User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2013.1

Undid

Hi re: 117Avenue Undid revision 532550339 by WikieUser13 (talk). I own the photo that was deleted (took several steps to confirm that when i uploaded it). What do I do to have it put back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikieUser13 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS. 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I followed the directions as best as I could understand, including emailing OTRS with further info.WikieUser13 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, didn't mean to hide the URL. But thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Darrell Pasloski entry.

You erased my edits, which were properly cited with a link to a media publication: midnightsunyukon.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 January 2013‎ (UTC)

117, I endorse your deletion. The text was copied from the media publication in violation of copyright. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am the publisher of Midnight Sun News - Krysta Meekins. There is no copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of candidates in Ontario leadership

I agree that candidates who withdraw before or after the first ballot within reason should be included in the total. However, Murray withdrew well in advance of the convention and his name will not appear on the ballots there, and he withdrew early enough that his name did not appear on the ballot at the delegate selection meetings. Including Murray in the total of candidates would be akin to including Carolyn Bennett, Maurizio Bevilacqua and Hedy Fry in the total at Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006 - they all declared, organized and campaigned widely just as Murray did but withdrew before delegate selection meetings. But we count 8, not 11, in that article - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You understand why I explain in my edit summary that a withdrawal is a withdrawal. But whenever a candidate withdraws, their name does not appear on the subsequent ballot. If someone withdraws between the delegate ballot, and the first ballot, their name will not appear on the first ballot. If more people than required withdraw between the first and second ballot, their name will not appear on the second ballot, à la New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012. Murray met the requirements on November 23, 2012, and is an official candidate. This article is on the election, not the conventions, and I think that the number of candidates should not change after the deadline. 117Avenue (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything that you say, but I think that there is a missing nuance here. The convention will have one or more ballots. Preceding the convention there is another ballot for individual members to vote their leadership presence. Prior to that members can pledge themselves to stand as a delegate supporting one of the candidates. Murray will not appear on any of the ballots at the convention, and he did not appear on the pre-convention ballot either. Moreover, the party clearly does not consider him a candidate as those members who put their names forward to support him had their status changed from Murray supporters to independent delegates prior to the vote. I would also refer you again to the precedent set in Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006 where Bennett, Bevilacqua and Fry all met the same criteria as Murray but were not counted for the purposes of the infobox. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So there is an imaginary line between the date the requirements are due, and the first ballot? 117Avenue (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how imaginary the line is. I would say it is the difference between being on a ballot and not. In a general election if candidate submits his/her papers and qualifies as a candidate but then withdraws early enough to have his/her name removed from the ballot we do not include them. I would say the same standard applies here. Moreover, it would make this article more consistent with other articles, like the 2006 LPC one I have cited. If Murray had withdrew after the delegate meetings or so close to them that the ballots had already been printed and his name remained on them, then I think there would be a strong case for him to be included as a candidate. If he is included as a candidate here (which, by the way, he is not in the body of the article), then many other Wikipedia articles would need to be changed in order to be consistent. Perhaps a compromise would be this:

Your thoughts? - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A person cannot withdraw from a general election after becoming a candidate. 117Avenue (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes they can. [1] - Nbpolitico (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

John Eardley Inglis

I see that you reverted the addition (not mine) of his place of birth as Halifax, Nova Scotia with the edit summary "impossible". Could you explain why? The only source I can find that gives his place of birth is at Family Search (which says "Halifax, Nova Scotia") and I'm not sure how reliable this is. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If Inglis was born anywhere around 1814, it would have been 182 years before the Halifax Regional Municipality existed. We don't list people being born in present day municipalities, we use the place names that existed at the time. 117Avenue (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Montage

