User talk:Skookum1/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Skookum1. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Russian colonization of the Americas

The recent edit you made to Russian colonization of the Americas appears to be constructive. Please help Wikipedia improve this article.Pzoxicuvybtnrm 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzoxicuvybtnrm (talk • contribs)

Charles Atlas

Is there any particular reason why you removed Charles Atlas from the introduction to the Bodybuilding article? Please note that there is/was a discussion on what bodybuilders should be added or removed on that articles talk page. Thanks. --Yankees76 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I? I thought I was just reversing t he removal of Reg Park and Steve Reeves....must have been part of the edit I didn't notice; I'll put him back in....Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

SS Alice

This is a dab page, it is linked from the List of historical ships in British Columbia, looks like it is a different ship from those listed. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lower Mainland import

I imported this edit; the diff contains extra whitespace and reports an incorrect number of intermediate revisions, but it's the right diff. Nostalgia Wikipedia was created as a curiosity in early 2005, to show people what Wikipedia looked like at the end of 2001. It contains edits that aren't in the current English Wikipedia database, and I'm trying to import those edits. Graham87 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if they're wrong?Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I don't really care about the content of the edits I'm importing; I only want to make the page history as complete as possible. Some of the articles on Nostalgia Wikipedia are quite strange and often plain wrong or misleading. Graham87 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD HMCS Discovery

Wondering if you might have sources that would improve the article referenced here. --KenWalker | Talk 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

James Colnett

I think we talked a while back about the need for article on people like James Colnett. I finally got around to making a page for him, and it got fairly long. There's a surprising amount of info about him out there. I guess because of his central role in the Nootka Crisis. Anyway, just through I'd let you know. Pfly (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Olympic Village

I noticed your recent change on the 2010 Olympic Village page. Two comments: 1) There is actually only a single dock that is shared by both companies - so I think it may read better as "stop" but will leave that up to you as I am not a grammar expert. 2) Yes, there is also a Science World dock that is shared by both companies, which in reality is MUCH closer to the core of the Olympic Village. Ironically, that stop is currently closed because of the Olympics and will reopen after the games. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

given the post-Games population density in that area, I'd venture a new wharf/stop will also be built serving the village directly; for now I've amended the phrase in question but think, maybe, the presence of the Science World wharf needs mentioning even though it's not open for the Games.Skookum1 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I bet they will open a ferry dock right in the village sometime. I also agree that the Science World wharf needs mentioning, perhaps with a note that it is temporarily closed for the Olympics? (Would hate to see Olympic visitors use Wikipedia, go there, and find it is closed.) ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it. The other thing that probably should be added is the streetcar that just started operation [1]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Skookum1! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Paul Saint Pierre - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorest postal code in DTES

Hi Skookum, thanks I didn't understand the problems/issues with the statement. Maybe we could just change it to "one of the poorest areas in Canada"? I think we could find references for that too. TastyCakes (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said "poorest postal code in Canada" is an extremely common catchphrase in the media and very citable; as always the media fuzzify things they shouldn't (as in describing Princeton or Keremeos being in the Okanagan, which they're not). "Includes Canada's poorest code" could be used, though it's somewhat "original research" as the sources don't use the term "includes". The actual data on that I have my doubts about, though, as places like Lower Post are notoriously poor and AFAIK Lower Post has its own postal code; similarly Sheshatshiu, Labrador and Burnt Church, New Brunswick and so on.....the DTES has its own press kit - much to the dismay of, as I noted, Gastown and Chinatown; what's really meant by the phrase is East Hastings (i.e. East Hastings between Carrall and about Commercial or Heatley). I looked up the postal code map while looking up the city's definition of DTES, I didn't stop to look at the statistics.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be of relevance to the DTES article, though I'm not sure how to work it in. I'm moving today and will be largely offline for maybe the next long while as I don't have internet at the new place, and probably won't for a while, so won't follow up on this much....an actual wikibreak, rather than one I just say I'm on....Skookum1 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's exciting, hope your move goes smoothly! I'll see if I can find the original source of the "poorest area code" thing and if it's accurate... TastyCakes (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Re Olympics blanking

Will monitor the watchlist, especially for Olympics/BC material. I've mentioned the Olympics article situation at WP:CWNB and WP:CANTALK. Meanwhile, don't forget you have some access to resources for dealing with problem IP edits - protection of vandal-ridden pages (request at WP:RFP), issuing talk page warnings to know the IPs are being watched (the WP:UTM user warnings collection), WP:AIV, and some background at WP:IPB including range blocks if vandalism involves a certain group of IP addresses. Dl2000 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There was some (off-wiki) concern that this may have been a governmental employee editing through a proxy. However, a whois/geoip search shows that this is a shaw cable user, likely editing from home. I have watchlisted the Olympics article as well. DigitalC (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I used this GeoIP to do the location search, and it showed Vancouver. However, these are not always reliable. It is likely within the lower mainland though. Don't know why I can't run a WHOIS on it. DigitalC (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I used http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?Getlocation which for 24.83.179.120 places that one in Maple Ridge, apparently within 5km of the Mission border at Ruskin. But just because it's a home user doesn't mean it's not a government agent or Liberal/Olympics activist/provocateur....yes, not a government office but the motives are clear and the implications as to the identity or affiliation of such a user are fairly straightforward (COI, POV - really both); all these sections were previously blanked, I haven't looked back in the history to see if it's from the same or similar IPs. There's more of this kind of thing to come, I'm sure......Skookum1 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Steroid redirect

I think just redirecting to the main article is too general, I've redirected to the steroids section in the misuse of drugs in sport article diff, which, although it only covers the issue in professional circles, is undeniably "abuse" as it is against the rules. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Victoria's climate and Koeppen's Csb zone

Hello Skookum1. I'm as opposed to calling Victoria's climate Mediterranean as you are. Unfortunately, under the Koeppen climate classification, which is quite prescriptive if not accurate, much of SW BC, Washington and most of Oregon come under a "dry-summer subtropical" heading (Csb). Most climatologists have come to refer to this group as "Mediterranean" (which is in my opinion very unfortunate), but I suspect the "subtropical" heading is just as inaccurate. Such are the flaws of Koeppen (It also groups Washington, DC and New York together with New Orleans and Atlanta as "humid subtropical"!). An unusual drying trend in the summer puts Victoria, seattle and Portland (but not Vancouver) in same category as Los Angeles, Athens, Rome and Perth (all it took was one month with less than 30cm of precipitation- what a joke!). The tourism boosters love this! I'd like to say it has an Oceanic climate, typical of the coastal Pacific Northwest, except with a summer drying trend causing it to be classified as a cool summer Mediterranean climate (Csb) under Koeppen... Better pull out the sunglasses :) Koppenlady (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Recognized: Canadian Spellings... I did not know.

I was surprised when I saw the correction from recognised to recognized. I had made the assumption that Canada used spellings similar to British English as opposed to American English.

I realise when it comes down to brass tax it is "Canadian Spelling" but I was surprised to see which of the two alternatives this example mirrors.

Thank you for the lesson in National Spelling, it is greatly appreciated. -Andrei Freeman - Lordandrei (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Native of USA, Yet Anglophile in colour of spelling.

Italics on song titles

I have removed the italics from the song titles in the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony per the relevant manual of style (WP:MUSTARD) which states: "Names of songs and singles are in quotes, name of albums and EPs are in italics." Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

to me that's f**ked up but it's not the only wikipedia guideline I think is a departure from proper usage.....I'm in the music biz, italics are always applied to song titles...... (i.e. within the industry and its assorted publications/style usages)Skookum1 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Silverthrone

Hey, just figured you would be interested in the map I just created and uploaded as File:Silverthrone Caldera.png. I am working on a total rewrite and expansion for the Garibaldi belt article, so I am making more images to add in the text. BT (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, done, but the caption or article will need a table of terminology to explain terms like "pre-topographic" and "post-topographic". Somewhere in Marius Barbeau's Totem Poles there's an account or two of a volcanic eruption suffered by one of hte peoples of the Central Coast; this would seem to be either the Kwakwaka'wakw group at Kingcome Inlet (Tsawataineuk I think, I'll check) or the Oowekeeno (Rivers Inlet people); I don't have that book and it's years since I read it, I just know that it's not just the Nisga'a who have traditions about "volcano and frog woman" (plagues of frogs seem to have been associated with volcanic activity).....Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about pre-topographic and post-topographic. That's what I was going to do in the first place when the text is complete and posted. What is with this "volcano and frog woman"? I remember reading something about salamanders being killed during the Tseax Cone eruption awhile ago. Not sure where abouts it was though. BT (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Find the Barbeau book; it's in most public libraries, and should be in any university library, and look for Frog Woman, you'll find the material...Skookum1 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

clean up tag on CFB Esquimalt

I suspect that two days after you placed a clean up tag at the top of the CFB Esquimalt article last year that someone else came along and proper cased the items that were previously ALL CAPS on the class names in the fleet list (apparently a primary concern of yours along with the redundant fleet list information that was previously in Esquimalt, British Columbia). I have posted a query at Talk:CFB Esquimalt asking if you or anyone else thinks that the clean up tag should remain. I would appreciate it if you could add to the discussion there. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This may now be a moot point. Another editor has gone ahead and removed the tag. Please re add the tag if you still feel that article is in need of clean up. Thank you. 67.86.75.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Imperial control" of Canada

Dear Snookum,

There's a lot in your message. I believe I effected—or at least I intended to—a full-content paste merger as described here. For the rest I don't neglect any of your concerns, but I rather doubt that British colonization of the Americas would prove a better fit: that article addresses the gargantuan subject of 400 years of English, Scottish, and British exploration and colonization, from the Arctic to the Falklands via the Caribbean, from 16th century privateering to 20th century jurists and legislation. The content I merged is essentially a narrow history of Central Canada, 1783–1867, which an article of that scope could never absorb.

In the end, I'm not sure why exactly you reverted and I would have appreciated to no end that the substantive edits that accompanied the merge—including many factual corrections and stylistic improvements on horrible prose—had been preserved. Also, I'm not sure what you seek to gain by returning the content to a page that, by your own admission, is essentially an historical fiction with no historiographical or espistemological basis. At the very least, my edits were a step in the right direction—you could always continue to move sections elsewhere. Instead, you've left us marooned at the shipwreck. Albrecht (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would refer you to

If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger

The talk of non-consensual changes is also extremely suspect and unwelcome when used as a rhetorical instrument to justify a cluster-bomb-style revert. And common courtesy would dictate that your notification on my Talk had preceded your reverts. Albrecht (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As per my reply at your talkpage, your vehement attack on me here is completely undeserved; I explicitly said I wasn't reverting, - that was done by User:BilCat and for entirely justifiable reasons; you did not merge content, you blanked content, and there's also a big distinction between the term "British North America" and other areas of North America that were not (originally) included in that designation.Skookum1 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of Tilikum (orca)

Hi Skookum1!
Thanks for improving the citation title for the "Chinook Jargon" in the article for Tilikum (orca). I was questioning the previous entry for the meaning of the word "Tilikum" and when I found this reference at the White River Valley Museum site, I thought it looked quite reliable. I understand from your short note, that it is more POV than authentic. However, you must agree with the meaning of "Skookum", as "anything strong or able" :)

BTW, a "baby" of a whale is called a "calf". See this reference: Names of Males, Females, Babies, and Groups of Animals.

I am impressed with your multilingual ability.
Skol fir (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding BC Legislature Raids

Perhaps the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions, especially those of well-meaning amateurs like myself. I didn't know about the publication ban, and I don't actually know all that much about the case itself, other than the connection to the financial shenanigans regarding the sale of BC Rail. I'm a trainspotter, you see...could even show you a few pictures, if you'd like. And while I'm near Chicago, and thus possibly out of the jurisdiction of this order, I certainly wouldn't want to have the RCMP show up on my doorstep or something like that...just reading, found a few confusing things, and fixed them. I didn't have any intention of adding information to the article, since I don't have that much information to add. Basically, I'm sorry if I've caused any trouble with this. Kalmbach (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "filmed" vs. "produced"

There was a need to straighten out what was under Category:Canadian television series by production location, in which the Toronto and Vancouver subcategories were inconsistently named. For example, Category:Toronto television series was too vague as a category (does that include series produced in Toronto? Or a series about Toronto?). As for the filmed vs. produced, note the first sentence in the related Wikipedia subject, Filmmaking#Production - "In production, the film is created and shot". Therefore, for Wikipedia purposes, production effectively includes the filming, therefore it seems appropriate to treat the production categories accordingly. Settings on the other hand (e.g. when a scene representing New York was actually filmed in Toronto) seem to warrant a separate line of categories e.g. Category:Films set in New York City True, a series could be filmed in various locations, but that might warrant use of multiple, aggregate or parent categories. Dl2000 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious of those that occurs to me now and didn't the other night, is Fringe (TV series), which is "set" in Boston but filmed in Vancouver (interiors and some exteriors) and in Boston (for exteriors and, I think, specific Interiors). It happens to be produced in Vancouver, but it's also FILMED in Boston.....I'd venture that IMDB's designation of where Production is, geographically, is a "primary" source because its data originates with the production company; their listings have locations separate, as mentioned before...not sure of a fix that solves the problem which I understand created this; just speakign as someone who works in the industry, at times, it's an odd wording in terms of having two meanings, or a meaning professionally which is not the same as colloquial usage....Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Maritime Fur Trade

