User talk:Skookum1/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

tribe & dialect, people & language

I just saw your response--it was high up on my talk page, so I didn't see it until archiving.

I've been following the Canadian (and international, eg. Ghana / Ireland, and original, eg. Israel) usage of tribes making up a people. Very crudely, I've assumed that if two groups speak dialects of a common language, then they're tribes of a common people. I know that may often not be the case, but hopefully it will be often enough that this is an improvement. I have also been stating explicitly in the lede who they are supposed to be a tribe of, so that if there's an error it will stand out like a sore thumb and hopefully not be passed over as all native peoples being "tribes". Tribal govts, of course, remain as capital-T Tribe.

BTW, the remaining articles are linked at the top of my page, under the photo & archive links, in case you have any other advice.

Happy New Year! — kwami (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I moved "Indian tribe" to The concept of Indian tribes in the United States. I'm not sure what good globalizing the article would do: wouldn't it then just be a content fork of better developed articles? But the concept of "tribe" in the US is a rather bizarre one, based on historical relationships to European settlers rather than the people themselves, and so perhaps deserves an article. Please let me know if you disagree. (I'm also not sure how much my additions to the article are improvements.) — kwami (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

BCStats

Regarding this discussion, I am familiar with BCStats and its annual estimates to lower levels of geography. I've always been impressed that they have developed and published such a robust and thorough set of estimates at a more micro-level – unmatched by other provinces and territories as far as I know. Do you happen to work for BCStats, or do you just have a deep personal interest in the data it publishes (similiar to my interest in official municipal census results accepted by Alberta Municipal Affairs)? Hwy43 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just know my way around the BC government websites, and know what's out there. In this case, the reliance of Wikipedia on breaking BC down by StatsCan structures, namely the equivalency of regional districts with census subdivisions, just doesn't work for things like hospitals, school districts, and lots of other things; I provided that link because of its particular usefulness for embellishing electoral districts articles, which I have worked on lots, especially the historical ones; similarly the hospital regions data would be very useful for the items in Category:Health regions of British Columbia, and so on...Another major breakdown in BC is by "Development Region", which BC Stats is based around; often a combination of two or three regional districts in terms of boundaries, e.g. Southwest Mainland Development Region is the GVRD, SLRD, SCRD and FVRD - in terms of statistical rea, with no relation to those governments other than perhaps tracking their spending and certain decisions. I think some of the LRMP's (Land-use Resource Management PLanning Areas, I think that stands for) and and SRMPs (Special Resource Mangement Planning Areas, which involve specifically FN issues though FNs are stakeholders in LRMPs too). BC Stats has data not easily accessible, or requiring analysis (i.e. original research/synth) if sourced from StatsCan, and covers a lot more ground for good information to add, also within more logical geo-social frameworks, not relying on RDs as has been too much the wiki pattern, part of a mistaken apprehension that they are more important than they really are. It also has citable estimates for inter-census years.Skookum1 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mesachie One

1. Put your sandbox in your shorts. 2. Much of the trouble on the article originated with an error some idiot called Skookum1 typed. 3. I have not even begun to be rude yet. 4. The page is only 4 days old, and am more worried about content not typesetting. 5. Put as much lipstick on it as you choose. 6. Do not see editorial errors; but you are welcome to your opinion of topic. 7. I would rather write article than to put column meters of twaddle on talkpage. 8. Someone else would rather spend 3 years figuring which Regional District the Fraser Falls into than put content down. 9. I am only so lazy to write 2 dozen articles.... sfs and have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sumallo's in Washington??

Well, yea, it is confusing. Those categories did not belong on the category for a number of reasons and belonged on the article. I thought I read the article correctly since I did not put all of them on the article. Guess it was more confusing then I thought. Thanks for cleaning up. If you want, there are a bunch of categories and articles that probably need cleaning. ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL that's an understatement huh? LOTS of categories and articles need cleaning...which ones were you thinking of? NB any landforms/rivers and such in RD categories should be moved to the appropriate regiona cateegories in each case; RDs have no jurisdiction, likewise any hospitals, schools, prov parks, nat'l parks, IRs anything like that th's not within their purview. these watersheds categories are real irksome, like the "divided regions" ones (e.g. North America itself is a divided region, between the US and Canada). I just knew the Sumallo wasn't in the US at all, though it's definitely, via the Skagit, tributary to Puget Sound; other rivers fidget across the border, or start in one and drain into the other, like the Pasayten - which is better-known in the US than it is in CAnada, though most of it's in BC - or the Sanpoil (though most of that's in the US). Up north, the Blue, the Unuk etc; obscure but still in BC.....at least partly.Skookum1 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sonaran desert on Okanagan Valley (wine)

I really do appreciate your efforts to improve the article but I find the crusade against this claim to be very bizarre. There is literally a mountain of reliable sources that support this claim (I've started cataloging quite a few at Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)#Sonoran_Desert_refs). And this refs go far beyond travel books or just the British Columbia Wine Institutes but numerous, respected news organization, non-travel related books printed by more than half a dozen, well established publishing houses, scholarly journal articles and papers presented at various universities and, probably the summa cum laude of them all-the Royal British Columbia Museum with a project that is houses on the official bc.ca domain also describes the area as "the northern edge of the Great Basin (also called the Sonoran or high desert, a sagebrush-dominated biome that runs from British Columbia to Baja California". With all these reliable sources, I really don't think this is something to edit war about. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ALL of your citations parrot almost verbatim the same line, and ALL ahave their roots in p.r. bumpf, NOT in academic papers; the Canadian Journal of Environmental Education is not a geography gjournal, and I've seen LOTS of stupid stuff from environmental papers that fly in the face of geographical reality and/or scholarship. ALL the newspaper articles can be dispensed with as running p.r. copy provided either by BC Tourism, BC Wine or Osoyoos itself....I note t hat one, I think from Washington, very cleverly says "begins as the Sonoran Desert", not that it IS the Sonoran Desert, and quite frankly, having been to Mexico and crossed the Sonoran Desert by train (there times) there's a lot more desert down past it, so is it just an extension of the Inferniello (in western Michoacan) or the deserts of Guerrero and Oaxaca? . An d I've also gone across the Great Basin Desert, or part of it, and it doesn't even look like the Mojave, and IT doesn't include the Columbia basin. And as I explained n the article's talkpage, just because a company has a gov.bc.ca address doesn't mean it's a government site- it means taht they have subcontract to operate that formerly-public entity (the RBCM is American-owned now....come to think of it I believe it's a subsidiary of Disney or otherwise connected to same...). The Living Landscapes papers are not vetted academically, many are totally amateur, and taht one in particular is just more parroting or tourism bumpf. Look at the refs on the Sonoran Desert page, the ones from real geographers and not from eco-happy "look mama, canada has a desert too!" types lke the CJEE, and see [[Talk:Okanagan Desert][] about travel articles not being verifiable or reliable sources; especially about scientific matters. All they're doing is repeating the press releases given to them, that's all they are. I"m not alone in this, take it up at Talk:Shrub steppe and Talk:List of North American deserts and Talk:Sonoran Desert, also try Talk:Columbia basin. If the Columbia Plateau is not part of the Sonoran Desert, HOW can the Canadian Okanagan be???? Continuing to cite more and more tourism-board-clone-articles/sites is not goign to make it true, it's JUST NOT. And I'll take it up with the RBCM directly, though I know the answer ("we're not responsible for the content of papers published on our site"). I also suggest you rad WP:VS and WP:RS and step back from your enthusiasm for retrenching this CRAP....what's not true is simply not true, adn it doesn't matter how many incorrect sources you find, it still doesn't make it true. The Sonoran Desert ends at the Colorado River, period. And the Mojave, the Great Basin Desert, the Oyhee, and the Columbia Plateau are NOT (repeat NOT) part of it, and never will be, no matter how many gullible newspapers and half-baked environmentalist papers repeat the lies they've been given. And about gov.bc.ca sites - from the Queens' Printer to Revenue Services to MSP and lots, lots more, these are all private corporations now, NOT government operated, many not even government-owned...the RBCM is owned by an amusement park and not operated by, or on behalf of, real scholars; it was controversial when it ws privatized exactly because things like this were foreseen; catering to the whims or tourism and other business interests, and no longer responsible to academic review.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia 10

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

If you can't make it down Skookum, I will hold a T-shirt for you until you visit town again. What size do you want? The Interior(Talk) 16:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to make it for the 15th, too bad it's not the 25th or I'd be able to be there (and getting a ride down would time out well too, my last motel night here is the 23rd). Coming back for film work and probable holding pattern until I go to Manila to help a friend with his biz. Who knows, maybe I"ll decide to bail from here by the 13th, in which case I could show, but at this point scrambling to make arrangements and have to line up a place in town to stay etc.....definitely hang onto the shirt for me though ;-) (or if you're going back to the Interior, as might be the case, leave it with someone who's still gonna be there by the time I show up).Skookum1 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

E-Comm

E-Comm is not a government department but a special type of corporation, which is governed by its shareholders (Cities and gov't agencies). Its service area cover beyond GVRD area (i.e. Pemberton/Whistler/Sunshine Coast).--Cahk (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, saw that it was a private corporation (very surprising to me, but these days everything has been privatized....). the article said "Vancouver to Langley" so I'd thought it meant the GVRD and amended to Lions Bay....."Southwestern British Columbia" is a Development Region and covers the area of the GVRD, SCRD, SLRD and FVRD (and maybe a bit of the TNRD, namely Lytton, not sure). Sounds like the region here is the policing/RCMP region, which I know is called "Lower Mainland" but includes the Sunshine Coast and, it seems (?), Pemberton-Whistler....does E-Comm cover Chilliwack, Hope, Mission, Abby? Pretty sure the equivalent for Lytton and Lillooet are in Kamloops, though....Skookum1 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to re-word it please? I think on Talk:Lower Mainland there may be a link to the RCMP region....(part of a discussion about what that term means vs. how it gets used).Skookum1 (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

E-Comm definitely covers GVRD, SCRD and SLRD but not FVRD (it'll expand eventually though) ... SWBC is equivalently applicable for Translink and South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service so it's more of a terminology issue I think. The area cover has nothing to do with RCMP, it's just a matter of each agency needs to subscribe to its service (and pay the user fee). --Cahk (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lower-case on "southwestern" then, as in caps form it does have a specific meaning larger than those areas...I haven't made Development Region articles yet, though have been intending to (too busy swatting flies off the wiki-food, guess you could say). It didn't belong in the GVRD category; it may receive funds from them (as per that cite) but it's not one of their organizations nor under their jurisdiction.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coast Salish in British Columbia

Template:Coast Salish in British Columbia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 17:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver's Reaction to the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre

I see that article pretty much the same way you do. It's kind of wierd to have in WikiPedia, but it doesn't seem to violate any principles as far as I can tell. PKT(alk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Truth"

I had removed that comment already after I saw your proposed wording.

WP:V (a core policy) indicates that we are not concerned with truth - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". I am not interested in arguing about how "real" an encyclopedia the Oxford Companion to Wine is, by every measure of this site considered a very reliable source and should be treated as such, regardless of any ties (or not) to real encyclopedias or universities.

It is not a reliable source for anything but wine. It is not a reliable source for geographic definitions, and is uncited for the usage it does provide. It is a spurious folk usage, across wine literature which is no doubt hwere its editors even got the line from - without consulting maps of teh actual Sonoran Desert (same as travel writers for wine magazines would do and not do - copy presskit information). Wine "science" and a certain field of environmental science use "Sonoran Desert" in a different way than the norm in other fields; there is a BIG differencegbetween astsndard meaning and a meaning associated with literature origianting in one industry/location.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not have access to Britannica, M-W etc, so can you provide the specific references in the format they need to be used in please so that they can be integrated that would be helpful. Camw (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfly provided those, read up the talkpage/ the EPA cites and many others are on the Sonoran Desert article. I'll get a whole bunch more, to undrescore the importance of that statement; and how I've worded it is already a compromise; allowing it to be mentioned at all - it is a specialized non-academic usage, relating to this one wine/tourism region; its academic usage means something different htan the general sense those "soft sources" used.....WP:V is not meant to endorse equivocatino; and WP:UNDUE pionts to the proper direction to treat this with.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Making it personal

I would appreciate a little less commenting on me personally in the discussion at Talk:Poland–Lithuania. Comments like "is just making you look more foolish" and "perhaps the subtleties just escape you" don't exactly make me inclined to consider your position objectively. Powers ^T 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you should learn to consider the situation objectively anyway. In my view, you haven't yet been objective, and continue to resist admitting that WP:DASH doesn't say anything like what you're claiming. And your equivocation over the the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth et al. does make you look foolish. And the "subtleties" of the difference between two independent terms separated by a dash and a compound name using a hyphen isn't subtle at all; I was being ironic. And I really believe you do need to read more history and geography, and not impose your own typographic preferences as if they were justified by WP:MOS (they're not). Objectivity means distancing yourself from your own ego; I'm being sharp because the argument is very, very, very clear, but you and others keep on digging in your heels invoking a document that doesn't agree at all with what you are claming it does. Expecting a person to be patient with you when you are being obstinate, then complaining if they start pointing out the implications of your obstinacy, is something you should overcome. Objectivity is objectivity; taking things personally isn't objective, it's whining that you've been shown wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet been objective? It seems as if you're saying anyone who disagrees with you is, prima facie, not being objective. I have no dog in this fight; it has nothing to do with my ego. On the contrary, it almost seems as if you're personally offended by any opposition to your proposals. I don't think I've been particularly obstinate; maybe the perception of such is colored by the fact that you and others had already been discussing the issue with others when I arrived. How can we move forward in a more productive manner without you needing to comment on my personal failings? Powers ^T 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Plausibility

You are telling me that you considered this "plausible":

Ophiuchus is the only constellation in the sky which is patterned after a real person in human history, tracing back through time and space for its roots to an Ancient Egyptian mortal-made-god named Imhotep, whose life and times in or about the 27th Century B.C. were honored by both the Egyptians and Greeks some 2500 years after his death as not only a great man, but as a god who owed his great powers to the knowledge of medicine which he possessed, and who brought the art of healing to mankind. Ophiuchus has been credited with the Greek defeat of the Trojans during the Trojan war.

