User talk:Skookum1/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Skookum Illahee 2 Pacific Northwest and Cascadia 3 Pacific Northwest 4 WikiProject Vancouver 5 Chinook Jargon 6 Archive 7 Chinese immigration 8 Historical photos 9 Panama 10 history section 11 Featured Article 12 hey there 13 Skookum 14 PS 15 Columbia River route map 16 Football? 17 Football and Culture 18 Tree photo 19 Curious edit to Columbia River 20 Irish Canadian 21 language 22 Kanaka 23 Grease Trails 24 Canadian volcanoes 25 Garibaldi Lake 26 skooks 27 Aldergrove 28 Della Falls 29 FYI 30 reply 31 Merge proposal 32 Stanley Park is #1, not #16 33 Hollywood North 34 BC Legislature Raids issues 35 League v. Party 36 User talk:Rascalpatrol 37 Unblock statement 38 Retraction 39 Your email Re Erik Bornmann 40 Welcome back 41 BC History, etc. 42 Bornmann redux 43 Hollywood North 44 History of Chinese immigration to Canada 44.1 photos 45 Deadman's Island 46 BC Legislature Raids 47 Panhandles and other silly things 48 Ranges of the Canadian Rockies 49 Tuya Range 50 Dirty Socks 51 Thanks 52 update 52.1 reply 53 Glad to join any WikiProject British Columbia 54 re: Graphic on BC Protected Areas stub 55 Bambridge Article 56 Need peak-pic for stub 57 COI 58 British Columbia stub types 59 Vector images.com 60 Vector-Images 61 Chen kwen men tumi 62 New Columbia River Map 63 Big Bend - BC vs WA 64 Luna Peak (BC) and Borealis Range 65 Erik Bornmann 66 Commonwealth of Nations 67 laundry 68 Sierra Nevada (US) 69 Mathew's Tuya 70 Meszah Peak 71 Re:Category:Cities on the Fraser River 72 Mount Meager 73 Mountain range infobox template problem! - me too 74 Rock Creek 75 check user 76 re Help 77 WP:BC assessment 78 Cascade Range 79 While I'm hibernating 80 Brad Majors and Janet Weiss 81 False Creek and North Shore 82 Hollywood North 83 Hollywood North talk page 84 Cascade Range 85 Cascade Volcanoes 86 Nicola 87 Sample Wikiproject template 88 Mount Brew 89 Cascade Range 90 WP:BC banner and DAB pages 91 Slesse Mountain 92 Request for Mediation 93 Need cat for Okanagan people (Syilx) 94 PSAC 95 Erik Bornmann 96 Stó:lō Nation spelling issues 97 BC Project Article Assessment 98 Lytton and Kluskus First Nation 99 Bro XII 100 Oregon Country 101 Vancouver Island Ranges Map 102 BC lakes 103 First Nations stub 104 Re:Refrainfromconsumingsolidifieddi-hydrogen-oxidethatreflectslightwithawavelengthof565to590nanometres 105 Hollywood North 106 TRYING to be on a wikibreak 107 Gary Collins 108 chrysalis 109 Hollywood North 110 Devick Lake 111 Vernon 112 Assessments for BC Project 113 10 Downing Street 114 FN categories 115 deletion problem

Skookum Illahee

It's indeed a nice name for Cascadia. Are you aware of any source we could cite to put it in the article? — Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No one's ever used it; I coined it during my involvement with the Chinook Jargon listserve; I'm one of the few non-academic, non-Native Americans/First Nations, who's bothered to undertake to learn the Jargon, and also who'll try to use it to coin new applications, such as the immortal "maika house naika house?" ("your place or mine?"). Skookum Illahee was one of those, partly because there's been an old grind around BC about getting rid of its "colonial" name - it's that "British" word they don't like, and while we're at it "Columbia" is colonialistic too, although I'm fine with the combination form myself; a name is just a name. Partly, also, though, because "we" (in the listserve/Jargon community) needed a shorthand for the geographic range/turf of the Jargon, instead of BC-OR-WA-ID-MT-AB-YT-AK and sometimes NV, CA, UT and WY. Oh, and as it turns out there are even CJ placenames in Quebec and New Hampshire, no less (see List of Chinook Jargon placenames), but not to the degree you find in the "core ecumene", the Skookum Illahee proper (roughly coincident with that Cascadia place) and the combination happens to be a handy one. While skookum remains pretty common in t he region, nobody uses illahee anymore (in English), not to mean a country anyway - it generally means a piece of land or a pasture; so it's a bit awkward that way: Skookumland doesn't have the same ring to it, although I'd also liked "The Skookum Country", which as with Skookum Illahee really needs the definite article to sound right. The sense is the same whether it's illahee/country; either the country that is skookum (in whatever shade of meaning chosen), or the country of skookum, i.e. where you hear the word (other than those placenames in Quebec, NH and elsewhere). But no, it's not a citable usage, not until I publish a book anyway; there might be a listserve cite you could dig out from the CHINOOK archives on linguistlist.org, thoughSkookum1 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest and Cascadia

I'm writing to you as one of the people who contributed to this article. I hope I could contribute to defusing the emotional debate and I would appreciate if you could participate in the new effort of finding a good name for the article. — Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! Could you please take a look at the section Which definitions do we have for the map? I agree with you that defining the area by political boundaries does not do it justice, but without a clearly sourced map, many people will automatically refer to state and province borders to make their point. — Sebastian (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

After I split up the article I thought it would be a good idea to split up the talk page, as well. The only contribution that was hard to split up was your contribution about the origin of the name. I didn't wan't to split it up in the middle of a paragraph which was relevant for both topics. Maybe you can find a better splitting point or, if not, just duplicate the paragraph. — Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In the article Wealth, there is a sentence: "In ecologically rich areas such as those inhabited by the Haida in the Cascadia Pacific East Rim ecoregion, traditions like potlatch kept wealth relatively evenly distributed, ...". When I just disamb'ed Cascadia it occurred to me that "Pacific East Rim" seems quite redundant there. Maybe both this and "ecoregion" could be deleted, or should we create a separate article for it? — Sebastian (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest

Yah, i'd like to reiterate that I am sorry if I did take things too personally. I get your drift when you say you are a really nice guy, just with a taste for salty language and colourful metaphors . . In hindsight, I think its mostly my fault for interpreting you wrongly. (Although, call me pretentious, but I do take it personally when people say I was schooled wrong!) I'll put that on the Pac NW talk page at some point. In the meantime, I will read Beyond the Tragic Vision, or at least the relevant parts of it - I do have enough time and have been having trouble finding at least concise sources, so any suggestions are great. Thanks. --GREGorof → ^talk 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver

This is an important message being sent out too all participants. We are currently recalling our list of participants. Any one who is inactive in the project will be moved to the "inactive" list respectively. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vancouver#ROLL_CALL_-_All_Read|the project talk page for more details]] -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinook Jargon

thanks for this translation! Can I write sth to you in Polish Wikipedia? (for example an article about your city) Best regards, Szoltys

Hi Szoltys. Had a few days think about this; take your pick between: Lillooet, British Columbia, Shalalth, British Columbia and my namesake article, Skookum; the two town articles may be revised in future and are somewhat incomplete at the moment, though. Dękuje. (No, I don't speak Polish, but I did study some once upon a time). Skookum may be the best one to translate, as it's not likely to change all that much, and maybe is the most interesting.Skookum1 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive

'This page is 267 kilobytes long.' This exceeds Wikipedia page standards by 237 kilbytes. You should consider archiving your discussion page. If you do not know how to, leave me a message and I will be happy to do it for you. Mkdw^talk 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your page has been archived. Also that 'practical joke' on the top of my page was created by me. Just a little fun at the top of my page for my visitors. Mkdw^talk 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese immigration

The reason the Chinese overturned streambeds was to get at the deep gravel and "black sand" found down against bedrock; white miners were rarely so thorough and marvelled at the Chinese skills in the goldfield - contrary to the CCNC's site, which claims that Chinese were left with what the leavings only after whites had taken the pickings; in reality while Chinese did work sites left over by whites, they often made them more profitable because of their superior mining techniques; and in the case of the streambeds led the way (...) people were amused to see the Indians chasing the Chinese off the streambeds. Skookum1

I'm happy to admit that you know more about this topic than me, but you need to include information like this if you want to include statements like the one you did. While the the implications of what you say are different than that of the CCNC, your statement doesn't actually contradict the one you say they make. Write the above on the page (hopefully with citations and minus the political rhetoric about the CCNC of course) and I won't remove it.TheMightyQuill

The Chinese worked their own original sites and the leavings of other miners; yes, they did rework non-Chinese diggings, but not cause they had to but because they could; the CCNC site paints it completely different, as more evidence of white discrimination yadayada; it was true in California, but they treat it (as did this page originally) as if it applied in BC as well. It did not. Anyway, this streambed thing I can cite as soon as I find, amid the piles of paper and books scattered around my apartment, the Harris and Edwards books. Skookum1

ALL miners in the Canyon engaged in sluicing benchland and other till well above waterline, but the Chinese were not exempt from this violation of native food resources and burial grounds; the syntax of my statement put it in a subphrase, "including the Chinese" when perhaps the sentence should start with "The Chinese, along with miners from other backgrounds" etc.Skookum1

But the page also included "Chinese miners had to live in tents" or something to that effect in the railway section; as if every other kind of pioneer didn't and as if that had to do with immigration. This page includes all kinds of stuff which don't have to do with immigration per se, the same way that the old HongCouver page contained all kinds of things that didn't belong on it, such as it was. I replaced what had been here before about how Chinese had supposedly been chased off gold workings with this more accurate account; they were driven off only at Tulameen and nowhere else, but this is enough for the CCNC and a coterie of academics to treat that one instance like it was a standard, which it was anything but. There were many conflicts between First Nations and Chinese, as individuals and sometimes in parties (as with the streambed quarrels), often escalating to violence and no small amount of court cases relating to same; and this because the Chinese stayed on in the goldfields longer, and in the Lillooet area (the "Upper Canyon" or "Upper Fraser" in gold rush-era parlance) the bulk of hydraulic mining was Chinese-owned and worked (i.e. always on food-bearing lands because of the nature of the local geography/biome and the density of native populations) . All this is a reminder that Chinese, like all other colonist/exploiters, were as much a disturbance to First Nations life and resources as anybody else. This should be reflected on this page, just as whites are slagged for nearly everything under the sun concerning the general history of the province, which is a complete double standard. If it's not relevant to immigration, fine, it can be completely removed or put somewhere else; but I'll be watching like a hawk for finger-pointing about bad stuff that whites are chastised for having done when it's clear that the Chinese, like everyone else, should share in the blame. The original content here glossed over the gold rushes and made them seem like inconsequential relative to the railway, and also as if they were another example of white high-handedness; quite the contrary, and if it weren't for the successes of gold rush Chinese, the railway Chinese would never have been brought in, nor would they have come. I may be able to get a "rate" of land displacement up and down the canyon, as a friend of mine just completed an exhaustive history/geography of all placer workings from Boston Bar to Big Bar or so, including who owned them; this is a good indicator of the degree of (a) Chinese economic success relative to others and (b) the primacy of Chinese in the displacement of lands for hydraulic workings (back in mid-September I stayed on a place at 12 Mile south of Lillooet that had been a Chinese mine-working; either that or a quiggly town, but the "holes" don't look right for the latter; but given its location it's quite probable that, prior to the Chinese ditching and pits on the site, it had been a First Nations site (because of its strategic location and water supply it must have been); interesting problem that the landowner will only resolve (i.e. get the Lillooet Tribal Council) off his back if he can prove it was a Chinese hydraulic working; and yeah, the records exist...or should.Skookum1 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's silly. It doesn't belong on this page any more than it would belong on page like "Irish Immigration to Canada" as they likely participated in the gold rush too. This certainly belongs in an article on the gold rush, but since it has nothing specific to do with the Chinese (and there's no reason to think they would act any differently than other miners) it doesn't belong on this page, and you know it.TheMightyQuill

Yet the pretense in p.c. historiography, and in the Chinese community's own political bumpf, is that they did act differently than other miners; I'm just trying to put it that they didn't (other than being more "efficient" - i.e. destructive - in their displacement of land in the course of their workings).....Skookum1

Most Irish in the goldfields were of two kinds: American Irish from California and parts east, generally Catholic; and Anglo-Irish officials, particularly military (e.g. Chartres Brew, the first Chief Constable of the new colony). Why there isn't an article on Irish immigration to Canada is a good question; perhaps it's addressed on Irish Canadian but if that's the case, why aren't the Chinese immigration to Canada issues addressed on Chinese Canadian? There were, by the way, as many Irish died as Chinese in the building of the CPR, as they were the grunt labour east of the Rockies (the worst stretch to build, contrary to the text which says the Chinese were "given the worst stretch" to build, was actually the long and dire nastiness of the Canadian Shield from Kenora to southern Ontario; Irish and other British labour were not used in BC because they were too expensive to ship out west via the US or Panama or Cape Horn, and Chinese were not used east of BC because they were too expensive to ship east via the same routes; but the article paints it like the Chinese were deliberately given the worst work, when in fact it was the result of happenstance and practical logistics. And the same tight-fisted budgeting which ruled out British immigration for railway labour in favour of bargain-basement Chinese coolies, obligingly provided by the Chinese entrepreneurs who had struck it rich on the Fraser and in the Cariboo and elsewhere, or in Victoria in the course of supplying the rush (most gold rush money, anywhere, is made by people providing supplies and services, not by actual miners).Skookum1 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cole Harris in his The Resetttlement of British Columbia, in the chapters on the gold rush and the benighted Nlaka'pamux of the region (I used "benighted" here because he manages to omit, or is unaware, of their genocidal wars on the Stl'atl'imx, Lil'wat and Stuwix, while speaking of a white genocide against the Nlaka'pamux in the Fraser Canyon War) tries to pin this on whites alone, but as in my other edit just now "other" rather than "white" is the proper terminology here because it wasn't just a white/Chinese racial dichotomy, as there were other "races" in the Fraser Canyon gold rush; but he goes on to describe Chinese hydraulic mining and farming on what obviously beforehand had been native land (a typical blinkers-on blame-game played by modern BC historiographies)

Cole Harris specifically says it was whites alone, or simply uses "whites" as the "other" to indigenous people? If it's the former, I'd be more inclined to believe your complaints about white-bashing. If it's the latter, he's just oversimplifying things into a white/native racial dichotomy, which although incorrect, is hardly the same thing. It's no more wrong than grouping all indigenous people together as one race, is it? Or all Chinese, which I recently discovered is equally incorrect.TheMightyQuill

The Chinese claim that the red-headed, spiral-tattooed fair-skinned mummmies of the Tarim Basin are Chinese, and that the Tibetans are Chinese, and the Uighurs are Chinese, and that the Manchurians and countless others are Chinese. This is like the multiple meanings nowadays for "Canadian"; all Chinese present in the colony were Cantonese, although maybe there was a Yao or Hmong in there somewhere, who knows. And yeah, Harris like other post-modern politically-correct academics, pins everything on whites alone (or to use the pastiche neologism, "Euro-Americans", which obscures the very real differences between various kinds of Brit, Canadian and Americans of European and British origin; the other p.c. term that's also inappropriate re early BC is "European" because of its multiple meanings, i.e. it can't just be used as a replacement for the overtly racial term "white", even though that's what is clearly meant), in the same way that he turns a blind eye to the Nlaka'pamux-Shuswap invasion and enslavement of the Lillooets, and the extermination of the Stuwix (the Nicola Athapaskans); the Chinese, and the First Nations, in Cole Harris' world, can do no wrong.Skookum1 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You can reply here, I'll watch your page.- TheMightyQuill 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As a history major specializing in Chinese-immigration to Canada (and as the person who began this article), I respectfully disagree with your view that Chinese-Canadians portray their history as "revisionist" and only view itself as the victims. There was very severe discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Canada before multiculturalism, and I simply stated those discriminations when I began the article. I'd like to point out the following:

• The Chinese are not the only ethnic group to portray their history from a victim POV (e.g.: Jewish-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians, etc.)
• The Chinese-Canadian experience was one of the best-documented examples of institutional discrimination in Canada (as no other ethnic groups were subjected to a Head Tax for entering Canada)
• While other European groups were discriminated within Canada, Canada did welcome European immigrations in an effort to encourage Western settlement, as the Canadian government placed ads in newspapers throughout Europe, promising free land in Western Canada. Although there was some discriminations against other ethncities in Europe, they were relatively mild to what the Chinese had experienced.

Thus, I wouldn't exactly mention discrimination against the Chinese and that of the Irish in the same breath. Bourquie 13:18, 23 Nov 2006

I thought that the focus was the discrimination of ethnic groups in Canada, not what they were subjected to back in the "old country." I'm not terribly interested the treatment of Irish back in Ireland (or Chinese back in China for that matter), since the focus of that article has to do with ethnic immigration to Canada. Second, I'm not the person who put in that misinformation. I started this article well after I've taken a course about Chinese immigration to Canada in university. Third, I'm quite proud of my "hypenated Canadian" staus (as I'm Chinese-Canadian). If Canada celebrates its multicultural policy ("the cultural moasic") so much, then long-time Canadians should accept newcomers who like to identify with their heritage. Finally, having lived in a province with a significant Ukrainian population (Alberta), I'm quite interested in the Ukrainian experience in Canada. Bourquie 12:01, 24 Nov 2006

Historical photos

Hey Skookum - I reposted the argument, links, and copyright tags beneath your reply so that the info and resources are available to everyone. Hopefully it'll encourage others to upload historical photos because there's a lot of great ones on the web. My original post with that stuff seems to have been archived.Bobanny 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Panama

(the canal, not the Van Halen song...) It's a little simplistic to say X caused Y, but that's hard to avoid in this format when more than one sentence per idea is considered extravagant. If the port's coming of age has to be boiled down to one thing, it might be better to say it was the reduction of freight rates on goods shipped through the Rockies in the 1920s. Prior to that, there were discriminatory rates imposed by the railways that made it uneconomical to ship prairie grain west even though Vancouver was the nearest port. Van was, obviously, also the new kid on the block, so all the infrastructure was already oriented to shipping it east. Anticipation that the Panama Canal would bring a sea change in int'l shipping that might leave BC out in the cold I think drew a lot of energy and summoned the political will for developing the port to where it had state of the art facilities compared with the biggest int'l ports. Thus, the federal Harbour Commission was set up and took over much of the stewardship of the harbour from the CPR and other business interests.

Much of the grain trade was then diverted to Vancouver not only from Montreal's port, but even from American ports that were in on the action. The 1st grain elevator in Van was called "Stevens Folly" (after H.H. Stevens) because it was mostly unused in its 1st years. Part of that was the war as you mentioned (the elevator was built in 1914), and port development didn't really take off til the 20s. Vancouver also pioneered storage methods for grain so it could actually make it to the UK without rotting even if it travelled through the tropics (apparently that was one of the major arguments against shipping grain west. There's also Western Canada's lumber and mineral resources that are much closer to the Pacific coast than eastern ports. No matter how cheap trains are, it's still cheaper by water, so it made economic sense to float stuff down to Panama from Vancouver and back up again to the UK, or even to the Atlantic coast (BC timber for NYC construction, for example). Anyway, if you can give me an email address, I can send this article (its a PDF). It's a good read, succinct and she explains it better than I can.Bobanny 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

history section

Just as I read your comment about the battle in seattle movie, a super-bright movie set light began shining through my window (somewhere north of hastings near main - is that your people?) That's hysterical that they're bringing authentic Seattleites across the border for the shoot.