Heya. Slowly slowly getting this article together. Kinda want to make it extra nice before "publishing", so it's taking extra time. Here's a basic syntax/Wikipedia type question for you. Should the page name be capped, ie, "Marine Fur Trade", or lowercase, "Marine fur trade"? My current draft uses caps for the term whenever it occurs, eg, "The Maritime Fur Trade was a ship-based..". At least some sources tend to use it as a proper noun like this, but some don't, and some switch back and forth between the two styles. In favor of the caps style is the notion that it isn't about just any maritime fur trade that ever occurred but specifically the one from circa 1780 to 1840 and based on trading for furs on the PNW coast and selling them in China (Canton specifically, or via Mongolia for the Russians), and then acquiring Chinese goods to sell back in America or Europe. Mackie even defines the term as one coined for this purpose: The term was coined by historians to distinguish the coastal, ship-based fur trade from the continental, land-based fur trade. During the maritime fur trade era it was generally called the "North West Coast trade" ("North West" was rarely spelled as a single word, "Northwest"). But then, he writes it in lowercase right there. I've begun to think lowercase would be better. But then there is Old China Trade and Canton System (though perhaps they ought to be decapitated, so to speak). Anyway, thoughts? The term does not include other historical maritime fur trading systems/eras (I assume there were some, somewhere, sometime). The working draft is at User:Pfly/Sandbox2. It's currently in a state of rapid flux--trying to get the text in decent shape and then work on pictures and maps (got an interesting one in the works on the PNW coast with HBC and RAC fur trading posts as well as major fur-trading native villages and harbors (eg, Masset, Clemencitty, Skidegate, etc). That's all for later though--for now--page name, Maritime fur trade? Maritime Fur Trade? Pfly (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Go with full caps; "China trade" would look as odd as "United states" or "New york" or "British columbia" to me; because this is a specific time-period/industry it's a proper name. like the Bering Sea Arbitration (vs. "Bering sea arbitration"). Wiki "lower-case-ism" is out of control and there's lots in my watchlist I find very grating; "Wah Mee massacre" and "Rock Springs massacre" are noxious-looking to me, like "Battle of the little bighorn" (or "Little bighorn") and the particularly grating "Indian reserve" ("Indian Reserve" is a legal/official designation in Canada; a US comparison-construction might be "Colville reservation". the only real issue I see with the title is "Marine Fur Trade" vs "Maritime Fur Trade"....I'd be hard-pressed to know which is more often used, I'm sure both have been. but it's proper name for a specific period, whichever it is....so should be capped, like "Pig War" (v. "Pig war"). BTW in one of Begg's works discussing the Alaska Boundary Dispute he talks about the conclave of ships "of all nations" who congregated in Norfolk Sound (Sitka Sound) at a certain point, IIRC before the British established Forts Taku and Stikine - which were specifically aimed at stifling the Boston traders' business (and worked, though the forts themselves didn't last); by now you must know about the HBC's horror at finding the Fort Stikine operation accelerated the slave trade on the North Coast (a term which then included the Panhandle); if not see the googlebook on Aboriginal Slavery on the Northwest Coast.....a possible redirect btw would be "sea otter fur trade" although by the end of the trade sea otters were long gone and nearly any fur was brought to market....there's an article out there, too, on the Russian-Mongolian trading point, which I remember as Khiatka but that's not quite right....Skookum1 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kyakhta, yep. Thanks for the advice, I'll go with Maritime Fur Trade. "Maritime" seems more common than "marine". Mackie explicitly says the term "maritime fur trade" was coined by historians to distinguish it from the land-base trade (NWC, HBC etc). I haven't really seen "marine fur trade" (that I can recall atm). More common seems to be terms like "North West Coast Trade" or "North West Trade". I'll not worry about whether the term is sometimes written lowercase in the article while the page title is capped. Different wordings calls for different styles, good good. On Sitka--I haven't fully researched its history and role apart from the basic idea that in the early 1800s it had become the main port of call on the coast for maritime fur traders (like Nootka Sound was for a short while, but Sitka on a longer and larger scale). The American traders apparently made the supply of Sitka (with food mainly) a major part of their trade system, especially as sea otters disappeared. The HBC's attempt to take over the coast fur trade and drive away the Americans was made more difficult as the Americans shifted to things like provisioning Sitka. I still need to research the later era up there--especially the HBC lease, Forts Taku and Stikine, etc. Haven't yet read about the HBC's horror you mention! Though there's stuff about the coast trade in general causing an increase in indigenous inter-tribal warfare, slaving, and so on. And yea, there's a number of page names that can or should be redirects. Ok thanks, gotta run for now! Pfly (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Simpson was very distressed about it, and understandably. The Haida, and some of the Tlingit kwaans, had taken to increased slaving for the purpose of trading them for furs which would be unloaded at Ft Stikine; it was one of the reasons the HBC closed Fort Stikine, in fact, other than Simpson being just as feasible for trade in that area and a day's sail closer to the south (and relatively friendlier Tsimshian who gathered around it, effectively protecting it). Baranov's violation of the 1826 treaty in 1831 precipitated the HBC lease of the Panhandle, which other than a payment annual to the RAC of furs also included dairy and vegetables etc from Fort Langley, which had just been established, relatively speaking (1826-27) and was closer to Russian America than Fort Vancouver was; the lease wasn't in place until 1839, I think, but IIRC shipments of food north from Ft Langley following the beginning of negotiations, I think in 1833.....and the quality/freshness of produce from Ft Langley vs the American produce from Hawaii or California helped put the Yanks out of business (no refrigeration on those ships...). Scurvy was a curse of the Russian colonists, as you may know (they didn't acquire a taste for oolichan oil or the black moss which was part of the native diet)....I"m getting real interested in this period, but am not enough of an academic ass-kisser to want to go through the academic process to get the BA which would have to precede an MA and a professorship LOL....Canadian academia is distinctly disinterested in this period, other than in BC where whitey-drubbing is the chief pasttime of academic historians and their wannabes...I'm impressed by the American accounts of even what went on in British territory, it's much more detailed and less p.c.-jingoistic; it can be very hard in Canadian accounts to string together actual events and contexts because there's so much generalization and pontification about big bad whitey; like I said that Aboriginal Slavery on teh Northwest Coast is a great read, and somewhere in my storage CDs there's some treatment of Kwakwaka'wakw history that impressed me for its unflinching objectivity about the nature of Kwakwaka'wakw imperialism into the Georgia Strait region (namely the Lekwiltok migration and enslavement/subjugation of the Comox...whose very name in Kwak'wala means "wealth", i.e. "property")....if you look on the Fort Stikine page and find the refs there's some very good acounts by some Yukon historian (I think he's from the Yukon) about how the northern forts got established and what went on with the Redoubt, which set the stage for Forts Stikine and Taku and the lease....there seem to be three periods to the fur trade - the initial one around Nootka Sound, the Boston trader period up to the '20s, and then the British-Russian rapprochement following the treaty and Baranov's violation of it, which led to the effective HBC monopoly (and saw the Russians open Fort Ross to try and get around the HBC's monopoly on their food supply = IMO); and a fourth period when only Ft Simpson was open on the North Coast...Ft Stikine wound up being under the control of Chief Shakes but by the 1860s it sounds as though Buck Choquette had taken over the old fort and had the HBC trading license there and ran a store...until the Alaska Purchase when he moved the store up the river into British territory (he'd married one of Shakes' daughters)...by then the sea otter was long gone and the China Trade re-geared, but I guess there were other furs...one thing you'll come across as a trade item was elk-leather cuirasses, which were an important trade good and I think the HBC got into the business of supplying elk hide; I've never been clear how much commerce of goods there was between New Caledonia and Fort Simpson though; fairly hostile territory in between ;strikes me that any goods from there that reached Ft Simpson, or vice versa, probably got sent around via the Brigade Trail; the Gitksan and Kitselas weren't exactly friendly.....not pacified even a little bit until the Omineca Gold Rush, and then with some battles for the Skeena canyon and the pasasge of riverboats....all interesting stuff and much passed-over in histories of BC, which obsess on the Cariboo without understandin the complexity of the gold rushes or of the native political/economic reality...look for a book called "Mukmuk" by the way, probably will have some good stuff; and note Cumshewa and related articles re important ports....time for bed....life is long, but my years grow shorter....I'm going to recuse myself from wikipedia at some point, unless I can find grant funding to continue my historical interests and/or get a writing/teaching position somewhere...seems odd al the way out here but it has occurred to me that BC/PacNW history really isn't taught outside the region except in the most cursory fashion...you'd think maybe a university in Ottawa or Toront would necessailriy show interest, but I know they'd only hire some pedigreed "new history" type ready to rant on about women in Vancouver Island coal mines and the evils of ship captains and their exploitation of the gullible coastal peoples (which Mukmuk puts the lie to) and the oppression/exploitation of railway workers etc etc...all tired cliches of BC history but the kind of thing that has political reason to find support....I could probably get interest from teh U. of Alaska but, well, do I want to live in rainy Ketchikan or Wrangell....I don't think so LOL..... Skookum1 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well many (most?) of the fur trade ship captains were "evil", or at least tried to trick, deceive, cheat, etc, the natives--or simply used violence and kidnapping to achieve their goals. But the coastal people were certainly not "gullible"--they also did their best to trick, deceive, cheat, etc, for the most part. And they didn't shy from violence and outright attack if the odds seems in their favor. The cases in which ships were actually captured are fairly well known (the Tonquin and that one the Haida nearly took..Belle Savage? Oh and Maquinna and the Boston). Apparently these were just the most successful of scores of attempts to seize ships. This Otter Skins & Boston Ships book get into lots of the details. Somewhere it says that it was well known that Wickaninish wanted to acquire a sailing ship, and when attempts to buy or trade for one failed he tried seizing some. I can't find the passage right now though. Perhaps Wickaninish was also behind the capture/fate of the Tonquin. Anyway, the author, James R. Gibson, seems to be a specialist on the PNW early history, and is a professor at York University in Toronto. So, it is possible! Pfly (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Dalton (pornographic actor)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark Dalton (pornographic actor). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dalton (pornographic actor). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

SFU

Hi Skookum1!

I noticed in your edit summaries (from March your 21st edits) you asked the "University's p.r. dept to BUTT OUT" of Wikipedia and that you sent a note to them. But I'm afraid you've had a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not sure what part of the articles are specifically WP:SOAP (I have removed already large majority of content that was ripped off of SFU's website verbatim c.f. - [2]). I'm actually a student at SFU who's been actively trying to clean up the SFU article, and much of it is still a work in progress. Most of the content on the SFU page were modified and added by me over the last few weeks.

And just to let you be sure I'm not a minion of the SFU P.R. department, I'm also the one who originally added the bit about the political activism on the campus during the 1960s. I've been trying to find more sources to expand that section, but unfortunately most information is not available online, and there's only one published book that I'm aware of, and that's Radical Campus by Hugh Johnston, and I haven't had the time to get my hands on that.

If you could let me know which aspects of the article you felt are currently too "commercialized" or just inappropriate, I'd gladly make some contributions to change it.

Cheers!

Soggybread (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Boulder Mt, Revelstoke

I replied to you at Talk:2010 British Columbia avalanche. Cheers, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian America, ukases and treaties

=Heya, so I stumbled on what appear to be a number of mistake on various WP pages about the Russian-American Company and Russian America and the history of southern boundaries being claimed, challenged, etc. The idea I've seen here and there is that the southern boundary claimed by Russia in America was established at 55° by the 1799 ukase that created the RAC. Then in 1821, the RAC's charter was renewable via another ukase which also proclaimed Russia controlled everything south to 43°, and banned foreign shipping in claimed waters. Britain and the US quickly protested and the line was adjusted to 51°. This was still unacceptable to Britain and the US and negotiations resulted in the Russo-American Treaty of 1824 and the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, which permanently set the southern border at 54°40′ (and defined it running north, making the panhandle, to 141° W longitude, thence north to the Arctic Ocean. Right? This was the basic story told at 51st parallel north, which I think you may have added.

I've been reading various sources on the general era and such, as you know, and was surprised this evening to read a good source that did not agree with several points--and put forth a number of interesting related points I had never heard before. I've checked several other sources and think I've got the correct info. The book with the most detailed info (and quite "scholarly", ie, looks very reliable despite its seemingly US-POV title) is Alaska: An American Colony, by Stephen W. Haycox.

First, the ukase of 1799 created the RAC and did specify 55° N--the RAC was given monopolistic control north of that line. But this was not the origin of the Russian claim to 55°. According to Haycox, 55° was the Russian claim since 1790 (related somehow to the Billings Expedition). The 1799 ukase simply affirmed this line for the RAC. Further, the ukase is explicit in saying the line was not meant to be a limit of Russian America--the RAC was free, even encouraged to operate south of the line, and to occupy and colonize territory "as Russian possessions, according to prescribed rules, if they have not been previously occupied by, or been dependent on, any other nation." Perhaps this relates to the Fort Ross thing you wrote about the other day. The text of the 1799 ukase is online here. See the table of contents--lots of stuff--the 1799 ukase is on page 14, the various 1821 ukases and much else is also there.

A more serious mistake, it seems, is the idea that in 1821 another ukase asserted Russian control to 43°, but "quickly challenged by the British and the United States and was revised to 51° N" (quote from the Russian-American Company page). I've been looking for a source confirming this claim to 43° with a quick retreat to 51° and cannot find one. The ukase is online at that source linked above. There are two from 1821--one renewing the RAC's charter and one making the enlarged claim and the banning of foreign ships. Neither mentions 43°, rather the claim of exclusive control is to 51° north. Haycox supports this and makes interesting points about why that line was chosen. Anyway, I put a "fact" tag on the claim on the RAC page--not having time for more right now (except writing this to you!).

Anyway, the rest of the basic story seems right--negotiations between Russia and the US, and Britain, resulted in a southern bound at 54°40′, and the rest of Alaska's borders (panhandle's borders of course turning out problematic, but still they *tried* to set it). But, there is something left out, it seems. Why did Russia suddenly proclaim control over everything north of 51°, ban foreign shipping, and with rather dire warnings about naval patrols to enforce the new policy? The ukase is clearly provocative , given that American traders were numerous and active in the area banned by the ukase, and the HBC was obviously established in the interior (the ukase does not say its claim applies only to the coast--it implies that all of North America north of 51° is Russian--the Hayes atlas even shows a Russian map from 1821 with a line running east all the way to Hudson Bay). So Russia was knowingly being harsh with Britain and the US. Then within a few years Russia did a full reversal and agreed to what it had always claimed, more or less, 54°40′ being a mere adjustment of the old claim of 55°. So.. why?

This is what Haycox gets into and I found interesting. .. …hmm, while writing about it just now I checked some points and am now not so sure about Haycox. His basic argument is that Russia was alarmed by the Treaty of 1818. But he says the treaty set the southern limit of Russian America at Dixon Entrance, or 54°40′, and reading the treaty I don't see that at all. He might be talking not about the treaty itself but the various related diplomatic correspondances, statements, etc. Anyway, he says the British-US agreement in 1818 was "daring, and for Russia and Spain, insulting". Spain reacted was to "accept the fait accompli"; esp as the NW Coast was of no consequence anymore for Spain. But Russia's reaction was the ukase of 1821. The tsar "was highly incensed at the aggressive stance taken by Britain and the US", he writes. The ukase of 1821 was, he says, an answer to the treaty of 1818, and "equally aggressive". Between 1821 and the treaties of 1824 and 1825 a number of things happened. Spain's American colonies were rebelling and gaining independence. Both the US and Britain liked this, especially because it opened up markets for trade--Spain had always prohibited foreign trade. Spain was apparently thinking about attempting a reconquest, which played into US President Monroe's decision to proclaim the Monroe Doctrine in 1823: "a new unilateral hemispheric policy for the US--henceforth the US would oppose the establishment of any further European colonies in the Americas. " It was aimed mainly at Spain, but included Russia too. After proclaiming this new doctrine the US sent a strong message to Russia rejecting Russian claims south of 54°40′. This was soon followed up with talks, then the treaty of 1824, which Britain quickly followed up on, "completing" the remaining issues.

