User talk:Skookum1/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Tracking coverage of Canada and its provinces

Using the search results from the searches above, it's easy to spot items to add to outlines and tracking charts:

The above has too many redlinks for display in article space, but makes for a really good behind-the-scenes tool.

Feel free to add more entries. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a link: User:The Transhumanist/Canada coverage.

The Transhumanist 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jumbo Glacier, British Columbia

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month

Good day Skookum1,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Benoit Rochon (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

History of Canada

Hi, just to say that I endorse your edit to "native allies". I am a Brit so am reluctant to do any controversial edits to a Canadian article. It's just that I gagged at the previous use of "the indians". This whole section seems to me to be written from a US-settler perspective. It doesn't even mention the Battle of York for example. How jolly unfair to supply the locals with weapons to defend their homelands from settler invasion. I don't think that their descendants will object as I doubt that any survived the subsequent ethnic cleansing :-( TerryE (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I don't have time to go into it a lot right now but it's why I was aware of the sensitivities of the language. For starters see Idle No More and the Oka Crisis. Natives are the most galvanized political group in the country; even in the areas around Toronto and Montreal and in the longer-settled areas of the Maritimes. More later. Skookum1 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just waking up now, so realized it's Ohio/Michigan/Illinois et al that you're referring to as ethnic cleansing; yes very very true, and British protection of natives (cf. Royal Proclamation of 1763) is one of the reasons for the American Revolution. Of those that survived, many fled west; the Sioux notably had been in that area, more in Wisconsin, before living on the Plains...Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I read them with interest. TerryE (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Abbotsford, BC re WSR 342

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at SounderBruce's talk page.
Message added 06:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Skookum1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Good to see you active again :) -- œ^™ 08:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

only to certain degree, have time commitments now......Skookum1 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahahaha!!!!

You and the palm trees. How many times? You want rhododendron photos? I can gets some pretty quick... maybe not tomorrow, RAINFALL WARNING IN EFFECT. How's Koh Samui or wherever you're at. I went traipsing through there when I was fifteen. Betcha Koh Samui has changed. The Interior (Talk) 03:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely and totally; can't imagine what it must have been like when you were 15 LOL.....Lamai is not quite a mega-resort but Chaweng is fast getting there.....part of Lamai is a mini-Pattaya but then that was a lot different back then, too......As for the palm trees, whoever's pushing this has a "Vancouver is really tropical" fetish......the big rhodos I know of that could be used are in Stanley Park, between the Rose Garden and the old Zoo......there's big ones around the West Side, too....another picture could be of the cherry blossoms lining this or that street; I think it's William Street in the East Side, between Victoria and Nanaimo/Rupert, that could be used to illustrate those.....lots on the West Side, too, but I think it behooves us to give East Van equal time.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

While you're at it, try and get a monkey puzzle tree too - Peruvian pine - there's a fair sized one East 1st somewhere, and various ones around the West Side....not all that common but distinctive, and much more part of the urban forest-landscape than a palm tree is.Skookum1 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Oh, believe me, I agree that it's ridiculous. For starters, somebody actually did try to write an article about his father, which made absolutely no claim of notability whatsoever besides being his father (that one got speedied, thankfully) — and the entry for his mother was linking to an existing article about somebody else entirely. I strongly suspect that somebody was just operating on an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison to {{Pierre Trudeau}}, which does contain links to several relatives — who, of course, actually have independent notability in their own right and don't have articles just because they're family members of PET. Other than Laureen the rest of them really shouldn't be there at all, I agree — the only reason I didn't just remove it on sight is that I strongly suspected it would just get readded again, but I'm willing to do so if I know I've got backup. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you took it out, I'll back you up but I do have this rep about being anti-Harper here LOL........speaking of which, and re WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't there someday be Economic policy of the Trudeau government, Foreign policy of the Joe Clark government (since there's more than one Clark e.g. Glen and Christy), Social policy of the Mulroney government, Environmental policy of the Chretien government? That that series of articles has been not just allowed to stand, but got a claque of cheerleaders who saw nothing wrong with them but don't know zip about Canadian politics or the context of the term "Harper government" only underscores the problem with supposedly NPOV admins deciding on things they know nothing about, or even admit to being partisan in favour of? The articles should be Canadian environmental policy or "history of" same, likewise Canadian social policy or Social policy of the Canadian government.......using Wikipedia as spam platforms is apparently OK if you've got enough moles, er, I mean, admins planted to permit the spamming....Skookum1 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I've mentioned before, the United States has articles of that type for numerous presidents — there are, for instance, "Foreign policy of..." articles for Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy and Dubya. And comparable articles also exist for international leaders such as Evo Morales, François Mitterand, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mobutu Sese Seko, Ollanta Humala, Rafael Correa, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vladimir Putin, too. The cross-Wikipedia consensus is pretty clear, therefore, that articles of that type are allowed and there's no really good reason to single Harper out as the only national leader on the entire planet who would be ineligible for that kind of analysis.

