User talk:117Avenue

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.[1] 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)

Blood 148, Alberta

Re: Map scale on your latest revision: Do you really like these maps to zero in on the central part of a large area? It's (only?) my opinion, of course, but I believe that my map scale in the preceding edit would tend to give better information about the location of the reserve. Backspace (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the infobox is made for cities, and the Blood Reserve is larger than some counties. 117Avenue (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sturgeon Lake 154

The Statcan map (linked to in the article) indicates that Sturgeon Lake 154 is separated from Sturgeon Lake 154A by perhaps 2 km or so. Backspace (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And? 117Avenue (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who said that that they bordered each other? How can they border each other and still be two km apart? Backspace (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I said 154 and 154B bordered each other. 117Avenue (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we are talking about 154 and 154A. There is no such thing as 154B, not in the latest 2011 census at least. As the Statcan map shows, there is only the larger 154 and the smaller non-adjacent 154A. If there was a 154B, it may have been from some previous census and may have been since combined with 154. Backspace (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondarily, re: false precision, how does 117°28'29" round off to 117°26'? Backspace (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A good example of false precision, changing the minutes still leaves the coordinates in the centre of the landmark, seconds are unnecessarily precise. 117Avenue (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

At 26 minutes instead of (say) 28 or 29, I must admit that my coordinates were closer to the center than yours. I believe that the CGNDB must have inserted the seconds for some reason, not just to have random irrelevant seconds. This place is not huge (like a province), so seconds can definitely make a difference. Backspace (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was using a Government of Alberta Sustainable Resource Department map, which divides the territory shown in the CGNDB map into a west portion, 154B, and an east portion, 154. I was providing the coordinates for the centre of 154. I guess the better question is, is the article just about 154, or 154 and 154B? 117Avenue (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As previously stated, if the current 154 was at some time in the past ever in two separate sections, they have apparently since been joined into one. Since the article states nothing about area size or population, there is no way of telling whether it would be the old 154 or the new (bigger) 154, assuming that it combined with 154B. All we know is, as of the 2011 census, there is no such Indian reserve called Sturgeon Lake 154B. There are only 154 and 154A, which are geographically separated. How old is the map that you are working with? Backspace (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2012, but that's besides the point. In some cases StatsCan divides land into different territories than other agencies. Both Alberta Aboriginal Relations[2], and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada[3][4] list a Sturgeon Lake 154B 97.1 hectares big. 117Avenue (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• comment Not about whether or not these reserves are adjoining or there's another one as 117Avenue is indicating (?), but just to note this article doesn't even say WHICH band is on this reserve; I'm guessing a Cree group, maybe Danezaa though. And re reserves, many in BC for the same band are not contiguous and some are mentioned only in location or other band articles as they'll never have even stubs e.g. Chuchuwayha2C which is in the mountains 4 miles SW of Hedley, British Columbia, which is where Chuchuwayha2 is.Skookum1 (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

StatsCan may not have listings for 154B because it maybe has no population? It definitely exists, Backspace. The main cites for reserves should not be StatsCan, but Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, plus CGNDB/Atlas of Canada and/or in BC's case (can't speak for Alberta) the BC Names system (formerly BCGNIS). Either that or band government/tribal council info pages.Skookum1 (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

117Avenue and Skookum1 are correct. 154B exists and it is adjacent to 154. I included it in a map for work in the last 6 months no less. StatCan does not provide census information for every reserve in Canada. Typically StatCan only designates those reserves that are populated as census subdivisions. Hwy43 (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This cite from INAC says 154B is four miles south of 154....but that could refer to their centrepoints/latlongs, not to the possibility/probability they might have a common boundary.Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Centre points is likely why that reads as such. I can assure all, they are adjacent. Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Simply not true regarding population counts. Statcan lists all parts of Canada by geographical land area, whether or not they have population. I can name you literally dozens of Indian reserves, mostly in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, that have zero population (or missing population statistics) that are listed by Statcan. Most of these, for rather obvious reasons, generate little popular interest and therefore have no Wikipedia article. Statcan indicates each statistical part of Canada by land area, and the sum total of all land areas must equal Canada itself. Therefore, if an Indian reserve were to actually exist (such as the possible Sturgeon Lake 154B) it would necessarily have its own listing or be part of (included in) another listing (in this case most likely Sturgeon Lake 154, but also possibly Greenview No. 16). Mathematically, logically, there can be no other possibility. All land areas together must add up to Canada itself. Backspace (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you absolutely need to see it to believe it, open this 12.5 MB map published by Alberta Transportation. IRs are a base reference layer. IR 154B is on the north shore of Goose Lake just as the AANDC (formerly INAC) cite indicates, bordering IR 154 to the west and north. StatCan may be the "primary and definitive source for population data in articles", but is not the primary and definitive source for all IRs in Canada. The AANDC is. You'll also see from the map that IRs 134A and 232 are located further to the southeast along Highway 43 between Fox Creek and Whitecourt. Neither of these are census subdivisions (CSDs) recognized by StatCan, and neither of these are populated. There is a total of 137 IRs in Alberta according to AADNC. StatCan recognizes only 81 of them (Table A on page 5) as CSDs. There are well over 1,000 in BC, yet StatCan only recognizes 419 of them as CSDs.