Also a fiscal issue. Even at ten beans an hour, multiply that by 1000, then add 1.5x/hr for four hours of basic overtime, then 2.0x/hr for the next 4. Plus meal penalties and, after 16 hours, triple time (or, hm, is it quadruple time?)...also they're likely to be a lot more enthusiastic than Canadian extras, although apparently the few dozen they used today for the silent-protest phase of the story did a smack-on job, so real the director or a.d. or whomever came into holding kudo'd them for looking and behaving like the real thing (a detailed video of the story/riots had been shown in holding, over and over, so people would have an idea how to behave; quite a few people got upgrades from camera close-ups today, I'd gather; I was a bland passerby, mostly sat in holding. And no, we were on the Library steps and at street level at GM Place. What you saw was probably Intelligence, the DaVinci spinof series.Skookum1 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

About the Vancouver article, I'm gonna try and step back for a little while. I've already put way too much time into it, and the FA process has been very frustrating, so I'll wait until the dust settles a bit. The introduction's already been completely re-written since yesterday. I just glanced through the Vancouver article on the Canadian Encyclopedia, which was interesting. I didn't pay too much to the content - most of the usual stuff - but I like the structure. It was written by Patricia Roy, an historian, but interestingly enough, it didn't have a "history" section. Instead, she goes through the various themes ("economy," "transportation," etcetera) and treats them all historically. It's a bit late to reconceptualize our Vancouver article, but I think maybe it could be reworked in that direction. No matter what factoids you choose, it feels unsatisfying to cram it all in to 2 paragraphs, while the rest of the article can be somewhat a-historical. For example, transportation could cover a fair bit of interesting historical developments (BCER, anti-freeway campaign) rather than beginning with the skytrain in 1986. Same with demographics - it might flow better if it were organized chronologically. The history section, rather than being a ghetto, could be left to deal with the earlier history, maybe divided between pre and post incorporation. That's my thoughts, but I'll let it sit for a while and see what develops.

Also, I do have a fairly large collection of local history books and would be willing to look up specific information for citations and what not. I know it's not realistic to run to the library to get the proper citations. It would be nice to have more printed and fewer internet sources used as well. Chuck Davis is good because he's in both places, but I'd also like to feel less like we're replicating the Greater Vancouver Book here too. Bobanny 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck also has errors, and repeats errors. Not wilfull confabulation or sins of omission; I haven't read him in detail but I've noticed things here and there that are either mis-takes or repetitions of stories from someone else that may have, for instance, come from bumpf/brochure aeons ago and have come to be considered as fact. That said, I can't provide any immediate examples. Anyway, had a nap and time for my bath....Skookum1 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed some of that. What I like about the GVB though, and probably CD's biggest strength, is that he brought a lot of people together and had them write a piece on something they know something about - an architect on architecture, historian on history, archeologist on archeology (to use some examples cited in Wiki Vancouver article). As a quick reference guide, a source for local trivia and anecdotes, it's great, but I don't think I'd pull it out as the final word in a debate. Bobanny 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

		The Featured Article Medal
		I gratefully award you The Featured Article Medal in recognition of your contributions to the article Vancouver. Thanks to your efforts and vast improvements on the article, on November 22, 2006 the article successfully went through an FAC and became a Featured Article. I hope you continue to improve the quality of articles relating to the WikiProject Vancouver as your help was 'beyond the call of duty'. Thank you again, Mkdwtalk 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

hey there

Why do you have to get so worked up about everything? I mean, we disagree on this issue, but you don't have to take it personal or accuse the world of working against you. We share a lot of the same views on most things, and you're about as close to a friend as I have on wikipedia, but I feel you're going a little over the top on this Chinese Immigration thing. Fine, you feel it's POV. I saw you had made a bunch of edits on friday (with some pretty extreme edit summaries), and to be honest, I was worried, because I know you have pretty intense feelings on the issue, which run pretty much totally contrary to mine. But when I saw your edits, I didn't see any problem with them. Just keep up your reasonable edits, and there doesn't have to be a fight at all.

I agree with you that the government didn't issue redress/compensation right away because they were worried that they'd have to give it out to everyone, but I never heard any politician actually give that as an excuse. I can't imagine anyone from Chretien to Harper saying "Yes, that would be the right thing to do, but we don't want to do it because it would cost too much, because we'd have to start doing the right thing all around." I could well be wrong, but usually politicians aren't that honest. My edit wasn't POV. I'm not trying to hide anything, or push an opposite viewpoint from yours, I just never heard anyone responsible make that claim. You freaking out and claiming to be the only person who reads the newspaper is not only uncalled for, it's not going to help anything. If you want to put it back in with a fact ref, or a citation, go right ahead, but calm down a little and assume good faith, okay? -- TheMightyQuill 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Skookum

Good evening. I got your messages and was slightly taken aback. I have to say that you have made some rather bizarre assumptions! You refer to "my pet" twice and say "you may love your kitten..." What are you talking about? I do not own any Skookums. I am part of the WikiProject Cats group and am working to ensure that all recognised breeds of cat have a page and profile. This is not the only one I have done work on. What on earth gave you the idea that I had a Skookum? I am also slightly bemused at your assertions that the profile was written in overly cutesy language. It is a straightforward description of the physical characteristics of the breed and the history of its development. The only bit which might have been taken this way was the one sentence description of the typical temperament. I have removed this now, although you will find that many of the other breed profiles do have a description of temperament. Thanks for your clarification about TICA, as you will have read the breed was accepted for registration, but the breed name was not approved because someone on the committe thought the word Skookum meant something bad. Obviously this is just one of the organisations and the DCA is also there as a citation. So, no, I have no emotional attachment to the Skookum breed, I do not own one. None even exist in the country I live in. This is not my invention. The info is now accurate and appropriate in tone with citations. And just to make sure I have contacted a person who is a cat breeder who breeds this breed to request that she reviews the page. I do hope this clarifies your issues. Please do not remove any moe cat breed profiles, although go ahead if you want to set the Skookum page to a disambiguation page leading off to four pages. I am not totally sure wikipedia should be used as a dictionary, so perhaps your first definition of skookum shouldn't be here, but there could be a page for the monster and one for the dolls.

PS

Also puzzled by your comment "You also shouldn't have the cat breeds category on your own userpage; you're not a cat". I do not understand why you have said this when I do not have the cat breeds category on my userpage. You did not look properly. What is says is "This user is a member of WikiProject Cats". Many thanks for looking at the page though.

Columbia River route map

Hello, Skookum. I’m sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. I was on vacation from Wikipedia for a few months, and then I kept meaning to respond but I kept putting it off. I have updated the Columbia River satellite photo/map as you suggested to show the Columbia’s complete route in British Columbia. The new map is here: Image:Roll On Columbia.jpg. (The old one was here: Image:Roll on Columbia.jpg.) I meant to just overwrite the old one when I uploaded the new one, but due to a capitalization error (On vs. on) I wound up creating a new image. So I updated the three links to the old image and I requested deletion of the old one with an {{ifd}} tag. •DanMS 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great, pity can't get the top of the Big Bend on it, as I'm planning an article on Big Bend (British Columbia), and there'll be a Big Bend, British Columbia (which was a town) and Big Bend Gold Rush; this would be a great map for some BC illustrative maps, particularly history (see Cariboo Road and Okanagan Trail. What's really interesting on these satellite maps is you can see the border; because of different land blocks and logging cuts and other activity-shifts from one side of the 49th Parallel to the other; especially through the Kootenays/Idaho-Montana and out onto the Prairie.Skookum1 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed that you could see the border, after you pointed it out. It’s interesting! Here is something along similar lines that is quite interesting. On my website at www.danshort.com there is a very dramatic dividing line that you can see from space, where the border between North Korea and South Korea crosses the peninsula. South Korea is ablaze with light, while North Korea has just a few pinpoints here and there. What a difference between a free, capitalist country and a Communist tyranny! •DanMS 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Football?

When you Canadians say “football,” are you referring to American football or Football (soccer)? •DanMS 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian football, which resembles American football but with slightly different rules (longer field, different scoring system and penalty/"down" rules, game relies more on passing than carrying). Football (soccer) in Canada is always referred to as soccer, usually even by expat Brits and Euros and Aussies, at least when they're talking to "us". Canadian football and American football are not quite the same game, even though players come and go between the respective leagues; more similar than different, relative to the differences between ordinary rugger and Aussie rules (which are totally different games); the Canadian-American distinction is more to do with rules and style/strategy. Supposedly ours is older, too, as the first game ever known was between the Harvard (or Yale?) rugby club and the McGill soccer league, at McGill (Montreal).Skookum1 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting. You learn something every day. I didn’t know there was such a game as Canadian football! •DanMS 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Football and Culture

See my reply. •DanMS 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tree photo

Hi Skookum1 - just happened on your pic link [1] that you posted on Talk:Lodgepole Pine a few months ago. It looks most like a juniper to me, probably Juniperus scopulorum. - MPF 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious edit to Columbia River

Hi Skookum1. I'm curious about this edit to the Columbia River. You deleted two accessdate fields in citations, and removed/damaged two ISBN numbers. The other edit (adding allegedly) is fine. What happened? — EncMstr 07:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All I remember doing is adding "allegedly" and making the edit comment; I don't remember deleting anything. Maybe there was a rapid-type ctrl-select that I didn't see in the course of typing (been known to happen when I'm writing/editing, but in the course of ordinary text - not infobox formatting). I also wasn't anywhere near the section that had ISBN numbers; I made only one edit (that I was aware of) - the addition of "allegedly". Could this be a glitch somehow?Skookum1 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. If it was a glitch, it had a semi-uniform shotgun distribution where it tore up the target. I made the intended fix. Thanks. — EncMstr 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish Canadian

Try assuming good faith one and a while, eh? I wrote that section, and I'll admit it is actually prairie-centric. But that's not because I'm part of some "Central Canadian" plot to deny BC's existance. I just was using "the West" poetically, and in the "old west", "wild west", "last, best, west", etc. Salright? Kevlar67 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it's a common prairie view to regard BC as part of the same region; only by direction and distance from the centre; it's a term which doesn't "work" in BC, and it's incidental (sort of) that the content in that section was about the Prairies only; I just happened to be browsing a book on immigrant groups in BC (Strangers Entertained, which you won't find in bookstores as it was a govt centennial publication in '71) and was perusing the Irish section. Ours were different than those in other parts of the country, and BC attracted a certain element/type from any group; Raised myself a storm of definition issues now because have a look at Talk:Scots-Irish American (which for now includes a section on Canada, which in the Irish-from-Ireland view is "in America", "America" meaning the New World to them, not just the U.S.....); the definition problem now comes because it's hard to tell who to give Category:Irish Canadians to, and who to give Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians to, and there might have to be an Category:Anglo-Irish Canadians because many of BC's Anglo-Irish weren't from Ulster, nor part Scots; but there's no Anglo-Irish in Canada or Scots-Irish in Canada articles; just the US one. Found this out when I dropped by to add the Irish Canadian tag to John Foster McCreight and Andrew Charles Elliott (BC's 1st and 4th Premiers), as I had just done for John Andrew Mara and Forbes George Vernon.Skookum1 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

language

I removed the French from BC and from other provinces except NB and QC on the grounds that they are officially french-language provinces. Not sure I'm up for an edit war either, but if anyone takes issue, I'll look around and see if there's an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline on the issue. There were other languages I cut out too, and from Ontario to Alberta were all English-only. It's likely that one Francophile went through and stuck the French in, and that it won't be a big issue. I noticed on Newfoundlands talk page there was a discussion about a Japanese translation that had been included. C'est tout bizarre, in my opinion.Bobanny 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think." Such bizzarities are common in Canada, esp. with language and culture politics...(see Talk:Squamish Nation if you haven't already)Skookum1 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kanaka

Hi. Could you please avoid phrases like put the lie to..., it is hard to read it and assume that you are assuming good faith. Words in the English language take on very different meanings implications between canadian, english, american, australian and new zealand usage (eg: football, sloppy joe, thong). I think that Kanaka was probably borrowed in Australia from Canada because it has nicer roots than "kaffir" - which is a better comparison to the Australian treatment of Kanakas, than the comparison between Canadian Kanaka and Australian Kanaka.Garrie 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The "put the lie to" comment was fair, considering that the article had been written, albeit in good faith, under the assumption that Australian bigotries can be applied across the board to Canadian bigotries; the "indentured servants" wording is POV, unless equal-time is given to the notion that ALL Hudson's Bay Company staff, including managers, clerks and chief factors, were also "indentured servants". I had added material to the article about the different meaning of the word, and the different social situation, on our side of the Pacific, and to back it up included the Koppel cite (out of potentially very many; it's just the most focussed publication); but some earnest Australasian deleted that material because...well, no real good reason was given other than disbelief, based in a lack of knowledge of what happened with Kanakas in North America. I'm of the kind that if something is a lie, I'm going to call it a lie, and that's what I did.Skookum1 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Grease Trails

So far we've got the Alexander MacKenzie Heritage Trail, Nyan Wheti, Cheslatta Trail and Whatcom Trail.

I think of them as being grease trails or part of a network of grease trails, rather than parts of The Grease Trail, but that's really just semantics, I guess, and I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. There's already a Category:Trade routes, but a category for indigenous trade routes would be worth creating? In the states, it seems like a lot of them have been turned into highways, which makes things a little confusing. =) - TheMightyQuill 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There's actual articles on "the" Grease Trail, but again it's a network, although a primary route is usually mapped, with one splinter/alternate route, alongside maps I've seen of it; the Mackenzie trail uses it for most if its stretch. Yes, there are generic grease trails, and maybe that's an article in and of itself; somehow this particular one gained the name of "the" Grease Trail; I'll see what I can find on it; it's old textbook material and also was current in newspaper history articles through the "native renaissance" of the 1970s and '80s (before the counter-coverage began post-Oka).

As for a separate category of native trade routes vs post-contact ones, that's not going to work as one is often the other; there is nowhere else to go. And many of the native trade routes don't have names, though spots along them do (e.g. a named pass), and they're not quite the same thing as an infrastuctural route, i.e. something constructed/budgeted/maintained - something that could be accounted for in material history rather than by ethnographic cartography; as far as mandated routes go also need writeups are the Hudson's Bay Brigade Trail (Spuzzum-Coldwater-Merritt) and the route of the Company Express (books and profits from Fort Vancouver to Port Churchill, annually...via Colville not via Kamloops as I'd ocne thought...); the Brigade Trail is not a native route but the Express Route consistently used native trade routes (i.e. the rivers and portages connecting them). There can implicitly be no distinction, whether it's the Lillooet Cattle Trail or Douglas Road or Cariboo Road, all of which used "native trade routes". I'd suggest maybe a category on something like Heritage Routes rather than Trade Routes, although I'm not fond of the word "heritage" but "historical" doesn't cut it either. Waddington's Road (the aborted Homathko Canyon gold rush route cf Chilcotin War comes in there; also the route of the Collins Telegraph, known as the Telegraph Trail). BC's history is in large part that of the establishment of constructed, mapped infrastructure (our first military were, needless to say, all professional surveyors and engineers...). The Whatcom Trail was not a native trade route; rather a badly-conceived and largely awkward route from Bellingham Bay to the Chilliwack area of the Fraser; see its inland counterpart the Okanagan Trail and I have yet to write the Couteau Country Trail (the Similkameen-Coldwater/Nicola branch of the Okanagan Trail]]).Skookum1 06:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian volcanoes

i would add photos for the volcanoes but i have no clue how to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Garibaldi Lake

Yea, but Garibaldi Lake is a volcanic lake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Don't be cute. A lake is a lake and in this encyclopedia should be written as such; that it's a caldera is incidental; since it is (if it is) it can be included still in the Volcanoes category (Crater Lake in Oregon is in both Lakes of Oregon and Volcanoes of Oregon); but the article should be primarily about the lake itself as a geographic feature; location, size, volume, setting; you've written it only as a geology article as if it weren't also a geographic artifact, and of course in this case a recreational-tourism feature as well.Skookum1 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok i'll add information on the lake part then

Try using Crater Lake as a guideline for overall layout; it's a good article and has the volcanic focus you're interested in while still being a park/recreation/geographic/environmental article.Skookum1 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

skooks

yo skookum (dude can you believe I used the word skookum the other day in ontario only to recieve blank stares, and people asking what the hell that meant)????? Anyways I wrote the whole Shifting Fortunes part BC since the 70's, check it out have a look, have an edit, whatev P.S. I tried not to be very socredish as people accuse me of being (which is irionic because I was born after social credits demise.) I tried to be neutral and not bash the NDP too badly... British Columbia TotallyTempo 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Aldergrove

I think the location information you added to the Aldergrove, British Columbia article is completely redundant with the second paragraph (which is already addressing the location). Do you see anything in there that should be merged with the second paragraph instead of just struck? --Steven Fisher 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Della Falls

If you look at the canadian atlas, they identify Della Falls as the tallest in Canada. This is what Ive heard from various sources, but if you could provide some reference to the other falls being taller that would be appreciated. SCmurky 02:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

www.britishcolumbia.com says Hunlen Falls is 853'; Bivouac.com gives 253m, so obviously not as high as Della, then; I'd been raised in a time when Hunlen was the highest known I guess; I do know that Hunlen has never been adequately measured because of the snowfield it drops into (its outflow runs through an ice cave), but I doubt there could be as wide a variance in its measure as 200m. Hunlen's in Tweedsmuir Provincial Park and, like much of that park, is not photographed a lot, especially under free licence; or I'd have written an article/stub on it by now. Skookum1 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the status of waterfalls in Canada. The Atlas of Canada does not have much information, just stating a few general statistics, but the person I contacted there stated that Della Falls is the tallest; however, there remain many falls that are unmeasured. SCmurky 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I saw somewhere that you mentioned wanting to figure out the citation templates. If you haven't yet, you can find the templates here. Just cut and paste from the "common usage" column and fill in the details (and place between the <ref></ref> things in the text). And if it's not already there, stick this in the 'references' section:<references/> and they'll go in automatically. I find these templates kind of tedious to use, but it seems most people prefer having them. cheers, Bobanny 09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

reply

i think that the projects do follow a hierarchy, so that the tag should be the most specific (i.e., just Vancouver, not Van,BC, and Canada). But I'm not exactly sure what the implications of that is. I asked a similar question on the BCproject talk page, but haven't got a response. In my mind, it should work like the category tree, but then again, these are independent projects and not really interconnected technically, even if they are grouped in families. So maybe it's a judgement call for each article to decide if the city and the province can claim it.

