This is an archive of past discussions with User:Leventio. 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.
Thank you for nominating this article. I have placed your GA nomination on hold for seven days to allow you to address the concerns noted. I am looking forward to working with you. Racepacket (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I'm glad someone is working on the Dalhousie article, but I don't know that I'm too keen on the new version. It wasn't a very long article to begin with, so why remove so much? Sprocket (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah okay, sounds good! I'll take a look at the UNIGUIDE and try to contribute over the next month as well, hopefully tracking down some historic info sources in the process. Sprocket (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the AFD notice you placed for this article - for whatever reason, it ended up on the article's talk page instead of the article itself. User:Snotbot placed the tag on the article, so everything is fine, but I wanted to make sure you knew why it looks like I totally reverted your nomination. FYI. Best, UltraExactZZSaid~ Did13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm still working on the Queen's University GA review and don't expect to be finished before September 22. So I have no objection to granting an extension. You got it. Folklore1 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I've finished my review and placed the article on Hold. This usually means a seven day period to make improvements to the article. If you need more time, please leave a note on my talk page. Folklore1 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyedit on Dalhousie University
Hi! Just to let you know, I've taken on copyediting Dalhousie University. None of the changes I make are law; if you disagree with any of them, go ahead and revert. Most of the changes I anticipate making are to reduce redundancy and verbosity, and to improve accessibility.
Question: Was Dalhousie "structured" after the University of Edinburgh physically, administratively, or otherwise? It's not clear from the article what this means. Curly Turkey (gobble)06:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Another: There are inconsistencies in captitalization of compuses—sometimes "Carleton campus", other times "Studley Campus". I'm not sure which should be considered correct, but capitalization will have to be made consistent. Curly Turkey (gobble)03:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've gotten a little busy, but I'll try to find the time to give the article another run-through before calling it finished. Curly Turkey (gobble)04:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I think I'm finished doing Dalhousie. As I said before, feel free to revert any changes you disagree with. I'd also double-check all my changes for accuracy; I haven't looked at your sources, so there's a chance that subtle changes in wording could result in meanings that contradict (or otherwie are not supported by) what's in the sources. I also haven't made any effort to check things like comprehensiveness, fidelity to sources, compliance to project guidelines, or really anything else outside of simple copyediting; further, I make no guarantees as to the quality of my edits—you'll have to be the judge there. I could have missed any number of things, or introduced new erros or ambiguities (unintentionally, of course).
NOTE: Please respond below the entire GA Review to the points raised, and not interspersed among the GA Review itself, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:University of Alberta Coat of Arms.png
Thanks for uploading File:University of Alberta Coat of Arms.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
University of Waterloo copyedit
Hi! I've taken on this copyedit. After looking over the recent failed GA nomination, I feel I should point out that I will be copy-editing the article, not re-doing the work of properly summarising the sources. Thus, I won't specifically be looking to remove close paraphrasing from the article as part of the task. Having said that, I will be making numerous changes, which should improve the situation at least a little. I'll also try to fix all the close paraphrasing instances specifically pointed out by the GA reviewer. The end result will be GA quality prose, but whether it will be acceptably free of close paraphrasing remains uncertain.
You should definitely re-read WP:PARAPHRASE carefully (its demands are quite exacting) and look to eliminate instances where you have (or an earlier contributor has) copied the structure of sentences too closely from sources. It's also well worth keeping in mind for future articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've completed this copyedit. Please could you look over the [clarification needed] tags that I added. One of them is probably pretty obvious but I'd like to clarify it, the others I'm not sure about.
I mentioned the development of the article to the previous GA reviewer, who thinks it looks in good shape to pass GA now. So you may wish to nominate it again after dealing with the necessary clarifications. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Vanier Cup
Thank you, I complemented the last anonymous I.P. address you used, when the reverts were first explained. If edit summaries were written from the start, none of these reverts would have happened. Happy editing and enjoy the 50th Vanier Cup! Pjposullivan (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that have contributed to several articles about Canadian universities and that you are in the WP:UNI and WP:EiC projects. Not sure if you’ve ever come across the University Canada West article. I’ve been in discussions with other editors, but we feel that we need someone with a little bit more experience in education-relation articles to help us improve the article.
I have a professional connection to the subject, but I am totally willing to work with the community to improve the overall quality of the page. There are only of couple of editors actively contributing to the page, so the article as a whole would benefit from different point of views.
