This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi re: 117Avenue Undid revision 532550339 by WikieUser13 (talk). I own the photo that was deleted (took several steps to confirm that when i uploaded it). What do I do to have it put back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikieUser13 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I followed the directions as best as I could understand, including emailing OTRS with further info. WikieUser13 ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You erased my edits, which were properly cited with a link to a media publication: midnightsunyukon.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am the publisher of Midnight Sun News - Krysta Meekins. There is no copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 ( talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that candidates who withdraw before or after the first ballot within reason should be included in the total. However, Murray withdrew well in advance of the convention and his name will not appear on the ballots there, and he withdrew early enough that his name did not appear on the ballot at the delegate selection meetings. Including Murray in the total of candidates would be akin to including Carolyn Bennett, Maurizio Bevilacqua and Hedy Fry in the total at Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006 - they all declared, organized and campaigned widely just as Murray did but withdrew before delegate selection meetings. But we count 8, not 11, in that article - Nbpolitico ( talk) 12:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you reverted the addition (not mine) of his place of birth as Halifax, Nova Scotia with the edit summary "impossible". Could you explain why? The only source I can find that gives his place of birth is at Family Search (which says "Halifax, Nova Scotia") and I'm not sure how reliable this is. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you have created a number of photo montages for articles generally related to Canadian-city topics. I would like to create one of these for a city as well, but I was curious: which program did you use to create this montage? I have been searching, but cannot seem to find a fairly good software. Thanks, TBrandley ( what's up) 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: the Halifax (former city)/ Halifax Regional Municipality difficulty - Do you think it would work to use the template developed with the History of Toronto article and the box they have developed to the right side of the article? This would create three separate articles that would be linked to a "History of Halifax, Nova Scotia" article- a link to a Town of Halifax article, a link to City of Halifax (similar to the article "Old Toronto", the article could be entitled "Old Halifax" for clarity and consistency), and another link "Halifax (Amalgamated)" which would link to the current HRM article. A forth article could be created on the Amalgamation of Halifax, just as there is one of the Amalgamation of Toronto. Perhaps the Toronto template would be helpful, what do you think?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a significant difference between the Town and the City of Halifax? It looks like they think there is a siginficant difference between a town and city in the case of Toronto.
Are you thinking that the histories of the places that were amalgamated would go in the box on the right side of the page rather than incorporated into the (amalgamated) History of Halifax, Nova Scotia? Those who created the history of Toronto article seemed to have decided not to list separately in the box the communities amalgamated into Toronto? Following through with your idea, as you know, the 1996 is not the first time that communities were amalgamated into Halifax. Would you suggest the 1969 amalgamation of Rockingham, Clayton Park, Fairview, Armdale, and Spryfield into Halifax be treated in the same manner? I'm more inclined to develop the History of Halifax, Nova Scotia in the same manner the History of Toronto article was developed. Do you just think the authors of the History of Toronto wiki article have made bad decisions?
To be clear, I think the histories of all the communities, cities that were amalgamated into Halifax need to be kept current as the vibrant communities they still are. In terms of Dartmouth, for example, I think its current history could be incorporated into the (amalgamated) History of Halifax, Nova Scotia article and also developed in greater detail on the History of Dartmouth page, which would reflect that the community was once a city and now is no longer. What do you think?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That template looks helpful. I think developing an "Annexations of Halifax" article would make things clearer. That template box could be put on the bottom of each page of a community annexed including the History of Halifax, Nova Scotia article (for some reason it is not included on the History of Edmonton page?). There could be also the side box like the History of Toronto page on the page as well. What do you think?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 10:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As you probably know, none of the Toronto history pages (e.g., City of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, etc) get more than 4000 hits a month. The history page Halifax (former city) gets over 24 000 hits a month. It seems that people are confused between the history page Halifax (former city) and the current Halifax Regional Municipality article, which gets about 30 000 hits a month. People must be first going to the Halifax (former City) site and then redirecting to get to the HRM site. (This assertion is supported by the stats for each page, the difference between them would mean about 6000 people are actually looking for the history page Halifax (former city) and not wanting to redirect to HRM - that figure is in the ballpark.) Any ideas about how to help people not get caught on the history page Halifax (former city) when they are actually looking for the contemporary HRM?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 09:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
on the Military history of Nova Scotia article the military history of Nova Scotia box is also screwed up with the edit function and also the series at the top should go to Category: Military history of Nova Scotia. could you please help when you have the time? thanks.-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
