User talk:Themightyquill/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] TAbnet

To answer your question, no TABNet entry here because a) I'm not /making/ any new entries here (after the everything2 addiction debacle), only adding to / correcting existing ones (largely videogame related); b) everyone who cares about tabnet already knows about it -- my suspicion is that getting + keeping information about it up here would face stiff resistence; c) we have a tabnet wiki for that: http://wiki.tabnet.ca/wiki/index.php

PS, my user page should contain other information on better ways to contact me (that might incidentally give me a better idea who I'm talking to 8) Cheers. Pseudo Intellectual 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nahnebahwequa

:)! I'm not quite done yet. The actual references themselves need to be converted into a clearer format, too. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

Hi,

Please use edit summaries. Thank you. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Project article suggestions

I saw your query on the bottom of the talk page at the Indigenous project. What you do to add suggestions is modify the tables on the main project page; means you'll have to learn the code for the tables, which is simple enough; easiest thing to do is copy-paste one item as another and making the necessary text changes once pasted (figuring out how many lines of code that is, and where and how the symbols start and end). You'll get the hang of it easy enough, although there's always glitches in the learning process; if you get frustrated by a problem let me know, or put a comment on the edit for someone to help you.Skookum1 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:JapaneseCanadian-Confiscating-Boat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JapaneseCanadian-Confiscating-Boat.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CUSO

No problem. But as I explained in the article, the letters don't actually stand for anything now. Masalai 13:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration / Internment camps

I know you're going to get grief from your major reworking of concentration camps/ interrnment camps, but you have my support. It's far from perfect, but it's a huge step in the right direction. Mackerm 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Welecome

Thank very much for your appreciation on my work on the Ranke page; it is very nice to some thanks :). A.S. Brown 19:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BC School District

Thanks for your edit to Template:BC School District, I had avoided British Columbia in the title as it causes some ugly text wraps on some pages. I would suggest we put it on a line under the district name to avoid this. Ultimately I would like a small BC flag to tag this similar to the way the communities pages do. Wakemp 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Columbia School Districts

Common layout and format, your comments requested using Talk:School District 5 Southeast Kootenay as an example. Wakemp 16:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Roma people

Thanks for your edits to this article. Do you want to suggest merging the history and the timeline?Wachholder0 21:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chánov

It may be worth to move Rudolice nad Bílinou (official, practically unused name) to Chánov (widely known). As it is just a city part there are no constraints on naming.

It was originally Chánov but someone local moved it to the correct name so any change would require admin's help. Pavel Vozenilek 17:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happiest Barrack

OK, I agree with you that my "watering down" of the first sentence of the "Happiest Barrack" article was unnecessary. But please be assured that my changes were definitely NOT motivated by the wish to strengthen the already unbearable prejudicial anti-communist stance of the article but quite on the contrary ! You were perfectly right in claiming that the "Happiest Barrack" article is a "weird POV rant". I would go even further and say that it is completely dispensable. This article (especially its versions before your cleanup) smacks of the most primitive anti-communism and postulates a difference that - apart from some minor variation like in every other socialist country - did never exist. And that is the only reason why I am constantly trying to "water down" articles such as this one. So, my proposal is: either let's delete this ridiculous nonsense altogether or let me at least keep my other changes made yesterday (apart from the first sentence) that were actually quite reasonable. For example, your last sentence was simply a mistake: instead of "did involve themselves in politics" it should say "did not involve themselves in oppositional politics"... Those changes make the article at least a litle bit more "objective" (for whatever that means) - and, closing with the sentence I always use in such political discussions on Wikipedia: I don't dare beg for more !

Markus

Actually, I think a difference did exist. "Better" is arguable, but different is obvious. The Hungarian economy was really quite different from those of other countries in the bloc. In terms of individual freedoms, there was very little difference, but in other ways it was quite unique, particularly after 1968 and the New Economic Mechanism. I agree the article is weak, and if a decent article on the Kadar era ever pops up, it would make sense to forward this article there. You're right about the oppositional politics, but that wasn't my edit - that existed beforehand. I'll fix it. -- TheMightyQuill 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course, a difference did exist. But a "difference" in one way or the other existed in every socialist country. Not two countries of the so-called "bloc" were exactly alike in their economic and political structure and functioning. Hungary had its peculiarities. So had Czechoslovakia, so had the GDR (there, for instance, the "combines" had considerable autonomy from central planning authorities). Speaking as a communist myself, I would say, that this is due to the simple fact that socialism must find its own "variety" in every country and society and be implemented considering the historical and present national circumstances. And I fully agree that this posit was by far not always respected in the way it should have been. So, the fact that ALL socialist countries at one point of time or the other and in one way or another looked for their own special features and adjustments (which were, by the way, in most cases fully tolerated or even encouraged by the Soviet Union) was both natural and positive.
And what I consider to be of fundamental importance: The New Economic Mechanism was ONE (of several) varieties of managing a socialist economy, and therefore it was but an "adjustment", a "refinement" or - although I am not very fond of this term, because it is in itself highly ideological - a "reform". And as such it had its strong and weak points that can and should be discussed. I am actually quite sympathetic to Hungary without being uncritical.
The one socialist country that possessed a system that was - arguably - really basically and radically different was Yugoslavia with its idiosyncratic system of socialist self-management and a near "free market economy". Compared to this the Hungarian peculiarities were almost negligible.
Besides: the judgment of various forms of economic systems in socialist societies by Western commentators was and still is extremely tendentious and revealing. For example, Romania experienced economic reforms in the 1970s and early 80s that on some measures by far exceeded the adjustments made in Hungary (e.g. for quite a long time it had the most "liberal" foreign trade system and was together with Poland most open to "joint ventures"). As long as Romania and Ceausescu were courted and cuddled by the Western powers these "differences" figured in every textbook account of socialist economies. But when Romania began to lose its "special status" in the mid-80s, suddenly its presentation in Western commentaries changed, too: all of a sudden it was portrayed as a backward and hopelessly "Stalinist command economy".
It all boils down to the fact that one should not copy the one-sided and often extraordinarily badly researched and poor Western accounts. The West constantly tried to magnify the differences between socialist states (and also between different political figures inside one party and country) and to seed discord between them in every possible way. They even employed a full and prestigious pseudo-science, the "bloc watchers" , "marxologists" and "eastologists" to do so. With this they tried to gain advantages for themselves and, of course, to finally "kill the beast", in which, alas, they succeeded.
And what concerns the "personal freedoms": Well, at least we agree that the "differences" were very little. That suffices for me but as you can think my personal view of this problem is radically different.
Markus

I'm well aware of "bloc watchers." I spent most of today reading Radio Free Europe "situation reports" about the prague spring. They hoped for discord because they saw it as a crack in the wall that they could use to pry open. You're saying that there were differences between all countries, fine. I'm saying that, by Western or Soviet standards, Hungary was the country in the bloc with the internal economy that was furthest to the right. It wasn't a "bourgeois" economy, it was socialist, but it was was rightist, by any account. Western observers considered that a good measure of happiness, as they equate a free market with freedom/democracy/happiness, and Hungary had the freest market. -- TheMightyQuill 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Yugoslavia's market was definitely "freer". But Yugoslavia wasn't part of the "bloc", of course. Not to mention China since 1979...
2. Combining market forces with planning and a socialist economy isn't "rightist". And a fully cetrally planned economy isn't "leftist". "Plan" and "market" are two different devices for managing an economy, be it capitalist or socialist. Of course, a fully free market economy cannot be socialist and a certain amount of planning is essential but, you will agree, Hungary was by all means far from a free market economy.
3. To say otherwise would mean that the NEP of Lenin's times was extremely rightist. But, of course, this wasn't the case. And even Trotskyites normally do not dare bring forward such a claim.
4. As long as capitalist countries (and extremely powerful ones, at that !) still exist, every socialist country must - in one way or the other - "sleep with the dragon" and strive to cope with it. Otherwise they most likely would not be able to survive. The only alternative would be isolation but I don't think that this is a viable choice.
4. As I have written in my last comment, Western evaluations are ultimately irrelevant (at least as a basis for judgment). Apart from their overall political aims, they praised every country that opened possibilities for them to establish economic contacts and so in the last instance to make money . That they had to blend this greed for money with ideological concepts like "democracy", "freedom" and "happiness" is understandable but, of course, only cheap trumpery.
Markus

Western evaluations might be "ultimately irrelevant" from your point of view, but since wikipedia is attempting to be NPOV, articles about Western evaluations are legitimate. I think you'd be much better off using your obviously extensive knowledge to contribute to, say, the People's Republic of Hungary article than trying to water down the "Happiest barrack in the camp" article. -- TheMightyQuill 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand you are not especially interested in any further discussion (but thanks for your nice words).
Just one last point: Wikipedia "attempts" to be NPOV ? I allow myself the luxury of seriously doubting this assertion !
I may therefore forward you the following evaluation of Wikipedia's political and ideological pitfalls that I wrote several weeks ago on another user page:
In the end it all boils down to a fact that many people critical of Wikipedia have already noticed and deplored before: Wikipedia is a great idea but in most cases useful only if you look for information on topics that "no one cares about".
And to get even more general: All of Wikipedia's "rules" on things such as "objectivity", "neutrality" and "verifiability" are, of course, extremely questionable and ultimately illusionary. Beyond a certain point "objectivity" and "neutrality" become nothing but a chimera: for example, from the very first moment you start to interpret history, to mention some things but leave others out, to give "names" to "events" or to use "terms" and "concepts" that are per se highly "ideological" (and could never be any other way, like "democracy", "dictatorship", "free", "revolution" etc. etc.), you leave the space of a "neutral" and "objective" enumeration of "facts" (I doubt whether this is possible at all !) and step into nothing but the realm of per definitionem "political" and "ideological" evaluating, interpreting and reasoning. And it simply cannot be denied that on Wikipedia "neutral", "objective", "verifiable" and all those sublime concepts mean hardly anything else than "following the 'officially accepted', 'correct' Western (or Westernized) mainstream point of view as it is permanently presented in official science, the media, politics and so on" with a small spectrum of "tolerance" on both sides. Whenever there appear "deviations" from this trodden path of "mainstream correctness" they have little chance to "survive" long, get edited, deleted or branded with the label of "disputed neutrality".
Markus

