User talk:117Avenue

Archives

Template:Quebec general election, 2012

Hi. Could you explain the reason for your revert? The info I've added comes directly from the DGEQ (2012 results & 2008 results). Thanks. ABJIKLAMǁTǁC 03:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't it add up? Could you also please add the reference? I know I reverted to an equally unreferenced version. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it looks like you spotted a serious mistake on the results webpage of the Chief electoral officer. I had to do the addition to believe it. I'm surprised that they let something like that happen. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. Maybe the mistake will eventually be corrected. I guess the best think to do now is to keep our own calculated total. ABJIKLAMǁTǁC 17:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BC Election 2013

I put up a candidate template to help keep track and then it was removed. I'm not sure how to undo it but the sources are here: http://bc2013.com/ (tracking independent news stories on candidates), http://www.bcliberals.com/ (BC Liberal candidates announced), http://www.greenparty.bc.ca/ (BC Green candidates announced + announcement on not running in Delta South + Cariboo South), http://www.bcconservative.ca/ (BC Conservative candidates announced + announcement on not running in Delta South). Hope that helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.221.178 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are there nominated candidates already? Is the election not expected for another seven months? 117Avenue (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

provincial premiers

If you're determined to delete Premier of X from all the provincial premiers (past & current) articles' succession boxes? then you should first bring your proposal to the appropiate WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could remember the edits and users that convinced me that the succession boxes, and the navboxes do the same thing. You seem to be determined to fill the bottoms of articles with trivial templates and boxes, to repeat content, and list every little fact about politicians. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete from the succession boxes, then you should be consistent with all of them. This would include deleting deputy premiers & provinical cabinet posts. Then you'd need to do similar editrs for the prime ministers. The 3-peat (as we'll call it) is nearly in all the prime ministers & premiers articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those aren't needed either, Ed Stelmach seems to be fine without them. 117Avenue (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the WikiProject members agree with you deletion proposal, that'll be fine with me. I'm more interested in consistancy across all the prime ministers & premiers articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop deleting succession boxes. The infobox serves the purpose of summarising the article, serving the purpose of answering the question "So what did this guy do?" The succession boxes serve a purpose more like the other navboxes at the bottom of the article: to link to related articles. They do so in a way that lets people navigate from the first holder of an office to the last (or vice versa). This can be extremely helpful when making a series of edits to articles about holders of a given office. Having the consistency of including succession boxes for holders of an office is especially important because not all holders of a particular office will necessarily have infoboxes. If the problem, as it is often argued, is the accumulation of crap at the bottom of the article, the answer is obvious: put the succession boxes in a collapsible box entitled "Succession boxes". It's hard to see how repetition of non-prose elements hurts anything, especially when those elements are usually not visible at the same time. I think categories are basically pretty pointless, but apparently other people find them useful, so I wouldn't even think to delete them. -Rrius (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the succession boxes are no more useful than navboxes? 117Avenue (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Just wondering if you can clarify if the most recent photo of a politician available on wikipedia, or anybody for that matter, is suppose to be the one used in the infobox? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? I often see disagreement to my opinion on this. I believe that the best photo available, taken during the person's career, should be used. Most people don't realize that Wikipedia is forever, i.e. the articles will exist after the person's death, and think the photo should be kept up to date. Why not act now, and chose the best available, and keep it in the infobox? I don't mind having File:Alison Redford 2012.jpg on the top of her article, but I believe lists should have professional photos, and File:Alison Redford in 2008.jpg is used on those pages. I believe that File:Raj Sherman cropped.jpg isn't a good image, and File:Raj Sherman in 2008.jpg should be on top instead, disregarding the party strips depicted in the images. I could probably give you the story of every image change I have agreed or disagreed with, but I don't think you should look up to me here, when so many have led to fights. 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figured your know because you are often updating politicians pages, I didn't know so many have led to fights. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to make me sound like a bad person, but I like to be honest. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana.