Your assertion of "Simply not true regarding population counts" is, well, simply not true. I did qualify above by saying typically. Yes, there appear to be some exceptions to that. The disclaimer here at AANDC about census material states "First Nations whose affiliated communities totalled less than 40 individuals are suppressed by Statistics Canada." This may explain why some the IR CSDs have populations of zero, when actually they may very well have populations between 1 and 39. Want to confirm for certain this is the case? Inquire with StatCan. None of us here can be absolute certain on this, so there is no sense debating it here.

Now that you have a map before your that proves 154B exists and its location, you'll notice by cross-referencing with StatCan's Sturgeon Lake 154 map that the geographic area of 154B has simply been rolled into Greenview No. 16's territory by StatCan. This is how the sum of all CSD land areas equal the total land area of Canada in StatCan data. Further cross-referencing with StatCan mapping, you'll see that 134A is also rolled into Greenview No. 16 while 232 is rolled into Woodlands County. Hwy43 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Then obviously you agree with me (at least partially). After all, I was the one who originally offered the possibility that it could indeed have been included with Greenview No. 16. Other than Sturgeon Lake 154 itself, there is no other place in the vicinity where it could have gone. As far as the zero-population units are concerned, I can only offer data as the census serves it up. If they say that a census division (or any area) has zero population, I can only accept them at their face value. There is no way that I can determine the actual "real" population. There is no way of finding out what the "real" population is if it is suppressed by them. Suppose that the "real" population was not zero, but 5, and I somehow stated that as "fact". Then you would say "prove it", to which I would have no evidence to back up my assertion. I can back up my assertions when I say "zero population" only because there is accepted corroboration for my claim, which source I would have specifically cited, in this particular case being Statcan. Backspace (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we did agree that 154B's land area must have been accounted somewhere. I also agree that we have to take StatCan's population counts of zero at face value. I failed to mention that the AANDC's census disclaimer appears to be at odds with StatCan's standard suppression technique for population counts. The standard technique, for privacy protection purposes, is to round to the nearest "5" if the population of the geographic entity is less than "15" people. Considering StatCan does publish population counts of IRs between 0 and 40 people (8 instances in Alberta), either AANDC's census disclaimer is wrong or is worded such that it can easily be misinterpreted. Hwy43 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[outdent] You know what, Backspace, that's just bizarre. StatCan [sic - we call it StatsCan) is not the only government source, and very pointedly not government ministry who have most reason to have detailed First Nations data, so much so they maintain as registry about individuals and bands and reserves and administer this thing called the Indian Act.....they're called Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, not sure who the minister is right now, but the link I just gave above is very real and just as valid or moreso than StatsCan. Health authorities and others might well have more info than the census does, e.g. because those zero population reserves are often places census takers aren't welcome...or any government official. That's why the AUTO sources have to be taken into account re population and especially claims, which you won't find much about on government pages from any tier of government (I mean non-native governments); StatsCan is also not an atlas so why are you expecting to find proof of the boundaries that 117Avenue is describing as knowing to exist, instead of citing me the government data collector/spewer for centrepoint locations, instead of using Atlas of Canada or somewhere else that shows IR boundaries (and/or all land boundaries, lots etc....NTS topos do. INAC, which should, doesn't. Provincial land maps, which are based on NTS are a bit different; if you want you can go find the layers on "BC Basemap" (google that) and have fun playing around looking at maps of places you are always "providing a location for". What you said now just strikes me as bizarre; that you're saying a place doesn't exist and therefore the country doesn't add up......that's what doesn't add up, the INAC cite I just gave you PROVES that Sturgeon Lake 154B or whatever it is does exist. And yet you still point at a gap in StatsCan/census data and make a flying-leap conclusion about what it means, and.......oh never mind.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you putting words into my mouth by saying that I am claiming that a place does not exist? Is this something that you often do when you disagree with another's Wikipedia postings? I am merely citing a known source. I did not personally visit the territory around the supposed Indian reserve, fail to find it, and then come to Wikipedia with my assessment. My exact words were "according to Statcan". Nowhere did I personally give my own opinion that it does not exist. In fact, I specifically gave you the (50-50) possibility that it COULD exist. Specifically, I said that IF it did exist, it would either have its own Statcan listing or be part of another census division. I would not allow any personal prejudices to cloud my view of whatever the facts might happen to be. And Statcan is what they call themselves. Who is this "we" that you say calls them something else? Backspace (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