If you’re interested, your help would be greatly appreciated.
I noticed that you made this edit, but the the access date to the sources cited was not updated. As well, not all of the links to the sources cited were working. Where did you get your data? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Toronto Maple Leafs
Hello:
The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Toronto Maple Leafs has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I like the sounds of that, heres hoping to to a Leafs-Penguins ECF! The Leafs facing the Pens and the Phil is a Toronto dream scenario Leventio (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for tidying up and rationalising the illustrations section of the above article. I had long wished to do myself, as the numbers grew, but it was beyond my limited technical skills. I have made one reversion though - putting back the Payne painting of the Manchester Regiment in the full dress of 1913-14. The reason is simply one of providing balance: this provides the only depiction of the final general-issue scarlet uniform worn by the great majority (over 70) of English, Welsh and Irish line infantry regiments, as referred to in the neighbouring text. To make room I took out one of the British Foot Guards illustrations, since this sub-topic was covered by four pictures. Regards Buistr (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that correction on Vrooman's Point. Aside from the less-obvious memorial, the depiction of a steamship & bridge should've made the correction you made long overdue. :) Natty10000 | Natter 13:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dwanyewest: The article doesn't use external links. If your referring to the citations, I only added one (the one for the WNBA... which seems to be working from my end). The others citations were added into the article before my edits (most of my edits on that page was copyediting/expanding on existing content). If you'd like, I can get to checking those other citations out later tonight. Leventio (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Leventio. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing.. I am not an administrator. Your edits to Fairmont Royal York are promotional. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.
As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Fairmont Royal York, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it, and if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I thank you for your concern, but I can guarantee you I'm not an employee of Fairmont (I've only been working on those articles the past week, my past years on the site have varied from Canadian architecture, military history, universities, to ice hockey). I'm presently just working on Canada's grand railway hotels (I started with Fairmont Royal York but moved on to the Chateau Frontenac and The Empress (Hotel), formating them in a similar manner as Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), a featured article [as for the Notable guests at the Royal York, I used the Savoy Hotel as a template]). The articles in question may have a reliance on links from Fairmont (particularly with facilities), but thats due to a lack of other references available on the subject matter (if you haven't noticed I'm supplanting it with Google Books where possible, most notably in architecture). That said, if you have a concern with the content put forth (minus the history sections, most of that was there prior to my edits), please feel free to raise it up to me, instead of raising an concerns for conflict of interest. Leventio (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. That makes sense; I have the sense that you greatly admire these grand old hotels. However, the content you are adding to Wikipedia is effectively advertising for the hotels. Please be more cautious about adding spamlinks (that is what they are) and building passages of Wikipedia content sourced from the hotels themselves. Would you please revise what you have done? If you are following the Trump Tower-Chicago page as a model, please observe that there are no links to the hotel used as sources (there was one, and I just removed it). OK? Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I can work towards finding alternate citations. The history section and Notable should be easy enough (both use only one Fairmont link respectively, though the history one is used more than twice, but still thats just newspaper article/Google Books digging). That said, the facility section would be a bit harder to address (minus the tunnel, and the early room history which are using different sources), cause I couldn't find any real legitimate sources for that. I can see it being reasonable to remove the section if you think thats whats best...
That said, I'd argue against removing second sentence on the Beehive program though despite it being a Fairmont citation (I used the Fairmont source as it was the more "conservative" figure on the yield of honey production compared to Reuters). The Reuter's source in the previous sentence on the Beehive program uses a larger figure, which I assume is out of date.Leventio (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. We don't have to describe their current offerings. That is where things tend to get all promotional, and mimicking their website (we are not their website and shouldn't aim to be, per WP:PROMO).
In my view, focusing on the history and enduring architectural features is more encyclopedic... and you will have fewer sourcing problems. do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Heh, funny enough, I sorta just went ahead and removed all the Fairmont citation, and the relevant content that came from it (minus the aforementioned Bee thing). The remaining content for facilities was stuff grabbed from editorials/reviews... Which honestly I'm super wary of using them (sorta not a thing for most articles I work on), but the Trump Hotel article seems to use them throughout its sections on Restaurant and Spas (basically I'm not really sure if the editors of Wikiproject Hotels have reached some consensus on that or not, or what the deal is there). Just wanted to grab your thoughts on it though. Leventio (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
much better, thanks. yes reviews are hard to manage well but overall the tone and aim are much more encyclopedic now. Thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Please remember, The "ten highest scorers" table was NOT edited...
