|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Canada / Nova Scotia / Politicians||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Comments moved
- 2 Sources?
- 3 Request for Comments on Talk:Lisa Michelle Merrithew
- 4 April 6 edits
- 5 Conservative Party v. Progressive Canadian Party
- 6 Image:Main pmk05.jpg has been listed for deletion
- 7 Photo
- 8 MacKay as a Blue Tory?
- 9 Deputy Leader of the Conservatives
- 10 “Contradiction During Crisis”
- 11 “Conscientious Objectors” to “Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations”
- 12 Infobox picture
I find it deeply amusing that I learned who won the PC leadership race from Wikipedia. I do so love wikis... -- Stephen Gilbert 02:05 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This article seems to have very few sources, which is especially troubling for the section on the merging parties controversy. I'm not sure what the procedure is for marking a page as improperly sourced, but I think it should be done. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for Comments on Talk:Lisa Michelle Merrithew
...about the current status of her relationship with MacKay. Samaritan 05:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
April 6 edits
There was a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff in today's edits -- speculation that he was pro-merger early on even though he made no public statements in favour of it, etc. Also, today's edits badly needed copyediting to correct spelling and grammatical errors. I don't mean to offend anyone, I just want to help keep the place tidy and enyclopedic. Kevintoronto 21:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Conservative Party v. Progressive Canadian Party
As much as I hated the Progressive Conservative Party merging with the Canadian Alliance into the new Conservative Party, that is what it did. The Progressive Canadian Party was founded by some Progressive Conservatives who didn't like the merger, but that doesn't make the Prog Cdn Party the "re-foundation" of the Prog Cons Party. Ground Zero | t 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Image:Main pmk05.jpg has been listed for deletion
|An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Main pmk05.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.|
- - I guarantee you, if you have to go through what I went through for the 'Harper Photo' just to satisfy the concerns of seemingly skittish individuals (who, however, still had entirely good intentions), you've got a slog ahead of you. John Hawke 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Theonlyedge 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Can someone get a better picture of Mackay? It looks like its 0.00001 megabytes
Done, took the House of Commons official photo. Petro 56 12:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Petro_56
MacKay as a Blue Tory?
I'm sorry, but this is one thing I really, really have to question. Having actually met and talked with the man, I can say that some of his comments about social programmes and helping the poor in Atlantic Canada are almost socialist in their attitudes towards the role of government - typical of many Red Tories. While his stances on some issues may not be as clear cut as most Red Tories, to call him a Blue would be an exaggeration and cherrypicking some of his statements over others.
Monty725 00:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Deputy Leader of the Conservatives
Is MacKay still the deputy leader? GoodDay 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
“Contradiction During Crisis”
This section is not important enough to put on its own, let alone mention at all. This might have been interesting during the “crisis” but no longer. The incident did not lead to any major or minor development, no apology or withdrawal of remarks, nor was MacKay ejected from his party. The MacKay opinion on parliamentary procedure is not important nor enlightening to the crisis debate.
“Conscientious Objectors” to “Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations”
Greetings user 188.8.131.52
You accompanied your speedy deletion of my edit with the word “vandalism.” In our coming discussion, you might find it helpful to first learn more about Wikipedia protocol at these two links:
Here is one quote from the above Wikipedia link:
“Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her.” Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, since an anonymous user seems to want to start an edit war with me, I figure we might as well solve this problem here.
I say we use Option 1. It's a bit more recent, a larger, beter quality picture, and, as opposed to the second option, it shows the front of his face, as opposed to just one side. Thoughts? Tholden28 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The original picture is much more descriptive, far better quality (as far as size go, look at the original by the DoD), and the subject looks much better on it. It looks like far-left Liberal supporter User:Tholden took a picture and wanted to override whetever was there before in order to promote himself and make MacKay look bad. In any case, their was no issue whatsoever with the original picture, and the replacement serves no purpose. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look, personally, I don't think the picture makes MacKay look bad. Not at all. In fact, I think that the picture looks better than the DoD one, simply because it actually shows his face. Although I may not be Conservative, I'm certainly not trying to make MacKay look bad. Tholden28 (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Option 1 It is the only "front view" picture of him I have ever seen without his mouth wide open (includes pictures from newspapers too). I lived in Central Nova and voted for him in the last election, so the "only Liberals want that one" argument is invalid. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Option 1, I see no need to use an image of the side of his face, when one of his face is available. 117Avenue (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Option 2, A completely subjective opinion. Though the new one shows more of his face, my first thought was that it has kind of a "deer in the headlights" look to it. That being said, I'm going to assume that Tholden28 honestly thought it was a better picture.I won't insult anybody by throwing the obvious TLA in their face --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- While I appreciate Ron's desire not to use the "deer in the headlights" look, that is just how Peter MacKay rolls when it comes to pictures. It is almost impossible to find a picture of him without that look (it's been a running joke at our house for years). Presenting exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C, and exhibit D. Those are four of the first six search results from The Chronicle Herald (the largest newspaper in his home province). Also note exhibit E and F from commons (thank goodness we don't have to use F in the infobox any more). --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)