User talk:Joseph B

Canada's name again

You may want to comment on the new user stating that it should be "kanata" on the talk page of the Canada page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi Joseph B. Just wanted to apologize for adding the kaná:ta’ spelling to the Canada's name article today. I hadn't realized about the whole revert problems and stuff in the past, and didn't think to check the talk page beforehand, so I didn't see your already lengthy discussion on the matter. I know it's not that big a deal, probably, but oh well. fwiw Mithun uses the spelling kaná:taʔ in "Languages of Native North America", so I assumed Laurentian Iroquoian was better-recorded than it turns out to actually be--I guess she used other languages to figure out how it was evidently pronounced or something. Anyway, take care --Miskwito 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kanata/canada

You seem to misunderstand the use of the spelling "Kanata" here. While it may have been written down at the time by the French as "Canada" (although that document you have is ten years older than the first recorded use), that's different from what the word "actually" is. While, of course, the Iroquois did not have an alphabet, when we transliterate words, we try to do so properly—that is, if the word really did originally have a "t" sound in it, and not a "d", then a proper transliteration would use a "t" and not a "d". As for the "k" over the "c", we use "k" to transliterate that sound which can also be represented by a c, for the obvious reason that "c" can also represent the "s" sound. It has long been part of the history taught in Canada that the name Canada originates in the word "kanata", so unless you want to argue against well-established and taught history and general rules of linguistic transliteration, you should leave the word as "kanata". Lexicon (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might try to use the Discussion page of Canada or Canada's Name. Better yet, read the long and tedious exchanges on this theme in the archives of these discussion pages. Talk:Canada's_name#Saint-Lawrence_Iroquoian. Joseph B 23:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: you might want to re-read those archives, in which there is apparently little support for your position, which is arguably an original synthesis of information. Until you can demonstrate why you continue to violate a number of policies by removing verifiable references and content which you alone believe is invalid and garner a consensus for those edits, I will continue to restore said content. That's all that needs to be said. Quizimodo (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tar sands

You edited here adding a couple of paras that have been widely quoted on and off wikipedia, but didn't provide any reference. I've looked through this Nov 05 paper you referenced elsewhere but it doesn't seem to be the source. Can you remedy please?LeadSongDog (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly this edit you made to Athabasca Oil Sands, which added the same statement.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly these numbers I'm looking for backup on: "Furthermore, for every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and between 3 and 5 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds."

If we're going to use the numbers, we need to back them up. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Name of Canada. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. —slakr^\ talk / 05:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]