Talk:Green Party of Prince Edward Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

This article desperately needs some sources. GreenJoe 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the actual Green party of PEI logo but i have no idea as to how i get the image on Wiki 74.14.145.219 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you register, you can then upload it. GreenJoe 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am registered, but I don't know where to upload Political junky 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found it! Political junky 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a handsome logo. Where did you find it? GreenJoe 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elections P.E.I, They did a good job on it, don't you think? 74.14.146.69 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

# of Elected Candidates[edit]

Shouldn't the # of elected candidates be 0, not 27 as the Green Party currently does not hold any seats? Zygar2k6 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. of ridings not candidates, somebody must have edited the chart. 74.14.129.106 15:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gppeilogo.png[edit]

Image:Gppeilogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

Again Greenjoe, trying to improve these pages, adding sources and removing notices and adding sources. I had the same problems with you on other Green Party pages, and because of my work, they look much better then they use to. Please don't make editing harder then it needs to be. Political junky (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went and put in the proper in-line citations. We shouldn't have a problem with references now. GreenJoe 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Green Party of Prince Edward Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MLA list[edit]

I changed the MLA list to a box and included citations. This ia a variation from other Island parties articles but I believe to be a higher standard. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PEIsquirrel's edits[edit]

I disagree with the edits made. They seem factually incorrect. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PEIsquirrel is my alternate account. Can you be more specific about how they're factually incorrect? Your most recent edit summary is just one word, "wrong". I'm undoing your colouring of the lists of leaders and MLAs again, it is inappropriate to colour tables in this way, this isn't an advertisement for the Green party, it's a factual encyclopedia article. For the rest, by all means, let's discuss. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the specifics:
  • On the party ideologies, I originally interpreted that this source was being used to cite "left-wing populist", but may have actually been intended to cite all three of the ideologies listed in the article at that time. I reviewed it further after you reverted my edit and found that it actually doesn't discuss the party ideology at all, which is why I tagged it as needing a better source. It still needs a better source, one which actually discusses what this party stands for.
  • On the titles used with the personnel tables, I changed "current MLAs" to "members of the legislative assembly" because presumably that's a list of members who have been elected to the legislature at any time. It just so happens that any member of the party that has ever been elected is currently an MLA or MLA-elect. I guess we should decide which one we want this list to be, although it won't be an issue until there's another election. I had also removed the "list of leaders" text because it was redundant.
  • I removed the colours from the table because colouring things unnecessarily is an accessibility issue. We don't "fancify" things, we're writing an encyclopedia and we have style guides for a reason.
  • I'm not sure what else we disagreed on. I changed the party office from Hampton to Charlottetown, but I don't think that was controversial. If I missed anything, feel free to comment.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't like that you made yet another change to the table colour with a different account. Still violates WP:3RR. Also, I don't know why tables can't have colours. I don't see a policy that says otherwise. It's their colour. To me it's not-factual to not use it.
2. Ideology change - I'm cool with that. In fact I made sure to keep it.
3. You're violating policy by editing the articles from two accounts. Per WP:BADSOCK - "Circumventing policies: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account." Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't "decorate" things on Wikipedia. The party's colours are listed in the infobox. The use of colour elsewhere is meant to be minimized as much as possible, and to have considered accessibility standards when we do use it. The actual guidance on this is scattered: the manual of style for tables describes the use of colour in navigational tables (navboxes, infoboxes, and such, not body tables) and advises to avoid colouring tables because it creates accessibility problems for visually-impaired readers; the manual of style for accessibility goes into some more detail on this; and the manual of style on text formatting specifies that when colour is used, the "most prominent accessible" (emphasis in original) colour is to be used. For the Green Party, their green as a background with standard black text has a colour contrast rating of 439 ([https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=99C955) which does not satisfy the W3C requirement of 500 for proper accessibility. Their other colour, of course, is white, and black-on-white is fully compliant.
You also seem to be using the wrong colour? The Green Party navbox uses  #289728  while you're using  #99c955 .
  • You probably don't need to argue details of the multiple accounts policy with a checkuser, but I accept your criticism about 3RR. BADSOCK also specifies: "Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden." I don't believe I could have been more clear that this is my alternate account, from where I listed on both accounts' user pages that they are linked, that I redirected the alt's talk page to the main account (which you ignored), and that I started my first comment here with "this is my alternate account". Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Party_of_Prince_Edward_Island&oldid=1207424918"