User talk:Skookum1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:23, 1 January 2007

Skookum Illahee

It's indeed a nice name for Cascadia. Are you aware of any source we could cite to put it in the article? — Sebastian (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one's ever used it; I coined it during my involvement with the Chinook Jargon listserve; I'm one of the few non-academic, non-Native Americans/First Nations, who's bothered to undertake to learn the Jargon, and also who'll try to use it to coin new applications, such as the immortal "maika house naika house?" ("your place or mine?"). Skookum Illahee was one of those, partly because there's been an old grind around BC about getting rid of its "colonial" name - it's that "British" word they don't like, and while we're at it "Columbia" is colonialistic too, although I'm fine with the combination form myself; a name is just a name. Partly, also, though, because "we" (in the listserve/Jargon community) needed a shorthand for the geographic range/turf of the Jargon, instead of BC-OR-WA-ID-MT-AB-YT-AK and sometimes NV, CA, UT and WY. Oh, and as it turns out there are even CJ placenames in Quebec and New Hampshire, no less (see List of Chinook Jargon placenames), but not to the degree you find in the "core ecumene", the Skookum Illahee proper (roughly coincident with that Cascadia place) and the combination happens to be a handy one. While skookum remains pretty common in t he region, nobody uses illahee anymore (in English), not to mean a country anyway - it generally means a piece of land or a pasture; so it's a bit awkward that way: Skookumland doesn't have the same ring to it, although I'd also liked "The Skookum Country", which as with Skookum Illahee really needs the definite article to sound right. The sense is the same whether it's illahee/country; either the country that is skookum (in whatever shade of meaning chosen), or the country of skookum, i.e. where you hear the word (other than those placenames in Quebec, NH and elsewhere). But no, it's not a citable usage, not until I publish a book anyway; there might be a listserve cite you could dig out from the CHINOOK archives on linguistlist.org, thoughSkookum1 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest and Cascadia

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) 22:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Could you please take a look at the section Which definitions do we have for the map? I agree with you that defining the area by political boundaries does not do it justice, but without a clearly sourced map, many people will automatically refer to state and province borders to make their point. — Sebastian (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I split up the article I thought it would be a good idea to split up the talk page, as well. The only contribution that was hard to split up was your contribution about the origin of the name. I didn't wan't to split it up in the middle of a paragraph which was relevant for both topics. Maybe you can find a better splitting point or, if not, just duplicate the paragraph. — Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Wealth, there is a sentence: "In ecologically rich areas such as those inhabited by the Haida in the Cascadia Pacific East Rim ecoregion, traditions like potlatch kept wealth relatively evenly distributed, ...". When I just disamb'ed Cascadia it occurred to me that "Pacific East Rim" seems quite redundant there. Maybe both this and "ecoregion" could be deleted, or should we create a separate article for it? — Sebastian (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Northwest

Yah, i'd like to reiterate that I am sorry if I did take things too personally. I get your drift when you say you are a really nice guy, just with a taste for salty language and colourful metaphors . . In hindsight, I think its mostly my fault for interpreting you wrongly. (Although, call me pretentious, but I do take it personally when people say I was schooled wrong!) I'll put that on the Pac NW talk page at some point. In the meantime, I will read Beyond the Tragic Vision, or at least the relevant parts of it - I do have enough time and have been having trouble finding at least concise sources, so any suggestions are great. Thanks. --GREGorof → ^talk 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vancouver

This is an important message being sent out too all participants. We are currently recalling our list of participants. Any one who is inactive in the project will be moved to the "inactive" list respectively. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vancouver#ROLL_CALL_-_All_Read|the project talk page for more details]] -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Jargon

thanks for this translation! Can I write sth to you in Polish Wikipedia? (for example an article about your city) Best regards, Szoltys

Hi Szoltys. Had a few days think about this; take your pick between: Lillooet, British Columbia, Shalalth, British Columbia and my namesake article, Skookum; the two town articles may be revised in future and are somewhat incomplete at the moment, though. Dękuje. (No, I don't speak Polish, but I did study some once upon a time). Skookum may be the best one to translate, as it's not likely to change all that much, and maybe is the most interesting.Skookum1 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese immigration

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 (...) people were amused to see the Indians chasing the Chinese off the streambeds. Skookum1

I'm happy to admit that you know more about this topic than me, but you need to include information like this if you want to include statements like the one you did. While the the implications of what you say are different than that of the CCNC, your statement doesn't actually contradict the one you say they make. Write the above on the page (hopefully with citations and minus the political rhetoric about the CCNC of course) and I won't remove it.TheMightyQuill

The Chinese worked their own original sites and the leavings of other miners; yes, they did rework non-Chinese diggings, but not cause they had to but because they could; the CCNC site paints it completely different, as more evidence of white discrimination yadayada; it was true in California, but they treat it (as did this page originally) as if it applied in BC as well. It did not. Anyway, this streambed thing I can cite as soon as I find, amid the piles of paper and books scattered around my apartment, the Harris and Edwards books. Skookum1

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.Skookum1

But the page also included "Chinese miners had to live in tents" or something to that effect in the railway section; as if every other kind of pioneer didn't and as if that had to do with immigration. This page includes all kinds of stuff which don't have to do with immigration per se, the same way that the old HongCouver page contained all kinds of things that didn't belong on it, such as it was. I replaced what had been here before about how Chinese had supposedly been chased off gold workings with this more accurate account; they were driven off only at Tulameen and nowhere else, but this is enough for the CCNC and a coterie of academics to treat that one instance like it was a standard, which it was anything but. There were many conflicts between First Nations and Chinese, as individuals and sometimes in parties (as with the streambed quarrels), often escalating to violence and no small amount of court cases relating to same; and this because the Chinese stayed on in the goldfields longer, and in the Lillooet area (the "Upper Canyon" or "Upper Fraser" in gold rush-era parlance) the bulk of hydraulic mining was Chinese-owned and worked (i.e. always on food-bearing lands because of the nature of the local geography/biome and the density of native populations) . All this is a reminder that Chinese, like all other colonist/exploiters, were as much a disturbance to First Nations life and resources as anybody else. This should be reflected on this page, just as whites are slagged for nearly everything under the sun concerning the general history of the province, which is a complete double standard. If it's not relevant to immigration, fine, it can be completely removed or put somewhere else; but I'll be watching like a hawk for finger-pointing about bad stuff that whites are chastised for having done when it's clear that the Chinese, like everyone else, should share in the blame. The original content here glossed over the gold rushes and made them seem like inconsequential relative to the railway, and also as if they were another example of white high-handedness; quite the contrary, and if it weren't for the successes of gold rush Chinese, the railway Chinese would never have been brought in, nor would they have come. I may be able to get a "rate" of land displacement up and down the canyon, as a friend of mine just completed an exhaustive history/geography of all placer workings from Boston Bar to Big Bar or so, including who owned them; this is a good indicator of the degree of (a) Chinese economic success relative to others and (b) the primacy of Chinese in the displacement of lands for hydraulic workings (back in mid-September I stayed on a place at 12 Mile south of Lillooet that had been a Chinese mine-working; either that or a quiggly town, but the "holes" don't look right for the latter; but given its location it's quite probable that, prior to the Chinese ditching and pits on the site, it had been a First Nations site (because of its strategic location and water supply it must have been); interesting problem that the landowner will only resolve (i.e. get the Lillooet Tribal Council) off his back if he can prove it was a Chinese hydraulic working; and yeah, the records exist...or should.Skookum1 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. It doesn't belong on this page any more than it would belong on page like "Irish Immigration to Canada" as they likely participated in the gold rush too. This certainly belongs in an article on the gold rush, but since it has nothing specific to do with the Chinese (and there's no reason to think they would act any differently than other miners) it doesn't belong on this page, and you know it.TheMightyQuill

Yet the pretense in p.c. historiography, and in the Chinese community's own political bumpf, is that they did act differently than other miners; I'm just trying to put it that they didn't (other than being more "efficient" - i.e. destructive - in their displacement of land in the course of their workings).....Skookum1

Most Irish in the goldfields were of two kinds: American Irish from California and parts east, generally Catholic; and Anglo-Irish officials, particularly military (e.g. Chartres Brew, the first Chief Constable of the new colony). Why there isn't an article on Irish immigration to Canada is a good question; perhaps it's addressed on Irish Canadian but if that's the case, why aren't the Chinese immigration to Canada issues addressed on Chinese Canadian? There were, by the way, as many Irish died as Chinese in the building of the CPR, as they were the grunt labour east of the Rockies (the worst stretch to build, contrary to the text which says the Chinese were "given the worst stretch" to build, was actually the long and dire nastiness of the Canadian Shield from Kenora to southern Ontario; Irish and other British labour were not used in BC because they were too expensive to ship out west via the US or Panama or Cape Horn, and Chinese were not used east of BC because they were too expensive to ship east via the same routes; but the article paints it like the Chinese were deliberately given the worst work, when in fact it was the result of happenstance and practical logistics. And the same tight-fisted budgeting which ruled out British immigration for railway labour in favour of bargain-basement Chinese coolies, obligingly provided by the Chinese entrepreneurs who had struck it rich on the Fraser and in the Cariboo and elsewhere, or in Victoria in the course of supplying the rush (most gold rush money, anywhere, is made by people providing supplies and services, not by actual miners).Skookum1 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Harris in his The Resetttlement of British Columbia, 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)

Cole Harris specifically says it was whites alone, or simply uses "whites" as the "other" to indigenous people? If it's the former, I'd be more inclined to believe your complaints about white-bashing. If it's the latter, he's just oversimplifying things into a white/native racial dichotomy, which although incorrect, is hardly the same thing. It's no more wrong than grouping all indigenous people together as one race, is it? Or all Chinese, which I recently discovered is equally incorrect.TheMightyQuill

The Chinese claim that the red-headed, spiral-tattooed fair-skinned mummmies of the Tarim Basin are Chinese, and that the Tibetans are Chinese, and the Uighurs are Chinese, and that the Manchurians and countless others are Chinese. This is like the multiple meanings nowadays for "Canadian"; all Chinese present in the colony were Cantonese, although maybe there was a Yao or Hmong in there somewhere, who knows. And yeah, Harris like other post-modern politically-correct academics, pins everything on whites alone (or to use the pastiche neologism, "Euro-Americans", which obscures the very real differences between various kinds of Brit, Canadian and Americans of European and British origin; the other p.c. term that's also inappropriate re early BC is "European" because of its multiple meanings, i.e. it can't just be used as a replacement for the overtly racial term "white", even though that's what is clearly meant), in the same way that he turns a blind eye to the Nlaka'pamux-Shuswap invasion and enslavement of the Lillooets, and the extermination of the Stuwix (the Nicola Athapaskans); the Chinese, and the First Nations, in Cole Harris' world, can do no wrong.Skookum1 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply here, I'll watch your page.- TheMightyQuill 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a history major specializing in Chinese-immigration to Canada (and as the person who began this article), I respectfully disagree with your view that Chinese-Canadians portray their history as "revisionist" and only view itself as the victims. There was very severe discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Canada before multiculturalism, and I simply stated those discriminations when I began the article. I'd like to point out the following:

The Chinese are not the only ethnic group to portray their history from a victim POV (e.g.: Jewish-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians, etc.)
The Chinese-Canadian experience was one of the best-documented examples of institutional discrimination in Canada (as no other ethnic groups were subjected to a Head Tax for entering Canada)
While other European groups were discriminated within Canada, Canada did welcome European immigrations in an effort to encourage Western settlement, as the Canadian government placed ads in newspapers throughout Europe, promising free land in Western Canada. Although there was some discriminations against other ethncities in Europe, they were relatively mild to what the Chinese had experienced.

Thus, I wouldn't exactly mention discrimination against the Chinese and that of the Irish in the same breath. Bourquie 13:18, 23 Nov 2006

I thought that the focus was the discrimination of ethnic groups in Canada, not what they were subjected to back in the "old country." I'm not terribly interested the treatment of Irish back in Ireland (or Chinese back in China for that matter), since the focus of that article has to do with ethnic immigration to Canada. Second, I'm not the person who put in that misinformation. I started this article well after I've taken a course about Chinese immigration to Canada in university. Third, I'm quite proud of my "hypenated Canadian" staus (as I'm Chinese-Canadian). If Canada celebrates its multicultural policy ("the cultural moasic") so much, then long-time Canadians should accept newcomers who like to identify with their heritage. Finally, having lived in a province with a significant Ukrainian population (Alberta), I'm quite interested in the Ukrainian experience in Canada. Bourquie 12:01, 24 Nov 2006

Historical photos

Hey Skookum - I reposted the argument, links, and copyright tags beneath your reply so that the info and resources are available to everyone. Hopefully it'll encourage others to upload historical photos because there's a lot of great ones on the web. My original post with that stuff seems to have been archived.Bobanny 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panama

(the canal, not the Van Halen song...) It's a little simplistic to say X caused Y, but that's hard to avoid in this format when more than one sentence per idea is considered extravagant. If the port's coming of age has to be boiled down to one thing, it might be better to say it was the reduction of freight rates on goods shipped through the Rockies in the 1920s. Prior to that, there were discriminatory rates imposed by the railways that made it uneconomical to ship prairie grain west even though Vancouver was the nearest port. Van was, obviously, also the new kid on the block, so all the infrastructure was already oriented to shipping it east. Anticipation that the Panama Canal would bring a sea change in int'l shipping that might leave BC out in the cold I think drew a lot of energy and summoned the political will for developing the port to where it had state of the art facilities compared with the biggest int'l ports. Thus, the federal Harbour Commission was set up and took over much of the stewardship of the harbour from the CPR and other business interests.

Much of the grain trade was then diverted to Vancouver not only from Montreal's port, but even from American ports that were in on the action. The 1st grain elevator in Van was called "Stevens Folly" (after H.H. Stevens) because it was mostly unused in its 1st years. Part of that was the war as you mentioned (the elevator was built in 1914), and port development didn't really take off til the 20s. Vancouver also pioneered storage methods for grain so it could actually make it to the UK without rotting even if it travelled through the tropics (apparently that was one of the major arguments against shipping grain west. There's also Western Canada's lumber and mineral resources that are much closer to the Pacific coast than eastern ports. No matter how cheap trains are, it's still cheaper by water, so it made economic sense to float stuff down to Panama from Vancouver and back up again to the UK, or even to the Atlantic coast (BC timber for NYC construction, for example). Anyway, if you can give me an email address, I can send this article (its a PDF). It's a good read, succinct and she explains it better than I can.Bobanny 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history section

Just as I read your comment about the battle in seattle movie, a super-bright movie set light began shining through my window (somewhere north of hastings near main - is that your people?) That's hysterical that they're bringing authentic Seattleites across the border for the shoot.

Also a fiscal issue. Even at ten beans an hour, multiply that by 1000, then add 1.5x/hr for four hours of basic overtime, then 2.0x/hr for the next 4. Plus meal penalties and, after 16 hours, triple time (or, hm, is it quadruple time?)...also they're likely to be a lot more enthusiastic than Canadian extras, although apparently the few dozen they used today for the silent-protest phase of the story did a smack-on job, so real the director or a.d. or whomever came into holding kudo'd them for looking and behaving like the real thing (a detailed video of the story/riots had been shown in holding, over and over, so people would have an idea how to behave; quite a few people got upgrades from camera close-ups today, I'd gather; I was a bland passerby, mostly sat in holding. And no, we were on the Library steps and at street level at GM Place. What you saw was probably Intelligence, the DaVinci spinof series.Skookum1 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Vancouver article, I'm gonna try and step back for a little while. I've already put way too much time into it, and the FA process has been very frustrating, so I'll wait until the dust settles a bit. The introduction's already been completely re-written since yesterday. I just glanced through the Vancouver article on the Canadian Encyclopedia, which was interesting. I didn't pay too much to the content - most of the usual stuff - but I like the structure. It was written by Patricia Roy, an historian, but interestingly enough, it didn't have a "history" section. Instead, she goes through the various themes ("economy," "transportation," etcetera) and treats them all historically. It's a bit late to reconceptualize our Vancouver article, but I think maybe it could be reworked in that direction. No matter what factoids you choose, it feels unsatisfying to cram it all in to 2 paragraphs, while the rest of the article can be somewhat a-historical. For example, transportation could cover a fair bit of interesting historical developments (BCER, anti-freeway campaign) rather than beginning with the skytrain in 1986. Same with demographics - it might flow better if it were organized chronologically. The history section, rather than being a ghetto, could be left to deal with the earlier history, maybe divided between pre and post incorporation. That's my thoughts, but I'll let it sit for a while and see what develops.

Also, I do have a fairly large collection of local history books and would be willing to look up specific information for citations and what not. I know it's not realistic to run to the library to get the proper citations. It would be nice to have more printed and fewer internet sources used as well. Chuck Davis is good because he's in both places, but I'd also like to feel less like we're replicating the Greater Vancouver Book here too. Bobanny 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck also has errors, and repeats errors. Not wilfull confabulation or sins of omission; I haven't read him in detail but I've noticed things here and there that are either mis-takes or repetitions of stories from someone else that may have, for instance, come from bumpf/brochure aeons ago and have come to be considered as fact. That said, I can't provide any immediate examples. Anyway, had a nap and time for my bath....Skookum1 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed some of that. What I like about the GVB though, and probably CD's biggest strength, is that he brought a lot of people together and had them write a piece on something they know something about - an architect on architecture, historian on history, archeologist on archeology (to use some examples cited in Wiki Vancouver article). As a quick reference guide, a source for local trivia and anecdotes, it's great, but I don't think I'd pull it out as the final word in a debate. Bobanny 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article

		The Featured Article Medal
		I gratefully award you The Featured Article Medal in recognition of your contributions to the article Vancouver. Thanks to your efforts and vast improvements on the article, on November 22, 2006 the article successfully went through an FAC and became a Featured Article. I hope you continue to improve the quality of articles relating to the WikiProject Vancouver as your help was 'beyond the call of duty'. Thank you again, Mkdw ^talk 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

Why do you have to get so worked up about everything? I mean, we disagree on this issue, but you don't have to take it personal or accuse the world of working against you. We share a lot of the same views on most things, and you're about as close to a friend as I have on wikipedia, but I feel you're going a little over the top on this Chinese Immigration thing. Fine, you feel it's POV. I saw you had made a bunch of edits on friday (with some pretty extreme edit summaries), and to be honest, I was worried, because I know you have pretty intense feelings on the issue, which run pretty much totally contrary to mine. But when I saw your edits, I didn't see any problem with them. Just keep up your reasonable edits, and there doesn't have to be a fight at all.

I agree with you that the government didn't issue redress/compensation right away because they were worried that they'd have to give it out to everyone, but I never heard any politician actually give that as an excuse. I can't imagine anyone from Chretien to Harper saying "Yes, that would be the right thing to do, but we don't want to do it because it would cost too much, because we'd have to start doing the right thing all around." I could well be wrong, but usually politicians aren't that honest. My edit wasn't POV. I'm not trying to hide anything, or push an opposite viewpoint from yours, I just never heard anyone responsible make that claim. You freaking out and claiming to be the only person who reads the newspaper is not only uncalled for, it's not going to help anything. If you want to put it back in with a fact ref, or a citation, go right ahead, but calm down a little and assume good faith, okay? -- TheMightyQuill 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum

Good evening. I got your messages and was slightly taken aback. I have to say that you have made some rather bizarre assumptions! You refer to "my pet" twice and say "you may love your kitten..." What are you talking about? I do not own any Skookums. I am part of the WikiProject Cats group and am working to ensure that all recognised breeds of cat have a page and profile. This is not the only one I have done work on. What on earth gave you the idea that I had a Skookum? I am also slightly bemused at your assertions that the profile was written in overly cutesy language. It is a straightforward description of the physical characteristics of the breed and the history of its development. The only bit which might have been taken this way was the one sentence description of the typical temperament. I have removed this now, although you will find that many of the other breed profiles do have a description of temperament. Thanks for your clarification about TICA, as you will have read the breed was accepted for registration, but the breed name was not approved because someone on the committe thought the word Skookum meant something bad. Obviously this is just one of the organisations and the DCA is also there as a citation. So, no, I have no emotional attachment to the Skookum breed, I do not own one. None even exist in the country I live in. This is not my invention. The info is now accurate and appropriate in tone with citations. And just to make sure I have contacted a person who is a cat breeder who breeds this breed to request that she reviews the page. I do hope this clarifies your issues. Please do not remove any moe cat breed profiles, although go ahead if you want to set the Skookum page to a disambiguation page leading off to four pages. I am not totally sure wikipedia should be used as a dictionary, so perhaps your first definition of skookum shouldn't be here, but there could be a page for the monster and one for the dolls.

PS

Also puzzled by your comment "You also shouldn't have the cat breeds category on your own userpage; you're not a cat". I do not understand why you have said this when I do not have the cat breeds category on my userpage. You did not look properly. What is says is "This user is a member of WikiProject Cats". Many thanks for looking at the page though.

Columbia River route map

Hello, Skookum. I’m sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. I was on vacation from Wikipedia for a few months, and then I kept meaning to respond but I kept putting it off. I have updated the Columbia River satellite photo/map as you suggested to show the Columbia’s complete route in British Columbia. The new map is here: Image:Roll On Columbia.jpg. (The old one was here: Image:Roll on Columbia.jpg.) I meant to just overwrite the old one when I uploaded the new one, but due to a capitalization error (On vs. on) I wound up creating a new image. So I updated the three links to the old image and I requested deletion of the old one with an {{ifd}} tag. •DanMS 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, pity can't get the top of the Big Bend on it, as I'm planning an article on Big Bend (British Columbia), and there'll be a Big Bend, British Columbia (which was a town) and Big Bend Gold Rush; this would be a great map for some BC illustrative maps, particularly history (see Cariboo Road and Okanagan Trail. What's really interesting on these satellite maps is you can see the border; because of different land blocks and logging cuts and other activity-shifts from one side of the 49th Parallel to the other; especially through the Kootenays/Idaho-Montana and out onto the Prairie.Skookum1 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you could see the border, after you pointed it out. It’s interesting! Here is something along similar lines that is quite interesting. On my website at www.danshort.com there is a very dramatic dividing line that you can see from space, where the border between North Korea and South Korea crosses the peninsula. South Korea is ablaze with light, while North Korea has just a few pinpoints here and there. What a difference between a free, capitalist country and a Communist tyranny! •DanMS 00:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football?

When you Canadians say “football,” are you referring to American football or Football (soccer)? •DanMS 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian football, which resembles American football but with slightly different rules (longer field, different scoring system and penalty/"down" rules, game relies more on passing than carrying). Football (soccer) in Canada is always referred to as soccer, usually even by expat Brits and Euros and Aussies, at least when they're talking to "us". Canadian football and American football are not quite the same game, even though players come and go between the respective leagues; more similar than different, relative to the differences between ordinary rugger and Aussie rules (which are totally different games); the Canadian-American distinction is more to do with rules and style/strategy. Supposedly ours is older, too, as the first game ever known was between the Harvard (or Yale?) rugby club and the McGill soccer league, at McGill (Montreal).Skookum1 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You learn something every day. I didn’t know there was such a game as Canadian football! •DanMS 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Football and Culture

See my reply. •DanMS 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree photo

Hi Skookum1 - just happened on your pic link [1] that you posted on Talk:Lodgepole Pine a few months ago. It looks most like a juniper to me, probably Juniperus scopulorum. - MPF 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious edit to Columbia River

Hi Skookum1. I'm curious about this edit to the Columbia River. You deleted two accessdate fields in citations, and removed/damaged two ISBN numbers. The other edit (adding allegedly) is fine. What happened? — EncMstr 07:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I remember doing is adding "allegedly" and making the edit comment; I don't remember deleting anything. Maybe there was a rapid-type ctrl-select that I didn't see in the course of typing (been known to happen when I'm writing/editing, but in the course of ordinary text - not infobox formatting). I also wasn't anywhere near the section that had ISBN numbers; I made only one edit (that I was aware of) - the addition of "allegedly". Could this be a glitch somehow?Skookum1 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. If it was a glitch, it had a semi-uniform shotgun distribution where it tore up the target. I made the intended fix. Thanks. — EncMstr 08:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Canadian

Try assuming good faith one and a while, eh? I wrote that section, and I'll admit it is actually prairie-centric. But that's not because I'm part of some "Central Canadian" plot to deny BC's existance. I just was using "the West" poetically, and in the "old west", "wild west", "last, best, west", etc. Salright? Kevlar67 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it's a common prairie view to regard BC as part of the same region; only by direction and distance from the centre; it's a term which doesn't "work" in BC, and it's incidental (sort of) that the content in that section was about the Prairies only; I just happened to be browsing a book on immigrant groups in BC (Strangers Entertained, which you won't find in bookstores as it was a govt centennial publication in '71) and was perusing the Irish section. Ours were different than those in other parts of the country, and BC attracted a certain element/type from any group; Raised myself a storm of definition issues now because have a look at Talk:Scots-Irish American (which for now includes a section on Canada, which in the Irish-from-Ireland view is "in America", "America" meaning the New World to them, not just the U.S.....); the definition problem now comes because it's hard to tell who to give Category:Irish Canadians to, and who to give Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians to, and there might have to be an Category:Anglo-Irish Canadians because many of BC's Anglo-Irish weren't from Ulster, nor part Scots; but there's no Anglo-Irish in Canada or Scots-Irish in Canada articles; just the US one. Found this out when I dropped by to add the Irish Canadian tag to John Foster McCreight and Andrew Charles Elliott (BC's 1st and 4th Premiers), as I had just done for John Andrew Mara and Forbes George Vernon.Skookum1 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

language

I removed the French from BC and from other provinces except NB and QC on the grounds that they are officially french-language provinces. Not sure I'm up for an edit war either, but if anyone takes issue, I'll look around and see if there's an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline on the issue. There were other languages I cut out too, and from Ontario to Alberta were all English-only. It's likely that one Francophile went through and stuck the French in, and that it won't be a big issue. I noticed on Newfoundlands talk page there was a discussion about a Japanese translation that had been included. C'est tout bizarre, in my opinion.Bobanny 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think." Such bizzarities are common in Canada, esp. with language and culture politics...(see Talk:Squamish Nation if you haven't already)Skookum1 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanaka

Hi. Could you please avoid phrases like put the lie to..., it is hard to read it and assume that you are assuming good faith. Words in the English language take on very different ~~meanings~~ implications between canadian, english, american, australian and new zealand usage (eg: football, sloppy joe, thong). I think that Kanaka was probably borrowed in Australia from Canada because it has nicer roots than "kaffir" - which is a better comparison to the Australian treatment of Kanakas, than the comparison between Canadian Kanaka and Australian Kanaka.Ga rr ie 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "put the lie to" comment was fair, considering that the article had been written, albeit in good faith, under the assumption that Australian bigotries can be applied across the board to Canadian bigotries; the "indentured servants" wording is POV, unless equal-time is given to the notion that ALL Hudson's Bay Company staff, including managers, clerks and chief factors, were also "indentured servants". I had added material to the article about the different meaning of the word, and the different social situation, on our side of the Pacific, and to back it up included the Koppel cite (out of potentially very many; it's just the most focussed publication); but some earnest Australasian deleted that material because...well, no real good reason was given other than disbelief, based in a lack of knowledge of what happened with Kanakas in North America. I'm of the kind that if something is a lie, I'm going to call it a lie, and that's what I did.Skookum1 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trails

So far we've got the Alexander MacKenzie Heritage Trail, Nyan Wheti, Cheslatta Trail and Whatcom Trail.

I think of them as being grease trails or part of a network of grease trails, rather than parts of The Grease Trail, but that's really just semantics, I guess, and I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. There's already a Category:Trade routes, but a category for indigenous trade routes would be worth creating? In the states, it seems like a lot of them have been turned into highways, which makes things a little confusing. =) - TheMightyQuill 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's actual articles on "the" Grease Trail, but again it's a network, although a primary route is usually mapped, with one splinter/alternate route, alongside maps I've seen of it; the Mackenzie trail uses it for most if its stretch. Yes, there are generic grease trails, and maybe that's an article in and of itself; somehow this particular one gained the name of "the" Grease Trail; I'll see what I can find on it; it's old textbook material and also was current in newspaper history articles through the "native renaissance" of the 1970s and '80s (before the counter-coverage began post-Oka).

As for a separate category of native trade routes vs post-contact ones, that's not going to work as one is often the other; there is nowhere else to go. And many of the native trade routes don't have names, though spots along them do (e.g. a named pass), and they're not quite the same thing as an infrastuctural route, i.e. something constructed/budgeted/maintained - something that could be accounted for in material history rather than by ethnographic cartography; as far as mandated routes go also need writeups are the Hudson's Bay Brigade Trail (Spuzzum-Coldwater-Merritt) and the route of the Company Express (books and profits from Fort Vancouver to Port Churchill, annually...via Colville not via Kamloops as I'd ocne thought...); the Brigade Trail is not a native route but the Express Route consistently used native trade routes (i.e. the rivers and portages connecting them). There can implicitly be no distinction, whether it's the Lillooet Cattle Trail or Douglas Road or Cariboo Road, all of which used "native trade routes". I'd suggest maybe a category on something like Heritage Routes rather than Trade Routes, although I'm not fond of the word "heritage" but "historical" doesn't cut it either. Waddington's Road (the aborted Homathko Canyon gold rush route cf Chilcotin War comes in there; also the route of the Collins Telegraph, known as the Telegraph Trail). BC's history is in large part that of the establishment of constructed, mapped infrastructure (our first military were, needless to say, all professional surveyors and engineers...). The Whatcom Trail was not a native trade route; rather a badly-conceived and largely awkward route from Bellingham Bay to the Chilliwack area of the Fraser; see its inland counterpart the Okanagan Trail and I have yet to write the Couteau Country Trail (the Similkameen-Coldwater/Nicola branch of the Okanagan Trail]]).Skookum1 06:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian volcanoes

i would add photos for the volcanoes but i have no clue how to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Garibaldi Lake

Yea, but Garibaldi Lake is a volcanic lake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Don't be cute. A lake is a lake and in this encyclopedia should be written as such; that it's a caldera is incidental; since it is (if it is) it can be included still in the Volcanoes category (Crater Lake in Oregon is in both Lakes of Oregon and Volcanoes of Oregon); but the article should be primarily about the lake itself as a geographic feature; location, size, volume, setting; you've written it only as a geology article as if it weren't also a geographic artifact, and of course in this case a recreational-tourism feature as well.Skookum1 23:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll add information on the lake part then

Try using Crater Lake as a guideline for overall layout; it's a good article and has the volcanic focus you're interested in while still being a park/recreation/geographic/environmental article.Skookum1 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skooks

yo skookum (dude can you believe I used the word skookum the other day in ontario only to recieve blank stares, and people asking what the hell that meant)????? Anyways I wrote the whole Shifting Fortunes part BC since the 70's, check it out have a look, have an edit, whatev P.S. I tried not to be very socredish as people accuse me of being (which is irionic because I was born after social credits demise.) I tried to be neutral and not bash the NDP too badly... British Columbia TotallyTempo 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldergrove

I think the location information you added to the Aldergrove, British Columbia article is completely redundant with the second paragraph (which is already addressing the location). Do you see anything in there that should be merged with the second paragraph instead of just struck? --Steven Fisher 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Della Falls

If you look at the canadian atlas, they identify Della Falls as the tallest in Canada. This is what Ive heard from various sources, but if you could provide some reference to the other falls being taller that would be appreciated. SCmurky 02:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.britishcolumbia.com says Hunlen Falls is 853'; Bivouac.com gives 253m, so obviously not as high as Della, then; I'd been raised in a time when Hunlen was the highest known I guess; I do know that Hunlen has never been adequately measured because of the snowfield it drops into (its outflow runs through an ice cave), but I doubt there could be as wide a variance in its measure as 200m. Hunlen's in Tweedsmuir Provincial Park and, like much of that park, is not photographed a lot, especially under free licence; or I'd have written an article/stub on it by now. Skookum1 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the status of waterfalls in Canada. The Atlas of Canada does not have much information, just stating a few general statistics, but the person I contacted there stated that Della Falls is the tallest; however, there remain many falls that are unmeasured. SCmurky 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I saw somewhere that you mentioned wanting to figure out the citation templates. If you haven't yet, you can find the templates here. Just cut and paste from the "common usage" column and fill in the details (and place between the <ref></ref> things in the text). And if it's not already there, stick this in the 'references' section:<references/> and they'll go in automatically. I find these templates kind of tedious to use, but it seems most people prefer having them. cheers, Bobanny 09:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply

i think that the projects do follow a hierarchy, so that the tag should be the most specific (i.e., just Vancouver, not Van,BC, and Canada). But I'm not exactly sure what the implications of that is. I asked a similar question on the BCproject talk page, but haven't got a response. In my mind, it should work like the category tree, but then again, these are independent projects and not really interconnected technically, even if they are grouped in families. So maybe it's a judgement call for each article to decide if the city and the province can claim it.

As for the French thing, the constitution (as the franco-philes like to point to as the authority) has it as la Colombie-Britannique, in upper case. But I think it only needs the 'la' if it's in a sentence, so that the infobox doesn't require it. I've checked a few places on the french wikipedia, and that seems to be the case, though I don't remember from my french classes the logic for it. Life in a country that doesn't make any sense (check the 'multinational' discussion on the Canada talk page sometime if you want more). 09:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Re: United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia --> Colony of British Columbia. See the Talk page of the latter. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Park is #1, not #16

Bobbany and Skokum - I believe my latest version is shorter, more precise, and more up to the point. It is not important to point out data that Stanley Park is 16th in the place. That's simply not true. I mean, the agency selected ugly Mexican park to be #1 in the world, and that park doesn't even have 1/3 of features and beauty of Stanley Park. The agency has discredited itself and we should not quote it. How can one put ugly, dirty, Mexican park on #1 place and Stanley Park on the 16th place? It's ridicolous. I strongly oppose information from discredited agencies to be included into Stanley Park article. I've been in Mexico and seen the ugly dirty park they selected as "#1 Park in the World", and it can't even be compared with our Stanley Park. Don't include that info, as by doing that - you are only insulting the most beautiful park in the Universe (Stanley Park!). Bosniak 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood North

Hey, do you have any references to the facts you mentioned on the talk page, it would be great to add it, but at this point I want to have a reference for everything seeing how it could be a topic of argument and difference of opinion. Mkdw ^talk 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC Legislature Raids issues

Sorry. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd never heard of the raids before, and if I had, this (I'd agree, poor) article didn't do much to refresh my memory. Kind of strange, since I was in Victoria at the time, but I didn't have a TV at the time, and I'm not generally interested in political corruption scandals. Hope you figure something out. Play nice. -- TheMightyQuill 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the raids, but haven't followed the story, so I couldn't jump in there without a bit of legwork on the subject. This is the kind of very partisan article that sucks up a lot of energy on Wikipedia because it tends toward bad faith editing by politicos (see Talk:Michael Ignatieff for another painful example). Since this article is User:IWin4U's only contribution, you're right, it is suspect, but I've seen it mentioned that a benefit for editors to register on Wikipedia is that their IP addy's become hidden, so you'd probably have to take it up with the powers that be if you want to go down that road, perhaps something like WP:ANI. Chances are though, that it'd be more prudent to just keep an eye on the article. Bobanny 06:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know me, I waded into the Talk pages and called a few spades shovels, plus visited a few talk pages to find out who these guys were, leaving some spoor of my passage as to "your joining Wikipedia just to delete this one article's contents is a bit low, don't you think?" (see User talk:RyanAirman) or just a simple "who the hell are you anyway?" (not in those words see User:MmeLébrun. I did some digging in the histories and found lots of BIG sections that were deleted by these guys, and some of the same names show up on Mark Marissen and Erik Bornmann, or people/edits like them, with big missing blocks of info once again (somebody deleted Talk:Erik Bornman's contents entirely over the holidays); I get the impression that there were once Dave Basi and Aneal Virk articles but that they've been deleted; there should be articles on them. Anyway, digging around tonight in the edit histories I found all kinds of stuff that should be restored but I wanted an admin's say-so, or at least "a collective" of regular editors; and who knows maybe this stuff does have to be run through the legal department of Wikipedia, but it's the first I've heard of a political bio encountering libel chill; edit wars are common enough, but usually for more high-profile politicians....there's similar partisan fuddling on the BC Liberal Party page, esp. its history section, as in the bios of various Premiers (also BC Conservative Party, and definitely on Socred and NDP bio/history pages it's all very POV/euhemerized).Skookum1 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the politicos working on this, remember that Wikipedia generally is very squeamish about anything that could lead to legal trouble, especially "biographies of living persons." Tielemen's blog is as likely to get removed by a non-interested party in this as anyone just because it is a blog, and opinion pieces in newspapers can be challenged as non-reliable sources til the cows come home even though the papers are normally considered 'reliable' for non-contentious articles, thus ensuring that the articles remain unstable. Bobanny 15:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've established that User:rascalpatrol is in fact Erik Bornmann himself, and he has repeatedly vandalized both the article about him and the talk page by deleting posts by other editors (including my own from last night, which I just restored). I think I'm going to have to WP:ANI him, plus Omar Jack, JJGardiner and others who have fiddled with these pages (Omar Jack and others, if you look at their User Contributions, have ONLY posted on the Erik Bornmann article; similar one-article contributors can be found in the BC ledge raids article and talk page and their histories.Skookum1 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

League v. Party

I was aware of the name change that the party underwent, but decided that the sacrifice of accuracy for the sake of expediency was justified here, since "Party" is the name by which the movement was known for almost its entire ascendency in the Province. It's a judgement call, but that sort of detail could perhaps be best explicated in the British Columbia Social Credit Party article, if it is not already. As it stood, it was a red link. Fishhead64 07:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rascalpatrol

Leave his Talk page alone. You have no say as to what he can or can not keep on his page. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for this legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh rejoice. Finally somebody takes action against this guy. He should have been blocked a long time ago. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think this is the precise diff of the reason Zoe blocked. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained here: [2],I doubt Skookum1 has made a legal threat. Please consider unblocking him, or at least have a discussion with him about it that doesn't presume he's guilty. FWIW, I've run into this guy a few times on geography articles and he's made valuable contributions. ~~Let's try not to lose him.~~ Kla'quot 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've "run into this guy a few times" also and he's made some very borderline racist comments. Not to mention he incessantly soapboxes in a lot of Talk pages, and add a lot of inane inline comments in articles he has edited in the past. Definitely should be kept blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that kind of thing is definitely a concern (if true), but the current block is for legal threats. If he hasn't made any, the block should be lifted. I don't have the big picture of the disputes he's been in, so I have no opinion on whether he should be blocked for the other things. Kla'quot 06:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever, I'm just glad he's been blocked. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally, Hong. Found your comments here amusing and your biased reversions/deletions at the various articles you've finally found the courage to re-revise in my absence, but I had bigger fish to fry. Freedom of speech and all that; you might try it sometime.Skookum1 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Governor Douglas really did issue edicts and reprimands to miners concerning equal treatment for Chinese gold miners. Read some BC history sometime instead of just pontificating on it from political pamphlets.Skookum1 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had assistance from Skookum1 several times on work I have done and have observed a wide range of valuable contributions that he has made about British Columbia. His useful and extensive work often digs into sources that are beyond what is easily available. It would be a great loss if he was prevented from continuing this work. The block is based on a breach of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I support removal of the block because the comments are not a threat at all and because they are not a threat of legal action (the Law Society is only a regulatory body, not a court). The editor's remarks made were part of a series of vigorously expressed comments made advancing a concern that edits are being made to a biographical article inappropriately. It is clear from the comments that the editor's intent was that bias ought not to be a basis for deletion of content. His concern is about whether the information presented is being manipulated. It would be a shame if his vigour of expression in defence of the integrity of our work becomes a basis for him to be excluded. At Wikipedia:Blocking policy I see "Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user may be blocked without warning. If a warning is desirable, the {{npa6}} template can be used. Users who make severe threats can be blocked indefinitely." If there is to be a block, it ought to be of short duration. The sort of "severe threat" contemplated by the policy is beyond anything that can be found in Skookum1's comments. There are several unsupported negative allegations made by others in this section that have no bearing on the basis for this block. Those comments should be ignored. Any decision about whether to block a user, particularly a user of this value, should be based on the actual policy and unsupported negative opinions should have no bearing on that decision. KenWalker | Talk 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC) By the way, in case anyone gets the idea I am the lawyer that Skookum1 refers to in his note, I am not. KenWalker | Talk 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock statement

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skookum1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is my position. I cannot apologize for something I did not do, which was not a legal threat, not even a threat of any kind. Etc. I am appealing this block because I made NO legal threat. I apologize if my suggestion that the Law Society of Upper Canada, the bar association for the province of Ontario, will find the censorship of the Bornmann article of interest in their hearings on Mr. Bornmann's bar application. But as I cannot know that rascalpatrol is Mr. Bornmann, who can it be that I threatened rascalpatrol? I indicated that (non-legal, albeit professional) proceedings against Mr. Bornmann would be of interest to the Law Society of Upper Canada. I repeat, I made no legal threat and have never done such on Wikipedia and know better than to do things like that at all (I'm the type that would take court action before speaking about doing so, for one thing...). I made a simple comment, that as observed by a lawyer friend of mine, the censorship and vandalism of the Bornmann page may be of interest to the LSUC. If that's a threat, then I retract it, as it wasn't meant that way. But I will not apologize for something I did not do - because in my mind it was not a threat, just an observation - and cannot promise not to do something again that I didn't do in the first place. The issues concerning the slack definitions and loosely-defined policies here are further to this and I could explore the arguments posed over them, but the central point remains: I did not make a threat, period, and deserved no block. This block has been unfair and unjust, and I protest it. I'm not going to demand an apology, but I certainly feel I deserve one.Skookum1 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While you did not claim to be pursuing a lawsuit, your comments were sufficiently uncivil as to justify a block. Certainly you violated the spirit of WP:LEGAL if not necessary the letter. I cannot support an unblock at this time. However, if you request another unblock and indicate that you have read WP:CIVIL and understand how to resolve disputes, I would not object to another admin unblocking you. -- Yamla 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Retraction

I have been blocked as a result of these comments. Although I did not intend to convey any legal threat, I understand that User:Zoe has construed my comments as a threat to use outside authority. That was not my intent and I regret making comments which could be construed in that way. In the future, I will avoid making comments which may be construed as a threat to invoke outside legal authority to resolve editing disputes. I have also read WP:CIVIL and WP:Legal and have and will abide by their guidelines.Skookum1 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your email Re Erik Bornmann

You wrote:

I can't post to this right now because I'm still fighting what I see as an unfair and highly :politically partial block; just wanted to comment on your post about the shameless self-promotion: :that's only because rascalpatrol and Randy3 et al. have been allowed to run roughshod over this :article; if the content they deleted - all of it valid - were restored, the article is very relevant :and concerns high-stakes public affairs. BTW if rascalpatrol is Bornmann, pls note the length of :his self-laudatory post here, which precedes yours, vis a vis the "shameless self-promotion" thing. :This article should be sent to Edit Wars or Arbitration and be Protected, and the SPAs who have been :controlling it, and brow-beating anyone who tries to fix it, should be censured much more severely :than I have been....

Reply: I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on that. Even looking at the history, the article doesn't show why he deserves an article. GreenJoe 04:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You did read the full set of restored but now re-deleted materials didn't you? I guess I'll have to lay out in point form why this case is highly-relevant to the public interest, and why the separate players throughout it each should have their own page (but not tonight; it's New Years and I'm gonna go play some tunes in the park...and eat, drink and otherwise be merry). As Domperignon, whoever he is, long ago noted, he'd only incidentally created this page first and was going to make the Basi and Virk pages and all the ancillary pages that would focus on BC Legislature Raids, but he was accused of singling Bornmann out and, as others have also been, and me by imputation, that people trying to represent the full story are agents of "those criminaly charged" (sic), namely Basi and Virk, and THAT is false, uncivil, and all kinds of Wikicrimes in one breath. That it's been emasculated to a (rather pathetic) vanity article in order to help cover-up a major and breaking political scandal the subject is involved in just doesn't seem right; and if it's not on the radar in T.O. yet it soon will be as the trial will be opening up in coming weeks and Mr. Bornmann is a star witness - the star witness. He's not just an articling student seeking to promote himself; the case he's involved in, and his activities in relation to it, are a matter of public interest. Not prurient interest, but the public interest.Skookum1 04:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should postscript that with the comment that articles on the other principals in the case are needed, and will be just as lengthy/complex (as this one would be if it had all the facts/news coverage), in the same way as any political or criminal biography; having all their stories crammed onto the BC Ledge Raids page just won't fit, and would make that page unwieldy (right now it's still emasculated too, although some people have been trying to re-add material attacked by the Bornmann camp previously...(curiously many of them from ON and QC IP addresses or otherwise indicated as being from outside BC....); I'm not Skootum3, btw, whoever that is; a tribute username I suppose but definitely not me in case anybody claims it is ;-| Skookum1 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 249: / Line 249: @@
 ==Unblock statement==
 {{unblock reviewed|1=Here is my position. I cannot apologize for something I did not do, which was not a legal threat, not even a threat of any kind. Etc. I am appealing this block because I made NO legal threat. I apologize if my suggestion that the Law Society of Upper Canada, the bar association for the province of Ontario, will find the censorship of the Bornmann article of interest in their hearings on Mr. Bornmann's bar application. But as I cannot know that rascalpatrol is Mr. Bornmann, who can it be that I threatened rascalpatrol? I indicated that (non-legal, albeit professional) proceedings against Mr. Bornmann would be of interest to the Law Society of Upper Canada. I repeat, I made no legal threat and have never done such on Wikipedia and know better than to do things like that at all (I'm the type that would take court action before speaking about doing so, for one thing...). I made a simple comment, that as observed by a lawyer friend of mine, the censorship and vandalism of the Bornmann page may be of interest to the LSUC. If that's a threat, then I retract it, as it wasn't meant that way. But I will not apologize for something I did not do - because in my mind it was not a threat, just an observation - and cannot promise not to do something again that I didn't do in the first place. The issues concerning the slack definitions and loosely-defined policies here are further to this and I could explore the arguments posed over them, but the central point remains: I did not make a threat, period, and deserved no block. This block has been unfair and unjust, and I protest it. I'm not going to demand an apology, but I certainly feel I deserve one.Skookum1 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)|decline=While you did not claim to be pursuing a lawsuit, your comments were sufficiently uncivil as to justify a block.  Certainly you violated the spirit of [[WP:LEGAL]] if not necessary the letter.  I cannot support an unblock at this time.  However, if you request another unblock and indicate that you have read [[WP:CIVIL]] and understand how to resolve disputes, I would not object to another admin unblocking you.  -- [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)}}
+==Retraction==
+I have been blocked as a result of
+[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rascalpatrol&diff=prev&oldid=96981278 these comments.]  Although I did not intend to convey any legal threat,
+I understand that [[User:Zoe]] has construed my comments as a threat to
+use outside authority.  That was not my intent and I regret making
+comments which could be construed in that way.  In the future, I will
+avoid making comments which may be construed as a threat to invoke
+outside legal authority to resolve editing disputes.  I have also read WP:CIVIL and WP:Legal and have and will abide by their guidelines.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 ==Your email Re [[Erik Bornmann]]==