Government policy can change quite radically from one leader to the next, after all — I'm sure you're not going to suggest that Harper's policy positions are indistinguishable from Paul Martin's or Jean Chrétien's. Which is why it is generally more helpful to have a distinct splitout for each prime minister or president than it is to have just one article that lumps everything into the foreign or economic or social or environmental policy of the country as a whole. And while it's certainly problematic when Harper tries to brand the basic operations of government, the stuff that doesn't actually change from one PM's administration to the next, as his own, the phrase "the Harper government" is perfectly acceptable in the context of discussing policy aspects that are genuinely unique to Harper. For instance, it's the Government of Canada, not "the Harper government", that provides for the minting and distribution of Canadian currency in general — but it's the Harper government, rather than the generic Government of Canada, that specifically decided to stop minting the penny. The guy has a really bad habit of overusing it, yes — but it's not always an invalid usage, just one where we have to watch for context.

So to answer your question: yes, actually, articles like Economic policy of the Trudeau government, Foreign policy of the Joe Clark government, Social policy of the Mulroney government or Environmental policy of the Chretien government should exist. You really need to backburner your personal feelings about Harper (which I actually mostly agree with, for the record, but that's not relevant here), because he's not getting special treatment here — articles of this type are allowed to exist for any person who's ever led any national government in any country. If similar articles don't already exist for Chrétien or Trudeau or Mulroney or Louis St. Laurent or John A. Macdonald, it's only because nobody's actually started them yet, not because Harper's being given special privileges. (Admittedly you'd have a hard time actually writing much about Kim Campbell or John Turner or Arthur Meighen or Charles Tupper, given that their governments didn't last long enough to actually leave a discernible mark on much of anything, but they'd still be allowed to have the articles if you could actually source something.)

If you have concerns about POV editing, or questions about whether they're named appropriately, those should be raised via the processes that Wikipedia has in place for dealing with POV issues and article names, not by challenging the articles' mere existence. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with those articles is that they were written/based on a very POV beginning, for example in the opening ledes talking negatively about previous policy eras as per the Tory talking-points on same e.g. look at the early versions of the foreign policy one; and though many have tried to de-POVize them, the problem is that all edits/new input are "reactive" to the POV tone of the original; someone justifying their existence even went on to claim that he's the most important prime minister in Canadian history..... ahem. And that was before he won his majority. When these are really the only articles on Canadian policy in these areas, yes, it's up to someone to pen the alternates/others........"well I just thought that he's the most interesting etc" is what the author of them claimed.......indicating he saw no reason to write up the others.....lack of balance in input in Wikipedia content gets to be a pain, especially when someone is only interested in writing articles about their "most interesting prime minister"......Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Most interesting" is certainly a POV problem, but on the whole I think the more relevant issue is that by virtue of being the incumbent he's the easiest to write about, because relevant new sources get handed up by the news media on a regular, almost daily basis, whereas past prime ministers typically require physical trips to reference libraries to dig into old newspaper microfilms and history books and the like. I realize there's probably some biased editing going on, but to be frank the primary problem here is one of simple laziness: people just want to throw in a couple of sentences and a web URL (half the time not even properly formatted as a complete reference, thus creating more work for other people to fix), and don't want to bother doing the stuff that actually requires more active research. So yeah, it's a problem — and it's one I don't know how to solve — but the international precedent is well-established enough that if the Harper articles ever were actually deleted they'd probably just get recreated again from scratch.

As for Dan Stupich, while I've certainly heard the name I don't exactly know a lot about him — so I'll keep it in mind and see what I can do, but it's not something I feel qualified to tackle right away. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobanny is up on left-history in BC, I'll throw it by him; he's dormant but I have him on FB under his real name.......there were various other BC pols on the old election pages with bios needed; many that are there are based on parliamentary history national pages, and lacking......also noting a lot of names that need shortening to their usual forms; I fixed Larry Giovando, there's others like Cyril Shelford that need similar treatment....though it would take an older British Columbian to know what the names in use were, I guess; hard to cite.......Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Source

This page (the first cite note in that article) is most definitely not a reliable source. Your edit summary: "restoring that cite, it's accurate and reliable; I'm a chinookologist of sorts, it's valid; this cite was actually the start of this pag [sic]" A random .com website for a tools company with no editorial oversight nor any editors at all who claim that that is the origins/etymology of the term is not reliable. I assume you realize what the RS policy says, so I'm wondering if this is just an oversight. But if it's not, by saying "I'm a chinookologist of sorts, it's valid" you're engaging in WP:OR and attempted scaring by credentials, which I won't tolerate. I've removed the source again, anything further will result in either a WP:RSN discussion. Thank you. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

