For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2011.3.

User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2011.3

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)

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)

So Random!

Regarding this edit summary, "tomato" isn't an assumed spelling. As I indicated in a prior edit summary,[1] made as the result of this change, it's the spelling that Disney used in its press release.[2] --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)

How can he sit as an independent? To run for leader, he'd have to buy a membership in the party. Plus, the leader of a party not sitting as a member of that caucus makes no sense. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, he bought a membership on March 15, but he didn't join the caucus. I think too that it doesn't make sense to have a leader in the Legislature, but not in the caucus, we'll have to wait until the next Assembly siting to see how it works. 117Avenue (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Definitely, though we may not know. I heard the rumour being next weekend could be the election call. The PCs supposedly will name a new leader and he'll call a snap election. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't be next weekend, the PCs have said their leader won't be chosen until October 1. 117Avenue (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought the leadership convention was next weekend. Then I gather the Leg will sit before Oct. 1. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand, the first ballot is September 17, and the second and third ballots are October 1. Even if there is a winner on the first ballot, the leader will be ratified at a convention on October 1, and he/she can't become premier until after then. 117Avenue (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone added a Calgary Herald article to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta article that says Sherman has to be invited into the Liberal caucus. 117Avenue (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yellowhead Trail, Edmonton

Would you agree to creating a separate article for the Yellowhead Trail through Edmonton? I know an article on Highway 16 already exists and already covers the Edmonton area. I was thinking a separate article would be more detailed (including planned and current interchanges, like the Anthony Henday article). Also, the Deerfoot has its own article. Just thought I would ask your opinion on the matter. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I had considered it. The problem is, is that the highway is known as Yellowhead Trail outside Edmonton. 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The article could simply be named "Yellowhead Trail (Edmonton)" and offer a link from the Highway 16 article for "more information" or "see also". Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed at Ray William Johnson

I just did this because an IP hopper is whaling on that page. I restored a few things, but would you mind checking if anything else got vanished? Thanks. CityOfSilver 00:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you know, that in the edit history, you can click on the selectors between (cur|prev) and the time, and then "Compare selected revisions", to see the differences between two different versions? Or to do it in one click, the "cur" link will compare that version, to the current one? 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but looking at the last few days, I knew that it would be a pain to find the bad edits that got missed when just one big revert, followed by a mopup edit, would probably be easier. I don't like doing that, but I'd probably go crazy if I reverted the junk one-by-one or went through the article and took out the junk in one edit, then got edit conflicted by another IP showing up to vandalize. If you look between your edit and my revert to your edit, you see there were a few iffy, possibly vandal edits that ClueBot, you, and I missed. (The "years active" number, 2011 to present, was obviously incorrect; whether it was a deliberate error or not, I can't tell, but it wasn't caught by any of us.) In a weird way, a big revert like that, even if it doesn't catch much, is kind of a symbolic rejection on my part of all the idiots (or maybe it's one idiot hopping from IP to IP) who showed up to do harm. And of course, this kind of middle finger isn't aimed at anybody whose anti-vandalism work also got reverted.
To be honest, I don't think there's much of a problem. I can't find out how many episodes there are, but the increase in the number of episodes is a safe bet because the Guinness Book's blog says Johnson uploads twice weekly. CityOfSilver 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Since I know my edits are good, I just compared the current version with my latest edit. I think the episode count updaters are just using the number of videos on the main channel, which is probably incorrect, as they may not all be "Equal 3"s, but since I'm not a fan of RWJ, and don't watch the videos, I haven't been enforcing the episode count. 117Avenue (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about counties in western Canada

I know that Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba used to be divided into counties. I have a world atlas from 1944 that shows the county boundaries. I believe it was soon after that, in late 1944 or sometime in 1945 or 1946 (sometime around then) that counties were abolished in those three provinces. Since you are from Canada, I thought you might know the answer to the following two questions:

1. What was (were) the exact year(s) that counties were abolished in those three provinces? 2. WHY did they do this?

Could you direct me to someplace on Wikipedia that would have an article about this, or some external website with information about this? I have alway wondered why these three provinces abolished their counties. Thank you and best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Another question--now that there are no more counties, how is local government in these three provinces organized? Keraunos (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Hwy43 is probably a better person to ask, he has done a great job of explaining the municipalities in Alberta at List of communities in Alberta, and sub-articles. The federal government says that each provincial government is to handle their municipal affairs, and as such each province names their rural municipalities differently. In Alberta there is a hierarchy, where rural municipalities include municipal districts, improvement districts, and special areas, and there is also a status called specialized municipality. I see by List of communities in Saskatchewan and List of communities in Manitoba (poorly written in comparison to Hwy43's work), that they also have a status called rural municipality. The provincial government websites would also be a good place to look. 117Avenue (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the shout out 117Avenue! Hwy43 (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ed Stelmach & Alison Redford

