Talk:Regional Municipality of Peel

message: Detractors of the regional system, including Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion have accused Peel Region of being a redundant layer of government with an anti-democratic structure. Mississauga council has asked for the city to be separated from Peel Region and become a single-tier municipality, arguing it pays far more into the region and relinquishes far too much power, and did not have fair representation on regional council. They have argued that as a single-tier city, Mississauga would better serve its residents.
Opponents of Mississauga's position, including Brampton mayor Susan Fennell, have argued that from the 1970s through the 1990s, Mississauga was the chief beneficiary of Peel's infrastructure construction projects -- funded by taxpayers in all three municipalities -- and it is now Brampton's turn to benefit, as it is growing faster than Mississauga, which is mostly built-out. As well, they have argued that common infrastructure, such as waste and water services, would be more efficiently managed at a regional level.
THE ABOVE IS ONE SIDED IN FAVOUR OF WHAT PEEL REGION AND THE PROVINCE IS DOING TO MISSISSAUGA
:It's an explication of two opposing POVs, each given about the same amount of space (not that that's always a good measure). The section of the article is about a dispute or a controversy, so it can't really have content without some reference to the arguments on differing sides. Your edits, on the other hand, take out everything relating to the Brampton position and keep in the statistics that are at the core of Mississauga's argument. That's slanted. --Gary Will 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Mississauga and the Region of Peel Controversy
Seats on Peel Regional council are not assigned to member municipalities according to population or tax contributions, and this has produced considerable controversy within the region.
Mississauga comprises about 62 per cent of the region's population, but had been assigned 10 of the 21 council seats (or 48 per cent) distributed among the municipalities, with Brampton receiving six and Caledon five. In April 2005, the provincial government introduced legislation to assign two additional seats to Mississauga and one additional seat to Brampton starting with the November 2006 municipal elections. The bill passed in June 2005 and will give Mississauga half of the council seats -- 12 of 24. These numbers do not include the regional chair, who is appointed by council members.
Mississauga council voted unanimously to become a Single Tier Municipality and continues to pursue this objective
:Well, naturally I appreciate that the biggest chunk of this is the one paragraph that I wrote -- obviously in a moment of estrangement from my Mao-loving, goosestepping bosses at Peel Region. But, it's not going to cut it. What's here is Mississauga-centric -- the population statistics are used to support the view that council representation has been assigned unfairly, and the final sentence is all about Mississauga. Someone reading this would have no idea what the dispute is and the basis of a contrary view. This isn't a Mississauga page, it's a page about Peel Region and there are different views of this issue within the region that need to be described. What's there now could certainly be improved with better citations and more specific attributions, but at least it attempts to be balanced in covering the different views within the region, which is the subject of the entry. --Gary Will 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my version without any propaganda sticking to facts - no opinions is

message: I posted the following two edits several hours ago and made a note on each of the prior editors talk pages who deleted it before; who now apparently don't have any issue with this. I will wait 24 hours for comments and/or suggested revisions and then re-post the articles in each of the Regional pages. I would hope that the critics do not simply delete it like vandals and then complain after I re-post it. I have given ample notice and opportunity for comment. This is Canada and not China. Facts about our governments here are properly publishable even if people can't handle the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 July 2006  (UTC)
:WikiDoo: Please keep in mind the discussion we had on your talk page when deciding to go forward with these edits. If you introduce one-sided material it is subject to removal by anyone. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidoo

message: If anyone's interested, please comment on the message I left at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Mass-move of Ontario Regional Municipality pages. Thanks. --Qviri 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to [[Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario]] 

message: I know that Peel has a flag that includes the coat of arms that's on this page over three diagonal bands, one each of green, yellow and orange, but I don't know which way the bands run, or the size of the coat of arms, and can't find one on the web.  Anyone have information?  OZLAWYER  talk  02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Definetly not NPOV, the bias towards Mississauga and secession is evident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.33.136 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 June 2006  (UTC)
- I noticed this too. 216.154.134.91 continues to vandalize this article.
--Spmarshall42 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Now under the username WikiDoo. WikiDoo: please discuss your edits here first and gain consensus prior to adding them, as thus far they have been deemed inappropriate. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please give it time, it's been less than 2 days since you first posted here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Commenting on what? Your 300-word essay on "the unique regional government structure in Ontario" has no place being added to nine different Wikipedia entries, as you previously edited them. I suspect that it would always be deleted from those pages. It's not up to me, of course, but if you're expecting that at some point in the next few hours there will be a consensus that your essay belongs on all those entries, then I don't think you should get your hopes up. Your best option might be to create a new entry on regional government in Ontario (which the entries for the regions could then link to), but even then, I can guarantee that what you've written will be edited by the Wikipedia community -- it's incomprehensible in parts, and includes POV and errors. You may be the originator, but once it's on Wikipedia, it "belongs" to everyone. And your track record is not promising when it comes to accepting edits of what you like to call "your articles." --Gary Will 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not NPOV 

