User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2013.3

Stephen McNeil

Hi 117Avenue, I'm glad someone else has noticed what's going on in this article. I've been trying to keep it neutral, but there appears to be a number of newly registered accounts, only editing this article and only editing to paint the subject in a positive or negative pov. There was even another new account editing today, and another one who would like to turn the article into an NDP campaign ad. As for the business ownership, I actually found a CBC news profile from the 2009 election that clearly stated over 18 years,[1] but was shot down on the talk page in favour of search engine home page. That number corresponded would what was found in the subjects official bio,[2] so I would think that the CBC article would be more sourcible than a search engine home page and what an editor heard on television. I know I don't have to ask, but if you could keep an eye on this and some other articles related to the not-yet called election, it would be a great help. I expect with the election on the horizon, the "campaigning" will pick up speed. Cmr08 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I saved, I noticed the talk page edit you made. It never crossed my mind to do that, thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that template really does anything, but it's there. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Valley line

Why do you have to mess with any new pages that I create? Does it really bother you that much to have one extra line? And if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useddenim (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Like any editor I come across that hasn't edited according to Wikipedia policy and MOS, I look into their other edits for articles that may require cleanup. I know that sounds bad, but I am trying to improve Wikipedia, like everyone else. MOS:DAB states "do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name". Are all the entries at Valley line referred to as valley line? If not, that page has more than one extra line. If so, a reader will look for what else he or she knows about the valley line they are looking for, like: "Is it a commuter?", "Does it serve south London?", "Is it in Mole Valley?" I don't think that these search terms need to be in alphabetical order to fulfil the requirements of a disambiguation page. Readers can scan the page and see a "Mole Valley Line", and be directed to the article they are looking for. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So how would you order them? By date? or length? Alphabetical seemed the most obvious to me, and does meet the DAB criterion of “Organize the page so it's easy to use”. Useddenim (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I meant that we don't list search terms (like "commuter train", "south London", or "Mole Valley"), we list articles. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nova Scotia election

Hi 117Avenue, if you happen to notice I reverted your edit adding official website to Nova Scotia general election, 2013, it was only a mistake. I was attempting to add a candidates name and thought I avoided the edit conflict warning on my screen, but when I checked history, I seen what happened but it's now fixed. I was actually about to add the same external link myself. Sorry. Cmr08 (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Completely understandable on a highly edited article, however I question this edit on Stephen McNeil. Are you aware that you can revert edits by multiple users by clicking "cur" next to the time stamp of the good revision on the history page, then "undo" next to the time stamp of the latest revision? 117Avenue (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know I can revert multiple edits but missed the other one all-together. It was not my intent to put that edit back in the article, as soon as I seen what happened, I got rid of it right away. Check the history, I've removed the same nonsense comments numerous times from the article, this was just a mistake. Cmr08 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1250 René-Lévesque height

Hi 117Avenue, why did you revert my edit in the tallest buildings in Canada about the 1250 René-Lévesque skyscraper? On skyscraperpage.com, the building's spire is shown at 230,4 meters high. http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=22 Mtlfiredude (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you edited the CTBUH column, which gives a height of 226.5 m. 117Avenue (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Churchill LRT Station

The script coding as it had appeared to me meant that two route maps would work, as I had seen two route maps on other transit systems. It confused me that it didn't so I cleaned up the mess so people could use the page normally until I figured out the problem on my sandbox Gingeroscar (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS LRT route already shows both routes, two route maps aren't needed. 117Avenue (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What you can do something to the page List of Mona the Vampire characters are always on Wikipedia

Hello, I wonder if you can do something about the page I am created List of Mona the Vampire characters. Do you think that you may become AussieLegend discuss, because he wanted to this page will be deleted.

One last question, when you put 2014 in Canada to redirect Category:2014 in Canada, what it will DNAS a month or two that the page exists.