Anyway, I was thinking all of this was likely correct, but after reading the Treaty of 1818 I'm not so sure. And it is late, so I will stop now. Goodnight! Pfly (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

MY writeups were an attempt to distill the version given by Alexander Begg; the cite in question is the one you removed from the 51st Parallel article - in this edit. When I wrote it there was no copy of the 1799 or 1821 Ukases on line, though I was redlinking both of them like mad and trying to find someone in WP:Russia to help make them as articles or at least in wikisource. All of this was a preamble towards finally completing the "background" section of the Alaska Boundary Dispute article and adding info on the BC claim on that article...and also because of the overlap between Russian America and Russian colonization of the Americas and Russian American Company....more later, I just got up; the Russian reaction to the Treaty of 1818 should probably be included in that article, also.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the Begg cites. I thought perhaps something had been misread, and since unfortunately one can't search for text at that website and there's no page mentioned I'd have to read through the whole of both to figure it out. So it seemed better to use a different source. But I'll skim through the Beggs later today. Just woke up. :-) Pfly (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, only looked at the first couple pages of the Begg, but it's interesting that he says on page 1 that the 1821 ukase's claim over NW America is to 45°50′! But then right away on page 2 he says 51 (I think--website keeps having database errors). The 45°50′ line in the ukase refers to Russia's claim over the coasts of Asia, not America. Looks like Begg made a mistake, although immediately corrected. Anyway, will read more later. Pfly (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

you can't search for text strings at nosracines.ca, but you CAN search for individual terms/names. And NB entering a word in the text field and hitting "enter" wont' do it, you have to push the "search" button....btw while checking that I found this, which though its 1917 publication date probably has some interesting diversions in it....Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you can search, thanks--I thought you could only search for whole books, not pages within a book. Great, useful. Anyway, in further browsing through sources, esp that Fur Seal Arbitration document which contains a huge amount of primary source material on the boundary issue history, I think I too quickly accepted Haycox's story about the 1821 ukase as fact, not opinion/guess. It could be that Russia was angry over the 1818 treaty and felt, for some reason, that the US and Britain were defining limits to Russian America, even though the treaty itself is clear about not having power over any nation except the US and Britain. Even if the treaty of 1818 played a role in the ukase of 1821, the diplomacy that followed focused on other matters (all the diplomatic letters are in the Fur Seal Arbitration report). It seems that Russia's main complaint was that Americans were trading with natives in Russian territory--especially near Russian settlements (Sitka most of all, no doubt); and that the Americans were supplying the natives with large amounts of firearms, ammunition, and gunpowder, as well as lots of alcohol. Russia argued that this was rapidly undermining friendship between Russians and the natives and endangering Russian lives and colonies. That Americans were trading firearms and alcohol was definitely true--not just in the north but everywhere along the coast--and it was contributing to native resistance and power (from Clayoquot to the Queen Charlotte Is., to Alaska. Apparently Russia had made formal complaints on this topic since 1805 or so, and the US had not done anything about it. The Russian letters around the time of the 1824 treaty with the US seem to focus on this issue a lot, and make it clear that it was vital that the treaty forbid Americans to trade firearms and alcohol in Russian America--and the treaty did forbid it. So.. maybe Haycox's theory is weak. There could be lots of unspoken but important factors behind the official diplomatic statements though, so who knows. Still, I was too quick to accept Haycox's ideas. Ah well. Pfly (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And I, perhaps, too quick to accept Begg's, alhtough his I understood to be a polemic in defence of BC's (ignored) claims in the boundary dispute. It's interesting, though, isn't it, that a later generation of Russians chose to deal with the US, despite the close relationship between the RAC and HBC after 1838 and, actually, Douglas' recommendation that Britain seek to purchase Russian America to prevent an American "flanking acquisition", and that was indeed teh basis of BC's objections to the Alaska Purchase; that the lease was not being respected or recognized by either the US or Russia, even though it was well-known in the fur industry and Sitka would have long been starved out without British support/trade. Different tsar, different ministers...and post-1853 I suppose, although even the Crimean War-era relations between the RAC and HBC were notably amicable; maybe it was because of the fleets' withdrawal to Esquimalt after Petropavlovsk that the RAC's nose got in a snit....there's a lot of Alaskan legal cases which discuss the purchase, the 1824 and 1825 treaties and the Ukases; I remember one series of documents I found which were between the US federal govt and the Alaskan state govt over jurisdiction in certain bays/gulfs, and similar arguments/precedents are in the American legal arsenal re the ongoing Dixon Entrance dispute...it's amazingly complex material, as with the Bering dispute....btw I had a bit part in The Sea Wolf, shot here in Hali, the plot of which concerns that sealery, though set in San Francisco; and several notable British Columbians, including Morris Moss, owned "British" boats seized by the US....Skookum1 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I know at least the Oregon Dispute is mentioned in passing in 1848-1918: The Struggle For Mastery in Europe by AJP Taylor, maybe given its date in the preamble, but I don't remember anything about the Bering Sea Dispute, which if it's mentioned at all was overshadowed by the Great Eastern Crisis; but on a number of occasions in taht tome Taylor makes reference towards British-US rivalry in the North Pacific, mostly of course only on issues which hinged on events/the balance of power in Europe. What's fascinating about the Northwest so often is despite the obscurity of the place, and its issues, on a number of occasions (Nootka Crisis, 1818-1825, 1831-38, Oregon, the San Juan Dispute and more) it seemed like the whole world would go to war over distant fishing or fur rights....Skookum1 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh yea.. reminds me about the reaction in England when news of the Nootka Incident arrived--the first being "where's that?" Wait, it's in this book right here, lemme look. Oh right: "At first [prime minister] Pitt's government knew almost nothing of what had happened, nor even where Nootka Sound was.." but "as a precaution" mobilized the navy, heh. That Haycox book made some connections between the ukase of 1821 and the changed situation in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars had ended, with Britain in a very powerful position and a "liberal" alliance in place as a kind of global superpower of the time--with Russia being more and more "conservative" and "paranoid" about this new world order. In that context the British-US treaty of 1818 might be seen as something.. sinister or threatening. Anyway, it is funny how global crises can erupt over relatively small events in distant places; a curious aspect of PNW history. I'm glad no real large-scale war of imperial powers occurred here. Pfly (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just reread this thread and.. hey, it that the deal? The HBC lease was not honored by the US after the Alaska Purchase? I know you've referred to something along these lines, but I hadn't seen it put so clearly. Is that right? The HBC had a lease for X years and before the years were up the US purchased Alaska, and then failed to honor the lease? Pfly (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox nhsc

I fixed the {{Infobox nhsc}} so that the Canadian flag would no longer show even if it was included by using country={{CAN}}. I also fixed a few other things and left some suggestions on the talk page. something lame from CBW 07:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dab

I'm not quite sure what the WikiJargonTerm (WJT) "dab" is... I'll guess "disambiguation," but you shouldn't assume knowledge of arcane talmudic acronyms when corresponding with people you don't know...

I'm not quite sure what name I changed John Work #1 to to make room for John Work #2 and subsequent. It's certainly nothing that anyone should be expected to wait two weeks on a silent discussion page to "resolve" before doing the same old thing anyway... Apologies if you didn't care for the nationality identifier and if there's a descriptive adjective more fitting and standard, please do use that. Point being there are 3 "John Works" and counting and they need to be differentiated somehow.

Peace. Carrite (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, normally disambiguation is added to "next made" articles and is not needed for the originally made one; I don't know when each of those was made, but it would seem that the fur trader one was "the one"; you of course weren't aware that a dab already existed and I really don't know why it existed; maybe because it was originally made with the dab and, without knowing there would be other John Works out there, somebody simplified it to the non-dab John Work page, as is customary if no other article exists; NB if a middle name distinguishes a person, the dab is not needed, as I note in the case of many on the "new" page; and all would be assmebled on a page titled John Work (disambiguation), including the original non-disambiguated one...... Nationality dabs are only added to clarify between two people of the same profession, e.g. "Canadian politician" vs "American poitician", if there's only one politician then simply "politician" would be the dab. In this case, if there were an American fur trader named John Work, then "American fur trader" and "Canadian fur trader" would be the way to go; in this case much of his career was, in fact, in areas that have been part of the US since 1846. All this will be resolved when an admin gets around to making the name-change; it just looks really, really odd right now - as he wasn't Canadian....Skookum1 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fylke"

Hi! Please don't place "(fylke)" in any articles, the English term is county and everybody understands that. If we were to provide translations of terms everybody understands, we would have: "second to largest city (by) on the island (øy) of Karmøy in the county (fylke) of Rogaland, Norway (Norge)". Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft map of NW Coast for maritime fur trade

Just got a second. I uploaded a preliminary draft of a map of the North West Coast for use on the maritime fur trade page. I know it needs more work, but wondered if you had any particular thoughts about it--especially actual mistakes I might have made. Per forts shown, I've tried to limit it to those actually mentioned in the article (and then only a subset)--so not all the HBC posts but at least the early ones and the ones important to the maritime fur trade. The map is here, File:MFT-NorthWestCoast.png, and in the kind of form (and size) it will probably end up being here, User:Pfly/Sandbox2. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Items:

replace Alaska with "Russian America"; the name Alaska before 1867 tended to mean the Alaska Peninsula and Alaska Range areas only, not the whole current US state/acquisition. Ft Langley, pls note, was not a real part of the coastal trade; but then on the other hand a lot of Stikine's and Taku's furs, and Simpson's, came from inland...hmmm; and wasn't Fort Rupert founded during this period?
add Columbia District above Ft Vancouver; tight squeeze I know, but a map showing Oregon only is USPOV. No room to put in "Thompson Country"; if there was a trail used to Fort Simpson from New Caledonia it prob should be shown
replace "Euroamerican settlement" with "trading post" (for one thing, there's this other term, "Eurocanadian", and I don't like either; both are, to my, harshly POV

indigenous village "and port of call", though harbour will do (Am. spelling is fine LOL). "Main native entrepots" perhaps, something ilke that.

is Fort Defiance going into the article? The only American post on what is now BC territory...

I've been out singing, for hours, getting my voice in shape and spewing sometimes-random rhyme, and it's 2:29 am so I really must resist further comment; looks great, but I'm quibbling with the noemnclature; an inset of Vancouver Island might be good; but then the same is true of the Charlottes/North Coast/Panhandle.....

zzzzzzSkookum1 (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good night. Pfly (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A few replies. Feel free to ignore in favor of music!

Russian America, yes, makes sense. Although the present borders of Alaska were set by the British-Russian treaty of 1825, but yes. I put those borders on since they date from such an early date and were important for the fur trade (despite the HBC's Fort Yukon!). Thinking about adding text specifying 141° long., 54°40′ lat. (plus the Portland Canal/Channel), and something about the dashed panhandle line being "unclearly definied" by the 1825 treaty.
Fort Langley, I don't know. It would be nice to leave it off and unclutter that area. It seemed important as being founded so early, and as the first tentative HBC move toward fighting the Americans on the coast. Plus it came to play a role as an exporter of salmon and lumber. But if it is more noise than informative, hmm, would be nice to leave off.
As for inland furs being moved to coastal posts like Stikine, Taku, and Simpson, I was tempted to add little arrows showing that, but thought it would be more confusing than helpful. It will be explained in the text anyway. Langley didn't receive a lot of inland furs afaik; perhaps another reason to strike it from the map.
Columbia District, yes.. I added it. It is tight. Yet another reason to lose Langley! It would be better if the map extended farther east, but that would take some effort. Thompson Country seemed unnecessary, especially for the maritime trade.
I don't know of any "regular" trail from Fort Simpson to New Caledonia. There were indigenous trails, but I think the HBC didn't work hard at taking them over. Posts at either end did the job well enough. The "Brigade" book has something about Conolly planning to make a "voyage of exploration" down the Skeena in the 1820s or 30s, but poor health prevented it.
Fort Rupert was founded in 1849; well within the later phase of the North West Trade system, but rather late for the maritime fur trade--by then sea furs on the NW coast were nearly extinct. I almost didn't include Fort Victoria for similar reasons, but figured that was a post that really should be included.
Good advice on the term "Euroamerican", which I simply took from Gibson. Hadn't thought about "Eurocanadian"! Once again I wish the United States had come up with a better name for itself. Coopting "America" does not make things easier. I'll go with "trading post". And for the indigenous one I think I'll stick with "harbor", since some of them, like Kaigani, seem to have been less about indigenous settlements or "ports of call" and more about good places for ships to winter on the coast. And, heh, I see I've used "harbor" on the map, but in the text I use "harbour" as well, depending on context.
Fort Defiance is mentioned in the article, but I'm thinking of taking it out--the section on Gray is too long, relative to others. Either way, I figured it is a minor point, and explicitly described as being in Clayoquot Sound, so… no need to clutter the map.
Yes, insets would be good, but unlikely. I'd like to make a world map and perhaps one or two others. And I'd like to get it all done in the next week or two. So.. As it is this PNW map is a kind of inset already!

I can't imagine singing "in tongues", as I think you put it the other day. I've been slowly edging toward a very controlled attempt at recording myself singing some slow and calm tracks I made a few years ago that are still awaiting vocals. Our styles are quite different, I think. I'm more of the architectural type, when it comes to music--composing, even. Part of why I sometimes say I'm "not really a musician"--not very good at improv and jamming. Pfly (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Geology article

Here is the link for the talk page. Someone has started a discussion to rise issues about this article and is adding the article to see also sections in BC geology articles. He/she thinks the article needs a total rewrite and restructering (which really does). BTW I did a total rewrite and expansion for the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article today. BT (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Censored"