[edit] Re:Thanks

Well there wasnt a page until you got around to creating it and I think its pretty important to having something on one of the most important Soviet (satellite) states. --Horses In The Sky 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.81.117.175

Thanks for checking out all the edits of 70.81.117.175, I've been following the edits of this user for a long time and I've gotten tired of trying to fix everything they do. Qutezuce 08:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit of ethnic stats on Richmond page

I saw you took out the table of ethnic percentages; and checked out the ref on the comment to the Canada page; I have a different point of view than the guys on that page about such stats; it's not a question of the structure of the breakdown being biased by an IP-address editor; it's that the stats are biased from the day they're generated by Census Canada; whose categories are defined by political obejctives and prevalent biases built into the public mindthink. The referred statscan page, for example, breaks down Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian and Filipino; but lumps all African-American, Caribbean/negrito, Africans (including Amharics such as Ethiopians who are not actually "black") as "black". Similarly, StatsCan's use of the term "visible minority" in Richmond is increasingly comical, given that EVERYBODY is a visible minority in a place like that. Also, as on the Vancouver and BC pages, the p.c.-derived "European" euphemism for "white" (a racist term) glosses over the many kinds of white minorities, and helps shore up the idea of an "old Canada" that was white and Anglo-Saxon; but even now there's huge "audible minorities" and while Scandinavians didn't need grouping together (unless all Slavs were, for instance) the point is that the Asians and other "political colours" here like to paint all white people as if they were the same, and they're very pointedly not; whether it's old-time BC families or the many newcomers from Eastern Europe; even American and British are "ethnicities" within the white population here; but only the Asians get country-specific designations; which to me is biased and favouritist (see Talk:Vancouver somewhere down the page; I never did return to that discussion for my rebuttal, though. Gotta go to work. See ya later.Skookum1 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second and Third International

HI! thanks for your comments! it actually wasn't much, but it does seem like we need to get the articles a bit more precise concerning the socialist movement. I've just added in the socialist movement the First, the Second, the Third & the Fourth International - surprisingly, only the actual social-democrat international was listed... 'see you around, cheers! Santa Sangre 17:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Tlingit

This is a nice idea. Thanks. — Jéioosh 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N'quat'qua

Hi. Noticed your removal of the First Nations category for this article; this is kind of a tricky one as there's a N'quat'qua First Nation, and the native name for the locality/community is N'quat'qua, but it also has a "white" name/community, i.e D'Arcy, for which there isn't an article yet. So while there's a series of N'quat'qua reserves (which would get the reserves cat), there's also a N'quat'qua band government which would be in the main First Nations cat; as they're not a subdivision of the Lillooet Tribal Council/St'at'imc Nation, despite being ethnically/culturally St'at'imc (actually they probably used the Stl'atl'imx spelling as St'at'imc is a spelling preferred by the LTC, not necessarily anyone else). Gets pretty complicated; there's "rogue" bands like this also within Nlaka'pamux, Shuswap, Carrier etc.; similarly the Chehalis First Nation, which is Sto:lo culturally, but not politically. Sigh; all very complicated to sort out; also see my notes on Talk:Cameron Bar 13, British Columbia.Skookum1 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sťáťimc

Similarly, although from a different angle, I'm not sure we should be using First Nations orthographic systems for the names of articles in English; there is no lateral fricative 't' in English, for example (which in St'at'imc orthography is /t'/ and in many others is usually /tl/ or /lh/ - the same /t'/ symbol is used in Grand Ronde Chinuk-wawa for a plosive t, for example). Someone weighed in on Talk:Sḵwxwú7mesh-ulh Uxwumixw recently, as this article had been renamed from Squamish Nation (which is now only a redirect) because the latter is "bastardized" and "colonialist", but Wiki standards call for the name most commonly used/familiar in English, rather than "pure" First Nations forms. The same issue has arisen at Talk:Kwakwaka'wakw and elsewhere; the attitude among ideologues seems to be that non-native culture should adopt the native names, even if they're largely unpronounceable, mostly unknown, and using orthographic systems which don't work like English and/or use letters that don't exist in English. Which includes the subscript-w in Sḵwxwú7mesh-ulh Uxwumixw and the accents and lateral-fricative t' in St'at'imc. The older quasi-English spelling of St'at'imc is Stl'atl'imx, which if you take the 'x' to be like in Spanish works out close to the proper pronunciation; the frontier-era spelling was Stlatliumh, but no one uses that anymore even though it's pretty close and much more obvious to English speakers (i.e. no 'x'); otherwise these people in English are much more commonly/traditionally are "the Lillooet", which even they continue to use (e.g. Lillooet Tribal Council); all a p.c.-minefield and it's constant across BC First Nations pages, i.e. appeasing political/cultural insecurities while still following Wiki guideliness. As for the St'at'imc category, I guess necessarily that includes non-LTC groups like N'quat'qua and In-SHUCK-ch, and will also include bios of various historical and perhaps current political figures (e.g. Saul Terry), as well as the various reserves and band govs and so on.....Skookum1 19:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Further reply on my talk page; would write more but have to get to an appointment.Skookum1 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for University of Richmond School of Law, Southwest Virginia Community College, and Playmania

I couldn't help but notice (given that they're on my watchlist) that you placed the sources template on each of these articles. Since I'm going to assume that you're not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, could you please let me know precisely what you believe is unsourced? I'm sure there is plenty that needs sourcing in the Playmania article, but the URSoL and SwVCC articles should pretty much all be sourced from the links already present. Erechtheus 09:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue of what is an acceptable citation format is one of those policy things I have been meaning to involve myself in. There seems to be little guidance I have run across. For now, I'm planning to remove those templates and rename "External links" references. If you feel something like a cleanup template or citation needed notes are necessary, feel free to add them. Erechtheus 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:1858 in Canada

Just noticed your addition of this to Fraser Canyon War; point of order is that BC was not part of Canada at the time. Does the cat definition encompass histories/events in regions that are Canada now?? If so, that's fine, or ?? Because if the broader definition applies, there's a host of articles that will need their year-cat that aren't obvious; I'm thinking for example of the Oregon Treaty, which was a British-American treaty and not involving Canada; but certainly intrinsic to the future of what is now Canada. Similarly there's a New Caledonia (Canada) article by that name, and that's a hard one to pin down unless the broader definition of Canada is applied for the time period in question (when that are WASN'T Canada, and wasn't even British Columbia). Fine if there was only one New Caledonia but since something had to be put in locational brackets I guess that's it; because NC wasn't part of Rupert's Land either. Category:British North America in 18xx maybe?Skookum1 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dene and NWT First Nations categories

I applaud your creation of a number of First Nations categories (Kaska, Tlingit, Dene, etc.), I certainly think they are useful. However, I wonder why you are removing the First Nations in Xprovince/territory? I think those are also useful and not all Dene are in the NWT and not all NWT First Nations consider themselves Dene (Cree & Gwich'in. Luigizanasi 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying sooner, but sleep and work interfered with Wikipedia. :-) Sorry, but I do think it's a problem. In my mind, a sub category is a subset of another, so putting, say, Category:Gwich'in in Category:First Nations in the Yukon and Category:First Nations in the Northwest Territories implies that the Gwich'in are a subset of these, which they are not. A number of articles in the Gwich'in category will have nothing to do with the NWT, and others will have nothing to do with the Yukon and others wil have nothing to do with the NWT. Plus some articles in the Gwichin category (e.g. Sahneuti and Vuntut Gwich'in First Nation) will end up in more than one sub of Category:First Nations in the Yukon, which violates the recommendation at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. I think the two sets of categories (XXX people) and (First Nations in XXX) are parallel and they intersect; but one is not a subset of the other. By removing the "Category:First Nation in XXX", it could lead to confusion. I don't like criticising another wikipedian's work, and I know you did quite a bit, and I applaud your creation of the new categories, but I don't think they are subsets of the older ones. Luigizanasi 04:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I did more poking around and I realize why you categorized the way you did. We need a parent category for each of the First Nations categories! The way things are structured now is that they go into country/state/province/territory categories, which leads to the problems I have pointed out. While I think these are good categories in of themselves —I did help in creating the structure after all — I don't believe they are appropriate as parents for the First Nations categories, since many (if not most) First Nations cross current political boundaries. I would think that a better set of parent categories could follow the following structure based on the Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas:

Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

  • Category:Indigenous peoples of North America (maybe?)
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Arctic
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Subarctic
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of California
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Eastern Woodlands
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Great Basin
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Plateau
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Northwest Coast
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Plains
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Southeast
    • Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Southwest
Then the Gwich'in & Dene categories would belong to Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Subarctic rather than the provincial/territorial categories. What do you think? Should we bring them up at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America?. Luigizanasi 07:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be wary of re-inventing the wheel: WikiProject:Indigenous peoples of North America/Working categories. And also always bear in mind that some tribal governments incorporate people from two different languages, sometimes from two different language groups, so cats based entirely on ethnolinguistic divisions do not necessarily work.Skookum1 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) PS this was just a quick note, sans my usual penchant for discussion, as I'm prepping to get away to the hills sometime today; by tomorrow afternoon I'll be riding around in the pine and sage and bunchgrass around Lillooet, whether by truck ATV or horse I don't really care. Be gone for a week.Skookum1 16:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reply on my talk page.Skookum1 23:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Okanagan people/language/culture category. I know there's not even an Okanagan people or Okanagan language article yet, but I'm in the works of writing an article on Chief Nicola and he's even more an Okanagan chief than he is a Shuswap one; not sure what other cats to put him into write now, but I'm primarily focussed on getting the article done (cribbing from Teit) before I go away to the mountains for a few days...so thought I'd ask you what other local-tribal cats for BC peoples you'd created; don't see a list on this page.Skookum1 00:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seton Portage - cat issue

I'm from there, plainly put. And Seton Portage is not only a St'at'imc community; likewise Shalalth. The relevant article for the St'at'imc in Seton and Shalalth is the Seton Lake First Nation, otherwise known as the Seton Band. If there were separate articles for Slosh, Nkiat and Spider Creek (the three native communities at the Portage) they should have the St'at'imc cat (Shalalth has two localities, Shalalth/Tsalalh and Ohin - pron oo-(ch)win), plus a new area above the Hydro townsite generally referred to as the Elders Complex, even though there are also non-elders there; it has no other name, not in English anyway). True, a major political blockade did take place here (more than one, actually, but inv) and lands at the Portage are central to the Lillooet Declaration, but the history and population of the Portage is not entirely native. Likewise with the unwritten D'Arcy article, which would be apposite to the existing N'quat'qua article, similarly with Port Douglas/Xa'xtsa (in fact, Xa'xtsa was always separate from Port Douglas proper, although the current band calls itself the Port Douglas Band - in English, that is). Similarly with Pavilion and Fountain, although I haven't gotten to those articles yet. It's different in the Lower Lillooet area, where pretty well Mount Currei and Skookumchuck Hot Springs are somewhat indistinguishable from Lil'wat and Skatin - on the other hand, there's a "white" Mt Currie and a non-native history there as well. Thing is using the model you've used here, then all of Williams Lake, Quesnel, Kamloops and other towns in the Cariboo-Shuswap should all have a Secwepemc cat, Kelowna and Penticton should have the Okanagan people cat (when it's created; NB no arricle on the Okanagan people yet), Lytton and Boston Bar should have the Nlaka'pamux cat - and Chilliwack, Mission, Port Coquitlam and so on should all have the Sto:lo cat. Kla'quot has also raised the issue of whether to use indigenous names/spellings or not; e.g. Squamish Nation vs Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw (or Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw due to article duplication using different orthographic preferences ... sigh. See my recent notes on Talk:Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw Let's put it this way, if you wanted to search for a First Nation, would you search for something like Squamish, or would you even know how to spell Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw?? Ever heard anybody in English use the latter? Skookum1 06:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man, that dish sounds good! Eggplant and walnuts!

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] RE:User talk:70.81.117.175

Maybe I was ignorant - I thought that this was a shared IP, and that such comments are unacceptable. We may not be able to attribute it to a specific author, and so I thought that we take a hard line against this racism. Its a matter of choice - and personal preference. Feel free to revert me. -- Chris Lester talk 09:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Northwest

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) 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I had to delete part of what you wrote there. I know it's not general WP policy, but I wanted to make sure that it doesn't get emotional again - precisely because you do have a point. The user you talked about was trying hard to stay civil in the summary, but as soon as he was attacked, he shot back. I really don't want that to happen in the new section. — Sebastian (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aboriginal universities and colleges

Well, when I see a good idea, I like to participate. I contributed all the other qualifying instututions within North Dakota when I saw your edit. Adding further is going to be a bit more work! --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the input

Thanks for the input on the Pacific Northwest discussion. Appreciated. --GREGorof → talk 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Romani Load Words

Hi. I see you've put some articles in this category - lollipop, posh, &c. Sadly many of the articles have not a word to say about the Romani origin, other than the categorisation. You might want to think about amending each article to note explicitly the origin. Meanwhile I've de-categorised Berwick upon Tweed since this is assuredly not of Romani origin. That it has a list of words some of which are, is not enough reason to place the whole town in the RLW cat. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

[edit] RE:Newfoundland Image

Yes, the image makes the article look better. But I don't own the article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overturning streambeds and potato and berry patches WAS relevant

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. The cite on this among many others, which I'll have to get a page number for, is in Irene Edwards' Short Portage to Lillooet and also in Lorraine Harris' Halfway to the Goldfields; in a rather embarrassing item about how people were amused to see the Indians chasing the Chinese off the streambeds. 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.

Cole Harris in his Resetttlement of British Columbia (or whatever it's called), 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).Skookum1 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demography of British Columbia??

Guess I'm here because we've been dialoguing just recently, but I just finished an opus on Talk:English-Canadian and its accompanying article and wanted your feedback on the article ideas; we don't have a BC Wikiproject going and I could have maybe put some of the new article content, and the draft-ramble on the talk page, into History of British Columbia, but it's specically an ethnic history (incomplete as I could also add stuff on the Hungarians in Revelstoke, the new Germans in the South Cariboo, the Italians in Revelstoke and Trail, the Doukhbours in the West Kootenay and Boundary Country, and so on) so I'm thinking Demography of British Columbia seems pretty necessary; but also, as raised somewhat in our other correspondence, History of British immigration to British Columbia; I'd almost put it "British society in British Columbia" or "British culture in British Columbia" but those phrases have other meanings. Anyway pls see Talk:English-Canadian as I'm not sure it's on your watch list but wanted your thoughts.Skookum1 10:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truro, Nova Scotia and Longueuil, Quebec

The statistics on ethnicity that you removed from Truro, Nova Scotia and Longueuil, Quebec appear to be from census figures compiled by Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca I don't think there's anything wrong in publishing these government statistics, and they offer some interesting insights into these communities. For example, the significant Asian population in Brossard, Quebec, a former borough of Longueuil, Quebec is a factor in the shopping, spending and voting patterns there. Similarly, the Truro area has a significant number of blacks and First Nations residents, but for historical reasons and because of lower average incomes, they are more likely than whites to live outside the town limits rather than in Truro itself. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "racially twisted" in your edit summaries? –Outriggr § 03:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada and Wars of the 20th Century

I could have sworn that the Iraq War and Afghanistan War are taking place in the 21st century, not the 20th Century. --M4-10 07:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Internment page changes

Saw your edits taking out the pastiche of US-related topics/issues which were overlain with the Canadian context; this is/was also a problem in the immigration page and the various chinatown pages and the cuisine page; transmutation of the US experience as if it were a North American standard; plus lots of the POV language that I refer to as "white bashing" or at least "invoking white guilt". I've got to make the point of getting up the hill (SFU; I live at the bottom on the Hastings side) to copy the Miyazaki book on the Relocation Centres, which were an entirely different story from Lemon Creek et al. The tar-paper shacks thing was true re Lemon Creek, Tashme and East Lillooet, maybe also Taylor Lake (can't find anything on the Japanese Canadian Council's own site on Taylor Lake, though, although it's in Miyazaki; near Princeton I think); but not New Denver, Sandon, Greenwood, Bridge River, McGillivray Falls or Minto City, where extant houses and buildings of various kinds were already there. Incredible generalizations are made right-and-left in all pages of this kind and it's often in this overlay of American contexts as if all of North America were the same; this is part of "my issue" with the way ethnically-biased history is written up, based on myths and revanchist storytelling; the vogue in describing all these as "concentration camps", as per a long discussion on the Tyee many months ago (in a forum attached to Rafe Mair's piece on his own family's involvement in the confiscations) is another example of the brow-beating stuff. Too much BC history has this "taint", and there's an obsession about talking about these things and nothing else, often citing the myths as facts, repeated so often they seem to be facts; one result is that many new British Columbians, be they from Eastern Canada, Europe or Asia, are under the impression that the only things that happened here were the internments, the Komagata Maru, and the various acts of discrimination against the Chinese (and, of course, the First Nations); it's as if nothing else matters to them, and likewise in academia. Approach a history department with an idea/topic for a thesis, even if it's on the budgets and politics for a particular road or other infrastructure project, and you'll be expected to focus on its ethnic, class and gender issues and nothing else. As far as the material you've edited out, it's the very kind of thing that gets me p'd off. I'll recuse myself from a lot of this in the next while but I wanted to sort of thank you for watching over it on pages like the Japanese Canadian internment one; my case as to what's missing on the Chinese immigration page I think is pretty clear enough now, despite my testy language. I've got similar issues on the Vancouver and BC demographics and history pages/sections, which need similar work and also a de-biasing away from the political/egotistical priorities of a certain ethnic context which now sees itself as the central point of local existence....'nuff said for tonight, other than I hope you like the further comments on the Talk:Vancouver page surveying various multiethnic events (and my point that the two mentioned so far are nowhere near as multicultural in flavour as others; more "forced biculturalism" to me, in the case of Gung Haggis Fat Choy and the Dragon Boats, that is. Finally, last night, even though I should have gone to bed, I managed to get some slashy hard-ass guitar jam played; if you like hard rock, or traditional/cowboy/hillbilly, send mean email via the wikilink for that off my userpage and I'll send you some to let you see where I take all this energy when I get non-verbal..."jungle punk" is the latest term I coined for it, otherwise "cowboy voodoo"; not quite the same without my vocals but the beats are fun, even if my guitar for some weird reason goes sharp while I hammer on it....Skookum1 08:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europe

