User talk:Keefer4

	Archives
	Jan-Mar 2007

Square pegs and round holes

Oh, lordy. I left a message on Radiant's talk page, and will post it for a deletion review at WP:DRV unless Radiant's response enlightens me to some obvious point I've been missing. In the meantime, I'm going to propose replacing "Category:Streets and squares by city" with "Category:Streets by city" and "Category:Squares by city," because it's not only Victory Square that makes an odd pairing with Tiannamen Square, not to mention streets. More than the issue of category names, the unilateral decisions being made through convoluting the process is what's getting my goat. My guess is that some of these folks spend so much time with category issues that they lose sight of the bigger picture of Wikipedia and even the real world they are categorizing. Bobanny 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Maple Tree Square in Gastown and Times Square, NYC, why.. they're practically synonymous aren't they?! I agree with your assessment of the situation and will continue to watch and participate.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still scratching my head as to what bona fide squares there are in Vancouver other than Victory Square and Maple Tree Square; and yes, if we were like New Yorkers, Maple Tree Square would be the heart and soul of the city instead of an off-ramp for the 2nd Narrows via a junkie-loft district; it would be our Times Square if we had any panache....anyway, where else is there that qualifies as a "square"? And who is this admin who knows Vancouver well enough to make such a stupid judgement call as what just went down....I guess Denman/Davie Beach is kind of a square, but we don't call it a square. And "created" squares like Leg-In-Boot Square and other concoctions don't qualify to me any more than Station Square or Granville Square. More relevant in Vancouver would be "buildings with public plazas" or "buildings public plazas sheltered from the rain", even better....Skookum1 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Radiant's decided to take on some other cities. Londoners apparently don't like the idea of messing with their squares, although I'm sure he'll see this discussion as consensus to do away with those subcategories. I'll wait til this all dies down before proposing to do away with "Category:Streets and squares by city." Leg-in-boot square - that's funny. Maybe I'll make an article just to populate the soon-to-be orphaned "Squares in Vancouver" category. I'm afraid I may be turning into a troll. Is that bad? Bobanny 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's likely a troll to some degree under that essay definition, and some people just love throwing those WP essays at each other around here I noticed. But I don't think questioning this decision is a bad thing, for all the reasons we've stated at the respective pages and the evidence itself. I don't think this situation or this convenient deletion edit would pass off as being innocent/unmotivated. But then, bringing that up makes me a WP:somethingorother so I'd better just get back to the facts at hand and concentrate on them. And, I've just added notes to relevent article talkpages and Wikiprojects for those cities so that there is increased awareness of these merge proposals, which is always a good thing.--Keefer4 | Talk 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lest there be any lingering doubts, here's incontrovertible proof that Vancouver has squares.

I went up to the lookout at Harbour Centre today and got a ton of good photos of the city. Might take a while before I get around to adding them. Thanks for the back up on the squares issue by the way; I'm also glad that it's gone beyond Vancouver. Bobanny 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Lake Cattle Company

Just expanded this, which I'd found while preeping to write a Douglas Lake Ranch article; so I made the latter a redirect although I think maybe it should be the main article, as the ranch is place and the cattle company is a corporation; forgot to put in something about Chunky Woodward and don't ahve notes handy on the new recreation thing, know there's more to the Nicola people connection too. Just wrote "in stream" and didn't edit other than tidbits, it's got long sentences, unlinked things that should be; also did Ashcroft Manor Ranch today and that, too, could use more expansion/work. Mind having a look? Wish we could get permission for Photos by Kat, as she has amazing shots of all these areas....Skookum1 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start for "in stream"! Not at home and an iffy Internet where I am right now, so will give it a better copy run-through in a few days.--Keefer4 | Talk 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literature vs. Criticism

Hi; pls see this as perhaps your styleguide can help explain the English language to Hong, who claims to be a native speaker but again and again doesn't seem to understand conventional usages. Or pretends not to, anyway. Weird to be kinda collaborating with him while still squabbling on the AFD; near-simultaneously sometimes....Skookum1 19:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: undiscussed changes to policy pages

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 64#Manual of style bitrot which is a related issue, and is in some degree due to a lack of people closely watching a page. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a useful and contextual discussion to note, and I share the sentiments.--Keefer4 | Talk 07:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply;category issues

Hi; think you've probably got my talkpage on yer watchlist, but I just replied at length with thoughts on needed cats and also some article-name problems. G'nite.Skookum1 09:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of watchlists, isn't there way to make a group/communal watchlist? I'm thinking for the BC/Van wikiprojects as a useful idea.Skookum1 09:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC) i.e. not for everything, but just for things active editors/contributors want other BCWPers to check on or watch over, or which are under development and wanting contribution/editing etc. etc.; the idea is that at a certain phase of development/problem resolution a consensus or article/issue-sponsor decision to take it off the list when it's finally "ripe"Skookum1 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but it would come in handy. I'll look into it when I have some time.--Keefer4 | Talk 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow

I can't believe I had the last word (you've seen the delete result by now right?)....we can expect Uncle G to return to the Talk:Chinaman page I'm sure; be interesting to see what he pulls next.....Skookum1 07:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, seen it. Wonder if it will show up on Deletion Review?--Keefer4 | Talk 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my comment...?