Hi there. I noticed that you have created a number of photo montages for articles generally related to Canadian-city topics. I would like to create one of these for a city as well, but I was curious: which program did you use to create this montage? I have been searching, but cannot seem to find a fairly good software. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Just Photoshop. The metadata on the file pages are actually more revealing than I would like. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Re: the Halifax (former city)/ Halifax Regional Municipality difficulty - Do you think it would work to use the template developed with the History of Toronto article and the box they have developed to the right side of the article? This would create three separate articles that would be linked to a "History of Halifax, Nova Scotia" article- a link to a Town of Halifax article, a link to City of Halifax (similar to the article "Old Toronto", the article could be entitled "Old Halifax" for clarity and consistency), and another link "Halifax (Amalgamated)" which would link to the current HRM article. A forth article could be created on the Amalgamation of Halifax, just as there is one of the Amalgamation of Toronto. Perhaps the Toronto template would be helpful, what do you think?--Hantsheroes (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe there is a difference between the Town and the City of Halifax? If the City of Halifax is listed, then all of the municipalities that were amalgamated into the HRM should also be listed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a significant difference between the Town and the City of Halifax? It looks like they think there is a siginficant difference between a town and city in the case of Toronto.

Are you thinking that the histories of the places that were amalgamated would go in the box on the right side of the page rather than incorporated into the (amalgamated) History of Halifax, Nova Scotia? Those who created the history of Toronto article seemed to have decided not to list separately in the box the communities amalgamated into Toronto? Following through with your idea, as you know, the 1996 is not the first time that communities were amalgamated into Halifax. Would you suggest the 1969 amalgamation of Rockingham, Clayton Park, Fairview, Armdale, and Spryfield into Halifax be treated in the same manner? I'm more inclined to develop the History of Halifax, Nova Scotia in the same manner the History of Toronto article was developed. Do you just think the authors of the History of Toronto wiki article have made bad decisions?

To be clear, I think the histories of all the communities, cities that were amalgamated into Halifax need to be kept current as the vibrant communities they still are. In terms of Dartmouth, for example, I think its current history could be incorporated into the (amalgamated) History of Halifax, Nova Scotia article and also developed in greater detail on the History of Dartmouth page, which would reflect that the community was once a city and now is no longer. What do you think?--Hantsheroes (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you would only list one, Template:Annexations of Edmonton lists all of them. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That template looks helpful. I think developing an "Annexations of Halifax" article would make things clearer. That template box could be put on the bottom of each page of a community annexed including the History of Halifax, Nova Scotia article (for some reason it is not included on the History of Edmonton page?). There could be also the side box like the History of Toronto page on the page as well. What do you think?--Hantsheroes (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. 117Avenue (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As you probably know, none of the Toronto history pages (e.g., City of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, etc) get more than 4000 hits a month. The history page Halifax (former city) gets over 24 000 hits a month. It seems that people are confused between the history page Halifax (former city) and the current Halifax Regional Municipality article, which gets about 30 000 hits a month. People must be first going to the Halifax (former City) site and then redirecting to get to the HRM site. (This assertion is supported by the stats for each page, the difference between them would mean about 6000 people are actually looking for the history page Halifax (former city) and not wanting to redirect to HRM - that figure is in the ballpark.) Any ideas about how to help people not get caught on the history page Halifax (former city) when they are actually looking for the contemporary HRM?--Hantsheroes (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that they are all already at good titles. No one would search for, or click in the suggestion box, Halifax (former city), if they are looking for something current. I would suggest a different image for the infobox, to clarify that the article is about a former municipality right off the bat, a post 1996 skyline isn't appropriate. But I see you have already changed it. I think that a skyline from late 19th century/early 20th century would be best, but I don't know where to look for one. 117Avenue (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

the template box for the history of the halifax regional municipality is screwed up with the edit function - I don't know how to fix it. Can you help? --Hantsheroes (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I did that, I thought I checked everything that would change when editing the series and region parameters. 117Avenue (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

on the Military history of Nova Scotia article the military history of Nova Scotia box is also screwed up with the edit function and also the series at the top should go to Category: Military history of Nova Scotia. could you please help when you have the time? thanks.--Hantsheroes (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I wanted to make sure I had the time to focus on it, and rewrite it. 117Avenue (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayerthorpe, etc.