Godinpédia (talk) 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry your grammar is horrible. Are you asking when 2014 in Canada should be created? When there is actually something to say about it. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Calgary municipal election, 2013

Hi 117Avenue, sorry for reverting your edit adding nickname to this article. I didn't notice it was you who added it, I just thought it was nonsense like the other stuff you reverted, and that it got re-added by mistake. Cmr08 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I know it looks like nonsense, I expected a few people to remove it when I first read it, but that's the name on the official list. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In related news, I'm actually amazed that the looney toon running for mayor has an article here. Just goes to show that crazy generates as much RS coverage as successful does. Resolute 13:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Premature mayoration

I notice one of the IPs has also edited some cities other than Edmonton … You seem to have been active in this area for a while: how long does this go on after elections? Do you think it’s worth posting at WP:RFPP? (When is the official inauguration or hand-over, anyway?)—Odysseus1479 05:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping they'll go to bed soon. 117Avenue (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Answering my own question, looks like official results are due Friday; the inaugural meeting is Tuesday week (Oct. 29).—Odysseus1479 05:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi 117Avenue. Would you do me a favour and peer review User:Hwy43/Sandbox/List of municipalities in Alberta before I transfer it to article space? The lists of urbans and rurals have yet to be transcluded from their main articles, and the Notes section will be populated once transcluded. After transferring, the intent is to nominate it as a featured list, similar to the recent successful nominations for the Ontario and Manitoba equivalents. Thanks in advance, Hwy43 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, no white space problem when in article space. I suspect the white space problem we are seeing is likely due to absence of a title in sandbox space.

BTW, the reason the TOC is placed to the right is two-fold: to avoid the L-shaped white space at the bottom of the lead to the right of the TOC that wraps under the map, and to have a viewable and clickable TOC at top of article without having to scroll down to see the TOC and then click (same done at the MB and ON FLs).

Thanks for looking at this. I will keep my hands off until you advise you are done with the peer review. Hwy43 (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some things will change when it is in the main space, and all the lists are added, I'll look over it again then. I don't have time to scrutinize every little thing, but I did give it a read through. Then I played with different browser sizes, and noticed the combination of tables and images creates bad space in some places on small windows, and in different places on large windows, there will never be a solution that works for everyone. Currently the default location for the TOC is under the lead, if you disagree, a larger discussion is required. I'm assuming it is because the lead is usually shorter than the infobox. In place of an infobox we have two images, and the height of the two images can be shorter or longer than the height of the lead plus the TOC depending on your browser, so I see no need to move the TOC from the default. A couple of other suggestions. Remove Gull Lake and Kapasiwin from the summer village section. 1993 isn't all that new, and places are moving away from summer village status, instead say White Gull is the latest to lose the designation. Saying the largest and smallest in area, for each status, may also be notable. 117Avenue (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and the feedback. I've either done what you've suggested above, or made what I assume are satisfactory alternative edits (eg, changing "newest" to "last" for certain statuses). I'm not convinced having the TOC on the right, next to the images, is a bad thing. As there was no concern voiced during the recent List of municipalities in Manitoba nomination, where the TOC was on the right except with the second map rather than the first map, I'm going to do the same for this article. Perhaps it wasn't of concern for MB as the TOC's floating location was generally in accordance with #5 at WP:TOC.

As you've seen, the article is now live and nominated as a FLC. As always, further feedback is welcome and edits are encouraged. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Calgary look like Dallas

Hello 117Avenue, I wrote that Calgary is the sister city to Dallas and you have deleted. I wrote it because at the beginning I had information and evidence, I was informed and I had some people give me reason for that. I mark it with everything on Wikipedia and there is nobody who erased. Calgary and Dallas are two cities where there was more Cowboys in their respective countries Canada and the United States. So please I ask you not to remove that Calgary is the sister city of Dallas. I have no user name on Wikipedia but my name is Maverick(November 10th, 2013)

So please don't delete that Dallas is sister city of Calgary. I wrote this everywhere and nobody deleted this. That's two cities where there was more Cowboys in their respective countries Canada and the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.139.19 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for this information? 117Avenue (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Willow Creek municipal office location