All in all, yes, that is correct. You might also want to read Europe for more information on the extent of this continent.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Part of Russia, west of Urals" is just a rule of thumb, and very convenient one at that. Were the borders of Russia to change, it would, of course, no longer be as useful. I wasn't sure how much information you were seeking, so I chose not to overwhelm you with details :) Let me know if there is anything else I can do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on RM at First Republic of Czechoslovakia

You might want to vote on your RM at Talk:First Republic of Czechoslovakia. I'm not sure the nominator is always counted as a vote. —  AjaxSmack  04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of feminism

OK, on this occasion I am going to have to disagree with some of the changes, perhaps we can discuss. The whole feminism project is such a confusion of incomplete, overlapping and inconsistent pages, that I am trying to tie it all together with this page for now, hence the groupings of the links, as I check them all out. The fact that they may have been used within the page does not help for easy cross reference. I hope I am making sense? I am still discovering overlapping pages as I search for them. I see a big clean up ahead! --Mgoodyear 01:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all your points have been addressed for now. Obviously moving things around immediately introduces new discontinuities, as in the earlier discussion on the role of men - integrated or removed. --Mgoodyear 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
PS Probably it is the Navigation bar that needs fixing!--Mgoodyear 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No you re not annoying, but could you be much more specific about the 20thC so I know exactly what you are referring to! The list of people is the only way I can keep track of them all, continually cross reference them, and make sure the links are consistent. Technically they could be merged with the other list somebody made (but is tagged) and outsourced via the navbar (which I will move), but for the time being it easier where it is. It also helps with the theme, which is the enormous number of neglected women in history. By being alphabetic, I am sure it will direct a lot more traffic to those women's pages: - strictly it is 'mentioned' and have their own pages. Ultimately I would like to give them all pages, but if I do that now I will never finish this page. I am sure you recognise that literally hundreds of hours have gone into checking every fact and providing sources. Unverified 'facts' are discarded if I cannot find a source. The bits that are not mine, are lumped at the end (sexual politics, recent activities, Islamic feminism) and will be dealt with in due course. In parallel to the history is the task of maintaining historiographical integrity and interpretation. Thanks. --Mgoodyear 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Division of twentieth Century - I started down that route but rapidly ran out of subheadings - the Wiki format does not have many layers, so I redid it by splitting the century into 3 sections as the two previous centuries were, maybe I am missing something in wikitechnology. The reason there is a small 20th C section alone, is that I wanted to explain the rationale for trifurcating the century. I would be interested in how you would do it that would be neater. --Mgoodyear 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (Dalhousie University)
Re busting trees. It will probably be a lot easier to define appropriate trees once we have a 'final' structure. I have made it to 1971!--Mgoodyear 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for recent comments, as Lantoka84 well knows, this altercation seems to follow me everyhere I edit, like stalking. At least H of Fem has not had the high degree of sexist vandalism that the main article gets. --Mgoodyear 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am at my wits end - this person finally drove me off another project (brassiere), it was just not worth the time and effort, to be repeatedly attacked and told that none of my contribution were needed, and see them demolished. I might just give up on Wiki, pity. In the end the stars don't help. --Mgoodyear 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Its not a matter of skin, but history. I was advised by another experienced editor to stay away from this person, because any attempt I made to defend my position just increased the hostility. Let me give it a little break - actually I thought I was pretty convincing on the argument of continuity of movements!Mgoodyear 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC Legislature Raids issues

Hi Quill. I already asked Bobanny and Mkdw but when I saw your name just now I figured I might as well ask you to drop by Talk:BC Legislature Raids and its main article, which to me is so neutered as to be unintelligible, although I did put some proper stuff back in (only to have a new editor User:IWin4U take it out); rest explained in my various talk page comments; I've given the article a "high" rating in the BC Wikiproject and think we should keep a close POV watch etc.Skookum1 05:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skookum1

It looks like our friend User:Skookum1, who made all those colourful soapboxing remarks about Chinese people in Canada on various Talk pages, has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats[1][2]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of HongQiGong, he's just gone and vandalized material again I'd restored that he'd deleted/vandalized while I was blocked; as soon as he was unblocked for 3RR for something else. Pls see [my complaint to Mkdw] and also a similar comment on User talk:Bobanny; hadn't thought of you re this but came across your name and the old argument about this page while looking for something fropm Bobanny on my talk page; as I'm not into a big edit war right now I'm not going to try and work on the article Hong clearly feels is "his own", but Hong didn't even give me time to dig out the cites today before deleting it as soon as he could (for the fourth or fifth time, if we count last spring....). I got my copy of Akriggs' BC Chronicle back just recently (which is why a lot of BC history articles in general I've written didn't get their cites; it was on loan to http://www.fortlangley.ca who's a friend of mine); the claim-jumping thing he doesn't like is in E. Edwards Short Portage to Lillooet, L. Harris Lillooet:Halfway to the Goldfields, and in B. Barlee and G. Basque and various other BC historians; including Ormsby and Hauka and others, as I recall (I have Morton here); Douglas admonishing American miners to not disabuse Chinese miners and that Chinese miners were protected is a well-known part of colonial history. For those that bother to read it directly, instead out of ethnic-organization pamphleteering, that is....Skookum1 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need cat for Okanagan people (Syilx)

Hi; funny to see the just-above again; I've been busy fighting the "Battle of Bornmann" (we won, after I was unblocked that is) and otherwise creating articles'n'other stuff willy-nilly since. One of the new articles, which I finally got tired of waiting for a specialist to write, is Okanagan people (still pending Okanagan language, which I guess I could just "stub" and wait for a linguist to come by....). I'm about to stub-up the various band governments and there will be various people articles and history articles to go with this, so noting that it was you who created the BC First Nations categories - St'at'imc, Secwepemc, Sto:lo, Nuxalk, etc. - could you please make one for the Okanagan people.....it would have to be maybe Category:Syilx as Category:Okanagan which doesn't exist (but easily could/should) would be for the region of the same name, or people would think it was anyway. I don't know how tricky it is to create cats or I'd do it myself (I already got tripped up trying to make stubs...) so thought it best to fly it by you as you made the St'at'imc one (the first one I looked up) - which is hard to type, by the way, because of the special characters; or would Category:St'at'imc automatically forward/redirect to the accented/special character one....there's a side issue with that name in particular, because the old preferred form is Stl'atl'imx, still in use by the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police, and more in line with quasi-English spelling conventions, despite the -x ending, but that's a different matter; an unaccented form - either St'at'imc or Stl'atl'imx - would be more in line with Wiki naming conventions IMO; same problem with Sto:lo and I'll wager that with the rate User:OldManRivers is expanding coverage of the Squamish people, a Category:Sxwxu7mesh category will be needed shortly also (not sure I spelled that right, though; see Squamish Nation for correct form).Skookum1 04:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll write the language stub, the band/government stubs and such today, just to make sure it's "populated"; it also goes on Nicola (chief) as he was primarily an Okanagan chief who wound up with Shuswap and Thompson "subjects" (our concept of chiefdom is kinda foreign), and there's a number of modern political bios that will go in it; the Westbank First Nation especially, which like the Squamish are big-time in the business end of things. Come to think of it Inkmip Wineries I should stub up pronto (not spelling that right; what we used to write as Inkameep, down by Oliver). If you get anyone grousing about it, tell 'em it was requested as stuff in Wiki on the Okanagans has been a BIG blankspot on Wikidom's coverage of BC First Nations and the guy who requested it (who's not Syilx, for sure...whiter than white in fact) was concerned articles he's stubbing/writing wouldn't have a cat to be put into; also it's an equal-time thing for a "major BC First Nation" and Native American group, though there are no equivalent cats that I know of for the Nez Perce or Shoshone (?). BTW looking at my previous post to you above there, I think you can see the problem with using special characters in "nativized" spellings - anyone who wants to use the Category:St'at'imc is going to have to copy-paste from another page to get those characters right; might as well have named a category in Polish or Czech alphabets. See Sxwxu7mesh Uxwuimixw for a mini-k-followed-by-dot that Squamish orthography uses, plus that '7' thing (glottal stop; usually written with a period-less questionmark; the '7' is sort of shorthand for it). My take on it: use anglicized spellings for cat names - Sto:lo, Stl'atl'imx/St'at'imc and Nuxalk are the ones that pop to mind, but I suspect there are others out there; change not needed for Nlaka'pamux and Secwepemc....one reason being that their ortographers/linguists decided to use alphabets their own people recognized, never mind sama7 (St'at'imc word for honkies, pron. SHAma with the "a" like in "cat").Skookum1 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
PS if it needs defending, the talkpage at the Indigenous peoples WikiProject is somewhere to look for support; User:Phaedriel is a highly-respected admin, although she's on preggers break right now (urchin should be just about a-hatchin' right about now) but I know she'd even just appreciate the existence of the First Nations cats; and she'd see the point in this one (she's from Oklahoma or Nebraska or down that way).Skookum1 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stó:lô vs Stó:lō