Stop referring to content decisions you disagree with as "censorship". It is a gross example of assuming bad faith. You may disagree with the interpretation of others on how reliable various sources are, but that does not change the fact that their actions are still in good faith. Reso lute 22:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The continued removal of reference to an extremely-well-known and also highly influential publication and documentary for spurious reasons, even ones unconnected to its mention (as with HiLo48's deletion today, which was improper to start with - like all other deletions of this book's/doc's mention - can't be considered anything but censorship of information, and of an important citation in its own right. is an example of the continuing campaign to "wash" this article; HiLo48 would be better-informed about No Games 2010 if mention of it hadn't been turfed out of the article and at first relegated to the POV fork, tbhen delted from there. The proper procedure for something you don't understand it, either with a fact tag, a who tag or a what tag; not to wipe out it and all else it's there for. Just beacuse one editor doesn't understand what something is is no reason to delete material, and important material at that; And in ThePointBlank's and Crossmr's cases, they came in, out of the blue, pronounced something "fringe" (which wasn't) and deleted it without discussion. Without looking into it, without adding tags, without allowing it to be seen, and by attacking others (not just me) who have tried to make sure it's included; this applies not only to Five Ring Circus and No Games 2010/2010 Watch but to a lot of other stuff in this article. Compare an early-January version or a November version to what's there today. WP:Wikipedia is not censored is out there somewhere; to allow ongoing censorship and to not be allowed to point it out is rubbish; it's not ASSUMING bad faith, it's KNOWING the difference between truth and lies, and knowing what's proper in content and what's proper in editing. And deleting something out right that's cited (even though as User:Unomi has explained that no such citations are actually necessary, while helpfully providing some) is not fair ball; if this information is "orphaned" because of other censor/POV editors that's all too convenient, isn't it? All the more reason why behaviour of the kind we're seeing in the blanking out of all mention of this book (and similar material) is, while maybe not systematic, evidence of the harm done by allowing deletions of materials for the wrong reason. Claiming that someone is still oeprating in good faith when their actions prove otherwise is nonsense.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The existence of material does not require the addition of it. If consensus is that the material does not add to the article, then that is an editorial decision, not censorship. You've got a habit of blaming the removal of anything you want on "censorship" and the addition of anything you don't as "COI". In most cases, your accusations are off base, and need to stop. The proper way to do it is to convince other editors of the validity of your position. Throwing out ad hominems is the wrong way. Reso lute 03:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that'll mean going back to the unpurged article history and finding the original text which described Chris Shaw and the organization that grew around him; that material got migrated to a POV fork (by someone who overtly deleted the whole section in the main article, though some - and only some- was restored, then further diluted); and it's not in that other article NOW, because all this was tolerated. The solution, for me, is to create an article on the book, and on the documentary, and on 2010 Watch, cf. [[3], I believe the link is to what "No Games 2010" may have to redirect to; though my rough understanding is the website is not the same thing as the organization. Chris Shaw is also notable, now, because of the wide viewership and globe-spanning reviews adn interest the book has provoked; the documentary is notable because of who's in it, and who narrated it (Betty Krawczyk), and the book likewise because of its reviews; in all cases the solution would have been to add a fact tag, or a who tag, and not (persistently) to delete all mention of it (I have my doubts also as to whether accuracy.org and thedominion.ca were also "fringe", as arbitrarily adjudged by so-and-so and immediately deleted upon that judgement). And as for the COI comment I made, I was meaning a COI reference, maybe a better term is self-referential reference, as there's NO WAY that VANOC's figures are objective and true, and they've been criticized for number shuffling, including by more than "only a few" for such juggling of books; what I objected to was Emarsee's insistence that ONLY VANOC's figures should be considered valid; even though the CGA site he used to justify his argument said clearly that they were not. So whatever the term is, the idea that only a corporation's/organization's books and other information should be considered valid is quite contrary to policy; it's like a person from a company (though I'm not saying that's Emarsee) deleting any information "not submitted by the company" (an absurdity put forward repeatedly lately, elsewhere, by User:Cmtremewen re Salt Spring Coffee Co., and for which that user has been blocked for spamming as a result of such COI/OWN activity). And that's what's been often argued here; that only "OWNed" citations are valid, taht all others are "fringe" ("OWN" cites/input here would be those that reference VANOC, the BC Government or Liberal Party, of CanWest newspapers - and endorsing the latter while deleting citations from newspapers in other jurisdictions critical of the GAmes or of VANOC or et al.; these included Sports Illustrated and the Manchester Guardian, for instance. There's a difference between lies and truth, and time and again the official "line" of VANOC/BCGov/BCLiberals/ISU sources/cites has been shown to be false; giving falsehood equal weight to the truth is not what NPOV is supposed to be about, and taking out information - cited information that does dserve to be in the article (which Five Ring Circus more than qualifies for, though again User:Unomi's observation that citations are not needed for reference to that book as a source of opinion) - is also "not the way things are done". Especially when that material is rapidly taken out, repeatedly, by someone who professes to know nothing about what the pasasge means; the thing to do is ask. But time and again such people have simply gotten rid of teh material, while fluffying up other material that's clearly POV and p.r. in tone - or defending "self-referential" links from VANOC etc as if they were the only valid ones. I've watched this article for months, though took a break once all the rah-rah-rah started during the Games and in the days before; it's drastically different from "how it was before", and decidedly changed in tone, often by heavy handed "deleters" who do so because they don't want to look for sources, or simply, as they often state very clearly, because they don't like what's being said. Orchestrated campaign, or a pack of the blind and deaf wielding a hammer, the result is the same....Skookum1 (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie; I didn't even read that wall of text. I'm not getting involved in the issue itself, but I am stating that the assumption of bad faith needs to end. If you disagree with a removal or addition and wish to revert (within the confines of WP:3RR) that is fine. But don't characterize decisions you disagree with as being something they are not. Reso lute 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is demonstrated bad faith...certain things no longer can be assumed to be simply assumable, so to speak; there's got to be a wiki rule where obvious truth is actually recognized as such; there's also a difference between consensual editing, especially re controversial materials, and successive waves of people deleting things they don't like the sound of, and even say so, or don't know about, and also even say so. Even and also cited materials, and in fact this case the entire deletion of the material as a reference has been perpetrated (over and over, without good reason or proper procedure); the solution, to me, is to create articles for notable items - the organization, Chris Shaw, the documentary, the book, to validate them not just asw citations but as wiki links. Be aware I've never seen this film ro read the book, only know of the impact it's had. There's a LOT wrong with the way the deleting and rewording of material has had a decidedly POV effect; removing this book/documentary and its importance in the history or organized opposition to the Games - which itself was notable - is not validated in any way by existing wiki guidelines; but I sure as hell seeing people incorreclty invoking guidelines as a way to justify its continual, repeated, removal.....and btw if there's an ongoing history of pro-government, pro-VANOC edits here, and also invocations such as I've seen for only using their press, there might be grounds for calling in a a CHECKUSER to see who among these who claim not to be are really originating from government offices, or VANOC, or any other COI-type IP. You can claim not to have read this; you only reinforce the problem by persistent ignorance adn refusal to believe that Wikipedia can be manipulated; in this case even if it's a collective mass like a school of fish acting without specific direction it's still as a result of media-massaging the public mind; tehre's a b ig difference between the truth, and the conclusions and decisions of a conclave of the unknowledgeable....the main rule that shoudl be applied about controversial and "dissenting" material is INCLUSION, not deletion; that's simple enough; but persistent deletion of important dissenting material, that's not allowed; I don't know what the rule is or what guideline that's in....but if Wikipedia isn't a spam machine, it has to transcend "assume good faith" with some recognition of what's bullshit; whether it's stuff put in, or stupid reasons things get taken out.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing expeditions. Wikipedia is concerned about verifiability, not truth, and it requires that additions be verified using reliable sources. The burden is on you to convince others that the sources you wish to use are reliable. Off-hand, it seems that your view that this book/documentary is important,notable or reliable is a minority opinion right now. As far as the opposition to the games goes, there is already a healthy criticism section, and you do need to be mindful that there was certainly a positive legacy to the games as well as the concerns raised. Be careful not to put undue weight on your position either. You run the risk of forcing your own POV onto the article, even as you accuse others of forcing theirs. Reso lute 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, you know that. It doesn't matter whether it's a "minority opinion" or not, it matters that it's a notable work and it doesnt' matter if so-and-so in Australia hasn't heard of it or doesn't think it's important. This book and documentary were important in galvanizing the organized opposition to the Games, and has been widely reviewed far beyond British Columbia. Claiming that a majority opinion of poeple who openly say they don't know anything about the issues or the book/doc is just not right. There are sufficient third-party citations about the book, and enough news items about the organization/dissent/resistance it touched off that it IS notable, whether you like it or not. My only POV here is the complete truth, not just what those who only want one POV ("positive coverage") have decided is notable or not.Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The deliberate jumbling of political opposition items mixed in amid non-political items in the controversies section, and in the spin-off article, is a very obvious p.r. technique as well as very obvious as wilfull mixing-up of items so as to hide things, or render them meaningless; if you haven't read any advertising/p.r. theory look for "dilution", which is what this is; and then there's soft-soap language as is the artificial contrast between "subsidized" and "profitable" re post-Games use of the Athlete's village (mainstream sources as well as the Tyee talk about "cancellation of low-income housing" and do not try and push an economic conservative line of rationalization; this was a broken promise, and that's THAT. What's been done is place undue weight on sports controversies, and put them in the same section as political opposition, where they clearly don't belong. The bit about cancellation of low-income housing promises, for example, was tucked in amid sports controversies and followed, in the same paragraph and without any further context (including the massive bailout of the Village, which was BECAUSE it was supposed to be low-income housing), with "Opening ceremonies were stalled while organizers dealt with mechanical problems during the cauldron lighting ceremony.[94] Speed skating events were delayed due to breakdowns of the ice resurfacers supplied by Olympia, an official sponsor of the Games.[95]". Which has WHAT, exactly, to do with broken promises from politicians and/or developers?? It's not me that's fiddling around with Undue Weight or POV-pushing; if there's a "majority" around here that's because those "majority" people have professed that they don't care about anything they haven't heard of and/or DON'T WANT TO KNOW, or want anyone else to know. This kind of escapade is rapidly helping me lose faith in the long-term viability if its articles are so easily messed with, and the messing with is defended by long-established Wikipedians such as yourself based on picayune invocation of Wikipedia guidelines, without any concern for the objectivity of the content.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it does work on consensus. You must build a consensus for the addition or removal of content. Reso lute 15:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that this edit appears to introduce your POV while similarly impacting the neutrality of the section. It's cool that you disagree with the wording, but the original text says that they replaced the low-income housing plan with something "more profitable". Your text says only that they canceled the low-income housing plan. If there is an alternate plan for the village, why are you not making mention of it? Why are you only highlighting the cancellation in what could be construed as a deliberate attempt to push a negative view only of the people who made this decision? Reso lute 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, huh? The previous version said only "changes" and not "cancellation"; and teh rationale that the project should be "more profitable", when that's how it was expressly NOT sold to the taxpayer, is the issue; it's partly a result of Millennium/Fortress' gamesmanship and accompanying bailout, but the juxtaposition of "subsidized" and "more profitable" was clearly POV and not rational; I'll look at the existing cites there and see what their wording is, but if it's only a CanWest paper, or VANOC bumpf, or Business in Vancouver ,then it's a POV source/context. The original wording of this mention, which was lengthier (and not mixed in with irrelevant materials to do with sports controversies) gave more detail, but like so much else has been dumped by people "wishing to portray the Games in a more positive light" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IT's also a fact that said controversies and the book/doc ARE notable wihtin the context of British Columbia politics and history; it doesn't really matter f-all if they're not notable to an Australian or an American, or someone from Alberta....Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the question of what was originally sold to the taxpayer, but with why you have chosen to hide the fact that an alternate plan has been put forward. It is notable both that they intended to use the site for low income housing, and it is notable that they intend now to use it for something else. Why aren't you documenting the new use? Your opinion that the book/documentary is notable is your POV. If the controversies are notable, then they surely have coverage in other sources that are considered reliable. If you bring those forward, you might find more acceptance of the value of your arguments. Reso lute 17:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good GRIEF -> They DO, which is why I cited them, of those provided by User:Unomi who also observed that because of the context, RS aren't even actually needed according to Wikipedia guidelines (see the First "Five Ring Circus" on the article's talkpage, and in the section following there, as well as the section below). The piont is that the book was influential and important in being part of the focussed, organized opposition to the Games; you seem to not care about that, and insist that my position on that, which is based in FACT, is somehow "POV" because it represents "a view that the book is notable". THE BOOK IS NOTABLE; but even if it weren't, it still is a published opinion, containing verifiable facts; apparently you don't get that, or dont' want to. And in case you haven 't noticed there's this line in teh "Opposition 'section:

There were several other reasons for the opposition, some of which are outlined in Helen Jefferson Lenskyj's books Olympic Industry Resistance (2007) and Inside the Olympic Industry (2000).

If Kenskyj's books aren't notable, then what is? certainly the UN report described elsewhere on the Talk:2010 Winter Olympics page is (and I haven't read that report but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it included mention of both Shaw's book and/or the documentary and/or Lensky's books).Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RSes most certainly are required, per policy. The section you refer to states that the source does not need to be notable. The question is whether this documentary is reliable. At present, it appears there is concern that it represents a fringe viewpoint, and/or the documentary is unreliable. What would help is greater, independent coverage from sources considered reliable. Have these controversies earned non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media, for instance? You can scream forever that you believe a source is reliable, but if consensus says it is not, then it is not and will not be used. And that is not censorship, that is an editorial decision per Wikipedia's policies. It is up to you to show that the controversies you want included are notable. Bringing in more reliable sources (blogs typically are not notable) to support the claims would help. Reso lute 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that the UN Report mentioned mirrors its content, and also given that the "it's only fringe" rationale has been the position/talking point of the BC Liberal Party politicians, VANOC spokesmen, and the right-wing press, does not merit your argument that it's a "fringe viewpoint". Unless you're ready to condemn that large percentage of BC people who share the "viewpoints" as being "only fringe viewpoints" (I'll find that percentage later, but "the truth is out there"). What you're trying to do here, quite blatantly, is marginalize an opinion because a few people have pronoucned it "fringe"; that that dismissal is associated with, even quoted from, the partisan views of government politicians, VANOC and Fraser Institute types doesn't help YOUR argument at all....Skookum1 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show me evidence via multiple reliable sources that a "large percentage of BC people share" this viewpoint. If your claim is accurate, this should be no trouble. You can invent as many COIs as you like to try and dismiss those you disagree with, it only reflects poorly on your own ability to work in a collaborative environment. If you want to convince others that such opinions so widely held as to warrant inclusion in the article, then demonstrate this fact. Convince me. Show me the multiple RSes. Reso lute 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[undent]Apart from obvious citations from various journalists, including Rafe Mair and other notable figures, which express similar views to those of Shaw et al., and also recount the widespread discontent/resentment towards the Olympics felt by many British Columbians, especially from outside th Lower Mainland but very clearly also from those who live there, I've contacted a couple of them to request article-references for the many polls which demonstrate that resentment and which mirror Shaw's views. And some will possibly be from CanWest papers (as well as "fringe" publications such as The Tyee and The Georgia Straight and [The Vancouver Courier and other BC papers; blogspace is completely aflame, still....apparently not on the other side of hte Rockies, where nationalist flag-waving and "looking the other way-ism" is markedly different from the cynical, bitter views of most British Columbians towards the Campbell government and the arrogant and authoritarian behaviour of VANOC and the ISU. Your claim that the book/doc is "fringe" is as ludicrous as saying that Rafe Mair or Bill Tieleman are "fringe", and Emarsee's pretense that The Tyee and The Straight are biased and therefore not to be trusted (even though the Sun and the Province are notoriously biased & advertorial in nature). For starters on criticisms of media coverage of the Games (by which the argument can be made that the Sun and Province are NOT "reliable sources" insofar as the politics of the Games go), see this collection of Olympics related items from the Canadian Journalism Project, in which you'll also note that Chris Shaw was one of those political figures stopped and interrogated by the Integated Security Unit because of his book. And also this collection of articles, also compiled by the Canadian Journalism Project. And here are three articles written about the media politics of the Olympics by Harvey Oberfeld, a "reporter emeritus" and a long0time name in the news business in BC. Next edits, I'll be providing items from Tieleman and Mair, both widely-influential journalists....but here's a paragraph from one of Oberfeld's columns; yes, only a blog, but a blog from a VERY respected jounralist:

To do so, especially in light of all the school program funding cutbacks, lack of money for even repairs, slashing of kids programs, community and arts group funding and even health and hospital program cuts .. is particularly galling and indefensible.[4]

Which is a sentiment that you will find over and over among the Bc public, and reflected in media reports, blog after blog, and in many smalltown newspapers not under the editorial yoke (especially in places where the Games have cost the community money in cancellation of services adn infrastructure neglect].