If you had concerns, I would have appreciated a note to that effect, since we'd already been chatting about this, rather than speedy deletion nominations that impugn my behaviour. I would have happily had that discussion with you, and helped revert what needed to be reverted. Sigh. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I trying to get a better handle on how wikipedia works, and have a quick question for you. I noticed you reverting the changes made to the Wainwright article, and I'm assuming that the reason was the lack of any references, but it seems to me that the edits were made in good faith on an article that needs improvement. Wouldn't it have been better to request that the editor continue to improve the article and include citations, rather than undoing the changes? The history section of the article doesn't have any references anyways. If there was a different reason for undoing the changes please let me know. LuthienKess ( talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to inquire why you would change the revision we have made on Mr. Guy Boutilier's article? The revision we have made was completely authorized by Mr. Guy Boutilier himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbertayouth ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi 117Avenue it seems you really know the Wikipedia avenue but now I have a couple of questions for you. How can we properly and legally use the current picture of Boutilier that I put up? (We have authorization from Boutilier for the use of picture but it did came from another website) We want to follow steps properly for this obviously but doesn't he hold rights for the use of his picture? The next one is the reason why've we made changes on Boutilier's article is that to make sure that the correct informations and facts are delivered to the readers instead of the misleading once. How can we properly and legally correct the informations on Butilier's article? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbertayouth ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I understand your edit here, but I just wanted to ask whether this can not be used as the source for this information given that it is only statistical and date-based? It's just that we're going to struggle to find another source for this, and while I understand the reasoning for a non-reliable source I can't help but feel for a purpose such as this it can be included. I look forward to your reply. Andre666 ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Given undisambiguation of Alberta community article titles has spread to towns, please advise whether or not you would oppose a second administrative request to move Whitecourt, Alberta over Whitecourt. Hwy43 ( talk) 07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
On unrelated matters, did you have any input on this or this? Hwy43 ( talk) 05:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi 117Avenue. I've been following changes to University of Alberta for about six months now, and the main contributing editor appears to be a public relations officer of some sort for the U of A (I was able to find him in the campus directory, and he only edits during office hours). Most of the work he's done has been great, but lately I've become concerned about a conflict of interest. Specifically, he's been trying to remove mention of a professor who might be involved in some sort of scandal, and removed any mention of financial troubles when he rewrote the article. Is this type of behaviour something to worry about, or should I just keep on patrolling? -- Rawlangs ( talk) 07:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The name has nothing to do with Canadian spelling. S-rail and s-line templates are looking for this naming convention and all you have done is created a redundant redirect for the required Template:Edmonton LRT color. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
A situation has arisen where an arbitrary (i.e without discussion) decision was made to deprecate |episodelink=
and |serieslink=
in {{
cite episode}}. While looking through the talk page archives of both {{cite episode}}
and
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 1, I discovered a proposal by you to fix a problem caused when both |url=
and |episodelink=
are used.
[2] This problem still exists so, if you're still interested, now might be the time to bring it up again. I've mentioned the problem a couple of times but it's being ignored. This time though, there are already three editors involved. Last time it was just you and Gadget850 so you might get a better response. The discussion is at
Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite episode deprecated parameters. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey 117Avenue, just noticed you updated the importance of the article for Justin Trudeau for WikiProject Canada. I'm guessing that was related to him becoming the new leader of his party? I was interested in how past party leaders who did not become Prime Minister were ranked... Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff are also mid, but Stéphane Dion is ranked as a "high importance" article. Also looked at some past leaders (MacKay, Manning, Duceppe, etc.) and found most to be "mid." I'm not sure that any change in ranking will actually have any impact on driving more project participants towards working on improving these articles, but I might argue that the leaders of all of the parties probably ought to be elevated to "high importance," given the odds are, arguably — not considering any other factors — about one in four or five that they could become the Prime Minister of Canada one day... Not "officially" proposing this or anything, but I was wondering what your thoughts might be... user:j (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. YYYY-MM-DD dates are accepted by MOS:DATEUNIFY in accessdates, and, per WP:DATERET, the style chosen by original authors is to be retained except in special cases. Use of a script does not overrule, exempt, or negate what is contained in MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. The Trudeau article has been YYYY-MM-DD since May 2011 and only changed from it the last day or so by an editor who it seems has just discovered scripts. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It may not be in that cite, but "blog sources" investigated those claims, story is that she dropped out of both, and re the Sorbonne no one can determine if she was ever even registered. I'm keeping a "hands off" her article and others, other than any maintenance edits that are uncontroversial in nature; but leaving that as-is when she graduated from neither, and seems to not even have been registered at the Sorbonne, is questionable. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi re: 117Avenue Undid revision 532550339 by WikieUser13 (talk). I own the photo that was deleted (took several steps to confirm that when i uploaded it). What do I do to have it put back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikieUser13 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I followed the directions as best as I could understand, including emailing OTRS with further info. WikieUser13 ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