OK, that's fine; just struck me as odd because the Stó:lō article, which I based Stó:lō Nation article spelling on, uses the barred-o, not a circumflex-o like the template does. Sigh. It's one reason my contention why using non-standard characters, especially diacriticals, just complicates thing and, as came up from someone else re Talk:Squamish Nation and its siblings, this is an English-language encyclopedia, despite the currency of nativized spellings in BC English they're completely unfamiliar to people "beyond the mountains" and even "inside the mountains". Had a similar problem come up when I created 'Namgis First Nation, which needs a ifferent apostrophe thingy than the one I've used there (that's a redirect so it'll work, but the page it goes to uses the correct version) and didn't understand at first why it didn't work. Anyway, Stó:lô vs Stó:lō, it don't matter to me; but I think that Sto:lo (which also works, as it's also a redirect, although now that I think about it Sto:lo Nation needs to made, too...as a redirect) would have kept things simple; even if the colon as a consonant (glottal stop?) isn't part of English either. BTW see User talk:Kurieeto about some questions issues with {{Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council}}, which should be (if anything) {{tl:Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council}}- User:OldManRivers thinks the templates should be built around ethnicities anyway, rather than around tribal councils, which like band governments are creations of the Indian Act; the biggest problem being {{tl:First Nations on Vancouver Island}} (see talkpage notes on it; it includes Kwakwaka'wakw peoples who are not on the Island, but are part of the Kwakiutl District Council, and omits other Kwakwaka'wakw peoples who are also not on the Island, but are not part of the Kwakiutl District Council; they're in the Johnstone Strait/Discovery Islands area (Mamalilaqula is the first one I noticed "missing" but there's others). And using the tribal councils as the defining parameters of the templates mean that some bands which don't belong to tribal councils aren't there at all. Anyway, I just finished fleshing out stubs for all of the Nuu-chah-nulth, the KDC Kwakwaka'wakw, all Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc, all Okanagan, and was about to do Sto:lo and Ktunaxa when I kind of burned out; but there's a lot more FN government stubs in the system now, at least, than there were before. See notes on Talk:Stó:lō about the Indigenous peoples WikiProject formula for the types of articles needed so all the categories stay (more or less) straight. I'm gonna go back to ghost towns and mountains and maps for a while.....Skookum1 08:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW I just checked, and http://www.stolonation.bc.ca/ uses, on its splash intropage, an accent on the first 'o', and none on the second; the next page has no accents at all. Other pages on other sites of different Sto:lo organizations all seem to vary. Seems even more complicated than the St'at'imc case (i.e. vs Stl'atl'imx which is old "official" orthography, vs the new one, and vs Stlatliumh, which isn't used any more but is the closest intelligible anglicization I've seen; but because it's anglicized it's not acceptable (it was the standard in 19th C-early 20th C when not saying "Lillooet", which though it was the Stl'atl'imx's idea is now considered an anglicization. (see Lillooet as to why they chose to use Lillooet on the upper Fraser, which formerly referred only to the Lil'wat on the Lillooet River...(and not to the bands now incorporated as the In-SHUCK-ch in the same area...). Anyway, I just created a few Sto:lo Nation redirects because of all this; it makes me wonder how many more we might want to make up, given the different possibilities people might try; the archaic "anglicized" form is Stalo or Staulo, by the way (Stalo shows up in the Kamloops Wawa version of the Chinook Jargon, although you have to read the shorthand to be able to read it....) Skookum1 08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, true about the copy paste....but we could at least have consistency in the diacritical format for Sto:lo within Wikipedia; i.e. the usage in the template could at least conform to the usage on the title of the main Sto:lo pages (I'm too lazy to cut-and-paste here...I just got up, but even if I hadn't, always having to hunt-and-peck....). Anyway, the main issue is that whatever usage there is for any of these (see where Skxwxu7mesh has been heading with that miniscript 'k') it should be stdandardized beteen articles, templates etc. I think there's going to be some other things like this rear their head; e.g. for the dialect variation-names in Halqemeylem (damn, I can't remember if that's the collective for all threee, or if it's Halkomelem; it's the downriver and straits variants that have some odd characters in "orthographically correct" spellings...). And I never have liked having to use accents on Quebec and Montreal, which work fine (or did) in English without them before the "colonization of English" began in recent decadeS (and really only in Canada, not in the US, the UK or Oz).Skookum1 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And just to note the St'at'imc page is titled without diacriticals, while the category uses Category:Sťáťimc; this is an example of the inconsistency I was talking about just as a Wiki issue, never mind my objections to expecting foreign spellings to be expected in English documents; this only happens with Sťáťimc and with Stó:lō and with the accent on Nuxálk (if that's the right accent; I got it from the Wiki character-set below the edit window), and marginally in some marks used in Kwak'wala (potentially even that mid-word apostrophe....); no other native languages in BC have this problem with special-characters vs. English character-sets. It's like asking "us", in my view, to use Cyrllic or Devanagari to write Russian and Indian (India) placenames/languages/words in. Something the linguistics-politico types launched on these peoples, in my view; Secwepemc and Nlaka'pamux languages have the same range as sounds as the Stl'atl'imx language - and that older spelling uses the same orthographic system that Secwepemc, Nlaka'pamux and Syilx languages all use - so there's no reason to have made the change; fine, if writing IN that language, but expecting English to conform to a completely different spelling system/character-set. We might as well write it up in hanji or katakana. One bit of historical/cultural background to why Sťáťimcets decided to go in the direction it did - see Nicola (chief) and you'll understand why "being like" the Secwepemc, Nlaka'pamux and Syilx isn't that savoury (even now) for some Sťáťimc. Stl'atl'imx, St'at'imc, Stlatliumh....yikes; (the tribal police, as noted elsewhere, have kept with the -x spelling, which at least we're half familiar with being /h/ because of the "jota" in Spanish). All this by way of aside, just curious about the consistency between titles and cat titles....and also proposing that "core" articles such as Sťáťimc, Stó:lō, Nuu-chah-nulth - the "ethno" core articles - carry their own category as well as the parent category, Category:First Nations in British Columbia; I just mistakenly re-added that to the bottom of the Sťáťimc article, then realized my mistake according to "normal" rules where the parent category is redundant; it's just that there's only the one cat at the bottom of the page otherwise....not that there has to be, I guess....anyway, morning-coffee thoughts; and I just found out there's something going on up in Gitksan territory (that redirects to Gitxsan language, while Gitxsan forwards to (nope, it goes to Gitksan language, which goes to Gitxsan language; something redirects to Gitxsan Nation (which is written up as a micronation with little reference to other BC articles....), and I know somewhere there's a much fuller-content Gitksan people article - that may be it, I'm not sure (no, that's not it...) - and a lot of Gitksan-related articles; none of which are connected to the two you'll get to via Gitksan or Gitxsan....I was going to suggest a cat for these, but let me establish how many articles there are first; and whether it should be Category:Gitksan or Category:Gitxsan.....again, different spelling systems...but at least no diacriticals....Skookum1 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] summaries

Hi!

Sorry but I haven't to much time... I work hard (for more information about me, please see my Wiki). Thanks for your caution, i don't forget it. :-) --193.6.138.71 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prague spring

I like the way that you did this now, with the references, it is better Pernambuco 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry about this, i answered on my own talk page, but I just said that if we need the page numbers later I have already saved them just in case Pernambuco 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for explaining about the History, I knew that part, I had just forgotten it was there, it was a bit silly to save it to my hard drive, but now I have it, in either case Pernambuco 16:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template: Canada History

Thanks. There are more templates in the works! Kevlar67 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts on something

Hi; please see Wars/conflicts without names on the List of conflicts in Canada talkpage.Skookum1 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L-G issues

Please see Talk:List of Lieutenant-Governors of British Columbia. Consulting yourself, KenWalker, Fishhead64, Bobanny, not sure who else is suitable (Mkdw and Ckatz?) about the issues raised there; my main problem is the inclusion of the colonial governors with the provincial L-Gs, although the earlier thing about the plural form is still somewhat of a concern for me...but then, I am a traditionalist with this sort of thing...which is "part of our distinctiveness" IMO...thinking also of a section on the more prominent/powerful role of the L-Gs in earlier times, especially in the pre-party era.....Skookum1 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicomekl

Interesting stuff on the Nicomekl people, good to see stuff like that being added!--Keefer4 10:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kgeza67

Could be. You should probably ask Jayjg, he's the one with CheckUser. Khoikhoi 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First nations

Thanks again. Kevlar67 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added comment on gin

I added a comment to the gin talk page. Philvarner 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the fix to Rob Roy on the Vermouth cocktails page. Philvarner 06:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communities

I didn't "depopulate" anything; I corrected several communities which were in the wrong category. Only municipalities that are legally incorporated as towns belong in Category:Towns in British Columbia; only municipalities that are legally incorporated as villages belong in Category:Villages in British Columbia. Any "town" or "village" which is unincorporated belongs in either "communities" or "unincorporated settlements", not in "towns" or "villages". We categorize these things by their legal status, not by people's own personal meanings of town or village. Bearcat 08:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*laugh* Actually, what really happened with Ymir is that I got the category name wrong (I typed in "unincorporated communities" instead of "unincorporated settlements"), so I got a redlink. So I got confused and just changed it to "communities". Bearcat 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, categories aren't as easily moved as articles — the only options, really, are to either manually change all the category links yourself or to list it on CFR. I'll do the latter — it normally stays there for 48 hours before the move takes place. But needless to say, I sure don't wanna do all that work manually, and I'm pretty sure you don't, either. Bearcat 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I compared everything to the list of members at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. The BC Geographical Index is definitely helpful, though. Bearcat 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Azertis.jpg

I am taking the image off my watchlist for now. Frankly, I haven't the time nor the energy to care: I have 600 other pages on my watchlist and a heck of a schedule in real life. If I come across this image again, I may or may not make a fuss again. Cheers, Iamunknown 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Roma people and census

Hi. I saw the talkpage but there is no reliable source that has been given to prove that 2 mil is ultimately the maximum in Romania. In all the other cases that I have seen (and I have been contributing to wikipedia for quite some time), census data are used exclusively. All the sources that you have provided are saying "it is thought that there may be as many as 1 mil-2 mil people" but they don't say HOW it is thought that the maximum number of Roma in Romania is 1 mil or 2 mil? If a reliable source like a poll or a census could be provided then by all means, the numbers should be changed. But until only secondary sources are given that think that maybe there might be 1 or 2 million have no place in wikipedia. Dapiks 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, likewise I think you should wait as well before reverting me. The reason why I am against the other number is because it is totally made-up. There has been no reliable data to prove it. And yes, research has been made on the real number and it did show up to be larger then the 500.000 counted in the census (I just haven't found it yet and if you do want to help me find this document then by all means i think you should). I just don't think that this sort of sites should be given as "works cited". In wikipedia there is an agreement that official census data is used above all other secondary sources. This standard is applied in all ethnic-related articles and roma people are no different. Again, if you want to help me find the published research work that i mentioned earlier, then we can change the numbers, not before. World Bank is a secondary source and by no means can it be compared to the data given by an organized census. Dapiks 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, I am sorry but Roma people ARE no different. The fact that they dont even have ID has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Actually this goes against your argument since a lack of ID (such as a birth-certificate) means that they are not citizens of the state, hence they are not legally living in Romania, thus they could NOT possibly count in the census. Secondly, YES census data does take precidence - please try to inform yourself concerning this little detail. Thirdly, could you please send me a weblink to that source you provided? Thanks. Dapiks 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Please read this carefully. I found it in the link you send me:

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians."