As for the French thing, the constitution (as the franco-philes like to point to as the authority) has it as la Colombie-Britannique, in upper case. But I think it only needs the 'la' if it's in a sentence, so that the infobox doesn't require it. I've checked a few places on the french wikipedia, and that seems to be the case, though I don't remember from my french classes the logic for it. Life in a country that doesn't make any sense (check the 'multinational' discussion on the Canada talk page sometime if you want more). 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Re: United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia --> Colony of British Columbia. See the Talk page of the latter. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Park is #1, not #16

Bobbany and Skokum - I believe my latest version is shorter, more precise, and more up to the point. It is not important to point out data that Stanley Park is 16th in the place. That's simply not true. I mean, the agency selected ugly Mexican park to be #1 in the world, and that park doesn't even have 1/3 of features and beauty of Stanley Park. The agency has discredited itself and we should not quote it. How can one put ugly, dirty, Mexican park on #1 place and Stanley Park on the 16th place? It's ridicolous. I strongly oppose information from discredited agencies to be included into Stanley Park article. I've been in Mexico and seen the ugly dirty park they selected as "#1 Park in the World", and it can't even be compared with our Stanley Park. Don't include that info, as by doing that - you are only insulting the most beautiful park in the Universe (Stanley Park!). Bosniak 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood North

Hey, do you have any references to the facts you mentioned on the talk page, it would be great to add it, but at this point I want to have a reference for everything seeing how it could be a topic of argument and difference of opinion. Mkdw^talk 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

BC Legislature Raids issues

Sorry. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd never heard of the raids before, and if I had, this (I'd agree, poor) article didn't do much to refresh my memory. Kind of strange, since I was in Victoria at the time, but I didn't have a TV at the time, and I'm not generally interested in political corruption scandals. Hope you figure something out. Play nice. -- TheMightyQuill 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember the raids, but haven't followed the story, so I couldn't jump in there without a bit of legwork on the subject. This is the kind of very partisan article that sucks up a lot of energy on Wikipedia because it tends toward bad faith editing by politicos (see Talk:Michael Ignatieff for another painful example). Since this article is User:IWin4U's only contribution, you're right, it is suspect, but I've seen it mentioned that a benefit for editors to register on Wikipedia is that their IP addy's become hidden, so you'd probably have to take it up with the powers that be if you want to go down that road, perhaps something like WP:ANI. Chances are though, that it'd be more prudent to just keep an eye on the article. Bobanny 06:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know me, I waded into the Talk pages and called a few spades shovels, plus visited a few talk pages to find out who these guys were, leaving some spoor of my passage as to "your joining Wikipedia just to delete this one article's contents is a bit low, don't you think?" (see User talk:RyanAirman) or just a simple "who the hell are you anyway?" (not in those words see User:MmeLébrun. I did some digging in the histories and found lots of BIG sections that were deleted by these guys, and some of the same names show up on Mark Marissen and Erik Bornmann, or people/edits like them, with big missing blocks of info once again (somebody deleted Talk:Erik Bornman's contents entirely over the holidays); I get the impression that there were once Dave Basi and Aneal Virk articles but that they've been deleted; there should be articles on them. Anyway, digging around tonight in the edit histories I found all kinds of stuff that should be restored but I wanted an admin's say-so, or at least "a collective" of regular editors; and who knows maybe this stuff does have to be run through the legal department of Wikipedia, but it's the first I've heard of a political bio encountering libel chill; edit wars are common enough, but usually for more high-profile politicians....there's similar partisan fuddling on the BC Liberal Party page, esp. its history section, as in the bios of various Premiers (also BC Conservative Party, and definitely on Socred and NDP bio/history pages it's all very POV/euhemerized).Skookum1 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the politicos working on this, remember that Wikipedia generally is very squeamish about anything that could lead to legal trouble, especially "biographies of living persons." Tielemen's blog is as likely to get removed by a non-interested party in this as anyone just because it is a blog, and opinion pieces in newspapers can be challenged as non-reliable sources til the cows come home even though the papers are normally considered 'reliable' for non-contentious articles, thus ensuring that the articles remain unstable. Bobanny 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've established that User:rascalpatrol is in fact Erik Bornmann himself, and he has repeatedly vandalized both the article about him and the talk page by deleting posts by other editors (including my own from last night, which I just restored). I think I'm going to have to WP:ANI him, plus Omar Jack, JJGardiner and others who have fiddled with these pages (Omar Jack and others, if you look at their User Contributions, have ONLY posted on the Erik Bornmann article; similar one-article contributors can be found in the BC ledge raids article and talk page and their histories.Skookum1 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

League v. Party

I was aware of the name change that the party underwent, but decided that the sacrifice of accuracy for the sake of expediency was justified here, since "Party" is the name by which the movement was known for almost its entire ascendency in the Province. It's a judgement call, but that sort of detail could perhaps be best explicated in the British Columbia Social Credit Party article, if it is not already. As it stood, it was a red link. Fishhead64 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Rascalpatrol

Leave his Talk page alone. You have no say as to what he can or can not keep on his page. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for this legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh rejoice. Finally somebody takes action against this guy. He should have been blocked a long time ago. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is the precise diff of the reason Zoe blocked. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I explained here: [2],I doubt Skookum1 has made a legal threat. Please consider unblocking him, or at least have a discussion with him about it that doesn't presume he's guilty. FWIW, I've run into this guy a few times on geography articles and he's made valuable contributions. Let's try not to lose him. Kla'quot 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've "run into this guy a few times" also and he's made some very borderline racist comments. Not to mention he incessantly soapboxes in a lot of Talk pages, and add a lot of inane inline comments in articles he has edited in the past. Definitely should be kept blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, that kind of thing is definitely a concern (if true), but the current block is for legal threats. If he hasn't made any, the block should be lifted. I don't have the big picture of the disputes he's been in, so I have no opinion on whether he should be blocked for the other things. Kla'quot 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever, I'm just glad he's been blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not totally, Hong. Found your comments here amusing and your biased reversions/deletions at the various articles you've finally found the courage to re-revise in my absence, but I had bigger fish to fry. Freedom of speech and all that; you might try it sometime.Skookum1 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Governor Douglas really did issue edicts and reprimands to miners concerning equal treatment for Chinese gold miners. Read some BC history sometime instead of just pontificating on it from political pamphlets.Skookum1 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had assistance from Skookum1 several times on work I have done and have observed a wide range of valuable contributions that he has made about British Columbia. His useful and extensive work often digs into sources that are beyond what is easily available. It would be a great loss if he was prevented from continuing this work. The block is based on a breach of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I support removal of the block because the comments are not a threat at all and because they are not a threat of legal action (the Law Society is only a regulatory body, not a court). The editor's remarks made were part of a series of vigorously expressed comments made advancing a concern that edits are being made to a biographical article inappropriately. It is clear from the comments that the editor's intent was that bias ought not to be a basis for deletion of content. His concern is about whether the information presented is being manipulated. It would be a shame if his vigour of expression in defence of the integrity of our work becomes a basis for him to be excluded. At Wikipedia:Blocking policy I see "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users who make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely." If there is to be a block, it ought to be of short duration. The sort of "severe threat" contemplated by the policy is beyond anything that can be found in Skookum1's comments. There are several unsupported negative allegations made by others in this section that have no bearing on the basis for this block. Those comments should be ignored. Any decision about whether to block a user, particularly a user of this value, should be based on the actual policy and unsupported negative opinions should have no bearing on that decision. KenWalker | Talk 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC) By the way, in case anyone gets the idea I am the lawyer that Skookum1 refers to in his note, I am not. KenWalker | Talk 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock statement

Retraction

I have been blocked as a result of these comments. Although I did not intend to convey any legal threat, I understand that User:Zoe has construed my comments as a threat to use outside authority. That was not my intent and I regret making comments which could be construed in that way. In the future, I will avoid making comments which may be construed as a threat to invoke outside legal authority to resolve editing disputes. I have also read WP:CIVIL and WP:Legal and have and will abide by their guidelines.Skookum1 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll let Zoe know. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have unblocked you. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your email Re Erik Bornmann

You wrote:

I can't post to this right now because I'm still fighting what I see as an unfair and highly :politically partial block; just wanted to comment on your post about the shameless self-promotion: :that's only because rascalpatrol and Randy3 et al. have been allowed to run roughshod over this :article; if the content they deleted - all of it valid - were restored, the article is very relevant :and concerns high-stakes public affairs. BTW if rascalpatrol is Bornmann, pls note the length of :his self-laudatory post here, which precedes yours, vis a vis the "shameless self-promotion" thing. :This article should be sent to Edit Wars or Arbitration and be Protected, and the SPAs who have been :controlling it, and brow-beating anyone who tries to fix it, should be censured much more severely :than I have been....

Reply: I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on that. Even looking at the history, the article doesn't show why he deserves an article. GreenJoe 04:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. You did read the full set of restored but now re-deleted materials didn't you? I guess I'll have to lay out in point form why this case is highly-relevant to the public interest, and why the separate players throughout it each should have their own page (but not tonight; it's New Years and I'm gonna go play some tunes in the park...and eat, drink and otherwise be merry). As Domperignon, whoever he is, long ago noted, he'd only incidentally created this page first and was going to make the Basi and Virk pages and all the ancillary pages that would focus on BC Legislature Raids, but he was accused of singling Bornmann out and, as others have also been, and me by imputation, that people trying to represent the full story are agents of "those criminaly charged" (sic), namely Basi and Virk, and THAT is false, uncivil, and all kinds of Wikicrimes in one breath. That it's been emasculated to a (rather pathetic) vanity article in order to help cover-up a major and breaking political scandal the subject is involved in just doesn't seem right; and if it's not on the radar in T.O. yet it soon will be as the trial will be opening up in coming weeks and Mr. Bornmann is a star witness - the star witness. He's not just an articling student seeking to promote himself; the case he's involved in, and his activities in relation to it, are a matter of public interest. Not prurient interest, but the public interest.Skookum1 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I should postscript that with the comment that articles on the other principals in the case are needed, and will be just as lengthy/complex (as this one would be if it had all the facts/news coverage), in the same way as any political or criminal biography; having all their stories crammed onto the BC Ledge Raids page just won't fit, and would make that page unwieldy (right now it's still emasculated too, although some people have been trying to re-add material attacked by the Bornmann camp previously...(curiously many of them from ON and QC IP addresses or otherwise indicated as being from outside BC....); I'm not Skootum3, btw, whoever that is; a tribute username I suppose but definitely not me in case anybody claims it is ;-| Skookum1 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

You've handled this with class and integrity. Welcome back, and Happy New Year! Kla'quot 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope yer not too discouraged. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stuck to my guns, although not with as much fire and brimstone as my own personal preference ;-) "Aggressive", no - irascible, crotchety, outspoken, bombastic yes, aggressive no..."assertive" and "loquacious" in combination some people take as aggression, in my experience. My absence from the AFD on Erik Bornmann has been a pain, but I'm holding off as I'm investigating the Edit War, Censorship and other protocols before weighing in there. For most of today, to get myself re-tuned in to why I'm on Wiki, I'm catching up on various history articles and other stuff that need doing/fixing/referencing/whatever.....Skookum1 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, you did handle it well. Just try not to let POV pushers take you to extreme places. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But I'm asking you now to please take a serious look at the various threats and allegations and vandalism in the history of Erik Bornmann, and to review the circumstances of the AFD, which in real-world terms is having the effect of becoming complicit in an emerging/growing cover-up of the whole affair; the Wiki pillars of not-censorship and of freedom of expression are important to consider here; discussion of deleting a censored article when no effort has been made to review the charges of censorship/manipulation does not seem like correct process; shouldn't this have gone to Edit Wars or an arbitration/mediation channel before consideration of dumping the bored-out "neutralized" article was proposed? Remember, this is not just a personal c.v., it's a component of a very large and growing public scandal/court case concerning the public interest; and rascalpatrol's claim that the page was the work of people "out to discredit Mr. Bornmann" and that they were allies of "those criminaly charged" is entirely false and misleading, and more of a conspiracy theory than he and his supporters claim constitutes the public discussion of the scandal (in the media, blogs, all of which they've censored here). Where's the appropriate Wiki forum to discuss censorship and/or politically-volatile article debates? Remember, I'm looking for an NPOV account of all this, not Bornmann-bashing; if there's nice things to say about Mr. Bornmann that are encyclopedic in nature they can by all means be in the article; but pretending he has had no role in things admitted to the police or presented as evidence in court, or that discussion of those well-known materials is going to somehow discredit him as the Crown's star witness, is a non-starter. If you haven't read the most recent post by Robin Matthews on the BC Mary blog, please do so, even if you're not Canadian/from BC, and you'll get an idea of why I think the issue of a cover-up here is very valid and not a "conspiracy theory". The allegation that I am in league with the Basi-Virk camp ("those criminaly charged") also strikes me as something approaching a personal attack, or something to that effect.Skookum1 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources for your claims, please do so. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the "conspiracy theory/cover-up", whether the material is public-interest or not, or a compilation of instances of threats/vandalism? Or all of thte above. WP:RWS goes nowhere behind "reliable sources"; should that be WP:RS??Skookum1 23:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

BC History, etc.

Well, it looks like you've had your hands full - but anything you can add to this little History of the west coast of North America project would be great. Even just clearing up the perennial confusion about the Nootka Convention would be great. There was a lot of unreported and scattered information about those Spanish explorations and it was fun to pull it together (almost done).

About that 1540 map, what was interesting was that Japan and China were so close (just over the horizon!). There are better images of the Strait of Anian, but I haven't found any better that show Japan and China like that . . . if you've got better, let's see it!

All the best, NorCalHistory 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I'd rather all this political nonsense hadn't surfaced, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. It's like discovering that Whitewater or Watergate articles had been heavily "neutralized" and been blocked for taking on the forces who'd done it....I'd rather just be doing my history articles/research but "you know me", if I see something I know is wrong I gotta do something about it (sooner or later). I'll try and sort out the Nootka Conventions - Pethick's is one of the main books on this, but it's such a tricky diplomatic-language thing that it's very subtle; most American and Canadian sources think that the Spanish gave up their claims to the Coast, but that's not the case; likewise there was no parity between Meares' shack and the Spanish presidio, Santa Cruz de Nuca, and the real spoiler in the equation was Maquinna who sold rights to each of them ;-) (hey, a buck's a buck...or in this case a flintlock I suppose...). I've seen the Cipangu map before; but there are other maps which shown Bergi and Cibola as well as Anian; there's also the apocryphal maps showing "Le Mer de l'Ouest" and Maldonado's/de Fonte's versions of the Northwest Passage, and more....a map for this page, or one on the Marine Fur Trade, showing the triangular route of the fur trade (NW Coast, Canton, Hawaii, sort of) will eventually be a good thing; but you'd have to read Pethick's First Voyages to the Northwest Coast to realize why.Skookum1 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bornmann redux

Thank you for your note. I admit that I have a deletionist bone in my body (I won't say which one - lol), and am especially wary about biographies and especially especially wary of biographies of living people. I am not persuaded of his notability, although I appreciate your efforts in this respect. As I noted in my vote, I believe that this chap could be adequately discussed in the BC Lege raid article, which at the moment is a touch brief and underdeveloped. I know that backroom movers and shakers rarely get the attention of their frontmen, the politicians, but biographies should not be written on folks who should be notable but rather those who are. As you rightly point out, Gaglardi and Bonner were notable precisely because they were in the public eye as cabinet ministers and corporate executives. Bornmann is not in the public eye to any significant extent. Fishhead64 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

All the movies and television shows I've added to the article Hollywood North I took from the BC Film Commission list. You can decide whether you want to break them into a BC and Vancouver list. So far the article has developed to talk about BC and Vancouver as the main reference to Hollywood North, so it may not be needed. But up to you. As for the categories, you might be able to just Category:Film and Television in Vancouver as a more practical answer. Mkdw^talk 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The BC Film Commission list would only be stuff they kicked on; Legends of the Fall for example would have had Alberta Film Commission, or whatever it's called there; so the BCFC isn't the defining parameter for made-in-Hollywood North/BC but I'll see what I can dig up; there's gotta be a "back cut-off date" somewhere or as I said "vintage productions" like McCabe, That Cold Day in the Park, The Groundstar Conspiracy, and Carnal Knowledge should all be on the list, which as far as Hollywood North goes they really aren't/werent', though they laid the foundations for what became the phenomenon....how do I create that category btw?Skookum1 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Chinese immigration to Canada

Welcome back Skookum. I've glanced at that article before and just browsed at it again, and it needs a fair bit of work. The points being edit-warred over seem to be details, illustrating larger points maybe, but still details, and it could go back and forth forever as long as there are no citations. I'll take a poke through what I've got when I get a chance, but right now I'm spread a little thin with some other things. Besides being authoritative, I think citing sources also helps to focus editors on the article rather than each other. In the meantime, keep WP:3RR in mind and play nice. It is on my watchlist now, but I can't say I can contribute much in the near future.Bobanny 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

photos

I put that info on my user page as a resource. I left a note on Ken's talk page as well. Bobanny 08:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deadman's Island

The Pauline Johnson story (Legends of Vancouver, available online at Project Gutenberg) is about a bloody battle that took place on Deadman's Island, making it the "Isle of Dead Men." The graveyard thing I think is just commonly assumed to have something to do with the name, and I don't remember if Johnson says what the Squamish word is. With the Geo. Vancouver thing and the 2 islands, it could've been Deadman's because he didn't actually dock, but was met by folks from Whoi Whoi who boated out to where he was, so it's possible that he came further up the inlet. Ironically, he spends hardly any time in his book describing the place named after him, so I think some speculation is required. Some local history goes into detail about this, and the 2 island thing, but I can't remember who, maybe Eric Nicol in Vancouver, or possibly Chuck Davis somewhere. I think a list of Aboriginal place names is a great idea, or maybe just place names generally to tease out the hybrids and variations, like Mathews. (though pre-existing names would probably be more interesting/informative).Bobanny 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BC Legislature Raids

As we often say, be bold! :) Basically, if you see the uncat tag but the article has a tag, remove it. We have a very large backlog of those, so any help would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Panhandles and other silly things

Indeed, there is a category for everything (I've created quite a few in my time...see also Category:Fingers.) Panhandle Airways, I like that one. Oh goodness I wish I was in Vancouver. Best, Paul Paul 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well ok maybe the weather isn't so great (it's actually a nice mild winter here in New York at the moment) but Vancouver is in general pretty awesome. Paul 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranges of the Canadian Rockies

I haven't been able to de-cypher the mountain range hierarchy from Bivuac, and that's why I used the ones at Peakbagger, I just found it easier to understand those. If you have better sources, by all means, modify the list (if you could cite the source, that would be even better). Regarding photos of the Rockies in the Peace Area, I might have some pictures from the mountains between Williston Lake and Graham-Laurier Provincial Park (Muskwa Ranges? SW corner maybe?), as well as some poor highway shots of the foothills from Pink Mountain (east Muskwa/foothills). --Qyd 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Graham-Laurier is in the Muskwa Ranges, but at their SE end; I just had a look as I hadn't heard of it before and managed to find the Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park, which is the main area I was thinking of, and you can see all the new parks in that area at Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Map - see page 7 for the best map; this pdf is part of http://www.muskwa-kechika.com/ I'm frankly a bit surprised the BC Liberals set aside such a huge area as a park, given their penchant for tearing, ripping, logging, digging, paving; many parks in southern BC as you probably now have had their boundaries changed, or logging/mining allowed in the park, or parks declared during NDP years have been turned back into "Management Areas". The Muskwa-Kechika has a major photobook produced on it, one of the few good ones around; the review I read (haven't seen the book) said the pics were stunning and used some kind of new fractal printing technology which makes the images "bounce" off the page - but of course all that would definitely NOT be public domain. Anyway, that map I found on the PDF linked above looks to be a great resource for mapping the parks in that area.