Are we destined to clash? GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't say Redford was elected October 2, the voting took place on October 1, but the party did not pass the motion to accept her as leader until the 2nd. If I knew how to look up archived pages I would reference Stelmach's resignation letter, Google still displays some results,[3] "Premier Ed Stelmach's formal letter of resignation saying he'll quit as party leader Oct. 1." 117Avenue (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I reverted back to October 1. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

For the unsolicited kind words on your talk page about the contributions of others in your discussions with other editors! Hwy43 (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the revert, I don't think we need to explicitly use the phrase "Represented in". It is obvious that parties listed in the group "Senate" or "House of Commons" are the ones represented in these chambers. ((British political parties)) uses that system. What do you think? — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 04:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking "This is all the notable federal parties, these parties are represented in the House of Commons, these parties are represented in the Senate, these parties are registered but not included in the above two, and these parties previously held seats in at least one of the two." I guess looking at it now, it can be assumed without saying. 117Avenue (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
To me, it makes the whole template seem less crowded. So I'll put back my edit, is that fine with you? — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 05:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An answer regarding "Liberals polled higher than the Greens last time, why do you assume differently"

Because - apparently - the Grits are only running their leader this time, while the Greens have a full slate of 58 candidates. As I said on Talk:Saskatchewan general election, 2011#SK Grits to focus on leader in campaign: "Is Twitter an approved source? According to ' http://twitter.com/#!/SaskLiberals/status/121738098584469504 ', the Liberal's strategy is to focus all their resources on [a] single candidate: leader Ryan Bater. BIG implications on regional table format and the overall summary table!" So - based on this tidbit - what do you think?

As regards my posting of "(PC)" under Biggar (electoral district) - at the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative's website a "Candidate Announcement Meeting" took place inside the Biggar riding at Perdue, Saskatchewan last Thursday; I was doing a little pre-editing.

Cheers. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't following the talk page that closely. 117Avenue (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interviews

Are interviews with a person reliable? If a politician was interviewed does it count as a reliable source seeing that could basically say whatever they want if the facts weren't checked? As well what are the rules surrounding a person updating their own Wikipedia page? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean a Wikipedia user interviews a subject, not a published interview. Because news sources is what WP:RS likes. The personal interviews falls into the original research and self-published sources categories, and cannot be used, as Wikipedia users are not reliable sources, and the information is not verifiable. As for the claim to be famous users, I have not had much experience with that, WP:BLPEDIT explains that as long as they are following WP:BLP (ie. removing unreferenced information or unfair material), it is alright. I would also assure them, that as watchers of the articles, we maintain the BLP policy for the protection of the subjects, removing incorrect and negative information. 117Avenue (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you do a small favour?

I'm a volunteer for the alberta party and am not very proficient at wikipedia, and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to place a picture of the Alberta Party leader, Glenn Taylor, onto the Glenn Taylor and Alberta Party wikipedia pages? There's an image on the party web site that should work nicely: http://www.albertaparty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/glennpic9.jpg This image is liked to from the page http://www.albertaparty.ca/newsroom-2/media-information/

I've tried to upload the file myself but my account is not sufficiently empowered. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dborod (talkcontribs) 04:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I keep trying to look for free images of Taylor, and have not been successful. Wikimedia can only accept images that have already been released under the appropriate licensing, or by the copyright holder. If you truly do work for the Alberta Party, ask the person who can release the copyright of their images to follow the instructions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just a volunteer who helps with web and IT stuff. I'll pass your instructions along and see if we can get the copyright stuff worked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.108.48 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So Random!