Subtracting the unencyclopedic tone, this basically says that the constellation Ophiuchus originates in the Early Bronze Age and was suppsed to b represent Imhotep. Plus "Ophiuchus has been credited with the Greek defeat of the Trojans during the Trojan war." I have no idea what standards of "plausibility" you are applying. I suppose if you have no clue whatsoever about the history of astronomy, this could sound as plausbible as any other claim. Then I asked you to read Ophiuchus#History, where we have the referenced statement that Ophiuchus is described in Roman era sources as representing Asclepius. No older information is available, but there is some (referenced) speculation regarding possible Babylonian precedents for the constellation.

Have you read that? Then how can you come to my talkpage and still claim "plausibility" for the above unreferenced nonsense? Have you ever heard that Wikipedia is supposed to be about verifiable information that has been published somewhere? Then why would you defend such blatant nonsense? If it was at least published blatant nonsense, we could say this or that author published his nonsense and became notable. Failing that, this is simply white noise that should be removed on sight.

Why do I need to spend time explaining Wikipedia basics to you? I would not mind such misconceptions in a recent account, but come on, your user page is littered with barnstars and states you are among the "400 most active Wikipedians"? And you still thing some random claim about a constellation representing a 4,700 year-old pharaoh dumped by a redlink account with no reference whatsoever should stay and be considered "plausible"? --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfffft - Imhotep was not a Pharoah; and the nature of mythology is that the traditions about given individuals are very, very old, and in the hermetic tradition there are all kinds of stories about people such as Imhotep; not historical stories but apocryphal stores that are part of teh lore, part of the mythology about that person/name. I'd never heard the Trojan War association either, and while there's an index of names for the Iliad somewhere out there, I haven't had time to look through it (nor do I own it).....I doubt the name Imhotep is in there very much (though it's very likely in Herodotus). Myself, until I saw this, I'd assumed Ophiuchus was a Greek-associated figure like most others in the heavens; though in many cases t he roots of the constellation and the associated legend are to be found in Babylon and Egypt. So the Imhotep assocation didn't surpise me as a possibility, knowing the habits of the ancients in deifying the celebrated among them, nor did the possibility that somehow his name got muddied up with the complex waters of the tales of the Trojan War (which are not limited to the Iliad). Have you read any of the hermetic histories? Or one of the compendiums about them (e.g. Lewis Spence)? Herodotus? The Iliad? You clearly haven't read anything about Imhotep ("the father or architects") or you wouldn't have called him a Pharaoh. So you're not in a position to say whether or not the existence of these myths is or is not plausible; I didn't say it was plausible he was involved in the Trojan War, I said it was plausible that such a story existed. Big difference, but I'm not in the habit (as you are) of deleting mentions of well-known subjects without actually looking them up first, unless already well-acquainted with them. This needed more research, either to debunk passages of it, or to get the stories (not facts) right; this page is about mythology; yet rather than look up the various mythologies and try to cite it, or ask for citations, you just dismissed it as unencyclopedic and deleted it forthwith. That you couldn't even get who Imhotep was right doesn't say a lot about your qualifications to work on a mythology page....Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

also, do you often provide edit summaries that are completely meaningless, as you did here? Does the article discuss the role of Ophiuchus in Korea, China, India, Egypt, or Persia? No. Does the article discuss the role of Ophiuchus in Japan? Yes, it does. With references (remember WP:V? It's a project essential). But of course you would have to read the article to realize this. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Also pfffft. Japanese mythology and Japanese astrology are not the same as Western astrology; Serpent-bearer (Japanese astrology) might be a way to go, but this article, ostensibly, is about the introduction of this sign/mythology into Western astrology. And if it is about all mythologies associated with this constellation (whether or not included in the neo-zodiac, which I think is an astronomer's red-herring), then why hasn't any effort been made to include the Hindic, Persian, Egyptian, Chinese, Korean mythologies assocaited with it, or their names. Why Japanese alone? Your particular interest? This is like putting Apollo in the same article as Atimerasu or whatever the Japanese sun-parent-goddess' name is, or mushing together Hercules and Thor in the same article. Clutter; But get this OK - you've deleted the Western mythology which might exist but you didn't care to look and insist that the Japanese mythology and name belongs here, and complain about its removal. Have you even done any work on the mythological origins of this constellation? I mean, the Western mythologies? Babylo-Egypto-Grecian-Roman etc - or do you just think it's "unencylopedic" and don't give a damn? Delete happy people citing WP:V without trying to find any "V" are an increasing pain; removing information so no one tries, or even thinks to try, to look it up. And YOU, given your "nonsensical" attribution of Imhotep as a Pharaoh, clearly aren't as edcuated as your pomposity tries to make you sound.Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You are invited...

Thank you for your work on the Outline of British Columbia.

I invite you to join WikiProject Outlines.

Currently, we need your insight on the matter of reader awareness of outlines. Such as how do readers of the Outline of British Columbia find it? And how can we improve upon that?

Please join us at the discussion of outline availability/traffic.

Thank you. Hope to see you there. The Transhumanist 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

request review

How about giving Painted turtle a review for FAC? Need to get it passed or failed soon. There is a bit of British Columbia "angle" to it, so maybe that'll interest ya. (It's not canvassing since I'm taking my chances on what you think of it!) TCO (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I used to have a painted turtle....it died. Stale lettuce maybe. I'll have a look.Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You were probably doing squats on it.  :) TCO (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't lift weights then; I was about twelve....the hamsters didn't do well, either, but man they could bite (at least the turtles couldn't). I think i recall the turtles had an infection or something, or so I was told (I recall at least two).Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a common issue with turtles that they get sick in captivity.TCO (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BC slant

The Culture section at the end lists the businesses. There's a winery and some such. I was kinda getting a picture of the BC aspect of the turtle from some different things (the businesses names, the Victoria HAT website and sourcing, the government conservation documents, etc.) But if I read too much in and oversold it, just go ahead and edit it and make it reasonable. TCO (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a cool BC picture (right species, right location, right sign, right composition (wanted a shot that was not another darned turlte on a log, some variety from all the natural images). But it's all tied up in copyright stuff. I totally have the photo released. but then people say the design of the sign (the turtle) might be copyrighted, so we can't show it on wiki. It's in AFD at Commons now.

Sorry about that back and forth on the "tag". Just finish your review. I want you to look at it. If we egged the mix too heavily with the cute BC angle, we can cut that. We had a bunch of sources we were compiling and it was all in good faith. We can always just talk about the US state reptiles and let the Canucks feel secondary in picta love.  :) And then comments on the rest of the thing. TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The winery is Nk'mip, the turtle is featured on their logo and certain wines have salamanders and other atypical-to-BC images; backed up by mumbo-jumbo "Turtle Island" rhetoric, very much mostly a marketing campaign, yes by a business. There used to be the Turtle Club, which may have been continent-wide, I don't know, my Dad was in it - members were survivors of accidents that wouldn't have killed them if not for their wearing hardhats; there was a decal affixed to his helmet, which I wore for a bit until it was pointed out to be it was a foreman's helmet (white). Don't know where it is now, good question come to think of it....as for the turtle sign, I think I've seen that - where is it? There are rare ones in that area, I remember, and they do like crossing the road (bigger than painted turtles though). BTW in the lede it says "southern Canada" but that's very much an external description; all settled parts of Canada are "southern Canada" in abstract terms but it's best to specify which provinces or regions they're in, as "southern CAnada" is, well, 7,500 miles wide....Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I worked with Kevlar and there was a club for body-armor lives saved. It was kind of a sales gimick but pretty cool when you think about it. Was to encourage police to wear the vest when supposed to (they don't like the weight and as with any safety gear 99% of the time, you find you didn't need it). I think we cover the geography in detail in article. I even mention Vancouver and Prince Edward Islands, all sauve like. TCO (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

Skookum, I hate to say this, but you need to relax a bit with your edit summaries. We were both trying to get rid of the same material at Burnaby, but you changed it in between when I loaded my watchlist and when I actually went to revert. While I can understand your confusion , our history on the project together should have at least warranted that you ask me about it rather than leaving the somewhat accusatory edit summary]. Other summaries such as "remove complete bullshit" are also unnecessarily provocative. Anyway, do with this as you see fit; it is meant in good faith. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"remove complete bullshit" was more than fair considering the wild vanity-written bit about Bengali-Irish intermarriage and Burnaby being a common name in Bangladesh.....there's not even that many Bengalis in Burnaby. As for that edit comment all points are valid, and I see no reason why you reversed my corrections - "unwarranted" is exactly the case; and the GVRD (which is the correct name) is not a "District" and it does not have a "seat". It's that simple, and not accusational; I know you better than that; I put "by CKatz" because I deleted the usual "undo revision" item in the edit comments. One of the problems with people using "regional district" at all, is that some will call them "districts" and others will call them "regions", but those have different specific meanings in BC than "regional district". And they are not counties, and just do not have seats; they have regional headquarters, but using "seat" is the imposition/introduction of a new term/paradigm in BC which is isn't in use.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And I don't mean to sound trite, but I've learned WP:If thine eye, offend thee, strike it out. Often I do take things awry when someone edits of disputes, until they explain it wasn't meant negatively; but I see many that are (wasn't saying you were, was surprised at the reversion though...) and yeah I get testy, and my language glib and on-the-fly; you should see what's going on elsewhere in my userlist right now, from the inanities of the dash-hyphen changes (misapplied to hundreds of Canadian places now, on the premise of wiki-style over what sources use) to new/old user Sfsorrow (posted in IP for years, though signing in text) who's on a one-man rampage at Steamboats of the Fraser River and Harrison Lake, which I refuse to edit because he refuses to do citation, format, proper style etc and says "Skook, you do it! That's what the rest of you are here for" etc...good source of knowledge, one-man show even more than I am; I boycott that article, and warned him away from Steamboats of the Thompson and Shuswap, which I've researched and know where to begin (as I would have had I had a chance to write the Fraser article and do it properly) and is interconnected with topics like Big Bend Gold Rush and Construction of the CPR in British Columbia, which obviously could be a whole article, and a good COTM if started; lots of engineering details, detailed events, names etc....CPR Survey in British Columbia also there's a lot of material out there on.....anyway, the things I'd like to do on Wikipedia I rarely get a chance to, other than things like the border peak lists (which got me onto that bcgnis template thing, urg), because of all the dross, all the unnecessary fixing, and of course monitoring vandalism and so on; there's only so much time in the day...I came to Wikipedia wanting to contribute to the "global document", access to information about wherever, whatever, whomever and everything worth documenting; starting with my own region, which I obviously know so well (meaning more or less BC and adjoining states/province/territories, though mostly southern BC, though knowledgeable somewhat about the North and PG and Omineca etc; lots up there hinted at in things I've read, big towns in the Robson VAlley etc...). Instead of being able to do that, I find myself telling people "from away" that the names they've changed are never spelled with dashes, they're telling me it's a matter of style and topography and the sources don't matter, and that people writing Wikipedia (everyone) should learn to use the dash key-combos on their keyboards and change their method of typing, and long-standing hyphenageries.......I think you'd probably agree if there were less inaninity, and sometimes insanity, Wikipedia would be a better place. Foolishness isn't just the vanity/joke content removed, it's the express refusal to see, or just to be contrary to, the "correct version", meaning "them's the facts". In one debate- the crazy Sonoran Desert/Okanagan wine region content quarrel (see Talk:Okanagan Valley (wine region) - it was asserted, or twisted from some Wiki-principle, that Wikipedia is not about truth; this in the process of trying to pretend that their version of North American geography was better than all the actual authoritative/definitive sources (theirs was gleaned from wine and travel guides); dealing with alternate realities - as with if you don't mind watching it also, what goes on at "Christy Clark" by a user who seems to be campaign p.r. person trying to keep certain material about her, particularly BC Rail and her brother Bruce's various connections/activities (and her own, if the available news/op-ed copy were assembled; but the same is true of any political bio; none of the other Liberal candidates seem to have any activity, COI or POV (trace maybe) on their bio pages; and myself and others are wary of teh exhaustion that trying to expand and split BC Legislature Raids (see its talkpage) and in my case also to write Casinogate, though if I do I'll do a very thorough job, and have always wanted to properly do Solidarity Crisis (doubt you would remember it, it was big but has been suppressed since - 1983); the Liberal-POV-possibly-COI SPA sirjohnhackett has also fiddled with Adrian Dix, adding incomplete information about Glen Clark, with a definite impugning intent, and the only cite there already is only a Vancouver Sun one, and all CanWest papers were part of the withchunt against Premier Clark; I'll expand that, and do the Casinogate article, using material from the Straight and Monday Magazine and whatever else was in print back then; to this day the Sun and Province twist and mis-tell both Casinogate and Bingogate, and on the rare occasions they mention 1983 they don't even mention Solidarity by name, and treat it as if it were only labour unrest.....the reason I mention all this is, if I didn't have to deal with idiocy rampant on technical non-issues (what should have been non-issued, but some people believe in fixing what's broken, claming to be making it better by breaking it....like the bcgnis thing, which made a quick-and-dirty-easy-to-use template into a complicated "fill out this form" thing, time-consuming and irritating for a contributing editor....)....between hyphens, deserts, spin doctors, POV and local UNDUE of all kinds in BC articles, I wish there's a lot more I could be doing than what I am here; some things I just can't let go because I know what's right (Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District is hyphenated - have you ever seen it dashed?) and while I contain myself as much as possible to the political blogs, rather than political articles here (a swampland, veritably, no?) I only intervene against obvious and events-related stuff; and keep an eye on Vancouver gangland war, 2009, though mostly as a spectator...And geographic correctness is near and dear to my heart, did a lot of that long before coming to Wikipedia (and might wind up with a job with BCGNIS some day, depending on change of government/budgeting - turns out it's a one-woman show, interesting huh? used to have more staff I think, they got downsized, with the archives getting both downsized and privatized...); so I don't like geographical inaccuracies or vagueness or mis-terminologies, so everything from Western Cordillera (North American) and all its subarticles including our own BC mountain/range categories and most of the rivers.....down to the wine region article, "getting it right" matters a lot, if this encyclopedia is ever to be what's it's supposed to be; "sorta getting it" works in a lot of cases I guess, as in historical narratives where you just can't cover all details; but in terms of description and location and landform and ecozone the facts have to be correct, and WP:Unreliable sources (which if that's a redlink should get written, about things that are claimed to be reliable but are demonstrably not); there's no room for wishy-washiness, no way that untruth be given equal weight to the truth because, supposedly as per someone from the wine group, "Wikipedia is not about truth". "What the sources say", yes, but there's sources and then there's sources, and then there's junk; widespread junk can be notable, of course, it's the nature of a lot of publishing and web publishing, no doubt. I just get frustrated by all the fixing that has to go on, caused by dedicated Wiki-inhabitants who've given themselves something to do, like "improving" templates (complicating them) or coming up with a new style of spelling that's "up to date with technology" and so forth ("it's not spelling, it's typography and we don't have to pay attention to the sources").