Extended content

When I moved "List of Hannah Montana songs" to the above title you reverted my with the edit, " (117Avenue moved page List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana to List of Hannah Montana songs over redirect: revert, it refers to the TV show, not the artist)." I made a mistake and concurring with your page move. Now you seem hell bent on making the same mistake as I did originally. It would be nice if you could at least agree with yourself. I am reverting again, as you said above, and I said in my last edit, Hannah Montana is NOT a recording artist but a TV show. It does not belong in the category you are intent on placing it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review my edit summaries:

1, I reverted your page move because the title "List of Hannah Montana songs" primarily refers to Hannah Montana, the TV series. 2, a subsequent edit that clarified that the article is both a list of songs used in the series, and songs sung by the artist, primarily the former and secondary the latter. If you would go through the list you would see that most songs fall in both criteria (3 & 4 indicate that you hadn't), but there are some songs that only meet one criteria. The article is therefore a merger of List of Hannah Montana songs and List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana (4 is admittedly a joke about this fact), however, one article can only have one title. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category outlines this situation exactly, and has a solution for this, place the redirect title in the category for which the target article complies, but its title does not. 5, notifying you of this guideline, and how you were somewhat correct in the original article move. 6, have you done this yet? Because you have not provided a good reason to violate the guideline, I will be reverting your edit again. I also ask that you would stop harassing me, and making edits without much explanation, because this is about a child's show please don't assume that I am a child, or that my edits are without merit. I especially did not like the speedy deletion that did not meet the criteria of WP:CSD#G7. You are a good editor, I hope that you can continue editing. 117Avenue (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AS per your edit. Hannah Montana is not a recording artist. Hannah Montana is TV series and a character from that series. The main article refers to ANY song sung in the TV series, therefore would not be listed under Category:List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana. This is not the best of both worlds it is a misconception. Also the main article actually refers to songs song in the TV series, not solely Hannah Montana. There is nothing to support you here. Move on. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana is a recording artist, she is credited as an artist on the listed albums, just like Mark Twain and Dr. Suess are authors, and have their own lists of works (Mark Twain bibliography, Dr. Seuss bibliography). Can you not see a list of songs recorded by Hannah Montana by going to List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana? Then it should be included in the category for lists of songs by recording artists. If the article solely listed songs from the series it would not list "You and Me Together", "You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home", "The Good Life", "Spotlight", "What's Not To Like", "Just a Girl", and "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree". Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner contains content about the Road Runner, but that doesn't prevent Wile E. Coyote from inclusion in the Category:Fictional coyotes. You still have not provided a good reason to violate WP:RCAT. 117Avenue (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the lead to List of Hannah Montana songs which does not agree with you. This issue would not have arisen if I hadn't made the original mistake. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying "sung by" is different than "recorded by"? If so, you can see that the albums, listed in the article, contains tracks recorded by the artist. 117Avenue (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category name is Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. Everywhere I check it clearly states (on song articles as well) Miley Cyrus, performing as Hannah Montana – the alter ego of Miley Stewart or similar. The target page says specifically songs sung in the TV series. Cyrus does the singing and has has the recording contract. If there was a list of songs recorded by Cyrus that included songs sung as Montana/Stewart I would welcome that into the target category. There isn't so there is nothing, at the moment, to go in that category, whether a redirect or other. There is a difference between fictional and real people, same reason that Donald Duck is not in Category:Ducks --Richhoncho (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hannah Montana you see in the TV series is fictional. But I still disagree with you, Hannah Montana is a recording artist. She has produced recordings and albums, fictional characters don't get credited as an artist by sources like Amazon, Billboard, or iTunes. The name on the recording contract is irrelevant, because stage names can have discographies and lists of recordings. By that standard you can't have many of the articles listed in the category. (By the way Donald Duck is in Category:Ducks.) 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Donald is listed under fictional ducks - he's not real, nor is Montana! It's a TV show! The main article says, quite clearly songs from the show, which are primarily, but not exclusively, Cyrus/Montana,Stewart. The links you gave above all clearly state Cyrus as Montana.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they do not, the albums credit Hannah Montana as the recording artist. And I still find it ridiculous that the page cannot be in the category. She has put out albums, gone on stage, and is no more fictional than any other stage name. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blow me, Hannah Montana, recording artist, doesn't even have a WP page. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

There is no article for the character “Hannah Montana”
The main article List of Hannah Montana songs relates to the TV series – not the character – and includes songs by other characters. You have continually refused to address this point.
Hanna Montana is a fictional character, NOT a stage name. As is Snow White...
Category:Lists of songs by recording artists contains real artists, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles.
If there was a Category:Lists of songs recorded by fictional recording artists then it might belong there (subject to point 2 above!)
If there was a List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus then there is a reasonable argument that List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana should redirect to that page. and the main article should be in Category:Lists of songs by recording artists
I deleted List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana as author. You recreated. Yet you quite rightly reverted my move from List of Hannah Montana songs to List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana – your position is now to support my incorrect move.
WP:RCAT is not applicable for all the reasons argued above – including some of your own arguments.
The external links you are supplied support my view of the matter.
When I re-added to back to Category:Lists of songs, where main article was before I became involved, you reverted me. This is pointy. It should be in Lists of songs until somebody creates Category:Lists of songs by TV series or similar.