message: In order to help resolve the debates currently active on this article, this article has been listed for informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal. The case can be found at: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought (and considering all the editing that has gone on since then) this is a bad idea. This same and similar essays are still being plastered across multiple articles. Until/if we can agree to channel these edits somewhere and discuss them BEFORE adding them, they should not have any further foothold here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the move, but I believe some editors involved in this discussion may wish to add to it. I recommend to them that they make the changes on the new article (regional municipality). As you do so, please cite your references (per WP:CITE). Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal Case 

message: Can you all put a "yes" next to your name so I have an idea of who is activly participating. Eagle talk 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, I will serve as mediator 

message: I believe to help with the above debate, the current "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" section should be spun off onto it's own article. The content is primarily focused on the regional structure of Ontario as a whole, not Peel. Once spun off we can then add to this article a link to the new article, and keep this article relating to Peel specifically.
Thus, I propose moving the entire "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" section into an article titled "Regional Government Structure in Ontario." I do not at this time propose removing or changing any other content. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought (and considering all the editing that has gone on since then) this is a bad idea. This same and similar essays are still being plastered across multiple articles. Until/if we can agree to channel these edits somewhere and discuss them BEFORE adding them, they should not have any further foothold here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the move, but I believe some editors involved in this discussion may wish to add to it. I recommend to them that they make the changes on the new article (regional municipality). As you do so, please cite your references (per WP:CITE). Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed spin-off 

message: I moved the NPOV material in "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" (there was very little) to the regional municipality article, not realizing it was under discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to move it back if the content is still under dispute. Peter Grey 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the move, but I believe some editors involved in this discussion may wish to add to it. I recommend to them that they make the changes on the new article (regional municipality). As you do so, please cite your references (per WP:CITE). Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops

message: Below are a non-exhaustive list of references to be used in improvement of this article. Please feel free to add to this section links that can serve as references for text that is currently in the article:
*http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/English/exhibits/maps/counties/rmpeel.htm 
*http://press.arrivenet.com/government/article.php/652791.html 
*http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/2005c.20/20060517/whole.html
*http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_21929_1.html
*http://www.ctf.ca/FN2005/CHAP01.pdf
*http://www.region.peel.on.ca/smt/index.htm
*http://www.mississauga.ca/ecity/download/?repositoryKey=Ecity&itemDesc=file&dataName=data&mimeTypeName=mimeType&id=14400009
*http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L135B.htm
*"Region will grind to a halt: Mayor" article:
**http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/northpeel/access/816204261.html?dids=816204261:816204261&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+1%2C+2005&author=SABRINA+DIVELL%2C+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Brampton+Guardian&edition=&startpage=01&desc=Region+will+grind+to+a+halt%3A+Mayor
**http://www.heartlakebeat.com/brampton_news/20-Region-will-grind-to-a-halt:-Mayor.html
--AbsolutDan (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Will return 19 July 2006. I will not be accessable by ANY means. "Real life" :) Eagle talk 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will be gone for one week 

message: On July 7, WikiDoo, now posting as WikiRoo, added his "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" essay to Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario -- with no change in content. It has now been deleted at least 12 times from nine entries by four or more editors. --Gary Will 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to file a Request for Comment against him.  Eventually you may have to file a Request for Arbitration.  There is no hurry to do so; you may want to wait until Eagle gets back and get his input on the matter.  --Ideogram 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now WikiRoo 

message: A user-conduct Request for comment (RfC) has been filed against WikiRoo/WikiDoo, citing repeated viloations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:VAND, among other Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for general information and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiRoo to participate in the process. Gary Will 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment  - WikiRoo/WikiDoo 

message: Does this case still require mediation?  --Ideogram 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the matter is settled for now - the controversial edits have ceased, and the editor has apparently turned a new leaf --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed the case.  --Ideogram 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation active? 

