Talk:Progressive Canadian Party

message: Deleted the two listed by-elections in 2004 and 2006 as these were not by-elections, but actually general elections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.98.183 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change - Nov. 11, 2009

message: I changed the partys ideology to centrism/ red toryism because the partys creator describes the party as centrist
- Konulu
Someone changed it back without warning but I have a quote supporting my change and if it is changed back I will report it to a moderator my quote is "In 2004, Hueglin became a lead organizer for the Progressive Canadian Party, which he has described as a centrist party." this is from the wikipedia article on Hueglin. - Konulu
* Yes, and Red Toryism is pretty much a centrist ideology. The reason why we don't agree (well, at least my reason) with putting centrism in is because it's generic. Red Toryism is unique to Canada and all PC Parties. Jareand 20:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. You could do it yourself too, just click on the page history, click on the edit you want to revert to, edit the page, and save it (you don't actually have to edit it but you have to click the edit button). There is no special sysop way to revert a blanking if someone edits it afterwards (but it's unfortunate that no one noticed the blanking in the first place...). Adam Bishop 19:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was just sifting through the instructions on how to revert when I saw that you had done so. Now I know.... Kevintoronto 19:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Quite right, Chris. I don't know how I let this get past. Wikipedia articles are, by design, collaborations, so you should not hesitate to edit an article if you see something that is incorrect, or if you can add some useful information. If you click on the "History" tab at the top of the page, you will see how many people have already contributed to this article. The disadvantage to the "open content" concept is that people can and do post misinformation, which is why others have to clean things up from time to time. You do not have to be a registered user to edit, by the way, but it does help in the event that someone wants to discuss your edit with you. Regards, Kevintoronto 14:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Change

message: Michaelm: here is why I reverted your edits. 
# describing both the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance as "centre-right" suggests that they were of the same political orientation. They were not. The Prog. Cons. Party was not as far right as the CA. The CA regularly used right-wing "hot button" issues like capital punishment, stiffer sentencing, and big tax cuts. The Prog. Cons. Party called for tax cuts, but not as drastic. Nor did it endorse capital punishment, or oppose bilingualism in government services. 
# The new CPC is not further to the right than the CA, as your edits seem to suggest. It is either as right-wing, or slightly more moderate, although that remains to be seen. I think that Harper has been more willing to silence the extremists in his caucus than Stockwell Day was, and has been much more conciliatory toward Quebec. 
# I removed the Progressive Conservative link. That just redirects to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, which is already linked in the line above. The Wikipedia Style Guide advises that there is no need to link every instance of a word/phrase, and that you should link more than once in an article only if it is a long article and the instances are far apart.
# I removed the abbreviation "MP" in reference to Joe Hueglin and restored the full "Member of Parliament" according to standard writing style. You should always spell out an initialism (or acronym) the first time you use it in an article. Not everyone reading Wikipedia will know what an "MP" is. In the US, for example, it stands for "Military Police". Standard writing style also advises that if you're going to use the initialism later in the article, you should indicate it after the first full instance, i.e., "Member of Parliament (MP)". This alerts the reader to be on the look out for it later. I don't know if "MP" is used later in the article. 
I think I left one or two of your other edits in because they were good. Thanks. Kevintoronto 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: March 11, 2005 edits

message: I deleted the following section :
Senate
It's a little know fact that there are 5 Progressive Conservative MPs sitting in the Senate, which therefore makes it an official party. It is not, however, known if the Senate of Canada acknowledges the PCs as a Caucus (and gives them funding and lets them have a Leader, etc).
When Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada, appointed in mid-2005 several Senators who declared themselves Progressive Conservative, as is their right, he did so because he wanted to entrench the opposition to the Conservative Party of Canada.''
The PC senators are:
Atkins, Norman K. Doody, C. William McCoy, Elaine Murray, Lowell Nancy Ruth
These "PC senators" are not members of the Progressive Canadian Party but rather identify themselves as "Progressive Conservatives" even though that party no longer exists.  Since these senators are not members of the Progressive Canadian Party, there is no reason to include information about this in the Progressive Canadian Party article.  -- ABCXYZ 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate

message: I have deleted 'info' that claimed to have a source that no longer have a functional link  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.135.12 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source edit

message: The name "The Politicly Correct Party (PC Party)" is untrue and does not match the rest of the article. The standard line "Not to be confused with" then mentioning the 'Progressive Conservative Party of Canada' is misleading since the Progressive Canadian Party claims to be the continuation of that party by a small group of insiders.
Should these be changed? A novice user- 18/08/2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.205.213 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note about some strange things.