User talk:Kmsiever/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lethbridge

[edit] LA map

Love the new map on Lethbridge. Do you think you could add the Indian Reserves to it? Kevlar67 02:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it, but left them out. I will try to add them. I am also working on a city map. I hope to have them up tomorrow. Glad you like it. --Kmsiever 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethbridge-stub

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it covers far too small a subject. Very, very few individual cities gt stub templates, and in each case there is a specific WikiProject to do with them. In Canada, only Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver have specific templates - all others stubs are divided by either province or provincial sub-region. Your new template has been proposed for deletion at WP:SFD - please feel free to comment there on any reasons why it should not be deleted. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Calgary also has a stub. --Kmsiever 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethbridge assessment

Unless the article goes to Good article status, it won't change. It's certainly not A-Class (Which is close to featured status). Personally, I'd rate it Low-Importance; I don't think so many Canadians across the country would know about this specific city that it warrants mi-importance (which maybe a dozen or so cities in the country warrant, in my opinion).Circeus 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but it is debatable. Considering the exposure it's received in recent years in the media (i.e. Dar Heatherington, 2007 Scotties, a stop on several band tours and so on), I wouldn't be quick to drop it off mid just yet. It'll be a long time before it hits high (if ever); that's for sure.
One other thing, what do you mean by "Unless the article goes to Good article status, it won't change"? What is meant by "it"? The article? The level of importance? If the latter, I'm not interested in just the level of importance. I am interested in writing a quality article. --Kmsiever 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
By "it," I meant the class. My comments on "importance" refelcted only a personal opinion, and I hope you didn't take offense to them. The article is currently at B-class. I don't think it's quite Good class level, much less A-class.Circeus 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I posted a request for assessment. I hope to improve it so it can be at least GA compatible if not actually rated GA. --Kmsiever 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina

[edit] North Central

Cool it on the edits, you stick to Lethbridge. Let those that live in Regina deal with it. Thanks. --206.163.235.114 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like my edits, bring it up with arbitration. There is nothing wrong with any edit I have made. --Kmsiever 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a pity that 206.163.235.114 doesn't register a username and thereby attorn to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. Given that he or she does not, may I state my (doubtless unnecessary) full support of your laudable attempts to tone down the polemic and return the article to appropriate disinterestedness: may I also (doubtless equally unnecessarily) encourage you to entirely to ignore 206.163.235.114 without let or hindrance. The ludicrous suggestion that only a current resident of Regina has any standing to participate in a neutral-toned description of the city puts me in mind of a class I once taught at the University of Regina: I made occasional (in the context highly relevant) observations as to small town prairie life that were not entirely laudatory; some of the students inferred from the fact that I had lived elsewhere than Saskatchewan that I was from elsewhere than Saskatchewan and solemnly informed me that "We don't really like outsiders talking about our way of life." I got their ear by demonstrating my bona fides according to their bone-headed criteria and then pointed out how bone-headed those criteria were. I would of course make this observation to 206.163.235.114 him- or herself if he or she would register a username but there hardly seems any point so long as he or she hides from scrutiny as to his or her edits. Masalai 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I read through the dispute resolution article today. It gave me a reminder to just ignore him/her. I am trying to make edits around his/her hot-button issues until he leaves. If it continues being belligerent, I am going to put in a request for arbitration. --Kmsiever 04:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. He or she has certainly given lots of indication of where he or she is coming from; the silly thing is it is unlikely that any truly impartial participant in the editing process would discount his or her viewpoint on the substantive issues at hand, which will doubtless make their way into the eventual outcome of this particular editing issue one way or another. Do you have any idea of the background of the proposal that there be an urban reserve and why this might be thought a favourable move with respect to the problems of personal safety in the NW neighbourhood? Clearly it's not of central importance to an article on Regina overall but if, as is stated, Saskatoon, Swift Current and other urban centres have gone this route there should at least be a footnote stating why they did so and whether the outcome was favourable. Meanwhile, where do you think this discussion should go? Clearly not where it is at present: it's not an urban planning issue, surely, is it? Certainly not one they address at schools of urban planning, anyway, and when they do, not successfully. Masalai 04:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of the proposal, but I certainly find it interesting 206.163.235.114 cries racism, but then brings up the urban reserve issue as if it will solve all of NC's problems. I certainly do not think it is an urban planning issue (I said as much in fact); I doubt city planners intended for Moccasin Flats to turn out like it did. It's a social issue, not an urban planning one. I think what needs to happen is that this section needs to be transplanted into another article, whether by itself or one with all the neighbourhoods/quadrants. That would discourage much of what is happening, in my opinion, or at least take it away from the Regina article. --Kmsiever 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture in Regina