message: I wanted to start an Article listing the Top Mandarins of Ontario Regional Government and when I started it was shot down for things like copyright violations or that I was somehow pushing a POV by simply listing information, or claiming I was posting a Bio of non-notable people.
I don't see what is wrong with making up such a list. It would basically list only the top Mandarins, the CAO, the Commissioner of Business Services, the Commissioner of Public Works and the Regional Solicitor. This would result in a list of say 24 individuals and can list where the came from to expand the job-stub of Wiki and provide interesting and useful reference information about who is who in government in Ontario Regions. This would not POV anything and simply be a source of information about who and how people get these jobs by listing their past jobs in government positions. Once up it can be expanded and be kind of like a hierarchy of command and control positions. No Bio's on them.
Can I have some reasoned comments here on why you people would object to such an article of pure reference information from being created on Ontario's regional government structure?
WikiWoo 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mandarins, as in Chinese people? I'm sure there is a better term than that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a normal term for senior civil servants.  But in this case an unnecessary one, since WP:NOT a directory and we don't have articles listing functionaries, not leats because unless they are notable for something else they won't have Wikipedia biographies, because WP:BIO includes elected not appointed individuals, mainly because there tends not to be enough information on appointed officials. Add to that WikiWoo's stated animosity towards the government of Peel and I think there is a problem.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Mandarin is the Chinese word for Bureaucrat which term is prefered because Bureaucrat has aquired a negative connotation due to the general lack of integrity the people that are getting such jobs tend to have because their positions and roles tend to be kept secret from the general public. An encyclopedia is a source of interesting and important information. It makes no sense what you are saying. Putting an article that contains a list of top bureaucrats in a system of government together and some information about their qualifications and job history that got them the job is not making a Bio, it's not POV, and is not publishing a Directory. Each of the reasons given are not valid and patently false. Furtermore the information would be linked and made part of the Job Stub so people can know what types of jobs they are.WikiWoo 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As Guy said, the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically includes lists of people among the things that Wikipedia is not. You could make lists of people who are notable -- like the List of Prime Ministers of Canada -- but a list of regional bureaucrats in Ontario wouldn't make the cut. And if you're discussing how they got their jobs, then that's definitely biography content of non-notable people. They might be notable to you, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The content you're proposing is either a directory or biography or some hybrid. It won't help your case that everyone who's paid attention to your contributions will know that you want to create the page to disparage regional bureaucrats, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. --Gary Will 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very unfair comment on your part. Creating a list and providing information all in one place about the workings of senior government jobs and how people move about in the Public Service is not disparaging. If they are so insecure that what they do is not legitimate then they should apply better practices and systems that are more legitimate. You wanting to hide information from the public about who the people are that run government in Ontario and their movement from one government organization to another like its some kind of secret only the mandarins can know is ver troubling. People thing of Canada as an honest country. You seem to think that it is not and the what our bureraucrats do should be hidden from public knowledge. You are pushinig POV and propaganda as well as censoring interesting and important information from Wiki because you obvioulsy feel it is disparging. Since you agree that what bureaucrats in Ontario and how they move about like bees from flower to flower collecting nectar from the public purse, you should be looking to help create a depository of information people can use to see how things work. Maybe we can clean up some of the bad things wwe hear about like the Adscam and GunScam and all of the other Scams plaguing Canada'c Civil Services at every level of goverment. Maybe its because they keep this kind of information so secret that they are able to get away with corrupt activities outside of public scrutiny.WikiWoo 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiWoo, do you really think GaryWill, JChap, myself, JzG and whoever else really want to censor information regarding regional government in Ontario?  Everything that's been quoted and explained to you is either Wikipedia policy, good editing standards, or just plain old common sense.  Nobody here cares about whether Emil Kolb, or some Szwarc guy, or Susan Fennell or whoever is considered a "bad guy".  We care about keeping up the standards on Wikipedia.  It's that simple.  Really. OzLawyer 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandarins of Ontario Regional Government 

message: This arcticle was started and then there where edits and discussions about moving it to its own page. It's been deleted but I thing another attempt should be made to crete a new one whith everyone working hamoniously to reach a consensus. Its a rather important and interesting piece.  The structure was set in place in 1970's and it is still running its course in Ontario shaing the face of Ontario and therefore all of Canada in the eyes of the world. I would therefore propose we bring back the frame of the article that was sarted and link the Nine Regions to it.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique Structure of Regional Government in Ontario 

message: I stopped contributing to this article for a while because of the animosity caused by the various edits. I made a revert to this article on Aug 5, as I saw that WikiDoo/Roo/Woo was again pushing POV in a section now called "Interesting Facts", making uncited claims about the structure designed to give 2 of 3 municipalities control (please find the section that mandates this). It was then reverted back to WikiWoo's version, with further POV-pushing content. If this is an argument, then it should go into the controversy section and then countered if appropriate. I am getting tired of the continued edits and reverts of this and other articles. --Spmarshall42 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this should go back to mediation. There's no reaching consensus with WikiDoo/Roo/Woo, who is acting like a  troll. --Spmarshall42 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Way to many people here are interested in censoring information. Going around being uncivil trying to harrass people from adding good content. The only agenda here is the one in your mind, which wants to keep people stupid. Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The comment certainly doesn't WP:AGF, or even seem to admit of a worldview where good faith disagreements over content are possible. ;)  JChap  T/E 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV pushing 