Hi! It seems that you deleted a comment that I made here. Since there is no explanation in the comments, perhaps it was a mistake? — scribbling woman 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resp on your page. Thx. --Keefer | Talk 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;-). — scribbling woman 22:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salish thing

Please see this.Skookum1 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:EWCrossings navbox

Template:EWCrossings navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

I justed wanted to let you know that I was nominating this template for deletion. I appreciate your attempts to address the issue of Upstream/Downstream labels in the {{Crossings navbox}}. However, that template already has the functionality to change those standard labels to any desired text, whether it be East/West, North/South or anything else. I've updated the documentiona of {{Crossings navbox}} so that others will know that such parameters exist. VerruckteDan 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Naturally I was ticked off initially to see my first template was nominated for deletion. But a cool head finally emerged and obviously, you're right. No more creatin templates at 3:30am for me!--Keefer | Talk 22:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Centre

LMAO over this one. I saw it just after creating a Robson Square article and almost re-created Category:Squares in Vancouver. Handsome, indeed. bobanny 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakima War

If you wouldn't mind having a look; I rewrote the first few paragraphs as explained on the talkpage, but it still has a strong POV flavour, as might other Northwest wars (Rogue River War, Bannock War, Palouse War, Cayuse War, Nez Perce War and all the rest). Anyway, just thought I'd ask you to do a look-see.Skookum1 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somena

I just did some formatting on this, which I've avoided looking at for a long time; it's a vanity page and she polices it quite heaviliy, as you can see from teh talkpage; it came up in some tyee discussions so I chanced to look at it; a Cowichan tribes/Cowichan people article has been missing for a while and is itself a misnomer but necessary as you can see from reading the article and talkpage. Her article is full of POV and written-first-person-context stuff; she's gonna fight about changes as she regars everyone else as vandalism, so it all has to be done with kid gloves; her section on why somena is not a First Nation I didn't know how to retitle safely, for instance, and it's POV section that needs to be talked about, but much more objectively. Anyway, been an issue within BC FN articles for a while....Skookum1 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic categories

Hi; as you've probably noticed I created Omineca Country, Similkameen Country, Lillooet Country and Bridge River Country today, placing them in the Interior of BC cat (and taking out the geo regions of BC cat when I realized it was redundant). But now that this is done and looking at the contents of Category:Interior of British Columbia I see the big slew of Regional Districts which are also listed there, as well as in Category:Regional districts of British Columbia (which because it was in Category:British Columbia I didn't see it and made Category:British Columbia regional districts which I guess can be a redirect, if cats can be redirect that is. Anyway, just trying to figure out what to do; my sense of tidiness wants all the RDs in their own cat, and separate from the historical regions, which should be in the main Interior/Coast/Lower Mainland/Island cats.Skookum1 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You showcase yourself to be ignorant

in terms of musical history by your insistence that the Peel Sessions artist classification is not important. It is important, and the category needed to stay, and I am very angry that you took it upon yourself to foist your lack of knowledge about the topic at hand via your vote to delete the category. The category was necessary and valid and needed to stay on Wikipedia for the site to be full in scope. Peel Sessions artists were by and large artists who were marked by a sense of innovation and musical experimentation, and the fact that you discounted that in favor of your chosen ignorance of the subject matter means that your vote, as well as the vote of the other individuals who chose to vote for deletion, was and is tainted. (Krushsister 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I made no such insistence at all. FYI for anyone who's interested, the discussion was here Simply because consensus has decided that Peel Sessions shouldn't have a category on Wikipedia, doesn't mean they are not important. I agree the Peel Sessions were-- that's why there's a section in John Peel and a list, also a category for Peel recordings. Lots of stuff doesn't have categories here. Please apologize, cease from putting words in my mouth and trolling over such a minor quibble as a Wikipedia category. Please be civil and tactful, it will go a long ways. It may even convince people to change theirt minds. The tone of your comment above however, will not persuade anyone of anything other than your attitude to others. Thanks.--Keefer | Talk 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introspection

Yours, I presume. Everyone here should do this kind of examination of themselves and their relationship to Wikipedia. An enlightening read. --maclean 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. heqs ·:. 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nhlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nhlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Woodwardslogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Woodwardslogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete the image if you wish. I was not aware that it violated any fair use when it was inserted many, many months ago, and I would not have inserted it if it did. But if you, as a bot or as the person who created it, feels that way all of sudden, it is at your discretion to diminish the content of Wikipedia as you earnestly see fit! I don't have the time that bots do to flood these messages or counter them anymore unfortunately. Keefer | Talk 03:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Moody, British Columbia

I noticed you made a comment about the stats tables on Talk:Port Moody, British Columbia. Unless these tables are cited soon, I am considering removing them per lack of verifiability. Just wanted to check with you and give you an oppurtunity to discuss this in the event that you didn't have the page watchlisted. Billscottbob (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would tickle me pink if you did or have done that.Keefer | Talk 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vancouver

You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver Members List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 28 2008. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdw ^talk 08:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Meetup 2008

See you there! Franamax (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]