YOu still don't get it that that was the first cite for this page when it began........and that in chinookology, popular usages of terms is part of the field of study; including that company's choice of name and its informative page about this special word. Thing is, it's a valid cite, what's on it is true (that's those credentials of mine you say I'm "scaring" you with), and it's also an example of a current usage of this famous word as a brand name. I think you should loosen your knickers, and fine, take it to Reliable Sources and discuss it rather than knee-jerk it away because you think it's not a valid source. It's true, what's on it, and the site itself is a demonstration of the pervasiveness of this term in local culture and commercial use.Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care WHICH number source it is, if it's unreliable it's unreliable. We aren't here to be a chinookology journal. It's not a valid cite, because it's not a reliable source. You saying that it's true because you know it to be true has absolutely no bearing on Wikipedia, editors are all equal. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it's at RSN now. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All editors are equal in editing powers but they're not equal in knowledge; I've never tried a self-cite but may do so given this RSN you've done....what are you going to do about the skookum doll refs then? Because that's a brand name (like Skookum Tools)? The use of this word by a local manufacturer is not un-noteworthy.Skookum1 (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a really bad understanding of what a reliable source. You can't use just any source and claim it's okay because you know something to be true. First of all, use by a local (looks pretty local to me) isn't really note-worthy, and even if it should be included (I don't object to it's inclusion) it needs a reliable source, not just a website with some background information. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Even Harper and Shaw and Gibbs (primary sources in this field) aren't reliable sources, they're full of errors. Oh, they're in print (or out of print) from real publishers and are "real books" not websites, but they're still not reliable. The Anderson word-list is notoriously unreliable (Anderson disavowed it himself) but was widespread in the heyday....and it was a private publication promoting other products just like the Skookum Tools site; not reliable in the slightest, but still part of CJ sources. I think your concept of "reliable sources" doesn't mesh with reality; but then this is wikpedia, where the lies of the mainstream media can be repeated as if factual because the definition of "reliable sources" includes them and excludes non-mainstream media (independent news blogs, so-called "fringe" sources). Oh, I've heard it all, yes indeed-y; And it's pu[i]ssant rulebook-followers who hold a hardline on subjects they don't even know anything about that makes wikipedia such a pain for people with actual content to input, vs those who are just there to police the format and the rules and otherwise move the deckchairs on the titanic....you're among hte reasons, the pointlessness and hostility of your edits here, that are having me consider leaving Wikipedia again as a frickin' waste of tome arguing over sillinesses with people obsessed with inflicting rules on things they don't understand....Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Make a personal attack like you did in that edit summary again and I'll consider asking someone to force you to leave for a while. Then again, Wikipedia operates on consensus, and the consensus at WP:RSN is that it's an unreliable source (and blatantly obviously so). You said it, blogs. Blogs are unreliable because they have no editorial oversight. If you think your credentials go to waste here, you're damn right they do. I could care less if you were a high school student or a PhD in the area, you are not a reliable source for yourself to cite. You can (rather others can) cite your papers in respected journals, but the fact that we "don't even know anything about" the subject holds no meaning here on Wikipedia. If you can't understand that, and the fact that we are a community who operates on consensus, I personally would like it if you left. Verifiability (in reliable sources), not truth. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Look up "cupidity" in re "blogs are unreliable sources because they have no editorial oversight" is hogwash, because 'editorial oversight' at a major newspaper doesn't mean fact-checking, it means fact-spinning and advertorial for political agendas. "the fact that we (meaning you) doesn't even know anything about the subject holds no meaning here on Wikipedia' sums up the problem with this place; it has a skewed sense of values and an obsession with its own rule book. Your threat to have me blocked for responding frankly on my own talkpage when you, here yourself, alleged that I was "threatening you with my credentials" is pretty ironic. "I personally would like it if you left" will be repeated on the ANI that you seem ready to propose to get me blocked for..........getting me blocked for standing up to your personal attacks, oh man, you sum up the petty nature of this place all too well........why have you made this particular citation such a personal bandwagon; why not an article like Quadripoint, which is heavily OR and has survived successive AFDs, because "consensus" says it should stay. A consensus of fools s only foolishness.......why have you made this article so important to get rid of that you are attacking, and now threatening, one of its principal authors? Oh, no, I didn't make the article because of it being part of my username (which is pronounced skookum-one) but because it's an important part of NW culture/history/identity.....go ahead, have me blocked, have this article deleted, you can go brag to your friends you bullied someone off Wikipedia and are all proud of yourself now....Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And you're not my equal, nowhere near it. Get 40,000+ edits and start as many articles as I have, then you might come halfway close. Editors are "equal" in their powers and "rights", but not in knowledge of experience. NowhereSkookum1 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not my skewed values, must be Wikipedia's values, because that's the policies. If you want to leave because you can't follow policies, go right ahead. You're expressing extreme unwillingness to follow our policies of consensus and community. If you continue expressing that, either please leave, or stop trying to disclaim consensus. Just because you don't like consensus doesn't mean it automatically stops being policy. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because consensus winds up making idiot decisions is no reason to support it even if it is policy; and why don't you just leave my talkpage? Go find some other citation to war with.....rather than pick a fight with one of the most known-to-be-testy-but-knows-his-shit editors in Wikipedia? Or are you just here to cause trouble? Go fight the citations at Quadripoint, make yourself useful instead of picking a catfight in my own sandbox?Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeebus. Is this really worth arguing about? The Interior (Talk) 02:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently so.....User:Huon and this qwickwire person launched an AfD just now....Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And your failure to listen, attacky attitude, credential-mongering, etc. are now at WP:ANI. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Little Mr Innocent, picking a fight so you have a reason to launch an ANI....tiresome....you were the one with the attacky attitude, mister, and all this happened on my talkpage not on n article talkpage. First an AfD, now this ANI....you on a witchhunt or something?Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Your failure to listen" is really an arrogant thing to say, given your own dismissive and from-on-high attitude.....and accusing me of credential mongering for pointing out I am a chinookologist is just pettty nonsense, as was your claim I was "threatening" you with my credentials. The ANI should be fun.....dozens of Wikipedians expressed support for me last time I was blocked (due to POV content on a certain prime minister being allowed to stand during an election campaign)....you picked a fight with a sasquatch and now are running crying to mommy....but it was you who attacked me and insulted my intelligence and said you felt "threatened" by my knowledge of this field. Complaining about personal attacks when that's what you did yourself is just so typical.Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinatowns templates

