User talk:117Avenue

Alberta Highway 216

Thanks for adding the colours for the unopened interchanges. I was planning to continue today with that as I had a long day at Folk Fest yesterday and called it a night. Hwy43 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 201 needs similar attention if you feel inclined. My FF commitments may prevent me from getting to it until the work week. Hwy43 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have much time for Wikipedia any more, there are many highway articles I would like to clean up. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nycole Turmel

There's sources saying she's 68 as well, including the Globe and Mail, Reuters, Winnipeg Free Press...: [1] Connormah (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we list both. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why her former political affiliations aren't listed in the infobox, like they are for other politicians? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I've only been monitoring the page for vandalism, I haven't really wrote for the article. 117Avenue (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it odd, but thought it may have had to do with vandalism. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Could have been lost in a flurry of edits, the birth place was recently. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is there any source saying she was born in 1942? PARLINFO says 1943, and the supposed sources for Sept 1, 1942, only say she is 68. They may know for a fact that her birthday was earlier in the year or they may just be subtracting 1943 from 2011. The CBC saying she was 67 as of Jul 30 could mean they actually know her birthday had not passed as of that date, it could mean they looked at file information from the election earlier this year saying she was 67 and carried it forward, or it could mean they did their sums wrong. In any event, there is no evidence whatever for the proposition she was born on Sept 1, 1942. The only affirmative statement of her birthdate is PARLINFO, and each of the other sources can be reconciled with it. -Rrius (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun reference you removed says it, as well as the Edition Beauce source that Wilfred Day added. Saying that the CBC or The Globe and Mail is not a reliable source, or doesn't know how to do math, is quite a claim. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take those in turn. I admit I missed the date put a couple of spaces below the actual article in the Sun. Can't imagine how I missed that. There is no Edition Beauce source listed in the article. I never said the CBC is not a reliable source (you completely made that up) or that it did it math wrong. As to the latter, what I said was that it was one of three options that could reconcile its use of 67 with a birth year of 1943. I never commented on the Globe and Mail at all; I merely removed it because it was being used to support a proposition that it doesn't actually support. As a result, I've once again removed it as a supporting ref for the September 1, 1942 claim. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine PARLINFO should be updated at a later date to show a complete birthdate, listing both seems okay for now. Connormah (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has gone beyond a couple of comments, I'm moving it to the article's talk. 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Dunderdale

I don't know if you have any recommendations but I've been planning on expanding the Kathy Dunderdale article but I'm unsure what information could be added. I mentioned this in the article's talk page a few weeks ago but never got any responses, I thought you may have some ideas? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to be, I'm not a professional article writer. I just look at facts and stats to manage articles, that's why I enjoy highways and elections, their just numbers. 117Avenue (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2011

I was looking for your thoughts on this article. A user has added numbers to each district, they've numbered them in alphabetical order even though the districts are broken up into regions. Their reasoning is that "Elections N&L uses these numbers in some of their data tables that list the districts in alphabetic order. I find it helpful to have the district numbers when I'm referencing these tables." I wasn't sure if numbering like this should remain or if the numbers should be deleted to be consistent with other election articles. Thoughts? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He did the same thing to Manitoba, it was reverted because it isn't done anywhere else. 117Avenue (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It just made the whole thing a mess. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Acting or not

I didn't think it appropriate to bring this up at Talk:Jack Layton, so I'll just mention it here: That source I pointed to in my edit summary states: "If the leader of the party designated as the Official Opposition holds a seat as a Member of the House, he or she automatically becomes Leader of the Opposition. If that party leader does not have a seat in the House, the caucus of the Official Opposition may designate another of its members to act as Opposition Leader." Since Turmel was chosen by the NDP caucus (unanimously), and Layton no longer holds a seat in the Commons, that makes Turmel the Leader of the Opposition.

I raised this at Talk:Canada a few days ago. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This source lists people who were interim leaders of their party, as acting Leaders of the Opposition, we just won't know how Parliament sees her until the page is updated. 117Avenue (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I found that list extremely confusing; after trying to research those who're listed as acting, I couldn't find enough information to clarify why they're listed as such. Regardless, I see that Turmel isn't on there at all. Though I'd say the parliamentary procedure manual does tell us how parliament sees her, if we're to ignore it and go only by your link, which tells us nothing about Turmel, why did you restore "acting" beside her name in the Layton article infobox? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise with you, I would have said the position is vacant. 117Avenue (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, that might be acceptable. However, I see this same matter popping up on a number of talk pages now. Should this go somewhere more central to be hashed out; WP:CANADA? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaders in the federal infobox

I thought this issue was dealt with some time ago. What gives? -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's four years away! There's no way to predict the state of the country at the next election. A week ago you would have said Layton would be the leader of the NDP. 117Avenue (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That really doesn't make a difference. A leader could as easily die days before the writ drops as years. In any event, that is the way it is done universally around the project. -Rrius (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam DeVita

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam DeVita Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yukon general election, 2011

The green party was already in the template, I just adjusted it so that they actually showed up. Plus the Ontario article on the 2011 election includes the GPO. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, I put it there in the event that they won a seat. 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yukon has a better chance of winning due to the few votes required to change a riding. If they don't win, we can remove them. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why I put it in there, so that it would be done correctly, yet you still managed to screw it up. 117Avenue (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. LadyofShalott 03:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