message: What is the beef with the interesting facts section that is being censored by JChap and GaryWill?
:1) Please learn to sign your comments. 2) Please stop using uncivil comments like "censored" -- they're called edits. 3) I actually kept your edit about the alleged "interesting fact" of the without-tender contract, so you really need to make an effort to read the edits before commenting on them. --Gary Will 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *An "edit" is something I consider when someone tries to corect or expand or improve wiki with constructive activity. Reverting a factual non POV statement saying it is uncited I call "censoring", since the User had the ability to ask for a cite and has already cause this editor considerable frustration over reverts without effort to edit.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *An edit is also an attempt to make an encyclopedia more reliable by eliminating opinion, irrelevancy, incorrect material, etc.  JChap  T/E 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * The interesting facts section was all cited and good. You did not like the information. An encyclopedia is not a source of ONLY pleasant information. Facts and information are absolute and the more there are in an ecyclopedia the better it is. Taking information out is not legitimate participation in Wiki. Everyone should be trying to add more facts and information. If wording is an issue there's plenty of ways to write things up. I'm no linguist and there are plenty of wordsmiths around to clean things up. But Censorship is BAD and much worse the POV. I would rather see someones POV with facts and information than go without the facts or information out of fear of one POV or another. Its a balance between FORM and SUBSTANCE. Substance MUST always take precedence over FORM or mankind will become a race of imbecils preaching nonsense.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no particular like or dislike for the information.  I have no connection with the Peel government.  I have questions over how relevant the garbage deal is to the article.  As an outsider trying to find out about Peel, why is this important to know about?  If this was widely commented on and controversial, fine: show this through cites.  If there is another reason why this is important (one of the largest...) assert this.  You should also note that WP:NPOV is absolutely nonnegotiable per WP policy.  You should also be aware that characterizing a good faith editing agreement as "censorship" is uncivil and unacceptable.  JChap  T/E 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion over proposed censorship of interesting information 

message: I think if everyone will agree that having more content on Wiki is the objective, then efforts to NOT CENSOR content must be the first rule. Look's like several people here want to be editors on this page. So lets all be editors and not CENSORS. Have respect for other editors who are contributing and don't do blatant reverts, because that is vandalism when you know the editor was trying to add content and make contributions. I see no problem with requesting cites or REWORDING someones contribution leaving the information and facts when a POV is shown in the delivery of the facts. Deleting facts is not being a good editor and shown disrespect and lack of civility--Wiki The Humble Woo 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going around in circles. As many editors already pointed out, there is no "censoring", but are removing unencyclopedic content as it promotes a POV. Personal attacks, BTW, also show a lack of civility. --Spmarshall42 02:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think someone (perhaps myself, but I have been involved somewhat in the controversy - can I do this?) should request this page to be unblocked for editing. WikiWoo has been indefinitely banned, so the edit war should be over. --Spmarshall42 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it. As the community has determined that WikiWoo's edits alone were the source of the issue, and that we expect there will be no further edits from that source, unprotection is a good idea now. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Done. posted here Thanks! --Spmarshall42 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving the Protection 

message: I have assigned an initial rating of "Start" to this article, but I think it's within striking distance of a "B". More experienced editors should be asked to review it.  A few suggestions I have for improving it are:
* remove the extra geo coordinates from the top 
* update the infobox to :Template:Infobox Settlement, which is standard
* update formatting in the "Other Services" section; in particular remove the list of daycare centres and probably the list of palliative care centres as well.
* expand the Education section and add something about arts, entertainment, sports, etc.
PKT (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject rating 

message: The opening says that Peel Region is served by seven 400-series highways serving Peel Region, but I only count six: The QEW, 403, 401, and 407 ETR running east-west, and the 410 and 427 running north-south (427 marks the boundary between Peel and Toronto so it should count).
Not sure what the author was counting, but the only other highway that comes anywhere close is the 409 which lies completely within the City of Toronto. I suppose technically it serves westbound 401 traffic to facilitate travel north on the shared 427, but that seems like a stretch. Maybe the statement could be changed to just say an extensive freeway network? Maybe I'm splitting hairs because I've been up all night? 99.228.207.119 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  400-series Highways? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Regional Municipality of Peel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927214908/http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L135B.htm to http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/38_parl/Session1/L135B.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Regional Municipality of Peel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906223731/http://heartlakebeat.com:80/brampton_news/20-Region-will-grind-to-a-halt:-Mayor.html to http://www.heartlakebeat.com/brampton_news/20-Region-will-grind-to-a-halt:-Mayor.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Regional Municipality of Peel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heartlakebeat.com/brampton_news/20-Region-will-grind-to-a-halt%3A-Mayor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908044335/http://www.peelpoliceboard.ca/pages/where.htm to http://www.peelpoliceboard.ca/pages/where.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified