User talk:Skeezix1000

Note: This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Threads older than 14 days old are automatically archived.

Wow! An editor admitting a mistake? That deserves a...

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

No red/white links pls

Could i get you to see Template talk:Designation#National Historic Sites of Canada and Template talk:Infobox historic site#Red links and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Link colours

Timmys

Hello, Skeezix1000. You have new messages at The Interior's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

a belated reply. The Interior (Talk) 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Two propose requested moves

Hi Skeezix, I haven't talk to you in almost a long time. Here's what I am going to tell you. I am doing two requested moves at the same time. This is my first time doing two requested moves. I usually did requested moves one at a time. My first requested move is the old title Baie-Saint-Paul, Quebec is to rename to it's new title Baie-Saint-Paul. And the second requested move is the title Maniwaki, Quebec to rename the article the new title to simply Maniwaki. Both titles are for WP:CANSTYLE. If you want to participate both discussions here are the two links, It's right here. Talk:Baie-Saint-Paul, Quebec#Requested move and Talk:Maniwaki, Quebec#Requested move I will see you at both talk pages. Steam5 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Kitsilano→‎Buildings: the CRHP confers no historic status or notability

While the CRHP is not itself a historical designation, the register is only made up historic sites already recognized at the local, provincial, territorial and national levels, and is an official collaboration of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. To me the CRHP essentially acts as a clearing house for all levels of historical recognition throughout Canada, and so using it confers much the same historic status and notability that pointing to the specific recognitions would. That the recent Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 photo competition used the CRHP for its list of historic places in Canada is what led me to think the CRHP was already an acceptable and useful recognition for use on Wikipedia.

If you think that pointing to the specific designations would better confer historic status and notability, I don't disagree with that and you're free to add those in, but it seems to me that simply removing the mention of the CRHP only acts to make the inclusion of these buildings as 'historic places' have even less credibility, status and notability, as now the buildings are listed as 'historic places' without any mention, reference, or citation of designation or recognition whatsoever, whereas being included on the CRHP confers at least some manner of recognition. MRDXII (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I read over and do agree with your comments about the CRHP being a directory/secondary/incomplete source and that the actual primary designations ought to be used and preferred. I also admit that before looking into the CRHP a bit more in response to your edit I too was "missing the forest for the trees" and had originally thought the CRHP was a more substantial source than it actually is.

I guess for me it was not so much a concern over whether the CRHP was the best or most appropriate source, but more-so the secondary issue of the deletionism/inclusionism debate and whether it's better for an article to refer to the CRHP, an admittedly second-rate source, than to have those sources removed for being less-than-ideal and have the article instead end up not referring to any sources whatsoever for particular claims, as that line on the Kitsilano page now stands. Although of course second-rate sources should be removed in favour of better ones, to me the proliferation of unverified articles and claims on Wikipedia is a greater evil and does more harm than the use of things like the CRHP. To use your William Gladstone and Stephen Harper examples: of course we should want to include the fact they were both Prime Ministers and so on, along with proper sources, but to me an article that says "Stephen Harper was an important Canadian politician", but only cites him being in the Parliamentary phone book as proof, or one that says "William Gladstone was a significant historical figure" but only cites him being in the Encyclopedia Britannica as proof, are better (although obviously still not very good) than articles that make those same claims without any citations or references.

I recognize, however, that for the Kitsilano page in particular the question is largely moot, as the edit was a minor one and the article is far from perfect anyway, and that in editing we should be working toward making things as best we can, not just the lesser of two evils. I haven't been doing much editing over the past few weeks, but I will return to working on the Kitsilano page in the near future and will make better use of proper designations for historical landmarks and buildings from now on. Thanks, MRDXII (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove some content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Square One Shopping Centre, without giving a valid reason. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BouncyGlow (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

It's okay, I did not know you removed Square One Anchors for a vaild reason, I thought you did it to make he article shorter. But I understand why. Have a nice weekend. :) --BouncyGlow (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)BouncyGlow