Regarding this edit, the source doesn't say "Cast of Lemonade Mouth" either. It just says "On set of so random.... These kids are sooooooooo random", which only confirms that Hayley Kiyoko was there. We need to tighten up some of these refs. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were supporting me in keeping it "*Cast of Lemonade Mouth". Does "cast" suggest everyone who stared in the film? I thought it is ambiguous. Thank-you for adding a ref for "determinate", and artists. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
"Cast" is ambiguous. The Disney and futoncritic references specify the exact people who will be appearing, so it's best to list them. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Flatlist

The changes I made to ((Edmonton elections)) are the new way of implementing flatlist. See Template talk:Navbox#How to implement flatlist? for more. Number 57 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No where in there does it say to use ((,)). The documentation says to use hlist in the listclass parameter, but still enter the list in an asterisk vertical list. 117Avenue (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Highway 627

Regarding this, do the interchange exit signs include the Highway 627 marker? Past highway progress charts indicate Highway 627 begins/ends at the city limits. Hwy43 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the signs still hadn't appeared on site this afternoon, but yes 627 officially ends at the western city limit. 628 also ends at the western Edmonton limit, and 814 ends at the southern Beaumont limit (previously southern Edmonton limit). I decided to include these markers on the article, because though not signed, as a ring road, and thus a city bypass, Anthony Henday Drive is used by inter-city travellers, who would be travelling to or from these highways, and 23 Avenue NW (westside), Whitemud Drive (westside), and 50 Street (southside) are extensions of 627, 628, and 814 respectively. 117Avenue (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I see and understand your intention. As the highways don't start immediately at these interchanges, I suggest removing the markers in favour of "(to Highway 627/628/814)" for each respective interchange. If AT doesn't designate the links as highways and they aren't signed as such, I don't see why WP should imply otherwise. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I suppose. 117Avenue (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Content removed for unreferenced

Hello! You removed a text I added for "unreferenced trivia". We can argue whether that is trivia or relevant information, but I'll skip that. Because I'm seriously worried that you removed something for being unreferenced. In my opinion, that's a terrible criteria. of course references improve the article's quality. But with your policy, you could delete tons of true, relevant and meaningful data. I consider that you should stop removing content on the reason on being unreferenced. See you later. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. You have taken two separate topics, and decided that they are somehow linked, without any indication that this is what the writers intended to do. On that criteria we could make an infinite list of, "character said these two words, which were also spoken by a famous person some time ago". But then again, the entire article is filled with unreferenced "facts", and falling to crap. 117Avenue (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I just remembered, I also saw an admin remove it. 117Avenue (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking dates in Year in Country series

You recently reverted edits in 2011 in Canada relating to the linkage of dates. This issue has now become the subject of a discussion here, and your comments are welcome. Davshul (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting a sockpuppet who has been terrorizing the page, adding non-notables, and not using edit summaries (because he doesn't know English). I don't think I want to get involved with that. 117Avenue (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Internationalboy54

Hello, I haven't acted upon your AIV report on Internationalboy54, because it isn't clear to me where the recent deliberate vandalism is.[4] Many of their recent edits haven't been reverted. Some vandalism warnings form the past aren't clear to me either. In general, AIV is for straightforward vandalism. If an editor's contrubutions are disruptive and you can't talk to them, consider ANI providing clear diffs. Best--Tikiwont (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the user's test edits on Family (TV channel). However, I agree with you, I didn't revert other contributions, because I am unfamiliar with those other articles, and didn't know if it was vandalism. I would have left a simple message on the user's talk page regarding Family (TV channel), as I often do, but since I saw plenty of final warnings, I thought it was time to take it to AIV. 117Avenue (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 117Avenue. I'd like you opinion as a fellow editor of Canadian politics lists. In my efforts to standardize the lists of premiers, I decided to make a template to make it easy to set up these lists in the style of List of Prime Ministers of Canada. I've put the template at Template:Canadian first minister list and put an example at Template:Canadian first minister list/testcases.

The thing that I'm wondering about is whether to force more fields to match the format rather than allowing people to put whatever they want into the fields. For example, I currently do not force users to use "Elected 2011 (41st Parliament)" as the format of those fields, and in my example I wrote in like that when using the template. The advantage of forcing the format is that we know that all lists will be the same and that we can quickly change how all of them look (for example, if we wanted to give parlaments it's own column or change the word "elected" to "appointed after"). The disadvantages of forcing the format is that it would require several extra fields (like year1= and assembly_name=) and it would prevent us from using the same template for any list other than primiers. What do you think? —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My first concern is that you are applying a format to the 11 or 13 articles, that isn't similar to either of the two currently being used. But since it is an improvement, and doesn't remove any of the information, you've got my support. I like consistency, so I say force the fields. This should force the articles to use standard language (ie. "designated"). However, the inevitable "first ministers aren't elected" argument should be settled before it gets implemented. 117Avenue (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Election templates

FYI, I have created a template in the CanElec series that is compatible with our colour template. My new template can duplicate any of the existing CanElec templates, so we won't need to copy each of them. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 01:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm curious...

