Ted Turner selling WCW to AOL Time Warner is part of what drove Hogan out of WCW. Hogan layer sued AOL Time Warner for breach of contract. These among other facts shouldn’t be deleted from hogans profile. There shouldn’t as much written about Turner or AOL as I Have said in my reply to you. But WCW was owned by so many different people it’s important that in 1994 to notate that WCW was owned by Turner at the time. In the same way the article says Eddie Graham’s CWF. It also mentions Dixie Carter in the same relevance. Bighulkamania (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[]

I think this is a discussion for Talk:Hulk Hogan at this point. I'm happy to give the reasoning behind my own edits, but I don't have special insight or authority over the rest of the page. Any changes you seek are best discussed with other active editors. I probably won't be returning to the page much, if at all. — Kawnhr () 15:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[]

I disagree, there is no reason to make this a public debate beyond gentlemen and scholars like ourselves. I’m disappointed that you don’t wish to explain your other deletions beyond Turner though that you havnt touched on. I just feel that in the future of any edit you make you should consider adding content of deleting content; because it shouldn’t be up to editors to decide what information is or is not relevant to other readers. That’s why I wanted to discuss this with you because deleting information seems like it would be against the goal of becoming a Wikipedia editor.

i look forward to your reply. Bighulkamania (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
The redirect Next Israeli election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30 § Next Israeli election redirects until a consensus is reached. 👁 Information
Note: Multiple related redirects are bundled in this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[]

Seems we have a spelling warrior... See HSC Winnipeg Children's Hospital. Could use an extra set of eyes on this situation. Cheers. MediaKyle (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[]

Hey @Kawnhr. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 08:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[]