thanks for the assistance in looking over my articles in the culture in Regina articles. I love doing research and finding the articles, but I do not have a journalistic or any kind of editing experience in writing the articles properly. I hope it is ok with you if I continue to find substantial articles about Regina and insert them with your help to go over them and get them looking polished and professional. Also, thanks for your assistance with the North Central issues, I agree with you that a priority is that we need to move the NC article to another place and possibly create articles for each major subdivision later.I do not know how to do that so if you want to do it, feel free, you have my full support. Also, we should also move the Notable people to another page also as I feel it doesnt really define a community enough to be on the front page. Enough for now, I gotta go, thanks again for the help! Friesguy 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I like editing copy. I can't make the new articles right now, but if no one else does, it I will try to give it a shot in the future. --Kmsiever 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina Neighbourhoods

Hi Kim,

Does this appear to be the same clown you were having the contretemps with a few weeks back?

"Introduction is vague or missing" -- Well, it wasn't missing till Mr or Ms 24.71.100.216 deleted it on the basis that it was "vague or missing." Improvements are always appropriate; it is difficult to see how simply deleting this introduction makes it less "vague or missing." One wonders what the issue is. Are we getting into the old heave-ho about wanting a sociological excursion into the causes of the social problems in the North-Central precinct? If there are published sources for such discussion, then by all means, why not. And Mr or Ms 24.71.100.216 should certainly feel free to go ahead and add such material. Otherwise surely no, and in the meantime, peremptorily deleting an innocuous introduction is surely vandalism. Masalai 06:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Masalai 08:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could be. I wouldn't be surprised. --Kmsiever 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina Neighbourhoods- NC crime stats

I kindly request that you abstain from wholesale reverts or deletions in this article. I have put in a request for administrative assistance in this disagreement and am awaiting a response. Until such time, feel free to add your POV on the subject but PLEASE do not revert or delete. Thank you.--207.81.56.49 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, this fiasco began when you inserted text that other editors had agreed previously to remove. Thus the onus is on you to provide rationale for re-including city-wide stats in a section discussing a single neighbourhood; a neighbourhood, which has a minority of total city crime. --Kmsiever 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sociology of religion and Regina's West End

You are quite right. As I say, these generalisations really are truisms of the religion of sociology, and are readily supportable in the academic literature, but as you rightly point out they should not be presumed. (There are articles, indeed tomes, regarding the number of US presidents who have been from the minority but elite Episcopalians, for example, versus the anomaly of the elite Rockefellers having been Baptists: it is telling in this connection that when General Eisenhower was about to become President he found it desirable to switch from Jehovah's Witness to Presbyterian.) Where I am, in Australia, I cannot provide the necessary footnotes. So I have removed the observations: as I say, they are readily supported by all manner of published academic commentary in the sociology of religion but I do not have access to it -- and you rightly suggest that they ought to be footnoted -- but they really don't much matter. In due course it might be interesting to consider vis-a-vis Regina, Saskatchewan, the issue of the shifting demographic of the various denominations: the closing of St Andrew's and St. John's United Churches from the North Central, for example, as WASP Canadians have moved to the north and the south. The Anglicans of course never penetrated those precincts. Masalai 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qu'Appelle Diocesan property

An interesting development, eh. Somewhat a pity that the church wasn't able to sustain the property but I suppose once St Chad's couldn't survive it was a foregone conclusion. I'll bet they were pleased they'd never got around to building the cathedral on the corner of Broad St and College Ave.! So Peart School is no more? Hmmm...I got his library when he died. I wonder if there's anything left of him in Regina now. Masalai 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's no more. [1] It was replaced with a bunch of houses. --Kmsiever 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there isn't room for an article in Wikipedia on Dr Tom Peart. He was, with Dr Les Crossman, the backbone of the tiny English Department at Regina College and then Regina Campus. They were, the both of them, mainstays of cultural literacy in a Regina that was possibly not very literate for a long time. (Dr George Ledingham was the biology person; Mademoiselle Belcher was the French person; these few heroes brought their considerable scholarship to Regina College in the hope that sooner or later there would be a university in Regina, and indeed, eventually there was.) In fact my aunt was Dr Crossman's high school English teacher in Rosetown, and in Shakespeare classes at Regina Campus (as it was till 1974) it was mildly embarrassing to have all those cross (as 'twere) currents. As I say, when Dr Tom Peart died I got his library and it seems tragic that it is now overseas and the primary school named after him is now closed. Masalai 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as he meets the requirements of WP:BIO. --Kmsiever 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina neighbourhoods

