User talk:117Avenue/Archives/2010.3

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.

I've read through the discussion, the Sherwood Park discussion and the Canadian style guide. Right now I'm not sure if there is a consensus or not. One problem is that

And I just noticed that you already did. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted some elevation edits to Banff and Lake Louise citing they are unreferenced. However the existing elevations are also unreferenced, as are pretty much all elevations on Alberta community articles that I've come across. I've been meaning to ask someone if they happen to know the source of these elevations. Do you happen to know? I've come across a referenced elevation for Whitecourt that is different than what is presented in its article, but I want to get to the bottom of where the existing information comes from before I attempt to make a referenced revision in case there is controversy. Hwy43 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it must have been a database somewhere. I thought it was referred to on WP:ALBERTA, but I couldn't find it. Maybe its the CGNDB Backspace is always referring to, but I have not heard how he accesses the database. Qyd should know, I think he's added elevation to a lot. 117Avenue (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look around a bit more and then consult Backspace and Qyd if necessary. Hwy43 (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At

I tried every parameter of the infobox, it seems that they want only the file name inserted. I couldn't find a way to insert a template with superimposed text on the image, in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I've inserted a skyline photo for now so that the infobox doesn't look so bare. I look forward to your comments on the proposed moves below. Hwy43 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally getting around to proposing

Thank you for the moves. Is there a bot we could initiate to move the thousands of articles that link to these two articles? Hwy43 (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's always

WP:BOTREQ, but you could ask someone with an AWB. 117Avenue (talk

) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests a try for Whitecourt and Talk:Whitecourt. I'm not sure if I did this correctly. Can you review and advise? Hwy43 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to induce controversy, but as I stated on WT:Alberta, I don't think Alberta should leap ahead of the other provinces, by moving towns less than 10,000. 117Avenue (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what you stated, but five others (including myself, Skeezix1000, Mindmatrix, Bearcat, and kelapstick),

that list does also include a large number of towns and villages and townships, so Alberta hasn't lept ahead of other provinces. I see this as an opportunity for us to be leaders in this for Canadian community articles, where hopefully users with interests in other provinces will follow suit. Hwy43 (talk

) 06:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as tying it to a population, I see it as following the definition: "is, or was, eligible for city status, or considered a city". 117Avenue (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Skeezix1000 stating They started with cities, but the intent was never to limit it to cities, and...

per Bearcat stating it's also correct that Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities started with cities only, but that was simply about organizing the project into manageable chunks and was never meant to imply that only cities can ever have undisambiguated titles,...

...the overall undisambiguation initiative is not for cities exclusively. The intro at

requesting potentially controversial moves process and apprise those that were in on the WikiProject Alberta discussion

.

Also, per my original message, can you advise if used the uncontroversial move template properly? What I did was place {{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}} on the Whitecourt redirect article and its associated talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think it should be done, it is a Wikipedia wide thing to have the province following the town, village, hamlet, or municipal district/county. It is a well established naming convention, and I like consistency. Like I said, why have a few hamlets different than the 300 others? If there is wikipedia wide change, then I would support it. 117Avenue (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand where you are coming from. I once felt the same way. Perhaps you even witnessed that I once felt the same way. However, I've since come across information I wasn't previously aware of, and I agree with the others that it doesn't have to and shouldn't stop there.

It is a Wikipedia wide thing to disambiguate settlement names in Canada where they have unique names or are unquestionably the most significant place sharing their name can have undisambiguated titles per

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#Places

. At this location, if you follow the footnote immediately after the first word, Cities, you'll see the term city is:

used for ease of reference, but the guideline is not limited to these specific types of settlements. References to city or cities should be read to include all incorporated municipalities...

We've already heard from others that

Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities

also doesn't apply solely to cities on the recent WikiProject Alberta discussion. We've also noticed that other non-cities are already disambiguated per this notice board initiative in other provinces – villages in Ontario and towns, et al, in Newfoundland and Labrador (with others to be completed on the not finished lists for both provinces).

Therefore, this initiative is also a Wikipedia wide thing in Canada, it just hasn't been implemented past the initial cities stage in other portions of the country yet.