Where did you find confirmation of its location? I was having fits last night trying to confirm its location. The best I could do is find an address which I interpreted as being adjacent to Claresholm. Hwy43 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Right on their website, #273129 Secondary Highway 520. It looks like the reason the 129 number is so high, is because they keep counting while the highway runs along Range Road 274. Here it is on Google. 117Avenue (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I miscalculated RR 273 to be one mile further east (along the town boundary) due to the correction line while interpreting the MD's land ownership map. Hwy43 (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Calgary Pre-Election Polls

Hi 117Avenue, and thank you for your message. When I edited the page, I was using the numbers for decided voters in the prediction (without the undecided) to keep it consistent with the other polls that were cited in the article. It's not "wrong" information, but a different way to allocate responses. Source is Page 2 here: http://www.insightswest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ABMuni_Calgary_Tables.pdf 24.84.8.47 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that undecided, and not voting, should be mentioned, because it is an indication of how unreliable polls are, but others may not share this opinion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Banff Heliport

Why did you remove the categories? While the article is not about a heliport there is a certified heliport in the park. I added the category 2 years ago and just noticed that the article was missing from the Category:Heliports in Canada. In fact you edited the article several times since then without removing so why now? While most of that category is made up of hospitals there are a few similar to Banff such as Vancouver Film Studios, Sable Island and Casino du Lac-Leamy. It's not saying that the article is about a heliport but just that there is one. I could understand removing it if I was trying to put it into the lede. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing an institution in the category makes sense, since airports are institutions. But Banff National Park is a geographical area larger than a municipality. Would you add the categories to Edmonton or Cambridge Bay? WP:RCAT allows us to add categories to a redirect with a title more appropriate to the category. Sable Island I've also got to disagree with, since that is a geographical feature, not an institution. Does that make sense? 117Avenue (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Hwy43 agrees. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does but for some reason I never thought about doing it that way. I was so stuck in thinking that heliports don't need a standalone article that I never thought about using a redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Haynes

Haynes, I note that you edited out an article on Haynes that I recently added. This article was referenced from a reputable source "Pioneers and Progress" a book written by the Historical Society of the County of Lacombe and contained direct quotes from that book. I was raised in that community and my submission to Wikipedia was the Best attempt that has ever been made to describe some of the History of that community. Your edit was a pathetic move by a meddlesome outsider which left the description of Haynes as a pathetic mindless pile. I would hope that you would have better things to do than destroy Wikipedia content just because you can. Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.73.69 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your additions added a great deal of detail, but only cited one book, making it highly unverifiable. You also didn't use a neutral point of view, using peacock terms. 117Avenue (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Parkland Airport

I saw that the CTV News report said they had CPL6 as a code. However, a search at the Nav Canada website just gives "invalid code" and no hits at all for Parkland. So for now I've removed or commented out the code. If they get that code or another one it can easily be added back.

Also at List of airports in the Edmonton area I added a historical airports section. It currently has St. Albert and Blachford. Are there any others in List of defunct airports in Canada that should be included. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I figured you would have some corrections when the airport gets registered. A search for CPL6 gives as many results for Parkland Airport as Gowganda/Gowganda Lake Water Aerodrome, so I don't think that CPL6 should direct to one aerodrome. However, CTV is the only reliable source, so I agree that adding it to all the TC LID lists may be premature. 117Avenue (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Airports in Edmonton

I see you were able to give the list a better scope so I moved it to List of airports in the Edmonton Capital Region. I was updating Edmonton/Villeneuve Airport and the Alberta Aviation Museum when I came across this. It mentions that besides the 737 there were 14 other aircraft to be moved. Do you know if they moved any others and to where? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I enjoy reading air transport related news on the news and Wikipedia, but I'm not linked to the community at all. The news reports I've seen have said that they were in a scramble to get many of the planes out before the airport closed, but I don't know how many, and what stayed. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

City Center Airport

I have added info regarding the final flight out of the City Center Airport, multiple time, citing sources, and you have deleted it. Please explain why, as the sources cited, especially http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/2013/12/03/local-pilot-becomes-the-last-person-to-take-off-from-edmonton-city-centre-airport-after-weather-grounds-special-fly-by-of-cf-18s have supported the added information. The edit has been accurate. The supporting information meets the reliable source requirements, and is not disputed. Please provide specific reasons why you have deleted it, and what additional info you require to leave the accurate information posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcsys (talk • contribs) 07:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated in these removals, the information is not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC).