Interpreting the Romanian census as not valid, by posting another source, would mean "original research". Census data should be left alone. Also notice how it says "reliable scholars" - all the sites you have presented do not show the reliable scholar that has come up with the 2 mil. figure.Dapiks 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Please, allow me to make myself clear. I do not have a problem with the number per se. Or with the fact that the census may undercount the real number of Rroma people. In fact, I agree with you that they might be more. My problem is with the manner in which this number is presented as if it is just as good as the reliable census data, which even if it undercounts them it is still more reliable then what this and that bank think.
Secondly, I think even the Rroma organizations would agree that the censors did not force people to "not declare themselves as Rroma". People were free to declare themselves as they wished. If they wanted to say they are "hungarians" or "romanians" then that is their right. Ultimately, people can choose their ethnic identity and there is no evidence that this is not what they did in the 2002 census. For this reason the Romanian census, albeit not perfect is the best representation so far. If you want to put another number there side-by-side then a reliable scholarly article based on reliable research should be given as a works cited. Thanks. Dapiks 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


But the world bank does not show the base for its findings. It did not conduct a research to find the real number. If you go back to the link you send me about "secondary sources" you will see that it clearly states that reliable scholarly articles should be used, not some random data even if it does come from a known institution. The world bank, most likely, based its number on that pushed by Rroma organizations which I think even you would agree cannot be taken to be reliable. Why won't you help me find the article that I was talking about which is based on scholarly research and a parallel census which determines a more realistic number of Rroma?Dapiks 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Look, first of all, a census no matter how bad it may be according to some, still gives the best possible data concerning a population. Secondly, people were free to state if they were Rroma or not. Only 535.000 did. Whether more ARE actually Roma or not is not the business of wikipedia. The census says 535.000 only. If you can find an alternative poll or some kind of similar scholarly research that says otherwise, please show it to me, and I will be the first one to change the numbers. Otherwise, please wait until a more reliable ref. can be provided.Dapiks 05:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


You are really missing the point. You are saying that some other source is more important then an official census. Which in wikipedia is not. Take a look at other ethnic articles and you will find out that census data is always used exclusively. Dapiks 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Look, I know that this census does have its shortcommings when its comes to the Rroma minority but thats because people were free to declare their ethnicity and some just decided not say "I'm gypsy" but declared their ethnicity to be: "Romanian" or "Hungarian" instead. If you want to we can open this up for discussion on the talk-page and see what people think. I think this issue goes a little beyond just us two. Cheers. Dapiks 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, thanks

It was really kind of you to follow up with that discussion on the indigeneity of Palestinians with me and concede the point so civilly. In light of my experiences over the past couple of days, it really means a lot. Thanks. Tiamut 01:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask you a question? You seem to edit a lot of indigenous peoples pages. Is there a forum or project or portal that I can join? More trivially, are there user boxes? :) Thanks. Tiamut 01:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Food for thought. Say, would you mind checking out Indigenous peoples and Lists of indigenous peoples. There is a guy there who keeps reverting my addition of Palestinians, disputing the source (the UN!). I would appreciate your input there. Tiamut 02:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) There an RfC now at [3]. Tiamut
Hi there. I'm a little surprised by your comments at the discussion at the RfC. The Dana Declaration cited there is a report from the UN Working Group on "Mobile Indigenous Peoples", and Palestinians are listed as participants. I'm not sure why you only described them "mobile" and excluded "indigenous" in your comments. Also, The Future Vision document [4] produced by Palestinians with Israeli citizensship clearly states that they self-identify as an indigenous people for which they are seeking official recognition by the Israeli government. From your comments on my talk page, I thought that self-identification and UN identification were sufficient to establish indigeneity. What changed your mind? Tiamut 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) As a Palestinian myself, I have worked to support indigenous rights on Turtle Island, in particular with the Anishanabe (or Obijway) people of the Six Nations in Grassy Narrows (there is a blockade there to protect their ancestral lands from logging by Abitibi Inc. This is not some abstract intellectual debate or about scoring political points. It's an issue of identity. My solidarity with other indigenous groups stems largely from my and my people's identification as such. With respect. Tiamut 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to apologize (unless you feel that your opinion is somehow wrong - in which case I accept :) just kidding. anyway, i added a bunch of other stuff to the RfC and had a wonderful discussion with other editors on what can and cannot qualify for the article. I think we have reached a reasonable compromise for now. Check it out and let me know what you think. I am holding off on inserting the material until I get more feedback out of respect for people's sensitivities to the issue and its potential for disruption. But there is a great exchange there that I also found very valuable and enriching to my understanding of the issues. Thanks for your reflection and communication on this issue. respect. Tiamut 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think you I will accept your apology now, but for something else. For equating my behaviour at the talk page with that of Isarig's in your edit summary for that page. If you read the discussion again, you will notice that I did my utmost to diffuse the situation while defending my point. I have already compromised so much in order to achieve some kind of consensus, have researched and written on this subject for hours, engaged in extensive patient discussion. In contrast, Isarig has made a series of personal attacks, followed by some random links to articles that support his POV but don't in any way respond to the criteria listed at the page. I have been more than respectful thus far. And my reward? Not only do you not support my very reasonable position (you are totally entitled to that - and I wouldn't be upset if that was the case) but you write something like "could you both please calm down", as though there is some kind of equivalence to our behaviour. I am really, truly disappointed. Tiamut 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand how neutrality in approach when attempting to mediate is preferred. I suppose I am sensitive right now to other editors' opinions about me because of a bunch of stuff that has been going on over the last week here at Wikipedia, which I am sure you noticed on my user page. I deeply appreciate your explanation. Thank you. Tiamut 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind responding to this question on the talk page at List of indigenous peoples: "How can you claim that the UN serves as a WP:RS for the inclusion of Bedouins in the List of Indigenous Peoples, but not a WP:RS on how we should list Bedouins in this article?" Thanks. Tiamut 12:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Rv's

When you rv, you ONLY rv when the edit was NO GOOD. There was a good Change that you rved.100110100 06:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Weakerthans

Did you miss the part about how 3/4's of the Weakerthans (i.e. everyone who isn't John K. Samson) were the backing band on Graffin's most recent solo album? (*grin*) Bearcat 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a really good album. Good point about Christine Fellows; she's probably worth adding there too. I don't know why I didn't think of that. Bearcat 05:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Req cat for Tsilhqot'in

Hi; seem to recall it was you who whipped up the Syilx category; can I plese ask you to make Category:Tsilhqot'in in the same hierarchy? There's enough articles now, and likely to be more at some point (certain environmental and landuse issues, e.g. Brittany Triangle); and at some point, once we figured out its rationalization, if ever, there might be Category:Chilcotin; but that's that whole debate about how to subdivide BC by region; the Chilcotin's just such an obvious one, with fairly clear boundaries and also an identity, and so easy to define also, unlike some others; Category:Cariboo is, too, although at its most "imperial" application it touches, at least, on Kamloops, and Lillooet historically is considered Cariboo, and also Cache Creek-Ashcroft and sometimes Lytton-Spences Bridge (but not often), and also Kamloops and so implicitly (you'd think) Barriere and Clearwater (but not; they're North Thompson); myself Kamloops is almost a "country" of its own - the Kamloops Country - but that has no clear boundary and it's by default "Thompson" (if we ever catted that it would have to be Category:Thompson Country for obvious reasons (if not, Category:Thompson either exists or is unworkable as a cat name, even with proper hierarchy location). Anyway, for now it's only the FN ones that are needed, for now Category:Tsilhqot'in and perhaps if it's not there already Category:Ktunaxa if that doesn't exist already. There's an issue with overlap/hierarchy with Category:Dakelh and Category:Wet'suwet'en by the way; see the main articles and those connected to them in each of those cats as to why; "Carrier" is the collective for both of them, but some who are Carrier are not Dakelh; and also not Wet'su-we'ten, if I remember rightly.Skookum1 06:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Llenlleney'ten vs High Bar First Nation