In regards to the very recent removal of my "note" that only anticipates the end-of-season entry of David Krejčí of having PASSED Bruins Hall of Famer/current Team President Cam Neely's scoring point total as of Dec. 8th this season, NO "direct edit" for Krejci in the "Franchise scoring leaders" table was ever intended to be done at this time...he's also likely to pass former Bruin Terry O'Reilly as well before this season's over, so no entry before season's end would have even been practical to do in any case. The cited entry at Krejci's page noting the acievement, however, will NOT be removed, and as it has been cited from an approved source, remains ready to cite "the expected change" in the "Franchise scoring leaders" table at season's end. The PIPE (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@The PIPE:, thats all fine, the not updating statistics thing only pertains to statistic-dominated sections/tables, not the article proses themselves (which is the case with Krejci's article).Leventio (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The War of 1812
I am replying here as well as on my own page. I've taken the liberty of putting your own entries here as well for your reference.
Hey, I noticed you reverted several edits I've made on the War of 1812. I would first like to remind you that you can revert individual edits (if you didn't notice, 3/4 of the edits you reverted were grammatical/copyedits). As for the last edit (which I assume was your primary contention). That was added three days ago via this edit here. If you have a serious contention with what I said, and what was the infobox only four days ago, then I'd invite you to bring it up in the talk page, and present a source where the issue of impressment or American sailor rights were brought up in the Treaty of Ghent (which concluded the war), or a source describing any practice of impressment post-April 1814, when the Royal Navy was rapidly downsizing a bloated naval force. Leventio (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
My reversal was mostly based on the fact that you began making said changes without bringing it up on the talk page. I found the term aboriginal offensive as hell. And, yes I am part Cherokee and Creek. Said or unsaid, the British Navy went to some lengths to ensure that American ships were not stopped even during the hundred days. Even though a full-blown panic was in its gale. However, most of these things had already been discussed and worked out. In my case, I saw it as making 3 steps back. So if you want to make said changes then bring them up on the talk page 1st as you have requested of me.Tirronan (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The aboriginal edit is understandable and has been reverted (I mean, the terminology is viewed differently in Canada as a catch all term, I still incorrectly there, but I digress...). As for the British impressment policies, the article version as of three days ago did not have that in the infobox, and I reverted it given it was added with little context, or citation to support it (I mean, if it did, we'd have to rework the last prose of the War of 1812#Negotiations_and_peace, which explicitly makes it clear that those issues were not addressed). Anyhow, it is on the editor(s) that added the "bold" content (i.e. Impressment in the infobox) to present the evidence as to why their edits should be included, not on the contester (as per WP:CYCLE, I already presented, my case, its not in the Treaty, and it was effectively ended in April 1814 (as for the Hundred Days, the Royal Navy as a whole was not expanding, and definitely not to the point where they needed to reintroduce impressment), I await yours, or the original contributor who added to contest that). Leventio (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, in fairness to you the article War of 1812 has had all these issues discussed and discussed, over and over and over. A lot of the arguments arise from national myths. Or as I prefer to call them nationalistic bullshit. We have them in America too. Every American boy grows up thinking that American sharpshooters with Kentucky Rifles (They were Pennsylvania Rifles by the way), defeated the British forces because of the lame bastards not adapting to American forest conditions. It is utter crap but there it is. And, I believed it growing up, I was wrong, but I believed it. I grew up thinking that Napoleon was defeated by a British Army at Waterloo, despite the fact that 60% of the forces under Wellington's command were Dutch, Belgium, various northern German Principalities, and so forth. I knew what I knew, and I was wrong about that too. I just knew that the British charge broke Nappy's forces and that caused the victory. And, to this day the myth that the nasty vengeful Prussians took up the chase thereafter. And, I was wrong about that too, mostly. To this day I watch young Brits walking the fields of Waterloo extolling the same old half-truths. Somehow it is always forgotten that the French line was bent into a horseshoe because 48,000 Prussians had been on the field from 4 pm on. Or, that the French lines were burst at 3 places at the same time. Then again we don't talk about 17,000 Prussians keeping 33,500 French off the battlefield of Waterloo at the Battle of Wavre, because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative.