I think you can imagine what I've gotten like in response; firm but yeah testy about certain things; mis-use of regional districts rags on me because I know about how BC is run and organized/defined, whether by historical/natural regions or by Forests Districts or MoE regions (I used to work for MoE, in fact, long ago; also for DoH, which ain't around anymore); there's specific uses for certain terms and certain names and their combinations; and you'll note on many BC place articles I've added regions to the infobox uncontested and if I had time and wherewithal would add in the other provincial subdivisions, which are just as important (and often way more powerful) than RDs. The name thing I'm touchy about because "Metro Vancouver" is part of a media campaign to rebrand the place, paving the way for unification/metropolis-status down the line (no kidding, this goes back a ways and still no one wants it; except the board ,or most of them I think); it's still t he GVRD and the regional parks are Greater Vancouver Regional Parks, not "Metro Vancouver Regional Parks" etc. Calling their HQs "seats" is not any kind of local usage, and it gives the wrong idea about the nature of the RD; ther's no prestige in being the HQ location as there is with county seat in the US or, if it's even used there (seat), the UK. What mis-usages lead to, whether of terms or dash-vs-hyphens, is taht the work that might go into expanding the article gets taken up with needless debates over useless changes to the interface, or someone adding junk information of all kinds ,some elaborate as you know; I've given up on Quadripoint and the SGV ones just because of exhaustion, and the failure of much-deserved AfDs turned down by a consensus of those not really qualified to judge, and as with the MOSDASH debate re Poland-Lithuania and on WTMOS, and originally on Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District#Requested move. I guess what I'm saying is if you think I'm sounding testy here, it's a reflection of the language I've been using in getting really, really pointed on these other pages, where you can repeat teh same fact to them twenty times and they refuse to see it, or try to qualify it out of existence because it's in the way of their wiki-agenda and/or worldview; check out Talk:Ophiuchus (astrology), where a probably-citable bit of lore that the figure represented is Imhotep a historical figure placed in the sky (so was Heracles, btw, as seems to be admitted now from oral evidence alone) was deleted by a science/logic type who assumed it was made-up; yes estoricism often is, but such myths may go back to the Library of Alexandria, and some masonic works that might say that, or other heremetic works, are probably online somewhere and easily citable. Removed mythology from what really is a mythology article? Rather than look for cites, he just deleted it....I went there because I wanted to find out who Ophiuchus was (name means "snake-bearer"), not a myth I knew; Greek name, but a reference, so it goes, to the deified Imhotep, who it seems may have been placed in the sky by Egyptian priest-astrologers; seems plausible that that is a myth, y'see.....but I just don't have the time to run and look for resources to find/prove it, as with other such demands including Sfsorrow's; picking up after other people is getting tiresome...there's so much else I could do here of a contributory nature if not having to fix things like an AWB's "Columbia river" back to "Columbia River". Too much garbage in, garbage out; I'll have a busy live in the next while, after the next two weeks or so my net time will be severely rationed, I'll be on wiki-hiatus (except watching certain articles) and won't even have time to do my usual communications and actual bloggeries and other writing, or my playing (electric guitar) and getting to the gym; facing 10-12 hour days for weeks on end sometimes...good money, lotsa fun mixed with incredible boredom....anyways sorry for the rant, if I sound curt it's because I've got lots on the fly, and probably arrived hot and sweaty from a (verbal) wrestling match somewhere....reality vs unreality, it's a battle that has to be fought here...I know I'm controversial-but-knowledgeable but wiki-nonsense is really aggrativing and time-wasting; I don't mean your edit, which I saw no justifiable reason for, that's all, and didn't understand why you would do it; in my harshness I mean what else I've been dealing with around here....Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long rant, tr

(in reference to the page move requests and WT:MOS threads) Man, you seriously need to get relaxed, you going to get burned out hard at this pace. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna do an end run on those fuckers....there's no way specious, false, and provocative/obstructionist arguments should carry any weight at all in face of the sources and "badgering" which is what Dicklyon is doing, should be a blockable wiki-offence, i.e. pushing and provoking someone to anger to try and discredit their logic/evidence - not very wikipedian-like don't you think? Or at least it's not supposed to be. Saying something isn't a hyphenated name when it is, is like pointing at the sky and insisting it's green, even though it's obviously blue. Such non-sequitur, irrational thinking is fine in someone's own mind; but it should be dismissed outright in Wiki-discussions, and those who persist at it should be punished. See the section above for all the material I'd rather be working on, than having to pick up sticks by little kids who have run around the kitchen breaking jars and won't let you clean it up, because it's their kitchen....and if I get "burned out of here" because of wiki-fools, then that's a discredit to Wikipedia's community as a whole, for lettting arrogance and inanity piss someone off to the point where teh victim gets blocked, and those digging their heels deeper and deeper into nonsense go unchecked. Surface should never trump content/sources, and foolishness should just not be tolerated......aggressively insisting on unreality, or on their own take on what MOS means or what principles rule (and none do), no matter how "polite" language is used, is still rude, still aggressive, and confrontational; passive-aggression should be included in teh list of punishable offences....but most of all, content and sources should ALWAYS trump wiki-arrogance.Skookum1 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there, man

Do some hip thrusts. (don't hurt us little MOS wonks.)

[1]

TCO (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Do remember that making a content issue into a conduct issue is one favorite device of those who have an opinion without rational support; since Wikipedia conduct does not require knowing anything about a subject (any more than following MOS requires the ability to construe English), it's much easier.

Those who do so usually have two common properties: they're acting in bad faith, and their cause is intellectually bankrupt. Hang in there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hartley Bay

I'm confused. Isn't Hartley Bay well to the north of all the islands in question? OhSoHeartless (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I used the wrong demarcator, which was from one source....Princess Royal Island is supposed to be North Coast; SFAIK Central Coast doesn't include north of Klemtu...gonna have to find a guide/reference for this, the RD boundaries don't apply for this....I'd say use Milbanke Sound for a demarcator for now....would be good if a contributor from Bella Bella showed up who could define these things a bit better, but we'd still need a written source....FWIU the Central Coast runs from Queen Charlotte Strait to Bella Bella; somewhere between there and Princess Royal is where the North Coast begins.....maybe it's in a sailing guide somewhere, I'll try and look in bookstores/libraries....this and other terms ilke Central Interior vs. Northern Interior I need to get cites for; I only know them from "familiar usage".Skookum1 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairly logical when you think about it - Douglas Channel leads to Kitimat, which is North Coast; Dean Channel leads to Bella Coola/Kimsquit, and is Central Coast. "South Coast" begins SFAIK in the Johnstone STrait area....I'll see if any of the news media may have a geographic style-guide (an old one, their new toronto-import writers get all kinds of things wrong....).Skookum1 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just use Milbanke Sound for now, as you suggested. I'm going to have to change several more articles then. OhSoHeartless (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, there are no definitive sources for these terminologies, only an assemblage of colloquial/casual uses......Princess Royal might be considered Central Coast; but towns like Surf Inlet and Klemtu and Butedale are usually described as North Coast....I'll look around.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

hyphen vs dash

Hi Skookum,

About the war, the guide says that dashes indicate grammatical disjunction, which AFAIK is the case here, and has nothing to do with who fought on which side in the war itself. That is, it's a purely grammatical device. (For example, in the Michelson–Morley experiment, Michelson & Morley were colleagues, just as the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, & Palouse were allies.) Also, AFAIK the exceptions are things like people's surnames & country or ethnic names, not grammatical phrases which are capitalized to become ad hoc or descriptive names for events and the like. Dashes have been stable in that article since 2008; the only thing that's changed is the spacing. The occasional exception for spacing may hold for Coeur d'Alene, so I've reverted to the stable 2008 title (without spacing) until this gets worked out. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording "hyphenated names", which was there even before the inclusion of geographic examples, means exactly what it means: "hyphenated names"...and wars have names - hence the capital "W", just as the capital-R capital-D in Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District make it a proper name/proper noun. I've posted about this on TALK:MILHIST but nobody's taken it up (so far); and it should be discussed there and in Talk:NorthAmNative as to whether this is even a sourceable name...I'm in the midst of moving so haven't had time to read through all the references and extlinks, though the historylink.org ones I'm familiar with and they don't use it. These are usually referred to as separate wars - the Spokane War, the Palouse War, and teh Coeur d'Alene War though often they're also just considered the third phase of the Yakima War; if you read that article you'll see there's lots of overlap; the Spokane and Palouse Wars maybe have different time frames, and are not part of this, which is best-known as the Coeur d'Alene War. This should not more have dashes in it than it should have lower-case "war"....it's a name, a hyphenated name...other war names, even ones with Greco- and Sino- have been wrongly changed, and it's argued that there's a difference between the relationship in Greco-Persian Wars and Brazil-Argentina War, for example, when syntactically there just isn't. MOS should not take precedence over what's used in the real world, and it's all the worse when as I noted it's like taking two apples and labelling one an orange, even though they're even from teh same tree. MOS-ites are fanatics, as I'm discovering, about the dash and about the Holy Writ they like to cherrypick, but MOSFOLLOW should supersede any "typographical improvements" and any notion that Wikipedia's 'sense of style' is superior to the "lazy" and "poorly curated" sources like Britannica etc....I'll take this up again later, I have to pack....but the whole range of Northwest wars needs revisiting, including whether or not this is an OR title, which it may very well be.....and should maybe be three articles....not a POV fork, but an un-OR fork....Skookum1 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

An alliance is not "grammatical disjunction" - it is grammatical union.Skookum1 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a grammatical disjunction. Please look up that word: your argument is completely spurious here. I don't know about proper names (in general, that does not override dashes vs. hyphens, though I'm not very familiar with the issue); the more critical issue is one of sourcing, though majority usage simply reflects typewriters and MS Word, and so is not a reliable guideline, but if no source at all uses dashes, we're in a deeper conundrum.