Hello again. I wonder if you can make a great deal of sense out of this: "The city of Regina, Saskatchewan, the provincial capital of Saskatchewan, Canada currently has 69 neighbourhoods of [sic] subdivisions.[citation needed]" (The "citation needed" is mine.) There follows an extremely lengthy list of neighbourhoods. They undoubtedly come from some civic website but in my humble view they need to be cited. The list of neighbourhoods is good, to be sure, subject to formatting (small type; columns) but I wonder where this list comes from: it could perhaps be cited (and of course formatted). Kind regards. Masalai 11:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The link given says nothing of 69 neighbourhoods. I removed the statement. --Kmsiever 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Regina neighborhoods [sic]

Hi again. Any thoughts on the suggestion that SriMesh makes on the “Regina Neighbourhoods” talk page that all Regina neighbourhoods have their own articles? There are issues of spelling and grammar in the material she has inserted in the article regarding neighbourhoods but I hesitate to edit till there has been some discussion as to whether the substantial elaboration of the neighbourhoods article(s) is warranted. Masalai 02:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are notable enough. --Kmsiever 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent deletions and demands for citations in the Regina article

What do you think about the large number of deletions that a user in Australia is making from the article? I suspect she is a little unclear as to the correct use of footnotes: they are not necessary for trite matters of generally common knowledge (though it is certainly possible for me to add the citations she demands); but I do wonder if it is appropriate for her to have deleted a great deal of material on the basis of its being in other articles. It is common for the main article to summarise such material, which is then elaborated in detail in the relevant sub-article. I reverted a couple of her deletions and she immediately restored them.... Masalai 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the practice. I do it all the time in main articles. The Regina article is too long and needs to be trimmed down. In my opinion, sections covered by a subarticle should reflect the content in the lead section of the subarticle. --Kmsiever 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...well, if you say so, though in my view the deletions make the main article a bit skeletal. Where does your definition of "too long" come from? It certainly is not long by comparison to other city articles.
I have extensively footnoted the section on bedroom communities which she demanded citations for (trite though the demand is, I think); I don't know where the figures on climate come from and I'm afraid someone else will have to take charge of documenting those. The issue still remains of the business of an extensive and error-ridden list (and an ungrammatical introduction to it) in the "Neighbourhoods" sub-article and the proposition that there now be an elaborate discussion of changing planning policies through the years. It is probable that no one will get around to this; it is unimaginable that there is any published discussion of such matters, and if there is it would not apply specifically to Regina but to all other North American cities of comparable age. Possibly after some time the whole section could simply be deleted, eh? Masalai 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Click on "edit this page", and you will see a message above the editing box that will say the article is too long. --Kmsiever 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It says, "This page is 42 kilobytes long." But never mind. What say ye about the in my view ludicrous (excuse my French) suggestions re: the "Neighbourhoods" article? Apart from your concurring in the proposition that the neighbourhoods aren't notable, that is. The Saskatoon article is becoming replete with lists and it looks a right mess. Masalai 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe only notable neighbourhoods should be listed. I'm not sure I understand the point of the extensive list. FYI, here's info on article length WP:LENGTH. I guess they removed the notice that used to accompany notices over 32 KB. --Kmsiever 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised Masalai didn't bother even discussing these specific issues with me first. If Masalai had an issue with a specific editor's edits...consult the editor first. Michellecrisp 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina neighbourhoods