Note:There's also controversies associated with the Four Host First Nations for which the only citations will be blogs and other self-publications taking on their government's failure to pass on the benefits of Olympic deals to members of their nations; no doubt that's "fringe" and/or "non-notable" to someone from somehwere else; but so is their history to start with, and what's happened with this is part of their history. BEcause the Sun and Province choose not to cover it, and people in Alberta or Australia don't care, doesn't make it any less notable to those concerned, or in the context of the politics of the Vancouver Games. But as noted above, issues such as the special measures passed to sanction entry of private premises to take down anti-Olympics messages in windows, or the creation of "free speech zones" to contain protestors, are notable items and are teh kind of thing those insisting on "positive coverage" made a point of removing from the article and ALSO from the Controversies article, even though their impact, and the resentment against them, is still felt in British Columbia....Oberfedld again: And they probably didn’t have VANOC ..which has been allowed by the government to almost run wild with overkill restrictions and bully-like tactics that are needlessly causing MANY MORE people to hate the games.[5] and from the same article But please, media pundits, wallowing in your own media freebies, passes, jackets, bags, food, booze (free tickets??), rubbing shoulders with world-class athletic stars, while making lots of overtime, and having access to all kinds of facilities most taxpayers will only glance at from beyond concrete barriers and two rings of chain link fences … don’t wonder why so many Brtiish Columbians are less than 100% enthusiastic. and also, most pointedly given your request I "prove" the resentment of a large percentage of British Columbians: And yet, I understand why the latest poll shows British Columbians are less enthusiastic than other Canadians about this world event that will be held right here: I blame Gordon Campbell., also from the same article. And from the other Oberfeld article, he points out that even the Premier's brother admitted/stated that many British Columbians were opposed to the Games: Poor Michael Campbell. There he was, on CKNW repeatedly this week whining and complaining that too many British Columbians have been whining and complaining about the 2010 Olympic Games and their negative impact on the city and the province. [6]. Now, on to Rafe Mair, Bill Tieleman, Charlie Smith (formerly editor of the Sun, no less), Andreas Schroeder and others who have reported on the hostility towards the Games/VANOC felt by many British Columbians, and which reflect the content of the Five Ring Circus documentary/book (or actually, it is a reflection of them).....maybe you should read more than the sports pages, Resolute (I note your specialty is hockey) and start reading the politics sections....of course maybe Andrew Coyne has a piece dumping all over the dissenting voices, I wouldn't be surprised....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. More of your typical battlefield mentality. You really do get defensive and accusationary when you are challenged to support your claims, don't you? Harvey Oberfield's personal blog is not a reliable source. You note the existence of "obvious citations from various journalists", yet provide none. You speculate that some sources might have something, but don't bother checking, you build strawmen to try and discredit major media papers that don't share your world view and you constantly resort to ad hominem attacks against editors that challenge you. This is all very interesting. Near as I can tell, you've given me only a guy's personal blog and not a whole lot else. As decorated as Mr. Oberfield seems to be, his blog isn't reliable per Wikipedia's policies. For as much as you argue the pretense of neutrality, you continually push a very-Liberal, anti-Campbell POV. Reading several of Oberfield's blog entries, it is obvious why you hold him in such high regard. I very strongly suspect your opinion of him would have been completely different if he was on the pro-Campbell side.

This is what you need to understand, Skookum: I'm not trying to shut you down here. I'm trying to help you establish for the other editors on the talk page at 2010 Winter Olympics that your position is valid in arguing that these controversies are notable. If they are, then there should be coverage from multiple, reliable sources. If you demonstrate this on the talk page, you will get farther than you are now. I'm not claiming that the book/doc is "fringe", I am simply noting that it is being held as such on the talk page. If you can show more reliable sources saying the same thing, then your book begins to move towards a mainstream viewpoint. Problem is, you seem unable to. This is what you have to fix if you want to convince other editors of your position. The choice is yours at this point. I will reiterate, however, that your bad faith accusations of "censorship" or "COI" against anyone with whom you disagree with needs to stop. Otherwise, I wish you luck in convincing others of your position. Reso lute 04:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

YOu're the one with the battlefield mentality, and also the one refusing to recognize established journalists as "unreliable sources" simply because they're posting from their blogs (Oberfeld is semi-retired, Mair is not). And Oberfeld is citing a well-known radio station (CKNW) adn a well-known radio commentator/guest (Michael Campbell) for a known broadcast; if you like I'll ask Harvey to provide the date of that broadcast if you want to be that picayune about the Premier's brother talking about how many British Columbians were anti-Games, i.e. in accord with Five Ring Circus viewpoint....And as for Rafe Mair, who was originally critical of Shaw, he posted this apologia once he saw what the Games machine had transformed into, and once Shaw had been harassed by the Integrated Security Unit (even a friend of Shaw's was harassed) in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which makes him notable, and also his work notable for causing the same; if the ISU considers him important enough to bother, then clearly he's something more than "fringe" - though, also, the ISU is another of those "sources" where a commentator has said that anti-Olympics people are "only fringe elements"). Yes, the Mair article is on his blog; but it was also on The Tyee, which IS a reliable source (and SO IS HE). And back to Oberfeld - he's not the kind of guy to make up a statement about "recent polls" showing the public being critical/resentful of the Games; your claim that he doesn't matter because that's "only in a blog" is only so much puff-and-stuff. Oberfeld doesn't make shit up....unlike some around here...and here's more from Rafe's blog - [http://rafeonline.com/?s=olympics "search for Olympics on rafeonline.com", which are all replicated either from 1410AM or from The Tyee.

The real strawman argument here, provided by distant know-nothings, is that neither Shaw nor his book or associated documentary are "fringe". The onus is on THEM to prove that his views are marginal and not, as explicit in the content of the documentary and the book (see the next section about who's in it), actually REFLECTIONS of public sentiment and also those of notable politicians, writers and others who are critical of the Games and its organization. A further cite I found (while waiting for those polls) is the review/summary by ABC Bookworld, which if you ever go in a bookstore (?) you will know is an established and widely-circulated free publication for Canadians who actually read books. You claim to be on my side about establishing this book's credibility/relevance and also that of its author. Well, then, PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE HOLE IN THE GROUND YOU'VE STUCK IT IN. And yeah, if Shaw were on the pro-Campbell side, he'd be held in as much contempt by British Columbians as the Premier is (latest popularity poll 21% and falling....), and have no credibility at all....if anything, the onslaught of post-Games tax increases and program cuts and lingering resentment over security and costs etc have significantly dwindled the "aren't we great?" post-Games euphoria....Shaw, if on the Premier's side, would perhaps not have been notable at all; he would be seen as just another shill like Michael Walker, or the same Premier's brother who discussed, on-air, how much people in BC were against the Games.....13:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

YOur behaviour as someone supposedly "on my side" who makes demands for proofs, and then complains when they're not produced OVERNIGHT, is a further demonstration to me of your contrary and confrontational nature; rather than investigating Chris Shaw and his book in your own right, you're demanding I do all the work, then complaining when the many citations out there aren't "reliable" according to YOUR standards (not wiki standards) - even when, AGAIN, as pointed out by User:Unomi, proof of notability is not required; so you've shifted that to proof of RELIABILITY, which is a ludicrous manoeuvre which smacks only of deflection. Shaw's book has been used as a reference in the Qiuarterly European History and by noted authors such as Alan Tomlinson,[7][8] it's been openly discussed - at length - by notable British Columbia AND OTHER journalists, including - and it was significant enough to draw the ire of the Integrated Security Unit. The ABC Bookworld review mentions Vaughan Palmer (normally a govt shill) and Daphne Branham (another noted BC journalist). So while clearly notable, now you've shifted your attack mode to Shaw not being a reliable source....well you know what, a lot of people with better journalist credentials than yourself clearly DO view him as a reliable source, or a set of valid opinions and analyses......if nothing else, your insistence I dance for you has provided enough citations to start articles on Shaw, on the book, and on the documentary, and to add signficant material to the Controversies article and the condensed section in the main article.....no doubt you or someone will try and delete anything added about it as not being as notable as the snow problems on Cypress, but that's a failure of any sense of proportion and, if not POV (as such deletions always appear to be on behalf of "positive coverage") then just asinine. My favourite word of the week for wiki-nitpickers is "picayune", that applies to all your arguments thrown at me, and "ridiculous" is the best way to describe your "I'm just trying to help you" claim......Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And while I'm still digging through googles looking for "proof of reliability" and/or demonstrations of the large numbers of British Columbians whose views are reflected by the book/doc/Shaw, here's an excerpt from its 2008 review by Andrew MacLeod in the Tyee when it first came out:

First the news: Christopher Shaw, the outspoken critic of bringing the 2010 Winter Olympics to British Columbia, is running for Vancouver City Council. He will campaign for the November 2008 municipal vote with the Work Less Party, supporting environmental activist Betty Krawczyk's bid to be mayor.

Meanwhile, the neuroscientist and University of B.C. professor Shaw is promoting Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games, a book that grew out of his work as a founder and lead spokesperson for the No Games 2010 Coalition and 2010 Watch.

Released in June, Shaw said the book's first run of 5,000 copies is selling well enough that New Society Publishers is already planning a second printing. It is a companion piece to a documentary Work Less Party founder Conrad Schmidt released in 2007.

Next you'll tell me that The Tyee isn't either reliable or is too POV, and isn't notable enough....if you're really "on my side", you'll start adding these cites to the article and broadening the mention of the book, and of No Games 2010/2010 Watch, and helping split the political materials from the sports-controversy materials, and back down on attacking me, instead of fixing the very notable POV changes to the article(s).Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And as for Harvey's blog item, I'll write him and ask for the date and time of teh Micahel Campbell appearance on radio where the Premier's own brother bemoans the public resentment and dissent about the Games (I don't get the Vancouver papers, but as I recall another blogger or journalist commented about Michael Campbell's own column saying teh same thing; who knows, Campbell's column may even be online (though given the Liberal penchant for erasing awkward information that's not all that likely).....Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This quote from Rafe Mair echoes the efforts in Wikipedia to suppress mention of Shaw and his book and Schmidt's documentary:

Vanoc, under considerable pressure from governments, doesn’t want the image of Canada, Vancouver or Whistler tarnished with evidence that not everyone wanted the Olympics and that a great many people see them as bad for society for one reason or another.Civil Liberties and the 2010 Winter Olympics Games, July 20, 2009

The people insisting that this book and its author are not notable, and insisting that the views and facts presented are "only fringe" in nature, may not be VANOC/BC Liberal drones, but they're certainly doing their dirty work for them....and parroting their words about the book, and about dissent in British Columbia, as if it did not exist or were not worth admitting to "because we only want positive coverage" and "fringe/minority opinions should be excluded".....and repeatedly, when confronted by widespread expressions of supporting/similar opinion from notable sources, argue about whether those opinions are admissible as evidence or not by invoking every wikipedia guideline they can think of (and mis-apply); without providing any of their own proof that British Columbians did NOT care, or that Shaw's book was not worth talking about (even though it went into 2nd printing within months of its original release, which is a rarity in Canada)....some even refuse to read the information provided in response to their demands, and also demand action within hours of their demands (then refuse to read it, or find ways to try and dismiss its relevance or reliability - while not providing any proof of their own reliability/relevance. Yeah, you[ll find cites saying that Shaw's book is "fringe" - they'll be comments from the ISU, VANOC or the P'emier's Office or the like....and you don't have to scratch very hard to find proof that there are enough British Columbians upset about teh Olympics so as to be in harmony with the "relevance" of Shaw's book. It's very curious/ironic that people who talk loudly about being "positive" are so determinedly negative and contrary...... Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"And yeah, if Shaw were on the pro-Campbell side, he'd be held in as much contempt by British Columbians as the Premier is (latest popularity poll 21% and falling....), and have no credibility at all..." And with this, we are done. You are judging the reliability of sources based on your personal POV and personal dislike of an individual and government. WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and it becomes obvious that you are completely unable consider this issue in a neutral manner. This is actually rather sad, as you are a great editor overall. But you might be wise to take a step back and look at your attitude here and see if it is inline with Wikipedia's principles. Reso lute 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Another attack on ME under guise of flying the Wiki flag. Truth is not a POV. NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to distortions and deceptions as to well-reported truths and widely-cited/reviewed authors. It's that simple; this isn't about my tactics or my style of writing, it's about whether or not Christopher Shaw is notable, whether or not his book is a reliable source (even though it's being mentioned not as a source but as influential opinion), and same goes for the documentary by Conrad Schmidt; all are notable, all report opinions by signficant, reliable, documented figures. At no time should mention of either the book or doc been casually removed by another Wikipedian because they hadn't heard of it, or considered it "fringe" (even though clearly it's not, given the range and depth of individuals named as being in the documentary. And in BC journalist blogs are "fair game" as citations, this was established somewhere quite a while ago expressly because of the known POV/bias of the CanWest newspaper monopoly; when those are blogs by noted journalists or fully-documented investigative blogs (such as http://lailayuile.wordpress.com, who I've mentioned in passing but so far haven't cited), they're all the more relevant because they cover news and opinion with the Mainstream Media have expressly ignored (otherwise Rafe Mair would still be a Province/Sun columnist, and likewise Charlie Smith would still be at teh Sun instead of now at the Georgia Straight). Yes, and I do dislike Campbell and his government, like over 75% of other British Columbians, and at least I'm honest in saying so (unlike those who wrap themselves in Wiki principles while making Grit-oriented or Tory-oriented changes to federal politics articles...); but this doesn't have to do with my dislike of Campbell or that I think he should be in jail for what he pulled over BC Rail, this has to do with Christopher Shaw and his book. Which ARE citable, which ARE notable, which ARE widely reviewed/reported and which are only "fringe" in the rhetoric of Olympic organizers, BC Lib politicians - and people who only want the article to have "postivie coverage", or who wish to claim "undue weight" if something true isn't what they want to hear. This is about Christopher Shaw and people trying to suppress his book's presence in Wikipedia; this is not about me, it's not about Gordon Campbell, it's about people trying to silence dissent, and shout down those who point out the hyporcrisy in making negative edits in the course of advancing a "positive coverage" agenda.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt next you'll accuse me of being in bad faith for saying people are trying to suppress this book and its author (even though they are, though providing specious reasons for same). See WP:Duck.Skookum1 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No Games 2010

Skookum - you have put me in the difficult position of a person trying to help make the article better, AND to help you present your side of things effectively, but now being faced with the 3 revert rule if I take it any further in the article.

I have tried to explain my reasons and goals in the Edit Summaries and on the Discussion page, and all you do is revert.

Please have a look at my comments in the above areas, and also please look upon me as a representative of the ignorant masses who doesn't know the detailed background of the Vancouver Games. I truly don't know what No Games 2010 is, and nor would most Wikipedia readers. Remember that the Games are a global event being covered by a global encyclopedia. It needs to be explained, in the article, not in a reference. And I couldn't find it in the reference anyway, although that could be me just being a dummy again but, as I said above, please look upon me as that outside, so far uninformed observer who you need to educate.

I come from the country that hosted the 2000 Summer Games and the city that hosted the last Commonwealth Games. I've seen a bit of what goes on behind the scenes. I suspect you have some quite good things to say about the inevitable lies and possible corruption in the leadup to the Vancouver Games, but it has to be well presented.

Good luck with your goals, and please help us all learn about what really happened. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have lots of other articles I'd rather be editing and writing, and while I know what I'm doing is necessary and proper, it's all very time consuming and I wish other people would just start doing some digging and self-educating, instead of deleting things that they don't know about. For starters on No Games 2010, which IMO needs an article, see these articles in The Tyee about it and also the org's or org-related page at http://2010watch.com (or if that link's not quite right then as provided in the cited material you blanked earlier). Five Ring Circus should actually be a dab page, as there are several publications and articles and such which use that in their title, and not always in a negative sense, e.g. a book on the Montreal Olympics which turned up in this search at Amazon, alongside Shaw's book and the documentary narrated by Betty Krawczyk. Here's the product information for the documentary, for starters:

Product Description

The Five Ring Circus exposes a side to the Vancouver Olympics which has not been revealed before. This film shows how this three week event is changing Vancouver forever. Find out what mayors, activists and residents think of the 2010 olympic games. With three years to go before the games, this documentary examines how the commitments to environmental, social and economic sustainability have not been kept and how the preparations for the games are affecting diverse communities. Is Vancouver getting into the spirit of the Olympics? This independent documentary promises to be controversial. The documentary features interviews with George Monbiot, mayors Derek Corrigan, Richard Walton, and Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, University of Toronto Professor Helen Lenskyj, ' Jenny Kwan(Member of the legislative Assembly), Christopher Shaw of 2010 Watch, Sara MacIntyre of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Kim Kerr of DERA, David Eby of Pivot Legal, Betty Krawczyk, Harriet Nahanee, David Cunningham and many others. It also features appearances by Sam Sullivan, Gordon Campbell and members of the Vancouver police department. And here's the editorial reviews - from the Vancouver Courier, 24 Hours (an independent Vancouver daily, and verifiable source though that's really irrelevant for reviews/op-ed), and no less than The Republic. and here is the editorial reviews page for the BOOK, with only one review from Journal of Future Studies and a product description provided by a writer from the Epoch Times, which goes:

"This is a cleverly written and timely book. New Society Publishers have managed to put a well-designed paperback on the market just in time to wage a war of words, on the tail end of a province-wide gag law. Indeed, the cloak of silence surrounding all things Olympic have taken us to new levels, as even the digits 2010, preceded by the name of our fair city, are considered fair game, and grounds for libel. A historical perspective on the original intent and players in the Games from the days of their creation answers trivia quesitons like" who was the first athlete to win the gold?", while adding a nostalgic touch, and the chapter on dissent and resistance of the Olympics in other cities brings the whole book into international focus."