One of the refs uses "Battle of Four Lakes", but "Coeur d'Alene War" does seem to be the most common. There's currently a discussion going on as to whether we should move it there. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

An alliance is inherently a union. Likewise in war, combatants are joined, and the only reason they would be punctuationally-joined is because of that. It's not like Brazil-Argentina relations; being joined in conflict, either as allies or enemies, is being joined.....they are in the contest of such names joined.....not disjuncted. "Majority usage" reflecting typewriters is what history is made of, and by typesetters before typewriters came along.....just because technology has made it possible to re-punctuate things doesn't mean that Wikipedians have a right to redefine language usage to their own tastes (and not the taste of all Wikipedians, just those who have made MOS their "cause").Skookum1 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a long history of using en dashes, but this was not supported by typewriters nor later by inferior typesetting programs such as Word. The change in technology merely enables us to better approach the traditional standard of professional typesetting. Of course, if this is not the traditional professional standard, that is a different matter. As I said, I am not terribly familiar with the issue.

"Disjunction" here is grammatical. It has nothing to do with the semantics of conflict vs union. The guideline makes that clear through its examples, several of which are semantic unions. You may be right and the guideline wrong, but I'd like to see some ref for that which could be used on the MOS page to argue for a change in the guideline. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(tps) It strikes me from reading this that the way forward here may be to consult those sources that do observe the "traditional standard of typesetting", i.e. specifically typeset documents such as scans of legislation and books. Print publishers and government printers are likely at the highly geeky end of the scale as far as where to pour the lead. Although it may not have been raised here, I agree that typography in website implementations can be variable. However professionally printed sources would be more likely to observe (or at least think about) professional typesetting standards. Franamax (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Scans are often not reliable because OCRs generally don't make the distinction. But yeah, that may be the way to go. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All this has got me wondering what has become of certain well-known constructions e.g. Russian-American Company. From Russian America or course, though the company-name is often hyphenated in English sources- not sure about Russian, though there's quite a bit in Googlebooks....That's not a "disjunction" so far as I understand the word, other than the extremities it's been pushed to by various MOSites, and different in context than say, a Russian-American War or Russian-American Alliance (had there been such a thing); the other normal construction for e.g. treaties and relations is "Russo-American"....but I fail to see any distinction in meaning between "Russo-American Treaty" and "Russian-American Treaty" (i.e. a treaty between the US and Russia, not in reference to the RAC).Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference in meaning, but there is a difference in the underlying English. "Russian" can be a self-standing word, whereas "Russo" cannot be a self-standing word. Thus in certain names that use these constructions publishers often use a dash for the one that uses "Russian" and a hyphen for the one that uses "Russo". There's a possible confusion that will result if one believes that punctuation usage is always dictated by the meaning of the words; that is not true—often punctuation usage will depend on the precise words chosen, not on the meaning of what is being said. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In "Russian American X", Russian and American independently modify X (can't think of how that would be used). In "Russian-American X", Russian modifies American, which modifies X (Russian-American neighborhood). In "Russian–American X", Russian and American jointly modify X (Russian–American treaty).

And yes, I think we were using the word 'disjunction' incorrectly. Only some of the uses are disjunctive. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note the difference between Russian-American Company and Russian America vs Russian American, the latter being Americans of Russian origin, the former referring to the old Russian tenure in what is now called Alaska. As it happens the Russian-American Company title is hyphenated but the lede gives Russian American Company without the hyphen; the hyphen is a long-standing convention - even though Russian America is never seen with it (comparison is British North America or I suppose Latin America - you'd never see British-North America for example; the Russian version of the name does not have it. So pls note the difference in context between Russian America/Russian-American Company, Russian-American Treaty/Relations/War and "Russian American" meaning people (where a hyphen is rarely seen and the Wiki article does not have one). Someone from Russian America would not have been a Russian American; if of Russian origin they were simply Russian (even when Finns or Estonians, as some governors were LOL). "Russian-American Company" with a dash would mean, to me, with lower-case 'c' anyway, a joint Russian/American-owned company.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. But see British-North American Committee. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I gather in that context, if British-North American Committee were an article (maybe that's a bluelink?) that it would be necessarily endashed?Skookum1 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I suppose with a plain hyphen it would mean a committee of British North Americans—except of course that we'd need an en dash regardless because it's linking an open compound. Not much potential for confusion though. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I copied a bit from WP:naming conventions (languages) to WP:naming conventions (people), and added an original bit about using the word "tribe". I can't think of a better location: it matches the title of the page if not the contents. Maybe you'd like to review / revise / revert ? (It's currently being contested because of its location rather than its content due to a kerfuffle at Māori.) — kwami (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow maybe....I'm heading to bed, it's 10 to 2 am in my timezone (PST) and for the last two hours been engaged in combating COI/POV activity on political bios and reporting it to BLP etc...see my edit history and the talkpages at Adrian Dix and Christy Clark and on the BLP noticeboard about Adrian Dix, and on WP:CANTALK....BC politics is a dirty game, he's trying to do what he can to get me blocked and at the same time pollute those articles with spin doctor activity....he's a SPA, I'm not, but the upshot is if he's successful in getting me blocked it will unleash me into blogspace against them even more than I am now.... ;-). And I always did want my own news-panel show....hmmmmm. Have a read, it's quite entertaining, really.....(to really appreciate it you have to look over the article histories as well LOL). Hopefully by morning a denizen of BLP and someone else from WPCanada will take over...this guy should be blocked big-time but for now I'm going to bed and will survey the damage in the morning....Skookum1 (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot Regional District

Please reconsider the first and last sentences of your comment dated "19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)". Such antagonism seems unwarranted given the (so far) limited extent of Tony's participation in the RM discussion, and it serves only to obscure your point about official usage. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them rather than strike them out and leave them readable....they're partly in-context of things said about me in the course of the Poland-Lithuania RM and associated discussions on WTMOS, though not by Tony1. I'm just getting tired of people who don't know anything about a subject, and who apparently don't even read the article in question, making comments on RMs and CfDs etc that display an ignorance of what is at hand.Skookum1 (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and I suspected as much. Having read portions of the Poland-Lithuania RM, I noticed that you seem to have reached somewhat of a "bang head against wall, pause, repeat" stage. If it's any comfort, I'm confident that a balance will be restored once there is increased recognition of the fact that many hyphen-to-dash conversions took place due to overeagerness, misunderstanding or (as in my case, with the RD CfD) inattentiveness. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope the same proves true with the POV/COI edit war over BC Liberal leadership and NDP leadership articles currently underway, which I've reported to BLP and may do also on the COI and POV etc bulletin boards....Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Vancouver

Your edit in the Vancouver article raises an interesting point about the VAG. It seems to be a tri-partite question (whether the gallery can be called "civic"). I have learned that, while the Gallery Association - administration and staff - is stand-alone, the building is loaned by the city to the VAG, on lease from the actual owner, the Province of BC, and the collection of the gallery is owned by the city. Here are statements I got from the VAG's communications officer: "The Gallery’s permanent art collection of more than 10,000 artworks is held in trust by the Gallery for the citizens of Vancouver and is owned by the City of Vancouver. The former Provincial courthouse building that has housed the Vancouver Art Gallery since 1983 is owned by the Province. In 1974, as part of a land exchange between the Province of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver, the City acquired a 99-year lease on the courthouse building." VanArtGuy (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Template input

Thanks for your input and research for the two templates, they are coming together. Gracias. The Interior (Talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Once we figure out sectioning/tiering, there's a call for something like {{Landforms of British Columbia}}, based on List of landforms of British Columbia, which is based on Holland's book and accompanying map. Various things are "Plains" and "Lowlands" and such, not many are written yet - Nahwitti Lowland, Nanaimo Lowland, Liard Plain, Argonaut Plain etc....one that's already been made, thanks to User:Pfly, is Fraser Lowland - Georgia Depression may also exist (the Fraser and Nanaimo Lowlands are part of it, also the Puget Lowland - which is a redirect - it's part of something larger called the Coastal Trough which includes the Hecate Depression).Skookum1 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Arctic.gnome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TumTum

Hey, making a stub for Tumtum Lake on the Upper Adams River. The article for the Tumtum River in oregon states that "tumtum" is Chinook Jargon for "heart", while Akrigg says it for "falls" [2]. Which is right? The Interior (Talk) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They're both right, and the context is the same though the origin is "hearbeat"....Tumwater, Washington is named for its waterfalls. The idea is that the waterfall makes the same sound as rushing blood, often with a thumping noise or oscillation, depending on the falls and its acoustics and what's inside it. It's onomatopaeic on the "heartbeat/sound of blood" meaning, extended by idiom to waterfalls; there's a Tumtum Creek or two out there; you've seen List of Chinook Jargon place names by now, I hope. The Akriggs tend to be kinda "loose" in a lot of their name-derivations; very un-historiographical of them, really.Skookum1 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW I don't know - and doubt- a Chinookologist has ever considered it, but it could well be that tom-tom drum comes from teh same origin; though whether that originated in teh Pacific Northwest - in which case it could/would be considered a CJ usage, or somewhere else, I don't know. "Tum" was used to mean the single beat of a drum, or that "he lives" sometimes, - I think - in the latter case, though the usual phrase would be mitlite wind "is breathing" or iskum wind "has breath". Another possible Chinookism in English that's interesting to ponder is "in the sticks" meaning "in the wilderness, in the deep woods" - "stick" meant not just tree, but the woods; with various modifiers hiyu stick, hyas stick, mitwhit stick (standing-upright stick, ie. a mast or pole - or a penis). But a "Stick Indian" was a "bush Indian", someone untamed - another word was "lemolo" for "wild, untamed" etc. ()from le marron cf. maroon, runaway/renegade). So when you say "he lives in the sticks" you're really using Chinook Jargon as used by English-language speakers (a POV fork that should never have been permitted and IMO is racist and also inaccurate as it wasn't just English speakers among non-natives who used the CJ). Also the use of "house" in the context of "come into my house" meaning "into my room" - as "house" meant everything from (any kind of) building to individual rooms; same as a window was "kahkwa picture", i.e. like a picture frame....modern CJ in Oregon doesn't use these, I don't think, they've purged their creolized form of white words, for the most part, though tolerated the French ones more than the English ones....I could go on but it's late and this is entirely off-topic....Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Tumtum Lake The Interior (Talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the etymology of "tom tom" (drum) is, according to the OED anyway, "Hindustani or other East Indian vernacular tam-tam: compare Sinhalese tamaṭṭama, Malay tong-tong; all imitations of the sound of the instrument." Pfly (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be very curious to me if it came into North American English via Hindi or another East Indian language, though I can see that with British English....sorta. That it's onomatopaeic suggests that it may be like "ma" for mother, rather omnipresent across cultures and languages (as I understand it, at least intuitively, the "ma" results from a hungry baby using its lips and vocalizing to call the food-source with the same labial motion used to get it). But with tom-tom I'd want to know the North American provenance of it - first recorded date and location of usage; or was it already in English at the time of the settlement of New England, for example? Such that it was used for the Indian drum (North American Indian, that is) by colonists because it was already a word in the language....or was it picked up along the way either through onomatopaeia or its presence in a native language? The Chinook word for "music" or "musical instrument" by the way, is tintin or tin tin. Mamook tintin (or munk tintin in modern Grand Ronde CJ, in which mamook is the, er, primary vulgarity for sex) means to make music, also to make noise in general (really loud noise (even really loud music) is "mamook letleh" - "make like a train". Tin tin is supposed to be from the sound of bells (i.e. such as carried by priests). Needless to say latleh did not enter the Jargon until railways entered the Northwest....onomatopaeic words are common in CJ - pukpuk for fight (hits), pooh and mamook pooh for the sound of a musket, kalakala or kullakulla for geese...can't remember the word for eagle, it's similar....Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The OED quotes usage back to 1693 in English, with at least a couple in the 1700s. Looks to me most likely it came from India, although 1693 does not predate New England. In any case, I would not be surprised if it arose separately in other places and times.

the Hindi "origin"/ similarity is not relevant to BC, it's definitely a CJ origin, OK?17:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Apo