It's not of much consequence, but what prompted you to undo this edit (which was actually me logged out, though you had no way of knowing that) more than a year and a half after it was made? Steve Smith (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going through links to a dab page, repairing them on articles. But as to not intrude into someone else's userspace I check the history first, to see if other editors have. When I came to your's, I saw an IP edit with a nonsense edit summary. But, in hindsight, it is quite a lengthy essay for a vandal. 117Avenue (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Green party date formats

What did you mean by this edit summary? I see the Yukon Green Party uses mdy in their party history, as well as the news column. 117Avenue (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The citation template used dmy when it auto-fills the access date field. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I know how you got the cite template to make dmy, (obviously because I undid it), I am asking what is your citation for the Yukon Green Party preferring dmy? 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't know that the party itself does prefer dmy. What does that have to do with anything? Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why then, did you revert me? I thought since you said "yes", you knew something. 117Avenue (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You changed the citation dates, which has nothing to do with the party or weather they prefer dmy or mdy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what I did. Why do you assert dmy should be used, when a majority of English speaking Canada uses mdy? 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia seems to use dmy, and so do many Canadians. So unless you can cite a source to back up your claim... Cheques typically use dmy or ymd these days. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

See my first comment above. You still fail to provide any evidence that dmy should be used on the Yukon Green Party article. 117Avenue (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be standard on Wikipedia. It auto-filled that way for access date in the cite template (I use the tools vs. copy/paste), so I use that format for all my citations. It's not unique to that article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yukon Green Party

I'm a little frustrated with you, because you tend to revert first, and discuss it after. You know you're violating 3RR. This is your warning. I suggest instead of just reverting right away, try talking to others first. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How is one revert in the last 24 hours on the article in question a violation of WP:3RR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwy43 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am frustrated with you for a number of reasons. You continue to make edits without an explanation, or often even without an edit summary. You have falsely said three times, that I have violated the "more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" rule. You make arguments that don't make logical sense. And the only way to get your attention is to post on your talk page, because you don't believe in keeping conversations together. If you continue to make controversial edits without explaining yourself, you will see your final warning.

Regarding Yukon Green Party, I have talked to you about this issue before reverting Dl2000's change to the dmy format. I stated above that most of English speaking Canada prefers mdy, including the party, as evidenced by their website. Your revert is an WP:OWN violation, a violation of the 1 revert rule you created on my talk page, and a lie, as your comments make apparent that you have not assumed good faith. And before you repeat the argument that dmy should be used, because it is what Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia uses it because it is the most used format in the world, much like time is in UTC, it is universal, and unbias. Nowhere in WP:DATERET does it say that dmy is the default format.
Regarding Template:Canadian political parties, all but you agreed that the use of such a large template is impractical. I would think an experienced editor, like yourself, would know that unused templates get deleted, no question. There is just no argument against the strong policy of CFSD#T3.

-- 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You can violate 3RR without reverting three times if you edit in bad faith. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:DATERET says the default is set by the person who first puts a date on the page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic." I have told you the tie, why do you continue to assert ownership over the article? 117Avenue (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a national tie, it's a local one at best, if you can show other parties in the Yukon do the same, then I might accept it. But all the other green party articles for Canada use dmy, and thus your national argument is on shaky ground at best. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Your other option if you don't like what someone is doing is to use the dispute resolution methods, instead of just reverting. Like perhaps starting a request for comments on the article? Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You want me to go to the party's websites for you. Okay, the Yukon Party[5] and NDP[6] use mdy, and the Liberals[7] a mix of dmy and mdy. What do you mean "all the other green party articles for Canada use dmy"? I see mdy on the articles for the federal, and all the provincial parties. 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Party of Vancouver