Hi there. Thanks for your feedback. I'll need to do some research on those Chinatowns. Even the ones I found in the USA took some time to find (i.e. Orlando). Notable information is usually difficult (i.e. "Atlanta Chinatown mall" which does not have a single news source talking about it - but probably should be mentioned if I can find notable sources, as it is one of the Chinatowns frequently talked about). --Mfwo3df (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

if it's frequently talked about, it should have citations out there........the too-loose definition of "Chinatown" is used promotionally such as on attempts to brand places like the San Gabriel Valley or Richmond BC as "Chinatowns" because of the dominance of Chinese commerce; the difference between "chinatown" as a marketing concept and places that are called Chinatowns and have actual history to them, not just promotional agendas.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oregon Country

I added a line in the intro to Columbia District regarding it's territory overlapping with what became the disputed Oregon Country. I think this is important because A) The two areas did coincide and B) The talk page for Columbia District is filled with a back-and-forth argument about merging the two articles.

I think they should be kept separate as they were not the same thing. But to not address the Oregon Country in the lead seems like a deliberate attempt to distance the two. It doesn't matter which existed first, the fact that they overalapped and there's much similarity between the two leads me to believe the Oregon Country should be mentioned in the lead.

I will re-add it barring no explanation as to why it shouldn't be there. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, fwiw, the term "Oregon" goes back to before the Columbia River was even discovered and named—it was one of the names of the mythological "River of the West". Pfly (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but that term did not mean the region and certainly didn't refer to 54-40. As for IP address' complaint and the edit comment about my "personal agenda", that agenda is the historical truth. It's a fallacy that the Columbia District was identical in any way with the Oregon Country. As explained in Wade's The Thompson Country (online somewhere) it didn't include the Thompson Country and certainly not New Caledonia. The Columbia Department included the coastal forts to Fort Taku and was explicitly not the "District" which in true fur company form was defined by the watershed; Fort Langley was not spoken of as being in the Columbia District, but it was part of the Columbia Department, for example. The two terms "Oregon Country" and "Columbia District" are NOT interchangeable and should not be spoken of as if they were nearly identical; the map is wrong in that regard, as is the wording of your re-inserted text. I'll leave it to you to fix, but if you don't I will. My "personal agenda" is sorting out the confusing history of the Pacific Northwest so we have it right; loose equivocations blathered about in the lede of this article only confuse it more.Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to attack you personally. You seem offended. And I never said the two terms were interchangeable. I thought I specifically stated the two articles are different. But due to overlap, not addressing the Oregon Country (linked) in the lead seems like a deliberate omission. Since the two pages do indeed overlap in regards to a substantial portion of the territory being discussed, and the time frame in which they were discussed, it should be addressed.