I know it isn't your area, but can you confirm Apohaqui, New Brunswick is AP-ə-hawk ?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Best place to ask that would be WP:WikiProject New Brunswick, if there is one, or on WP:CANTALK. I have some folks I could ask - where is it exactly? If they're not from near it they may not know; but Maritime pronunciations are funny things often enough; that seems to me to be a French rendition of a Mi'kmaq or Maliseet word, which would have descended into English prob more from the native side than how Acadians might say it. Have you looked up fr:Apohaqui, Nouvelle-Brunswick? WP:Canada in bilingual provinces (which NB most decidedly is) is often very thorough; but again that would be the French pronunciation; and most places of any kind in NB have a different pronunciation in French than the do in English; even Edmonston and Campbelltown are different....Skookum1 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Although your substantive opinions are often constructive, Wikipedia will eventually require you to conform to WP:CIVIL like everyone else. Art LaPella (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Art, if that were applied to guys like Tony and Dicklyon they'd have been blocked long ago; like the selective cherrypicking of MOS, selective complaints about personal attacks are a common wiki-theme. Seems to me the people most prone to complaining about personal attacks are also those most prone to making them. Soft-pedalled or otherwise - that TLDR thing is just a nuisance and an easy dodge for the lazy-minded. And my comments about what I was meaning by coming back on you about Canada not being relevant vs BC in this case is clear, or should have been - I was referring to the bclaws.ca site, not to the linked term; I should have just linked it as the Local Government Act of British Columbia I suppose....I don't preview posts, and usually have so many other things going on (including outside Wikipedia) I don't look over what's been posted and never occurred to me that that link would go to an article that was incomplete/unglobalized....or even that anywhere else had a piece of similarly-named legislation. Explaining that and then being told "TLDR" by a snot who wasn't part of the discussions is also uncivil, and also somewhat passive-aggressive.....I tire of being dumped on by such children, really I do, especially when - from the start - I knew I was right in saying that the hyphen was legal-status in BC placenames and was forced to weeks of arduous commentary/obstruction from people picking hairs over what MOS would allow. MOS is a guideline, NOT a rule, as it's being treated as; and the cherrypicking includes ignoring MOSFOLLOW and also the bits about regional MOS's taking precedence....Skookum1 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We could argue about who was mean to who, but it doesn't matter because Wikipedia is politically correct. It expects you to be nice, even if you were truly the object of all the persecution you imagine. From a non-so-politically correct viewpoint, this isn't the Battle of Lake Erie or even the Pig War; it's about hyphens. Art LaPella (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The animosity towards hyphens and the obsession about dashes has nothing to do with political correctness; and somewhere there's a thing about "Wikipedia is not politically correct" - politically correct by definition is a POV. What I see is too many people obsessing over style/interface, whether to do with hyphens or overly-complex templates (I temporarily quit Wikipedia last summer because of a lot of nonsense to do with someone who doesn't even use the {{BCGNIS}} template to "improve" it but only made it more complicated/time-consuming to use; I've since boycotted it - it was me who originally requested its creation and was its primary user, and got insulted into the hole by the code-freaks intent on ignoring anything about utility and the problems the "improved" template created on certain articles). This "issue" with hyphens being removed from where they implicitly belong - as mandated by the sources - has eaten up so much time on a triviality that shouldn't have been argued against like it has been that work on articles like Pig War (much needed, including a split of San Juan Island Dispute, which it's really a subset of (the dispute went on for 10 years, the war itself was only a few months), is an example of too much emphasis on style over content. Wikipedia should primarily be about content.....having MOS invoked as "Holy Writ" as I originally launched this debate on WTMOS is the hole point, and those defending its intransigence are the intransigent ones, likewise the cherrypicking of what they claimed DASH said, when really it never needed amending and if it had been applied fairly, and not agenda-ized by the typographical-happy, I would have done a LOT more constructive work on ACTUAL CONTENT instead of having to correct picayune mistake-generations by people who didn't even know what was the content of teh articles/categories whose titles they were changing all because MOS is supposed to be God or whatever......There should be WP:Be constructive, not obstructive - and there's one HELL of a lot of obstructionism on WTMOS, instead of cooperative discussion.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Politically correct" is indeed my POV, which doesn't matter much because I have never blocked anyone. The direct quote from WP:CIVIL is "do not respond in kind". Art LaPella (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

St'at'imc category

I have no idea. I made that category four years ago, so I'd be hard pressed to tell you my motivation at the time. I'm fine with removing the diacriticals, unless anyone feels passionately about it. CfD if you want, but be aware that you'll get a bunch of people, unaware of the hotbed issue of Indigenous names in BC, weighing in with a suggestion to name it Category:Lillooet or Category:Slatlemuk and they may overwhelm. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know; you might have seen the RM at Talk:Plains Indians recently....sigh. never mind the war I've had to get hyphens restored to the regional district names, which all along I maintained were legal names but had to prove, and re-prove, and re-prove and re-prove it, only to be met by all kinds of asinine pontificating by the typographical-happy unconcerned with the real world......between the evolution of NativeMOS in th next while, and expansion of CANMOS, we should be able to circumvent the "consensus of irrelevance" that typifies too much wiki-energy-drains....Skookum1 (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

the point there is "Canadian usages on CAnadian articles"...have you seen the challenge I've made to "Native American" category-name which cover Canadian topics? it's on the....Feb 2 CfD page I think....Skookum1 (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Gary Collins

Yeah, I was just about to let you know that a human being removed it in advance of the bot edit. But at any rate, it is a sufficiently sensitive claim that it does need to be properly sourced as quickly as possible; WP:BLP actually does permit potentially problematic content to be removed from an article if it isn't properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I'm still trying to figure out a useful response to your earlier post about electoral areas; I have absolutely no idea how to solve the discrepancy just yet. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, hide it for a couple of hours if you must; anyone familiar with BC news in the last ten years knows about it; it was a ministerial resignation resulting from the revelation that he had been placed under surveillance in connection with the OminTRAX bribe - the same reason the sale of the Roberts Line branchline of the BCER was cancelled (though Kevin Falcon is resurrecting it in a new guise, to serve the same interests, though not OmniTRAX). It's about as "sensitive" as saying that Gordon Campbell resigned because of the HST (though the truth is it had much more to do with the denouement of the BC Rail trial...). About the other political bios, now protected, and th leadership race article, there's tons to be added in the way of campaign news/debates and the voting system, likewise re the NDP....I'm trying to get my teeth away from the political material, to avoid more firefights with Skookum-haters, but will continue to post news-links on the talkpages in the hopes someone else will condense/account for them in the articles; it's not like all there should be on th leadership race page is which MLA supports which candidate, after all....as for the census area thing, essentially it boils down to one item being of federal provenance, the other of provincial-cum-municipal/local governance provenance; same boundaries, as also sometimes with electoral districts, but not the same thing. Easiest sollution is a census-area category with redirects with th StatsCan names....and note my comments that the current wiki-standard IR-name format is actually the French form, not the English.....more on that later, I'm on a libary computer (stopped by th New WEst library about using their auditorium for a Wikimedia meeting) and have to sign off....Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When I look at the diff you provided, I'm not actually seeing any evidence that the bot removed the material, so much as just the fact that it was already gone — so I'm not really sure what to tell you about that.

When it comes to the political edit warring, though, my issue is that I'm not especially familiar with all the details of the various BC scandals other than being aware that they exist, so I'm not really in a position to sort out what's properly sourced and valid content and what's inappropriate conjecture or allegation. I'm not really qualified to evaluate what we can say about the connections Collins had or didn't have to Railgate in the absence of actual sources, because I just don't have the background knowledge — so apart from the obvious BLP stuff (e.g. not categorizing Adrian Dix as a forger), there's not really a whole lot that I can contribute in most of these matters aside from basic page protection. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

your tone

In the Native American discussion, you convinced me with your logic. But you almost managed to un-convince me with your belligerent tone. I'm able to get beyond that, most of the time. But not everyone is. You might consider that when making arguments in the future. Just some unsolicited advice, which you can use or lose at your leisure.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Belligerent??? Mike, that wasn't belligerent, it was straightforward and honest; Canadians are constantly confronted by American assumptions, especially in Wikipedia; I wasn't even being "tart", I was being straightforward; I'm sure Quill would agree. You have no idea what I sound like when I'm belligerent, be rest assured of that. The point under discussion is very simple, and it's a truism that the n/N logic on native is old-hat and a shibboleth, it's not the issue; the issue is that "Native American" is a US-ism and should not be used on categories (and articles) containing Canadian and Mexican articles (or for that matter South American!!), and especially not in reference to the Inuit or Metis (who are not "Indians" in any way). If explaining that in as brief a way as possible is "belligerent" - WP:If thine eye offend thee, strike it out.Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "Let me try explaining myself" and "You don't get it, Mike." One makes me listen to you, and one makes me think you're an insufferable, xenophobic jerk. You can choose whichever you want. It's up to you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

"You don't get it, Mike" is belligerent??!! No, I was only addressing your personally/familiarly, and was only a polite emphatic (we Canadians are polite people, allagedly, though really when we say "sorry" all the time it's because we're used to having our heads bitten off for nothing); if you take that emphatic, addressed to you at a personal level, as "xenophobic" that's more than a bit extreme; I have all kinds of American colleagues on Wikipedia, and a good number of friends in Wikipedia and in real life (actually, I rather prefer a lot of my American friends to many of my Canadian acquaintances); I was trying to explain not myself but the basics of the differences in North American English usage, as clearly you "didn't get it". And this in the context of many discussions, e.g. the failed RM at Talk:Plains Indians, where American/USian language/myopia prevailed, often contemptuously, over the needs of Canadian English and Canadian sensitivities. Don't read aggression into statements that very clearly were NOT aggressive. Your position is wrong. Not just about this, but about things like the n/N argument and the presumption that the context of Native American name controversy is anything more than USian in context (it's only USian in context, until it's imposed on those of us who don't want or like it).Skookum1 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I didn't try. Other people on this talk page are trying to get you to understand that your tone is uncivil, and as far as I can tell, you're not interested in hearing that. So I'll move on. Good luck to you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what, I think you're just insecure and went on the attack because I was "winning" the issue at hand over on the CfD you've come here from; I think you've picked a spurious interpretation of a very casual, informal line that had no negative tone WHATSOEVER and aren't really interested in the points I showed you on the CfD, and just want a reason to condemn me. Any old reason will do. It's YOU who have gone on the personal attack here, as a way of evading the logic of the realities I presented in the CfD. Another tiresome wiki-nerd who can't see past the end of their own insecurities and who will go on the attack rather than actually learn something, or admit that they were wrong......what a waste odf time this place is. And you know what? This is my talkpage, so I can say what I want when faced with unfair accusations such as those you have made here. You were wrong in the CfD, found fault when there was none to be found here, and came here only to insult and degrade. Get lost.Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, ordinarily I wouldn't get involved, but since I was asked for my opinion: Mike, if you are even still reading this, I think you did misinterpret Skookum's original tone. I can see how you must have read it, but I don't think it was meant that way, and you should be careful to assume good faith rather than take offense. Skookum, it's obvious to me that you didn't meant any harm by "You don't get it" but your hostility here in response to Mike's misunderstanding is unwarranted and unhelpful. In short, you've both managed not to assume good faith, and turned a simple misunderstanding into an angry argument. It looks like it's over now anyway, so I guess it's best to just leave it alone. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cypress and the San Juan Islands

Hello Skookum1, I noticed that you edited the Cypress Island page, pointing out that it isn't part of the San Juan Islands. It is true that Cypress Island is not in San Juan County, but in Skagit County, as you point out. However, the term "San Juan Islands" designates, it seems, the entire archipelago and is not necessarily coextensive with the county of the same name. During the conservation battles in the 1980's and 90's, Cypress was often referred to as "the last large undeveloped island in the San Juan's" and it is primarily for this reason that it seems, to me, to be a shame to exclude it. If you don't mind, I will edit the page to reflect this.

Labatitude (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Labatitude, I agree with you that the term "San Juan Islands" is frequently used loosely for any number of islands in the vicinity of the main archipelago, and that Cypress Island is often included in this colloquialism. I see no problem with saying this, so long as it is pointed out that this informal usage differs from the stricter official and historic definition, under which Rosario Strait has always been the eastern limit of the San Juans. The strict definition is not arbitrary but of significant historical and international importance. For the "official" definition, see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: San Juan Islands. There are numerous other sources that agree. The Geographic dictionary of Washington (page 242), defines Rosario Strait as separating "the islands of the San Juan group from those of Skagit County on the east". Encarta likewise cites Rosario Strait. Encyclopaedia Britannica (see here, but might be behind a paywall) points out that "the islands were awarded to the United States (1872) after settlement of a boundary dispute." Note that Cypress Island was not in dispute and not part of the "award".