Thanks, I may suggest that the details of the final flight, to some, may be just as important as the other information noted in the "History" section. Some may also deem some of that included information as mere trivia, and not notable. However, as the information is accurate, and all forms a part of aviation history for the airport, I would ask that you leave it included. It is more than trivia, and has significance. Further, no harm is done to the article, by it's inclusion. If you feel it more appropriate, it can be included in the "History" section of the article. Please direct me as to how you would like the change made, and where you want the information to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcsys (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added the information regarding the final flight departure, to the History section of the article. I concede that the item belongs in that category, rather than the Closure and Redevelopment section. The airport was a part of aviation history in Edmonton, and was the oldest airport in Canada, at 86 years old, when closed. Many of the items noted in the History section of the article may by construed as trivia to some, but are still good true, if not supported, or cited facts. The final flight from the airport is certainly notable. There will never be another. To lose the details of the final flight, to the ages, takes from the history of the field. We should celebrate all of the flights, operators, and aircraft, which used the field during it's operation. Remembering the contributors, special firsts, and unfortunately, lasts, which the airport was home to, is our responsibility. If we neglect these things, we deal away our history. The airport is gone, but it's history is not. It should be recorded, remembered, and celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcsys (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is a mess, so I don't know where it should go. The plane's colour, registration number, and pilot's name aren't important, but the Edmonton Examiner article does give significance to the fact that the last pilot out was close to the airport. I've rewritten it, taking what the Edmonton Examiner article makes notable. 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The point of the 2040 LRT is

That it is experimental, not intended for perfect accuracy, subject to change, but gives users an idea of what it could be like assuming the LRT exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gingeroscar, read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball in its entirety. You've been on a mission to add speculative content to Wikipedia for many months now and have failed to listen to the helpful comments provided by others repeatedly. Content on 2040 LRT is entirely speculation and doesn't belong here. You obviously are interested in this topic and what the future holds, but your efforts to add speculative content will continue to meet opposition from the community. If you must continue to satisfy these urges, and sorry to have to say this but, please do it elsewhere. Set up your own wiki website where Wikipedia's rules do not apply and go nuts. Hwy43 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please also read the fake article section of the user page guidelines. If your user pages are used to state facts that are not true, they will be deleted, and your work lost. 117Avenue (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Blake

Thanks for the flag and feedback on protocols 117Avenue. New to being a wiki contributor, and you are correct RE:copyright. How do I delete the image from the wiki database? I can probably contact the Mayor's office and request a copyright-free or permitted use image sometime in the future. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezelion (talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Images only "permitted for Wikipedia" cannot be accepted, they must permitted for commercial use. You can learn more about licensing here, and learn how to submit a professional photo here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alberta legislature

Looks a bit odd that the Alberta legislature isn't in the category but the other provinces legislatures are. That's the only reason I added it. Green Giant (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the other ones could get their own category. 117Avenue (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of Rollback

