User talk:117Avenue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If this is the case, I'd prefer to see a consistent categorization approach to all member articles of all Alberta municipal categories. The town and village cats should be consistent with all the others, which was my biggest beef yesterday. Hwy43 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. When I instituted it in April all the municipality type categories either had all the municipalities listed in them (Ponoka in towns), or were further sub-categorized (Wetaskiwin in cities). 117Avenue (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't all cities then be redundantly listed twice at Category:Cities in Alberta then? And same for all other municipality type cats? Hwy43 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly. I don't know. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Given neither of us know, I have asked the question. Hwy43 (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Why would someone want to further a stereotype that simply isn't true? I notice that on Toronto's page there isn't "Centre of the Universe" as a nickname. Nicknames for people, places, and things come and go as their relevance dictates. Edmonton simply isn't "Deadmonton", and why someone would want this on the go-to source for a user when looking up the city, I have no idea. Are you telling me that I could go edit Toronto's page right now to say "commonly known as 'The Centre of the Universe" and not a single person would have an issue and agree with me that "...even disparaging nicknames are acceptable on Wikipedia"? Edmonton is simply not "Deadmonton"; no self-respecting Edmontonian with any ounce of civic pride at all would ever refer to us as such. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwc.goebel (talkcontribs) 06:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion ETS LRT[edit]

Why did you delete the recent addition to the LRT page from Edmonton? It was backed by sources and is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to this edit? In your addition you wrote "the likely LRV is probably either a Bombardier Flexity tram, or an Alstom Citadis tram." This is original research. In such a highly contested article original research gets removed. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Canada House standings[edit]

I'd like to continue the discussion of Template talk:Canada House standings. I still think the current format can be improved upon and believe we can work together to do so. - Montréalais (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have responded to you on the talk page. Thanks so much! - Montréalais (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove "redundant" information[edit]

It was not redundant or requiring clean up. Explain to me why such a sourced addition is required? The information I added is perfectly fine. The Valley line will is a certain thing to me, and to many Edmontonians. The Metro line information is certain due to the fact it has been built. What is wrong with an addition with sources and that is relevant. Gingeroscar (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you're not being specific, I'll try to list everything.
  • "A new 8 km route, of which 3.3 km is new" – unreferenced, reverted
  • "The Valley Line phase one, a 13 km line running from Mill Woods Town Centre, to Downtown, is currently in procurement and is scheduled to open in Q4 2020." – excessive detail, not lead worthy
  • "The maintenance, operations and storage of vehicles and the Valley line will be controlled from the new Gerry Wright OMF located at Whitemud Drive and 75 St." – irrelevant to network, moved to Valley Line section
  • "Between Health Sciences/Jubilee Station and Churchill Station, inclusive, frequency will be doubled as a result of the Metro Line." – technical wording, rewrote
  • "Testing and Commissioning" – as per Hwy43's previous edit summary, that is part of construction, let's not explain every step of construction
  • "Three stations will open in December 2014" – unreferenced, rewrote
  • "12 Stations will be build as a result of the Valley Line, with a further 30 stations are approved, but not funded." – bad wording, rewrote
  • "The Metro Line will operate three–car trains until the permanent NAIT station will be build, as the temporary NAIT Station is only being built to accommodate three–cars." – bad wording, rewrote
  • "Lines not directly connected to the Capital or Metro lines, or their extensions, like the Valley Line will use new low–floor cars." – bad wording, reverted
  • "In 2014, a woman was fighting with another person inside an LRT car. Both were issued 500$ fines" – not as serious, and probably more common, than the other incidents listed, reverted
  • "Children under and including age five ride free when accompanied by a fare–paying adult." – technical wording, rewrote
  • "Passengers can also purchase books of transit tickets ... or monthly transit passes. Seniors can purchase an annual transit pass for ..." – excessive detail, found on Edmonton Transit System, reverted
  • "at the time the fare is paid if requested" – technical wording, reverted
  • "TVMs" – unexplained acronym
  • "Capital Line expansion" section placement – order of lines has always been Capital, Metro, Valley, returned to original location
  • "Capital Line expansion" section addition – duplication of information on Capital Line, removed, we split the article in order to avoid excessive detail on the main article.

Does this answer your questions? 117Avenue (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SmoshGames.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:SmoshGames.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@117Avenue, Stefan2: I saw this tagging and the image vandalism at Smosh Games. I've cleaned up the latter and, since the image is again in use, removed the tag from the image's page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

NWT Premiers[edit]

It not worth reverting those over and over again. I've semi-protected the three of them for 3 months. If they hit any others let me know and I'll do the same there. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy knows how to change IPs, and edit inconsistently, but not to talk to users. 117Avenue (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Brad Wall[edit]

If you're going to claim that "Premier of Saskatchewan Brad Wall invited Turks and Caicos to be part of Saskatchewan", then you'd better have a source that make that claim, not a couple of sources that reprint an obviously sarcastic tweet. As a Canadian, the humour should not have gone over your head. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it was sarcastic or not, that's what he said. To imply something different than what the source says is original research. 117Avenue (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You're unbelievable. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to include statements clearly made in humour, then the fact that it was meant humourously needs do be explained. Otherwise, we are implying something different than what the source says. Resolute 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Does the source say it is humorous? 117Avenue (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Do the sources characterize it as a formal invitation? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"Formal"? No. It just says an invitation, just like what I had wrote on the article. 117Avenue (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Stripped of all context, it is presented as a formal offer. A gross distortion of what the sources say. What are you trying to accomplish with this? I don't believe for a second that you actually think it was a serious offer. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Pretty obviously given Wall's suggestion of naming the province "Saskatchewarm". If we're going to pretend that this was anything but humourous, then my view switches to a solid oppose of any inclusion. Resolute 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)