You erased my edits, which were properly cited with a link to a media publication: midnightsunyukon.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am the publisher of Midnight Sun News - Krysta Meekins. There is no copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.185.193 ( talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that candidates who withdraw before or after the first ballot within reason should be included in the total. However, Murray withdrew well in advance of the convention and his name will not appear on the ballots there, and he withdrew early enough that his name did not appear on the ballot at the delegate selection meetings. Including Murray in the total of candidates would be akin to including Carolyn Bennett, Maurizio Bevilacqua and Hedy Fry in the total at Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006 - they all declared, organized and campaigned widely just as Murray did but withdrew before delegate selection meetings. But we count 8, not 11, in that article - Nbpolitico ( talk) 12:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you reverted the addition (not mine) of his place of birth as Halifax, Nova Scotia with the edit summary "impossible". Could you explain why? The only source I can find that gives his place of birth is at Family Search (which says "Halifax, Nova Scotia") and I'm not sure how reliable this is. -- Daemonic Kangaroo ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you have created a number of photo montages for articles generally related to Canadian-city topics. I would like to create one of these for a city as well, but I was curious: which program did you use to create this montage? I have been searching, but cannot seem to find a fairly good software. Thanks, TBrandley ( what's up) 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: the Halifax (former city)/ Halifax Regional Municipality difficulty - Do you think it would work to use the template developed with the History of Toronto article and the box they have developed to the right side of the article? This would create three separate articles that would be linked to a "History of Halifax, Nova Scotia" article- a link to a Town of Halifax article, a link to City of Halifax (similar to the article "Old Toronto", the article could be entitled "Old Halifax" for clarity and consistency), and another link "Halifax (Amalgamated)" which would link to the current HRM article. A forth article could be created on the Amalgamation of Halifax, just as there is one of the Amalgamation of Toronto. Perhaps the Toronto template would be helpful, what do you think?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a significant difference between the Town and the City of Halifax? It looks like they think there is a siginficant difference between a town and city in the case of Toronto.
Are you thinking that the histories of the places that were amalgamated would go in the box on the right side of the page rather than incorporated into the (amalgamated) History of Halifax, Nova Scotia? Those who created the history of Toronto article seemed to have decided not to list separately in the box the communities amalgamated into Toronto? Following through with your idea, as you know, the 1996 is not the first time that communities were amalgamated into Halifax. Would you suggest the 1969 amalgamation of Rockingham, Clayton Park, Fairview, Armdale, and Spryfield into Halifax be treated in the same manner? I'm more inclined to develop the History of Halifax, Nova Scotia in the same manner the History of Toronto article was developed. Do you just think the authors of the History of Toronto wiki article have made bad decisions?
To be clear, I think the histories of all the communities, cities that were amalgamated into Halifax need to be kept current as the vibrant communities they still are. In terms of Dartmouth, for example, I think its current history could be incorporated into the (amalgamated) History of Halifax, Nova Scotia article and also developed in greater detail on the History of Dartmouth page, which would reflect that the community was once a city and now is no longer. What do you think?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That template looks helpful. I think developing an "Annexations of Halifax" article would make things clearer. That template box could be put on the bottom of each page of a community annexed including the History of Halifax, Nova Scotia article (for some reason it is not included on the History of Edmonton page?). There could be also the side box like the History of Toronto page on the page as well. What do you think?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 10:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As you probably know, none of the Toronto history pages (e.g., City of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, etc) get more than 4000 hits a month. The history page Halifax (former city) gets over 24 000 hits a month. It seems that people are confused between the history page Halifax (former city) and the current Halifax Regional Municipality article, which gets about 30 000 hits a month. People must be first going to the Halifax (former City) site and then redirecting to get to the HRM site. (This assertion is supported by the stats for each page, the difference between them would mean about 6000 people are actually looking for the history page Halifax (former city) and not wanting to redirect to HRM - that figure is in the ballpark.) Any ideas about how to help people not get caught on the history page Halifax (former city) when they are actually looking for the contemporary HRM?-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 09:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
on the Military history of Nova Scotia article the military history of Nova Scotia box is also screwed up with the edit function and also the series at the top should go to Category: Military history of Nova Scotia. could you please help when you have the time? thanks.-- Hantsheroes ( talk) 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