In conclusion, you have not substantiated your position to include the main article, whether by direct or otherwise within Category:Lists of songs by recording artists because it is misleading, inaccurate and facetious. By all means tag the redirect as requiring input from other editors, if you so wish. Unless you do I will continue to remove Category:Lists of songs by recording artists for all the reasons stated above.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1, Like I keep telling you, Hannah Montana is a legitimate stage name, not a character, she has been credited as a recording artist for songs, albums, and tours. 2, I have addressed this point above, the list also includes all songs recorded by Hannah Montana, and thus the redirect is correct, and can be categorized in accordance with the cited policy. 3, I don't understand your example, yes I know when I watch a movie I am watching a character, did that soundtrack credit a fictional character? 4 & 5, Hannah Montana is a real artist, she has recorded songs, performed live, at the beginning she was more famous than Destiny/Miley Cyrus, and is as real as any of the stage names listed in the category. 6, That article would have more songs that don't meet the criteria of the redirect than the current article. 7a, with my revert of your move, I created the first redirect (log), with the addition of the category I made a second edit, thus I was substantial author according to WP:CSD#G7, and you could not request deletion. 7b, You moved the page because you wanted all the articles in the category to have the correct name, I support you in this, you then changed your mind about what qualifies as a recording artist. 8, RCAT is of course applicable, if you believe Hannah Montana is a recording artist. I was educating you on it because I thought you were talking about Hannah Montana the TV series, you then clarified yourself, and explained you don't believe she is a recording artist. 9, how? I see Hannah Montana credited as a recording artist. 10, yes, I needed to revert you for you to explain your actions, that pages in the category have a naming convention. It looks like we have run out of reasons, you have no argument that she is not a recording artist, and I have no argument that she is a recording artist. Can I trust that you will obey WP:STATUSQUO, and leave the page in the category, until the matter is closed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only quote from one of the links YOU supplied (Amazon), Hannah Montana is a fictional character in a Disney Channel show of the same name. Having supplied that I still can't understand how you can call her "real!" There is a real difference between performer and performance. I am happy with the statusquo as before it was before I made my silly mistake. I am also happy that you have listed for RfD. Further comments will be made in the appropriate place and not here. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you are happy to revert to before your mistake? 117Avenue (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. T. Canens (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I violated no policy. A blockable edit war is where one edits a page more than three times in a 24 hour period, this was my first edit in six days. I also cited the policy that I was enforcing, and the consensus to make such an edit. You can find this above in the edits from 02:20, 3 October 2012 to 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC). As Timotheus Canens' notice states "during a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus", this is referring to the WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO guidelines. There is suggests that a page remains in its original state (in this case my first edit, or the target article being in the controversial category), while the proposed change (in this case being removed from the category) is being discussed, (an action User:Richhoncho did not start to explain until being reverted several times). Furthermore, the standard block for an edit war is 24 hours, a 3 day block is uncalled for, considering I received no warning. 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstand our edit-warring policy. See WP:EW where it say "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made it pretty clear that I would have blocked you if the edit war had not stopped at the time of my writing, and you most certainly have seen it because you replied to it. And then? You went back and edit warred some more. Ergo, you get blocked. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sustain that the edit was not to perpetuate an edit war, and that I was performing the edit that Richhoncho had agreed to above. 117Avenue (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is in the state it is, because I conceded to Richhoncho, and did not want to violate the 3RR. Why am I being blocked for believing in BRD and STATUSQUO? An edit war should not have to take place for the proposer to begin a discussion about the proposed changes. Richhoncho made all the same edits to this page, as well as violating these two guidelines. Why was he not blocked as well? Why was he allowed to revert me, claiming that I had made the proposal, when in reality I am trying to preserve the original state? Why, Timotheus Canens and Boing! said Zebedee, did you not address the fact that with this block you are violating these guidelines? 117Avenue (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither STATUSQUO nor BRD (and both are essays and not guidelines) mean what you seem to think they mean. STATUSQUO means that you are to leave the article in the state you find it (which is the "status quo" - "the current or existing state of affairs") until the discussion concludes. (You seem to be confusing the status quo and the status quo ante. They mean very different things.)

