I don't see any reason why you are changing Aylward's term as ending sometime between December and January. Just because his successor was announced in December doesn't seem like a reason to say his term as leader ended, even if he wasn't doing normal leader duties. The party's website had him listed as their leader till the January 3. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit too hasty. The way I see it, is that he could have finished before the Christmas break, and often updates to websites don't get done swiftly. Is there a news source that mentions what his letter of resignation said? 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

He stated he'd step down when his successor was chosen. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And his successor was chosen December 14. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I must beg to differ with your interpretation. The material that you've deleted consists of (i) an electoral record table, (ii) a one-sentence description of the number of times this candidate has run for office, and (iii) the candidate's own one-word description of her occupation. There is nothing here that is intrusive, unencyclopedic, or contrary to Wikipedia's standards for these pages.

I realize that Wikipedia's standards for including information on peripheral candidates have evolved in recent years, and I also grant that some of the miniature candidate biographies that I wrote in previous years would not be appropriate today. With that said, however, I can't understand why this particular entry would be a source of controversy -- it isn't a "biography" at all in any meaningful sense of the term. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, (i) is contrary to Wikipedia's standards for these pages, you are giving candidates undue weight. These lists are meant to briefly describe the candidates, and you have abused this, bloating the information presented. I have no problem with (ii) and (iii), it is what the pages are for, and what the notes and occupation columns are for. This particular entry is a source of controversy, because you are trying to expand this convention to the 2011 articles, and I want to put a stop to it. When you tried before, I asked you what your intended end result would be, and you never replied. When I see pages like New Democratic Party candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election or New Democratic Party candidates, 1988 Canadian federal election, I feel great anger that some candidates get detailed accounts written about them, while others barely get mentioned. They should all have to be summarized in a short sentence, in a table cell. 117Avenue (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that I saw your question from the 2011 archives, but I'll answer now: my long-term intent is that all candidate entries should include full electoral records (in addition to short biographical summaries). My most recent edit only constitutes "undue weight" in the sense that not all the other entries have been filled in yet. I don't intend for this to be a permanent situation.

I would also argue that these electoral records aren't really "biographical information" in the proper sense of the term -- they're statistical summaries, based on material that, by definition, is in the public interest.

My own views on "candidate summaries" have evolved in recent times, and, as I've said, I recognize that some of the things I wrote in previous years would not be appropriate by today's standards. I still do not believe that including a candidate's complete electoral record in the footnotes should be regarded as problematic. If you disagree strongly enough, perhaps we could take this to the Cdn Wpdns Discussion Board. CJCurrie (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You have again said that you don't intend for this to be a permanent situation, and have again not answered what your intended end result would be. But I am beginning to see what you are saying. The reference section isn't the best place to put information, it is for listing sources. What can be done is put a hidden table in the notes, as it is the explanation of the person. Here is my example. What do you think? I removed the winner column, because I think it is irrelevant to the person being described. 117Avenue (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

117 Avenue Why did you undo my recent edits on Strathcona County, Cloverdale, Strathcona? These are my first forays into aiding in the Wikipedia effort, so I am learning how it works. Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears you are controlling or trying to control the Edmonton area entries. If my knowledge of local history is not appreciated, I certainly don't need to participate. Tom Monto, Alberta historian (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Tom Monto, Alberta historian

Regarding your edits as 96.52.225.148, because of this edit, where you added the text "To be a stickler, it is more than 15 square blocks (although the dimensions of the area are a bit fuzzy due to the railway track breaking up the normal grid design. The Princesss Theatre opened in 1915 after the crash, despite its construction date implied. The Connaught Armoury is located north of 85 Avenue so is outside the heritage area indicated." to an encyclopedic article, this is inappropriate. It is considered commenting in the article, as I stated, and original research. It makes me question the reliability of all your subsequent additions. Regarding your edits as Tom Monto, Alberta historian, I think Sunray has explained your potential conflict of interest. Please also read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, using multiple accounts is confusing for users trying to communicate with you, and extended use can be violation of Wikipedia policy, and lead to blocks. 117Avenue (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the list of registered parties on the Elections Alberta website [1] has updated to include the Evergreen Party. But the Wildrose is still Wildrose Alliance. It makes me wonder if the party never filed paperwork to legally change its name.--Þadius (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this a couple of weeks ago too. I think the article should remain at Wildrose Party for the commonname reasons mentioned on the talk. Party members, and most media, refer to it as Wildrose, it is the name they will paste everywhere during the election, and it's all over their website too. I thought the organization did legally change their name (because the copyright on the bottom of the website is changed), but have not filed the paperwork with Elections Alberta to change their registered name. But I may have just shot myself in the foot verifying this, their constitution is online, and it states their legal name is Wildrose Alliance Political Association, and they want to be registered as Wildrose Alliance Party. It is dated September 2011, which makes me wonder what the June vote was for. I'm thinking probably their branding. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi User 117Avenue, I just want to say that birthdate of Landon Liboiron was sourced and that the actual source about his age has expired. That's why I removed it. This is not a form of violation, please consider it. --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing

That is not what it looked like. You gave no indication that the link had become dead, you added a date of birth, and attributed it to an unreliable source. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that I indicated the dead link, could I add the new source? --ScottieOrNothing (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)ScottieOrNothing

No, after you notified me of the dead link, I removed it, and replaced it with a citation to the newspaper, which is just as good as an active URL. And like I said when reverting you, and above, wikis are not a reliable, and verifiable, source. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's obviously a lot of confusion around the Liberal leadership, different sources say different things. From what I understood at the time from Yvonne Jones' announcement and from what was in the news she remained the Liberal leader while Kelvin Parsons was just the Opposition Leader (which makes sense considering the circumstances). Due to the confusion around this some media sources say different things. I'll try to look for some clarification. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a lot of clarification. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When you watch the video of her announcement in this source she states Parsons would be Opposition Leader and that she would remain leader. The written text is not as clear. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

These area minor points, but I thought I'd get your opinion before starting.

First, I noticed that 100 years ago there were several provincial parties that ran federal candidates, for example United Farmers of Alberta, which were mostly at the provincial level, but had a couple of federal MPs who kept the "of Alberta" parts of their affiliation (for example, this dude). How do you think we should handle these? The old templates just used the provincial party row-names in federal elections, but I'm wondering if we should create federal versions of these provincial parties that linked to the same page but displayed the "of Alberta" part. If we did that, what would be a good label for them? "CA AB United Farmers"?

Second, do you think we should do anything special with the row-name Template:Canadian elections/Unknown, or should we just give it a bland colour and keep it as "unknown"? The Parliament website confirms that they really don't know what party these guys were from. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to add either of these. We've said that the parties listed in the General (no jurisdiction specified) section can be used at the federal or provincial levels, and I don't think that the row-name function will be used all that often. If they weren't listed as independents in the election, a bypass could be done. Unknown doesn't need any inclusion, because we've already made gainsboro the default. Or is this a reason for black? 117Avenue (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I use row-name for election results on the articles about politicians and ridings, so I expect to be used quite often; it's in over 100 articles already.

You might be right about using black unknowns; it seems a bit inaccurate to group them with the independents when some of them might have been the representative of a party in the days before we logged party membership as thoroughly as we do today. I'll make unknown a separate category, and if we later want to make that category the same colour as independents, we can do so with one edit.