No problem. The thing was, the to-ing and fro-ing had resulted in prose that was unreadable, quite apart from the question of whether the contents made any sense. The issue appears to have been retired for a couple of months; indeed the thorn in my own side also appears to have disappeared altogether. Pity about Mumun; he hadn't, perhaps, stuck around long enough to see that that almost always happens sooner or later.Masalai 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been on here over three years and it hasn't happened to me yet. Knock on wood. This isn't the only IP editor who has made my editing life difficult. Luckily most of them get blocked though. I've learned to let things lie when I can. --Kmsiever 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Or if they don't get blocked they get in a huff when their own edits are reverted or disparaged and they go away on their own. Curiously, it is often the ones who make the most noise about reporting others to the powers that be who themselves eventually fold their tents. Masalai 03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I just found it funny that this person reported me for 3RR and ended up getting blocked in the process. Oh, the irony. --Kmsiever 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, indeed. My own special bête-noire had, together with her various partisans, made continual threats to "report" me (it put me in mind of primary school: "I’m gonna tell on you!") as she continually made wholesale deletions from articles whose subject she clearly had no knowledge of, together with peremptory demands for citations as to trivial matters of common knowledge. And then when an article of her own original creation which wholly lacked sourcing was deleted for "non-notability" she picked herself up and took herself off, never to be seen again. I actually gladly conceded that some of her demands for footnoting were entirely valid, but the editorial commentary was invariably replete with gratuitous confrontational rudeness, not to speak of frequently being weirdly ungrammatical. Her frequent suggestion that various editors should reconsider whether editing on Wikipedia was really for them, since they were insufficiently disinterested in the subject matter of various articles, therefore made it especially amusing when she couldn’t handle it that an editorial review of one of her own articles went against her. Masalai 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS re Mormons in Lillooet

I see you're interested in Mormon history....I'm not Mormon but my field of interest/expertise is the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush and the Lillooet area in particular. Had a look at the early censuses and other stuff in detail a year or two ago and remarked that, in the first census in Lillooet, there were half a dozen or a dozen Mormons - listed as an ethnicity alongside Galicians (Ukrainians), Poles, Italians, Irish and all the rest. One of the main gold-mining bars just north of town, between the Bridge River Rapids (aka Six Mile, at the confluence of that river with the Fraser) and Fountain (aka 12 Mile) was called Mormon Bar. I'm wondering if there are any Mormon historians or records that might have diaries or journals of the experience of Mormon pioneers in the Fraser Canyon Gold Rush that might make mention of Lillooet (then known variously because of multiple local shantytowns as Cayoosh, Cayoosh Flat, Parsonville, Parsonsville, the Fountains, Bridge River and "Kayousch"; it didn't get the name Lillooet until fall 1860, when the rush was mostly over). See http://www.cayoosh.net (my hobby site) for more on the area; I'm always looking for new material from unusual, especially personal, sources...sometime in the near future I'm going to try and "get done" my long-postponed book on the area, as its 150th Anniversary is upcoming in 1858-60.Skookum1 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any historians with information on the area. I know Dennis A. Wright at BYU has done some research on Mormons in Canada. He may be a starting point. --Kmsiever 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kootenai (tribe)/Ktunaxa people

Hi. Saw your post on the Kootenai (tribe) talk page and I agree with you about the tribe->people thing; "tribe" in particular is a very US-side usage and kind of awkward, as you know, when used in Canada (when used by non-First Nations people anyway...). I'm all over the place on the Indigenous Peoples of North America WikiProject and I can tell you there's a lot of variance between the two forms, and some have brackets around tribe or people, some don't; there's also some that omit it entirely (Palus e.g.) as was also the case in BC with Lillooet and other names (now disambigs, mostly; see how it got resolved on Chilcotin and the Lillooet pages....which are still kind of tangled. Anyway, yeah, there needs to be a standard; the Indigenous Project has been kind of fallow for a while but an appropriate place for discussion of this issue would be the talk page there....I've kind of overposted there so it might be better if someone else posted something for a change ;-) Skookum1 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check out the project. --Kmsiever 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For your work in maintaining Southern Alberta related articles, especially for getting Lethbridge up to GA status. PhoenixTwo 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brocket 99 business

You're welcome. I'm not sure whether the page needs the big copyright tag or not, but it certainly needs some major clean-up. For what it's worth, I'm about to nominate Tough Buck from Brocket and Brocket 99 Christmas Album at AfD, which may help clear up some things; after that's done, we can work on the main page (there's probably a stub's worth of encyclopedic content there). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for nominating those. I am doubtful much more content can be added than what was on the page before the anonymous user came along. --Kmsiever 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Municipality of Alberta

