User talk:Themightyquill/Archive

TAbnet

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

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

Nahnebahwequa

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

Edit Summary

Hi,

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

Indigenous Project article suggestions

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

Image copyright problem with Image:JapaneseCanadian-Confiscating-Boat.jpg

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

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

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

CUSO

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

Concentration / Internment camps

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

Your Welecome

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

Template:BC School District

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

British Columbia School Districts

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

History of the Roma people

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

Chánov

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

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

Happiest Barrack

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

Markus

Actually, I think a difference did exist. "Better" is arguable, but different is obvious. The Hungarian economy was really quite different from those of other countries in the bloc. In terms of individual freedoms, there was very little difference, but in other ways it was quite unique, particularly after 1968 and the New Economic Mechanism. I agree the article is weak, and if a decent article on the Kadar era ever pops up, it would make sense to forward this article there. You're right about the oppositional politics, but that wasn't my edit - that existed beforehand. I'll fix it. -- TheMightyQuill 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, a difference did exist. But a "difference" in one way or the other existed in every socialist country. Not two countries of the so-called "bloc" were exactly alike in their economic and political structure and functioning. Hungary had its peculiarities. So had Czechoslovakia, so had the GDR (there, for instance, the "combines" had considerable autonomy from central planning authorities). Speaking as a communist myself, I would say, that this is due to the simple fact that socialism must find its own "variety" in every country and society and be implemented considering the historical and present national circumstances. And I fully agree that this posit was by far not always respected in the way it should have been. So, the fact that ALL socialist countries at one point of time or the other and in one way or another looked for their own special features and adjustments (which were, by the way, in most cases fully tolerated or even encouraged by the Soviet Union) was both natural and positive.

And what I consider to be of fundamental importance: The New Economic Mechanism was ONE (of several) varieties of managing a socialist economy, and therefore it was but an "adjustment", a "refinement" or - although I am not very fond of this term, because it is in itself highly ideological - a "reform". And as such it had its strong and weak points that can and should be discussed. I am actually quite sympathetic to Hungary without being uncritical.

The one socialist country that possessed a system that was - arguably - really basically and radically different was Yugoslavia with its idiosyncratic system of socialist self-management and a near "free market economy". Compared to this the Hungarian peculiarities were almost negligible.

Besides: the judgment of various forms of economic systems in socialist societies by Western commentators was and still is extremely tendentious and revealing. For example, Romania experienced economic reforms in the 1970s and early 80s that on some measures by far exceeded the adjustments made in Hungary (e.g. for quite a long time it had the most "liberal" foreign trade system and was together with Poland most open to "joint ventures"). As long as Romania and Ceausescu were courted and cuddled by the Western powers these "differences" figured in every textbook account of socialist economies. But when Romania began to lose its "special status" in the mid-80s, suddenly its presentation in Western commentaries changed, too: all of a sudden it was portrayed as a backward and hopelessly "Stalinist command economy".

It all boils down to the fact that one should not copy the one-sided and often extraordinarily badly researched and poor Western accounts. The West constantly tried to magnify the differences between socialist states (and also between different political figures inside one party and country) and to seed discord between them in every possible way. They even employed a full and prestigious pseudo-science, the "bloc watchers" , "marxologists" and "eastologists" to do so. With this they tried to gain advantages for themselves and, of course, to finally "kill the beast", in which, alas, they succeeded.

And what concerns the "personal freedoms": Well, at least we agree that the "differences" were very little. That suffices for me but as you can think my personal view of this problem is radically different.

Markus

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

1. Yugoslavia's market was definitely "freer". But Yugoslavia wasn't part of the "bloc", of course. Not to mention China since 1979...

2. Combining market forces with planning and a socialist economy isn't "rightist". And a fully cetrally planned economy isn't "leftist". "Plan" and "market" are two different devices for managing an economy, be it capitalist or socialist. Of course, a fully free market economy cannot be socialist and a certain amount of planning is essential but, you will agree, Hungary was by all means far from a free market economy.

3. To say otherwise would mean that the NEP of Lenin's times was extremely rightist. But, of course, this wasn't the case. And even Trotskyites normally do not dare bring forward such a claim.

4. As long as capitalist countries (and extremely powerful ones, at that !) still exist, every socialist country must - in one way or the other - "sleep with the dragon" and strive to cope with it. Otherwise they most likely would not be able to survive. The only alternative would be isolation but I don't think that this is a viable choice.