As for Bivouac's mountain hierarchy, I know how to navigate around the tricks that the site-owner has put in to keep people from seeing what used to be free information; each range page used to show its subranges, and major peaks; now you have to pay him dough to see that and it's one reason I quit - the site became hard to navigate (and I won't pay him so can't see the amazing peaklists that the site can compile, and any of the 20,000+ summits I mapped and gave names too have some stupid new naming convention that's completely indecipherable, based on the site-owner's addled notions of prominence as being something relevant as a way to group peaks together; long story. If there's any ranges you need to find let me know and I'll dig them out; I'll post the subgroupings of the Coast Mountains as defined by bivouac on that article's talk page; a caveat about Peakbagger, although I'm friendly with those guys, is that they're Americans viewing the Canadian map remotely and don't know the "logic" of the landscape as well, and their divisions are prominence-based to some degree, which again isn't relevant to joe-blow citizen. Their prominence and elevation data does mesh with that at bivouac, but again that's a moot point because bivouac's now drawn its doors shut (if I had known he was going to do that I wouldn't have donated so much free time...). But as far as logical areas to subdivide certain areas go, bivouac's usually on-target, unless they've gone back to using Fairley (a noted mountain guidebook) which had all kinds of screwy names; his boundaries more or less made sense, but for the northern part of the Coast Mountains and the bulk of the Northern Interior Mountains (needs an article, combining/covering Cassiars, Ominecas, Skeenas etc. - Bivouac says BC Interior Mountains, Holland says Interior Mountains) there's no mountain names at all over wide stretches of landscape; only clusters of names here and there in settled/accessible areas. One last thought - I'm pondering what to do with the plateau articles, as they have mountain ranges within them and in some cases already I've included plateaus and "highlands" as part of the Mountain Range cat as well as the plateau cat; it's the nature of plateaux in BC - they're not necessarily flat, and contain mountains, and sometimes are mountains (e.g. the Thompson Plateau, though flat "on top", looks pretty mountainous from any pavement in the area...).Skookum1 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some photos I took in that region, not great, but more than nothing. --Qyd 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stone Mountains seen from across Muskwa River Valley

Alaska Highway crossing Muskwa Range (possibly Terminal Range?)

Possibly Ludingdon Mountain, upper Nabeshe Valley

Possibly Mount Gavreau, upper Nabeshe Valley

The first picture is for sure across the Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park, too bad it's such a poor shot. --Qyd 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tuya Range

No problem, I know a lot of pictures of the volcanoes, but i don't know what license to pick. Black Tusk 1:44, 3 January 2007 (DRR)

I just checked one of the images I donated to Wikipedia - at Fraser Canyon - and I used {{PD-self}}.Skookum1 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Socks

I filed a sock report here. There's a backlog there, but we'll see what happens. I didn't vote on the deletion because I'm neutral (seems to me B-Man could be covered in the other article). But that's different from the sleazy politics in this, which should be addressed regardless of what happens to the article.Bobanny 08:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the different spelling of Rascalpatrol. You sure? I added those other names in my report, except JGGardiner, who seems to be bonified. If the socks get the boot, there'll still be the regular liberal hacks to contend with, but if it's on the table, it should be easier to deal with. It's also possible that there are more than one user in that cabal mixed in with the socks.Bobanny 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure, but I erred in thinking it was the same off the AFD, as I just tried it now and it went to the right place except earlier on it didn't (going to check the edit history of the AFD now, I think...). But his sigs on the talkpage definitely go to "rascalpatorl" = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascalpatorl&action=edit (that's a "copy link" right-click from his sig on the talkpage).Skookum1 09:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)r

I also noticed variations on your name while strolling through the edit histories. Was that from typing in manually?Bobanny 09:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, those weren't me, couldn't have been in fact as I was blocked at the time they were made (my IP address was blocked, and I don't have money for a webcafe to get around it ;-), nor on principle did I want to bother ). I noticed them too: Skootum1 is the one I remember, and there was another one, too, somewhere, Skookum3 I think but w. some variation in spelling. I took them by way of half-flattery, "tribute usernames", but I have no idea who it might have been that did it. Easy for an admin to check, IP-address wise. Other than that you'll just have to take my word. And as you know, I've got lots of words ;-) I haven't tried going to rascalpatrol's page from his edit history stuff; I doubt he could fake that, nor could anyone else; it's his use of sigs that's fake.Skookum1 09:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

No worries about the misunderstanding. These things happen. I apologized to rascalpatrol because I made a series of edits before noticing he had made some in the middle of mine and I’d wondered if I’d accidentally removed his edit without even knowing it. I was troubled by the behaviour on the talk page. I thought a simple “keep cool” was enough for a first warning, not wanting to bite the newbies who unfortunately seem to come here more and more thinking that WP is a partisan free-for-all. I was actually hoping that you might ask for some ANI help (which I’d seen you mention on your talk page – I was hoping to tell you to be careful about your confrontation with the SP accounts but was a little late unfortunately). As for Mackenzie, that was my understanding: the older ones are only RH if they were in the British PC (including some non PM’s such as Jimmy Gardiner who was War Services minister in WWII). We actually have a perhaps incomplete list at The Right Honourable which does not include Mackenzie. parl.gc.ca also has him as only Hon. so I think that is correct. Thanks again. --JGGardiner 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rascalpatrol posted by User:Bobanny, who's abstaining from the AFD but is from BC....and scroll up a bit on this page to the unblock statement and you can see what came of me confronting rascalpatrol of his inuiqities directly ;-). I'm back, and breathing fire, as you can tell. Just curious about your interest in political bios - do you any knowledge of guys like Arthur Bunster, the original MP for Vancouver (electoral district) (which was Vancouver Island sans Victoria in those days, as the city hadn't been named, much less founded, yet)? (wow, it's not redlinked anymore...pretty sure I didn't start it so now I'm curious to see what someone else has come up with). One of my favourite characters since I found out about him - an Irish brewer, famed for his tongue and rowdiness, challenged Edmund Blake to fisticuffs on the floor of the House, and outside it too, I think. Been meaning to do a bio on him but I'm too multi-dimensional and have too many topics "on the go" (one look at my User Contributions and you'll see I'm anything but an SPA....).Skookum1 10:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed Bobanny's request although I expect it will just confirm the obvious. The only advice that I had intended to say was that sometimes it isn't worth confronting an editor about who they are -- the problem is with the edits, not the user behind the account and all that. You can't really prove anything anyway and run the risk of getting in trouble with admins. Although I am curious to see what comes of it. =) I actually started our little Bunster stub and was a little proud of it. He seems like an interesting character although I don't know much. I created a few stubs for some missing early BC MPs. I had meant to do more but "real life" seems to interrupt. Another one that might interest you is Noah Shakespeare. We should really have more information about some of those anti-Asian movements from the time and he seems to have been important but I couldn't find all that much information without looking very deeply. --JGGardiner 10:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, that's a lot of material you've got there. A lot of info to sift through. I just filled out a few stubs when I was bored that were requested for all the MPs since the first parliament and started with BC. I don't really know all that much about the issue but had been wondering about it especially when I did the Shakespeare one. I had planned on finishing the MPs. I don't really have any information myself about the other social history but I find it all quite interesting. Maybe if I ever find the time to start writing some articles that would be a great area to work in. It would be great to fill out the Bunster article so if you've got more information on him that's, well, great. I am not always in BC but I am from time to time. I had noticed that you are a night owl, like me. I think that we must have been about the only two Canadians editing so late last night. =) --JGGardiner 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Bobanny and Mkdw are up late often enough too, and LoneWolf BC is still out there in the Wikiwoods tonight, I think; butit's only 12:41am here....where are you? And how about that Tompettyfan guy, huh? :-} He's a regular at Mark Marissen and its talk page; his user contributions are a story in themselves....Skookum1 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Vancouver. Wikipedia is just one of the windows open in the JGGardiner woods tonight. =) I don't think that I'd seen the Marissen article before. I know that I've seen TPF from the Liberal leadership articles. I tried to trim the endorsement article a bit but eventually gave up. I seem to recall that TPF was one of the editors who I'd assumed was a gung-ho Liberal but I don't remember any problems with him/her there. --JGGardiner 08:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

JGGardiner 10:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I read through his edits a bit...I think he's MM. "Did I say that?" You're not supposed to identify other users, or accuse them of being someone, in Wikipedia; you'll note that his earliest posts are all about Christy Clark and his Marissen edits are all way too friendly/p.r. - didn't check the dates re MM's appointment to Dion's campaign but that was coming before the date of announcement anyway....same deal that rascalpatrol maybe/most likely is EB..."did I say that?" (and also the sockpuppets...don't they all sound alike?). Got quite a kick out of TPF accusing me of partisanship; I should have been something about the membership signup thing that "this party is well-known for (as are their rivals the Tories)" but it wasn't the Tories we're talking about here. While I was at the gym I was pondering starting a Dave Basi article just to confound them....but he's another Liberal, ain't he? See Grattan Mall's column on the BC Mary blog (http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/) which, stripped of its POV language, has good source on party machinations in BC. I used to vote Liberal sometimes, and quite frankly would prefer a Dion govt to a Harper one (not that I think much of Dion); last time I voted Green and in fact helped found the Green Party of BC; but I consider myself a "radical independent" and am most interested in reforms of the democratic and electoral systems, breaking the stranglehold on public discourse in this country held by the big media/parties, and uncovering the facts about our history, rather than swallowing the myths...and the lies and/or p.r. spin. I'm also admittedly something of a quasi-BC separatist, but not in realpolitik so much as in historical analysis and contemporary commentary/criticism, i.e. as a perspective. Oh, speaking of which, one of my favourite articles on the Pacific Scandal is at http://www.dickshovel.com/two.html and two2.html; the good stuff on Canada comes up on page two but start with the first one for background....just wait 'til I start on "Carnarvon Terms or Separation!" (I guess the title would actually have to be Carnarvon Terms because of that exclamation mark..), which was the slogan of BC politicians/public during the 1870s when it looked like Canada was reneging on the railway deal and its terms....Skookum1 09:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Eek. You're gonna get in trouble. I feel like we're smoking in the school bathroom and I know that a teacher is going to come in at any minute. Well, at first I was a little ticked when I saw a few editors here and there that I assumed were people editing their own WP entries. But now I think everyone has a best friend, right? How can I tell the difference between Joe Smith and Joe's best friend? So if an edit's a problem, it's a problem. And if an editor is a problem, they're a problem. I don't know if it's the subject, his brother or just some kind of psycho fan and to me it doesn't really matter. Usually subjects put in self-serving info, which is a problem whoever they are. And I'm sure you're already well aware of all of the WP policies about outing, etc. I know that we're supposed to be bold but not quite so bold. =)

If you want to see an interesting accusation, an editor called me a Tommy Douglas fanatic on that article,[3] even though my name is from Liberal James Garfield Gardner (who was cast as a villan in the TD movie on CBC). It was actually rather satisfying to point that out to him. The Marissen article certainly had some fluff. I removed a little bit. It isn’t that the info is so problematic but sometimes when things are so specific, like the son’s middle name, you do wonder. But like I said, bad edits are bad edits and who knows what motivates people. You probably have to be a little disturbed to be a Wikipedian anyway. And the nice thing about being up so late is that you always get the last word -- at least for the night. =) --JGGardiner 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, weren't you the one who outed EB? :-p Skookum1 10:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My original reply, for those interested, at [JGGardiner's talkpage] although the dialogue has continued here since...Skookum1 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

update

I added Rick H to my report, and made a separate check-user report, which I'm guessing should be a little more expedient. Growing up with 6 older siblings made me a good tattle-tale. Bobanny 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

reply

Seems to me that Wikipedia isn't equipped to police these things too rigorously for technical reasons, and in judgement calls, admins err on the side of benefit of the doubt. A handful of things are treated as cut-and-dry, such as the legal threat thing, but most of the real policing goes on through the diligence of plebian editors, reverting vandalism and the like. The most I hope for with those reports is that someone will check the IPs and any sockpuppetry will be confirmed, which falls into the cut-and-dry category and worthy of an immediate ban. Right now, I believe everything's on the table and disengaging is the way to go. Whatever tit-for-tat continues isn't likely to affect the AfD outcome, and you're probably right that you're being baited. There's a good chance that they are not all socks, and even if a master and some puppets are blocked, it'll still take diligent editing to move those articles along because they're inherently contentious and politicized. If you want to win the war, choose your battles strategically. Bobanny 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"The war" is in the courtroom, and in the regular media here; you wouldn't believe some of the other angles I've been hearing on this from outside Wikispace. As far as the diligent editing, it's why my "vote" has "restore" and "protect" on it; as a rewritten/restored-content article will have to be protected to prevent any of these guys from raiding it again. I'll email you something in a sec about which part of "upstairs" I've taken it to (though I'm not expecting to hear anything back).Skookum1 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, you don't have your Wikimail set up; I'll just leave it to you to guess ;-) (and no, it's not an "outside authority").Skookum1 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to join any WikiProject British Columbia

Be glad to join this WikiProject British Columbia - but I don't actually see it up and running yet . . . am I missing something?! (I'm afraid I wouldn't have any thoughts on that Gray/Columbia River issue, however). NorCalHistory 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's only about eight or nine members so far, most of us also members of WikiProject Vancouver; it's in the "building" stage right now; for myself other than certain articles, topics (e.g. mountain ranges, history bios) what I've been doing is placing the WikiProject template on relevant artficles' talkpages and sussing out which templates and stubs we need; it's not as well organized yet as the Indigenous People's WikiProject, where articles on California native peoples are still mostly stubs, and no doubt tjere's other articles/topics worth writing/adding to the project. As for the BC project, if you want sign on....

I've had my hands busy with the AFD these last days but still cranked out a bunch of improvements to variou mountain range articles....once the dust settles on the politics I'm going to hunker down on building up the project templates/portal, as hopefully also the other members will "get going" on it, too. User:Qyd by the way is a talented mapmaker...Skookum1 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Graphic on BC Protected Areas stub

Oops. The image was just copied from the (generic, parent) PA stub type, and obviously you're right that something from BC would be much better. Any image would do, so long as it's free (and not "fair use"), and looks reasonably clear at 40x30px. Have anything in mind? If you have any coding questions about, or problems with, stub templates, feel free to ask, I'll try and help. If you're planning on creating new stub types, please do mention them at WP:WSS/P, though, to get broader input on the wisdom and details thereof. Alai 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bambridge Article

Well it was created by me a while ago, and don't recall what source I used. I suppose if it doesn't exist that it could be made into a disambiguation page or possibly deleted. Personally, I think it would be useful as a disambiguation page. Hello32020 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Need peak-pic for stub

I don't think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

What peaks do you need pics for? Black Tusk 6:08, 5 January 2007 (DRR)

Hah! Any article that's out there, for one thing. The specific peak-pic request though is for an image that's still going to look like a mountain/peak at 35px in size, so it'll fit in a stub template; see the templates section of the BC WikiProject (the BCWP is linked on the invite on your page) and click on each of the stubs; I created the dogwood logo on some of them; the others use variations on the BC flag. Currently mountain and mountain range articles get the "location" (geo) stub, but I know how many there's eventually going to be so want to create a new stub; never have liked the flag thing, though could use it for now; the dogwood doesn't seem right for a mountain.Skookum1 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

COI

WP:COI seems to pretty much be an admission that it's not something admins can police, but comes down to other editors' diligence. Most conflicts of interest are non-issues as they deal with non-controversial subjects, and self-promoters are easily spotted and dealt with through the normal editing process. I had 2 articles successfully AfD'd not long ago because one was of an author, whose only notability was the subject of the other article, his cheesy, self-published, and painfully non-notable novel about Bush and terrorism. But in that case, and most of them, it's NPOV and notability policies that deal the fatal blow, not conflict of interest. Besides, who else would bother to contribute lists of Liberal Party delegates to a convention other than a party member? Also, my reading of rascalpatrol's neutral vote is that it's who you think it is, but the article wasn't started by that person, so their only options are to make it a politically neutral vanity page, with things like links to Bornmann's photography website, or else allow it to be politically unflattering. One is positive, one negative, which equals neutral, which also gives some variety and thus appearance of legitimacy to the anti-Skookum puppet camp. Jammy Simpson is clearly a legit editor, and it's not surprising that anyone not familiar with the issue would look at the sanitized article and see it as a non-notable subject and would not be inclined to wade through what's become a mountain of convoluted debate. Bobanny 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd suggest to draw from the most mainstream sources possible, and only use Tielman for points of information, not interpretation, if necessary. He may be published in normally "reliable sources," but as a partisan editorial writer. And make liberal use (no pun intended) of words like "alleged." I'd probably have a good eye for proof-reading because I really haven't paid any attention to the details of the scandal through all of this. Bobanny 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice how nobody's used the word "libellous" since I snitched? Bobanny 05:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that I'm a little late for your COI discussion but I think that Bobanny said it well. WP:AUTO obviously applies if your suspicions are correct but without an admission there really isn't anything that anyone can do unfortunately. All that we can do is watch the edits and make sure that the bad ones get fixed, no matter who is making them. I know that isn't fun but the price of fairness is that WP can get taken advantage of sometimes. --JGGardiner 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just was by your page. Geez, we should meet for dawn coffee sometime, huh? See User talk:Mkdw for a bit more on this; those SPA templates should be placed on Titus Pollo and rascalpatrol, too, as I told him; but I had a nice little bit of imagery there you might like...WP can be taken advantage of sometimes; but in this case, no longer...the same crew are hovering around the LedgeGate page, and so the same watch has to be made there; I haven't researched Mark Marissen enough to know what's needed there, but it's another WP:AUTO/WP:COI bio-cum-puff-piece, too; I'd venture that all political biographies are subject to p.r. department fiddling (like SFU's page...), as with the political party pages; but it's when important stuff is actively concealed that we have to get tough, I'd say. Something to be vigilant for in all BC history/politics pages in general, in fact, although in this case we're actually dealing with bona fide professional p.r. men/spin doctors; "if they are who they might/seem to be"...hence the twisting of concepts/words back at you like all of them have done, just like those talking heads/pundits who control our televised political "discussions" for us on the networks (ever seen an ordinary Canadian take part in one?); Tompettyfan the slickest of them all (he's the main contributor/"property-owner" at Mark Marissen, as I think I mentioned; I think "they" dragged him in when they realized they were up to their neck in alligators. Cariboo alligators, no less...another article I've got to get writing (see Paul Saint Pierre.....Skookum1 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well of course do have truthiness at WP from wikiality. Of course the majority in this case shouldn't include all of those disposable accounts. The closing admin. has the discretion to exclude them and most admins. know the tricks that go on here. Like you pointed out, you can buy bulk memberships and make "instant Liberals" (or "instant Tories", etc.) but it is a lot harder to make instant Wikipedians -- at least the kind that can "vote". =) --JGGardiner 11:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they're finding that out, much to their chagrin. I'll voice my opinion/theory, once again, that Wikipedia affords an opportunity for TRUTH in Canadian historiography and in current events/politics that our national media have been sickeningly short of for too long now (well, they were always a bunch of skankers, but...it seems worse lately, especially post-Oka/Meech/Charlottetown....by the way, an article I'd like to have found and I guess as to get written someday is the Spicer Commission or Royal Commission or whatever it was, and its bastard dumb-downed offspring the Charest Commission. Guess what aren't listed on Crown Commissions of Canada or Crown Commission or whatever it's called ("List of" probably...)....and guess why....Also, parting thought for the night, if you can get yourself up to SFU's video library, I think in the main Bennett library but maybe hidden deep in the Communications Department, there's a video they have of a '70s experiment in "community political television", which was a bunch of ordinary Canadians, or bunches of them, talking frankly about the way the place is and how it works/worked. Eerily "modern" if you listen to it now; CBC staged it when Trudeau told them to do more public-interest programming with real people in them; it nearly caused a revolution and a breakdown overnight, by the frankness of what was said (and not reported on in the press); the next day their budget was doubled and they were told never do it again. Fascinating viewing, not just for the haircuts and the amazing contrasts between the different environments chosen by producers in each city, from the couch-and-ashtrays in Edmonton, the beer-and-couches in St. John's, to the stiff-as-a-board politicized British Columbians on neatly-spaced stools trying to hold to their prepared notes....but it was national open-line, and totally amazing. Watch it some time when you've got...oh, I think it was 4-5 hours or so in total....it's in the SFU library somewhere, made by the CBC, and it's called "People Talking Back". It should almost have an article.....but there's nothing written on it because it was suppressed....Skookum1 12:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds a little bit like Wikipedia TV. =) --JGGardiner 06:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