Hi Kim,

(this is an Alberta infobox, not an Edmonton infobox. Removing link to past Edmonton mayors)

Oops, yes. Thanks for spotting!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering why the Lethbridge box kept showing a link to Edmonton mayors. :) --Kmsiever 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sunstone Magazine

Kim,

I'm new to wikipedia editing, will you review the changes to Sunstone Magazine and see if that is closer to where it needs to be for references? I didn't remove the reference alert yet. Specifically, the references address several of the points in each paragraph, so I included them in bulk at the end. Being relatively new, that may be bad form. Feedback, cleanup would be appreciated. Mahuph 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Mahuph. It's looking better. I made a few changes, but there are still some spots that could use some fixing (still slightly POV for example). --Kmsiever 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor Quimby (anon. IP) troll

I think the individual who has recently chosen a name is engaging in vandalism, trolling, baiting, hurling personal insults, politicized and POV enflamed arguments, engaging in attacks, and generally spends more time making trouble than contributing (although the individual does have some contributions). I think we may have to report this. However, I am not sure of what to do now except, since the individual engages in trolling, to try and ignore as much as possible. However, the areas in which I usually work in Wikipedia are rife with these miscreants and we tend to shut them down quite quickly because of their disruptiveness and the difficulties that they create. What do you think we should do? for example, I saw above that you had considered 'arbitration' the last time (you mean dispute resolution?) but I think we might consider asking for an official comment from an admin who's familiar with this kind of thing. Alternatively, file an 'Incident Report' if things get bad? -- Mumun 無文 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Last time I just bit my lip and ignored the person. After 3–4 days I was able to make the changes without any reverts. But this person has taken i further by developing a sock puppet. S/he has no intention of making any contributions; s/he seems content with simply questioning all other contributions. However, the steps of arbitration say that we should first contact the person, then ignore him/her before requesting arbitration. Which is what did with the last person. I asked him/her to stop, ignored him/her, and finally put in a request to have the person blocked. --Kmsiever 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I'm in discussion with that user and have asked them to provide their rationale on the talk page and also to update their edit summaries, which they are not doing. If they insist on blindly reverting the article, they will be blocked for WP:3RR - Alison☺ 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and your assistance, Alison. --Kmsiever 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Kim! Please check my request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. What do you think? Am I off the mark or am I making connections that are not there? If you have any comments it would be good to add them there. Mumun 無文 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Shaun Ward

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Shaun Ward, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Herostratus 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:1975 Canada Games logo.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1975 Canada Games logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Lpl logo.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lpl logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberta municipal elections, 2007

I've been working on getting the above-named article set up, and one thing I'd like to do to ensure that the article continues to be updated as the election approaches is find a wikipedia to take on each of Alberta's cities (and ideally some of its larger towns/counties/municipal districts). Obviously, you were my first thought for Lethbridge - are you willing to take this on? Failing that, do you have any suggestions of anybody else that might worth asking? Sarcasticidealist 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that. Thanks for thinking of me. --Kmsiever 15:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent infelicity

Hello, fellow regular contributor to the Regina, Saskatchewan articles. My apologies for the recent contretemps with a user in Australia, which you may have felt yourself involuntarily drawn in upon. I confess that I overreacted: Crummy English I can handle; rudeness and arrogance together with crummy English sends me ballistic.

Actually, I continue to maintain that my response to such user was not out of line — I do correspond regularly, believe it or not, with all manner of non-native anglophone business associates and friends in a half-dozen countries and in three languages — but never mind. Apparently for Wikipedia purposes I was wrong and I shall be more careful in future. (“Ad hominem,“ indeed!)

However, please do not intrude on my user page. I am a poor weak fellow and I am susceptible to taunts. If I delete matters from my user page it is because I do not wish to be provoked by them to further indiscretion. If you barge in and restore such deletions without comment, surely you can understand how I might perceive that as being, at least prima facie, and certainly if it is without explanation, an act of aggression.