And it's not just US vs. Canada. Suppose someone from some remote part of the world knew nothing about PNW history, but was interested in learning about it. It would seem very odd that a large article like Columbia District wouldn't address in its lead and link to a comparable, albeit different, large article about the Oregon Country. What exactly is your objection? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not true, that's why; it's a common misconception, yes, but given the wording "the disputed Oregon Country" it's an American POV: that's an American term, and which had a different meaning; the dispute is between the fact of the Columbia District on the one hand, the mythography of the Oregon Country on the other; the Columbia Department (once New Caledonia and the Thompson Country were integrated with it) also included areas far to the north of the Oregon Country claim, i.e. northern New Caledonia, also Forts Stikine and Taku. The wording should be more like "the British claim underlying the Columbia District was in dispute by American expansionists whose "Oregon Country" claim overlapped with some of the Columbia Department"......the two terms are the dispute. The Oregon Country article btw is as big as it is because of hte importance of the Oregon myth in the expansionist/Manifest Destiny mindset and the number of Oregonians who are up on it who wrote that article; the history of the Columbia District gets short shrift in Canadian education and there's not many histories that address it in toto, and largely Canadian historiography has written off anything now south of the line, even worse than they give BC in general short shrift. Wording has to be very careful; the wording you supplied entrenches the confusion; the Oregon Country-Columbia District terminology is a reflection of the dispute; "the disputed Oregon Country" glosses over that in the wrong way; the dispute was between the concept of the Oregon Country and the tenuous British claim in the same area (which was only a fur-trading license backed up by some coastal declarations/treaties e.g. the Nootka Convention). Again, the map is not that illustrative of the Columbia Department's boundaries/ components, and another is needed. Clarity is my goal, and truth. And yes, when you make an edit comment alleging personal agenda, how not to take it personally?Skookum1 (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

They're separate articles for the same reason Rupert's Land and Northwest Territories are separate, or rather that's a comparable case; also why Oregon Country and Oregon Territory are separate articles.....similarly Acadia and Maritime provinces or Quebec and Colony of Lower Canada etc.Skookum1 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The point I was getting at is REGARDLESS of how you feel about either article, or how anyone else feels about either article, both of these concepts exist. Both have articles on Wikipedia. Both overlap, for better or worse. So to fail to link the two articles does indeed seem like a deliberate omission.

I don't fully understand your gripe. Are you saying too much attention is paid to the Oregon Country at the expense of the Columbia District? What I'm saying is that it's somewhat irrelevant which should get more prominence. Because of the overlap in territory and the connection between the two -- right or wrong -- it seems too agenda-based to omit a reference to Oregon Country, regardless of what your personal feeling is on either concept. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Man you really like to read things into what you read, don't you? Yes, they are two separate concepts and that's why they have different articles (and should have different maps). The Oregon Country page mentions the Columbia District six times, some of those in section-links but always in the British context when appropriate; and very pointedly the wording is avoided which indicates these are distinct from each other and one is not the same as the other. The "agenda" you accuse me of is that of British sources, which do not refer to the Oregon Country at all except when discussing the boundary dispute. The addition you made had "bad wording" and made it sound like they were the same thing; and didn't fit into the lede paragraph in any kind of useful way. If that's the only instance of that term in the article, it's not my doing despite your accusations. I suggest you take a pill, read some British/Canadian accounts, and wrap your head around the idea that the term "Oregon Country" is part of the US agenda on this region and that's why British sources didn't acknowledge it; explaining the distinction should be in the article, but in no way should it be claimed that they "mostly overlap" with each other; one is a territorial vision and expansionist agenda, the other is the name of a fur district that that claim was set up and propagandized to challenge.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

New article

Your comments on Skookum doll would be appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Langley City

Hi Skookum,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. When I switched the links on those templates, Langley, British Columbia (city) was located at Langley City, but it was moved back. You are welcome to switch the Langley City links back, but the Fort Langley links are correctly bolded on the templates.

Neelix (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hudson's Bay Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Churchill River

Rutherford Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to BCR

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Biased Adrian Dix Edits

Hi. I have used Wikipedia for many, many years, and donated, and just thought to become a user. I noticed editing on the Adrian Dix page and am disappointed by how biased your editing is. After user 117Avenue's deletions you re-added the sections and take the time to cite them while adding snarky comments demeaning 117Avenue, but when other users put in any negative mentions of Dix you delete them instead of correcting the format. Your comments about the additions being POV are hypocritical as your edits themselves become POV when you correct the good but delete the bad. Wikipedia is supposed to have unbiased opinions and you are abusing power by spreading your pro NDP views.