The strict definition's importance and relevance dates back centuries. Explorers such as Francisco de Eliza and George Vancouver noted Haro and Rosario Straits as primary, and the San Juan Islands as those between the straits. Eliza gave the name San Juan to the archipelago between the straits. Notably he named Cypress separately, as San Vincente. A year later Vancouver accepted the name Spanish name San Juan for those islands between Haro and Rosario Straits. Vancouver renamed San Vincente as "Cypress Island". He did a careful survey of the San Juans (under Broughton), which did not include Cypress Island (though it was used as a base of operations for a time). You can read all about that topic in A Discovery Journal: George Vancouver's First Survey Season - 1792, especially Chapter V, Admiralty Inlet & San Juan Islands.

But more important is the international dispute and near war over the San Juans. The Oregon Treaty of 1846, which set the boundary between the US and Canada/Britain, failed to indicate which nation would get the San Juans, leading to the San Juan Boundary Dispute. The treaty had defined the boundary as running through the "middle of the channel" between Vancouver Island and the mainland. In the dispute following there was never any question that the "main channel" was either Haro or Rosario Strait. The dispute islands were called, as Vancouver had called them and everyone since, the San Juan Islands. Cypress Island, being east of Rosario Strait, was not in dispute and not part of the San Juan Islands. The only way it could have been is if Bellingham Channel had been claimed as the "main channel", but it never was and clearly isn't. Here is another book describing the importance of Haro and Rosario Straits as defining the San Juans during the boundary dispute era (Canadian Hydrographic Service).

What I'm trying to say is, yes, in a loose sense Cypress Island is in the San Juans and there is no issue with saying so. But one ought to also mention that it is so in the loose or informal sense. In addition, one could make a case in a geologic sense, although geologic texts are not in full agreement on the matter This book, p. 18, for example, describes how the islands east of Rosario Strait "ache to be called San Juans too, with some geological justification". However, the book opts to use the term San Juans for those islands west of the strait only. It calls Cypress Island "an entrance to the San Juans". Another source that more strongly defines islands east of Rosario Strait as San Juans, geologically speaking, is Geology of the San Juan Islands (note that despite the NPS URL, this is a University of Washington report).

To sum up (sorry for the long post), I'd say go ahead and mention Cypress Island as being sometimes considered part of the San Juans (though please provide a reference, which shouldn't be hard to find), but please mention something about the usage being informal, sometimes geologic, or words to that effect. We should not sweep away the historical and international importance the San Juans Islands, Rosario Strait, and Haro Strait, I think. Pfly (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be sorry about the long post, as it is all quite interesting! I'm familiar with Vancouver's book and in fact included a quote from it in the Cypress article. This is all quite convincing and I certainly don't want to be sweeping any history under the mat. I don't have a nautical chart to check, but I'm sure that they follow more or less the Rosario/Haro distinction.

Rather than saying that Cypress is "loosely" part of the San Juans, it might be best to just state its proximity to the San Juans and leave it at that. I will try to think of something elegant.

Since we are on the subject, I would have liked to include more information about the native presence on the island but have found authoritative resources. The Guemes Island page totally avoids the subject too. If you have any suggestions, I would appreciate it. Labatitude (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And four years later the convertion

Pls see Talk:English-speaking Quebecer#Quebecer vs. Quebecker.Moxy (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification required

Hello Skookum, Please see Talk:Seaspan Marine Corporation#Clarification required. Peter Horn User talk 00:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Taku

I appreciate the clarification you made to my photo description on the page Taku Indians. While I was trying to simply mirror what was on the sign/plaque, you have helped me understand the difference. After I saw your edit to the photo description, I made a similar change to the photo description on Douglas Island, where I had also used the same photo. I also changed the description on the photos page (the information provided if you click on the photo to enlarge it), as I realized I had unintentionally made it sound as though ALL of the Raven Clan were buried there. I certainly had not intended to make it sound as though they are extinct. Thanks again for your edit this morning, you have educated me a great deal on the matter. AlaskaMike (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

X people or X

Per our recent discussion, it might be a good idea to try to find a common format for X people/X language per our existing naming conventions. There are several well-known N.Am. peoples, such as Cherokee, Chickasaw, Ojibwe, Cree, Comanche, Sioux, which use the bare term for the people; that may be the best way to go for well-known peoples, but might not be such a good idea for more obscure peoples. I don't know where we'd draw the line, or if we'd want to apply a single convention to everyone unless reason for a particular exception can be demonstrated. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Same with Sto:lo, which is now current in BC/Canadian English without "people" attached, though even with St'at'imc and Nlaka'pamux and Secwepemc the convention appears to be to add "people" even though that morpheme is included in the name. Haida was recently made into Haida people, though they're among the best-known. I think your (if it was you) model of using the English form of the language was a good one, e.g. Okanagan language instead of Siylxt'sn (which actually that's redirected to is Colville-Okanagan language which I recall some avid MOSite applied ENDASH too, quite wrongly; and "Colville language" is actually a modern creole of Okanagan and various other Salishan and non-Salishan dialects, though there's not much literature on it (I know about it from the CHINOOKLIST, where I'm barred for, well, not being toeing-the-official-line enough, even though I was one of its founders...skin is the wrong colour, basically...). But as for peoples, what's well-known somewhere might not be somewhere else, and usage can have different meaninngs; Carrier people includes Wet'su-wet'en as well as Dakelh, which are not the same (as any Wet'su-wet'en would avidly tell you). Tsilhqot'in like St'at'imc and Secwepemc and Skwxwu7mesh includes the morpheme for "people" though in common use in the BC press you see "Tsilhqot'in people" rather than Chilcotin people and one of their subsets "Xeni Gwet'in", currently about (um) to wage war against the planned Prosperity Mine near Taseko Mountain. Sto:lo and Nuu-chah-nulth do not include "people" in their morphemes but are commonly used stand-alone as well as with "people" (really "peoples" is more accurate but you don't see that often); whereas Halkomelem is rarely seen as "Halkomelem language" or the old-era "Fraser River Salish", I suppose because it's so well-known (locally anyway). Inuktitut is common in Canadian English, without "language", jsut as it's never correct to say "Inuit people" (Inuit = more than one Inuk). All this and more is why NativeMOS is needed, to forestall any ambiguity and confusion and conflicting formats. Was it really necessary, for instance, to change Tlingit to Tlingit people or Haida to Haida people? (Not sure what "tlingit" means, but "haida" means "us", as I understand is the case). "Tribe" in any case is odd-sounding in Canada, though occasionally used by band governments, as with Tlowitsis Tribe, which are one particular group of the Kwakwaka'wakw, though Tlowitsis as an article, or maybe Tlowitsis people would be the title of the ethno article, not the band government article.....language regarding First Nations in Canada is very politicized, let's just say that for now....Skookum1 (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Meant originally to say/add also that for the "minor" peoples, like the subsets of Kwakwaka'wakw or Sto:lo, the "X people" format might well be preferable, e.g. Sts'Ailes people as opposed to Sts'Ailes (BC's Chehalis people, whose band gov is the Chehalis First Nation/Chehalis Indian Band - and though Halkomelem-speakers do not consider themselves Sto:lo (which means "Fraser River" and they're not on the Fraser River (though just off it)..Skookum1 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Queen Charlotte Islands

Sorry for the edit conflicts! I've been following Queen Charlotte Islands for a while now, but I've been very neutral about the name change until I started seeing the shift by various levels of governments and other information content providers. It's a difficult topic to see through the grey area. +mt 05:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

one of the comments in the "pronunciation" section said that "Ottawa" has made the name change, but CGNDB is not "Ottawa". It's a part of the federal government, but it is not the federal government. The QCI BCGNIS entry (rescinded) has the Haida pronunciations btw, which are different than in English. My comments at length about the misconduct of the "culture warrior" pot-kettle-black crowd are in my new comment there; I'm finding the whole business tiresome at this point; cultural soapboxing is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tiresome could describe it. As long as "Queen Charlotte Islands" is preserved in historical contexts, then that'll keep me happy. I'd like to hear from local residents regarding the naming discussion, however I somehow doubt there are many (any?) Wikipedians from that dually-named archipelago. +mt 08:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry just reverted you

while cleaning up after Kyle1977. The Interior (Talk) 06:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Little kiddies poo'ing on the floor, sometimes the dirt gets on the wrong peopleSkookum1 (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Cordillera (North America)

Hi, I stumbled today onto the article Western Cordillera (North America). I tried to fix it up a little bit, especially the lead. I didn't remove the tags you inserted, but I was wondering if you could review the article, and see if maybe it might be appropriate to move the tags down in the article, to the particular sections that are most problematic. That would help editors focus on the problematic parts, plus it would make the lead look a bit more legitimate. This article is now wlinked directly from the lead of Rocky Mountains, so it would be nice to get it spruced up. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it in quite a while and it's even more of a mess now...the opening of the "major features" section contains some incredible gaffes, apparently made by people either not thinking of bypassing redirects or pipes without understanding why they were there (the Pacific Cordillera does not "begin in Alaska"; it's just a Canadian term for the Canadian portion of the WEstern Cordillera). I'll take a longer look, but I'm always unclear on the section tags; ones I try always seem to be redlinks, maybe you know of a directory of them somewhere. Part of the problem with the article is that Canada and the US use different nomenclatures for many of the same features/formations. I'll do what I can for now but this has been off my radar for a long time....Skookum1 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)Thanks for the reply. Here are some tags you could use:
{{refimprove|section}}
{{original research|section}}
{{synthesis|section}}
The "Major Features" section is basically stuff I moved out of the lead. That section seems very heavily weighted toward Canada, for some reason I don't understand. Anyway, if you can spend a wee bit of time reconsidering the tags, that would be much appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian "weight" is I suppose from the need to explain the Canadian nomenclature and its variations; there are similar problems on other cross-border geography articles such as Cascade Range and North Cascades (to where Canadian Cascades is a redirect and subsection (officila name in Canada is Cascade Mountains though that redirects to the main Cascades article; also Columbia Basin and Pacific Coast Ranges. The root of these complications is because official geography on both sides of the border makes a point of being differ4ent from the other, even when the boudnaries are (and when they'er not) the same; this is also true of other landform articles and ecozones/regions and the like. It would help if there's common terminology to both countries, and also common definitions (e.g. the Cabinets and Salish and Montana component of the Purcells are classified in the US as part of the Rocky Mountains, their Canadian continuation is the columbia Mountains, and the name Monashee Mountains ends at the border, though the mountains don't etc.....not all fields share the ame terminology either; as you know geology has different region-definitions and Environment Canada has coined ecoregion names which sounds ilke mountain range names, e.g. Boreal Cordillera and Montane Cordillera (all done by people in Ottawa where the highest mountains are maybe 1000' if that). I"m in the midst of career stuff and also a lot of political blogging right now, but I['ll see what I can take care of as time permits.Skookum1 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In the mean time, I'll put a message at the talk page saying that it would probably be good to avoid jargon altogether, and that way there wouldn't be any need to pick between Canadian and U.S. jargon. Feel free to notify any other editors who may have an interest in this (I only notified you because you're the one who put the tags in). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not jargon; these are official definitions e.g. Interior System vs. Intermontane Plateaus; and they vary even between states, e.g. see Coast Range, for which there are, oh, maybe seven or so different meanings just in North America and vary between Washington, Oregon and California usages as well as in BC (where it's common/casual for the Coast Mountains, but also a reference to the Pacific Coast Ranges, and farther north in BC is used to include the Skeenas and Hazeltons which are formally part of the Interior Mountains. I've tried in editing/writing this and similar articles to keep the casual usages out, unless they're important and then explained as vernacular; but the terminologies I was referring to here are not jargon, but academic/core use as laid down by certain publciations, such as in BC's case S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia which is the basis for the Provincial Gazette/BC Names. Equivalent in the US is USGS and the EPA.Skookum1 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still seems technical. See WP:Technical: "If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Wouldn't avoiding technical terminology remove the problem of picking between Canadian and U.S. technical terms?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very pointedly WP:Original research; citable information is what Wikipedia is built on, and the citable authoriative/definitive sources are actually twofold in English on this continent, and threefold when Spanish (er, and with French, fourfold) terms are included; and their own different definitions; there are common boundaries, but not the same nomnclature etc. The nomenclature is citable; it's not technical at all, it's what the definitionsare. You can't just go inventing new ones. The problem is finding a way to reconcile the two systems when possible (i.e. US vs Canadian terms in any field); in thise case there is no "third way", the two countries have two different sets of geographic definition. To make a common article those have to be reconciled, and must be4 t he basis of the article; not a new "non-technical" definition or a dumbed-down geography either....and most certainly not an invented one...Skookum1 (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I got kind of obsessed revising the lead. Anyway, this should primarily be an article about the physical geography of this cordillera, right? If so, my plan would be to get a bunch of physical geography textbooks that address this subject, and use them as references to revise the main body of this article. Sound good?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just remember that there's semi-official definitions, in BC's case there are official definitions (see cites somewhere on BC pages for S. Holland Landforms of British Columbia); and yeah physical geography is the basis, not ecology or geology, which are separate topics/articles.Skookum1 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Salish/Salishan (concluded)