In no way does is that just a British thing, You can find so many outright lies about the American Civil War it is enough to gag a maggot. We'd all been told that the war had been fought for States Rights, when it was in fact fought so that the southern elites could keep their slaves. Not nearly as platable right?
There are all sorts of myths about the War of 1812, some of them are even somewhat true, well even that might be a stretch. We have the "Greedy Yanks just wanted to take Canada myth." Which is in the kinda, maybe, sort of, category. Then we have the "The Yanks lost because they didn't take Canada myth". The problem being that neither side ever mounted a successful continued invasion. The whole issue of "who won?" is as dumb as it gets when you read the notes of either side. On the British side of 1814 Wellington was advising the Prime Minister with all the 19th-century niceness being taken out of the phrasing "Give it up we couldn't take America in the Revolutionary War and we damn sure can't take it now". Or, the letters to Madison saying "Because of the stupidity of our taxation we are about to go bankrupt why the hell are we fighting?" There is not one thing in this war that fits nicely into any of the utter crap that gets thrown around. Let's not forget the American idiocy, My favorite, "we won" when we got out by the skin of our teeth. My second favorite, "American trade was permanently ruined by the War of 1812" when I looked up the actual numbers about 147,000 tons of shipping had been taken and the year after the war America built 200,000 tons of shipping. My oh my don't the lies get thick? Then we have the conflation of Nationalities, Canada went to war with the US. Err, Canada was a British colony at the time or the US would have had no interest in it whatsoever. Canada by itself couldn't have defended itself. Too many were not interested in joining for that to happen. American reluctance to have anything to do with the war is greatly overlooked. As is the factionalism in America. And always, no one wants to look at how much the leadership of Britain and America wanted to undermine one another.
@Tirronan: I'd invite you to correct those myths (I mean, I'm not contesting the inclusion of military stalemate, I think thats what it was, and is a rather good compromise for the sides that do believe in the others; I'm contesting having impressment in the infobox), and if said additions/corrections the article get contested, then I'd invite you to bring it up in the article talk page. And I agree, the war, and many aspects of the war are extremely complicated.
However in talking about the complexities of war, I'm sure you can understand why it is a major issue to simply have "End of impressment of US sailors" under results of the war in the infobox, considering the actual context surrounding the end of the impressment was more of a result of Napoleon's defeat and the subsequent downsizing of the Royal Navy (this is fact, based on economic needs of the British, and military realities of no real naval threat post-Trafalger). Now did the War of 1812 have a impact on impressment policies in the future, sure, I'm not willing to argue that. However, considering the complexities surrounding the multitudes of outside factors that played in the role of ending impressment, would you not agree that content such as "End of US Impressment," would be better placed in the actual article (where its complexities can be hashed out), as opposed to the infobox, where its just a statement with no additional context?
Look, I think the current infobox results are pretty good, and I'd think you'd agree that for the most part, it is without national bias. Military stalemate; both sides' invasion attempts repulsed; Status quo ante bellum; Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy. None of those are non-contestable facts, and give a pretty good summation of what resulted from the war. I'm simply against the inclusion of the addition made three days ago (for the aforementioned reasons). Leventio (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, as to impressment, the 100 days was a panic to Britain the Royal Navy was in no way going to restart the war with America to get sailors. You are correct it wasn't addressed in the Treaty of Ghent, but it was observed. Nothing about the causes of 1812 were addressed. Ian W. Toll gives a good account of it. The age of impressment was ending anyway so there is credence to that. Nor was Britain about a restart a war with America which might have happened. I'm not wedded to impressment in the infobox. If it has to stay in then it should be noted a bit more because the answer is nuanced more than that.
Boiled down to what really happened? Instead of a proper nation to nation view of one another, there was this weird old brother/younger brother type of relationship. The views as to what each owed the other was... strange to say the least. I still hear the occasional "You stabbed us in the back while we were fighting France!" This war was 19 years in the making and came as a surprise to no one. There was a view that America owed Britain for its protection from France. Protection America never asked for nor felt the need of. The American point of view as also just strange. It expected preferential treatment as a former colony but felt it didn't own Britain a thing because of a vicious 8-year war not all that long ago. Like I said to modern citizens of the once empire... nothing is as it would be today.Tirronan (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tirronan: I mean, this can all be brought up in the historiography/memory section of the article if you really want that to be included (there are quite a few historiographical surveys done on the War of 1812 that you can use as citation for historical national narratives like that).