If you read Template:Use_dmy_dates, it's supposed to stay on the article. That way if bots need to add dates, they know the format. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you would read either of my edit summaries, you would know that it is already on the page. 117Avenue (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The category is there, but if you read the template, the template itself is supposed to remain at the top. The purpose of this template is to allow bots to recognise that the dd mmm yyyy date format has been applied to an article so tagged. The template is typically added near the top of the article. It is invisible except in edit mode. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Why must you take every revert of mine as an attack against you? If you had read my first edit summary, you would have clued into what was wrong with your edit. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I'm sorry. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you apply a different date format to Green Party of Nova Scotia? Mdy was the only format used in the text of the article. I'd like to point out that you have again changed the format of an article without providing any good reason in the edit summary. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Party of Nova Scotia

When I went back, mdy and ymd were both being used, but ymd more than mdy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Including references, I count 8 mdy, and 2 ymd. 117Avenue (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I probably missed a few then, which is possible. Which was used first? Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, 8 is clearly more than 2, and DATERET states "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". 117Avenue (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I don't particularly like how ymd works when you write out the month instead of using the number. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yukon Green Party_2

"Unexplained addition" isn't really appropriate, since I did explain it. False edit summaries are worse than no edit summary. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You consider "User:MiszaBot/config" and "could change it to 90 days" as a more convincing argument than "this article is way too short to generate talk that needs to be archived every 30 days"? Wow, no wonder there is miscommunication here. 117Avenue (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It's still an explanation. No where did I say you have to like it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm only trying to figure out what your definition of "you could take the initiative to discuss things before reverting" is. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You and I have a history of reverting each other, but never once have you tried to discuss the issue beforehand, or afterhand. Usually it's me who has to start it. Why is that? Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
BRD and WP:SILENCE, the person wanting the change should start the discussion. When I wanted the change, I started the conversation (example Ontario general election, 2007, Yukon Green Party, Green Party of Nova Scotia). You have been told by multiple users, that we are to build consensus first, rather than place the onus on the person undoing your edits. I again encourage you to stop this disruptive behaviour. 117Avenue (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
And I encourage you to stop your disruptive behaviour. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't see my edits as disruptive. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still a bit lost as to how you find my edits disruptive. I'm going to go back to this comment of yours. Do you believe that you are always right, and any revert of your contributions should be discussed before hand? Did this edit summary require you to read my mind? How do you believe Wikipedia should be run? Any edit can be made, and the person wishing to revert must wait a length of time to discuss and wait for that person to say "go ahead and revert"? When you make a change you believe should be made, gets reverted, what is your response? 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was perfect. I know I need to discuss before I revert, which I have been doing a lot more than I used to. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind if I remove our off topic bickering from Talk:Yukon Green Party? 117Avenue (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind. I suggest you use an edit summary of something like 'moved to user talk space'. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

David Lewis vandalism

Hi 117Avenue: Thank you for patrolling David Lewis (politician) yesterday. I was wondering, if the page was locked, how come people were able to edit the page? I thought when an article was locked, non-logged editors were not permitted to edit. In fact, I thought the only people that could edit a locked article was an administrator. Apparently not. Oh well, thanks again for correcting that revert the random edits.--Abebenjoe (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many different levels of protection, you can read about them at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Main page featured articles aren't normally pre-emtively semi or fully protected, however they are move protected for the day. Because I am not an admin, I could not move the article for the day, however, coincidentally, an admin performed a history merge on that day, which required a move. 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
{{bottomLinkPreText}} {{bottomLinkText}}
User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2011.3
Listen to this article

This browser is not supported by Wikiwand :(
Wikiwand requires a browser with modern capabilities in order to provide you with the best reading experience.
Please download and use one of the following browsers:

This article was just edited, click to reload
This article has been deleted on Wikipedia (Why?)

Back to homepage

Please click Add in the dialog above
Please click Allow in the top-left corner,
then click Install Now in the dialog
Please click Open in the download dialog,
then click Install
Please click the "Downloads" icon in the Safari toolbar, open the first download in the list,
then click Install
{{::$root.activation.text}}

Install Wikiwand

Install on Chrome Install on Firefox
Don't forget to rate us

Tell your friends about Wikiwand!

Gmail Facebook Twitter Link

Enjoying Wikiwand?

Tell your friends and spread the love:
Share on Gmail Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Buffer

Our magic isn't perfect

You can help our automatic cover photo selection by reporting an unsuitable photo.

This photo is visually disturbing This photo is not a good choice

Thank you for helping!


Your input will affect cover photo selection, along with input from other users.

X

Get ready for Wikiwand 2.0 ๐ŸŽ‰! the new version arrives on September 1st! Don't want to wait?