Please review Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback, this revert at RWJ constitutes an abuse of rollback, as it does not appear to be an act of vandalism or an edit by a banned user. Images lacking licences should be removed by normal undo with an appropriate edit summary and the editor advised, do not WP:BITE newcomers. Once again, your WP:OWN-like behaviour is a shining example to all those who have negative views of Wikipedians. I suggest you remove Ray William Johnson from your watchlist and stop editing it, as your edits appear to represent underlying prejudices, and you are failing to adhere to Wikipedia's need to collaborate with other editors. One more misuse of rollback and I will report you and request that privilege be removed from your account. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Correction, having identified a second use of rollback today at [3] with no signs of vandalism or a banned user, I will be reporting your revert behaviour forthwith. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MarcusBritish, the only thing the Transportation in Edmonton rollback could use is an explanatory edit summary, which is not possible using the rollback function. The rollback reverted yet more of the same from a user that has continually ignored advice from multiple other editors including 117 and myself for months. In this case, it was addition of unreferenced content. The user's repeated edits of unsourced content despite numerous requests to include references in the past constitutes vandalism. Hwy43 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Hwy43: No, posting unsourced content does not constitute vandalism. Vandalism is a specific form of edit such as changing BLP content to stupid things like "so-so is a freak" and such.. even if an editor has been warned about not referencing, it is classed as "disruptive" not vandalism. The reason we have an [undo] option is to allow an edit summary vs rollback which allows for rapid removal of actual vandalism. There is no excuse to rollback against a disruptive editor, it is not permitted per "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." Unreferenced content, as you term it, is something you disagree with or contend, not a form of vandalism, and the edit 177 reverted is a "good faith" edit because the content is relative to the article. We use dispute resolution for disruptive issues, not rollback. 117 needs to learn to stop poking the revert button across half of his edits, often without stating his reasons, and to start discussing concerns first, otherwise people are going to think he has ownership issues. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, many of that particular user's unsourced content contributions have been personal speculation, which the user has been warned about on multiple occasions. With that track record, and a blatant disregard to the past assistance and warnings provided, this user's actual "good faith" edits are becoming fewer and farther between. Hwy43 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

More reason to revert properly and leave an explanatory edit summary. Edit summaries don't just explain to the editor what they did wrong, but allows for other editors to see that there have been problems and relate to them instantly without having to wade through rollbacks and try to identify the reason behind the revert. Rollbacks have a limited purpose for specific reasons and is generally used for cases where there isn't a dispute to resolve – vandals don't come here to discuss things nicely, they troll and get blocked without giving a shit about the consequences of their behaviour. The thing with personal speculation or POV is that it at least gives you a foundation to to work on with the editor posting it, and if they won't then in time they too will be blocked. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition of a copyrighted image is disruptive editing, and I do assume good faith, by notifying users with templates from WP:UTM, unless that user was warned since he stopped editing. Tal Brenev's edits is one of those cases, I believe it is assuming good faith to not give users multiple warnings while they are signed off. 117Avenue (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The image is only tagged as having no licence, not as copyright.. even it if is, you're jumping the gun by assuming it is and using rollback inappropriately. Posting copyright images isn't vandalism, therefore we use undo and an edit summary explaining "no licence" concerns and flag the image, which you also didn't to, a bot did. Regardless, your attitude towards other editors is fairly pretentious and ill-mannered, imo. Why give warnings to users at all, when you can simply advise them and get less up their noses? WP:DTR Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As you have already noted, my social skills aren't the best, so I use messages others have written, and have determined are the best way to word things. 117Avenue (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I find that most editors tend to delete or ignore templated warnings from anyone who is a non-admin, whereas opening a dialogue with a personalised message leads to more productive discussions. Not including anon-IPs of course, warning them is a matter of formality. Registered editors are more likely to read a message you've typed and consider your views than take it as hostile. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on Eligibility for a Political Party to be listed in an InfoBox

Regarding: Manitoba general election, 2011

15:59, 28 December 2013‎ 117Avenue (Undid revision 588049945 by Bionitech, current consensus is for a party to garner 5% of the popular vote to be included in the infobox)

"Current consensus" according to who?

Is there a prior discussion you could refer me to? A talk page?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bionitech (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It keeps popping up as a point of contention, but it hasn't been discussed in awhile. I mentioned it on Talk:British Columbia general election, 2013 in May 2013, on Talk:41st Ontario general election in February 2013, and probably in some edit summaries over the past couple of years, but the latest discussion was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada in April 2012. 117Avenue (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted changes

You reverted my changes on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_television_episode/doc without giving any reason. Can you explain why you reverted that change? Mayankmadan (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go through everything, but the errors I found were: "Series Number", "Production Code", "Air Date", "Prev/RPrev", and "Next / RNext" aren't valid parameters, "Title" and "Series" are required parameters, and some of the descriptions didn't explain their proper use. Also, please remain logged in while editing, so that all your contributions are attached to one account. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)