But again, going back to impressment, as I stated earlier, its a complex subject, you simply can't state "End of US Impressment" in the results of War of 1812 with no additional context (it can easily be misread as the main factor/only factor was the War of 1812); when really the issue is complex, with the major factors to ending impressment being events outside the War of 1812
(edit: should note, cause I probably didn't make it clear, explaining your position in the article itself is something I'm not opposed to, again thats hashing out the complexities of it in a proper channel, its really just the infobox). Leventio (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Having thought about it I do not want it in the infobox, it is far too complex an issue to be addressed in that format. I've stated as much in the talk page. There would have to be an entire section addressing it correctly and that isn't the infobox. It isn't there and I have stated my view on the subject. I don't own the article we don't do that at Wikipedia but I've stated my view on it.Tirronan (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Heads of State
Something should be in the article to indicate that the head of state of Canada (for instance) is not a native Canadian, but in fact the same as the head of state of the United Kingdom. If you can come up with a better phrasing, fine, but we can't just leave the impression that these are all monarchies with their own independent kings and queens. I don't see any reason to make an edit that gives people less information based on a minor technicality.—Chowbok☠07:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
U of C - stop removing photo
I appreciate working with you on several university articles to freshen them up and ensure they comply with WP: BOOST. but what I don't appreciate is you forcing a particular image onto the U of C article. It is obviously quite a bad photo that frankly does not belong anywhere on this site. Please stop adding it to the article and lets swap it out with a much more high resolution, up-to-date photo that fulfills WP:PERTINENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahroze (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Godd research, and still improving for brevity and conciseness. When in the middle of an edit storm such as you are making, it might be a good idea to place an
This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a little while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
This page was last edited at 02:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC) (22 months ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.
Hi there. I have reverted your (accidental) deletion of the logo for Pacific National Exhibition. Please exercise caution when correcting editing mistakes, as these images can swiftly be deleted entirely if they are orphaned and non-free.
I noticed that you removed 'O Canada' and put the wikilink to Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada. O Canada is also an article on Wikipedia. I wasn't the original editor to include the change, but is there any reason both can't be included? I'm all for other forms of patriotic music, but I think the national anthem deserves its own mention. I haven't changed the article or anything, I just wanted to talk about it. Another option would be to include a wikilink to the article in the section 'O Canada' has in the other article. Clovermoss (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Clovermoss:Honestly, my rationale for removing it was sorta just a preventative edit to stop the list from turning into a list of "national" Canadian things [like symbols, animals, etc]); as well as my interpretation of what related link means (I mean, I get the song and holiday both have Canada as a theme but I don't really see a larger relation outside that... sorta of the opinion that in that instance, it could've been grouped with the other anthem/song wlink where its also brought up). That said, I totally get that my interpretation of what constitutes as related link is sorta limited, so if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to re-add it. Leventio (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand why you don't want it turning into a bunch of related things. I admit I'm a bit biased since I'm Canadian and all, which is why I wanted to communicate about changes. I think that they do share a greater theme, since Canada Day is when the country became an independant country and O Canada is the national anthem. It's not that I feel like it must be included in the article, but I do think it could be a revelant wikilink. Clovermoss (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I'm going to leave a message (and a link) to this discussion on the talk page of the article itself. I don't want to just add things just because I think it should be included in the article. Clovermoss (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: I mean to be frank sentiments of Canada aside [also Canadian btw...], I'm still of the opinion that a national holiday has no direct relation to the national anthem. That said, the more I've thought about it, the more I'm okay with having the link as a lower order link if thats okay with you (I re-added it as such). Leventio (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
University of Toronto
I would argue there are a lot more irrelevant things in that list (for example, having a whole section on the Toronto varsity blues at the beginning of the article (i mean, its not like we're talking about Duke basketball) than putting a ranking for the UofT faculty of medicine. I don't want to put the subject ranking of every subject, but in cases where the University has a particular strength, such as where it is ranked 5th in the world, no small achievement, I would believe it is appropriate to have one line deep down in the rankings section? Captain108 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Leventio,
please STOP ANTI-SEMITISM in the Wikipedia. The Superior Court of Justice in Toronto is the most reliable source one can imagine, and for the lawsuit I mentioned in the page about the University of Toronto its official court file number was provided. If you are against Israel and Jews, you can't demonstrate your views so openly in the Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbi Zaltzman (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
On 2nd April 2019 with this edit you added this picture:
with the description "single-ended tram" in the Tram article.
