User talk:117Avenue

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)

Could you clarify it a little bit. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I never liked variations, I wanted one standard, but decided not to fight it in June 2010. 117Avenue (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Would making green colours the default colour instead of blue a good idea? I been looking at the previous discussions on the talk page for the template and none of them mentioned about making green colours being the default one. Even though you oppose using green colours, it does not seem like you strongly oppose it (for example in one of the archived discussions, you stated that green colours is natural). Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"Majority"

Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edits to the pages on provincial legislative assemblies. I'm not sure how you get your numbers. Shouldn't the majority figure mean the seats the majority party has more than a majority? That is, if the seats needed for a majority is 15, and the party has 21 seats, then the majority is 7? I think that is the only relevant number to be included in these tables for "majority". -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Jwkozak seems to agree, he reverted your revert for the Sask Assembly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legislative_Assembly_of_Saskatchewan&curid=9013091&diff=558118504&oldid=558088649 -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen a definition for the "majority" row in those tables. But every table I have seen has been government seats minus opposition and independent seats. 117Avenue (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right, however. A majority is 50%+1. So it would make sense for the measure to be how much above this mark the majority party has. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's established convention, as you saw, on every Assembly article. If you'd like change bring it up for discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Alberta General Election

Apologies, I have only have just noticed your message. As far as I can tell, all I did was alter the %change column to a net seat change, as is standard in most other comparable pages as a % change column cannot usefully be totalled and is usually far more confusing to lay readers. If I did anything else, please let me know. If not, I humbly suggest that is little good reason to remove my edit. Though I was wrong about the totals, it should be 83, rather than 84.

O. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OskarAvery (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I've seen both, but with Alberta it's been % change. Seat number change isn't an accurate measure, when the total number of seats changes. 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted image of Smith

I wasn't the person who uploaded the file. It was User talk:Montueswed. Scold them.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You uploaded it to more articles. 117Avenue (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Justin Trudeau". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

CFB Edmonton

The sentence wasn't actually problematic as written. The raising of the flag is an annual event that begins every Pride celebration; the event just hasn't ever taken place on the base before, but at other locations in the city. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence did not make that clear. 117Avenue (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Smosh

You reverted my edits that made the Pokemon TMV and SmoshGames redirects once again. While I can agree that PTMV can fit comfortably in the Smosh article, I'm going to have to ask that SmoshGames be its own article. SmoshGames is notable enough to separate it from the Smosh article. Moreover, the SG channel is separate from the Smosh channel, and has been covered enough to garner its own article, in my opinion. Soulbust (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum

Paragraphs 5, 6, and 8 of what? The given source does not contain any Js anywhere. – Smyth\^talk 14:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I use Template:Lorem ipsum. But the article itself says there are multiple sources for Lorem Ipsum text, so I don't know how we can say any letters are excluded. 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be other sources mentioned below, but that section is clearly only talking about the Cicero source. It's not original research to say what that doesn't contain. And because the text is often used for testing purposes, the absence of certain letters is potentially important. – Smyth\^talk 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree if there was an official text, but there isn't. 117Avenue (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Then logically you should have removed the whole sentence, which is what I've just done. – Smyth\^talk 22:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is largely unreferenced. 117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Iggy

I had amended something that another very POV IPer had put in and then "softened" see here for the first edition of the attack edit, then follow the sequence as whoever it is adjusts it so it soft-pedals the same spin; such childishness.....such IPs are the ones "we" should be tracking somewhere....I'm trying to stay away from political articles but have some still watchlisted; I'm not a Liberal but Ignatieff is so highly regarded internationally and in the UK it's bizarre to see the putdowns that surface about him on the home turf....Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

An IP added unreferenced POV to a bio, I reverted it, he was warned. Don't get worked up by routine Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

worked up? Not about this, I'm just voluble and type fast and clarifying my position; this is a BLP issue, which is why I'd de-weaseled those edits, which you've since removed.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In case you are not aware, all courts in BC use the UK Coat of Arms as their symbol (it's a historical matter dating back to the 20s). The insertion of the CoA into the boxes were debated a long time ago and it is a settled matter.--Cahk (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea. I was going around cleaning up the vandalism of a user who had added other irrelevant government coat of arms to articles. Do you remember were the discussion was? 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Skookum1#Supreme Court of British Columbia for example.--Cahk (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I did see that, and I believe you, but why is there no reference of a discussion on the page's talk? 117Avenue (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't remember the details (this has to be years ago) ... might have ended up on an admin talk page because another editor and I went through the debate w/admin intervention.--Cahk (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey 117Avenue

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

re-posting my talk

Prove to me you didn't edit me in 14 seconds and are a real human being and/or an editor administrator. 24.141.16.221 (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)