well, gee, you mean you DIDN'T say this? - "Therefore, if an Indian reserve were to actually exist (such as the possible Sturgeon Lake 154B) it would necessarily have its own listing " IT EXISTS, but you're still maintaining it doesn't, and apparently still want to maintain an original research interpretation of StatsCan definitions vs those provided by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada who preside over the act that created those reserves. I just looked at the band's website but so far can't find a page about the reserves. I'm gonna waste some more time, since you love wasting so much of it, looking for a map on Atlas of Canada or other map sites that show the reserve boundaries - and the existence of 154B. Apparently you only want to use StatsCan as a ref......02:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My quote exactly as it was written: "Therefore, if an Indian reserve were to actually exist (such as the possible Sturgeon Lake 154B) it would necessarily have its own listing or be part of (included in) another listing (in this case most likely Sturgeon Lake 154, but also possibly Greenview No. 16)."

What gives you the right to truncate and amend someone else's quote and then maintain that what you picked out has the same meaning as the original sentence? Anyone here can see through the transparent shallowness and incoherence of your argumentative tactics. You quote anything that supports your preconceived viewpoint and ignore everything that does not fit into it. I ask anyone else here to give me their honest assessment of the difference between the meaning of my original quote and the meaning of your version of what I said, and whether they think that it is a proper way to "quote" someone. One more time, just so you can perhaps get it straight. I did not say that 154B does not exist. I said that it does not exist according to Statcan's classification methods, whatever they may happen to be. I even gave you the possibility that it MIGHT exist, as part of a neighboring Statcan division. Backspace (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you blathering about "truncate and amend". THAT IS A COPY-PASTE OF YOUR OWN WORDS, and was not "truncated" or "amended". Have you looked at Atlas of Canada yet, or the INAC cites? No, I doubt that you have, you're too busy making issues out of non-issues.Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Look in the mirror Skookum1. It is you making issues out of non-issues. Before you re-entered this conversation today, a source was provided confirming 154B's locaton. Although Backspace hasn't explicitly acknowledged it in his subsequent reply, I think it is safe to say that he is in fact aware that it now exists, yet you continue to attack because of a lack of acknowledgement? This issue has been resolved, so there is no further need to continue to confront.and issues out of things that weren't even said (or should I say, your misinterpretations of things that were said). You copied and pasted "a portion" of his words to further your argument (a truncated sentence), but fail to look at the whole of what was said (the entire sentence), resulting in the misinterpretation of what was actually said. Hwy43 (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I have never specifically said that it exists. This, however, does not mean that I think that it does not exist. I specifically said that there is the possibility that it could exist, in which case his contention would be correct. I have since gotten evidence which makes me tend to believe more and more that this may indeed be in the realm of probable, and not just possible. However, I am going to read a dictionary before I say another word about this topic. It is obvious that some of us are talking just to have words coming out of our mouths, without having any idea of what we are saying. Backspace (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1, what is there to gain by attempting to correct someone about Statistics Canada's abbreviation? First of all, it is trivial. Who cares? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Second of all, pointing this out inflames the discussion on irrelevant other things. It is unnecessary and appears to be a low-blow to Backspace when already on the defensive. Thirdly, Backspace is right. It is "StatCan". Statistics Canada moved to this official short form quite a number years ago, away from what is now the archaic "StatsCan" (not sure if "StatsCan" was official or unofficial short form previously). Statistics Canada does refer to itself as "StatCan". StatCan's Twitter handle is @StatCan_eng. StatCan's url is www.statcan.gc.ca. A legal data licensing agreement and documentation I have from Statistics Canada's refers to itself as "StatCan". Hwy43 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"StatsCan" isn't "archaic", and that's not an "abbreviation". That move to the new official name was very likely to please the francophone side of the government, as "Stats" is obviously English in nature. It still remains the most widely-used term in Canada, in the English press and publishing industry anyway; and all this is beside the point, StatsCan has many flaws, including the way FN governments do not allow census takers on their reserves; and in the way they lump reserves into non-reserve census agglomerations, which is apparently the problem here. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is the primary citation for aboriginal matters in Canada, next up would be the band governments and tribal councils......StatsCan is in third place for reliability and it's not the body that created the IR system or administers it.Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not an "abbreviation"? Again, who cares? I meant "short form" (which I used throughout the balance of the post). You get my point. Hwy43 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for defending my point here, but it is not necessary. I can well handle what you call low blows and do not really mind, as long as they are indeed factual. People can even criticize my spelling and grammar if they care to, as long as they are factual. It does not really bother me. In this case, they were not factual, as you yourself have said. I can accept almost anyone's personal opinion on something even though I may disagree with it. After all, it is just opinion and not necessarily fact. Backspace (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessarily fact that 154B does exist, despite your protestations trying to prove it does not?? "Low blows" such as suggesting you go find an atlas or map showing IR boundaries? Suggesting that you should use INAC's references (and not avoiding them, while digging into the StatsCan data as if it were the only thing in existence?). This is not about grammar or spelling, it's about your refusal to look at more than one source, and your wilful gameyness with what you think that site "proves" when it proves nothing at all. 154B exists, the INAC site confirms that even if StatsCan doesn't deal with it that way (not the first time an IR is lumped in with a non-native census area, btw). You're wrong here, very wrong. That's not a matter of opinion, it's demonstrable fact.Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to re-review WP:AGF. I once thought every IR in Canada, populated or not, was a StatCan CSD as well. It wasn't until after the two aforementioned reserves between Fox Creek and Whitecourt were established that I had to do some digging why they weren't recognized as CSDs by StatCan after the subsequent census, after which I learned much more than them two IRs in Alberta weren't recognized as CSDs. I totally understand where Backspace is coming from, trying to corroborate between two different sets of sources. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[outdent] I just looked on the Atlas of Canada Toporama site, there's no permalink for the results of a search, but if you type in "Sturgeon Lake 154" you'll get all three 154, 154B and 154C A comparison of the result for 154 and 154B shows a common boundary, along the north side of the latter. Can't get any simpler than that, but I'm waiting to hear the refutations/illogics disproving it as a cite.Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are a tad behind. I already provided a link to a map above that confirmed its location. I highly doubt you'll get any so-called "refutations/illogics". Hwy43 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am increasingly not wanting to host this discussion, with the remarks Backspace and Skookum1 have made in the past 24 hours. If this continues I will remove this discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm done, should have kept away from what was obviously an inane argument in the first place; I'll de-watchlist your page so I stay out of this. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation has the necessary cites, and Atlas of Canada demonstrates the contiguity of the reserves, so I see no point in arguing with someone who doesn't want to even look at those cites.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sun article....there's actually three