4. As I have written in my last comment, Western evaluations are ultimately irrelevant (at least as a basis for judgment). Apart from their overall political aims, they praised every country that opened possibilities for them to establish economic contacts and so in the last instance to make money . That they had to blend this greed for money with ideological concepts like "democracy", "freedom" and "happiness" is understandable but, of course, only cheap trumpery.

Markus

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

OK, I understand you are not especially interested in any further discussion (but thanks for your nice words).

Just one last point: Wikipedia "attempts" to be NPOV ? I allow myself the luxury of seriously doubting this assertion !

I may therefore forward you the following evaluation of Wikipedia's political and ideological pitfalls that I wrote several weeks ago on another user page:

In the end it all boils down to a fact that many people critical of Wikipedia have already noticed and deplored before: Wikipedia is a great idea but in most cases useful only if you look for information on topics that "no one cares about".

And to get even more general: All of Wikipedia's "rules" on things such as "objectivity", "neutrality" and "verifiability" are, of course, extremely questionable and ultimately illusionary. Beyond a certain point "objectivity" and "neutrality" become nothing but a chimera: for example, from the very first moment you start to interpret history, to mention some things but leave others out, to give "names" to "events" or to use "terms" and "concepts" that are per se highly "ideological" (and could never be any other way, like "democracy", "dictatorship", "free", "revolution" etc. etc.), you leave the space of a "neutral" and "objective" enumeration of "facts" (I doubt whether this is possible at all !) and step into nothing but the realm of per definitionem "political" and "ideological" evaluating, interpreting and reasoning. And it simply cannot be denied that on Wikipedia "neutral", "objective", "verifiable" and all those sublime concepts mean hardly anything else than "following the 'officially accepted', 'correct' Western (or Westernized) mainstream point of view as it is permanently presented in official science, the media, politics and so on" with a small spectrum of "tolerance" on both sides. Whenever there appear "deviations" from this trodden path of "mainstream correctness" they have little chance to "survive" long, get edited, deleted or branded with the label of "disputed neutrality".

Markus

Re:Thanks

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

User:70.81.117.175

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

Your edit of ethnic stats on Richmond page

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

Second and Third International

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

Category:Tlingit

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

N'quat'qua

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

Category:Sťáťimc

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

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

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

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

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

Category:1858 in Canada

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

Dene and NWT First Nations categories

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

Sorry about not replying sooner, but sleep and work interfered with Wikipedia. :-) Sorry, but I do think it's a problem. In my mind, a sub category is a subset of another, so putting, say, Category:Gwich'in in Category:First Nations in the Yukon and Category:First Nations in the Northwest Territories implies that the Gwich'in are a subset of these, which they are not. A number of articles in the Gwich'in category will have nothing to do with the NWT, and others will have nothing to do with the Yukon and others wil have nothing to do with the NWT. Plus some articles in the Gwichin category (e.g. Sahneuti and Vuntut Gwich'in First Nation) will end up in more than one sub of Category:First Nations in the Yukon, which violates the recommendation at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. I think the two sets of categories (XXX people) and (First Nations in XXX) are parallel and they intersect; but one is not a subset of the other. By removing the "Category:First Nation in XXX", it could lead to confusion. I don't like criticising another wikipedian's work, and I know you did quite a bit, and I applaud your creation of the new categories, but I don't think they are subsets of the older ones. Luigizanasi 04:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did more poking around and I realize why you categorized the way you did. We need a parent category for each of the First Nations categories! The way things are structured now is that they go into country/state/province/territory categories, which leads to the problems I have pointed out. While I think these are good categories in of themselves —I did help in creating the structure after all — I don't believe they are appropriate as parents for the First Nations categories, since many (if not most) First Nations cross current political boundaries. I would think that a better set of parent categories could follow the following structure based on the Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas:

Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Category:Indigenous peoples of North America (maybe?)

Then the Gwich'in & Dene categories would belong to Category:Indigenous peoples of the North American Subarctic rather than the provincial/territorial categories. What do you think? Should we bring them up at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America?. Luigizanasi 07:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Seton Portage - cat issue

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

Man, that dish sounds good! Eggplant and walnuts!

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

RE:User talk:70.81.117.175

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

Pacific Northwest

I'm writing to you as one of the people who contributed to this article. I hope I could contribute to defusing the emotional debate and I would appreciate if you could participate in the new effort of finding a good name for the article. — Sebastian (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Aboriginal universities and colleges

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

Thanks for the input

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

Category: Romani Load Words

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

RE:Newfoundland Image

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

Overturning streambeds and potato and berry patches WAS relevant

The reason the Chinese overturned streambeds was to get at the deep gravel and "black sand" found down against bedrock; white miners were rarely so thorough and marvelled at the Chinese skills in the goldfield - contrary to the CCNC's site, which claims that Chinese were left with what the leavings only after whites had taken the pickings; in reality while Chinese did work sites left over by whites, they often made them more profitable because of their superior mining techniques; and in the case of the streambeds led the way. The cite on this among many others, which I'll have to get a page number for, is in Irene Edwards' Short Portage to Lillooet and also in Lorraine Harris' Halfway to the Goldfields; in a rather embarrassing item about how people were amused to see the Indians chasing the Chinese off the streambeds. ALL miners in the Canyon engaged in sluicing benchland and other till well above waterline, but the Chinese were not exempt from this violation of native food resources and burial grounds; the syntax of my statement put it in a subphrase, "including the Chinese" when perhaps the sentence should start with "The Chinese, along with miners from other backgrounds" etc.

Cole Harris in his Resetttlement of British Columbia (or whatever it's called), in the chapters on the gold rush and the benighted Nlaka'pamux of the region (I used "benighted" here because he manages to omit, or is unaware, of their genocidal wars on the Stl'atl'imx, Lil'wat and Stuwix, while speaking of a white genocide against the Nlaka'pamux in the Fraser Canyon War) tries to pin this on whites alone, but as in my other edit just now "other" rather than "white" is the proper terminology here because it wasn't just a white/Chinese racial dichotomy, as there were other "races" in the Fraser Canyon gold rush; but he goes on to describe Chinese hydraulic mining and farming on what obviously beforehand had been native land (a typical blinkers-on blame-game played by modern BC historiographies).Skookum1 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demography of British Columbia??

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

Truro, Nova Scotia and Longueuil, Quebec

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

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

Canada and Wars of the 20th Century

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

Japanese Internment page changes

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

Europe

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

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

Vote on RM at First Republic of Czechoslovakia

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

History of feminism

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

I think all your points have been addressed for now. Obviously moving things around immediately introduces new discontinuities, as in the earlier discussion on the role of men - integrated or removed. --Mgoodyear 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Probably it is the Navigation bar that needs fixing!--Mgoodyear 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you re not annoying, but could you be much more specific about the 20thC so I know exactly what you are referring to! The list of people is the only way I can keep track of them all, continually cross reference them, and make sure the links are consistent. Technically they could be merged with the other list somebody made (but is tagged) and outsourced via the navbar (which I will move), but for the time being it easier where it is. It also helps with the theme, which is the enormous number of neglected women in history. By being alphabetic, I am sure it will direct a lot more traffic to those women's pages: - strictly it is 'mentioned' and have their own pages. Ultimately I would like to give them all pages, but if I do that now I will never finish this page. I am sure you recognise that literally hundreds of hours have gone into checking every fact and providing sources. Unverified 'facts' are discarded if I cannot find a source. The bits that are not mine, are lumped at the end (sexual politics, recent activities, Islamic feminism) and will be dealt with in due course. In parallel to the history is the task of maintaining historiographical integrity and interpretation. Thanks. --Mgoodyear 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Division of twentieth Century - I started down that route but rapidly ran out of subheadings - the Wiki format does not have many layers, so I redid it by splitting the century into 3 sections as the two previous centuries were, maybe I am missing something in wikitechnology. The reason there is a small 20th C section alone, is that I wanted to explain the rationale for trifurcating the century. I would be interested in how you would do it that would be neater. --Mgoodyear 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (Dalhousie University)[reply]

Re busting trees. It will probably be a lot easier to define appropriate trees once we have a 'final' structure. I have made it to 1971!--Mgoodyear 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recent comments, as Lantoka84 well knows, this altercation seems to follow me everyhere I edit, like stalking. At least H of Fem has not had the high degree of sexist vandalism that the main article gets. --Mgoodyear 14:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am at my wits end - this person finally drove me off another project (brassiere), it was just not worth the time and effort, to be repeatedly attacked and told that none of my contribution were needed, and see them demolished. I might just give up on Wiki, pity. In the end the stars don't help. --Mgoodyear 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a matter of skin, but history. I was advised by another experienced editor to stay away from this person, because any attempt I made to defend my position just increased the hostility. Let me give it a little break - actually I thought I was pretty convincing on the argument of continuity of movements!Mgoodyear 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC Legislature Raids issues

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

User:Skookum1

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

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