I have no power here other than that that any other editors have (I am not an admin, who DO have powers), and I am NOT an NDP supporter, while you are clearly part of the BC Liberal propaganda machine wanting to hype this non-event into a major scandal (which it wasn't). Your inclusion of a cite directing readers to the BC Liberal attack ad is clear enough in intent....and is not acceptable. The Biographies of Living People noticeboard posting will be reviewed by admins around the world and a decision made about protecting this article from further IP and SPA politicizing of the kind you claim is NPOV but clearly isn't; in tone and in undue weight. That your additions are in lockstep with BC Liberal ads and hype is a clear demonstration that you are NOT NPOV.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And your claim to have used Wikipedia for "many, many years" is not borne out by your usercontributions, nor by your use of a Category link for a section heading here, which I've just fixed. Also by your failure to include your sig using four tildes. If you are a WP:Sock formerly posting under other usernames, this will also be examined at the BLP noticeboard.Skookum1 (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC

I'm following the editing wars on Adrian Dix and am wanting to talk to you, Skookum1. As a relatively new user, can you assist me in how I can contact you directly?Sunciviclee

♠I'm sympathetic for the problem, but I'm in no better position to do anything than you...

♠That said, & admitting total ignorance of the issue, it looks like the event deserves a mention (adequately cited), but the tone is clearly out of bounds. Nor am I equipped to judge the quality of the sources for the last re-add.

♠And FYI, I say that as a lifetime NDP supporter (non-member, not in BC).

♠This whole matter makes me hate politics even more.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

New sections

Hello. I thought I would stop by and leave a friendly tip about creating new sections on talk pages. When you are starting a new topic on a talk page (especially Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board which has lots of topics), instead of editing the last section, click the new section button on the top of the page. This will make your edit summary say that you are starting a new section, rather than having you appear to be commenting in the previous section, and avoid misleading edit summaries. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I usually put the new section title in the edit summary; and always try to be complete/not misleading....does it have to say "new section" at the start of an edit summary for you to realize it is one? I have been around for a while, y'know.Skookum1 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No. But why mention BC Railways when you want to talk about Adrian Dix? 117Avenue (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

not sure which edit you're talking about, and if you don't know BC politics, he's sworn to hold a full inquiry into how BC Rail was given to the BC Liberals' main backer (CN) via an infamously rigged bidding process; it's one of the main bones of contention in BC and one of the things that's most "on the front burner" when he takes office (and he will). BTW I'm not an NDPer.Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think 117Avenue means this one, diff. For what it's worth I've noticed this before and been confused, especially when no additional comment is added to the edit summary, like this one from my talk page some time ago, [1]. The edit summary says "Hungry Horse Dam spillway", but actually you had added a new section about regional district electoral areas in British Columbia. Right? Pfly (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps that was a bad example, since the two topics are somewhat tied. Here you edited a section on Quebecor, but started a section on Bud Smith (politician). 117Avenue (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll use "new section" from now on to make you happy.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

IP/SPAs

Unfortunately there isn't any active proposal that's available to contribute to. It's an idea that's certainly been raised from time to time, and given how much complete fracking nonsense I've had to clean up over the years it's one I would certainly support if a serious proposal came up for discussion — but there isn't any discussion currently underway. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of adjusting my username

I get tired of people addressing me as "Skookum" instead of Skookum1....should I just pipe my sig to say "SkookumOne" or "Skookum One", which seems easier and less evasive, as many might say it is, to changing the actual name of my account....Skookum1 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend a signature that says "Skookum One" and the continuity of an ongoing account. In any case, be prepared for the likelihood that some folks will shorten it to "Skookum" in any event. Good luck, and sorry about the recent accusations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm. When they shorten it, to me it has a different context, my use is meant as a CB handle but also in the context "that's a skookum one" or "he's a skookum one". "Skookum" by itself to me is a different sense, hm it's adjectival too; weird to me stand-alone, it's not how that word is used LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia does have a process (WP:CHU) by which you can change your username while taking all of your edit history with you to the new name — so it's not necessarily "evasive" to do so, because your history can still be kept associated with the new spelling of your username. (That said, Cullen does have a point that some people might still just call you Skookum anyway, but that's another story.) Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I've fixed the Pass Creek issue per your request.