Sorry to harp on about this, but I wanted to give this discussion another shot before placing the requested move on this article. Hwy43 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your question, no, you didn't need to add the template to the talk page, it would have been deleted with the article. 117Avenue (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So just applying {{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}} on the Whitecourt redirect article (and not its associated talk page) would have been sufficient? Hwy43 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 117Avenue (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job on, and thanks for doing, the Lacombe status change stuff. I look forward to what arises out of Strathmore's consideration of city status next year. Hwy43 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you don't think I stepped on your toes, I was going to let you do it, but then you weren't logged on two hours before, like the villages. 117Avenue (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No toes stepped on. It slipped my mind after a busy day and I went to bed early. I'm glad there are others within interest in such matters. Hwy43 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note the grant of bearings was to the Town of Lacombe - as the relevant page in the online Canadian Public Register clearly shows. Reverting to Town of Lacombe is no reflection on Lacombe's new status as a city, but a simple and accurate record of the legal entity to whom the bearings were granted. Arms granted to one legal impersonal entity may not necessarily inherited by successor entities, unlike the case with folk. A check with the Canadian Heraldic Authority might show whether the City of Lacombe is entitled to use the arms granted to the Town of Lacombe. For the time being perhaps it's best to stick with certainty - the bearings were granted to the Town of Lacombe, and not the City of Lacombe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mich Taylor (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am confused. If the official crest is listed on the site linked from the Ordinary (heraldry) article, with a motto saying "People, Pride, Progress", then why does the motto on the Lacombe website say "Town of Lacombe"? 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the website has not been updated since September 5. —Tamfang (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which website do you mean? According to File:Lacombe-COA.png, the crest on the Lacombe website has had a motto "Town of Lacombe" since before 2007. But according to the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the motto has been "People, Pride, Progress" since 2003. Which one is the official version? 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean the website linked in the previous sentence, what else? – I thought you were asking why the city's website calls it a Town rather than a City. – "Town of Lacombe" is more of a caption than a motto. —Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that the banner (motto) in File:Lacombe-COA.png, should be corrected to read "People, Pride, Progress", contrary to the Lacombe website? 117Avenue (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, why would I say that? If the Town prefers to display a caption (even on a scroll) rather than a motto, it's no skin off my nose. —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, you reverted an edit I made to Lethbridge today, without explaining why. I don't see a problem with my edit; if we look at the climate norms for Cardston, Fort Macleod, and Aden, Alberta, we can clearly see that winter temperatures in Lethbridge are not the highest in the prairies. So could I get an explanation please? Also, I hate to bring this up, as a noobie to this wiki, and please don't take this personally, but I respectfully suggest that you provide an edit summary (unless it's obvious vandalism or some such). No offense meant. Thanks. 96.45.9.28 (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, sometimes I am too fast on the revert button, and forget that I was once new too. Weather is often vandalized by those inexperienced in weather collection, and Wikipedia MOS and policies. Although I should not contradict Wikipedia:Equality, the reality is that often experienced editors check a user's edit count to quickly determine how experienced that user is, and creating an account, and user page (so that your name isn't red), will give you more validity. Sorry for the harsh reality, happy editing! 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you're pretty busy, so thanks for the explanation. Apologies most definitely accepted. 96.45.9.28 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As you are undoubtedly aware, municipal election nomination has begun. I've added and referenced the unofficial nominations for the Town of Whitecourt. I took the table design from the 2007 elections article. I presume it was your intent to use the same design. Please review and advise if you would like help adding tables for more municipalities to lighten your load. Hwy43 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes busy day today, it has already begun. 117Avenue (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I was reluctant to delete your table information, as I do not like to undo other people's work. But an election results format is not appropriate at the time when readers are looking not for results (which all the empty gaps in your tables show are not available) but for information about who is running and what the issues are. If you do not think candidate information cannot possibly be neutrally presented, or front-runners neutrally identified, that would constitute a significant obstacle to Wikipedia's mission to inform and would require a substantive extended discussion and explanation on the article Talk page. In any case, we are going to have a fundamental conflict if you are going to reduce articles about elections to candidate names, deleting information about when they entered the race (in municipal elections, a strong predictor of likely success), past history as a candidate, etc. If your problem is rather with particular information about particular candidates, I suggest more particular editing. Mass deletion needs a stronger rationale than has been provided to date. If you truly believe what you do, I suggest putting the whole article up for deletion. After all, of what real value is a mere list of names? Voters are going to see the same list in the voting booth before they vote so there is no informing of the electorate at all with the article as you appear to want it. So why bother with any article at all? Putting the article up for deletion would force the involvement of the wider Wikipedia community, and we would see what support there is for your current philosophy.Bdell555 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I might add that your editing philosophy seems to be remarkably inconsistent with respect to dealing with incumbents, since you appear to object to, say, identifying Hana Razga as a former federal NDP candidate, but you have made no effort to delete the large amount of information that Wikipedia has about most of the incumbents (in their individual articles). Why do you not delete those articles if you truly believe that the appropriate resource should not be Wikipedia but "candidate websites"? This inconsistency raises questions about whether your SELECTIVE deletionism really serves

Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia, not

opinion pieces, self-promotion, or advertising. Having a section allowing for candidates to describe themselves will cause mass amounts of promotional info added, with no control. 117Avenue (talk

) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then delete the promotional material and cite

WP:PROMOTION

. Amongst the material you deleted was my edit that noted that Don Koziak WAS a candidate for mayor but dropped out. How did that edit constitute "a candidate describing themselves"? How was the presentation of that fact "biased"? Get specific with your charges: which editors, exactly, are "candidates themselves"? You are reverting me and I can assure you I am not a candidate and, furthermore, have no current plans to even vote (unlike you). When this "mass amount of promotional" material is added, what is stopping you from deleting it then? If you are unable or unwilling to exercise any "control", be advised that the rest of the editing community will be quite prepared to exercise the "control" that you seem to think must reside in your own hands. Again, why are you not putting up Mandel's Wikipedia article up for deletion, if you are truly neutral in the application of this policy of yours? I noticed that you did not feel inclined to remove the wikilink to Mandel's article, which talks about how he is "an active volunteer with the city" etc etc at the same time you felt inclined to delete the simple identification of Mandel's competitor Dorward as an accountant.

For what it is worth, I have not tried to add back a photo of a candidate's election sign. Although the controlling Wikipedia policy is not "No Advertising" (when not commercial) but rather neutral POV, I'd nonetheless grant that having one candidate's sign and not another is arguably non-neutral. I am a bit dubious about that, since I think a bias charge is rather strained (would the Edmonton Journal display a candidate's sign? If so, would people REALISTICALLY complain of bias? Could I ask why Mandel gets his photo on Wikipedia and not his competitors?) but in the interests of not edit warring I'll concede the point. But I cannot concede with respect to deletion of all candidate information as it is fundamentally at cross purposes for why Wikipedia exists, especially when the deletion is selective such that incumbent candidates have a great deal of information about them elsewhere on Wikipedia while most challenger have no or little information. Look at Wikipedia pages for, say, US Congressional elections and there is no precedent for the indiscriminate deletion of candidate information. If you don't like coming to Wikipedia for election information no one is forcing you to be here.Bdell555 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing a space for candidate promotion, will only cause promotion. There is no way of describing a candidate without making him sound better than others. I don't see how Don Koziak thinking about running for mayor has anything to do with anything important. I am not accusing you of working for a candidate, but I know that those will come in the future, I want to prevent it. I don't think I can "control" the information, because my bias will be inserted when I decide what stays, and what should go. I don't see why you are talking about deleting Mandel's article, as a mayor, he qualifies for an article, as he is a notable person, if there are unsourced statements on it, then that should be dealt with there. I would actually like pictures of the challengers, so that Mandel doesn't have the only picture in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If "[t]here is no way of describing a candidate without making him sound better than others" then how is the Mandel article not