BRD means the same; you can be bold, but once you are reverted, you should stop and discuss; no more reverts. It does not matter whether someone else was also edit warring, whether they followed BRD or not; if you edit war you may get blocked. If someone else fails to follow BRD, don't revert them. Otherwise all you get is an edit war where both sides chant "but they didn't follow BRD!".

Finally, reverts during an ongoing discussion is extremely disfavored. Instigating a revert war while an RFC on the issue is ongoing is one sure way of getting yourself blocked, unless there's a BLP or copyright violation.

I gave Richhoncho a warning because their block log is clean and they haven't been previously warned. You got 72 hours because you have been blocked for edit warring before and you had notice that this is blockable at DRV. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Episode list/sublist

I was just wondering, do you understand the purpose of MainList in Template:Episode list/sublist? You mentioned it here but didn't elaborate and I can't really see the point of it. -- AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old piece of code that cannot be removed because it is being used on a lot of pages. It is not explained in the documentation because {{{1|}}} does exactly the same thing, and is shorter to use. The MainList parameter is the title of the article where the transcluded table is, and it is necessary to hide the summary. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thanks. -- AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greens in Alberta

Given your past participation in discussions at Talk:Alberta Greens, your thoughts on the discussion at Talk:Evergreen Party of Alberta#Requested move would be welcome. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Canadian election result template

I've created Template:CANelec to act as Template:Canadian election result, except with jurisdiction as the first parameter. Observe:

2012 Example election
Party	Candidate	Votes
	Bloc Québécois	John	123
	Liberal	Brian	123
	New Democratic	Kim	123
	Coalition Avenir Québec	Jean	123
	Progressive Conservative	Paul	123
	Conservative	Stephen	123

If you have any proposed changes, let me know. I'll ask a bot to start switching to the new template in a few days. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's working as far as I can tell, unfortunately I don't have time to go over everything. 117Avenue (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFA edit

Hello 117Avenue, I did not add any sources because Percival Baker is my great grandfather. That is why I am so interested in him. I edited this article on the UFA because he played a role in the UFA and Alberta. No textbooks mention him, nor do any web articles except a Wikipedia stub. That is the only way anyone outside of my family can learn a little about him. If he did not die, he would of been Alberta's 5th premier. I am sorry I did not add any sources. It is just I did not think I would need to because My family knows so much about him already. I hope you will add it soon, or at least let me add it. Thank you!

Matthew Boonstra

Sources: Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that he would have become premier, there should be a reference to his death. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He only won majority 3 HOURS before DEATH. He was CRUSHED by a TREE. His SUCCESSOR became PREMIER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I re add it or please can you re add it. What do I need to do? I did not research on the web so what sources do I add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you yell, and make unfounded speculations, it makes me not want to help you. But, as it turns out, Percival Baker has an article, and there there is a reference to an Edmonton Journal article that was issued the next day. It confirms that he won the Ponoka seat, was the UFA Vice-President, and died 24 hours after his victory was announced. The Journal also speculates that he would have had a place in the UFA cabinet. It does not, however, speculate that he would become Premier. The absence of speculation is one of Wikipedia's policies, and I will not tolerate it. I hope you could imagine what would happen if unverifiable statements, and "facts", were allowed to run wide, without checks. Thank-you for understanding. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I came on here, I created a account to help spread the word about my great grandpa. But since I can;t because I apparently do not know enough about him, please tell me how to cancel my account. Right now, I am really ticked off and want nothing to do with this website. Please help me with this one thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know about your ancestors, just like I know about my ancestors. But what if someone else came along, claiming to know more than you, and wanted to change all the facts? You would not be very happy, and bystanders would not know who to believe. This is why we try our best to be verifiable, and credible. I hope you stay and learn more about useful contributions. Unfortunately an account cannot be deleted, as all edits must be attributed to a user. By creating an account you have access to many benefits, including hiding your traceable IP address. 117Avenue (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. I am sorry. I will stay and I hope that you can forgive me. It is just I am always a little mad talking about Percival because there are little to know ways to learn about him, no matter how many contributions he made to the UFA. And I can't tell what people mean on the web sometimes. So when someone corrects me, or adds on and uses quotes like "facts", I just got defensive about him. I am proud of him and I hate to think about how far he could of went in the party. His successor was premier, governor general, etc. and I just hate to think that all that could of been his, had he not have been killed. I hope that you will forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrocks13 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parti Québécois