Kind regards Masalai 12:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Masalai, that blanking a user talk page is the same as blanking any other page, and can be considered vandalism. Just as editors don't own any article page, they also don't own their talk pages. --Kmsiever 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dab work

Hi there. It's good to have people working on dab pages, but I'm afraid I can't agree with some of your changes like removing all redlinks as you did in Santa Barbara or removing useful links to existing articles (as you did in Atlas (disambiguation), apparently solely based on the fact that an article title doesn't contain the name of the dab page). Please study the guidelines and consider how dab pages are used before removing further information. Thanks. Rl 08:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have studied the guidelines. My understanding is redlinks could be kept if an article will be created for the topic. Given the length of time of some of the redlinks, I am doubtful any articles will be created in the foreseeable future. In addition, it is my understanding that when pointing to articles no identified by the name in the dab pages, the item should be discussed in that page. If there are specific pages pointing from the Atlas dab page, for example, that you think discuss the items I deleted, please let me know. I'm certainly the first to admit I am not always right. --Kmsiever 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest editors go out and create redlinks for every place in the world, but as places (cities, towns, villages) are considered inherently notable, we can be "confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject". (MoS) I wouldn't remove them, either, especially since even a redlink conveys potentially interesting information. And I liked Santa Barbara better when it mentioned Saint Barbara. – Atlantis has information on Atlas, its first king, Lebanon Cedar on the Atlas Cedar (which has its own article by now, so I linked to that one instead), Gerhard Richter on his book Atlas, South Devon Railway Dido class on the locomotive, and book size on the Atlas folio. (ignoring the pop culture entries for now). Image how someone might use the Wikipedia if they heard about a book or a locomotive called Atlas. Wouldn't they expect to find if not a complete article then at least a pointer to any information we might have on that? (even if the article barely covers the subject, at least they'll know where to add their own information). – I know it's a judgement call, and I don't claim to be right, either. I am just saying that you removed quite a bit of information that I would have considered useful. Rl 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.
As you have shown an interest in [[Regina neighbourhoods Regina, Saskatchewan White City, Saskatchewan Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan]] we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.
Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject
Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to commit to it, but I'll drop inf rom time to time. --Kmsiever 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Major Baseball League

A new article also is Sports in Saskatchewan can you fix the baseball section, or any other areas of this newly created article? Pls and Txs if possible  :-) SriMesh | talk 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I mostly am familiar with the Lethbridge Bulls. --Kmsiever 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

I noticed that you have been making edits to the Lethbridge Collegiate Institute as I was beginning to start copyediting it for the League of Copyeditors. Also noting that you have done work for the copyediting project (and that the page might have some significance to you after reading your user bio) if you would like to copyedit the page I can choose another to work on. Or, we could work on it collaboratively if you like. --Kenneth M Burke 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to collaborate on the edits. I noticed you had started the lead last night and thought I'd add a few changes before heading to bed. --Kmsiever 05:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
All right, sounds good. I believe the page was written by a student, so its actually pretty good. Instead of asking a bunch of questions back and forth, I'll go through and copyedit but leave alone any factual confusion for you to address. For example, in the early years section the first sentence originally read: "In the early 1900s, two Lethbridge schools made reference in their titles to locations near downtown Lethbridge." While the one school in the article is only called Central School without reference to Lethbridge, I can only assume the author meant: "In the early 1900s, two schools near downtown Lethbridge made reference to Lethbridge (the town) in their names." Rather, "In the early 1900s, two schools near downtown were named in reference to their location in Lethbridge." I won't worry much about trying to figure out the factual details, but just go through to clarify and copyedit; and let you fix the facts that need to be fixed or correct anything I've misread.
Then, after I've gone through the article once, I'll go through it a second time and we can dialogue on any remaining questions. --Kenneth M Burke 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. --Kmsiever 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CN Tower‎

The CN Tower article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look and made a few changes. Hope I didn't mess it up. --Kmsiever 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethbridge FAC

Hey Kim, sorry to dump on the article but it is promising. Have you seen Hamersley, Western Australia which is a suburb of Perth and may be hlpeful to compare with? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no need to apologize. That's why I submitted it FAC. --Kmsiever 14:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I just stumbled over this as well which may be useful - I like getting everything using same headings so looks like a good template anyway.while looking un Dundee, a current FA of a city a little larger (though a lot older!) than Lethbridge. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barcode Systems

I've noticed you have a high contrib. rate and I'm currently working on an article about barcode systems and was hoping you might have time to take a look and give some feedback. I'm also thinking after researching Wikipedia some more that there are a few other articles that may need to be combined with what I have, your thoughts. Thanks.