Hi. The reason why I maintained the separate links is because of the delineation between people/ethnocultural articles and government/organizational ones. In this case what User:Oldmanrivers would call the Indian Act Government has a traditional communal name - "people of Llenlleney", whatever "Llenlleney" is; same as the /-'tin/ ending in Tsilhqot'in and Wet'suwet'en, and etymologically as I guess you realize identical with "Dene" in meaning and ultimate origin. So Llenlleney'ten is to be for a separate article on the history of the community and its culture and so on - and it is distinct and unusual, being part-Tsilhqot'in in identity; you'll note that certain others have dual categories, obviously Carrier Chilcotin Tribal Council for instance. The standard parallel now is between Skwxwu7mesh and Squamish Nation. High Bar First Nation should be the article about the band government, its programs, history of the reserve's founding and its current and historical members and councillors and chiefs, its modern economy and situation; Llenlleney'ten for an article on its culture. They're in the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council]] (or the Northern Shuswap Tribal Council but like the Alkali Lake First Nation, also dual in ethnicity and history but totally unaffiliated, and historically long separate "politically" from the rest of the Secwepemc because of their kinship with the Tshilhqot'in. I'll have to see what I can find to make Llenlleney'ten, as they're obscure; similar name-parallels can be found in {{Secwepemc First Nations}}; a modified version of that for {{Secwepemc peoples}} would be just the Secwepemctsin names for the people; care being taken to use the term for the people, not the placename sometimes; Llenlleney'ten is a people-name, not a place-name; High Bar, even outside its Indian Act creation, is a placename; there's also Low Bar, where one of the cable ferries is. Fascinating country, never been in there but know guys who rode horse in that Chilcotin-Yalakom-FraserCanyon-Marble Range for six or seven months once, came to High Bar - meeting the only people they'd seen in three months other than the occasional 4x party in the high alpine of the West Fraser - to cross the river. The High Bar First Nation, as a government body, operates the ferry, as far as I know; it's not a BC Department of Highways ferry, or forestry, unless it's subsidized through forestry or agriculture if not Indian Affairs; not sure about Lytton, but I'm pretty sure that's DoH, likewise the Boston Bar-North Bend Bridge. Sorry for the ramble, just trying to get the point across about Llenlleney'ten vs High Bar First Nation.Skookum1 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "not just a gov"

Well, fine, but now that you've changed "people" to government, there's no mention of the band government by that name, and the cats are all wrong; and you're editing this stuff in defiance of what has been explained to you as the working parameter for such articles. What gives? If you want to hold to the "not just a government" argument then you have to turn something like Alexandria First Nation into a disambig page, because on the one hand the phrase is the official name of the band, on the other it's the p.c.-ism for the Alexandria Indians as an ethnic group. The people are NOT the government, and "First Nation" has many meanings and contexts; because it - First Nation/ Nation - happens to be in primary use by governments, and there are formal organizations using the name, then the articles by that name are about the governments; for First Nation-as-a-people, the format "NAME people" is standard in Wikipedia (or NAME (tribe) or NAME (people)). It's clumsy, it's awkward, but it's gotta be done. Please reverse your unnecessary changes to the articles; if you want there to be a people article, start one using the aboriginal-name available in the templates or their respective websites. Same paradigm as Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish Nation. If I don't see the intro paragraphs changed back, or suitably amended, in the next few hours I'll make the change back; but I don't see given the points of information I took the time to write up for you last night why you're doing what amounts to hostile edits. Skookum1 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A "people" does not have a chief or councillors, nor subagencies such as education authorities. A government does. AGAIN - there are to be, and in many cases are, separate articles about the people vs the article about the government, and the reason is that people and government can NOT be equated, especially in situations like multiethnic reserves but also for political reasons, as I tried to explain to you re Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation. A clear distinction has to be made, either at practical level or at a political level, and OldManRivers' feelings about Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation should tell you why.Skookum1 18:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If not, see Talk:Stewart Phillip as to why there are sensitivities about equating the name of a band government with the ethnological name of a people.Skookum1 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pls compare cats and content at Ulkatcho First Nation vs Ulkatchot’en, which I just created after undoing your changes to Ulkatcho First Nation. There are LOTS of reasons why this should be this way, and from what I know there's also likely to be Ulkatcho language, which is a dialect of Dakelh, and there's ethnographic history concerning the Ulkatchos that differs from other Carrier (for one, they get along with the Thilhqot'in...). Among these reasons, Wiki-organization-wise, is the distinction between what's in {{tl|Carrier Chilcotin Tribal Council]] vs what's going to be in {{tl:Carrier peoples}}, once I make it. One is the hierarchy of band govenrments/tribal councils, the other is in the ethnolinguistic hierarchy. And there IS a difference.Skookum1 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we call it Canada Second Nation? (Well, it's actually like Canada Fifth Nation, or something up there). Canadian Second Nations? I'm not sure if that makes any sense. For organization, it makes since to put all the government pages seperatly from the ethnic pages. Band Councils, Tribal Government and other institutions of that nature are all very different from the ethnic background and history, culture, and society. We haven't made a straight template on how to do these Indigenous-ethno-nonindianact pages yet, but it's coming. And it hasn't been done across the board, but there are a lot of peoples and bands in BC. I belief 198 Indian Act Band Council government in BC alone. But how many languages and ethnic people are there? Indian, First Nations, Indigenous, Aboriginal are all words to pan-nation. Each of these people were nations on their prior to contact. (I'm pretty sure you know this.) So, with respect to these peoples histories, cultures, distinction, and difference from other people, nations, tribes, or what ever English word you want to put for them. The biggest example is probably Squamish Nation vs Skwxwu7mesh, and that is mostly because of me, but we're doing it across the board and Skookum1 has been helping me with that. I appologize if I come across as snooty or arrogant, I really don't mean to. Just passionate about accurate writings about my peoples, and my brothers and sisters people. OldManRivers 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, your perspective was anticipated, and was one reason I chose to try and make the XXX First Nation format the default for the "legally-constituted" (under illegal Canadian laws...) band governments/tribal councils; which mirror traditional society, but as legal structures ahve those as their DBA (doing business as) names; on their letterhead, in other words, like a corporation, which is sort of what they are, like a muni only federally chartered and a lot less autonomous (until lately maybe). So I figured since so many bands use XXX First Nation to mean the band government (as much as also the people themelves, granted, except that as you note we don't say "Canadian Second Nation" - which would be the French, although they like to think of themselves as first, which is sorta why the whole First Nation thing came along in the first place; as retort to the "two founding nations" mytnology of the English and French...it was all politicized terminology from the start, but it also entered officialdom in band-charter names and as replacing for "Indian Band" to refer to the band government. In the long run a disambiguation page is what's needed, and the perspective is that of what people are searching for; which doesn't mean you can't send them to the right place/title, or give them a lesson as to why something's wrong or inappropriate (as I have to do at Wakash Indians cf its talkpage). I think from MightyQuill's perspective, if there was such a place as "Skwxwu7mesh-ia" or "Swkxwu7mesh-land" (i.e. an equivalent) that had historic boundaries and definable, it would help; but there isn't; maybe in the long run when Skwxwu7mesh is fully autonomous then Squamish Nation will be a historical article about a defunct institution, and Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw or whatever is preferred will be the recognized name of the new/restored indigenous government; it's the implication in Nisga'a Lisims vs. Nisga'a Nation/Nisga'a First Nation, although those probably aren't sorted out according to the title issues/format under discussion....Skookum1 09:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1922 Laws

Hi; the reason 1922 sticks in my mind - and there was a Potlatch Law by that name in that year, although I can see there being an earlier one in 1885, I'm just not familiar with it (in the Lillooet Country potlatching continued, as for the same reasons on the Coast - lack of enforcement). My understanding about 1922, as I learned during the Oka Crisis live coverage, is that by the anti-gatherings law of that year, any gathering of three adult males was considered a political meeting and was forbidden on pain of punishment or even treason (hanging); similar to the modern anti-gang law where any group of three is a "gang", any meeting of any kind was construed as political; the reason was the galvanization of native claims around that time, by the Nisga'a and others, and the noise they were making all the way to London; especially in the wake of the illustrious native war record, which did receive notice in the UK in some cases; so in order to avert having to settle claims - which at the time meant coercing a restive British Columbia provincial government to heel at a time and in a situation impossible to do so - meant that challenges to state authority by the original inhabitants had to be, effectively, criminalized. That's what 1922 represents, by whatever name the act has; I've associated it as a Potlatch Law or Laws, but it represented the beginning of the complete ban on native political organization (outside Indian Act structures) until the thaw in native rights/voices in the '50s-60s and the native renaissance in the '60s; I don't keep notes in detail on this stuff over the years, so sorry I can't be more precise as to which legislation; but 1922 is important for the anti-assembly provisions, which maybe hadn't been in the 1885 legislation. I think the powwows were ways around the anti-potlatch rules, too, but I don't know the history of that side of native culture so well; like the sundance and the mainstream Plains culture dances and drumming it's from outside BC but become important with local peoples, particularly in the Interior; I know rodeos were still allowed during the assembly-ban years; it's an interesting question and in some areas I think a moot point; how is the one Government Agent in the Chilcotin going to enforce anti-assembly rules to the couple of thousand Chilcotins on top of Potato Mountain once every few years (for races, songs, camping out under the stars....cf Chiwid from Transmontanus)....? How is the Government Agent in Lillooet, coming to Shalalth to enforce the 1885 law that you mention, going to refuse dinner and a handful of gold nuggets when he's invited to the chief's house, where the party's already underway (see Hunter Jack)? Exactly how many police, and how many boats, would it take to bust the huge potlatches of Mamaliqula or Fort Rupert, and would you just destroy all the goods seized? Never tried, but once or twice I think with the chief of I think it was, of Mamaliqula, who was arrested; but potlatches still continued...but the anti-assembly law was different in context and purpose, meant to head off native political organization - I think this is also in that Unauhorized History of the RCMP I've mentioned before (U.Sask. press). I'll see if I can dig up the specifics on the anti-assembly law/background to it.Skookum1 08:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shuswap-Okanagan-Nicola Rebellion 1874