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Nick Number's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Outback the koala (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper

Howdy Skookum1. Referencing Harper's expanding waistline & calling the 28th ministry a regime, might've made ya come across as anti-Conservative & anti-Harper in the AfD. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the only reason...and "regime" is commonly heard in the press....Skookum1 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

that waistline comment is actually citable, if I dug it up; I'm not the only one who's made that comment, it's common.Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The waiste-line comment was funny, however. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the British articles Premiership of X to Prime Ministership of X, since it appears these article aren't gonna be deleted. Premiership/Premier as far as sovereign states are concerned, tend to be associated with communist states, in the english language. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember you. We got into a dispute over at the 2008-09 Canadian Parliamenty dispute article, over 2yrs ago. Back then, you were suggesting I was pro-Conservative. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Which all your edits were, over and over and over, always claiming innocence and making specious arguments to justify them; Tory-ite obstinacy, it's written all over you. WP:DUCK. Now leave me alone and go fuss over your Stevie articles and why you think they're just peachy-keen, and play wordgames with the title. They're POV from start to finish, and the "policy" articles should be "x policy debate during the Harper era" if anything, as not only Stevie's policies are relevant during that period; as much as whomever there is claiming no one else's are because theyr'e not prime minister....what a crock, you all sicken me, just as you in particular did during the prorogation article exercise, which I de-listed in no small part because of you. Go congratulate yourself, I'm done with Wikipedia other than seeing this AfD to its conclusion and adding various cites and passages to certain other articles. I'm sick of this place, and types like you.Skookum1 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, that's what I call a non confidence motion. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlanders

Hello again Skookum1 - I am finally getting around to updating and expanding the Wells Gray Park article. Back in 2008, you added a paragraph about the Overlanders. I just wanted to let you know that they did not cross the Cariboo Mountains and did not go into what is now the park during their 1862 expedition; they followed the North Thompson River only. I have corrected your info and added a bit to it. Cheers Roland Neave (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant to get at this much earlier but had a system crash and various typically-windows-delays and other wiki-stractions...yes, I know the main party came down teh North Thompson, but there was a quarrel of some kind at Tete Jaune and three or four decided to try and head west across the mountains; the survivors made it to Barkervillin 1865 or so, after a couple of hellish years in the mountains...I'm not sure where I know that from, maybe from MS Wade, maybe from Robin Skelton (who mostly quotes from Wade), maybe from one of the omnibus BC histories like Howay & SCholefield....I'll see if any of my Wells/Barkeville contacts know the story....the route may have been farther north between Wells Gray Park and the Bowron Park, where the Cariboo Mtns Park is now....not sure, story I saw didn't specify the route, only that it was nasty and they got into town after the rush was largely over....Skookum1 (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Overlanders split at Tete Jaune Cache in the late summer of 1862 but their hellish journey was thru Yellowhead Pass east of there. They split almost evenly, about 35 going across the low pass to Albreda and the North Thompson, other half building rafts and floating down the Fraser River to Fort George (now Prince George) then to Quesnelle Forks and Barkerville. The north party arrived in Barkerville in November 1862, but that was over a year after Billy Barker's gold strike and hundreds of miners had beaten them there. The south party also built rafts on the North Thompson and had a wild journey thru the canyons near Blue River. I haven't heard of 3-4 Overlanders who attempted crossing the Cariboo Mtns directly - that is a really tough trip even today. One good book I have is "Journey Fantastic: Overlanders to the Cariboo" by Metcalf (1970). Richard Wright is one of the history experts on Barkerville, written several books, and he probably knows lots about the Overlanders; he runs Theatre Royal there. Roland Neave (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Stephen Harper. Thank you. postdlf (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Look - You're a valued contributor here in many ways, but you're overreacting significantly on this issue. Please take some time off and consider staying away from the topic of Harper when you come back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't care anymore; see my post on User talk:Jimbo Wales just now; it's not just Harper; BC political and corporate articles are also rife with the same kind of political posturing/COI-POV/ etc...I've wasted enough of my life here. A lifetime block would be a mercy killing. I'm tired of little snots like GoodDay and obvious political operators liek Resolute talking down about me, and seeing the spin-doctors have their way. I'm done, done, done.Skookum1 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, it's just a website. It's not worth getting yourself so worked up over all this. -- œ^™ 18:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What I'm worked up over is the hijacking of our country's political system by a hugely-funded media machine, and the duping of Wikipedia by those who know how to play its sillyh little games....I see I'm blocked now, "come back after the election if you're still editing"....yeah, uh-huh, free speech, right.....too much of my life has been spent here on fighting the demon of useless tasks, whether it's code improvements like that stupid BCGNIS thing, the incredible lengths it took to get the MOSites to finally concede that British Columbia placename-punctuations were legitimate and not "backward", or attempting to get rid of obvious spam and political engineering of Wikipedia as in this case. And where were all the other CANTALKers re the Harper weedpatch? Looking the other way? "Oh, I don't want to deal with anything serious" is the attitude....which is why those with an agenda can get away with the shit that they do. And I know I was bucking for this block, but ironic isn't it that someone critical of an article's POV is condemned for having a POV, and is now blocked from fixing it, or taking part in further discussion on it? Wikipedia is part of teh New World Disorder, make no mistake - it's an information management machine where passive-aggressives have an easy upper hand and the rules are jigged in their favour. History is not written by the victors; it's written by the liars, particularly those with more money, more time, and a better way with oily speech than those whose views they regularly affront and diss as "biased" even though they themselves so clearly are. The gangfuck in the ANI was expected; not one of the bad-behaviour Toryites in the AfD was dressed down, it was "gang up on Skookum1, make it about him, not about the issues".....yeah I have better enjoyable hobbies, and as far as history and such go, which are my real interests, I'm not about to subject myself to being reviewed and controlled by know-nothing admins who have their powers by playing kiss-up and talk-down.....the regular rightist put-down that people confronting their agenda as "conspiracy" theorists, as Resolute did in the ANI, is only so much more hobble-gobble from the information/discreditation management machine. Wikipedia never really has had any true credibility; now to me it has something far less than that. It has "cooptation" written all over it.Skookum1 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tom Pynchon, in Gravity's Rainbow, lays out five Proverbs for Paranoids. They include "the conspiracy is real, and there's nothing you can do about it, so accept it". In the coming weeks, confronted by the penetration of the Tory/Harperite media machine at all fronts, I'll be among those lobbying for "Stop Harper". Wikipedia I've given up on, it's useless to let teenage admins wearing pirate hats in Scotland have control over whether or not something in a Canadian-topic article is valid or not; utterly ridiculous.Skookum1 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is I hope you change your mind and decide to continue editing here. I, and I'm sure many others, consider you to be an asset for Wikipedia, especially in areas of Canadian geography. Your spirited discussions and enthusiasm will be sorely missed. -- œ^™ 19:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently my spirit and enthusiasm is what I'd have to quell to stick around/come back. As someone else has said to me "Mike, just write your books, and they'll have to cite you". Pouring my energies into a forum where I have to pander to abstruse rules and uninformed poo-bahs and ongoing p-a behaviour....my tongue will do a lot better without being pierced and knotted by those seeking to check it....I had to laugh at Resolute where he claimed, somewhere in the ANI board I guess, about my block, that my hostility towards Harper and Campbell is "because they are right-wing" - no, it's because they're liars and thieves and conmen and conniving bastards; that the right-wing has turned itself into such beings, and chosen them as leaders, is only my problem because they held power and have sold my province/country down the drain....I actually respect and liked Clark and Diefenbaker and Bob Stanfield, for example; but they weren't corporate carpetbaggers; they were real Conservatives. Wikipedia llows the liars who control our mainstream media to control Wikipedia by exclusing independent sources and relying on rigged "reliable sources", as if newspapers and networks were trustworthy and not opinion-generation/manipulation machines....it's so vulnerable to penetration and manipulation it's not funny; and I see the same detractions against criticism here as I see from trolls in blogspace; the same lines, the same repetitive excuse-making and personal-attacking of those bearing the message of "this news is rigged and not to be believed". I actually de-listed the Campbell article, as I also did the prorogation article, because of the ongoing frustration of dealing with their many layers of deception and the gaggle of right-wing apologists who masquerade to neutrality while defending their political turf at every turn.....yes, I should have known better than to get involved with political articles, because of the futility of arguing with the uninformed on the one hand, and the dishonest on the other. BC geography yes, needs more coverage, BC history (recent and older) yes, needs coverage. But I need to make a living, the iron she needs a-lifting, my guitar she needs a-playing, my songs need singing, and the road she's a-calling me...Wikipedia's not good for my health, and I'm tired of having my sanity insulted by know-nothings, admins or otherwise. History I'll come back to as an old(er) man, when I can no longer dance or roam; for now I'm gonna use what's left of my youth and burn it up, and how. I gotta lot of work to do between now and the end of my world. Needless to say, if you listen to any of those raunch-outs, most of which were played in the rain and dark on city plazas and not in the high country where I'm from, I have a lot more fun being the real me than just some ornery old coot on Wikipedia with more principle than politesse, and more common sense than to stick around....Skookum1 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Award for service

Thank you for your service. Here is your current service award. Hoping that your absence is temporary. If not, good luck to you in the future. Herostratus (talk)

This editor is a
Senior Editor III
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Ballotpedia

I don't know if Canada has anything like Ballotpedia, but it's important to have something focused on non-partisan information. Ballotpedia uses the MediaWiki software. A list of other sites using that software is here. Just a thought. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

An outsider's view

I'm not Canadian and I haven't been involved in this fracas you seem to be embroiled in, but I can recognize the need for a wikibreak. Please take one before one is forced on you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Block

Dear Skookum, I noticed that you had been blocked, and stopped by to post the link to our unblock procedure if you should so desire. The method for requesting the unblock can be found at: Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks; and, technical info can be found at Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

On a personal note, I do sense that you are extremely upset and frustrated, due largely to your most recent posts. Perhaps a bit of time away from Wikipedia to go out and enjoy the world would not be such a bad idea after all. Either way, I wish you the best of luck. — Ched :  ?  20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope to see you return, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On the councils of the self-appointed mighty:

Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacal people for maniacal ends and I think I am liable to put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it. = John Lennon (instead he was shot for it...)