Jmduncan 04:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Jmduncan. Thanks for the note. It looks like you're off to a good start. If you haven't already, I recommend reading these articles: WP:LINKS, MOS:CAPS, WP:CITE and WP:NOR. --Kmsiever 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit of Lethbridge

I'll go over it and see if there's anything I can do to improve it. I promise nothing because sometimes my copyediting skills go mysteriously blank when faced with some articles. I do see a few things already though so I give it a go. Cheers, Pigman 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks so much. --Kmsiever 02:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that article Lethbridge has really improved. I still see issues in a few sections and I will assume that editors are still actively working on it. Let me know when you are ready for me to have another look and reply to the FAC page. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are still reviewing it. Once the editing has died off, I'll post on the FAC page again. Thanks for the offer. --Kmsiever 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London

Nice copyediting on London, Sir, picking up a few points I missed. Just a note on the airports question - it's unclear exactly how many international airports London does have, but it's indisputable that there are five major ones. No more bongos 22:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up. It makes sense now. :) --Kmsiever 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Silver Maple Leaf Award
For the quality coverage of topics in southern Alberta, I hearby award Kmsiever this silver maple leaf. --Qyd (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)



The Golden Maple Leaf Award
How about another, heck I ain't even sure what the rules are for tossing this award about, but you sure as hell deserve it for getting Lethbridge featured...next step is the Main Page! Well done. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 00:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I can't actually believe it happened! The last couple of months have seen a lot of good suggestions and several copyeditors helping out. This is probably the happiest day of my three years of Wikipedia editing. :) --Kmsiever (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regina and Qu’Appelle

Hello again Kim. Congratulations on the recognition you’ve had for your work on the Lethbridge article. I have been noting your work there and the recognition is certainly amply deserved.

(1) Qu’Appelle.

Till I noted that you’d been communicating with the standards folk as to such matters I was a little perplexed (and momentarily mildly stunned) as to the somewhat abrupt, peremptory and ex cathedra observations you made about the Qu’Appelle article. But I infer that you are applying there what you have learned as to Wikipedia standards in your work on Lethbridge. I’m not sure I completely agree that replacing definitions of local terms such as “bluff” and “coulee” with wikilinks is always appropriate — such terms have local definitions which you are possibly not aware of and which Canada-wide (much less international) dictionaries are unable to take cognizance of. However, others of your suggestions are entirely sensible (the original draughtsperson of an article — and I suspect that the original draughtsperson will for some time be the only draughtsperson — doesn’t necessarily have the wherewithal to apply the appropriate standards of disinterest.) [ So, with the caveat that I don’t entirely think that your tone was especially helpful — I live in Australia and Canadians, especially western Canadians, have the reputation here of being mealy-mouthedly polite: possibly you are living in the wrong jurisdiction; I shall not introduce you to my children, who consider Canadian standards of civility excessive! ("C’mon, Dad!") — I take aboard most of your suggestions and will incrementally attend to improving the article along the lines you suggest. I do think that the distinction between an "essay" and an "encyclopedic" article is more than artificial. Perhaps you might point out, to be going on with, precisely which elements of the article you consider to be notably "essay"-like as opposed to encyclopedic. I’m not notably thin-skinned and I somewhat assume that you are not notably aggressive; perhaps you might take under advisement the fact that my initial response to your observations — and, as I say, I am the least umbrage-taking of people — raised hackles. Though as I say, on reflection I entirely agree with much of what you have said.

Possibly you could favour me by pointing out those elements of the discussion in the article which you consider to be "bold statements." (My stars, I haven’t heard that term since Mr Justice Allan MacEachern was the Chief Justice of British Columbia!)

FWIW, my comments were not because of what I have learned working on Lethbridge specifically. Rather they are based on my work across Wikipedia and from my readings of numerous Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Regarding the essay assessment, please see WP:NOT#OR. There are/were several instances of personal reflection present in the article, some of which I outlined in my comment on the Talk page.[2] Likewise for the bold statements. For the most part, they are the same thing.
  • "seemingly long-term terminus status" (seemingly to whom)
  • "lush rolling parkland setting" (lush by what standards)
  • "gentle valleys with steady-flowing" (gentle compared to what; what measurement comprises steady)
  • "generally picturesque" (what does generally mean and picturesque by what standards)
  • "credibly anticipated" (what provides the credibility)
  • "serious consideration" (who do we know it was serious)
  • "passed Qu'Appelle entirely by" (how do we know it was passed entirely by)
  • "largely lapsed" (large by whose standards)
These are some examples from just the lead. The article is filled with them. --Kmsiever (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(2) Regina.