There are also customer reviews. Iv'e been trying to find sales figures, to prove that this widely-selling book (I talked to my local bookseller here in Halifax, 4000 miles away from VAncouver, and he said it sold well, giving an indication of how it sold elsewhere in Canada, and given its much higher sales in BC, its influence - its notability - there). So there you have the starter of understanding why "No Games 2010" is worth mentioning, and likewise Five Ring Circus, and why there's so much tension about not just the Games but hte information control surrounding them....please educate yourself before deleting anything else you don't understand, simply because YOU haven't heard about it....Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, see the new links in the last several paragraphs of the section above....Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway

Hello Skookum1, I have just been looking at the WikiProject Norway pages and see that your full user profile has been copied there and is also repeated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway/Members. This seems to me to have occurred accidentally. If this is not the case and you wish to clarify your role in the project, I would suggest you write a short summary with a link to your user page. -- Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall copying it there, I thought I just signed myself on the sig-list....I'll reduce it to just my sig; any clue in the edit history if I did this myself, by accident, or who might have? People do play games with me sometimes....Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for helping the History of Canada, grammar is not my strong point and I greatly appreciate you fixing the technical errors. Moxy (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the barnstar; I hope my edit comments haven't been too nasty/pointed.Skookum1 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NO no i like that your to the point!!! The whole article was in need of some love and care@!@Moxy (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Delaware

Yo dawg, what was this all about? - Schrandit (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. The only intentional edit I made there, and the only keystrokes I performed, were to take out the "the" before New Castle County; that's IT. Lately there's been a few items like this, ranging from changing posts on talkpages to unexplained additional errors on pages such as this one....any idea where I'd take this problem? Could someone be pirating/"riding" my account and adding vandalisms to my edits somehow?Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's almost certainly not an external agent piggybacking on you. You can ask at the technical village pump, they will likely want details of your internet connection type, operating system and browser. Very occasionally a server goes flaky and drops data but I don't see anyone else there complaining, so it's more likely some weird problem with your own setup. Franamax (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

$7.2 M--in gold?

Thanks for your input about gold in the purchase of Alaska. I've heard a similar, more valid story about a payment in bullion from JP Morgan for rights in Panama when the Canal was being built. Your name interests me as I live near the Skookum Volcano. Here's a pamphlet made by one of the kids my son went hiking with there when they were in high school. http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/upload/Skookum%20Creek.pdf He mostly does scarier stuff now, up rock or ice faces. Yopienso (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New Caledonia › Columbia District › Oregon Territory

Hi Skookum1, thanks for refining my recent edit of Stickeen Territories — we seem to cross paths now and again, seeing as you're basically the "BC history" guy around here ... some day I'll write a duployan shorthand/kamloops wawa article that'll give you a run for your money, but in the meantime I was wondering if you could answer a question:

I’ve been all over Google Books, trying to establish the evolutionary timeline for names of pre-Confederation subdivisions in British Columbia, and I'm confused. Did New Caledonia refer only to the interior plain north-east of the Thompson R, or did it ever refer to the entire province? At the risk of marking-up your comments page, I've sketched-out a rough timeline but I was wondering if I've included any glaring errors you might catch:

pre-1815 (before European overland exploration) Captain Vancouver names a bunch of features, including New Georgia and New Hanover for the coast.

1815-1827 (North-West Company enters region) NWC names it New Caledonia from 52°–55°. South of the 52° (The Thompson River?), the area was the NWC’s Columbia District all the way to 42°.

1827-1849 - (HBC merges with NWC) Following 1821 merger, Columbia Department referred to all lands west of Rockies btwn 54°40' and 42°. New Caledonia remained a subordinate term referring to the interior.

1849-1858 - (post-Oregon treaty, pre-colony) HBC divides Columbia Department along treaty lines: Western Department & Oregon Department.

1858-1871 - Becomes “Colony of British Columbia” (with “Vancouver Island Colony”, “Stickeen Territories”, “Queen Charlotte Islands Colony”)

I'm trying to compile a list of HBC and NWC geographical subdivisions for 1) Rupert's Land, 2) the North-Western Territory and 3) the unceded “Indian Country” west of the Rockies that also went by one or more of the above names. Any help you could shed on this would be greatly appreciated. hiyu mahsie — Muckapedia (talk) 28^e avr. 2010 0h31 (−4h)

I'll answer this in short form for now--I'm reading a book on the very topic. As far as I know New Caledonia did not refer to the entire province. But there may have been a brief bit of time between the Oregon Treaty and the creation of the province during which New Caledonia referred to what later became the whole province. My feeling though is that the difference is slight and that New Caledonia in general referred to what is now the Interior. The time between the Oregon Treaty and the creation of the province is rather brief--I reckon it wasn't long enough for a new term to really take hold. But I will let Skookum argue the nuances. 05:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of New Caledonia changed as of 1846, or rather sometime between 1846 and 1857-58 it came to refer to the "residual British territory" north of 49 and not just the old fur district as pre-1846. Its boundaries can only be approximate because it was really defined by the presence of fur forts/posts, and since the montane heights of its perimeter and/or remote recesses of the plateaux were unexplored (by non-natives) there was no "legal definition" of such a boundary. However, in The Thompson Country by Mark Sweeten Wade he states that its southern limit was Fort Alexandria, and describes the Columbia District as encompassing the Columbia basin only, with the amorphous (and also largely unexplored) Thompson Country in between, as was the term used, apparently, by fur company staff for what lay in between; I haven't read it in a bit but, although Ft Okanagan was, I think, a dependency of Thompson's River Post (Fort Kamloops), it was in the Columbia District. Somewhere recently I think it was Pfly who posted some maps showing the subdivisions of the Columbia District, which also showed the Thompson Country (as being the trading area of Ft Thompson/Kamloops); it was in one of those books whose links you posted, Pfly. BTW Muckapedia your usage/concept of "unceded" Indian territory "outside" the fur districts is not applicable; it was all unceded Indian territory and, for the most part, still is (only Treaty 8 and Douglas Treaties lands were ceded).

Sometime after the founding of Fort Langley the usage "New Caledonia" began to include that area, but I think that was in the 1840s after they began to explore alternative routes for the Brigade Trail to connect to that fort; it's hard to say because latter-day histories ("latter" meaning also later-in-the-century publications like Bancroft and Begg) used the term when maybe/most likely contemporaries of the day did not; it may also have become part of teh parlance in the Colonial Office as a convenient term for "what was left over" but remained unincorporated; one interesting thing to note is that all coastal islands were part of the Colony of Vancouver Island, ie. the creation of the Colony of British Columbia specifically excluded them, though I'm not sure how that worked with Bowen and Gambier etc although those were uninhabited by non-natives at the time so a moot point. Raises the question of whether the Gulf Islands were part of the VI Colony from 1849-? or exactly what they were, and also how far up the Coast that inclusion applied; I wouldn't think that Pitt and Banks Islands were part of the VI Colony, but on the other hand I can't see why the island that Fort Simpson was on wouldn't have been included, given the controversial/contested nature of that region...I daresay the colony was in no position to assert sovereignty over Quadra Island (home to the Weiwakum/Euclataws) or Yalis (Alert Bay, home of the 'Namgis), but maybe the wording of the Island Colony's charter might have some specifics; clearly it included Nootka and Flores and Meares Islands, though. Probably in legal definitions it did include the Queen Charlotte Strait-Johnstone STrait archipelago but actually landing and planting a flag wasn't all that viable at the time....similarly the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands was a paper tiger, ignored by the Haida chiefs and not really assertable and wasn't meant as a colonization agenda anyway, only meant to keep out the Yanks.

Anyway there might be a date of provenance discernible in HBC records/journals, maybe in Helmcken's journals/essays or company correspondence, i.e. for when the term "New Caledonia" was first applied to Fort Langley/Fraser Valley and the Fraser Canyon etc; certainly in the write-ups in San Francisco of the new gold finds the term was already in use, presumably also in Victoria, but there was, really, no official term for the unconstituted territory (the mainland) from 1846 to 1858. Maybe sometime in the 1850s the term became current, as a usage of convenience. It's a pity that New Hanover, New Georgia, New Bremen didn't take hold (New Georgia is echoed in the Strait of Georgia/Gulf of Georgia usages, though). BTW while teh coastal forts were part of the Columbia DEPARTMENT (including those in Russian America, Taku and Stikine), from what I understand the usage "Columbia District" was not applied even to Puget Sound (though again, Nisqually and Ft Victoria were part of the Columbia Department).

You can't claim (or govern) what you haven't mapped, is my view; that's one big reason that Lieut. Palmer and Lieut. Mayne were assigned to explore the unmapped regions after the establishment of the mainland colony, though really they were looking for other routes to connect the goldfields to the coast, and also for military reasons.

There are two other regions that need to be reckoned in; one was the Peace River Country, which was added to British Columbia at a certain point, though I'm not sure it's when the Stickeen Territories were added, though it had also been part of the North-Western Territory; it may have been only when the province was created but I think it might have been in 1866 when the colonies were consolidated; its boundary was the Rocky Mountain Trench/line of the Finlay south of where that river met 125th longitude. The other area(s), asserted by BC but ignored by Ottawa and London, was the lease of the SE Alaska Panhandle, south of 56-30, and those areas of indeterminate status north of that, namely Skagway-Dyea-Haines-Lynn Canal (see map on Alaska Boundary Dispute). According to BEgg BC asserted that the lease should have been part of BC and the US occupation of it after 1867 should not have been tolerated; Skagway etc were different but similarly were viewed as a rightful part of BC (though they would have made sense as part of the District/Territory of Yukon, had that been the result of the boundary settlement and/or Soapy Smith et al hadn't overrun Skagway, where a British flag had already been flying when the rush began). More on this later, maybe, right now I've got to get ready to go to the tax office :-).Skookum1 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, re the Peace River Block, which is a particular tract of land, its ownership remained vague for a long time (see Peace River Block) and I think there were worries Ottawa was going to give it to Alberta even though it was west of teh stated boundary of BC; I'm unclear on its history but I think User:Maclean25 might know more (he's from up that way).Skookum1 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as the specifics of New Caledonia and related terminology goes, you might want to look through Fr. Adrien-Gabriel Morice's History of the Northern Interior of British Columbia and, if you read French, his French language work on the French in British Columbia; both are online I think, either at http://www.historica.ca or http://www.nosracines.ca (maybe at http://www.canadian.org, but look on the linked page as I think it's there). One project of mine I'd like to get to but is difficult to cite is a map/description of the "traditional regions", the ones we usually append with "Country" and which generally means a river basin; but not always; e.g. most of the Omineca is not in the Omineca basin, most of the Peace River basin is not in the Peace River Country, the Lillooet Country spans three or more different drainages (depending on how it's defined), the Boundary isn't basin-defined at all, nor is the Monashee Country (which is mostly in the Okanagan and Shuswap Highland and not in teh Monashee Mountains, unless the Highlands are defined as part of them); but the Stikine Country, the Squamish Country, the Nass Country etc are pretty much basin-defined, ditto the Nicola and Thompson Countries.....and btw any map of early parts of BC should not only include the "lost territories" of the Wrangell-Ketchikan area and Skagway, but also the last-ditch border proposals made by the British/HBC in the 1840s; i.e. west/north of the line of the Columbia and/or Okanagan Rivers, the line of the Cascades to the Gorge/Dalles, or just the Puget Sound basin.Skookum1 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hang on. Re: BTW Muckapedia your usage/concept of "unceded" Indian territory "outside" the fur districts is not applicable; it was all unceded Indian territory and, for the most part, still is (only Treaty 8 and Douglas Treaties lands were ceded). I'm not sure what Treaty 8 and Douglas Treaties lands were, but are you saying that most of BC is unceded Indian territory, technically, legally? What about when railroads were given large land grants? Were they ceded? Was a lot of land basically taken without being ceded? I know the processing of land cessions in the US was often corrupt, forced, and generally less than noble, but at least most of the land went through the process. I always assumed Canada would have been better about it. Am I wrong? Pfly (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL Totally wrong, and therein lies a tale....BC is an anomaly in Canada; very little of its lands have been surrendered by treaty as required by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This is why you'll find the concept of unceded territory turning up on native websites, and as you can see by the bluelink, also as a Wikipedia article. Land claims in BC are really thorny and only in the last twenty years or so has the British Columbia government even come to the table, after more than a century of disavowing any responsibility, claiming that joining Confederation made what to do with unresolved land claims Ottawa's issue, but Ottawa was stuck in the position of seeing BC assert ownership of lands it did not, in fact, have a legal right to. When land claims became a big issue in the '80s and especially in the wake of the Oka Crisis (during and after which various bands in BC began to conduct blockades...not that they hadn't already), and also because of [[|Delgamuukw|Delgamuukw v. HMTQ]] which became a seminal case in the native challenge to BC's sale of resources it didn't actually have legal tenure over....well, it was quite a mess, and still is. The British Columbia Treaty Process became established, although I think that's a BC Liberal Party creation, though the NDP were the ones to really start trying to address the problem; the NDP negotiated the Nisga'a Treaty, which is the only modern-era treaty and largely turned Nisga'a land claims into something like municipal incorporation, but without giving up aboriginal rights, which is something the Liberals are trying to get in their various treaty settlements; the [[[Tsawwassen Treaty]] is in some sort of limbo right now, and others like the Temexw Treaty are pending; one problem is that a band government reaching such a treaty, which gives up the deeper layer of aboriginal rights ,are often rejected by their band membership, either formally or rhetorically; the Lhedhli Tenneh, which are the old Fort George Band in Prince George, reached a settlement with the Libs but got overturned by their membership; the Sechelt Band years ago reached an accommodation where they have municipal-type status, but without a treaty (what used to be Indian Reserves there are now Indian Government Districts, and the Sechelt Indian Government District is something parallel to, but not inclusive of or included by the municipal government of the town (village?) of Sechelt. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs rejects the treaty process outright, and represents over half of BC's bands/populations. This all gets really complicated to explain; Delgamuukw had to do with the assertion of ownership of specific boundaried areas, territories of the traditional chieftaincies of the Gitxsan-Wet'su-wet'en Confederacy, which is at least a few hundred years old; the BC Court of Appeals justice who heard the case (McEachern) rankled a lot of people by dismissing this people's historical culture in terms of native culture/life being "nasty, brutish and short" (quote) and rejected the legal context of the Confederacy, which was in oral tradition stories of ownership; the Supreme Court of Canada overturned that and as a result of that case and certain others, native customary law is now to be reckoned as part of Common Law, though it's taking case-by-case to establish what, where and how, as each "nation" has different traditions/laws; as a result of that nearly any development now needs native cooperation/approval before it can proceed (band councils can be bought or pressured). And the BC government agenda remains oriented at "extinguishment", which is why the UBCIC rejects that agenda....it's why you saw re the Olympics the slogan "no Olympics on stolen land" - because even though the Four Host First Nations had deals with VANOC, their peoples remain untreatied and resentful of their "Indian Act governments" (which many regard as illegitimate) for "dancing with the devil". The BC Rail case now udnerway is also related, as the railway's trackage is under dispute; if the government had tried to sell the tracks outright to CN (rather than leasing them for 999 years), various bands would have fought the sale, as railway lands should revert to band ownership, or likely could be tied up in courts for years....the BC governme doesn't like the way court decisions have been going in favour of the natives, so sidesteps any such obligations. Essentially, all the timber leases, railway grants and land alienations outside of the treatied areas (note I linked the two historic treaty settlements in your quote of me above), are based on a complete absence of paper, and are a bluff. One big reason both levels of government want it resolved is to provide stability of tenure to international investors...I can't remember the exact term just now, but it's so that there's no further question of security of investing in BC's resources (and/or their extraction); most int'l companies make their own arrangements with bands now, generally co-investment or dedicated numbers of employees from the bands, in order to avoid complications. I'm only touching on teh modern complications and on the history; but yes, the legal reality is that most of British Columbia is "unceded"; and in some cases there are specific concepts of land tenure, such as among hte Gitsxan-Wet'su-wet'en, which have specific boundaries; most claims are somewhat more vague, and generally overlapping, which complicates the matter further. Tax day so I can't ramble on about this, though....Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See this and this and this for raeding materialsSkookum1 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow that is all complicated. Was I totally wrong about the land being unceded, or about "it being better in Canada"? There was a "This American Life" I heard once that was about Canada, and a few Canadians were on explaining to Sarah Vowell things Canadian. When she expressed amazement about the "late" date of the adoption of the maple leaf flag one of the guests said "in Canada we are incrementalists." Somehow that term has stuck with me, and seems apt in this case. It sounds, though, like the Indians, sorry First Nations, are ending up better off with the process working through courts, slowly, today, than they would have by treaty a century ago. Pfly (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this puts things in context. I'd always assumed--unthinkingly--that the "stolen land" idea was a form of the common complaint about "bad faith treaties" down here. But, no treaties at all? What a sudden change of perspective. I wonder how many Americans, even Pacific Northwest Americans, know about this. Pfly (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Most Canadians east of the Rockies, and that would include most First Nations people, also don't know about it, or fully understand it; lots of BCers do, including those who are hostile to land claims (most aren't, despite lots of politicking and polling trying to prove otherwise); but BC history and politics in general are a mystery east of the Rockies, as well as south of the line (you'll note I'm always working at adding BC content/perspective to national articles where it's pointedly missing/distorted/misrepresented). I had some further comments about such contrasts that somehow evaporated between submit and reload last night; suffice to say that BC really has a still-colonial form of government, replete with autocratic behaviour and corruption, and that is mirrored in most FN governments also. Everything from the current railway trial (http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspost.com) to BC Hydro and the IPPs (Independent Power Producers) and the ALR (Agricultural Land Reserve) and forestry/timber management is tied into the native claims issue; I think you may understand now why I consider the Haida Gwaii and Salish Sea renamings as only so much political sop; beads and blankets were at least tangible, not symbolic (and were actually luxury goods in their day); some of teh deals the Campbell government is cutting amount to little more than getting the FNs to go to the banks to get loans to support industrial/resource development financing that the resource companies can't get themselves; I could rant on about it and may do so privately with you; but here's what I posted yesterday that caught in an edit conflict:

"government by attrition" => "incrementalists". The process isn't really working through courts, either, but mark my words if it had gone to federal, or better yet British courts, 100 years ago, and 150 years ago, matters would have turned out decidedly in their favour, and before the Great Smallpox of 1862 their populations were sufficient for the imperial government to address treaties; Douglas at least tried, Seymour was largely sympathetic to the natives but was incapacitate (a polite way of saying he was a drunk and incompetent); his assistant Birch did most of the "presiding" (over the Exec Council and Assembly) and pretty much ran the administration; but L-G Trutch (then a really deputy position to the governorate, and not a viceroy as he also was from 1871) undid a lot of the reserve allocations that Douglas had begun (which weren't treaties, but reserves without treaty obligations); then successive waves of other reserve commissions undid more, although in the Vowell Commission and McBride-McKenna Commissions many reserves were created, that hadn't existed before, but noticeably more tiny than the relatively large land-allotments of the Douglas-era reserves (e.g. at Mt Currie, Bridge River and eleswhere around Lillooet and the Cariboo, and also in the Okanagan and Nicola regions); as far as all this goes, and other matters, that term "incrementalist" sounds somewhat apologist or too soft-soaped for me although it certainly applies; anyway if you read that book Makuk (which is partly on line at googlebooks) you'll see that the condition of the natives in 1860 or 1910 (150 and 100 years ago, respectively) wasn't all that bad and, if courts had truly been impartial (which they no more are today than they were then) the treaty rights under imperial law were simple; there were no treaties, so the historical inhabitants had rights to their unsurrendered land. BC couldn't afford to admit to it, but Ottawa couldn't force them to come to the table, depsite wanting to make a settlement with the natives; the pro tem measure was to set aside about 85% of the province's lands as "Government Reserve", as collateral and land-bank against eventual setltement of the land claims, but before BC ever came to the table the revived Social Credit regime in 1976, restored through backing from MacBlo and the other forest companies in '75, handed over the Government Reserve to the forest companies as Timber Leases, Timber Berths, and Timber Supply Areas; all this at a time when native politicians in BC were starting to raise an uproar about wanting the whole province back "lock, stock and barrel" (a famous quote from a Nuu-chah-nulth chief, though it was after the Forests Act of 1976) and talking about whites as "dirty boat people" and shipping us all home etc (some still feel like that). Thing is in 1860 they were a good 95% of the population, even in 1870-1885 (after the Great Smallpox, which reduced their number by half, sometimes by a power of 10 in some areas) they were still the majority; in 1910 they were still the majority in areas like the Skeena, and still are in the Nass, the northwest, and certain other areas; in the Skeena they still are the dominant group I think, at least outside the major cities/towns; most major Interior cities still have noticeable FN populations, and many many of the small town ones, if the surrounding reserves are included, as at Lillooet and Lytton, are native-majority. Native ownership is really about local ownership; the rationale that the voters of Vancouver mandate a majority over the Lillooet and Chilcotin Country native peoples in order to rationalize the ownership of those resources by New York and Toronto and HK capital doesn't make sense locally; nor should it, except in Canada's skewed ways of interpreting things through "representation by population", which means native-dominant rural regions are included in electoral districts based around the populations of non-native-dominant cities which rely upon extraction of resources from the rural regions...because of this in some areas such as the Charlottes and the outer Coast, and parts of the Interior, more resource control by the FNs is often well-supported by local whites and others, as in the Skeena; as greater native government/jurisdiction means things are being run for local interests, or theoretically so ( that's highly debatable in some cases but I won't go on). Anyway we didn't conduct wars of extermination and partly our history is about the HBC trying to protect native populations (their market for goods and, undisturbed, the source of furs) and also the patronizing and well-meaning, but disastrous, measures such as universal child education and efforts to get people to give up traditional economies/knowledge as well as beliefs, and institutions such as slavery......it's a very different history from south of the line, but in its own way no less destructive or, at times, abominable.....but, then, so was native life, as the story about the Qualicum you've heard demonstrates, or the Puget Sound War, or events like Chinlac (google that)....11:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow gentlemen, thank you for the responses (good to know you, Pfly); Some notes of my own:

My above use of the term “Indian Territory” was meant as an analogue to the other (named, but largely uncolonized) historical fur-trade regions “Rupert’s Land” (Hudson’s Bay Basin) and “The North-Western Territory” (Arctic Ocean Basin West of Rupert’s Land, East of Russian America). I saw this usage in an HBC ledger from the era but as the term was basically trapper shorthand for “no-man’s land” I am aware it carried no political weight in its day.

(Pardon the interruption ... more to follow) — Muckapedia (talk) 30^e avr. 2010 15h47 (−4h)

File source problem with File:AdmiralBaynes.png

Thank you for uploading File:AdmiralBaynes.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:HMSGanges.png

Thank you for uploading File:HMSGanges.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AlexandraBridge1868.png

Thank you for uploading File:AlexandraBridge1868.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AlexandraBridge1926.png

Thank you for uploading File:AlexandraBridge1926.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Maritime Fur Trade being reviewed for GA

Heya, so that Maritime Fur Trade page is getting reviewed for GA status. I'll be doing a bunch of edits and expanding it, and some structural things for sure--if you have any thoughts on things that should be expanded, changed, etc, this week would be a good time. Pfly (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AdmiralBaynes.png

Thank you for uploading File:AdmiralBaynes.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:HMSGanges.png

Thank you for uploading File:HMSGanges.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AlexandraBridge1868.png

Thank you for uploading File:AlexandraBridge1868.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AlexandraBridge1926.png

Thank you for uploading File:AlexandraBridge1926.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Recent Behavior

Hi Skookum1. As you've noticed, I removed my comment at User:Sfan00 IMG's talk page. I saw that you had provided source information and thought that you had changed for the better, so I believed my post was no longer necessary. However, you have responded with nothing but sheer attitude, snarky comments, and snide remarks. To be honest, I'm ashamed to say I put my faith in you. Now I'm only going to say it once. If you continue to troll or remove image deletion notices without providing source information, I will not hesitate to block you from editing. It really makes me sad to have to have to tell you what I just did, but as an administrator, I'm more than willing to do what's necessary to preserve the integrity of this project. Consider yourself warned. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a provocateur,which is the only explanation for your zeroing in on another of my early contributions, "just to see" how I would respond...while deleting your own threats against me as uttered on Sfan00 IMG's page, apparently so as to hide them while you pursued another avenue to "deal with me". I'm a veteran editor with tons of very worthwhile contributions, and no small shortage of encounters with pointy-headed admins whose sense of self-importance far outweighs the value of their contributions and often-questionable activities. To me you are the provocateur here, the inciter of tensions, not someone recognizing the value of the contributions in question but more concerned with enforcing questionable and illogical rules "just because". I may have sharp language and short tolerance for tomfoolery, but I don't soft-pedal my authority/aggression or work to "set up" someone as you have evidently tried to do with me. One reason I've never tried for admin status, in fact, is because of the company I would have to keep, and the fake niceties and "soft power" language I would have to cultivate. If you're the type that likes poking sticks into beehives just to see them get angry, then continue with these "warnings", which are really threats- and you, as an admin, shouyld not be threatening, or behaving with provocation as you have, and you should c onsider the likelihood if you continue of losing your precious admin status /power and the ability to be pompous towards valuable contributors such as myself. I come from a place where plain language and open motive is expected, and fake courtesy and self-righteous authority is considered the mark of time-wasters. Instaed of trying to get things deleted from Wikipedia, wouldn't it be more useful for types like you and Sfan to find ways to include them? Asking me for the source of those images, instead of demanding them with impersonal templates, is what should have gone down here, not "official arrogance"; if "talking back to you" to challenge your "warning" will get me banned, so be it, but it's a foolish and wasteful thing for you to do;thanks to Plfy and Okip for their comments below, as they obviously realize what's worthwhile over what's picayune.Skookum1 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on this topic over at User talk:Sfan00 IMG. Despite the attitude, snarky and snide remarks, etc (not to mention LOTS OF SHOUTING), it seems to me he is correct about the images being public domain in Canada. Anyway, wrote about it over there. Pfly (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you are being attacked for trying to add good faith contributions to wikipedia. I saw your comments at User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#.7B.7BPD-Canada.7D.7D_images and I fully support your underlying premise.

The Powerhouse Museum summed up the way many veteran editors abuse good faith contributors on Wikipedia:

"Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in."[9]

I blame the company culture here, created and fostered by Mr. Wales, for fostering such "combative" behavior. Okip 16:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I've just added the source info to the images, along with a note saying they are "Public domain work despite the claims of BC Archives". There must be other useful PD images at BC Archives. I read the page you linked to, Okip, it was interesting, thanks for posting it. Pfly (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cite cgndb

Hello. You have a new message at Droll's talk page. –droll [chat] 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing you might have a use for it, so I moved it here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See {{CGNDB}}. It works the same way the old one did although the formatting produced complies with that of other citation templates. If you wish you can create a documentation page at Template:CGNDB/doc. I hope this is of help to you. –droll [chat] 05:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and maybe all this is beside the point now, maybe not, I'm not sure) Hey Skookum, I just read through the threads on this and am wondering, when you say the new template takes more work to use what is the extra work? Is it having to specify the feature name instead of having the option of leaving it out and having the template assume it is the same as the page name, like in {{BCGNIS}} and {{GNIS}}? {{BCGNIS|19998}} on the Toad River page, for example (actually I made that page and put the feature name in anyway, but I've seen you often leave it out). Or is it the need to type id= and title=? The {{Cite cgn}} page (apparently Cite cgndb directs there) says the usage is {{cite cgnbd|id=9999|title=featurename}} (I just wrote to Droll about the usage saying cgndb despite the rename) and "The fields id and title must be specified", which suggested to me that one had to type id= and title= (or name=), but I just did a quick test and found that if id= and name= are left out the template still works just fine: {{Cite cgn|JBJMZ|Toad River}} returns: "Toad River". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada. Same thing for {{Cite gnis}} and {{Cite bcgnis}}--although I never use those and don't understand why there are two templates for each which do essentially the same thing. The only extra work I can see with the Cite cgn template is that you can't leave out the feature name and have it default to the page name. Personally I almost never leave out the feature name from any of these templates because I have some vague worry that someday the page might be renamed (eg, Toad River to, say, Toad River (British Columbia): there must be other Toad Rivers out there). But I know you often leave the feature name out. So is that the extra work? I never used {{CGNDB}} so don't know how it worked (and can't find out now that it is deleted), but I'm guessing it was similar to the BCGNIS and GNIS templates, yes? I note there is also {{CGN}}, which appears to have the same syntax usage as the BCGNIS and GNIS templates, ie, {{CGN|JBJMZ|Toad River}}, with the feature name field being optional: it would work the same as {{CGN|JBJMZ}} on the Toad River page. So that looks ideal, except that the template's page says: "This template is best used for inline citations only. For reference citations and external links see {{Cite cgndb}}." I see that the reason must be it differs on the text created: {{CGN|JBJMZ|Toad River}} yields Toad River. But {{BCGNIS|19998|Toad River}} yields "Toad River". BC Geographical Names..