Just saw your reversion on Talk:Adrian Dix. For the record there were two subsequent articles, successively more POV and negative than the first one, and which didn't allow comments for response; my requests/demands that the Sun or Lee retract the falsehoods in them were ignored/slid off ("I'm content with my article", Lee said, even though it had egregious errors and misrepresentations not just about me but about what went on with the article)......on the Sun's own search page it doesn't list the original article, though gives a non-functioning canada.com link for it, though that yields a 404 error at the Times-Colonist....rather than acknowledging their error, they seem intent on hiding it. Can provide you links for the subsequent articles if you think they should be included......putside of Wikipedia, I may publicly blog about this incident to correct the misrepresentations and take on the media's aping of what the IP users and SPAs wanted; to make this about me and not about their own abuse of Wikipedia for partisan purposes......Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe people should attack other people. 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither do I.....but I do believe in defending myself against unwarranted and FALSE accusations/reporting......this is a case in point, as I've said, why so-called "reliable sources" can't be taken at face value, and why reputable blogs (e.g. Rafe Mair, who's an expert in his fields, or Laile Yuile, whose research is always thoughtful and also forces major media to report on stuff that they try to ignore. The Sun is a rag, but never mind that for now; my point here is to address the further articles, since only one is mentioned in that template.Skookum1 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here is the Sun search page for my name re these articles; I can't access them to link them directly because I'm past the 15-free-articles-a-month limit re their paywall. No way am I gonna pay money to them LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just read the correct newer article. They are wrong about one thing, you are no longer in the top 400 by edits. I recommend you remove that userbox to prevent misrepresenting yourself. 117Avenue (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when is the new article "correct"??? And it's not the article that the template was originally about. The new article is even more POV and misrepresentative than the first one was; "correct" is hardly the word for it, or for Sunciviclee's conduct.Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Totally not what I meant. By "correct" I meant I followed the URL User:Brianhe intended to add in his first edit. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That template says 'multiple media organizations'. Shouldn't that be tweakable to "a media organization" since it's only the Vancouver Sun we're talking about; even if it's replicated in the Ottawa or Victoria papers, it's still the same media organization (PostMedia aka canada.com). The template is highly misleading in its current form; and Jeff Lee should be indicated as being User:Sunciviclee.Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made the change. But please note that is now two edits I have made on your behalf, a process known as meatpuppetry. 117Avenue (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Carolyn Bennett

Why you deleted my version, if you think there is too many links, you can delete the links, but why delete all the things I added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.222.114 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

somehow only four, not five, cites are showing now

Quick aside, maybe it was due to your putting them in chronological order, there are only four cites showing, and even though the Metro one is showing, and its title field is there, it's asking for a title. Must be a code error somewhere, I can't see it easily.Skookum1 (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer is running slow today, I wasn't able to make that edit as smoothly as I wanted. 117Avenue (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Élection générale britanno-colombienne de 2013

Bonjour, quand les résultats de cette élection sera dévoilée le mardi 14 mai, pense-tu si tu peux mettre quelque informations de la page fr:Élection générale britanno-colombienne de 2013, comme tu avais faite la page fr:Élection générale albertaine de 2012, parce que mon compte ne modifier pas sur Wikipédia français et mon adresse IP 204.237.12.81 a été bloqué pour 2 ans jusqu'à la fin du mois de novembre 2014. Godinpédia (d) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I got several of your sock puppets on the English Wikipedia blocked, I am not going to help you circumvent a block. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Here I translated it the same thing, except some errors of translation software:

Hello, if you think you can put any information of the page fr:Élection générale britanno-colombienne de 2013 (British Columbia general election, 2013), as you have made ​​the page fr:Élection générale albertaine de 2012 (Alberta general election, 2012) because my account does not change on french Wikipedia and my IP address 204.237.12.81 has been blocked for two years until the end of November 2014. Godinpédia (talk) 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello this is concerning the change I made to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters here is the source on how I know Alex Steele will not be returning. http://www.eonline.com/news/400527/degrassi-shocker-alex-steele-not-returning-for-season-13

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.16.83 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

How she leaves is still unknown, she could guest star in the first couple of episodes. 117Avenue (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dix article edit history

just saw your removal of the editorializing....go review the several edits previous..."Big-Dix" and the bit about him "liking children"......I wonder if Jeff Lee will report on this (hah! ... as if), and we should look at those IPs to see if they're the same ones as before.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't like how you like to investigate vandals, thinking everyone it out to get you. I provided my reasoning, I am happy with my edit. 117Avenue (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Call it long experience because of the past behaviour of their kindred on articles like Erik Bornmann and the BC Legislature Raids articles, and also in the ongoing attempts to "censor" articles, not just Clark's and Campbell's, where the "sanitizing" edits of the kind so loudly about re the Dix article has gone on regularly, as it has been during and since the election at British Columbia Liberal Party, which has had to be placed under admin-only protection because of an ongoing edit war there. And why shouldn't I look at an IP users' contributions, or any SPAs? People look at mine and "investigate" me about things that went on a few years ago...taking them out of context, of course. There is no Canadian version of wikiscanner that I know of, i.e. a listing of government and p.r. and ad firm IPs, but it's not like IP or SPA edits are innocuous and shouldn't be investigated for reference to "who's doing all this bulls**t"" If the same IPs that were bitching about the "censorship" of the Dix article are the same ones, or on the same servers, even, as those who have been trying to censor the leader and party articles, it's very much a real issue. Just saw this so replying, why I'm here is the following.Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandals will be vandals, let's just keep improving Wikipedia, teach others of Wikipedia's policies, and be the bigger man. WP:BAIT, WP:DNIV, WP:DENY, etc. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

4 Corners a stub?

Just saw your removal of the one stub from that article, but isn't it long past stub now? Not that it should survive, and yes I'm hostile to its existence as "trivia spam" like its parent article, but isn't it at least at start class now and all the stub templates should go?Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I could give it an unbiased assessment. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.128.61 (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC) 

Dear 117 Avenue.