WP:NPOV? The article is, or contains, "description." According to you, the very fact of description necessarily ("no way") depicts the subject as "better than others". How is depicting a political candidate as "better than others" consistent with NPOV? As for "space for candidate promotion", there are all sorts of "spaces" on Wikipedia, and the only way to close all those spaces is to delete the whole encyclopedia and/or lock all the articles. It seems to me that you're conceding that my edits do not constitute "promotion." If so, I would think the remedy you want is locking down the article by an administrator, since that would prevent any of the "promotion" you claim will inevitably (and irreversibly?) occur. My edit about Koziak was also a sourced edit that identified both him and Dorward as "pro-airport". That's the source's language ("pro-airport") not mine. The stance was important enough that it played a role in a candidate dropping out of the race. There was no substantive explanation for why that information was deleted. In any case, I've asked for some admin intervention with respect to the edit warring here, and I invite you to say something at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117Avenue_reported_by_User:Bdell555_.28Result:_.29Bdell555 (talk

) 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I might add that if you are so concerned about candidate promotion, why are you providing external links to so much promotional material? You direct readers to reams of CLEARLY promotional materials about many candidates, while readers get ZERO information about those candidates who have not been promoting themselves on the internet. Can you call attention to another election article on Wikipedia where a consensus has supported this practice of linking to dozens of twitter feeds (a practice that is furthermore discouraged by Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest ("10. Links to ... Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.")?Bdell555 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you for your report on

I didn't know where to go, I thought ANEW was only when both sides had valid arguments, he wasn't responding to my reasoning. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

the template i made is based on data in the footers already in the article, here. there are various other discrepancies that require verification also, but thought it would be easier to circle back and clean them all up at the same time. cheers! --emerson7 04:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

re: [1]

I don't care enough to press the issue further, but I'm telling you it really is irrelevant to mention Number of the Beast in an article about a highway. It's like saying Highway 69 has something to do with sex.. It's

Unless of course you can cite a reliable source that says the highway was specifically numbered 666 because it's the number of the beast.. -- œ^™ 04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is numbered because Alberta numbers west-east roads from south to north. The 500 to 986 series are not major roadways, and not all have articles. The ones that do are either long, or meet Edmonton or Calgary. 666 is an exemption, because of its significant number. I don't know if there have been attempts to steel signs, but

U.S. Route 666 is a featured article, and goes into detail how the number has affected it. The statement is included to indicate the rarity of this number being used to name a road, and establish notability, otherwise you should nominate it for deletion. 117Avenue (talk

) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would I nominate the entire article for deletion because of one sentence? How does that make any sense? -- œ^™ 06:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How does it make sense that the number importance should be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant commentary! It needs a cite, or at least should be reworded to say something more than just an off-topic description of the number, you need to explain to the readers why this particular highway is associated with "the number of the beast" (besides the obvious fact that it's the highway's number). -- œ^™ 07:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How's the rewrite? 117Avenue (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better :) -- œ^™ 10:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yep, it's the right guy, all right — a couple of pages into his edit history, I found his classic calling card: the five or six politicians in Nunavut whose names aren't obviously Inuktitut in origin, listed at the title "Anglo-Nunavois". Editblock city! Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This message is regarding your revert of my edit of Fred Figglehorn. The character Я is the Cyrillic letter Ya and cannot be used as a backwards R. If you write "FЯED", you're writing "Fya-ed" with a mixture of Latin and Cyrillic characters. Georgia guy (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the character belongs to a different alphabet, and is not pronounced like a Latin R. But, it isn't being used as an alternate spelling or pronunciation. It is the only character we can use to indicate a backwards R, in an explanation of the

stylization that is often used. 117Avenue (talk

) 18:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
  • avoid: Macy*s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien³, Toys Я Us
  • instead, use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us Georgia guy (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Я is only used once. 117Avenue (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A rule that is violated only once is still a rule that is violated. Georgia guy (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand the point you were trying to make by pasting an excerpt from MOS:TM. In this excerpt it says it is acceptable to use decorative characters one time. For example:

"Toys "R" Us, officially trademarked as Toys "Я" Us, is a..."