Regarding the Adrian Dix issue, I've already posted a comment to User:Sunciviclee's talk page to explain the situation as neutrally as possible, making it clear that from a disinterested administrator's perspective you weren't the problem. For the moment, though, I'd ask that you cool it with bringing me more and more examples of the problem — Wikipedia will deal with it as best we can, trust me, but at the moment it's better if you let the people who are more experienced at handling this kind of stuff take care of it. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

K, well like I said I know I'm not the one to take this to an ANI in any department, even though I'm the victim of the misconduct....I'll leave it from here, I just was looking at a search on the Sun's site and noticed those particulars and they are good examples of WP:NRS -not a reliable source. I'll desist, I see he's responded at your page just now, I'll read it but will keep my yap shut; I'm NOT doing that on the Suns comments section though q.v. (Brent Herman and Garth West have known me through writing circles for hmmmm 8 years now?)Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Geez,I thought that WP:NRS would come up as a redlink, didn't realize it directed to a section at WP:RS and by the look of it could use some expansion/elucidation.......Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:708px-South BC-NW USA-relief NorthCascades.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:708px-South BC-NW USA-relief NorthCascades.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian Northern Pacific Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Glen Clark

I read through the Glavis article carefully enough to know that it's not a good source in and of itself — it mixes facts and commentary far too liberally, and makes far too many of its points via POV insinuation (e.g. drawing a suspicious link between two people by virtue of their names rhyming) instead of by demonstrating them factually. The Georgia Straight is certainly a usable source in many cases — trust me, I've cited it many times myself — but that particular article, as written, simply didn't cut it.

And as has already been pointed out to you, stuff cannot generally be referenced to independent blogs — because, again, whatever you may presume to know about Tsakumis' reliability, it's not general knowledge that can be demonstrated by any real evidence of editorial oversight (which is one of the criteria that define a source's reliability or unreliability on here.) And you also definitely cannot source stuff to the comments posted by individual people in the discussion threads of newspaper articles under any circumstances, either. The National Post source may not be ideal, and if you can find a better one that's actually appropriate under WP:RS then by all means go right ahead, but the Glavis and Tsakumis sources are not appropriate at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Glavin's article is from a reliable source, though relayed through a blog reprint; Terry says he doesn't now why it's not in the Straights online archive....lots isn't. And that Post piece is really op-ed (like so much MSM "analysis") and has COI connections to the same organization whose appearance with cameras blazing on Clark's porch before the RCMP got there had to do with more than ideology........Tsakumis' piece is new, as usual he's a latecomer (as with BC Rail though he did provide evidence - actual evidence, posted online - that remains unreported in the ideologically/partisan-aligned Postmedia). Challenging blogs just because they are blogs doesn't work in BC, as many are more highly regarded as sources of truth than the mainstream media are; WP:RS needs revision to reflect situations where the mainstream media's credibility is in dispute and where its POV/COI ties are well-known, vs bloggers and independent journalists (Glavin falls in the latter category, and used to be a Sun staffer himself) who provide the news and facts that the mainstream media makes a point of obstructing or misrepresenting or ignoring altogether. The Post is a COI/POV source here........so you tell me, why didn't it explain the details of the alleged "conspiracy"? Interesting they'd use that word, it's the hallmark of the Pratt House school of propaganda used to dismiss hotly critical facts.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Glavin is a reputable and well-established reporter and author, he's not just an "independent blogger", and there are facts in that article e.g. re Dmitri Vrahnos, that are relevant to the story.....he knows all the journalists he's making fun of, as in that bit about rhyming. And yes, the Gutstein article I included before I realized the use of "media circus" usage was deep in the comments; "Allan" I think is in fact Allan Fotheringham, I could ask him (we're sometimes in touch); point with "media circus" is it should never have been challenged; this matter and other things like the Pickton case and lots that goes on in BC is regularly described as such; I don't see why Lee found the need to take it out other than it makes him uncomfortable as a journalist; what's the other wording that someone wanted "out" recently, it'll come to me.....common English challenged with a cite .... oh yeah "attack ads". The Post article is "washed", a credible newspaper would have explored the allegations, not sought to downplay them.....in many cases in BC, the real news does first get revealed in the blogs, e.g. Laila Yuile's exposes on "shadow tolls" and construction contracts, where the news is broken on her blog first....because she does the investigations that MSM reporters are paid to avoid. Investigative reporting is rarely done in BC; unless it's to trump up an anti-NDP scandal like Casinogate or the Fast Ferries......oh, did you note the IP person complaining about me not being blocked yet on Talk:Adrian Dix??Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Terry's originally published column was titled, as I remember well, "Glen Clark is guilty as hell"......of letting his kids play with the neighbour kids etc. So tell me, how is it that op-ed in a corporate outlet with notable political ties and a well-known partisan agenda different from op-ed from a reporter who won't work for them anymore because of their political censorship policies and hiring/firing practices??Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say Glavin was being sourced to a blog; I said Tsakumis was.

I need to remind you here that my ideological affiliations are very NDP (and sometimes even further left), and while I may not be as intimately familiar with all the sordid details and shady personalities involved in the affair as you are I most certainly do know enough to be fully aware that the whole thing was clearly a shameful smear job. But contributing to Wikipedia demands that I evaluate the situation by something other than my own personal opinions — even if I agree with them in principle, the sources you were adding simply weren't cutting it.