I am not interested in learning how to properly enter information on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is a bloody propaganda battle field.

However, I tried to change the Marijuana Party entry, since I am the registered leader, but you erased the changes. ... Of course, none of this really matters enough to worry about. It is standard stuff for Wikipedia to maintain false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.128.61 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

re Blair Longley

just a quick note, or will try to keep it as one ;-). I knew Blair very well at SFU 1977-81 or so, and ran into him at the first conference of the federal Green Party in Ottawa in the fall of '83, where he nominated himself for leader (which at a conference where 80% of those there were opposed to there being a leadership and elections-hostile, was fairly ironic/comical but that was also his point) and provided a very interesting handout of his personal bio, which is, well, amazing. He was the first person in Canada discharged for homicide after having to kill his father to protect his mother (hence the Oedipus title in the books listed on his bio page), and his books were published because his brother had won the 6/49 in Calgary, where he also has roots. More importantly re his wiki-bio there are items on his notable court cases with the CRA/RevCan on the Marijuana Party biography linked in the first paragraph; counter-citations must be out there, he seems to link to one re "important court cases" of whatever court it was, I didn't follow the link....interesting guy, often brilliant and extremely widely-read.....he had over 1200 credits towards a General Studies degree and didn't want to graduate, just keep on studying....on his resume at the conference among his "qualifications for office" he mentioned over 800 acid trips, 3 or 400 of which were bad ones.....wish I still had a copy of that document, there was other stuff on there, too, though of course couldn't be used as a citation. The court cases seem more than notable enough to include, however.Skookum1 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, or does this have something to do with the recent edits? 117Avenue (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Test edits to Joy Tanner

The edits to Joy Tanner are NOT tests! Please stop reverting them because I requested articles for these films and TV series. I've recently made my own sandbox, where my edit is indeed a test. Read this test article thoroughly and decide whether or not to approve it. Homechallenge55 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making red links, it is not constructive. 117Avenue (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, those red links that I provided in this article should be. Homechallenge55 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Edmonton Journal 11-11-15.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Edmonton Journal 11-11-15.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Green precipitation colours

In the discussion on the colours used in the weatherbox, you stated that you supported using standard precipitation colours and use violet colours for temperatures below 0 °C (32 °F). This question has been asked many times in the talk page but has not been answered. The question is why did you created a page (see edit history on that page) to include green precipitation colours as an alternative to the blue precipitation colours, even though standard colours are favoured? Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I always knew this discussion was inevitable, templates are for a standard across Wikipedia, giving users the option to do different things would mean they would clash somewhere down the line. I didn't bring it up at the time, because I didn't see the support for it. Since the pastel temperature variation already existed, and I had the time to write templates, I didn't feel like arguing when the green precipitation variation came up. 117Avenue (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 41st British Columbia general election may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BC General Election 2013

Hi 117 Aveenue,

The BC General Election page has some serious errors.

The most prominent of which is located within the synopsis of election statistics. In it the BC Liberals are deemed to have 45 seats before the election (dissolution) and 50 post election for a +/- of +5. Unfortunately, this is an improper way of determining seat growth.

Seat growth or reduction should be calculated by general election not current seats or indeed seats at dissolution since, MLAs resign, die and otherwise become ineligible to hold office during the course of a Parliament.

Therefore, the BC Liberals should be awarded +1 seats since they won 49 seats at the 2009 general election. The NDP total should be -2 since, in 2009 they won 35 seats. Whereas Greens should be awarded +1 and Indpendents 0.

In addition further down the page an author claims the BC liberals seat gain results in a 11.11% increase whereas if one uses election numbers not dissolution numbers the increase is 2%!

It is incorrect to use dissolution numbers to determine +/- results. I am unsure why anyone with a strong knowledge of Canadian government and politics would think otherwise. It is for instance not how major news organisations determine +/- nor political scientists.

I hope you will correct these errrors.

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.86.61 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)