Hello, 117Avenue. You have new messages at Talk:Parti Québécois#Odd and redundant use of the definite article "The".
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Undid My Revision on Smosh

Smosh is a name because it is the name of a website, a Youtube channel, and a group. Just like Google is the name of Company and search engine. And Wikipedia is the name of this website.Android4.0 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how we write encyclopedia articles. Google Inc. is an American corporation, Wikipedia is a free Internet encyclopedia. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about writing a lead section at MOS:LEAD. There it suggests that the first sentence defines the term. 117Avenue (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation

I would like to thank you for correcting my edit. I don't know how I overlooked that, but I definitely didn't think of all the other Degrassi shows made in the franchise when I read about the 400th episode note in the S12 episode. I've been overlooking things lately and it's rather making me feel dumb. - Jabrona - 18:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But I must also revert your most recent edit to that page. Degrassi uses an ensemble cast, so it is not unusual that a cast member disappears for several episodes at a time. As a result we use the opening credits as a source for who has "star billing", this is explained at the beginning of the cast section. Just because an actor hasn't appeared in a few episodes, does not mean that he has left, that is why I wrote half of the season, to follow the credits. Your edits to the commentary on Van Wyck are also original research, and have been reverted. We will not know if he is missing from the twelfth season until the last episode has aired. And I haven't scoured all the information everywhere to see that no explanation has been given for his disappearance, have you? 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just went back and looked at the credits, he actually was taken out after the 14th episode. 117Avenue (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, K.C. Guthrie has left the show. As for Spencer Van Wyck, he's also left the show. That should be obvious by this point. He was a recurring character in Season 9 and credited in Seasons 10-11, but he's no longer part of the cast by Season 12 nor is his character seen anymore. His character was last seen in a storyline in S11 before the summer finale trying to impress some girl by taking her out for a joy ride in his father's car. That was it, so we never seen or heard from him again throughout the 2012 episodes of S11 or S12. I watched all the episodes so I know for certain and people have even asked about the character. The actor also has a Youtube channel and I've heard about a video he made confirming his leave. He's definitely gone. - Jabrona - 23:20, 15 October 2012

Flag of Western Canada citation

OK, what kind of citation are you looking for? Citation of the date it was released as a flag, a press release form the party announcing its new flag? Something else? I can provide, just let me know what specifically you had in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarleyKing (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was referenced. The date, the existence of an organization that uses it, the line representation, the Big Dipper representation. You were also incorrect in the number of stars in the Big Dipper, and that Polaris is on it, Alkaid is the one with four points. 117Avenue (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous vandal 72.89.157.59

You reverted his/her edits here and left a warning on his/her talk page. The user made numerous bad faith edits in a number of articles. I filed a report on the vandalism page and an administrator has banned the user for 72 hours.

This same editor also made the following relevant edit here.

Please verify if the comma placement is indeed correct. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Like everything on that page, it's unreferenced. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon PC Party

The sources are http://yukonparty.ca/?page_id=89 and http://yukonparty.ca/?page_id=93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.1 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, although the Yukon Party forms the government, they are not an official source for the dates of the premierships. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't if it's an official source but, in the absence of an official source, is it a reliable source? Mountain Herb (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't follow. Neither of the links the IP has provided mention the dates for any premier's term dates. 117Avenue (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Landing Solar Community

Hello, could you please expand on the reasons for your 'revert' on the Drake Landing Solar Community Page? My partner and I are from Mount Allison University and as part of a class project are enhancing this article. We do realize we had left some headlines without information and as we are new to Wikipedia we are learning to do it properly. From now on we will update this article in one edit to ensure all the information is coherent and put up at the same time. Just wondering if that was the reason for your revert or what we can do better on next time to ensure we are enhancing the article to the best of our abilities. Thank you. Caboothby (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)caboothby[reply]