As for the United Farmers of Alberta, I guess I could move it from the provincial category to the general category. However, the reason that I was thinking of making a separate version of the party for federal use is that if we only create one version, we would either have to (1) add the words "of Alberta" when used in the provincial context, which we don't do for any other party, or (2) drop the words "of Alberta" when used in the federal context, which is contrary to the Library of Parliament, which lists "United Farmers of Canada" and "United Farmers of Alberta" separately even when both are running in federal elections. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to go with the two parameters for the UFA, adding one for the federal, either CA AB United Farmers of Alberta as you suggested, or simply United Farmers of Alberta or UFA. I just noticed this edit, are you sure this is a good idea? There are other parties that used the Conservative name in the past. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We'll also find, going back into history, no colours to assign parties. How can we chose a colour to use, if there are no posters to be found? 117Avenue (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with pointing "CA Conservative (historical)" to Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942) that didn't already exist by pointing "Conservative (historical)" there. In fact, I'd say that "CA Conservative (historical)" has more claim to point to that link, and that "Conservative (historical)" was the ambiguous one. As for the colours of historical parties, I think the purpose of our template is to give a useful visual reference (and to standardize the naming of parties). If we have a poster from that era, great, but otherwise I don't mind using the colours employed by the old templates. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm, I read that wrong, I thought you were adding "Conservative (historical)". I only know of one case were a user has wanted a missing colour. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another question: what do you think we should do with all of the farmer-labour candidates in Labour candidates and parties in Canada. They use a wide assortment of names, like Farmer-Labour, Farmer-United Labour, United Farmer-Labour, etc.. Should we use a colour that's neither Labour, nor Farmer, nor independent, like we did in Template:Canadian politics/party colours? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideally each registered party should have an article, but unfortunately they don't. I'm thinking keep the labour colour, as the /party colours says "various Labour parties", and create redirects to the appropriate sections of the article. 117Avenue (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the number of Senate nominees to be elected is set in the writ. The only other place a number could be found would be a regulation under the act, but I haven't found one. The act itself does not specify a number or formula, but leaves the decision in the hands of the LG. -Rrius (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, its a confusing type of election. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[2] I am troubled by your repeated revert with reference to the same guideline and without initiating discussion. In this edit, you have claimed that I "don't understand the cited policy". That would seem to imply that you do. Please explain precisely and in detail what you are doing and why in light of the entirety of that guideline, rather than continually revert. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I see the same of you. You reverted someone's edit to make consistent date format, without much explanation, or as I see it, any. The first point of WP:DATERET is to use the same date format, across an article. The only date format used in the prose of Elizabeth May is mdy, so it makes sense that all the references use it as well. You had reverted that edit, added y-m-d to some of the references, and cited WP:DATERET, which makes no sense to me. Could you please explain? 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

MOSDATE directly shows examples of acceptable formats where the references have a different format than the main text. It expliclty authorizes yyyy-mm-dd formats in the references. Quite a few editors prefer using yyyy-mm-dd in the references. MOSDATE, and therefore DATERET, do not authorize changing the reference format from yyyy-mm-dd. The May article used predominantly yyyy-mm-dd in the references, and so, per DATERET, it should not be arbitrarily changed. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

These examples state that a reference should not have two different date formats, you violated this at least 33 times. In your revert you quoted WP:DATERET, which states "the whole article should conform to it", which does not explain your reference exception. It was not arbitrarily changed, as I stated, per DATERET, the article uses mdy exclusively, which greatly tilts the scale away from the 51-46 advantage you claim ymd has, not to mention the 33 that would have to be changed in order to comply with the examples you are pointing to. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSDATE#In_references has examples where the references have two different date formats. The style of an article may have one format for the main text, another format for the publication date, and another format for the accessdates. If the accessdates are in yyyy-mm-dd, then all accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd. Seriously, "the whole article should conform to it" cannot possibly mean to exclude yyyy-mm-dd formats from the accessdate, or otherwise the examples given immediately before would be in violation. But since they are given explicitly as examples of acceptable formats, the guideline cannot possibly mean that. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it says "but not Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved February 5, 2009." It is right there in red. 117Avenue (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Right there in green: Jones, J. (September 20, 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I missed that? How did I do that? Facepalm. 117Avenue (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit summary didn't answer the question. Nothing at that documentation page explains why we are using a header that is different from the previous election page, that doesn't look as good, and that forces an expenditures column. -Rrius (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"This template can duplicate the functions of all of the 53 existing federal and provincial CanElec templates." It is intended to replace the many templates that are being used for similar functions. If you have a suggestion for its development, leave a note on the talk page. 117Avenue (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wildrose Party's website has been vandalized numerous time over the last day, I'm not sure not how to revert all the edits because they've gone right through the article several times. I thought you might be able to help fix it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the article? Reverting a page is easy. Look at the history, and find the last good version, in this case you are looking for a date before the election call, 04:03, 20 March 2012‎. Clicking "cur" (current) beside this time will show you the difference between that version, and the current one. If you think it is a good revert, click undo beside the time of the last revision. It looks good now. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear 117Avenue,

I would like to draw you attention to the Port Alberta entry. Your link to the Edmonton International Airport is outdated misinformation. As I have edited many times and cited from the Port Alberta Webpage, Port Alberta was incorporated in 2010 and has been an independent organization separate from the airport for 2 years. I have not had time to address a proper entry, however I did try and highlight some clarifying remarks from their website. Perhaps if you could highlight your objections I will be able to start creating a stub that will serve academic interest in the reality of the corporate situation.