If you had concerns, I would have appreciated a note to that effect, since we'd already been chatting about this, rather than speedy deletion nominations that impugn my behaviour. I would have happily had that discussion with you, and helped revert what needed to be reverted. Sigh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation is supposed to used when two (or more) articles qualify for the same title. Would Mayerthorpe Tragedy ever be moved to Mayerthrope? And I don't know, but would, for example, the oil terminal be moved to Hardisty? This is what kind of confuses me. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I support most of your moves, and I don't have time to go through all the towns anticipating which ones you will move, to stop you from moving them. I believe that WP:BRD should apply, and a discussion on going ahead with the move takes place, rather than a discussion to revert. A disambiguation page is used when a title may refer to multiple things, but each article must still use proper article titling procedures to determine its title, primarily WP:COMMONNAME. Mayerthorpe tragedy will remain at that title, because it is the title that was determined to be the most correct. I hope you understand, thank-you. 117Avenue (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't expect you to pre-review the towns. I did expect your comments not to imply that my actions had been inappropriate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it is difficult write tone. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But a note in the discussion we had already been having expressing your concerns would have helped. No sense beating a dead horse, though. Not a big deal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wainwright Alberta

Hey, I trying to get a better handle on how wikipedia works, and have a quick question for you. I noticed you reverting the changes made to the Wainwright article, and I'm assuming that the reason was the lack of any references, but it seems to me that the edits were made in good faith on an article that needs improvement. Wouldn't it have been better to request that the editor continue to improve the article and include citations, rather than undoing the changes? The history section of the article doesn't have any references anyways. If there was a different reason for undoing the changes please let me know. LuthienKess (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It was copied and pasted from another article, without any care for formatting, referencing, to summarizing. It did not appear constructive, and edits such as this are often flyby edits, where any attempt to discuss, or ask for references, are fruitless. 117Avenue (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. LuthienKess (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Guy Boutilier

I would like to inquire why you would change the revision we have made on Mr. Guy Boutilier's article? The revision we have made was completely authorized by Mr. Guy Boutilier himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbertayouth (talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You removed content without explanation, you added unreferenced content, and you uploaded a copyrighted photo. Please also read WP:ISU. 117Avenue (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue it seems you really know the Wikipedia avenue but now I have a couple of questions for you. How can we properly and legally use the current picture of Boutilier that I put up? (We have authorization from Boutilier for the use of picture but it did came from another website) We want to follow steps properly for this obviously but doesn't he hold rights for the use of his picture? The next one is the reason why've we made changes on Boutilier's article is that to make sure that the correct informations and facts are delivered to the readers instead of the misleading once. How can we properly and legally correct the informations on Butilier's article? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbertayouth (talk • contribs) 12:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to TinEye, the image was used in a Calgary Sun article. Since it is so small, I find it hard to believe that you own the picture, and that you actually ripped it off the Sun's website. If Boutilier would like to release an original photo, he or his rep can follow the instructions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS. There they are better experts on what can be upload. For me, the more pixels an image has, the more likely it is the original. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Toby Turner – VidStatsX

Hi. I understand your edit here, but I just wanted to ask whether this can not be used as the source for this information given that it is only statistical and date-based? It's just that we're going to struggle to find another source for this, and while I understand the reasoning for a non-reliable source I can't help but feel for a purpose such as this it can be included. I look forward to your reply. Andre666 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The channel page can be used as a primary source for the number of subscribers, I left that content intact, however the channel ranking will remain original research unless YouTube once again publishes that list. 117Avenue (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Whitecourt

Given undisambiguation of Alberta community article titles has spread to towns, please advise whether or not you would oppose a second administrative request to move Whitecourt, Alberta over Whitecourt. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, by far a primary topic. A crater wouldn't be referred to with the same name as a town, the Indian Reserve isn't very notable, and I doubt White Court ever goes by Whitecourt. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and didn't know about White Court.

On unrelated matters, did you have any input on this or this? Hwy43 (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to the first link. Could you fix the second one? 117Avenue (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion on a possible conflict of interest.