Since I'm not sure what you were used to with CGNDB I'm not sure what would be best to ask for. One idea would be to ask that the CGN template yield results more like the BCGNIS and GNIS templates, so it would be useful for citations and so on--and also make the three templates more standardized in what they do. Another idea would be to ask for the Cite cgn template to not require the feature name, having it default to the page name if left out. I've never, or almost never used the CGN template, but if I had the need for it I would want it to behave more like GNIS and BCGNIS. Perhaps it could be changed to do so. I wonder how one would request a change like that. Pfly (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yes, it does work like BCGNIS and GNIS. {{CGNDB|JBJMZ|Toad River}} yields "Toad River". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada., and {{CGNDB|JBJMZ}} yields Error: No name specified when using {{cite cgndb}} (on this page obviously). That's good. Documentation? I suppose one could basically copy the BCGNIS or GNIS documentation and make the few changes needed for CGNDB. I could try to do it if you would like. Pfly (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been reinstated since last night, I guess I bitched loud/nasty enough....I really am tired of all of this kind of crap, so yes please, write/copy over the documentation....and as you know by now as I bcc'd you the correspondence with LRMB (bcgnis office, "Land and Resource Management Bureau - the BC gov has more acronyms than Wikipedia does) - I'm trying to get blanket policy statement from them which can be posted somewhere for template-happy nerds to be confronted with...I'd like it if they made Basemap-generated maps also public domain, but Basemap's resolution and details have bee seriously downgraded since it was created so sort of a moot point; your maps and those of Kmusser/Karl look so much better anyway.....thanks for caring Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Plastikspork beat me too it. I still don't understand why there are multiple templates that do almost exactly the same thing, but whatever. I knew about Cite gnis but not the other Cite ones. I always preferred the GNIS one over Cite gnis--less typing required (just a few letters, sure, but that adds up over hundreds of times, like you said). Pfly (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the mistake. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of Samuel Campbell to Samuel Campbell (American politician)

Just FYI, I've taken your proposal in regards to Samuel Campbell at Talk:Campbell (surname) and turned it into a discussion at Talk:Samuel Campbell. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

In your revision of my edit to Sheslay River you refer to me as a "template-promoter-cum-vandal". I resent the accusation of vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have no desire to debate with you about my intentions. If you were ask me why I have made changes to an article I would be glad to engage in a dialog with you. I will not respond to hostility. –droll [chat] 04:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And I resent your attack on the very useful {{BCGNIS}}, which is perfectly functional and doesn't need to be subsituted by your byte-wasting pet project and, to me, is clearly meant as an attack on my preference for that template (which I was the one who got it created and am its primary user). "Going after" me by substituting your template-baby, and your useless addition of unneeded namefield contents (waste, waste, waste, waste -and MORE WORK for people who actually use this template), is also digi-stalking me. "Dialog" with you? Why? Because clearly you've got an agenda to further promotion of your own template choice/design even though you don't actually write geography articles Expecting others to bend to your way of doing things, and doing so en masse, and then saying "oh, but we can have a dialog" when you have no idea of the scale/volume of the subject matter you're affecting, doesn't say anything like "dialog" to me, it says that you don't give a shit what actual users of these templates think and are going to mass-substitute your pet project and then say "oh, we can talk about it". That's called fait accompli. If I knew how to write a bot to reverse all your damaging, byte-wasting edits, I would do so; but clearly those who know code in this environment clearly have the upper hand over those who actually contribute material. Dialog? Of waht kind? The kind where I have to NOT express my opinion, and you field non sequitur arguments to defend your waste of time/space/energy? If there's a debate about the use/implementation of "cite" templates, don't you think you shoudl hold back promoting them instead of pretending as though everything's alright, even though you don't even know anything about the material and the scale of the material involved? And if you know I don't like your template, why are you "going after" articles Iv'e jsut created??? What you're doing is confrontational, and as directed at something you know I use and defend, is clearly "stalking". Pretending to take offense without considering that you have already offended me (very pointedly, by "going after" articles I've jsut created, and ultimately thousands of articles I've created which use these templates and I can't help but see in my watchlist.....aaaargh, you ask me for dialog [sic, the Canadian spelling is dialogue} after ignoring everything I've said???? Give your head a shake - your wasting not just my time but your own, and also wasting wiki-bytage ,especially when your wanton extra characters are multiplied across article archives and also server backups. You're not writing clean code, you're writing clutter...and wassting the patience of a prolific and knowledgeable editor who's utterly tired of code-writers who have no respect for the needs/opinions of those whose time/energy/contributions you're making more difficult. Go do something useful, and butt out of Canadian geography articles/templates unless you acxtually 'listen to those you use them. You do NOT have a better idea, but you have an incredible amount of arrogance. Pushing me to the sidewalk, then saying "oh, let's have a dialog" is...oh, never mind.....I'll quite Wikipedia soon, because of stuff like this; you can brag "oh I pissed Skookum1 off so much he'll never come back" Because that's what your "dialog" is ultimately causing. what a friggin' waste of time, I'm going to bed and will figure out tomorrow where to complain about your incredible waste of time and "gee, I'm insulted" attitude; it's me who's insulted by your aggressive implementation of a template that you know the primary user of the one you want it to replace doesn't like ONE LITTLE BIT. When you see "Skookum1 has left the building" on my userpage, you can count yourself among the peoople who brought that about. I have better things to do than let code-tweakers waste my time with garbage like this; I'd rather have just created another whack of articles tonight; but seeing you pouncing on them right after I've created them and accomplishing NOTHING USEFUL AT ALL....I have better ways to waste my time. If I can find a way to delete all articles I've created when I quite Wikipedia (because of you and others like you), I will do so - and you can go re-create them, piece by piece, and extra-character-by-extra-character, and waste your own life instead of somebody else's. "DIALOG???" About WHAT? About how you're right and know better, and anything I have to say about it I have to speak nicely, even when there's nothing nice to be said? It's 1:54 am where I am, and I'm going to bed with high blood pressure and heartburn, thanks a friggin' lot.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that this has spiraled a bit out of control. I hope we can have a civil discussion about this at some point in the near future. Changing from {{BCGNIS}} to {{cite bcgnis}} might seem like a waste of characters, but editing warring is a much bigger problem. Please try to keep calm, and I'm sure we can have a rationale conversation about this. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's going to take me a while and a lot of reading to sort out what's going on here — but initially, I would like to mention that Wikipedia does have a principle of "don't worry about performance"; namely, we base editing decisions on what's best for the article, not on technical considerations like "conserving characters". I'm not saying that the newer template is necessarily better or worse than the older one — I still need to review exactly what the difference is between the two templates before I could make a determination like that — but the mere fact that the newer template's name is longer has nothing to do with it, as "wasting bytes" isn't an issue that editors or administrators need to concern ourselves with. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Who says wasting bytes is not problemic? It can be problemic for editors like myself that create lengthly articles. The reference templates take up article space and when the template has more characters it takes up even more space. If ref templates had less characters it would be easiler on article space and more information would be able to be added in an article before it reaches 80 kilobytes long when it should be broken up into "subarticles". Such length can be problematic to bring articles to FA status and this is one of the reasons I suggested the creation of a Geological Survey of Canada template on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Canada because lots of articles I have created and expanded use GSC references and it would likely take less time to fill out. When I was gathering information to greatly expand the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt in April the it was about 60 kilobytes long but when I added the reference templates it went up to around 80 kilobytes long so I had to remove some of the information I was going to post to prevent problems for bring the article to FA status. BT (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

CGNDB

I have thought about it a bit more. As a result, I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. I will do my best to inform everyone who might be interested without violating WP:CANVASS. Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello friend

I have a question for you about the new portal we made Portal:Geography of Canada, you will notice i mention funa and flora...AS it was mentioned on the main Geography of Canada article...My question - is it normal to have funa and flora grouped in with Geography?...Moxy (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My eyes are bad, I thought you said "tuna and flora"....yes, fauna and flora are aspects of geography; NB there's considerable and I'd say redundant overlap between those two items and "ecology".Skookum1 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok cool was not sure when i made the portal if they should be included..and as per the norm sorry for my sepLliNg LOL ...Moxy (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Skookum1

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And as for YOU, I think you should have your admin powers pulled because of YOUR rude and disruptive behaviour. Your deletions last night of images I uploaded without notifying me in any way, and on trivial grounds that could have easily been resolved if given a chance; I wasn't even given the too-short seven day notice that you axe-wielders have created to justify your penchant for the delete button. But fine, as in the edit comment that went with my long paragraph below, just go ahead and delete everything I've ever uploaded; I regret donating anything to Wikipedia now, and I wish I could undue all my corrections of fact and all the thousands of geography stubs/articles I've created. There are too many admins here now, not enough actual contributors; more and more of us are being driven away because of admins like you.Skookum1 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Skookum, as I've said before, I respect your work based on past discussions we've had, but lately I've been wondering what's up. Quite a few of your recent talk page posts and edit summaries are quite problematic, with frequent accusations and civility issues. Is everything OK? --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know you, as Ckatz does, but your 3 edits on User talk:Fastily [10], [11], [12] are way over the line.

I don't see a real abusive history here or anything, so I don't want to overreact, but as an uninvolved administrator I am extremely concerned. We have policies against making personal attacks and acting in a rude and disruptive manner, both of which you seem to have broken here.

Please - calm down, stop attacking Fastily, and explain what's going on here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What's happening is I'm leaving, finally, after increasingly frustrating encounters with peremtory, officious and often callous behaviour by too many administrators who are wiki-lawyering and wiki-judging and hiding behind wikiquette as a way of being highly aggressive with procedure to inflict mindlessly destructive and time-wasting actions against wiki-content, or to demand more time to fiddle with burning deck-chairs. I spend more and more time having to deal with GARBAGE - fiddling with templates that weren't broken and requiring that MORE work be used to make them, perpetrated by people who don't even use them, image after image being deleted without sufficient cause or warning (demanding "proof" that they're public domain even when they obviously are, including images made by myself or my family collection), clearly censoring activities - conscious or not of the nature that what's being done is censorship - on arbitrary and ad hominem interpretations of what is or isn't NPOV (like the passive-aggressive wikiquette game so often being played), i.e. the invasion of Wikipedia by spin doctors (the Five Ring Circus debacle on the Olympics pages, plus the determined effort to silence the presence of any reportage of teh considerable political discord over the Games that went down in BC). In visiting the delete-machine "admin" pages I see I'm not the only one upset with Fastily/Fastilysock yet he/she continues to run amuck, apparently unchecked, and I suspect not notifying other people, also, of the campaign to delete, delete, delete. Somewhere on my talkpage or elsewhere related to the last round of Fastilysock deletions, User:Okie posted a very interesting link to a Flickr-related discussion about how Wikipedia is being overrun by deletionists and wikilawyers; in my view you can add "spin doctor machines" to that. I"m tired, I've wasted too much of my time simply writing articles, now I have experiences with admin after admin behaving like high court judges and or ringmasters making more and more work, but not actually contributing any content themselves. Too many admins, not enough editors. When I got up this morning I determined I would blank my userpage with a protest statement against what Wikipedia has become, and how I no longer have time to work on history articles, or to expand the vast number of geography articles I've created because everybody is so degtermined to fiddle with format, or just to delete whatever they can because the expanded parameters demanding for image use/creation are making more and more needless, irrelevant, redundant work. It doesn't surprise me ONE BIT that I'm being thrown up before the dogs of the adminship and the kafkaesque corridors of officious procedure and bureaucratic power and being asked to do yet more tricks and jumps and loops; have a look at what I said to the very helpful User:Good OlFactory last night about what it's like, and I didn't mince words. It's not a question, to me, of my taste in forthright speech and my dislike of the false politesse demanded of me even when I'm offended of my time is being deliberately and/or mindlessly wasted; it's a question of wrong conduct by too many admins who revel in their power to delete/censure, and too many code-writers who continuously work on interface without actually understanding the material; this also goes for the recent implementation of the new interface overall, which was awkward and pointless and I reverted from. I used to believe in Wikipedia as a chance to integrate knowledge and to make a composite record of history etc; now I see it as a playpen for powermongers and passive aggressive control freaks. I've wasted enough of my life here, and thrown what I think now was too much of my energy and creativity and considerable knowledge into it; "what's going on", Ckatz, is that I've HAD IT. You're welcome to get Fastilysock to delete ALL images I've contributed, and also to undo all my corrections of history and geography that plagued, and continue to plague this place, and to allow the spin doctor censorship machines to run amuck. Quite a number of them will be happy to see me leave, no doubt. Wikipedia has lost its credibility to me, and now it's lost me, I'm done. Done, done, done. But Wikipedia has also gained a very public critic, who won't hold back in other parts of the web about the damage being done to it by its machineries of power and ignorance. It's too bad, there were several worthwhile projects that were underway, or would have been these last months, if not for all the mindless admin-hoops that came to waste so much of my time. I can no longer "assume good faith", when I see so much bad faith, and so many determinedly power-tripping admins and code-trolls.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On images

I think several people agree with you Skookum that it was a mistake not to inform you of the image deletion discussions. However, as with most speedy deletion actions, they can easily be undone if challenged, and the images restored if the sources can be provided. If you do choose to return, undeleting images that were hosted on en.wikipedia is easily accomplished so that the necessary comments can be added.

One comment from our discussion on Fastily's talk page, however - While you are correct that provincial governments have no jurisdiction on copyright law, Crown Copyright does apply only to works of the Federal Government. Regular copyright laws apply to works of provincial and local governments, and as such, only images created pre-1950 or by an author who died 49+ years ago are PD. Cheers, Reso lute 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If its any consolation Fastily deleted many images form 22 Jermyn Street which I contacted the owener and uploaded which took several hours to discuss and agree with him, save and upload. He did not even bother to contact me to let me know or even at least try to get some proof to their justification. They were very valuable images too given that the hotel has been demolished. But your leaving wikipedia Skookum is not going to help. In fact with less people like yourself around to demand justice from these people is going to make wikipedia even worse. We need you around to develop BC content. We don't always get it our own way. I've despaired many a time at this kind of behaviour and guilty until proven innocent scenario that exists on here. But I've found that actually most of my content remains intact and is helpful to the project a sa resource. If you return to wikipedia asap and open an ANI on Fastily I'll relate my own experiences and that he really should notify the uploader of deletions and try to ensure he never does this again to others. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You will be missed

Skookum, I have noticed your contributions on almost every B.C. topic I have found in here. As a new Wiki user, I found it encouraging that one person could contribute that much content. I will try to take inspiration from your work ethic, and I hope your break with WK is not permanent. Theinterior (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File:708px-South BC-NW USA-relief NorthCascades.png

The supposed Commons source for this image doesn't exist, so I nominated the image for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to source file easily found and fixed. Kmusser (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

List of historical ships in British Columbia

SS Polly is in this list. I've now created an article on Polly, so that title needs to be converted to a shipindex page and the ship in the list needs to be dabbed. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nooo! you mustn't quit on us!

This really sucks Skookum1, I'm really gonna miss reading your verbose speeches :) You were always one who spoke honestly and openly. ahh well, want me to archive your talk page for you?

I must say I'm disappointed and slightly angered over the circumstances behind this. I think that if someone sees that a valuable editor is clearly distressed over something someone did, that person should definitely give them a break, and consider, what's worth more to Wikipedia? a prolific content writer with an extensive history of contributions to the project? or following proper process? I think the scale weighs in favor of WP:IAR.

The key to lasting on Wikipedia is to not get so wrapped up in one thing.. you gotta focus on the whole, look at the bigger picture.. if something doesn't go your way just let it go.. there's so much more to work on, Wikipedia is huge, and the delete-happy drones and fanatics can't be everywhere at once so there's no way they'll ever be able to make a dent in it.

I really hope you'll change your mind. -- œ ^™ 08:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)