User talk:Skeezix1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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...[edit]

No red/white links pls[edit]

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

Hi, Skeezix[edit]

I am Merlin the 2nd, and you recently asked me why I added the official names for Canada's provinces and territories. After studying the states of the United States, I realized that many of the states had their official names in their infoboxes. With what I have recently done, we can see the name and official name of the province or territory in the same infobox. If you have a better way to do this, please let me know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin the 2nd (talkcontribs)

NHS total number, Delistings[edit]

Hi Skeezix. I've reverted a recent edit on National Historic Sites to reflect the number of NHSs identified by the citation given (957). If you have information that shows there are 965 NHSs (or more), please share that. I'm all for upping the number, but it needs to be verified. You may have solid evidence for a higher number, and I'm interested in that, even if it's a hand count of those sites listed, plus other sources. I did review some of the Talk regarding numbers and delistings, and would be fascinated to learn which have been delisted. That would be a valuable addition to a page.

Related to that, I'm searching for a complete list of all national park system units which show their dates of creation, amalgamation with other park units, re-designations (to other names), and, if abolished, the dates. That would make a very interesting table. So far, I have not seen such lists in any park system histories.

I just learned of a former national park at Brereton Lake, Manitoba, created in 1922. If you or any readers have information about that, I'm interested--particularly in a map showing the extent of the former park. It, along with Vidal's Point Park, Sask., was an experiment in creating a 'national recreation area' or 'national recreation park'. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make that change again without first discussing it. As I have explained to you, that number at the top of the DFHD can be unreliable. Listings disappear off the DFHD occasionally, seemingly always to return. I don't know if it's a technical issue, or if they simply remove listings for purposes of editing/updating. We had this issue a year or two ago - no sites were ultimately delisted. Honestly, it appeared to me, for example, that McLean Mill in B.C. was delisted, which wasn't the case at all. The "missing" sites reappeared a few weeks later. This isn't a case of "upping the number". All the NHSCs on the various lists have been verified and sourced through a number of sources. We are not going to assume that eight sites have suddenly been delisted based on a number that we know to be have been unreliable, when the listed sites have all otherwise been properly sourced. We do need to rely on sources, and here we have done so here. Sometimes NHSCs do get transferred over to Events or Persons, although that hasn't happened in a long time, and it only ever seems to happen when new NHSCs are announced. As far as I know, no new designations of any kind were announced in 2014 - presumably being saved for spring 2015 so that cabinet ministers and local MPs have a number of photo opportunities in advance of the Oct 2015 election. Care to bet on whether new designations all end up in swing ridings or election battleground areas?

Having said all that, I have no idea if 965 is correct either. Fralambert counted at one point to verify, and the provincial/terriorial tallies do add up to 965. If it's demonstrably wrong, I'd love to know and let's discuss. But changing it based on a number that at times is unreliable is not a good reason to alter it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any of that park information - sorry. Is there nothing about the Brereton Lake park online? Although it sounds like it was federal, if I recall Manitoba has a good selection of historical and archival documents online. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My (very brief) Google searches for Brereton Lake national park provided a lot of hits for Whiteshell Provincial Park. Might it have become part of that provincial park? Maybe histories of that park would shed light on the former park?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Yoho2001: Are you sure Brereton Lake was not a forest park? If it was a forest park, it would be normal to be reverted to province land with the 1930's national park act. For Vidal Point, I found someting here the 5 ha (it was really small) was transfered to the province in 1931 and became Katepwa Point Provincial Park. --Fralambert (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
A forest park? That's an interesting entity that I had never heard of. Coincidentally, the Whiteshell Provincial Park was originally established as the Whiteshell Forest Reserve.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I read it for the Warterton Lakes Park who was the Kootenay Forest Park between 1895 ans 1911 (se page 22[1]). But maybe the status disapered in the 1911 act. I see the same term was used for Jasper [2]. --Fralambert (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If the source for the NHS count is wrong, unreliable, or shifty, that's disconcerting and suggests it shouldn't be cited to support what we "know" is the actual count. Perhaps you can find a source with a solid number reflecting the real count; otherwise the citation should either be annotated or removed and replaced with an explanatory footnote. While we can expect a lag between an announcement day and being added to the federal directory, it shouldn't fluctuate like lake levels. It is a tad frustrating that, in adhering to what a source says, my edit on the NHS number is chastised because we "know" otherwise. I recall noting that a NHS is in the national park system because it's within a national park, but that was removed, even though we "know" it's a Parks Canada unit. (All NHS's inside national parks are, de facto, administered by Parks Canada.)