However this is Škoda 10 T, clearly a double-ended tram. Not a single-ended one. It is even written in the article Škoda 10 T:
The Škoda 10 T, or Škoda 10T, the latter being the common English-language form, is a three-carbody-section low-floor bi-directional tram, developed by Škoda Transportation. It was in production from 2000 to 2002.
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.
You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto
Thank you very much for your message and for clarifying that, which I greatly appreciate. Most of my recent edits there have just been to add wikilinks to some existing listings, as well as a few images and copy editing some existing information. I was working on items in the later years of the article, and I was trying to keep things consistent with the citation format that was there, which were the references to the "source list". I had not noticed that you had started to implement the actual citations into the table, which you mentioned are citations for buildings before 1840 or so. I see this now, and I agree with you that this is a much better and more accurate way to do things. I'm sorry that I didn't notice that earlier, and I will not make any future additions of buildings without inline citations to reliable sources. I'm just heading away out of town now for a while, so I can't do any research on sources right now, but I will see what I can find after I get back. Thank you very much for your help. -- Blairall (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Toronto Chinatown(s)
Thanks for all your help with the editing and cleanup that you did! They much easier to read and less clunky as a results. -- Sjschen (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sjschen: Thanks, though honestly I feel like I should be the one thanking you! You put in some serious work in expanding those articles and its content, and its really something to commend ^^ Leventio (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It was a serious jumble for years now, awaiting some major restructuring, an giant itch to be scratched. I see you do quite a bit of Canadian history and food articles! Be seeing you around. -- Sjschen (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
don't do wlinks to countries
Please, why "generally don't do wlinks to countries"? It is very clear that people interested in Ontario would be interested in Canada (and specifically, a map showing all of Canada's provinces and territories, to see Ontario's relative position in the country). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollymarie (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Logo clarification
Can you change the Bruins, Panthers, Senators, Penguins, Flyers, Penguins, Red Wings, Blackhawks, and Blues wordmarks to their actual logos?
@2605:6001:E040:AA00:4C9A:87E0:440B:751F: This isn't really an issue of personal preference of one image or another, but an issue of copyright (the aforementioned logos are copyrighted and they're non-free images). As a free content encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot use these images without a proper rationale of fair use. I've linked it in my edit summary earlier, but you can find a more in-depth primer on non-free images at WP:NFC. Leventio (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
TBH, most of the people images at Rideau Hall, should be of governors general, not monarchs. Since it's the governor general who actually resides there. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Royal Tyrrell Museum page changes
I got your note and another about some recent Royal Tyrrell Museum on Wiki page changes. I work there and am on a shared computer. It is unclear to me what the issue(s) is/are. I'm not computer savvy enough to figure this out. Please email me direct: darren.tanke@gov.ab.ca Also note our Executive Director is now Lisa Making. Best, Darren 142.229.82.251 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@142.229.82.251: I should make it clear that the content you did add to the article (i.e. info on distance learning programs) was not the issue, and is still retained in the page. The issue I had was what I stated in the notice I sent you, "you recently removed content" from Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology.
Specifically, you removed cited content related to its outreach programs (pay-to-dig, excavation in Drumheller area) as well as its casting program specifically for other museums (these are both specifically cited in sources, whose authors are affiliated with the museum's research team); and than replaced said content with your own - without providing your own sources, nor did you even replace the sources for the content you removed (those sources were specific to the claims you removed... so to use those citations to support your claim was just improper to begin with).
Also, I believe the issue the other user was trying to raise to you on your talk page was that Wikipedia has a policy regarding users editing articles they may have a conflict of interests in (see Wikipedia:COI). This includes paid editors, or users that are employed by said institution the article is about (which I believe would be your situation). Given the relationship with the article topic, there is an expectation that you actually disclose your COI from the outset prior to editing. Heres a simplified guide for doing that if you wish to do that. Leventio (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Collège Boréal has never been based in the old Collège des Grands-Lacs facilities. CGL's campus was in the Stewart Building on College Street West near University Avenue; Boréal has never, ever been based there, and instead its Toronto campus has always been located either at Centennial College's Story Arts Centre on Carlaw or at One Yonge Street. That's why I revised your recent copy edits, and why I'm pointing this out now that you've unrevised my revisions: Boréal certainly took over CGL's mandate to serve francophone college students in Toronto, but it did not take over CGL's facilities. It launched its own facilities from scratch, and has never, ever been based at Stewart. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Fair enough. I don`t know why I had that idea in my head, but I guess a good lesson for me in terms of following up on assumptions I held. Anyhow thanks for the correction!