British Columbia stub types

Hi - it looks like you've just created four new stub types relating to British Columbia. All four have been listed for deletion at WP:SFD. As it says at WP:STUB, in most stub categories, and on various other pages around Wikipediatub types should be proposed before creation at WP:WSS/P, to ensure that the stub types conform to stub naming standards, standard thresholds for new stub creation, are correctly formed, and are of a type that will well fit in with the cuurrent stub hierarchy. None of your four stub types are correctly formed - all use a sort-key of a type that has been repeatedly rejected for use with stubs. Two of the stub types have names that do not conform to standard stub naming. Only one appears to be close to the required threshold ffor stub splitting, and that is of a type specifically mentioned as being of a type which should not be split at WP:STUB (geographical articles are split by region and then by subregion - towns, rivers, mountains and the like shouldd not be split by dint of them being towns, rivers or mountains). Another of the types also runs contrary to normal stub splitting (due to people moving from place to place, the only biographical articles normally split on a subnational basis are those of politicians). None of the stub templates have formed categories - they are all redlinks. If you have any comments to make about the proposed deletion, please feel free to add them at WP:SFD. And in future, if you wish to create a stub type, please propose it first so that it's done properly! Grutness...wha? 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By now you've probably seen my remarks on the SFD; before I hit the hay I noticed above "geographical articles are split by region and then by subregion - towns, rivers, mountains and the like shouldd not be split by dint of them being towns, rivers or mountains"....well, geez, uh, I'm not meaning to be glib, but that's a very "flatlander" way of looking at things, I must say. Mountains necessarily get a different kind of region, in that they come packaged in ranges (see Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia, which ain't half-done yet, not even a tenth in fact.... Towns and rivers on the other hand, at least in these parts, come packaged in basins or what we traditionally call "Countries" - as in the Skeena Country, the Lillooet Country, the Boundary Country, the Columbia Country, the Cariboo Country, the Omineca Country, the Peace Country, the Okanagan Country, the Shuswap Country, the Thompson Country etc often omitting "Country" altogether, but prefaced by "the" ("the Cariboo", "the Omineca", "the Peace", "the Bulkley" etc.) or using capital-d "District" instead of "Country"; and not all are defined by the rivers that flow through them (the Cariboo Country more by the Cariboo Plateau than by the Cariboo River, as there are several rivers in that region; another region is simply Fraser Canyon, another Central Coast, another is based on the name of a town/lake, the Atlin Country; whereas "the Shuswap" generally isn't taken to include the Shuswap River basin, which is an adjunct to the Okanagan and most people might think of it as being in "the Monashees" (a reference to the Monashee Mountains its basin is located in); then there's the insular/coastal "regions" which are even harder to define (see Gulf Islands and Georgia Basin and Georgia Strait, which isn't quite the same thing as Gulf of Georgia although the latter (currently) redirects to Georgia Strait. Then there's Lower Mainland, which I mentioned in the SFD, and newly-invented "regions" cooked up by marketing types like the Sea-to-Sky Corridor (Howe Sound-Squamish-Whistler-Pemberton, from the marketing name for British Columbia Highway 99. But most of these are NOT legal names, although they are often used in them (without the "Country" part, but sometimes with the "District"), i.e. in those forms, although there is a Central Coast Regional District and a Cariboo Regional District; but the latter is a political-administrative boundary, and doesn't (necessarily) coincide with the traditional meaning of "the Cariboo", which can include parts of the Fraser Canyon and the "Thompson-Okanagan" (the "Thompson" part, not the Okanagan part), and "in its own mind" includes "the Chilcotin", which from the Chilcotin things is something like unfriendly annexation....and any formal, legal subdivisions of BC are subject to change - great change - depending on the whim of the party/petty tyrant in power at the time; which is why the RDs (regional districts) are not workable as subdivisions. We have thousands of lakes, hundreds of which may have articles; and even more islands, again hundreds of which might have articles. I don't know why the geo-stub cat can't be broken down by towns, rivers, mountains/mountain ranges, islands/archipelagos, but I suppose in other parts of the world that makes sense. It doesn't here!. I won't expound on this further because of my rambling style but I could go on about the why and wherefore; wikidom has a choice between thousands of stubs in the BritishColumbia-geo-stub cat, or it can come up with a hierarchy of stubs that makes sense for British Columbia. Asking us to conform to a standard evolved for Oxfordshire or Ohio won't work...if BC was as small as US states, it would work; but we're the size of Western Europe with a very distinct and extremely mountainous geography which has defined us perhaps in a different way than anywhere else; "a veritable sea of mountains" as one frontier era diarist commented, "not without a touch of horror" as the historian I read that in commented about the phrase. We're a Switzerland-style landscape the size of England, France, Germany and then some combined; we just haven't had time to develop cantons yet, and our county system (the regional districts) isn't "fixed" like it is in older Canadian/American jurisidictions (in the US aren't the counties mandated by state constitutions and therefore fixed in perpetuity? Not so in BC, where even municipalities can be done away with the stroke of a pen by the government-of-the-day, and shuffling regional district boundaries is a matter of course, almost of necessity, because of changing growht patterns with our boom-and-bust economic patterns....Skookum1 10:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Skookum1 - you wrote:Thanks for the advisory and the admonishment. My posts on the SFD aren't meant to be overbearing; other Wikipedians familiar with me know I'm kinda prolix/voluble - I just type real fast and usually have forty different things to say that more or less have to do with the topic at hand ;-) I just wrote up a fair explanation on my talk page why any subdivisions of BC are going to be difficult; it's easier (for us, if not for Wiki) to subdivide things by category of object; I won't go on as I have enough already on the SFD and the talkpage. I'll propose certain stub ideas - the poli-stub, and a gov-stub (?) for sure, and I had others in mind. I notice you didn't SFD the mountains-stub...was that an oversight? I have good reason why it's needed, as explained on the SFD, and also in the context given on my talk page; mountains have regions called mountain ranges; towns and rivers can't be classified that way; and mountains can't be classified by lowlander boundaries as they quite often then would have to be in two regions (being defining parameters or those regions, being ridge-summits and all...); which is why anything along the Continental Divide south of about 54 degrees latitude is in both BC and Alberta categories (there's currently a Category:Mountains of British Columbia, and a Category:Mountain ranges of Canada, which includes the BC cat; most ranges in Canada are in either BC or Alberta (with the huge bulk of them in BC, overwhelmingly) plus a few large ones in the Yukon and NWT, and a handful in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador; IMO there should be Category:Mountain ranges of Alberta and Category:Mountain ranges of Yukon as well as mountain cats for same; I know that's not your area but it's a similar/related issue, and the idea of mountain stubs is really relevant if you live in place where "there are more mountains than people" (as with BC). Anyway, BC has something like 5,000 named peaks, or more....(I know, as I was the senior geographer for the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia for three years and either created or organized most of their entries....). Best place to reply is probably my talkpage I guess....Skookum1 10:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mine aren't meant to be overbearing either - I know I sometimes come across as authoritarian on stub matters, but it's the way I type rather than anything else. I often look at what I've typed later andd wonder why ever typed that! As far as your points above go, let's take them one at a time :) Starting with: What mountain-stub? Yes, that should have been speedy-deleted - there was a BC-mountain-stub once in the past which went through SFD and was deleted. (ISTR the vote on it was about 11-0!). But there doesn'tseem to be a BritishColumbia-mountain-stub, so I'm not sure what it's been named if it's been made... As I pointed out at SFD, geo-stubs are always divided up by region, virtually never by landform type. Splitting geographical items along one axis is hard enough to keep track of, splitting them along two is nigh on impossible. And since most people tend to know about the geeography of a particualr area, splittijng by type has never been regarded as a good move (as to it being a "flatlander way of looking at things", I'll have you know there are mountains a couple of hours drive from me that make many of British Columbia's look like pimples :) Geo-stubs are split first by country ((such as Canada) then by region (such as, say Ontario), then by subregion (such as, for instance, The Golden Horseshoe). And, as the article on British Columbia's geography says, there are 27 official regional districts, surely a reasonable place to start. Ireealise that political ddivisions like this may ccut across traditional descriptions off arreas, but the same is true for such divisions worldwide. Here in New Zealand, Wellington-geo-stub is used for the Wellington region, despite the fact that people in some parts of that region never regardd themselves as being Wellingtonian, but are from the wairarapa (which isn'tan official region at all). But official boundaries are by far the most useful way off splitting regions.let's face it, theree are national boundaries that are problems in some parts of the world, but that dosn't stop us having stubs for the countries in question. As to splitting by landforms as well, one in three stub types is already a geo-stub - over 1200 stub types. Start splitting them all along type of landform as well as by region, and how soon do you think it will be before it becomes impossible to keep track of them all? As for having 5000 named peaks, fine - that's about the same number as many other places, but it doesn'tmean that there's any more need for separate mountain stubs for them.There isn't one for Switzerland, for instance, or one for Tibet. And yes, I know how big BC is, but those same standards aree used on places far bigger (Siberia, Alaska,Western Australia) and also on places far smaller (Liechtenstein, Fiji) without any real probleems at either extreme.ASs it happens, the standards were originally used for continents, and have slowly been broken down into smaller areas. So I doubt there'd be much problem for BC, even if it is a mountainous place!

Onto sunnier matters - what stub types might be recommended as possible? A renamed BritishColumbia-poli-stub (or gov-stub - I doubt both would be needed) for politics or government, a BritishColumbia-road-stub for road transportation ((perhaps a rail one as well, depends on the numbers)... if there is some way of ensuring that the bio-stub was for people primarily known for things connected with BC ((pioneer settlers and the like) it might get the not (there's a similar discussion for Texas going on at either SFD or WP:WSS/D at the moment). The problem is ensuring that it doesn'tget used for people whose connection to BC is not a defining chaaracteristic (e.g., asportsman who played for a Vancouver team for three or four seasons).

I hope that all makes sense, and that some of it is helpful! Grutness...wha? 10:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - apologies for the typos - I'm using a borrowed laptop and haven'tgot used to the keyboard yet! Grutness...wha? 10:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vector images.com

Hi. If you create a template using this image, you don't have to add information about the image source on the template. Just a notice on the image description page is enough. Bryan 10:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (if you're watching). Now if they'll only let me create the stub (see above from [[User:Grutness|Grutness) ;-) Skookum1 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vector-Images

I think reference to source in image description is enough, as in case with any other images for example licensed under CC-BY. --EugeneZelenko 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Chen kwen men tumi

Thanks for all the help. Still pretty noob at the whole wikipedia thing, but thanks for the invite and everything. OldManRivers 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

New Columbia River Map

Hello again, Skookum. I found a new NASA image that includes the entire route of the Columbia River, including the Big Bend area of BC. I recreated the river route map and uploaded the image. You can find it at Image:Roll On Columbia.jpg. ●DanMS 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I think we can use that as a basemap for the Snake, the Clark Fork, the Flathead, the Kootenay, the Thompson, the Okanagan system; though it won't have quite the whole North Thompson and I'm not sure about the sources of the Snake. Do these images span the whole continent, or is it just a selection of certain frames? The Stikine basin would look really impressive, and the best illustration for the Rocky Mountain Trench I could think of having would be a series of four from the Liard River to the border - partly because these could also be used for provincial and national park illustrations (see Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park. It would also be really cool to have satellites of the Selwyns, Mackenzies and Brooks Ranges, and the smaller Yukon Ranges. The problem with using the sat images for the Chugach and St. Elias is all you'll see is white; I think topos kind of have to be used there, or nothing will be visible; depends on the image. Like to see a closeup of the Fairweather area, which needs illustration but there's this prominence issue as to whether the Grand Pacific Glacier is still there or not; if it's not Fairweather's prominence and its ranking among high-prominence summits in North America changes significantly. btw I was just about to download the new version of googleEarth - the old 29mb-200mb one isn't valid anymore, you have to download TWO GIGABYTES as preferred platform, 400-mb minimum, and I don't have that much on hand at the moment. Which reminds me, later tonight I'll post one of those ArcView hillshades I was talking about and let you and others see it, though if these satellite images come down to high resolution the ArcView's grescale topo shading is superfluous, except as an analytic effect (e.g. you don't have to see the icecaps, rivers, roads. towns etc. only the landform itself).Skookum1 03:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want the base map without the Columbia overlay, I can send it to you. It’s about 4 MB from NASA. The original map has Oregon on it also, but I cut most of Oregon off, as we didn’t need it for the Columbia. ●DanMS 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don’t quite understand NASA’s server. Apparently you cannot link directly to an individual image page, such as the link that I provided with the Columbia map. When I click on the link, I always get a response that the server is not found. But if you enter the URL http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/ (without the image request), it comes back just fine. Then you have to search for what you want. I did a search for “Snake River” and got quite a few hits. Then you just have to sort through and find the ones you want. You could try searching for “British Columbia” and see what you come up with. I found the Columbia image by searching for “Washington State.” ●DanMS 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think for the tributaries the idea is to leave the Columbia on the map, or the rivers are out of context; I noticed this for certain things I tried making like the Cheakamus River and Elaho River; you have to have the main river, too, or it's out of context; in a different colour, yes, but still there. But this map will be good for some regions; I think for the historical trail-maps it's not so good, except on real close-up; see Okanagan Trail which maybe could use an even more vintage/old-fashioned looking map; the "Wild West" effect; although long-range plan is to reprint public-domain maps from the time showing the landscape as it was conceived of at the time; the Whatcom Trail map uses that Environment Canada template I lifted (maybe not quite public domain, but my understanding is once you draw/layer onto a piece of digital cartography you've altered the image; there's a certain point of image where the original copyright no longer applies, as it's just a digital photorepresentation of geographic coordinates and features which themselves can't be copyrighted. This comes into photographic-copyright law and I'll run it by someone, as it applies to maps as well, except for that what is represented can't itself be copyrighted or otherwise have rights reserved; you can't own the shape of the Fraser River, for instance. Speaking of which, gotta come up for a map for List of crossings of the Fraser River, which I expanded earlier tonight and someone else is currently tweaking the formats; both a Lower Mainland scale one and one for the Canyon from Rosedale-Agassiz to Riske Creek/Williams Lake. BTW Spireguy's here, from peakbagger, so I'll ask him about the basemap used on prominence.org, which looks useful for some things; illustrating Palouse[[ for instance, although the sat-map works good for that because it shows grassland well. Anyway, I"ll mine the NASA site you got that image from and I'll "mine" it and see what else I can dig up at other scales and for other areas that might be useful; I'm crappy at graphic overlays but if I find something useful can I give you a ding and ask for drawing/mapping help? Just basics, river lines, range outlines, groups of lakes and towns with their names etc. e.g. Cariboo goldfields which needn't exist and could just be a List of Cariboo goldfield ghost towns, for example; all one small area (more or less the triangle north of Williams Lake and east of Quesnel, bounded by the northern end of the Cariboo Mountains. Been writing all day, gonna go play guitar....thanks for the help, and thanks David for stopping by if you did...Skookum1 05:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) PS I'll also remember to post my complete list of maplinks and how to use them on my resources site, e.g. the Yukon gov site, which I'll give you directions to when I come back from the music...some heritage maps on line through BC Archives turn out to be public domain now, even though they claim they have copyright (but really don't)..Skookum1 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an ArcView image: Tsimshian Peninsula and Lower Skeena River in Arcview greyscale (~4mb) to show you what they look like; it's very detailed so make sure you view it at full-size 1:1 to get an idea by how much. I have the WHOLE province covered; total zip file of all of them is 700mb+ so I can't post it here for you, if you were interested; but if there's a certain area you'd like to see, please ask. I tried to colourize these but I'm a shoddy point-and-clicker when it comes to layers and outlines and stuff. Yeah, I failed colouring books, and I even failed finger painting, come to think of it...but I've got lots of nice basemaps pilfered from here and there, all PD, or close to it anyway....I'll add in "my" Georgia Basin-Northern Puget Sound basemap here too....Skookum1 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The location of the centre of the ArcView image is approx. 54°17' N latitude, 129°51' W longitude; the diagonal inlet at upper left is Work Channel (pronounced "Wark", or was in colonial times anyway, after John Work), to its left is the Tsimpsean Peninsula (I mis-spelled it in the imagename...), just out of view at left is Kaien Island, the location of Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Scale is 1:400,000 Skookum1 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting this here, too: a map of the Juan de Fuca-Georgia Strait-Fraser Valley-Northern Puget Sound. Originally an Environment Canada radar-weather basemap, but the copyright SFAIK only applies when the weather image is overlaid; copyrighting the shape of rivers/coastlines is, AFAIK, impossible; especially once it's used as a layer/tracing. I used this for Whatcom Trail and it would be good, given colour alterations, for things like the competing boundaries in the Pig War, and similar items, including contemporary contexts (BC Ferries and Washington State Ferries routes, for example).Skookum1 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Bend - BC vs WA

Hi.. just stumbled into here after finding the Cascade Volcanoes page. That's a great map of the Columbia River linked to above. I thought I'd ask here a question I've been wondering about -- in Washington state there is a region known as "Big Bend" or in long form "Big Bend of the Columbia". There are lots of sources that mention "Big Bend Country" and so on. But my understanding is that there is at least another "Big Bend of the Columbia" in Canada. Is that right? Where is it? Is the term "Big Bend" commonly used for that region? Links to more info? Thanks! I'm working on a "Geography of Washington" page and it is taxing my sadly incomplete knowledge of BC geography. Pfly 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The same phrase - "Big Bend of the Columbia" up here in BC means the hairpin turn around the Selkirks made by the Columbia between Golden and Revelstoke; now mostly flooded with reservoirs from Mica and Revelstoke Canyon dams. There used to be a town/townlet there, too, named Big Bend (now underwater) which was a bit busier place before the building of the Trans-Canada Highway via the Rogers Pass (Glacier Nat'l Park), as that was the main roadlink between Alberta/Golden and the main part of BC (you could also go via Cranbrook/Crowsnest but it took even longer than the Big Bend....). The Big Bend Gold Rush took place in the 1860s - I'll be writing the article soon so redlinked that - to get there you'd branch off from the route of the Cariboo Road at Cache Creek over to Savona's Ferry at the foot of Kamloops Lake, which was a port for lake/river navigation to the head of Seymour Arm on Shuswap Lake (that's the upper-right of the lake's "H" shape) and then a pass led from there over the Monashees to the Columbia and the goldfields which were upstream from there, and on certain gold-named creeks coming out of the Selkirks. Soon after, passes via Wap Creek/Three Valley Gap from the Okanagan (Wap Creek is a tributary of the Shuswap River, east of Armstrong/Enderby) made other connections; by the time the CPR got built Eagle Pass had been discovered, but it wasn't used during the Big Bend Rush (too many damn mosquitos, even today, which is why one milltown there is named Malakwa - the Chinook word for mosquito, from fr. maringouin). More detail than you needed but it's my nature.....where's the Big Bend of the Columbia? Walla Walla? Sounds like the dab page for Big Bend is going to have to have BC, WA and Texas on it....possibly others, too?Skookum1 (Talk) 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected it was the hairpin big bend, but somewhere I must have gotten the idea that maybe it was farther south. And more detail is good, I need all the help I can get on BC geography and history! It's a big area and the rivers sure get confusingly twisted. The gold rush stuff and other mining districts in BC played a big role in the history of Washington, especially Spokane, which was apparently an important supply point for the more southernly BC mining districts and a lesser one for regions farther north, at least for a time (or so Spokane boosters would claim!). I'm slowly learning more about that aspect of the region's geography/history, but have a ways to go. Anyway, the Big Bend region in Washington is usually said to be the big curve of the Columbia from the confluence of the Spokane River to the confluence of the Snake River, and all the lands enclosed inside -- the Channeled scablands, the wheat growing region along the northern part of the bend, from Davenport, Washington or so to Waterville, Washington, the wheat regions around Ritzville, Washington, and of course the Grand Coulee irrigated lands of the Columbia Basin Project; but not including the Palouse or Walla Walla regions. I think originally it may have meant the lesser big bend of the Columbia near the Spokane River, where the Columbia turns sharply from flowing south to west, but it may also have always meant the larger bend and the weird scablands and semi-deserts there. I think there is a Big Bend Irrigation District based in Moses Lake, Washington. It seems that terms like Columbia Basin, Columbia Plateau, and Columbia Plain are more commonly used than Big Bend Country, although none of these terms are very good, I think. The Columbia Basin Project irrigated lands are commonly called the Columbia Basin, which flies in the face of the larger and more sensible meaning. The Columbia Plateau isn't so great either, and is often described as a much larger region than the Big Bend. In any case, thanks for the BC Big Bend info. As I've looked into the WA Big Bend I've considered making a page for the region, but yea, even something like "Big Bend (Columbia River)" would not be specific enough! Cheers and happy editing. Pfly 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at Rock Creek Gold Rush, which I wrote the other night. It was the first gold rush east of the Fraser, and was only 3 miles inside Canada, and was originally found in 1859 by two American soldiers from Fort Colville fleeing Indians; they didn't stake a claim but the location - Soldier's Bar - was quickly staked soon afterwards "and the rush was on" - without any ability of British authorities to control it, until the Governor showed up (see article); I'd imagine there may be mention of it in histories of Eastern Washington, and pondered putting the Eastern Washington WikiProject template on it just because of that (?). You might also want to pop by Boundary Country, although I haven't fleshed out the mining/railway history there; like the Slocan (also needs an article) and West Kootenay, it's intrinsically tied into the economy/history of Spokane and Eastern WA. BTW there's no article on the Colville Gold Rush yet, but there should be (separate from the Colville article, and a Fort Colville article).Skookum1 (Talk) 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Luna Peak (BC) and Borealis Range