Hi 117Avenue. I've been following changes to University of Alberta for about six months now, and the main contributing editor appears to be a public relations officer of some sort for the U of A (I was able to find him in the campus directory, and he only edits during office hours). Most of the work he's done has been great, but lately I've become concerned about a conflict of interest. Specifically, he's been trying to remove mention of a professor who might be involved in some sort of scandal, and removed any mention of financial troubles when he rewrote the article. Is this type of behaviour something to worry about, or should I just keep on patrolling? --Rawlangs (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just passing through, I didn't take a look at the article's content or history. Sometimes WT:CANADA is helpful. 117Avenue (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Color" templates

The name has nothing to do with Canadian spelling. S-rail and s-line templates are looking for this naming convention and all you have done is created a redundant redirect for the required Template:Edmonton LRT color. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to move anything back because the redirect does it, but please take care if you have not dealt with these kind of templates before. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that half way through trying to get rid of the links to the former name. 117Avenue (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you also renamed a couple of stations, I have some fresh ideas on the official naming convention used by ETS. I am tired tonight and need to do a little more research first. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode

A situation has arisen where an arbitrary (i.e without discussion) decision was made to deprecate |episodelink= and |serieslink= in {{cite episode}}. While looking through the talk page archives of both {{cite episode}} and Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 1, I discovered a proposal by you to fix a problem caused when both |url= and |episodelink= are used.[2] This problem still exists so, if you're still interested, now might be the time to bring it up again. I've mentioned the problem a couple of times but it's being ignored. This time though, there are already three editors involved. Last time it was just you and Gadget850 so you might get a better response. The discussion is at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite episode deprecated parameters. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Party leaders article importance

Hey 117Avenue, just noticed you updated the importance of the article for Justin Trudeau for WikiProject Canada. I'm guessing that was related to him becoming the new leader of his party? I was interested in how past party leaders who did not become Prime Minister were ranked... Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff are also mid, but Stéphane Dion is ranked as a "high importance" article. Also looked at some past leaders (MacKay, Manning, Duceppe, etc.) and found most to be "mid." I'm not sure that any change in ranking will actually have any impact on driving more project participants towards working on improving these articles, but I might argue that the leaders of all of the parties probably ought to be elevated to "high importance," given the odds are, arguably — not considering any other factors — about one in four or five that they could become the Prime Minister of Canada one day... Not "officially" proposing this or anything, but I was wondering what your thoughts might be... user:j (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with how to rank articles. But I have to agree with you that there isn't consistency. Maybe you'll get a better response at WT:CANADA. 117Avenue (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Trudeau

Please see MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. YYYY-MM-DD dates are accepted by MOS:DATEUNIFY in accessdates, and, per WP:DATERET, the style chosen by original authors is to be retained except in special cases. Use of a script does not overrule, exempt, or negate what is contained in MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. The Trudeau article has been YYYY-MM-DD since May 2011 and only changed from it the last day or so by an editor who it seems has just discovered scripts. --JimWae (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean WP:STRONGNAT, I believe in complying with all three points of WP:DATERET. 117Avenue (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep reading. Strongnat does not trump accessdates. "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable." The personal likes & dislikes of editors who come later do not trump WP:DATERET. --JimWae (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not quote WP:DATERET when changing the date format in references to a different one than the rest of the article, as you did at Justin Trudeau, it states "the whole article should conform to it". Instead quote "WP:STRONGNAT" which contains the policy you are actually enforcing. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please keep reading MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET.--JimWae (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have, and please stop linking to the section below the sentence you want people to read. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

in MOS:DATEUNIFY we see "accessdates and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD. For example, in the same article, write.... Retrieved 2009-02-05." but I take your point & will start linking to STRONGNAT also. But without WP:DATERET there would be method to decide which to use. I point to DATERET because it is that which guides which to use. --JimWae (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Christy re Edinburgh/Sorbonne

It may not be in that cite, but "blog sources" investigated those claims, story is that she dropped out of both, and re the Sorbonne no one can determine if she was ever even registered. I'm keeping a "hands off" her article and others, other than any maintenance edits that are uncontroversial in nature; but leaving that as-is when she graduated from neither, and seems to not even have been registered at the Sorbonne, is questionable.Skookum1 (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Star said she did go to Sorbonne, my search didn't turn up any creditable sources saying she didn't. 117Avenue (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)