And again: determining the reliability or unreliability of a source on Wikipedia is not a matter of applying ideological litmus tests or personal background knowledge about the writer's career choices. What made Glavin's article problematic was not who he is, nor was it where he published it — it was that the article itself was not cutting it on quality grounds when I actually read it. And what makes Tsakumis problematic is not him or his background, but the fact that it's a self-published website with no particular evidence of editorial oversight or legal review or fact-checking (i.e. no mechanism by which anybody who isn't already familiar him can evaluate his trustworthiness one way or the other.) If he published the exact same content in a newspaper or magazine, or on a blog endorsed and hosted by a real media outlet of some kind or other, it might be different — but Wikipedia, again, has very specific rules about not referencing things to self-published sources.

People can and do quite regularly self-publish blatant lies on blogs or in print-on-demand books with no significant library or bookstore distribution — you can still find sources out there which explicitly assert that Obama has never released his real birth certificate, or any number of other easily disproven falsehoods or unverifiable claims — so Wikipedia has to have some criterion to distinguish good sources from bad ones besides the mere fact that a source exists. Whether you like the ideological slant of a particular media source or not is not the criterion, nor is insider information about how much you trust a particular person; the criteria are things like "not self-published", "subject to editorial oversight", and other criteria that simply exclude people's own personal blogs — whether you trust them more than the sources Wikipedia accepts or not, Wikipedia as an institution has no way of being able to know what you presume to know about their reliability. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"editorial review" at Postmedia means "political oversight"....the main point I see re Tsakumis is the self-published thing.....I'll re-search for "Peter Montague"+Casinogate also "Dmitri Vrahnos"+Casinogate then......and see what comes up, "the truth is out there", but it's not truth that Postmedia or the party/parties it backs want to admit to. Did you ever see Rollerball? There's a scene where James Caan's character visits the archive, where the presiding official/librarian comments that history is made out of what is recorded, what's deleted is no longer history, what's unreported never was. Then he comments "we deleted the entire 13th Century by accident....no great loss, some corrupt popes...."Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"editorial review" at Postmedia means "political oversight"? Doesn't matter, it's still more editorial review than Tsakumis has got. Again, Wikipedia does not apply an ideological litmus test: as I've already mentioned to you, there is not a single media outlet on the planet that has never been accused of being biased in favour of one political agenda and against another one. So anything you could possibly say about why Postmedia should be disqualified could be immediately turned around by a conservative to disqualify The Georgia Straight and the CBC and The Tyee too — and then where would that leave us? With absolutely no sources we could ever cite for anything, that's where. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking around for any related coverage of this in BC's independent newspapers, e.g. the Terrace Daily and the Gulf Island News and others..........there may be a media citation or two on the BC Mary blog, which is really a compendium of links and cited facts, with commentary; Mary, like Laila and Alex, had all her stuff vetted by a lawyer...who Tsakumis' is I don't know (I know who Mary's was); "self-published" rules out a lot of the sources of truth in BC....but Wikipedia is not about truth, is it?. My issue re COI and the Post here is the ties with BC's media establishment, which there are articles out there about the political alliance in question; it's interesting that it took a Toronto paper to make even the slightest mention of a fact never mentioned in the Sun itself.....never. Now why would that be?? Much the same as how for a long time the Globe and Mail was the only publication circulated in VAncouver that covered any of the pre-trial proceedings.....because Gary Mason was not under the editorial control of local news offices, though eventually he joined in the defamation campaign against Dave Basi following the illegal plea bargain..........Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Vrahnos, I did find the conflict of interest commissioner's report which also includes details of the precise conflict of interest for which Clark was scolded, but charges set aside of dropped or whatever technical term applies......Vrahnos notified Campbell's office and the Sun, the Sun was the print arm of the same chain as BCTV....Montague being involved in the second casino application is of course not mentioned.Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Watch out for the danger of drawing original research conclusions from a primary source. Just because a source supports facts A, B, C and D doesn't necessarily mean it supports the inference that you want to draw to connect those four facts. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the Globe, just found this article re the senior investigator's ties to the Liberals as a candidate.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gitsegukla

I have done the move you requested. That leaves a number of double-redirects, but don't worry about them - there is a bot which will fix them within a few hours. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of communities in British Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hanceville and Keats Island

Brownsville, British Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon Fraser

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Eastgate, British Columbia

Hello - About your edit on Eastgate, British Columbia: we own a cabin in Eastgate, and we are very familiar with Eastgate itself. I removed the restaurant information as it has been closed as the owners moved away. I cannot find a source to prove this, but simply not including the information is a viable solution. I am currently searching for a source for the Tower Ranch, hang in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjstepney (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)