Thank you, PA Mgr (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is your conflict of interest, something that doesn't go over well here on Wikipedia. I encourage you to join the discussion at the article's talk page. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour cher 117Avenue,

Est-ce que ça me ferai plaisir de mettre des nouveaux députés et enlève des députés défaits et qu'il ne présentera pas à l'élection dans la page francophone fr:Modèle:Palette députés Alberta. Aussi mettre les deux nouveaux députés néo-démocrates dans la page francophone fr:Modèle:Palette députés Colombie-Britannique. J'aimerai les faires, mais je suis pas encore me débloquée avant le 19 juin.

204.237.12.81 (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My priority is the English Wikipedia. 117Avenue (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bien, si vous voulez pas les faires à votre place, est-ce que vous savez comment me débloquée du wikipédia francophone qu'au lieu m'attendre le 19 juin. 204.237.12.81 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, you will have to ask the editors there. 117Avenue (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi 117Avenue, In response to your post on the Alberta 2012 election talk page and your article reversion early on the 23rd, I apologize if my edits offended you (I sensed a harsh tone). I'm aware of the contributions you make to many articles, and thanks for that. I was acting in good faith to do what I thought was improving the article. I guess it was partly my newness to political Wikipedia editing that resulted in my unawareness that past graphs would automatically be used for future elections (and thus I guess I disrupted a status quo, whilst thinking that you disrupted a status quo by introducing all the graphs). So I've definitely learned something from that. I also read the two pages you linked me to, BRD and StatusQuo, where I've also learned things. So you were completely justified to revert those changes.

However, there were other changes that I made in separate edits at the same time early on the 23rd including removing "However, [Wildrose] support has waned in the past year" that you also reverted. Also, I had thought we had reached a consensus on the talk page that 'MLAs not running again' should be beside 'nominated candidates'. Were there compelling reasons that you reverted these changes? Arstoien (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised that someone wanted to talk format on election day, the day the article is most edited. As I was writing my response, I cooled down. In response to your second paragraph, it is just easier for me to revert everything you have done, and I am sorry I didn't have the time to read every change. My focus of the night was to add results, and not have to worry about changes. 117Avenue (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

An NDP MHA has updated his own wikipedia page and now is adding unsourced information and deleting information from the Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2011, am I correct that this isn't suppose to happen. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct, remind the user WP:BLP is in place to protect the subject from unreferenced information. 117Avenue (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

He's added references to his own page but is not editing the election article, the one he ran in, with information. Some which is unsourced and other things that he has deleted. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have built up a federal electoral district and I would like some feedback. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Surrey Central/archive1 and provide some comments if you can. Thanks. maclean (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually saw it when it appeared on WP:CANADA/AA, but decided not to get involved, as I am not experienced with getting pages to featured status. In reply, I am not sure if I should leave this comment on the review, so I will say it here. The electoral district only existed for four years, I don't think there is enough possible content to get it to featured status. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Its only a peer review, so all comments are welcome. You are active dealing with political articles, so your point-of-view especially valuable. Btw, featured status is about article quality (comprehensive, well-referenced, well-written, etc), not about the subject's importance. The Featured list criteria and Featured article criteria apply to all articles, big and small. maclean (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for trying to improve this new article by moving the title. My own original choice was the one you changed it to, and indeed it sounds and looks better. But, since there are four Frank Lakes in Alberta, I thought that the one I ultimately chose would enable the distinguishing of this lake from the three others. We can't name all of them "Frank Lake (Alberta)". Hence my choice of "south-central Alberta". Is there truly a naming convention here? Perhaps there's another way of distinguishing the four lakes? I'm not sure why you called the dab's "ridiculous". The link was piped to shortened the name in the articles, and like other piped links, enabled a link to the correct article. BC  _{talk to me} 06:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought south-central Alberta was ridiculous because it is a made up name. If we were to disambiguate a place within Alberta, we would use an actual place name. Its region is called Calgary Region, but I would prefer the municipality name, Municipal District of Foothills. 117Avenue (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)