If you had concerns, I would have appreciated a note to that effect, since we'd already been chatting about this, rather than speedy deletion nominations that impugn my behaviour. I would have happily had that discussion with you, and helped revert what needed to be reverted. Sigh. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I trying to get a better handle on how wikipedia works, and have a quick question for you. I noticed you reverting the changes made to the Wainwright article, and I'm assuming that the reason was the lack of any references, but it seems to me that the edits were made in good faith on an article that needs improvement. Wouldn't it have been better to request that the editor continue to improve the article and include citations, rather than undoing the changes? The history section of the article doesn't have any references anyways. If there was a different reason for undoing the changes please let me know. LuthienKess ( talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to inquire why you would change the revision we have made on Mr. Guy Boutilier's article? The revision we have made was completely authorized by Mr. Guy Boutilier himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbertayouth ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi 117Avenue it seems you really know the Wikipedia avenue but now I have a couple of questions for you. How can we properly and legally use the current picture of Boutilier that I put up? (We have authorization from Boutilier for the use of picture but it did came from another website) We want to follow steps properly for this obviously but doesn't he hold rights for the use of his picture? The next one is the reason why've we made changes on Boutilier's article is that to make sure that the correct informations and facts are delivered to the readers instead of the misleading once. How can we properly and legally correct the informations on Butilier's article? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbertayouth ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I understand your edit here, but I just wanted to ask whether this can not be used as the source for this information given that it is only statistical and date-based? It's just that we're going to struggle to find another source for this, and while I understand the reasoning for a non-reliable source I can't help but feel for a purpose such as this it can be included. I look forward to your reply. Andre666 ( talk) 10:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Given undisambiguation of Alberta community article titles has spread to towns, please advise whether or not you would oppose a second administrative request to move Whitecourt, Alberta over Whitecourt. Hwy43 ( talk) 07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
On unrelated matters, did you have any input on this or this? Hwy43 ( talk) 05:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi 117Avenue. I've been following changes to University of Alberta for about six months now, and the main contributing editor appears to be a public relations officer of some sort for the U of A (I was able to find him in the campus directory, and he only edits during office hours). Most of the work he's done has been great, but lately I've become concerned about a conflict of interest. Specifically, he's been trying to remove mention of a professor who might be involved in some sort of scandal, and removed any mention of financial troubles when he rewrote the article. Is this type of behaviour something to worry about, or should I just keep on patrolling? -- Rawlangs ( talk) 07:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The name has nothing to do with Canadian spelling. S-rail and s-line templates are looking for this naming convention and all you have done is created a redundant redirect for the required Template:Edmonton LRT color. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
A situation has arisen where an arbitrary (i.e without discussion) decision was made to deprecate |episodelink=
and |serieslink=
in {{
cite episode}}. While looking through the talk page archives of both {{cite episode}}
and
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 1, I discovered a proposal by you to fix a problem caused when both |url=
and |episodelink=
are used.
[2] This problem still exists so, if you're still interested, now might be the time to bring it up again. I've mentioned the problem a couple of times but it's being ignored. This time though, there are already three editors involved. Last time it was just you and Gadget850 so you might get a better response. The discussion is at
Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite episode deprecated parameters. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey 117Avenue, just noticed you updated the importance of the article for Justin Trudeau for WikiProject Canada. I'm guessing that was related to him becoming the new leader of his party? I was interested in how past party leaders who did not become Prime Minister were ranked... Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff are also mid, but Stéphane Dion is ranked as a "high importance" article. Also looked at some past leaders (MacKay, Manning, Duceppe, etc.) and found most to be "mid." I'm not sure that any change in ranking will actually have any impact on driving more project participants towards working on improving these articles, but I might argue that the leaders of all of the parties probably ought to be elevated to "high importance," given the odds are, arguably — not considering any other factors — about one in four or five that they could become the Prime Minister of Canada one day... Not "officially" proposing this or anything, but I was wondering what your thoughts might be... user:j (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. YYYY-MM-DD dates are accepted by MOS:DATEUNIFY in accessdates, and, per WP:DATERET, the style chosen by original authors is to be retained except in special cases. Use of a script does not overrule, exempt, or negate what is contained in MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. The Trudeau article has been YYYY-MM-DD since May 2011 and only changed from it the last day or so by an editor who it seems has just discovered scripts. -- JimWae ( talk) 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It may not be in that cite, but "blog sources" investigated those claims, story is that she dropped out of both, and re the Sorbonne no one can determine if she was ever even registered. I'm keeping a "hands off" her article and others, other than any maintenance edits that are uncontroversial in nature; but leaving that as-is when she graduated from neither, and seems to not even have been registered at the Sorbonne, is questionable. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)