User talk:Ben MacLeod

Hello, Ben MacLeod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

On 5 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Life (sculpture), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Life sculpture was designed by Joseph Drapell shortly after landing in Halifax, Nova Scotia, as a refugee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Life (sculpture). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Life (sculpture)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ben MacLeod. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Ben MacLeod. 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

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)[reply]

Hey Ben, you called me out for being an "IP Hopper" in regards to the Halifax Transit page, but it is not me. I have no idea what IP hopping is. I placed the list of the future transit system months ago, fact based from the Halifax website. It was then vandalized and like you said, someone added a hoax of routes after the new route changes were implemented in Halifax in the fall. I put it back with a source and seen your post about how its changed a bit since it was announced and I agreed and never reposted the "Future Transit System" back onto the page. I have been using Wikipedia for years and am very knowledgeable about Halifax Transit as I rely on it everyday and would not vandalize the page, I was just attempting to make it helpful for people to look at the future routes of the system. I have never vandalized a page and have always made edits to sports pages over the years with no problems. I am trying to fix up the Transit page not ruin it. Please don't pinpoint me for something I didnt do. Debdeb18 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Debdeb18: I retracted what I wrote at ANI. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Ben MacLeod (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very appreciated and I hope we can get the Halifax Transit page as good as possible Debdeb18 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What infobox person doesn't have, but spouses of prime ministers do need, is succession information — i.e. links to who held the title before and/or after this one. So the spouses have to use an infobox that offers the capability of coding for that. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I saw you had marked a significant amount of the entry on the WE Scandal page as original research. I was wondering which specific elements fell under this particular definition? I thought I had provided sources where necessary, but I definitely might have made an oversight and I will happily provide a source where required. If you think a synthesis of information occurred somewhere, I will gladly clarify the secondary sources in that regard as well.

I did my best prior to writing to verify the facts by cross-referencing three main timeline of events: CTV, CBC, and Global News. I think Global News has the best one, as they have links to primary sources almost every step of the way embedded directly; but they all agree on the series of the events. Additional information came from a variety of other secondary-news sources: The Globe and Mail, postmillennial, etc. Primary sources like direct statements came from places such as youtube, twitter, as well as statements from government committee minutes.

Regards, GTS

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GaiusTranquillusSuetonius: Thanks for the message. My revert was excessive and so I undid it. But I thought that some of the passages made claims that did not appear in the sources, and possibly verged into independent commentary. For instance, in the subsection about WE Charity's activities in French-speaking Canada, the conclusion, "The contention then, that WE Charity was the only organization capable of outsourcing to third-party contacts, is even more dubious", is not accompanied by any citation. The original heading "inability to serve French Canada" also strikes me as odd, considering that the hiring of an external PR firm is a means of serving French Canada. The headings "inappropriate lobbying activities", "labour law violations", "conflict of interest", etc. also seem inappropriately definitive given that the cited sources describe allegations and concerns only – rather than legal convictions against the organization. Ben MacLeod (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I gave that concluding statement a reread and it definitely does come across in the manner which you were suggesting, the intention was to tie off the section but it sounds very conclusive. I agree that some of the sub-titles too could use work, I think you're 100% correct in that words like "allegations" in the context they appear on the page right do appear overtly definitive.

In regards to the service of French Canada, that could probably use some more fleshing out. Essentially, what happened was that WE Charity had contracted the serving of French Speaking regions out to a third party. That in itself is fine and normally how things work, but the problem was in this case WE Charity presented itself, and was presented as, as operating a nation-wide network; this was one of the reasons it was stated as 'the only option' and that was the reason it was ultimately chosen.

The third party, National, was not itself administering the program, but had requested a list of community organizations who could; directly from the Federal government in Quebec. The federal government could have just contacted these groups in Quebec directly without WE Charity being involved, if they were going to turn around and use the governments sources. This contradicts the notion that WE was uniquely situated to deliver a Canada-wide program.

The primary source from the government regarding their concerns about operations in Quebec were statements made by Jean-Yves Duclos, president of the Treasury Board, that were disclosed in the 5000 page data dump.

"I fear that collaboration with the UNIS Organization (WE Charity) is sub-optimal in Quebec, both in terms of image and influence. (By the way, being able to offer "bilingual training material" is one thing, but being able to exert its influence within a strong network of closely knit community organizations is quite another" https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1728015/justin-trudeau-affaire-unis-we-charity-documents-jean-yves-duclos&prev=search&pto=aue

Additional concerns were raised by Conservative MP Richard Martel.

There was an ongoing committee probing whether WE Charity had violated Federal Language laws, but they are yet to be resumed after the prorogation.

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben, I'm the guy who's entries you archived. My source for the participation percentages come from the same source as the results. That is here: https://www.halifax.ca/city-hall/elections/official-candidates-2020-municipal-csap-election . I do need to make some small changes to the formatting, but the information is accurate (or at least trustworthy). I appreciate your due diligence though.