I did find information about Vidal's Point Park, including its size (17 acres) and dates of creation and abolition. Brereton Lake was the recent discovery (for me). Yes, @Fralambert:, Vidal's Point became a provincial park, and Brereton Lake was incorporated into Whiteshell Prov. Park. It would be good to see a map of Brereton's original area, and dates of establishment (in 1922) and abolition. Indeed it was a national park (J.B. Harkin used the unofficial term "national park recreation area"), not a forest reserve. Both were created by orders-in-council under authority of the Forest Reserves and Parks Act, and called a "Dominion [national] Park". Yoho2001 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody was chastising you for editing the number. Frustration was due to you ignoring edit summaries and WP:BRD/WP:CON. Otherwise, be WP:BOLD. It's no guarantee others will agree with you, and often people don't (that's my experience with my edits), but it's a good place to start. And then if there is an issue, discuss.

The situation with Beausoleil, which by the way was equally frustrating because you ignored edit summaries there too, is completely different. There you are making an assumption (if it's in a park, it must be administered by Parks Canada). An assumption I suspect is correct, but I can think of reasons why it might not be, and we have no past experience that gives us reason to doubt that particular list (in the other case, we'd have to assume that 8 sites were suddenly delisted). The solution is to speak to Parks Canada if you think their list is wrong. We did that in the past with respect to an incorrect designation date, and they corrected it. Hopefully either they'll correct the list, or send an email with an explanation (which can then be posted to OTRS and used as a source). Hope that helps. As for the overall number of NHSCs, it is sadly the only single source with which I am aware. And most of the time it is correct. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversions with warnings not to do something again can easily be taken for scolding, and I could do the same in reply. That's not a good tone to set, even if unintended. Consider, too, it was not the reverter who initiated discussion about the matter. In restoring the reverted edit, rationale was given in the edit summaries and in Talk, so WP:BRD and WP:CON were not ignored. It is rational to correct a number which an indicated source reports. Again, if that number is demonstrably wrong, please write a footnote which explains the rationale for the higher number until an authoritative source is found. Anyone clicking that link will arrive at a number that doesn't square with what is published here, and that needs explaining.

Regarding Beausoleil, your comment begins with another jab (one I don't agree with). There's no need for that, so let's focus on getting to truth. All NHS's in national parks are administered by the park service because they are on lands which are administered by the park service. The designation of a NHS does not transfer its designated place to another entity (that only happens by a separate act of Parliament creating a unit of the national park system from lands which are not already in the system). This is true even for NHS's on private lands. Designations are an expression of commemorative intent, not title to land. Owners retain ownership. So if a NHS is created in a national park, the park service continues its stewardship of the parcel, and we can add a NHS to the Parks Canada family. That list reads 167 NHS's, but should read 168. Since the number doesn't square with the current published source, we'd add an explanatory note, just as we should for the total number of NHS's. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia works. Civil disagreement is not scolding. You, Fralambert and I had this discussion back in April 2012, where you also seemed to feel that any disagreement was scoling. To work with other editors, you need to understand that they will not always agree with you. It *is* sometimes frustrating. But if someone objects to some of your changes, do not reinsert them, but rather discuss. The fact that you think you have a valid rationale is an issue for a discussion, not an excuse to ignore other editors. And as for your "jab" comment, I am not sure what to make of that. You repeatedly sought to insert the same objectionable information into the article. Not sure how title to land is relevant. The question is whether Parks Canada considers the site to a be a NHSC. That's it entirely. Your assumptions about the answer (which I suspect are correct) are insufficient. They publish a list, and Beausoleil is not on it. I can think of a few reasons why that might be the case, which means that we can't just assume the list is unreliable. If you think Parks Canada's list is incomplete, I've suggested what has worked in the past.