All I know about Luna Peak (British Columbia) and the Borealis Range comes from bivouac. The only reason I created the article was that I was creating the Luna Peak (Washington) article and I noticed that bivouac had another Luna, so I figured I should disambig it right off the bat. So I have no independent confirmation of the name...although I might have checked the existence of the peak on BC Basemap---don't remember. -- Spireguy 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Luna Peak's on BC Basemap; but the Borealis Peaks aren't; but like I said it might be in Fairley, if not just spew from an egotistical climber bent on carving his name on the landscape, even second-hand (RT drives me bonkers with naming things where he's got no right to, but I'll leave that alone for now - it's part of why I'm dissed with what went on at bivouac....).Skookum1 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I still have the addy for James Wasserman, who worked for nat'l parks out of Edmonton or wherever, and will ask him what other soruces there are; mountaineers' guides are valid - I used to have Baldwin's Coast Mountains on Skis, but I knew him and I know he didn't make up names, other than "raw handles" like "Overseer Group" rather than naming it a capital-R Range as RT and DB and others are wont to do. There are some cases where the climbers name is so well known "The Chehalis" links to Douglas Ranges, which is the proper name but climbers never use it; it was all there was on bivouac originally because bivouac wasn't coordinated with the provincial gazette; or with S. Holland, which is what I've been doing with the range hierarchy/subrange lists; integrating the geo-regional structure within Wikipedia; noting in passing that bioregional, historical regional and other regional structures are different again, as are the administrative districts; quite the layer-cake, huh? Anyway, sometimes names have to be coined, or have come into common usage without being on the map; the Coquihalla Range for what's between that highway and Boston Bar, which is really the northernmost finger of the Cascades, doesn't appear on the provincial gazette; folks around Gold Bridge-Bralorne call the range in behind/west of Mt. Sloan the Hurley Range (in other words along the north flank of the Hurley River and Lone Goat Creek; probably west of Lone Goat Creek too but that's getting into the Sampson/Samson Group; none of these are official names but are in local parlance, often in local speech; Pemberton Range also, which would be the line of summts up the East side of the Lillooet River from Pemberton. The Birkenhead Range is what lies between Bralorne and Birkenhead Lake, the Noel Range is the south flank of the Hurley River. Those are all at least community-generated names; many in the climbers' guides are purely spurious, t hough some are nice: Freshfields, Charlotte Alplands, etc.Skookum1 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Erik Bornmann

As you will see when you actually read the article, in no way does it say he was charged. It says he was involved with the trial that had tow former government employee's charged. It's well cited and no one can challenge its factual accuracy; if read properly. Langara College 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, "they" challenged it all the time, which is why it's such an "empty read" and why the confusing whether he was charged or not; "they" didn't even want it mentioned that he was "involved in the case" because they claim it implied that he was a criminal, too (well, he didn't get charged, let's put it that way). Have a look at the edit history and look for a Randy3's last deletion and have a good long look; basically this article was sanitized of anything that was in the news and they made it just his Liberal Party list-of-great-things-I've-done-for-the-party-and-oh-yeah-I-love-puppies-and-kids-too. It's imperative that this article be full and complete and accurate, EXACTLY so people don't get confused; you'd think EB's buddies would realize that and not try and hide things, because THAT is how people like you (and Mkdw) get confused. See User talk:Mkdw for more on this, as I wrote him last night after he made (then reversed) similar changes to yours. Thanks for trying; but be careful of language, and of confusing comment. Yes, he's involved, no, he's not charged; there's a big difference. Factual accuracy will be difficult to re-establish here as long as "those guys" are around, because they're hostile to it...and their version of what's acceptable is very different from the rest of us...Skookum1 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to treat it as any other current events article to which the events can be reported and written upon. The fact that the referencing is there by notable sources and its a little past the controversy makes it more viable. Furthermore, my contributions have aided the AFD by increasing its Keep count by 2 since my changes. Langara College 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I know; it's good for you to be making the changes - actually restoring material/cites that were there before, in fact - because given the state of tension it would not be for me to do at the moment; I think now that the AFD is stalemated - also high-profile by now, as I'm sure more than one senior admin has popped by and gotten that icky feeling and didn't want to render a decision - that work on the article can carefully proceed without them deleting anything that doesn't have to do with EB running bake sales for the party; but keep an eye out for your work being reversed, or newslinks being deleted because they're written by journalists they don't like etc. And put hte Current Events template back in; when Omar Jack takes it out again, and then one more time than that, report him for the 3RR (three-revert rule). Not that blocking a sockpuppet does much good, if he's a sockpuppet, but a slap on the hand is a slap on the hand (scroll up this page and find my unblock statement and the retraction section that follows it, although what you see is only the tip of the iceberg).Skookum1 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Skookum1 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

I was not really having a discussion per se about the British Commonwealth/Commonwealth of Nations. I had created a page with a link to British Commonwealth, and some editor was taking me to task for not saying Commonwealth of Nations instead. Must be a sore point with him. In most cases an editor would just change the link without having lecture the contributor. ●DanMS 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to lecture myself, only to clarify, and to mention the name changes over time; Commonwealth of Nations is a later-era p.c. form, I think introduced during the Trudeau or Mulroney era here in Canada, which was assuming "leadership" of the Commonwealth, partly due to British disinterest...so, for future reference, the main article is Commonwealth of Nations?Skookum1 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have learned that now. However, if the article is about a historical reference to an event concerning the Commonwealth before 1949 or 1954 or whenever the name changed, it would still be proper to say “British Commonwealth” as it was then—possibly adding “(now the Commonwealth of Nations)”. BC redirects to CoN so that would work just fine. By the same token, I have lately been writing some articles on the history of U.S. ambassadors, and for events between the World Wars, I usually reference the “Great War,” as WWI was called then. As some wise man once said, “In those times we didn’t know enough to number our wars.” ●DanMS 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

laundry

This is probably on your watchlist, but thought I'd make sure you got it. 18 socks confirmed, not counting Rascalpatrol, including your tributes. Bobanny 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada (US)

I undid your changes to Sierra Nevada (US). In my commit message, I used the traditional "rvv", but looking at your contributions and talk pages it seems unlikely that you are a vandal. I confess to being mystified as to why you made this change which removed all altitudes and ISBN numbers. Perhaps some horrific editing accident? -- Cjensen 02:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It must be. The only reason I stopped by the page, while adding the WikiProject Mountains template on the talkpage, was because I noticed the phrase "also known as "The Sierra." - I meant only to add "and the Sierras." I don't recall even doing anything below the line after - no accidental mouse drag/click that I'm aware of; this has happened on one other edit somewhere before, and I don't understand how or why it happens. As for whether I'm a vandal or not, have a look at my User Contributions and my role in nearly any of the articles in Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia and the various other WikiProjects of which I am a member.Skookum1 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear -- after looking at your contributions, there was no doubt in my mind that you were not a vandal. Editing accidents happen. But sometimes they happen while trying to do something useful, so you might want to redo the useful :-) -- Cjensen 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mathew's Tuya

I'm just telling you that have just found pictures of Mathew's Tuya on www.google.com when I was doing research if that would prove that it exists Black Tusk 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning that it didn't; I only want to know the source of the name, since it's not in the provincial gazette. And having mapped these critters, I'm curious to see what one looks like. BTW do you know Meszah Peak, the shield volcano south of Teslin Lake. Found a great regional sat pic that enlarges to a nice wintertime view of its shape and immense size. See the links to the map resources in the BC & Pacific Northwest History sandbox linked above. You're the volcano guy, can you write an article on it? I'll clip the picture - which is public domain and also pretty neat....gotta eat and go to the gym. Just always document, if you can, how a given summit got its name, if it's not listed in Basemap or the Canada GeoBase names database, whatever it's exactly called (link later, I'm cooking...)Skookum1 04:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Meszah Peak

I have heard of Meszah Peak, I think it is one of the peaks of Level Mountain which is also a shield volcano Black Tusk 11:54, January 8, 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's the only definable summit of the Level Mountain Range, the lanform's official name - in Holland, and in BC Basemap...so anyway, look at my new mapresources and find the one that mentions Meszah Peak and check it out; will make a nice illustration, wherever it goes. I'll check the mountains project naming conventions, but I'm pretty sure if Level Mountain exists, it should be a redirect to Meszah Peak, which is the gazetted summit-name; if there were more peaks there'd be a point in having a separate Level Mountain Range article, but there aren't so that, too, should be a redirect to Meszah. I think. Let me check the guidelines/naming convention when I come back from the gym. PS have you tried out the mountain range infobox yet?Skookum1 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have a not-bad scan of an image of taken from the air in Holland's book; sorta public domain; more about why later but I gotta run.Skookum1 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No I haven't tried the mountain range infobow yet, but I have found a picture of the Level Mountain complex [[4]] Black Tusk 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the one I was talking about from NASA - full size about 4mb though. Meszah Peak/Level Mountain Range is due east of Juneau, and straight south of Teslin Lake, if you know your way around the map up there. A third of the way down next to the right-hand edge. I can see the Atsutla Range on this image, too, I think...but the Tuyas are just out of sight NE of Meszah/Level. More on the naming thing later; Naming Conventions say use the most commonly-used name; no mention of official name; so Dickson Peak is Mt. Dickson, Cheam Peak is Mt. Cheam, and in this case I guess Meszah Peak/Level Mountain Range is Level Mountain; whatever's decided all should have redirects, and the redirects all, I think, should have the BC project template; not sure about that but it makes sense...I guess. This one of Tagish and Atlin Lakes frozen over I'd like to use to illustrate some of the small ranges in the area; or not, maybe better to use a summer image; this one's just so funky looking; complicated prominence area, by the way, took me a good couple of weeks to "crack" it. The line from Ulysses to Ratz, or rather NOT to Ratz, was really hard to work out; both go to Fairweather, via Buckwell...Skookum1 09:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Category:Cities on the Fraser River

Hey, thanks for your note. Category:Communities on the Fraser River would be fine, I chose "Cities" because that was the naming convention used in all previously existing sub-cats of Category:River cities, Category:Cities on the Fraser River's parent cat. Personally I think the category would be best and most informative if it contained all settled places along the river, including Spuzzum, etc., as you noted. Without including these smaller places the category may wind up containing less than say 15 entries, and therefore may be more appropriate as a list. But if it contains several dozen places because we are including smaller places, then I think that's much more informative and category-worthy. Just my two cents, feel free to nominate the cat for renaming at WP:CFD as looks best. Take care, Kurieeto 12:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mount Meager

yea i know but Mount Meager is part of the Cascade Volcanoes which I haven't seen a category for Black Tusk 1:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But don't give something a category it doesn't belong in. As for the Cascade Volcanoes, I thought that ended at Garibaldi itself, but I guess it makes sense it would have to include the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. Originally the Cascade Range article was all American-written and they included Garibaldi and even the rest of the Coast Mountains in the Cascades, partly because of the confusion of the Cascade Volcanoes with the Cascade Range. I made some changes there but it's still pretty murky - so a "split" would be great, meaning that if you'd care to start Cascade Volcanoes that would probably be a good idea. But there's no equation between the Cascade Volcanoes and the Cascade Range, in terms of definitions, remember. The Garibaldi Ranges are pretty much ONLY Garibaldi and Golden Ears Parks, by the way, nothing N/W/NW of Whistler....Skookum1 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PS is the Bridge River Ocean named after the Bridge River? If so the article should probably say so, and why.Skookum1 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Bridge River Ocean is named after the Bridge River, maybe, but about the Cascade Volcanoes I would think that they would be with the same because they all formed by the subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate. 2:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mountain range infobox template problem! - me too

I've been doing a few edits on the Infobox Mountain Range recently aimed at better formatting of the output but the core of the template remains unchanged and I believe it works correctly. Before I applied the template on the Cayoosh Range I had a look at how you had handled it. When you copy/edit the blank template, you should use the real blank one, at the bottom of the page Template:Infobox Mountain Range#Blank, the middle one Template:Infobox Mountain Range#Legend is only a guide how to fill out the fields. If you leave any fields blank (and I recommend so rather then erasing them completely, because someone else might then easily supply the missing information) they're not displayed at all. As for the pipes, it's not important whether they are at the line beginnings or ends or whether all parameters are on one line. So

{{Infobox Mountain Range| name = Rockies | country = USA | country1 = Canada}}

renders

Rockies
Countries	USA, Canada

while

{{Infobox Mountain Range
| name = Rockies
| country = USA | 
country1 = Canada}}

renders

Rockies
Countries	USA, Canada

And as to the coordinates, most other newer templates use the same system, with a separate field for degree, minute, seconds et. too. I believe this is better because it allows easier manipulation with the values, how they are displayed, how they are linked to maps. I added a few intructions to your previous comment on the infobox talk page, in short: do not wikilink anything, the template does that for you, do not add units, simply choose an appropriate field (e.g. length or length_imperial) and fill in the value, an unfromatted figure (e.g. 1024 not 1,024, i.e. without the comma), the templates calculates the metric/imperial value and adds all necessary units, linked. – Caroig 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock Creek

Wow, you're very prolific. Thanks for the link. I guess all of you're red links should remind me of all the articles that need creation. I was also thinking there should be an article about the British military presence in BC (and Canada generally). I had thought about that when I read the "Pig War" article. Unfortunately I don't know all that much about BC history myself. I guess I'll have to brush up on that. --JGGardiner 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that, very good work Skookum. Sometime I would like to get a book on the history of Steamship travel on the coast and do some wikiwork on that topic . . . sometime . . . . KenWalker | Talk 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of a series of stubs based on a search for "ship" at www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca (i.e. in the image catalogue), as all kinds will come up by name, even if there's no online image associated with the catalogue number. This would apply from famous big ships like the Empress liners to the coastal-port steamers and all the little steamers and lake ferries etc. This could be done also for CPR, Grand Trunk, PGE and CNR steam engines and "named diesels" (significant ones anyway). I'm not a marine-history kind of guy but it would be easy enough to lay out the stubs to provide the infrastructure for someone else to flesh them out later. This is also my intent with a lot of the ghost towns, although I'll certainly write articles on the more interesting ones. As for BC history, I just wrote up some stuff for http://thetyee.ca in this thread; just "find on this page" for my regular username in order to sift through the various posts (the main article has to do with radioactive barite mining vs. ranching in the Rock Creek-Hwy 33-southern Monashees area, actually); there's other tracts on BC history I've written in other threads there, and you can just search the Tyee also for my user name. I was going to migrate/copy a lot of that stuff over to a blogspace I've had dormant for a while, as well as a lot of my historical ramblings on Wikipedia talkpages (which, well, you know, I just can't help myself from doing....speaking of which check out Talk:Robert Gray (sea-captain) and explore the argument there; I'm in it, but not alone. Anyway, more later; glad you liked Rock Creek. Not sure what I'll do next; basically wherever the Akriggs or Basque fall open in front of me tonight....Skookum1 (Talk) 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys might want to check out Big Bend Gold Rush, which I just winged it on; still have to check dates and get more exact locations, earnings, nos. of men etc but it's a start; someone else might want to review it, although I gave it ratings when I put in the BC Wikiproject template, which as the author I shouldn't do. Touches welcome of course.Skookum1 01:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

check user

Boy, looks like you're on a roll. Maybe they should ban you more often if it gets your juices flowing like this. On the check user thing, I'd say check the letter (i forget which one) that says the suspect is using a sock to avoid a ban. As for comments, from what I can tell, the check user people are disinterested clerks that are not involved in editing, or at least a select few and aren't involved in the specific conflict. Anyway, any explaining of the issue would be wasted there. All you need to say is something like this user is suspected of being a sockpuppet because they are changing the comments of a blocked puppetmaster, apparently to make those comments more less offensive. Link the diff showing riley smyth's changes to rascalpatrols comments, and that should cover all the bases. It's kind of a tedious process, huh? In the meantime, I'll stick a tag on riley's user page for vandalism. (tags and info are here: Wikipedia:Vandalism) Tags are good to use to establish a history where the person has been warned plenty in a block decision. I suspect someone's covering their tracks in anticipation of an upcoming trial and the related scrutiny that might draw attention to such things. Bobanny 05:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, be sure to put your request on the existing case page, following the instructions at the previous case's archive. Carson 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

re Help

Hey Skookum1. I thought I should leave a message for you. If you get a chance, check out my comments on Talk:Squamish Nation and Talk:Skwxwu7mesh. Let me know what you think (on those pages). Thanks OldManRivers 10:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy away working at a few sites. You might of noticed the Squamish Nation and [Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw|Skwxwu7mesh]] pages. Not sure if you checked the links I left in my previous message (right above this comment), but I wanted to know if you could help me figure out how to: Move Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw to Skwxwu7mesh and Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw. Right now, on redirects to Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw, and the other, to Squamish Nation. As we mentioned, I wanted to make Squamish Nation the political organization and Skwxwu7mesh/Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw the culture, history, society page. All the redirects and page moves I made a few months ago are quite screwy (yes I know, it was my mistake, I apologize.) Just not sure how to move them to the proper places now. Do you know how to fix this mess? Thanks for any help. Contact me if this makes no sense to you...haha... OldManRivers 03:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A formal "move" isn't necessary, since Skwxwu7mesh doesn't exist yet. So create it and cut-and-paste all the content from Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw (and/or Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw over to it, then turn those into redirects to the new article (no one who doesn't speak/write Skwxwu7mesh snichim will look for them, but since they're there they can't be blank). I'd also suggest you create a redirect to Skwxwu7mesh for Squamish people and also Squamish (tribe) (the latter is a format found on many Native American pages, or their redirects). An admin may come along sooner or later to inquire about whether or not Squamish people should be the main article and Skwxwu7mesh a redirect, but you can point to Palus and other examples where the native-preferred form is the main article; the native form is also used for St'at'imc and Nuxalk (which even have the accent-marks on the main articles, as well as in the category names). I can't remember who it is around the Wikiproject that was creating all the various First Nations categories (Secewpemc, Sto:lo, Haida, St'at'imc, Nuxalk, Dakelh, Gitksan and others are already created as categories...athough IIRC the Gitksan themselves prefer Gitxsan....) but depending on article density (no. of articles in the topic-area) you might want to get created a [[:Category:Skwxwu7mesh]]; I'll find out how to ask to do it. Hope that's not too complicated; should be simple.Skookum1 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I also need helps for when it comes to uploading pictures and citing references. Books, papers, oral history, etc. I've looked at the help pages, but they are awfully intimidating and long and complex. Looking for the simplest explaination. Think ya can give me a few hints about those. Wanted to use the Dan George page to work on my wikipedia skills and buff it up. Thanks OldManRivers 10:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BC assessment

You culd add the rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia/Assessment#Importance scale. The existing scale there has some general rules related to notoriety of subjects within the intent of the projects (I borrowd those from other projects). We could also discuss guidelines on the project talk page. On a related note, could you add the assessment when you place the banner on the talk page (it's easier this way rather then returning to hundreds of article talk pages). Thanks. PS: I wouldn't worry much about changing the assessment, any assessement is much better than none. --Qyd 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascade Range

I rewrote the intro paragraph of Cascade Range (also see Talk:Cascade Range). See what you think. I don't think specific mention of the detailed boundary (Fraser, Thompson, etc.) is necessary in the intro.