Hi; think it was you that was in the interchange about this event, or near-event; I just happened to find another ref to it, in a paper on Sproat and O'Reilly's Commissions, and know there's another one in J. Teit's History of the Okanagan people already used as a source on Nicola (chief). I think it was you who asked for more substance than mere snippets there and there; I wanted to post the passage on wherever that conversation was, but I can't remember which of many possible talkpages where it happened to be on; it's brief, but it's typical of all accounts I've seen about this being explicit; it never earned a name because it never broke out completely (the main reason it was aborted is said in one source to be because the Adams Lake Band was under the spell of an evangelist and broke ranks; that same band today is one of the most radical/politicized Shuswap Bands)). In any case, like the Military Lands Scandal (which seems less POV a title than Military Clique Land Scandal, no?) titling issue, Wiki allows for names to be made up from what the subject is about; I'm just wary of Secwepemc-Syilx-Nk'wala-Nlaka'pamux insurgency, 1874 (or "revolt" or "rebellion"?) as a title, or even the anglicized Shuswap-Okanagan-Nicola-Thompson insurgency, 1874; the article would have quite the cast of characters in terms of who the cites are from (another I saw was in some mention of Lillooet, maybe in the Daphne Sleigh book on Harrison I just turned back in to the BPL (the Lillooet chiefs were among those who warned colonists and colonial officials of the impending revolt - which was to be a slaughter of all whites in the Interior); among the cast of characters would be, for instance, Lord Dufferin, whose visit helped cool the flames (an article on his visit to British Columbia would be worthwhile some day, for many reasons); others include the sons of Donald MacLean and their 1879 "revolt", when they tried to incite the Nicolas to re-ignite the abandoned uprising of 1874. Anyway, partly looking for that dicussion again to put the tidbits I've found (except that head-scratcher on Lillooet as to which book I saw it in, because it wasn't one of my regular Lillooet sources I know that...) and I know there are passages in Kerr and others which allude to it, very directly, though usually in a one-passage summation (as was also the way to deal with the Chilcotin War when speaking of it, and "war" was a rarely heard term as it had political overtone);

[edit] IWW songbook

That songbook image is very poor quality. I think it would be better not to use it. We can certainly get a much higher quality image. Comments?

best wishes, Richard Myers 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slurs

As you fiured out, I'm not defending any such thing; what I've been fightin over (with support from Keefer4, zeus1234 and others) is the fact that 'chinaman' was not always a slur, has other meanings that have nothing to do with ethnicity, and remains in use esp. by asian-american/canadians themselves. and for this I et painted as a racist...not by you, but by you-know-who. waht I want to see, also on this page, is balance, and obsessing over what the asian-biased accounts are while dismissing/ignoring all others (I'm not saying YOU are doing this) is the kind of false history that I revel in overturning; and I do the same to non-chinese esp. the bC and fed govts and also the vain, preening prissiness of vancouver's bloated and undeserved ego.....it's all about truth, that's my agenda. the afd is a farce and obviously a political bloodbath in its own right; peoples' ability to not only try and deny truth but also to silence it is a bit perturbing. No wonder the aliens don't want to let us off the planet...Skookum1 03:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

and speaking of aliens, have you seen this in the news lately? Not that I'm a believer, it's just to see Hellyer come out about this, that's what's so remarkable. Oh, excuse me, my thumb-o-matic is beeping....the vogons have arrived....Skookum1 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

heheheh... interesting guy. As for Chinaman, I've never heard it used without cruel intent except by old people (who maybe don't know any better). - TheMightyQuill 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
first question, then, is where do you live?? I maintain there's regional variation in meaning/contet, and although undocumented (and so uncitable) I know in parts of the BC Interior, and probably up the coast and in the North, it would sound stilted to say "Chinese"; a term that btw has itself been undergoing perjoration in BC (esp. Greater Vancouver), which is why "asian" is now the "correct" form. It could also very well be that in parts of the US it's just as hateful as "chink", but not around here, and certainly not historically; but even outside it's ethnic usage, it's acquired other meanings (see the talk page and its cited dictionaries, also the archived page which has more). But here's a prime example of modern self-referential usage, and he's very funny too (Mark Birkett aka "The Chinaman"):
http://www.myspace.com/chinamannorth
http://www.myspace.com/chinaman333
Skookum1 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I presently live in Greater Vancouver, but I've also lived in Whitehorse and Montreal, and spent a fair amount of time in Ontario. Saying "a chinese" is stilted, but there are a lot of words like that... a vietnamese, for instance. The word "Chinese" may be becoming slightly less common for reasons that I learned here on wikipedia - it's not a particularly homogeneous ethnic group, and there are more specific cultures within... similar to describing people as Native vs. their specific nation. Oriental isn't exactly a slur, but it's certainly uncouth... owing back to the history of the exoticization of "the Orient" and the work done on imperialism etc, by Edward Said. I wouldn't say "Asian" is more correct than "Chinese" if you're actually talking about someone from China, though if you're calling someone from Thailand "Chinese" that's just ignorant. Simply because something wasn't historically hateful doesn't mean people can't find it offensive now. Definitions change over time. I mean, idiot and moron used to have various meanings that weren't used as insults, but i'm pretty sure if you had a son born with brain damage, you wouldn't want people calling him an idiot or a moron. By the way, your two "references" point to the same person. - TheMightyQuill 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello, i'm a french user from wikipédia. I have answer to you on Cannes Film Festival, but, why don't translate the french article ? There is an excellent work on it ... Sorry for my bad english ! 82.253.64.63 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Buchenwald.jpg

Hello, Image:Buchenwald.jpg and Image:Buchenwald Slave Laborers Liberation.jpg are images at the Wikimedia Commons, so you'll have to go there if you want one of them deleted. :) --Strangerer (Talk) 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Prophets_Vs_Profits.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Prophets_Vs_Profits.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Strictly_for_Breakdancers_&_Emceez.jpg

I have tagged Image:Strictly_for_Breakdancers_&_Emceez.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. MECU≈talk 22:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hungary

Hi. Some of those data were added by User:Hobartimus[5], some have been in the article at least since April. I only corrected the sentence, without touching the numbers or the reference to the "Kingdom of Hungary without Croatia". My understanding is that the statistics is valid for the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary except Croatia (so the data from Croatia are excluded). Of course, this is just my interpretation of that sentence. Hope it helped. Tankred 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The 1910 census did not ask people about their ethnicity, but used language as a proxy. This indicator, probably chosen for political reasons, could not really capture ethnicity. For instance, the Jewish minority was completely left out because the Hungarian Jews mostly spoke Hungarian or German. Moreover, there was a fair amount of discrimination against minority languages in 1910 and operationalization of the mother tongue itself was highly problematic: The "mother tongue" was interestingly defined as the language the respondent was "willing" to use while interviewed by the Hungarian officials. I do not have much trust in those data, but whatever. Cheers. Tankred 22:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A late najis tuke (i.e. "thanks" in Romani)

I just wanted to thank you for impartially commenting on the AfD for Margita Bangová. --Kuaichik 03:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

That's why it's good to work on a wiki: honest mistakes can be corrected at least as fast as they are made. Don't let a few typos take your boldness away. :) KissL 12:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March laws

Hi. Since you have created 12 points of the Hungarian Revolutionaries of 1848, I wonder whether you can also look at March laws. It is a fairly new article, but it concerns a topic of great historical importance - at least for Hungary and other countries formerly belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary. I hope someone will be able to expand it. Tankred 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oka Crisis

Please see User talk:Julian Watson#Oka Crisis. His edits may (or may not) be misguided, but they were not vandalism. I think that with a new account, one has to assume good faith and not assume bad faith until it is proven. If one assumes good faith then I think your first contribution to his talk page was a bit OTT. If I had received such a first message I may well not have stuck around this site. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caledonian protesters vs counter protesters

Yes I agree that "counter protesters" sounds much better. Julian Watson 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qu'Appelle Residential School

Oh, was that the official title? I am from the immediate area; people from farther afield tend to refer to Fort Qu'Appelle and the Valley as "Qu'Appelle" for obvious reasons -- Qu'Appelle Station, as it once was, as opposed to Fort Qu'Appelle, is seven-odd miles to the north of the Fort on Number 1 Highway and despite having once held considerable promise it has been dying on its feet since the 1920s. Perhaps the photo could be re-captioned "Qu'Appelle Residential School on Mission Lake opposite Lebret in the Qu'Appelle Valley." The Anglican Church at one time had a model farm, contemplated establishing a theological seminary and had its pro-cathedral for the District of Assiniboia and, till 1944, southern Saskatchewan, in Qu'Appelle, you see. And now that the school is long defunct its original official title without any qualification gives rise to confusion. Masalai 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems an admirably cogent and unambiguous caption for the photo. And no, it burned down not long after its closure in 1969. From a purely scenic point of view that seemed a pity -- it was really rather beautiful, nestled among the trees on the lakeshore opposite Highway 10 -- but given the reality of what it stood for one doubts anyone was very sorry to see it go.Masalai 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hungary

Hi. I do not doubt 164.129.1.38 edited History of Hungary in good faith. But he/she introduced several unsourced and highly problematic claims. Some of them have been removed from the article before. First, the Sumerians-Scythians-Magyars link is just an unscientific assertion, which, in my opinion, should not be mentioned in such an important article. Second, the sentences "In First World War Hungary was fighting on the side of Austria" and "In 1918, by a notion of Wilson's pacifism, the army of Hungary was dismissed, leaving the country undefended" do not make much sense. Third, the use of three alternative geographic names in one sentence is redundant. In addition, the edits did not exactly follow the Manual of Style (e.g. the use of "we" while referring to the Hungarians), but that could be fixed. Tankred 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)