I have solicited an interim review of the article from User:Derek.cashman, the Good article reviewer who provided a WP:CITIES Assessment as to which I solicited further detail. His observations as to the Regina article are generally very helpful (though I somewhat take issue with his suggestion that the article contains “"inconsistencies in grammar and/or spelling” and I suspect that this might be a matter of US reviewer not recognizing our particular Canadian configuration of British/American/International usage.) I have shuffled the sections about in accordance with his observations, not in particular by way of accepting that they are universally valid, but merely to bring the article into conformity with general Wikipedia conventions as to matters to be addressed and the order in which they should be canvassed: I quite agree that city articles are best kept in some kind of uniform format. I shall continue to whittle away at the “Urban planning issues” section which he considers should be dissected and hived off into other sections. Possibly a discrete “central business district” section can retain what remains. However, the substantive issue according to Mr Cashman remains the suggestion that the introduction is far too short: four paragraphs appears to be normative. Care to have a go at enlarging it with an appropriately expansive summary of the substantive comments? Masalai (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to post here: WP:LOCE and WP:PR.--Kmsiever (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, possibly. You may find, as have I, that the project proceeds more productively and expeditiously if we endeavour to avoid making statements that may be thought unkind and offensive. Masalai (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Saw that Lethbridge is the FA on the main page. I know you did much of the heavy lifting. Good work. Kevlar67 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am extremely excited. --Kmsiever (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My user talk page

As this is a shared IP and I have no control over who checks the new message dialogue, please refer any edit discussions to the appropriate talk page, in order to prevent miscommunication. 167.1.163.100 (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did add to the article's talk page. Adding to your page is following protocol. --Kmsiever (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stirling disambiguation

Greetings! I noted your recent reorganization of Stirling (disambiguation) and commented at Talk:Stirling (disambiguation). When you have a minute, could you please comment with your thoughts there? Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued tweaking of the Regina, SK article

Dr. Cash, who recently provided a WP:CITIES rating of the Regina article, has at my behest also provided details on the Regina discussion page as to the basis of such assessment. I don’t necessarily agree that his criteria stand up all that well under scrutiny by strictest scholarly standards – and I confess that I don’t especially care whether the article is ever "featured" (though heartiest congratulations on the favour with which the Lethbridge article has been regarded) – but I’m all in favour of conformity to broadly agreed standards. I’ve been steadily whittling away at the more obvious superfluities of the Regina article: you can perhaps imagine what vast swathes of text I’ve consigned to oblivion. As with the Lethbridge article, it’s becoming somewhat of a one-man show, which is unfortunate; perhaps you could turn your not entirely disinterested eye to it and let me have your thoughts. (An odd irony that the persons most interested in the thing are you and I, neither of whom, I assume, has lived there for the better part of 25 years.)

A particular difficulty is proper citation of statements of fact which are common knowledge among Saskatchewanians and therefore locally not requiring documentation, but so-requiring it for a wider readership: many of the articles in the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan are (with respect) far from professional in quality, but it is often the only cite-worthy source.

I am of course endeavouring to avoid feelings of "ownership" – that bête-noire of editing in this odd, intellectual property-less medium, but do please try to be moderately nice: I often find myself thinking you a like-minded person whose sometimes (forgive me) peremptory manner raises my hackles in spite of myself. Be that as it may, we are unlikely to find an appropriately disinterested but also suitably aware third party to assess our contributions; on the other hand, we are both doubtless reasonably aware of the pitfalls of our own partisanship for this often unfairly maligned (but also often egregiously sentimentalized) little town, and two heads are surely better than one. Masalai (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My two main suggestions are to cut down the wordiness that is prevalent in the article, and to remove uncited, subjective statements (see my similar comments on the Qu'Appelle talk page). Have you considered having the article peer reviewed and copyedited? --Kmsiever (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I particularly admire the MS Excel pie-charts you have created for the Lethbridge article, as well as the very fine map. Could you advise what software you used for the latter? The Regina article could use a good map demonstrating its unusually large number of parks and green spaces and I am somewhat at a loss as to how to go about providing that for Regina as you have done for Lethbridge without infringing the Copyright Act. Masalai (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I used Adobe Illustrator and created the map by hand. --Kmsiever (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)