For the southern boundary of the North Cascades, see that article. The ambiguous status of the Coquihalla Range is mentioned in there, although maybe it could be clearer. -- Spireguy 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm hibernating

(I've picked up that Atlas of North Pacific, the Pethick and Akrigg, in case I have trouble falling asleep again.) NorCalHistory 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an Atlas of the North Pacific, and an Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest....which one? Akrigg's a good read, a bit out of date (1913) in terms of style, but less pretentious than a lot of the modern historiographical stuff, which is pompous and judgemental as hell, as well as deadly-dull to read unless you're a self-righteous politically-correct type who likes to couch stupidities in academic language and lots of footnotes (most quoted out of actual context, but with what I call "imposed context". You might want to have a look at some posts of my on the comments forum on an article in [The Tyee] - look for the item on Radioactive Ranching or whatever it's called, author is a Falkowski somebody, as I ranted about issues with academic historiography and public mythologies about history; a grand rant, and I've got more that I cut out that was too tangential that's even more, um, nasty towards academia; I'm all over the place on The Tyee with historical comments/tangents, often that have nothing to do with the original article (the way the forum works nobody sticks on-topic), so if you search "Skookum1" there you might find some interesting reading. Or colourful rants, either one. I'm even more crotcecty, irascible, and fiery-tongued there than I am in Wikipedia ;-). Skookum1 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Pethick, both books I mentioned wind up giving extensive catalogues of ship-visits and activities, and I've been meaning to do a series of stubs on all historical vessels in the region's history (including on inland waters....lots of work, huh?). But in regard to his topic material I should get you to pop by Talk:Robert Gray (sea-captain) and check out the discussion/topic issues there....Skookum1 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad Majors and Janet Weiss

Good to know. Feel free to add that information to the page using the appropriate Wikipedia style. --Ntmg05 05:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

False Creek and North Shore

Okay, the Musquem and Squamish thing is obviously debateable. But, here are a few factoids. Musquem claims False Creek and the North Shore as their territory. That the Sḵwxwú7mesh are from Squamish/Howe Sound, and we moved down. The Sḵwxwú7mesh territory was always the North Shore and False Creek. It extended further including Spanish Banks and English Bay. The whole thing about Khastalano being a chief from both is obsurb. He did have relations with both Musquem and Squamish, but it wasn't a "in the middle" thing. I've heard from some people that Sḵwxwú7mesh territory included Indian Arm, and part of the north arm of the Fraiser River. But, the Musquem floated down, and we let them stay there. The history with Tsleil-Waututh is that originally they came over the hills, they wern't actually Sḵwxwú7mesh, but they asked to stay there, and we said "sure". They eventually married so many Sḵwxwú7mesh, they practically became Sḵwxwú7mesh. Language and culture wise. If you read the Squamish Nation, you will see the history of the amalgamation on there. Supposedly, they didn't sign it, thus, they didn't become apart of the Squamish Nation. But the amalgamation in general is sketchy because of it legitimacy. Some say, it never really happened.

Now, I'm not sure if you are familiar with territory in Salishan sense, but if not, here is a quick way to understand.

The Indigenous people didn't in this area didn't have the foreign understanding of "land ownership". Ownership actually wasn't a known concept. Two concepts were known. "Use" and "carry". You "use" this canoe. You "carry" this ancestral name". You "use" and "carry" this piece of land. With territorial disputes, it wasn't clearly defined lines, although with some we had some identifiable points of reference for territory. With Shishalh, Roberts Creek is a the boundry between our territories. But it wasn't like boarders, or even Fuedal understanding of plots of land. Okay, let's say, you have some siblings, and you live in a house. You use, the kitchen, the bathroom, and your room. Now, your sister uses the living room, the kitchen, and her room. You brother uses the padio, the kitchen, and his room. Now someone comes a long and asks "What room do you own". Well, your all going to say "Kitchen", because you all use it. Same exact concept with my peoples. (Except we have squaters in our kitchen now.) But it was the same for the Musquem, the Tsleil-Waututh, the Lil'wat, or what ever. Even with the Sto:lo. My people were fishing on the Fraiser River too; through family ties with the Sto:lo. Comprende? OldManRivers 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally; I'm from Shalalth/Lillooet, remember ;-)? A lot of content in the stuff you're finding I was "winging it" from known written sources, rather than from my own understanding of the native relationship to the land; I'm not your conventional white man, let's put it that way. More on this later, I've got to go pander to international consumerism and have a Starbuck's; back later. PS please see N'quatqua and D'Arcy, British Columbia - they're the flipside of each other but like Tl'itl'kt (or T'it'kt in the new spelling) and the town of Lillooet have to be separate articles; not sure what to do about Lil'wat vs Lil'wat Nation vs Mount Currie, British Columbia (in order: people, provisional government, IR community plus non-native areas surrounding. The band government there is the Lower St'at'imc, part of the Lillooet Tribal Council, and they use the term Lil'wat too of course; but Lil'wat Nation is a "radical" group, the faction that will blockade roads there etc. Been meaning to add stuff like the Lillooet Lake Rodeo, the Xito'lacw subdivision, the Ure Creek logging protest, and the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police (who use that spelling, not the St'at'imc version preferred by the LTC and the Upper St'at'imc Language Authority....btw is there an article on Weetama in Whistler?Skookum1 22:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I've read, your not bad for a white guy. Good job. Just need to assimilate the rest of the 40'000'000 people in the country, and my people can have our land, rights, title, and lives back. lol :) OldManRivers 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Langara College 01:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North talk page

In reverting the talk page there you had reverted comments i had recently placed there. please reffrain from doing so in the future. --Duhon January 14th 2007

I don't recall reverting ANYTHING on the talkpage; I suggest you check the edit history more closely; anything I may have deleted was pure accident as I NEVER delete anything from talkpages; and I made no reversion/undo on the talkpage either, so watch your allegations, especially given the testy environment around H.N.Skookum1 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1: regarding the Hollywood North fiasco, I wasn't clear who you were talking to in your last post on the HN talk page. If you're concerned about the "inadvertently" comment, it came from me. Please don't read anything into it, other than my attempt to restore your message without getting involved in your discussion with Duhon. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the message, both to clean up the duplicate copy and to avoid any suggestion that I was taking sides in the discussion. I'm like you, in that I won't modify other editor's comments, but I'd also prefer not to have to write another note on the page to clarify what I've just explained here. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions about the preceding. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascade Range

I seen that, you added The North Cascades and Canadian Cascades, etc. Black Tusk 02:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascade Volcanoes

I have found a map of the Cascade Volcanoes [5] Black Tusk 06:54 15 January 2007

Nicola

Thanks for your message. We are thinking of the same French pronounciation! (I live in Montreal!!). In IPA the stress mark is placed before the stressed syllable, rather than after. This is different from other pronunciation systems, I gather. So I think that the transcription is correct as it is, and that your French pronunciation thing is right too! Hope that helps. Feel free to replace the IPA tag for the other transcriptions. I would be out of my league there without hearing the words several times!! Let me know if you have other questions or suggestions --Slp1 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tu parles français très bien! Yeah, feel free to get in touch if you want any of the French names transcribed. It would be fun to read the articles too! éé--Slp1 01:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sample Wikiproject template

Howdy! That template that you have been adding is causing problems for me. It places itself over the top of the existing contents, causing the text of the template and the Wikiproject page to be unreadable. I'm not sure if you are seeing the same problem (I'm using Safari for my browser). Anyway, I reverted a couple of the pages because I couldn't really find a better place to put the template within those articles. I thought I would let you know and hopefully save you some trouble. Thanks, Cacophony 10:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mount Brew

I was going to make an article on Mount Brew, but I don't know any information on it except the type of volcano it is. Black Tusk 08:29, 16 January, 2007 (UTC)

Time for me to write the Chartres Brew article (the colony' first Chief Constable, of the same rank as Moody, Begbie, etc in colonial history. I can do access and other and have some pics; I'm not sure, but I think Askom Mountain maybe is also; or maybe not Askom. An old friend I used to stay with in Lillooet - she was an old-timer who'd known my folks - used to point out to me a "crater" farther down the Fraser that was a volcano; I'll have to triangulate from a map to see where she was talking about in topo-map terms; might just be a shoulder of Brew. Supposedly the eruptions in that era had something to do with opening, or gouging, the great gorge between Seton Lake and the Fraser; that was in the newspaper article from long ago, I wish I could remember by who (perhaps the late Denny Boyd, in fact).Skookum1 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascade Range

I am going to add more American volcanoes in the Cascade Range Black Tusk 06:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you're adding volcanoes they should be added to the volcanic belt article; the American illusion about the definition of the Cascade RANGE is that it's about volcanoes (notice all the pics that all look the same? Where's one of Hozameen, Shuksan, etc?). What's needed on Cascade Range is other, NON-volcanic Canadian Cascades peaks; add away on the Cascade Volcanoes article but please remember there's a reason for the existence of the separate article/definition, and especially minor volcanic summits (I know there's lots - I've mapped the whole area for bivouac.com in more ways than I'd care to discuss) shouldn't be given pride-of-place before more important things like the Cheam Range, Hozameen, the strange glacier-ground horns of the Coquihalla Range, or Cathedral Provincial Park. If it's about volcanoes as volcanoes, they should be put on Cascade Volcanoes, and NOT on Cascade Range, which needs to variegate its content and also not fudge the issue further about where the range ends or doesn't end. Focussing on volcanoes is going to complicate that.Skookum1 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BC banner and DAB pages

Regarding {{BCproject}} on Talk:Lillooet : No rules, but consider the purpose of the project banner. It doesn't claim ownership of page. The class system helps the Wikipedia Editorial Team for its assesment, while the importance system helps WikiProject British Columbia editors to establish priorities. I fail to see the purpose of a wikiproject banner on a dab page (or on a redirect page, for that matter). As usual, if you think otherwise, please feel free to restore. Thanks. --Qyd 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANADA has a "type" parameter in the {{WPCANADA}} banner, that allows indexing pages as DAB, Template, List, etc. It doesn't work very good there (conflicts with class rating), and has not been implemented in the {{BCproject}} banner. I don't know weather it should be added, as I don't see the use, but it is definitely possible (if complicated). Cheers. --Qyd 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Slesse Mountain

Oh, I would think anything that was or is part of a volcano would go into the Category. necks are just the hard lava core of an old, eroded, extinct volcano. Black Tusk 21:64, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But is Slesse? That's my impression, just by looking at it; but Spireguy thinks it's just part of the Chilliwack batholith. Looks like a volcanic chimney/throat to me, but I'm not a geologist. So I was asking you if it was. Even as part of a batholith (a solidified subsurface sea of magma originally, right?) it could still have been an upthrust of something "trying" to reach the surface, or that even did; a thrust-up from the rest of the fiery goo at least.Skookum1 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it has out cropings and the black rock might be basalt so it would be a neck. Black Tusk 12:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is basalt, as I recall from the www.cascadeclimbers.com site, and also I think on bivouac.com. But we need a proper cite to class it as volcanic (from where Spireguy/Wiki is coming from).Skookum1 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything about it ether. Black Tusk 23:67, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Need cat for Okanagan people (Syilx)

Done, but it's pretty empty. I'm not sure I could defend it if anyone challenged it, so get writing the language article. =) - TheMightyQuill 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PSAC

There definatly should be several re-directs. Since the HBC corporate page lists it as Puget Sound I think we might want to go with that, then re-direct all the other variations. I know there are many variations. Thoughts? Aboutmovies 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be the proper incorporation name- with the apostrophe-s as it appears in all the major historical resources (which the HBC corporate site, being corporate, doesn't pay any attention to - they're in Winnipeg btw, and now owned by Zeller's...or is it the other way around?). But let me fly it by a couple of other BC Wikipedians and I'll get back to you tonight about it. The bit about it being founded to encourage settlement sounds like it came from the HBC corporate site; and no, the HBC was overall very hostile to settlement, especially in Puget Sound; more on this later; but PSAC was meant to be a money-making operation, notably connected with the sale of staples (dairy, meat, grain etc) to the Russian America Fur Company.....Skookum1 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Puget Sound wins the google search test (500 +), followed by Puget's in a distant second, than Pugets with only 50 something. Probably the guiding principle here should be most common usage, as per Wiki naming conventions, even if the most common is not necessarily the legally correct version. Bobanny 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking around in some of the settlement negotiation documents from the 1860s and it uses both spellings.[6] So hopefully you can get a more definative answer. I added some, but left the settlement part in for now. Unfortunately I found few useful sights from Canada, they mainly just said that the PSAC was in their area without any details, maybe you will have better luck. PS it might be time to archive some discussions here as your page is taking a long time to load.Aboutmovies 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource has a full copy of the Oregon Treaty....but it may be in modernized spelling; don't have the link handy will find it later when I get home, or just search at Wikisource. It's also on-line here and there, maybe somewhere an original scan?Skookum1 04:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

'=0 ....well, gee, so do I! ;-) Yeah, getting to be time for another archive I guesss. Anyway, I've polled half-a-dozen BC Wikipedians here, those who I know are experienced with BC/NW history anyway; Bobanny true to form was right back quick, but we'll see else who pops in before this evening; the Google-rating thing is kind of a standard; what triggered this off was that if the "archaic possessive" form of the company's name was going to be used, it should have been apostrophized; it's usually given in modern writeups as simply "Puget Sound", whether in ref to the company or to the sound, even if the sources had had the apostrophe; but I'm not sure if there are corporate naming conventions around. Let's wait and see....saw the bit about settlement re Simpson's intent....hmmm; the settlement agenda definitely wasn't taken seriously by Douglas, IMO (see that book by Hauka on McGowan's War, if you can find it, as he discusses the ways Douglas made things difficult for settlement in there...).

I don't have any knowledge of this body, but I do know about the lack of apostrophe in historical possessives (e.g., Browns River on Vancouver Island). So I suppose I'm agnostic. Fishhead64 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not heard of this company before, but I offer these thoughts on general principles:
I don't think "most familiar form" rightly applies in this case, because this company is not well enough known. (Puget Sound itself is another matter, of course.) I say use the actual name under which the company was incorporated, but if that was "Pugets Sound..." then modernise the possessive to "Puget's", whereas "Pugets" is archaic. I happened to read, lately, that the writing of the possessive form was in transition, at the time concerned, from using no apostrophe to using one. But this is a mere matter of notation -- a difference in the manner of writing the word concerned, not a difference in the word itself. In other words, if the incorporation used "Pugets", then the word so indicated is, in modern notation, "Puget's", yet the same word as ever.
(It is curious that "Puget Sound" did not fossilise as "Pugets Sound", in the way that, for instance, "Grays Harbor" and a number of other "Grays" this-and-thats did. I suspect this was because the sound of the "s" at the end of "Pugets" naturally became attached to "Sound" through merger with the sound of the initial "S" -- or, to put that another way, the "s" dropped off of "Pugets" because the doubled "s"-sound was less easily pronounced.)
-- Lonewolf BC 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably why; if we looked around we could probably come up with other examples (Howe's Sound, actually...). But this is getting interesting in an arcane sort of way. Reading back through everybody's posts it occurred to me that my reference to the sources using "Puget's" is what I've seen in the Akriggs and Hauka and so on (if Hauka uses it, which I can't remember just now; I'll check in a few local histories which cite some material and see there); point is I haven't seen what the actual period documents look like, either the charter or any correspondence or news items, except as quoted by later writers. I know Stephen Hume at the Sun made reference to PSAC in a series on Metis life in the BC/Northwest fur trade a few weeks ago so I'll try and see what he used. Puget Sound itself was originally Puget's Sound, but the Wiki article is Puget Sound; although in this case it's a company, and there's that distinction between Hudson Bay and the Hudson's Bay Company that's not just a standard in Wikipedia; even though "Hudson's Bay" is the original form of "Hudson Bay" as it's on the map now.....gotta eat and go have a life for a few hours. All food for thought, what's here, though....PSAC supplied meat, dairy and produce to Victoria, and actually owned several farms around there, in Cadboro Bay, Metchosin etc; although some were HBC owned directly. This topic actually has enough meat to be an FA, y'know....Skookum1 04:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and copied all the discussion from here and my talk page to the talk page of the article. That way if in 3 years and we are all dead and someone asks why the article name is Puget/Pugets/Puget's they will have a reference. Also made the two other pages and re-directed them to the current article until we determine the proper name. Then we can move the text and what not. I also go add a notice on the top with the other common variations of the name. Aboutmovies 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Erik Bornmann

Actually, as stated in my edit summary, it was a RFPP request to unblock. I am actually surprised that you'd think that (not in a bad way). Futhermore, it seems that the editor only used two sock puppets which probably stopped. Long-term semi-protection is never the answer, articles are normally only protected for a few days. If an article was semi-protected for weeks because of only one user, that would sort-of defeat the whole idea of a wiki. If the user comes back, you may either ask for him to be blocked (specifying he is a sock) or ask for re-protection. Cbrown1023 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Stó:lō Nation spelling issues