All my edits have been with an edit summary, and with consensus. Me-123567-Me has made several edits without explaining his edits, and has failed to provide a valid rational behind his proposed edits. 117Avenue (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But you concede that Me's edits were not blatant vandalism, correct? Which means, by definition, you and he were both participating in an edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If he makes them without explanation it's vandalism. 117Avenue (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, or we'd be blocking a lot more people. Perhaps you mean it's disruptive; however we should look at the edits ourselves and see what we think he was trying to do. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what I did wrong, and block worthy. I replied to every question, I provided my rational, I asked for the other party to explain themselves, it seems that Me-123567-Me is the one who refused to talk, and tried to make changes before getting any sort of agreement. 117Avenue (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You edit warred. The policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you provide edit summaries and you think someone else who is also edit warring is doing things more blameworthy than you". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to what I was to do. Was I just to roll over, and left him make the addition without any explanation? It's vandalism, he's pushing his political agenda. 117Avenue (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is disruption, but not all disruption is vandalism. If you think he's pushing an agenda for a party he's an official of, you could've reported it to the conflict of interest noticeboard. You could have sought dispute resolution. You could've put a message on a talk page for the Canada or Governments of Canada WikiProjects and sought assistance from a wider range of editors. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have any reason to believe that he is an official of a party, but he is a strong supporter of the Green Party.

I am still upset that I explained myself at every chance, when Me-123567-Me had the option to talk about the changes he wanted to make, never explained why the Green Party should be included in the infobox, and twice did so without anything in the edit summary. But fretting about the past won't get the issue settled. Once my block had expired I intended to ask, on the article's talk, why he believes it should be included. I see now that you have added a lengthy piece to respond to, and stir up conversation, I hope to respond in full later today.

I can't believe how fast it escalated, I never got the chance to hear why Me-123567-Me's believes the Green Party should be included, and then explain with what Me-123567-Me wants to hear.

So for future reference, I see an edit that is against what I believe to be an accepted rule, I revert explaining why, the user repeats without explanation, and I leave it and ask for help elsewhere?

I want to further emphasize that I do not want to edit war, and that I always want to hear other user's opinions and rational. 117Avenue (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessments

I removed the assessments from Jack Harris (politician) and Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, May 2011 so they could be re-assessed because both are not stubs but you undid that for some reason. Why? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Then change them to start class, why move it from categorized to uncategorized? 117Avenue (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure of their class. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello 117Avenue! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedia user! SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason, it's simply an amicable greeting and hope that it makes someone's day a little better. :) SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Electoral Districts

I don't know if you're the right person to ask but you're usually pretty knowledgeable on this stuff. I was reading through Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada to fix up some of Newfoundland and Labrador's electoral districts and noticed how much easier the election results template they suggest is to use. The template is for federal elections though and I was wondering if their was one for the provinces too, or if it would be hard to create? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I haven't poked my nose around that project. I guess no one has said that those templates are easier to use than writing a table. The provincial results that I have seen are all created there on the page, for example Ed Stelmach#As MLA, I suppose that way they can be customizable for the situation. But since the provincial parties are already treated the same way as the federal parties, it shouldn't be hard to create a set for the provinces and territory. 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing for a while as well, Newfoundlander&Labradorian. I put it down as one of the projects on that WikiProject, but have not heard any replies. I don't know how easy it is to make a Compact Election Template, like the ones used for federal ridings, but it looks like the creators were User:Ground Zero and/or User:Earl Andrew, who are both long-time Canadian politics editors here. If you guys figure out how to do it, and need help, I'll help out. Thanks for your edits. Bkissin (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I like writing templates, but I need to pace my politics topic editing. 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't understand their reasoning behind your block. This minor party issue has been a pain for years now. Bkissin (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador's PC Party has a different colour then other parties so that's why I couldn't use the one for the federal election, Ontario also uses the same template. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That should be fine. We'll just have to create a Row for the political parties in question that would correspond to the prospective template. Bkissin (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Emotions

See the message on my talk page. I am not here to tell you that their complaint has merit, but since I suggested to them that it would be good to lay low, I would like to suggest to you to disengage from User:Me-123567-Me a bit--not necessarily from the Yukon GE article, but nominating one of their articles for deletion is needlessly stirring the pot. You are not the only editor here and others will nominate what they think should be deleted. No one benefits from a fight (as you saw, recently). I appreciate your work, but not antagonizing too much, even if you're right, that's just good politics. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make an attack on the user, or perpetuate the war. I just wanted the notability to be discussed in the proper forum, and the only way for that to happen is have someone start an AFD. 117Avenue (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So Random!

Regarding this edit summary, "tomato" isn't an assumed spelling. As I indicated in a prior edit summary,[2] made as the result of this change, it's the spelling that Disney used in its press release.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You and your press releases. Why can't you just say what actually happens on the show? 117Avenue (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My point was that "tomato" wasn't assumed. It was verifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

But unreferenced. "Tomatow" is also verifiable. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Tomatow" wasn't referenced either. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on this article taken from the credits is referenced. 117Avenue (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lake Louise

Hi, you could have asked for a citation. This name I mentioned in the edit is the one displayed by the Parks Canada at the Lake Louise itself in one of their history/gep description boards. You could have asked for citation instead of undoing edits. 99.225.175.69 (talk)