Re: Chief Justice Richard Wagner
As Acting Head of State, any Head of State would be styled Excellency. While Chief Justice Wagner is an “Administrator,” he’s still the head of Canada. To my knowledge, even as administrator, he would be afforded the style until a new Governor General is sworn in. Thoughts? AjayTO (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@AjayTO: Although the powers and authorities of the GG are vested into the administrator, I do not believe that automatically means he subsumed the titles related to the office of the GG as it remains a separate office. Canadian titles/honourifics in themselves are not provided as a courtesy, they are specifically accorded to certain individuals/offices by orders in council (existing titles listed here).
In saying that, if I'm being frank, I'm not absolutely certain of this myself (sources on administrators and titles are rather sparing as is). If you really want to pursue the matter further, I'd pose the question to the talk pages for Wagner (or alternatively GG of Canada talk page as that would be the page that would get more traffic/attention). Leventio (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I assume if I create a dedicated page for Philip Condon, that it will be considered for inclusion on the Cahir page? Is this correct? Who has editorial decision making over the Cahir page? Are people like Cahir Historical Society involved? I think it's good more rigour is being deployed but more transparency on the process and your identity would be welcome. BTW on Marian Tobin, many women provided safe houses - I would have thought her more notable achievement was to be an elected representative - the first in Tipperary just two years after Emancipation. This is referenced on her page but not on the Cahir page. Thank you! AMPC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.40.11 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@86.47.40.11: The question of whether or not a dedicated stand-alone article should be written about is a subject is largely determined by Wikipedia policies as established by the consensus of its editors (see WP:NBIO for notability guideline policies regarding persons), and not from any particular organization (like the Cahir Historical Society). With regards to the second question and Marian Tobin... not entirely sure what your referring to, but if your asking why your edits were reverted on Cahir, it was largely due to the fact that your edits added stray ref tags, broke the section header, and you fragmented a prose. Leventio (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Re Marian Tobin, I was referring to the fact that on the Cahir page, which you appear to manage and be the custodian of, the most notable fact about her appears to be that she ran a safe house. My point is that many women ran safe houses. The fact that she became an elected representative two years after Emancipation would appear to be more notable. It's good that facts are being checked and there is more scrutiny but I still think more transparency is called for. Are you from Cahir or what is your connection to the area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.40.11 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
And the comments about what was incorrect about my input (and I am reasonably IT literate) are not very clear. I understand the need for policy and guidance but they need to be somewhat comprehensible to ordinary people not using Wikipedia every day - it would be more helpful to be more specific - I included a line and then tried to add sources. Can you advise specifically what was incorrect? The other people listed had their own individual pages so I assumed that was the issue. Not your problem I know but i do wish Wikipedia was somewhat more user friendly. AMPC86.47.40.11 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@86.47.40.11: I do not manage the Cahir article, and neither does any other editor. That is not how Wikipedia works. I've was trying to stress this point in my last response to you, but Wikipedia and its articles are built on the work and consensus of all editors (which includes volunteers like you and I). Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are similarly established through the consensus of its editors. You can also view the list of policies (like WP:NBIO) at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Additionally (since were on the topic of transparency), if your curious as to how these policies/consensuses were established, you can read the relevant discussions in the policies talk pages and their archives.
In saying that, I do not live in Cahir (I live on an entirely different continent to be frank). What brought me to that article was the fact that your edit was marked by edit filters as potentially problematic. So to clarify on what was incorrect in your last edit (and what got it flagged by the edit filter), you added a random <ref> tags next to the section header (which in turn damaged the header); and you removed half of the sentence on Tobin, which made a fragmented sentence. You can see what exactly I changed/reverted from your edit in the edit diff here. Also, looking into the article's edit history, you removed your own content (see your second edit, and third edit), that had little to do with what I did.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Leventio. 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.