StuckInTheFridge (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @StuckInTheFridge: Sorry about that. When I looked at the URL it still showed the original format without the electorate/turnout figures. I see the updated PDF now. Thank you for updating the article! Ben MacLeod (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No issue, I can appreciate the scrutiny.

StuckInTheFridge (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to rewrite the content on the Iain Rankin site, you can not just copy and paste articles from the CBC website, your post will be removed due to plagiarism. Take the time to summarize source material in your own words. Or I will remove it.Snowy Badger (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowy Badger, I didn't copy and paste anything from the CBC website. I only contributed one sentence. I'm not seeing which parts were copy & pasted. In any case I've rewritten and condensed the rest of the section. Ben MacLeod (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cycling in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Canadian city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, plans to construct some 57 km (35 mi) of safe cycling routes within its central urban area? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cycling in Halifax, Nova Scotia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cycling in Halifax, Nova Scotia), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Highfield Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clayton Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Gene93k: Thanks, I have beefed up the article so hopefully it's acceptable now. I plan to continue working on it over the coming month. Ben MacLeod (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your recent edits on Charlebois, and you criticism on my recent edits (which to some extent were valid).

However, I do think that your edits are missing a key piece: the fact that Charlebois failed to disclose the Weston foundation grant as a conflict of interest. Moreover, Charlebois actually removed information of the grant in the CV, lied about the timing in a tweet, and then removed the CV altogether. All are verifiable facts that were reported in the media articles (including the Halifax Reporter) and can be traced back to tweets (from Charlebois himself) and The Way Back machine on his CV.

I know the intent of Wikipedia is to remain neutral, and that this space should not serve as a venue to attack any living person. But the above stated facts were quite at the center of the scandal. Your edits make it seem as if the Weston Foundation grant was the culprit of the backlash where, in fact, it was his attempt to hide this grant that drew most of the backlash.

I just wanted to run this on you instead of directly editing the page ,to avoid getting my edits reverted.

Again, thank you for all your help in maintaining the wiki site. Jervis49 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

avoid citing primary sources, such as his Twitter or CV, if possible. My personal inclination is to contribute conservatively at first, and just wait for additional reputable news coverage to become available. I suspect we will see more media coverage come out as I understand Charlebois has been vaguely threatening legal action against the author of the "The Orchard" piece. Best, Ben MacLeod (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you reverted a new editor's changes on this article with the comment "Revert whitewashing by new account". While one might argue that there was some whitewashing, you revert seemed a bit ham-fisted, removing seemingly well-placed maintenance tags, specifically {{

cn

}} in several places. It would be good if you restored those, minus the whitewashing.

Your edit summary was kinda

WP:BITEY. Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BITEY it's because I don't believe this is a legitimate new user and because I rather resent it when people use Wikipedia this way. Thanks, Ben MacLeod (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your reply. I see what you're talking about. It looks like that article has been a cesspool of COI.

I've made some BOLD edits to the article to try to make it a bit less promotional as an uninvolved outsider. I've added it to my watchlist as well to see if I can help with the efforts to remove the spin, both positive and negative. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ben MacLeod. Thank you for your work on

Thanks for creating the article! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1801 Hollis Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Curtain wall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maritime Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citadel Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

just want to put it out there that there has been an editing spree lately in favour of Charlebois. My involvement was to react to these Jervis49 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jervis49: Yes, seems to be more of the same on that article. Single-purpose accounts making pretty much the same edits as before. The article is semi-protected meaning accounts must have at least 10 edits to edit it. User:Ghertydjzww's 11th edit was this article. Ben MacLeod (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jervis49 and Ben Macleod appear to be in COI with the subject matter. They have been vandalizing Charlebois' page for months now, responding to changes within hours, using "whitewashing" an a cover. Would ask editors to watch both of these individuals. Ghertydjzww (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghertydjzww: I have no COI with the subject of the article, which you probably know. Ben MacLeod (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ben. Since the user insisted ln having the university spokesperson in the article, I added the Radio-Canada source. It’s in French, but it includes and expanded quote. The Radio-Canada source directly mentions that the conclusions remained confidential and that no action would be taken.

That way, there is no spin on the spokesperson’s comment, since I translated the quote directly (which the CBC article does not fully include). Jervis49 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now it’s ECP, to keep the socks out. Courcelles (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sorry about the misclick rollback, Jervis. I’ve undone that. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this. This ECP doesn’t allow me to make any further edits, but I’m OK with that and it’s actually quite freeing for a lot of people. It’s been draining to see every few months the status-quo of the wiki being brought down by sockpuppets to try and tweak the tone of the scandal, which has lead to lots of back-and-fourths.

The French version of the wiki has been ECP for years and it was due time the English version reaches this protection level.

best wishes Jervis49 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ben MacLeod. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Halifax municipal election 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/2024 Halifax municipal election 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.

Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]