Blaming the victim is an old game, shooting the messenger even older; that's what was done to me, in no uncertain terms, by thsoe defending their own arbitrary powers to arbitrarily decide on matters they are either unknowledgeable about, or empowered to enforce and mislead to achieve their own biased ends. In THX-1138, there is a room where the sane people are kept, and medicated so as to be inarticulate; if they persist, or do not recant their sanity, they are dissolved and their DNA recycled; THX solves that problem by escaping back into the above-ground reality where the sun shines and the grass grows, which is supposedly a myth. The final truth of that film is that there is sunlight, there is life, there is still the earth, there is still truth, beyond the concocted and controlled fictions of the underworld. Kafka's The Trial and The Castle and various of his Parables and Paradoxes also come to mind in relation to my treatment, and the way abusing me was put to use as a way to deflect from the truth I was bearing; a calculated, extended personal attack. Now in place to prevent me from monitoring POV abuses of Canadian political articles during the most critical election in Canada's history....and you think I'd want to COME BACK after such a load of codswallop and unjust behaviour? I'm not the insane one, I'm not the one who needs a "stern talking to". All you friggin' admins who think that you did the right thing towards me, and instead of dealing with my anger by examining why I was angry should instead apologize for your own misconduct, eat some humble pie or else go eat some crow. This affair was a dark mark in Wikipedia's history, no mistake about it; you have participated in political censorship and made yourselves all smug and shown yourselves to be both arrogant and dupes. Are you going to block me from writing my thoughts on my own userpage now? Just silence me some more so as to not have to cope with the shame you SHOULD be feeling? Every single one of you had better watch every single edit to any Harper/Tory related page in the next two weeks, as it's you who have to take the blame for not keeping around one of the people who've been watching for the very kind of POV activity that's happened since this block began, and will escalate, mark my words, as election day approaches and beyond. I'm the voice of reason; you lot are the voice of ignorance and presumption. Shame, shame, shame - a pox on all your houses. Anger is a sign of sanity; telling me to tone myself down is akin to telling me to take medication so as to deal with my political problem as if it were an emotional problem. Even my "friends" here who tell me to come back after I've calmed down are doing the same thing; become a drone, tone yourself down, it's not that important.....TRUTH IS IMPORTANT. Or don't they teach that in school anymore?? But my political problem is YOU, and I've become very hotly emotional because of the outrage committed against me, and the truth, and telling you what you are to your faces and my pointing out your hypocrisies and biases and illogics in the ANI i and your calling that "disruptive editing" and the dispassionate and condescending detached-from-reality that you all evince is a sign of YOUR insanity and either lack of sophistication or your own biased motives agendas (like Silver's condemnation of "liberal bias"). Very definitely not my insanity - I'm the sane one here (and many of my "liberal" WP:CANADA and other Wiki-friends aver the same thing privately). It's all of you who need an admin-break and take off the little crowns you wear as a sign of your priesthood in Wikidom for a while, not punish those who show you up for the arrogant buffoons you have proven yourselves to be.... Take your pick - patsy, or partisan; some of you both. Either dishonest, or deceived, using your own vanity-of-power to silence someone bearing truth you needed to hear; either about the spin doctor engineering of Wikipedia, or about your own fallacious self-importance. I came across that John Lennon quote elsewhere tonight, it was so a propos I had to bring it here; I have received encouragement privately that my nomination of these articles was the right thing to do, but some people were away, and the consensus among my supporters was that I was gang-fucked in the ANI, just as I was ganged up on and made the target of the AfD. I'm the one who was injured and offended by partisan and personal attacks at the AfD for daring to take on the POV garden-of-poison that it was about. The "X Policy of the Harper government" articles are a weed patch; as long as they survive at all, in their current form/purpose/titling at any rate, Wikipedia is just a recycling bin for partisan campaign materials, and little more. Most of you are too young to even have an inkling of the true nature of politics, more's the pity; some of you probably only know John Lennon as a singer and you certainly know nothing of his politics or his philosophy, and Kafka as a curiosity rather than, as with Orwell and Huxley, a warning (and in Kafka's case, a man driven insane by the insane world around him). Your lack of knowledge/appreciation of such matters is your problem, not mine, I know who I am and what's real and what's not, and what's right and what's not. Block me from my own userpage if you must to silence me further; it will only underscore what you are, and that Wikipedia is becoming what is not supposed to be; in the case of my banning and removal of my posts such as Thumperward's removal of my criticism of him as "soapboxing" is nothing more than censorship. And the suggestion that I "hate" Campbell and Harper "because they're right wingers", made by Resolute, is just more right-wing spin; I hate them because they're liars, thieves, egotists and behave as dictators and anti-democrats who used money and confidence scams to corrupt my country's democracy for their own egos, and for the bank accounts of their supporters/backers....same as the kids in Tahrir Square standing up to Mubarak; and that's not as much a stretch as you think it is, if you knew more about Canadian politics and what's going on here. Resolute and his ilk will scoff at that, and deride it as conspiracy theory, but that TOO, is just part of the same Tory/rightist media/spin machine rhetoric/dismissal tactic that we're all far too familiar with in Canada by now...and why there's a tide rising to try and overturn the spin-machine's claim that Harper will win a majority; he will only win if people remain silent about his iniquities and his methods; which include silencing his critics by whatever means possible. You've all been played, kiddies, and the Tories had their way here, thanks to you....Skookum1 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You do know what usually happens next in these instances, don't you Skookum1? You're most certainly not stupid and you've been here a very long time. The block is amended to revoking your talk page privs until your block is up. You are attacking other editors, and you absolutely, 100% are soapboxing. What else do you think it is? You're a good editor who has gone a little "iffy" with your incessant rants. Give it a rest and come back after you're feeling better. Doc talk 07:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The "feeling better" comment impugns exactly waht Lennon is talking about; banning me from my talkpage is just a further sign of you lot not wanting the truth told to your faces about what you've pulled here, and what you're cooperating with. "Wikipedia is not censored" yeah, right - unless it's osmeone criticizing Wikipedia who knows what's wrong and has been harmed by it. Extending the block to silence me completely is just proof that you are all not what you say you are, or think you are. "Incessant rants" indeed; incessant injustice, is more like it - from your end. Suggesting I'm ever going to "feel better" is impugnign that I'm ill or that there's somethign wrong with me -0 and that's a personal attack of the worst and most injurious kind, when it's the truth that's at stake. Detachment is the sign of a doctor, or a machine; not of a human being who has the capacity to realize that they're wrong, or when their being wrong has harmed another; incapable of apology and hard-assed the lot of you, and presuming to amateur pyschiatry as well as the right-to-censor. Proof positive that this is a cult, and not even a clubby hobby, but a cult with its own interests to protect at any cost. It's me who's been injured and insulted, in the AfD and in that fucking ANI you all act so high and mighty in. I have n o intentions of coming back; but not allowing me to "soapbox" and amend my userpage (which I'm intending on doing, perhaps just to a big black space with one line on it, exactly waht I haven't chosen yet. You can't condemn me for 'soapboxing' on my own page; that's just another wiki-muzzle, just another wiki-injustice, just anotehr sign of wiki-tyranny and an inability to see your own faults. And THAT - that, that's insanity.Skookum1 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Dude, there's "free speech" at Speaker's Corner in London. Not here. Your user page is not yours, as it belongs to the WMF that you have gratefully volunteered your services to for a number of years. I'm just telling you what's going to happen because I've seen it so many times before in other cases. I echo the sentiments of others that you are a very good editor that needs a wiki-break. That's all. There's no right-wing conspiracy here - if anything most media has a left-wing bias. Please stop before it's too late... Doc talk 07:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in Canada, the media doesn't have a left-wing bias, it's notoriously right-wing, even the CBC of late; but the hard right always claim it's left-wing...especially when it addresses facts, not repeats spin. That comment is just proof of your own bias, which you seem unable to self-examine. And the inability to self-examine and self-criticize, that's a mark of someone who's not fully self-aware; and the inability to feel empathy in anything other than condescending terms, that's sociopathy. And by saying you've seen it before, means that you've played the totalitarain game by remaining uncritical of injustice and unfair treatment.Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never been called a sociopath before, and I'm unsure of how you can determine my world-view based on the few comments I've tried to help you get out of this mess. Mea culpa. WP sort of is a game (with rules) - and only those that play by the rules keep playing it. I can only hope that you'll return here doing what you have done so well for so long, because there are those calling for your head right now and I'm not one of them. Good luck. Doc talk 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, then you should have a good LONG look at yourself, and about what Wikipedia really is, or is becoming. And it turns out I can't amend my own userpage, so my comment to add there, which I am unable to because of wiki-censorship, is "Censorhip is an act of moral cowardice". Or of just plain old immorality.Skookum1 (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You know that life isn't fair. You've lived a longer one than I have, but I'm not exactly a spring chicken. WP isn't always fair either. Deal with it and make it better where you can; but you can't start from the ground up. That's for Wikipedia Review ;> Doc talk 08:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to make Callicum, Frances Barkley, Aránzazu, North West American (ship), and A-B Line myself, ah well... Pfly (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And back East they think we're all very laid-back

Hi there. I was just looking over your whole situation. I didn't comment at the AfD but I did take a look at it. I don't really know the details of your situation so I shouldn't get into it. But I know you've done a lot of good things as an editor, especially on BC topics so I'd hate to see you go. At the same time, I understand if you think you need to. I'm barely a Wikipedian myself and I know there are more important things in life. Either way, I think you're harming yourself right now. If you are going to walk away, it is probably best to do that and just keep WP out of mind, at least for a few days. Just for your own sanity. But if you intend to stay or think it is a possibility, you're really burning a lot of bridges now. Like with napalm. I know there's a certain catharsis in that but it can only hurt you in the end. I'd recommend that you take tomorrow off from WP, enjoy the game, and then come back after you've thought about what you want to do here. I hope things work out for you. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Never back a sasquatch into a corner

Your candor and ability to cut the crap and expose the sociopathic bent throughout recent discussions are searingly insightful and admirable. I have yet to read all of your reasoning; it is in many ways presented as the opposite of the bland, obtuse and oracular two- or three-sentence pronouncements that are favored by "the management". I have seen that sometimes a meltdown, which you are experiencing it appears, is required to bring the truth forward on this, WMF's privilege center (em. sarcasm). They, who you are seeing and artfully shining the light upon, are unlikely to blink under one lamp, so I'll strike a match at least and give you what I hope you will see as a note of encouragement. Peace and good luck. Sswonk (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a wikibreak and return to help change policies

17-April-2011: Yes, please take some well-deserved days of wikibreak, but don't quit when you seem to know what could be changed to avoid these problems. For years, people have realized here, "The inmates are running the asylum" (POV-pushers are rewording the policies). Reforms are needed– in 2006, Swedish Wikipedia changed to limit admins to 1-year terms (requiring 75% approval vote to re-elect) because "discussions to remove admins" were ineffective at de-sysoping any troublesome admins. People like you are needed to advise, "If the policy is changed to state this, then a new loophole will open here instead." Many of us can help change policies, but we are so distracted by other issues (such as why there was no article to cover "U.N. ambassador" for 10 years). We also need a policy to ensure forensic data is allowed in crime articles, rather than removed as claims of WP:OR or POV of inconvenient sourced facts. So, yes, this is a multi-month problem to fix, but take some break time and then return to help craft solutions. You could also start a WP essay "WP:POV problems in political articles" (or such) to explain the problems and recommend policies (or edit restrictions) to thwart the POV-pushing. Also, as Jimbo advised, go to various talk-pages and briefly summarize the concerns, as a record to back the proposed policy changes. A policy discussion can become side-tracked by live article details, so expanding the details as talk-page topics will allow a link to those details, while keeping the policy discussion focused on the rules needed to keep politicians from spamming WP articles. Please focus your priorities and allow other people to share the workload, for addressing the numerous problems. For years, people have been removing the word "Jew" from articles, and there are numerous other issues. -Wikid77 17:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okanagan Desert

Hi Skookum, very sorry to see all this stressful stuff going on in your wiki-life. Anyway, I added a short section, referenced, about an NFB doc on this "desert" region. If you'd prefer we just add it as an EL, perhaps let me know when and if you decide to come back -- as I hope you shall. (It's certainly working out to be an interesting election, anyway, as I now apparently live in Jack Layton country! Who'd a thunk it?) best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Wikipedian's Notice Board

Hi Skookum, I've been trying to clean up the (informal) RFC's and RM's on the Wikipedia:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board. Could you go through and clean up any of yours that you think are stale? DigitalC (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Exile for Unmutuals

Of course, in the end Valentina was arrested. But her work was already done. Renovationism was finished.

Valentina was taken out from a small quay on the Belaya river under a powerful convoy. Walking along the long gang-planks on the deck of the steamer, Valentina looked back and saw a silent crowd of women on the river bank. They had come out to escort her into exile. sfs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For a job well done, for nearly 6 years

I kept running into your work all over the place, and so I finally looked through your contributions and I couldn't believe my eyes! Recognition of your hard work is long overdue, and without further ado, it is my privilege to present to you...

					The Geography WikiProject Barnstar Barrage
					is hereby awarded to Skookum1 for continuous dedication since October 2005 to the creation and development of an immense assortment of articles about British Columbia, in turn making an invaluable contribution to the extent and quality of the coverage of Canada, geography, and Wikipedia as a whole. The Transhumanist 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely keep up the great work. The Transhumanist 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. Skookum1 has earned recognition for his hard work and dedication to the project.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats Skookum1! Come back to us!! -- œ^™ 07:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Same as above. No further explanation needed. Shannon⁺º^! 16:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss you, big guy. The Interior (Talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Here here!!!Moxy (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fraser Pass

Hi - I have made a few edits to articles you have worked on about Fraser Pass and Fraser River, concerning the source of the Fraser. Also added a photo into each article. I first went to the source in 2001 following info published by Beautiful BC Magazine and found the dripping spring. We used a low-flying helicopter to be sure of following the Fraser River and not a tributary. You referred to a Baker Creek flowing from Fraser Pass and I guess you got that from the Geographical Names website. Their map seems to put Baker Creek further northeast, so it must flow into the Fraser further down. It is a thrill putting a foot on each side of the "mighty" Fraser where it is only inches wide. Hope these changes are OK. Roland Neave (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to Vancouver meetup

Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Skookum1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hunlen Falls

Hi - A couple of questions about Hunlen Falls. 1) I've been there maybe a dozen times, knew the late John Edwards and Trudy Turner who lived at Lonesome Lake below the falls, and have never heard the term 'Mystery Falls' as a former name. Any info on that name or would it be appropriate to delete? 2) Height of the falls. John claimed it was 1325 feet. I don't know of any official measurement due to the impassable terrain at the bottom. There are different ways to measure falls and put them in order, so I don't want to step on toes here. But since Hunlen has a straight unbroken drop for its entire height (whether 1325 feet or 900 feet), it should rank as the highest in Canada, well ahead of Della which has about 3 cascading drops. Any comments?Roland Neave (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Skookum1 is on indefinite leave from editing, so it's not likely you'll get an answer from him soon. And I can't think of anyone else with his level of geographic knowledge of BC. Sorry... Franamax (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You F$c*$

You coming back soon? even as an IP i would love to see. Your very missed.Moxy (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Msruzicka (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.