Again, I see your point, but I don't think it's a big deal. There are all kinds of words in the English language with multiple spelling possibilities, which wikipedia finds ways to work around with redirects. Just think of British/American/Canadian spelling differences. The diacritics on Stó:lō do probably require people to copy and paste, but so do Québécois and Chloë Sevigny. Alternately, for those who can remember how to spell it correctly, the characters are always available at the bottom of the page. - TheMightyQuill 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little weird when a main article uses one spelling, and the category uses another. Wikipolicy is a little fuzzy, from what I understand. On the one hand, the most correct spelling should be used, on the other, the most common. Furthermore, if two spellings are perfectly correct/common, then whichever one is typed first is the keeper. It might make sense to change the diacritic in the template name to match all the other articles. I doubt it would be contentious. On the other hand, adding or removing diacritics completely might raise more of a fuss. - TheMightyQuill 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that last bit, for sure; although I'm wary of introducing MORE diacriticals, as my friend User:OldManRivers is doing with Skwxwu7mesh....I've made some changes to the templates already without anybody screaming bloody murder (not yet, anyway) so this little tweak can't hurt, especially because it will conform to the main-article usage. Any idea about how to change the title of a template - the Ktunaxa Kinbasket one is currently titled "Treaty Council" rather than "Tribal Council" as it should be, given the standard in the other native templates, except for {{tl:First Nations on Vancouver Island}} which as OldManRivers has pointed out and I've come to conclude from working with the band/gov articles linked through it should be broken up into Tribal Councils and/or ethnic groupings. Right now I'm trying to sort out a tangle of redundant article titles up in Tsimshian country (see Talk:Coast Tsimshian for starters), and still haven't found those stray Gitksan/Gitxsan pages yet.... (NB Gitxsan and Nisga'a content articles do NOT get Category:Tsimshian, although I suspect you're aware of that....).Skookum1 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BC Project Article Assessment

Saw your edit summary query of assessment of Elk Range article. I have added some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_British_Columbia/Assessment#Loose_guidelines_for_ratings a few days ago that lay out how I understand this. Are you thinking that an unremarkable mountain or minor range should be rated low? The way I have been doing it may be putting too much in Mid, not sure, what do you think? KenWalker | Talk 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any rating is better than none, as you or someone else observed. But for mountain ranges and landforms I've only been putting major subranges at "mid", unless they're high profile e.g. close to Vancouver or notable in some other way. The Elk Range are a subrange of either the Front Ranges or Main Ranges of the Rockies (Ranges of the Rocky Mountains uses http://www.peakbagger.com's analysis/formula (hmnm that link's not right but I can't be bothered to look it up; maybe Ranges of the Canadian Rockies??, which I find hard to un-entangle as I'm used to definitions set out in Holland's Landforms of British Columbia...); and fairly minor relative to others. No biggie, just wondering whether there was something about the range I didn't know that might make it notable. The Bugaboos, for example, are a minor subrange that are more than "low" in importance (i.e. a subrange of the Purcells, which are a subrange of the Columbia Mountains....can't remember what rating I gave the Purcells, if I gave them one; the Columbias are "high"). The Premiers Range in the Cariboos, for instance, might be "mid" or even "high" (because of who they're named after...), but other subranges of the Cariboos would only be "low". BTW was it you or Fishhead64 maybe who recently archived their talkpage with the "permanent link method" - it's time for me to archive, and that sounds like what I should use, given the way I x-ref everything in later comments/talkpage diatribes....(btw see Talk:Oregon Country - I'm recusing myself as it's getting totally inane - justifications for the Provisional Government of Oregon withot any mention of British/HBC position on government, and nothing at all about native government, never mind the speciousness of the points the kid raises - yeay, the kid, although he/she takes offense at me slamming them for only being a student (BA actually, apparently, but so what?) and presuming to denounce and want to dismiss "joint occupancy" as the standard interpretation of the Anglo-American Convention of 1818 and basically trot out some original research on what THEY think it means....I'm recusing myself partly becase I've already stepped over the line on WP:CIVIL there (as has he/she) and I can't be bothered with the aggravation; garbage in, garbage out, and there's always more garbage, is what I've realized about Wikipedia; and in the case of isses involving American "historical imperialism" it seems hopeless.....Skookum1 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lytton and Kluskus First Nation

Hi, section headings without any text seem a bit pointless to me. I understand your thought process but in reality these tend to be left empty. If it's not clear to users what content they should add, then perhaps it shouldn't be a separate article at all. Consider adding a Underconstruction or Inuse tag to your articles if you need time to fill in the blanks. Jvhertum 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bro XII

. . . . I went and made redirect for Edward Arthur Wilson and also plopped him on the Wilson and Brother dab pages.....

• good deal, I wouldn't have thought of all of those steps

I'm going through "redirect hell" on certain things now; e.g. look at "what links here" on Oowekyala language and Wuikinuxv people, for instance......Skookum1 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Garnet Basque's write-up in Lost Bonanzas of British Columbia is a doozy...(and well-done); you can see by my redlink there I think Basque deserves an article as a notable BC historian;

• haven't heard of him??
  • Ever heard of the Basque Ranch, up by Ashcroft Manor? You know when you're on Hwy 1 past Spences Bridge and you climb up out of the Thompson Canyon and you're in that beautiful open sage country, kinda rolling, and then there's some irrigation? That's the Basque Ranch, and it's one of the oldest in the province (like all the ranches around there and Lillooet, actually); Garnet's like fourth-generation or something and has written copiously on early BC history of all kinds; "truck stop histories" focussing on gold, eccentric characters, ghost towns, pioneer life - "white man's history" pretty much except my experience of these guys is that, while their books don't dwell on the travesties committed against Indians as academic histories do, they're often more in touch with the natives in their own lives than the academics ever will be; they're also more likely to talk about the travesties committed by natives against each other than the academic historians want to admit to....But Basque is pretty much an authority on 19th Century BC; that's why my remark in that Tyee blog about him being who should be teaching BC history instead of the over-pedigreed twits in charge of it (nearly all of them from somewhere else, who have no training in BC history, but are in charge of handing out degrees on same....). Keep your eyes open for anything by him; he's not literature, but generally he's a great read. Lost Bonanzas covers the sinking of the SS Pacific, the Lost Dragon Mine up by Quesnel, Bulldog Kelly, the sinking of the Skeena steamer the SS Mount Royal and last but not least, Brother XII, and a bunch more; and in more detail than I'm used to seeing in Basque.....I'd usually written him off before as a family historian, like Mel Rothenburger, the former mayor of Kamloops who's a great-grandson of Donald McLean/Samadlin (if you know your Chilcotin War you'll recognize the name) and also wrote on his half-uncles the Wild McLean Boys, who definitely need an article (one of BC's most celebrated murder cases of the 19th Century, who almost re-triggered the Interior Rebellion in the 1870s which Dufferin's visit had managed to pre-empt; alcoholic, fetal-alcoholically retarded halfbreeds, they went on a killing rampage across the Nicola-Thompson Country; look for Who Killed Johnny Ussher? which is Rotheburger's account of their killing spree; his account The Chilcotin War was among the first I read about that affair, and even though academics and p.c. writers consider him a racist and a family apologist (McLean gets a lot of bad press....) there's bits in that book about the split nature/sentiment of the white community towards the Chilcotin uprising that I still haven't seen in the more formal academic writeps; Terry Glavin's a friend of mine and his Nemaia: The Unconquered Country is a great read, but like most modern native-friendly writers he doesn't really give early white British Columbia fair treatment; although at least he doesn't focus on the baddies/mouthpieces and make generalizations about the rest of "us" in the process (my family didn't move here until '46, although I'm totally assimilated as a British Columbian.....); Rothenburger, anyway, writes a lot of "truckstop histories" like Basque does; but Basque writes a lot more, and a lot better....

T.W. Paterson also (Heritage House mag-size series).

• him neither, , ,
  • I've only got T.W. Paterson's Ghost Towns and Mining Camps of British Columbi, Vol 2 (Similkameen, Okangan, Boundary) and British Columbia: The Pioneer Years. They're not studied in university courses on BC history, and should be encouraged-reading for high school kids; but they don't tub-thump on "gender, race and class issues" like good little historiographers are supposed to do these days. Basque's books are the kind you might find in a truckstop's souvenir-bookrack (in fact that's where I found my first ones by him...), and most of them are produced by Heritage House, which is a spin-off I think of J.J. Douglas, or was; no longer in print; MacLeod's Books at Richards & Pender usually has stuff of this kind, but it varies as to what's in stock (antiquarian bookstores being like that...); y'never know around island bookshops, but there you're more likely to find the Island equivalents, as I know the market there is for Island history, not Interior.Skookum1 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to tackle the Reincarnation of Isis (that was her sobriquet, one of his paramours, the last and flashiest one I think) or should we pawn that one off on Fishhead64 (he's an Anglican priest, but De Courcy Island is on his beat more than yours I think.

• I am striking out "Reincarnation of Isis" . . .??

KenWalker | Talk 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Was that still in the article? I thought I'd taken her out, or someone had...Yeah, she's part of the story; and it's quite a wild story. I guess the thoeosophist/Golden Dawn types aren't in your bailiwick; this guy ranks with Aleister Crowley for nastiness, although The Beast (Crowley) was a lot more intellectual, fearsomely so (I think his autobiog was, lesse, "Confessions of a Dope Fiend" - he was one of the first celebrity junkies, and proudly so....); and maybe more magickal than Brother XII, who was more of a charlatan/madman (though not according to those who'd been enslaved by him....). DeCourcy Island, by the way, was named for the commander of one of the British vessels involved in the Pig War; Reid Island, which figures in the Joe Silvey story ("Portuguese Joe"), was also IIRC part of the Brother XII thing. That nobody's made a movie of this is remarkable; and if anyone ever does I hope it's British-producedor even American-produced (with British actors) so it doesn't get turned into cheese curds by Canadian money/ideas/style...I feel the same way about McGowan's War....anyway, there's a bunch of stuff online about Brother XII somewhere but there's also half-a-dozen good writeups; Basque's is one of them, but I'm wary of tackling it because of my tendency to pastiche/condense simply by rejigging syntax; if you're interested I could either sandbox it or transcribe it into an email....Skookum1 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Country

It is an interesting discussion, but delves too technically into issues of which I am unacquainted for me to be of much help, I fear. Having said that, I agree that we need to reflect accurately both the situation on the ground against the backdrop of the actual legal disposition of the territory. As Oregon Country reads now - at least to my innocent eyes - that balance seems to be struck, with the exception of the rather gratuitous, point-scoring mention of McLoughlin (I mean, who cares?). I have, unfortunately, too many other fish to fry to spend time researching this and entering the fray. Fishhead64 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Island Ranges Map

Thanks for the work on this map. It will be an excellent addition to the article. It turned out really well. I wasn't able to get the link to the source to work, just where do you find the information? I was surprised to the the extent of areas that are not considered part of any range. Interesting! KenWalker | Talk 16:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think? Vancouver Island Ranges#Ranges --KenWalker | Talk 04:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I might one day get around to revising that map so the numbers are more in sequence; the quality of the ranges should maybe be described, i.e. low hill-rnage like the Sophia, or heavy stuff like the Sutton and Bonanza. I could add the Elk River Mountains if I knew what their boundary was, according to your source Philips; again, can't see inside Bivouac's data anymore - if you still can you might be able to, but I'm no sure range data was ever open to the general membership, and might have been exclusive to only a few of us; otherwise I could rattle it off pretty quick (the range boundary) just by referencing the line-point notes tha underlies bivouac (which is largely what I got into doing there; building the topographic data structure/field, and organizing prominences, range hierarchies, etc yadayaa). Not sure what the proper park name is for Mount Work; if it was provincial there'd be a stub for it, but maybe the Victoria crowd doesn't have all their parks down yet, or else the name isn't right (there's no WikiProject Victoria). The Brooks Peninsula should probably have an article because of its unusual geology/biome (it was a tongue of land outside perimeter of the icecap, and there's certain things there that are nowhere else...). Probably in the long run all these ranges could have subarticles; who Genevieve and Sophia were, and more detail on terrain and climate, as with any other mountain ranges; there's all kinds of hill-ranges along the low foreland up the Inside Passage, mostly Mainland but on some islands also; and as noted who Beaufort and so on where and why the range got named after them (I'd thought Beaufort was named by Capt. Vancouver maybe, but came across a reference in Kerr that indicates it was, I think, one of L-G Cornwall's high-society buddies and so may have been named then). Also, there must be a way to subdivide the ranges/areas further without being original-research about it; the Cape Scott area vs the Nimpkish area vs the Strathcona area vs the Seymour Range vs the very far South Island, and so on; it's kind of the same problem with deciding on recognizable, citable boundaries for the historical/geographical mainland districts/"countries". Those NASA maps are handy, huh?Skookum1 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BC lakes

You're right about the naming convention; I just wanted to hold off on moving the articles until I could verify whether there were actually communities of the same names or not. Bearcat 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First Nations stub

I think that the best place for that sort of information is the stub category page; if the WPJ has a "banner", then feel free to place it there. (Or else a plain ol' wikilink.) Alai 07:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if that covers your question or not. I should also add that yes, it's a new stub type, as the general NoAm type was getting very large, and it's a subcategory of that type. Alai 08:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Refrainfromconsumingsolidifieddi-hydrogen-oxidethatreflectslightwithawavelengthof565to590nanometres

I'll look into it. Up until today, I'd never had to go that route - but as it turns out another editor's actions (completely unrelated to this mess) led to my filing an AN/I report. Given that there's a significant dispute over content, approach, and POV, the Hollywood North dispute may well require an RfC or mediation. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

Sometimes users don't use common sense and in this case it was blatantly obvious and a violation of WP:SNOW. I don't think anyone else can honestly think that magazines are the determining basis for nicknames and terms. I've never heard of a magazine coining a phrase let alone a word -- ever. That's amazing about the Entertainment Tonight and great that we have more proof that Hollywood North is just just a WP:NEO, but a common practice word. This would also negate an AfD. Mkdw^talk 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you think that is "proof". 1) They were supposedly inferring Sundance, which is in the U.S. and 2) again, it is another location that is not Hollywood. It is in fact proof that there is no "Hollywood North" but that it is a protologism and a fluff term which is not commonly used (notice your surprise at even seeing it used on TV) and then when it is said, it is used in quotes or with regard to locations that have nothing to do with the Canadian film industry. I could point to the chair I'm sitting in and start calling it a "hat" -- that doesn't make it so. So, since you are trying to use the Sundance reference to prove your point -- then shouldn't Park City Utah, specifically the Sundance Film Festival be one of the sub-headings in your "Hollywood North" page? It's got to be one or the other... Donteatyellowsnow

TRYING to be on a wikibreak

You're right about the History/West Coast article being very rich in stuff to write about! And I am TRYING to be on a wikibreak (but not always successfully!) All the best, NorCalHistory 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gary Collins

Hi. I haven't been around much lately so I am glad to see that you didn't get into any trouble in my absence. =) But I just checked out the Bornmann article to see if their had been any changed lately and I noticed the wikilink to Gary Collins is dead. I'd be surprised if there was never an article about him. I was wondering if you knew anything about it since you seem to know about everything BC-related around here. --JGGardiner 09:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that much about Collins actually. Although I had heard that he was a pilot by profession and that he was recently involved in Horizon Air (based at the old Canadian building by the airport in Richmond). I didn't think that you were too interested in recent politicians but since you had an interest in Bornmann I thought there might be some stirrings. Nice to see that front is quiet by the way.

I did check out Hollywood North. How odd. The editor points out the neologism guideline and then says the problem is that it doesn't discuss a neologism but rather the industry. --JGGardiner 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

chrysalis

For some reason, this word is in my head when I think 'crystallize,' hence the 'h' and single 'l'. My spelling's generally become worse with the use of computers - If there's no little red line, it must be spelled correctly, and 'mould' and 'mold' don't produce red lines and are therefore interchangeable. On another note, there's some key combination you must be typing that purges accessdates and ISBN #'s in references when making an edit [7]. Not sure what would do that, but it must have to do with your getting on in years :) Bobanny 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's totally weird, because I didn't go anywhere near that line, not even a flyover with the mouse...there's been some other odd edits over time, too, with whole things blanked and I know I didn't do it; makes me wondering if there's a "remora" riding on my Wiki account sometimes...i.e. someone or some bot that rides along, i.e. on my login, and does its own merry little games, no matter what -I- think I'm doing. I swear, all I did was re-spell "crystallizing".......Skookum1 20:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that in other edits of yours where it's been those 2 specific things: access date and ISBN. My guess is that it's some kind of program glitch with the automatic referencing. I've had weirdness with references in other ways, like if I manually type in the ref tag, it doesn't always work, so I have to click the ref tag button below instead. Maybe it's to do with the way you type, where you accidentally hit "alt" or "ctrl" in combination with some letter, or hit "enter" and another button at the same time that does something automatically; its too specific to be a manual operation, out of absent mindedness or whatever - even the most dedicated vandal wouldn't be that selective. Bobanny 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I posed the problem at the reference desk here; we'll see what they come up with. Bobanny 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

Oh I see - I try to make a point of not paying too much attention to all the kerfuffle that goes on in an AfD, but just look at the article and evaluate it fairly on my own. I wasn't too serious about joking, just trying to twist a phrase to say Well, this is a foregone conclusion. WilyD 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Devick Lake

Checked out the talk page. Good points, they make perfect sense even if Cowichan doesn't do it right. The business of communicating on talk pages makes me wonder. It is an odd way to communicate because it means bouncing back and forth to converse, without what you are replying to in view. There should be a convention that the whole conversation is on one talk page, say on the page that it starts on. Problem with that is that you don't get the announcement bar at the top of whatever page you are on when someone replies so maybe that is not the way to go. When using it on an article talk page, it works fine (except for the doughnuts that you seem to dig up so often :-)) But for user talk conversations, there needs to be a better way to converse. Oh well . . .. KenWalker | Talk 04:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vernon

I agree, changed it to high KenWalker | Talk 04:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessments for BC Project

Done, no more articles that are unassessed although as you have caught, they aren't perfect. see Category:Unassessed_British_Columbia_articles. By the way, maybe we should edit Template:BCproject/doc or better still Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_Columbia/Assessment with the details of the policitian assessments that you mentioned. KenWalker | Talk 05:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I keep on finding things that don't have templates or BC stubs or categories at all yet; I'd have to look at my user contributions to remember what, but there were even some today. Metlakatla, British Columbia was one for sure...a lot of User:TL789 and User:Terry harris's contributions (and Bill Poser's but I can't find his userlink right now and I gotta run 'til later) such as a lot of the Gitxsan and Tsmishian articles were without, there are certainly more in those categories, or linked off the main pages there.....(many are in need of proper catting, though they're all at least "start" in quality, as they're quite detailed, though written from an anthropologist's/linguist's perspective/source material context.Skookum1 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

10 Downing Street

Hi, I read you've been back and forth to Lillooet a fair bit and are somewhat the resident expert on such areas, among others. I was adding piles of communities to the BC communities list, yesterday and 10 Downing Street came to mind. I've seen it on maps, somewhere north of Pemberton and passed through on the train once a while back, and even fielded a phone call or two from there while working for the BC Govt. Do you know if anyone actually lives there, or if it is a worthwhile addition as a community, or any other category such as some kind of curios?--Keefer4 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have since been refreshed on the alternate name for this settlement -- "Gramsons".--Keefer4 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

FN categories

Please see Category talk:First Nations reserves in British Columbia. Not sure what scheme you've come with up since last May. Four category split seems good, but check discussion for specific ideas.--Keefer4 17:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion problem

A couple responses came up at the reference desk. Looks a little over my head computer-speak wise, but it sounds like it's most likely a software problem on your computer. You might wanna try Ad-Aware or some other anti-spyware program if you don't already use one (if your computer is sluggish, that's a sign of spyware, which might be the cause of the problem). It does look to be specific to ISBN #s and accessdates, and it likely doesn't always come to your attention when it happens, like this one on Vancouver that Mkdw and Carson Lam went back and fixed. Note that most articles don't use the reference tags, so it'll only seem to happen occasionally. I did check the Hollywood North article though, and it didn't seem a problem there. In the meantime, you might wanna check back after you edit an article that uses those tags. Cheers, Bobanny 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)