Likewise on the Fred article, the decorative character is used to explain the stylization that is often used. 117Avenue (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you would have to use a png image for a backwards R. Я is the Cyrillic letter Ya, and that's all it is. Georgia guy (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that MOS:TM and Toys "R" Us are incorrect in using a Я, and should be using a png? If so, you should be taking this up with

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks), instead of asking me to violate MOS. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk

) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was recently made aware of

title is in the article title, it should be italicized. For example List of Degrassi bands, or List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes. I do not know why it got removed from Template:Infobox television season, as the articles using this infobox are always TV series titles. 117Avenue (talk

) 03:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you were italicising episode titles. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank-you for correcting me. 117Avenue (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate you asking a question, before anything else. I just did the page

Your question about a "list" as I mentioned above was a search in wikipedia.. And I didn't reference a LIST, (you did).. I am only populating a category, as explained above.Mmcannis (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(I always accuse people in Wikipedia, not owning up to Mistakes-here is my ownership)-I just reread the article, Camrose, Alberta, and I read the reference so quickly, I thought the Rose had been introduced into the region (the parks). Obviously, the article says he only introduced the Rose to the city. When the initial person, reversed the Category, and only talked about "species", and not a "species site",,, I still thought the rose had been introduced into the "region".. It obviously was NOT, and I read the article too quickly to realize, that. (I was too excited about finding an interesting Site, where a rose-(a Plant) had been Introduced..) sorry,.. it was not introduced into the region.. my mistake...) (from HOT desertsArizonaUSA, SonoranDesert)--Mmcannis (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks about right to me... Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't actually know the answer to that question (which is why I haven't answered it.) It just at some point became the convention that the Canadian contingent settled on for future elections whose dates aren't fixed — but I couldn't tell you where the discussion happened or what the reasoning was. Though, of course, for provinces with fixed election dates we use the "Province general election, YYYY" format even for future elections — but I simply have no idea what the reasoning was behind using ordinals instead of "Next" for non-fixed dates. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey! What do you mean by I used unusual styles. All I tried to do was simply make the text look like the other articles on Degrassi seasons. If you look at the history for season 7, the whole starting paragraph was below the infobox. I tried to fix that but nothing worked unless I moved some of the text above the box. I realize that it did not look exact but it looked better than before. I assumed that another editor would simply fix that afterwards.

So I am very, very sorry to upset you. I hope you can understand my message and I'm not trying to ruin any pages. Please believe me. If you can accept my apology please message me back. --99.237.248.71 (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's similar, but have you noticed how the text is under the infobox, not aligned next to it like the other seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.248.71 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well I guess I'll have to deal with it. I'm very sorry! I didn't mean to ruin the page for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.248.71 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The

Wikilink

Barnstar

Wow so many pages i have never seen even after all the years here...Thanks for--> Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Canada - cant believe it was not linked before.Moxy (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see you changed Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to say it is being updated every Wednesday. Is that really true? Who's going to be doing it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the history, User: BernsteinBot. 117Avenue (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you meant the MZMcBride page - I'd misunderstood and thought you meant the List page itself. Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a big issue by any means, but

Well, according to his/her talk page, updated today, he/she has decided to retire from Wikipedia. So it appears this individual did not have a desire to continue the "conversation". 117Avenue (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It can be created anytime someone who feels it's warranted and is prepared to populate it takes the time and initiative to create it. It just can't be applied to articles or categories until after that's actually happened, because no article or category is ever supposed to have a redlinked category on it at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I like your changes to the template (the numbering and bullets option is really cool). However, the changes you have made mean that normal filler text has paragraphs that are not separated in the way that actual text is (with return carriages rather the small gap). Would it be possible to incorporate your changes and still make it look like normal text?  -- Lear's Fool 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I used line break, so I thought it would be the same, but I can give it a try. 117Avenue (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template syntax is a little beyond me, but whatever you've changed seems to have fixed it. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool 01:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I had to double the size of it, for it to accommodate an option for it to not break into paragraphs. 117Avenue (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your closure of this requested move as, per the requested move closing instructions the move should be closed by someone uninvolved. As you started the discussion you can not be said to be uninvolved and so shouldn't have closed the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so shouldn't really be closing it given the amount of discussion on the subject. That said given the backlog at

WP:RM if it's still unclosed in a couple of days I'll do it. Dpmuk (talk

) 19:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you changed all the federal NDP leadership conventions to "elections". These were conventions, that also included a vote for the leader. Please respond, as I intend to revert the moves and edits you did unless I have a very good explanation why they were changed. I wrote most of those articles, and intended them to be named "conventions", because that is exactly how the party, and historians refer to them.--Abebenjoe (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in the move description, and on the talk pages, there was a move discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow that