Talk:Paul Ainslie

message: {{The things on the page are all not neutral either, my edit is an official bio of him from the City Page.
It's an official representation of him at City Hall, so how is it not neutral I don't know.
It actually has a logical meaning to it, where as random paragraphs of people putting on the page of what they feel is important is not a neutral representation of a person.
I have every right to post facts about anything on Wiki, and it is as natural as it gets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.174.19 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. You are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but you are required to abide by Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, neutral point of view and verifiability. The material you have added is unduly promotional, is not backed up by a reliable secondary (independent) source (the City website is not an independent source for a city councillor), and you have said it is copied directly from another website which is a copyright violation, which is strictly forbidden. If you continue to edit this way, you will be blocked from editing. If you have concerns about the material that other users have posted on Paul Ainslie's page, I will be happy to help address those issues. Ivanvector (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Hi , thanks for your question. In the edit summary I attached to my edit I referred to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which is a subset of the guideline on external links, saying that normally only one "official" link is provided for a subject. It states that social media links are normally not to be included if the article links to an official website which already has prominent links to the subject's Twitter (or other social media) links, which Councillor Ainslie's official site does. Therefore I have removed it. If other pages have Twitter links that fit this criteria, they will also be removed eventually. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and EL 

message: From what I can tell from reading various sources, Ainslie's appointment to ward 41 (prior to the 2006 election) did not come with a condition that he not run in the following election, contrary to what the article says. He only said at Council that he wouldn't, but that doesn't make it a requirement of the appointment. Unless there's a source I'm missing, this section should be rewritten. I also have not found any sources to back up the claim that David Soknacki endorsed Ainslie for ward 43 in 2006. His subsequent decision to run in ward 43 did generate controversy, I'm not disputing that. Ivanvector (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The municipal rule is that appointments to council state that appointees are given a term which will run to the end of the current council for the ward of the member that they are replacing conditional on the agreement that they will not run for that post in the next election. This is part of the municipal code. I don't have a citation for that but it is written somewhere. It is always mentioned for every appointment that I have seen in the past ten years, so I am assuming that it is a general rule rather than an adhoc one. Most recently it came up during the Peter Leon appointment to replace Doug Holyday. This was mentioned in the news during that appointment process. I will look further into this. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 election 

message: The whole "I won't run during the next regular election" thing....it's standard to ask, however, it isn't legally binding. According to City Clerk. Ainslie did promise not to run anywhere in the city in the next election but he still did. Source: in the past few years there has been a few appointments to Council. Also: City Clerk (Toronto).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiroslavGlavic (talk • contribs) 05:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ainslie not running after appointment