And please don't add your personal commentary about the distinction between events and sites and persons. Your assessment of ambiguity is not appropriate content -- that's not Wikipedia is about. There are logical reasons why John Guy, who barely lived in Canada for two years, was recognized for one particular event while Glenn Gould is recognized for a body of work over a lifetime. Don't get me wrong, yours are very interesting observations, and all fodder for a book, article, blog, your own wiki, etc. But not what we all do here at Wikipedia. If we can find reliable sources showing that this has been a critique of the federal programs by historians, then that's a different thing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reaching consensus is a group dynamic. I welcome the input of others on this. But reading your viewpoint here, you appear to be saying that if a single person objects to an insertion, it should be omitted pending discussion; that an objector has the right to unilaterally remove it without initiating discussion themselves (as happened here); to expect the reversion to stand, despite logical reasons given for the change, and to continually enforce his viewpoint by deleting edits which another feels are justified.
The note on Sites, Events and Persons is not to criticize the classifications within the commemorative program (and everything I have seen indicates it is a single program, not different programs for each one), but to assist the reader. One could easily conclude that because a particular place (e.g., Welland Canal) is not listed among the Sites that it is not federally recognized. That would be in error. The note serves to alert the reader that what they presume to be a Site could be classified an Event, or that a Person might even be an Event. In other words, beware--it's best to check each category because the designation names are not necessarily intuitive. This is a rational, logical and (I hope) helpful remark. I will review the wording, making sure to exclude anything that could possibly be construed as personal commentary, pointing out simply factual things.

Regarding Beausoleil, we know the island is a NHS. That's not in question. The problem has been to find a published source that says it's administered by Parks Canada. I've requested such, but replies (save for a message on Facebook) have not supplied them. However, logic, reason, history and the facts on the ground all provide solid bases to conclude it's a site within the national park system. For one, it's in a national park. "Title" is a reference to whose land the Site is on, who owns the island. Another question is 'Who manages it?' The answer to all is Parks Canada. Beausoleil is the largest island in the park, center of its land-based activities, home to a new national park visitor center and staffed by Parks Canada, whose wardens safeguard the island and whose staff interpret the NHS. Therefore, it's a Parks Canada NHS. A beaver icon can be added next to its name on the Ontario list page, and the national count becomes 168 NHS's in the park system, with a notation.

The List of NHE's is nearly complete, by the way, as far as including all designations (ca. 448). However, there is much work to do to link the various names and places to Wikipedia articles. You are certainly welcome to contribute constructive energies. But at least we'll soon have a complete list of all NHS's, NHE's and NHP's! Yoho2001 (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The existing article is the consensus, and the onus is on the person wanting to make the change to achieve a new consensus. That doesn't entitle anyone to revert changes without comment (which I did not) or to refuse to engage in discussion (which I did not do). Again, I really urge you to read BRD. I would note that most of what you've sough to add violates our content policies.

The fact that you or I think something is obvious, ambiguous, rational, etc. is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I see you reworded the text in question -- it's still your own personal observation as to what you think is obvious. One of the examples you use to say the distinction isn't obvious is actually patently obvious to me. That's why we don't include the personal observations of Wikipedians in articles. If you want to include this, you need a reliable source as mentioned above. Otherwise it violates our content policies, primarily WP:V and WP:OR.

You hit the nail on the head with respect to Beausoleil. We absolutely need a published source that says that it is administered by Parks Canada. I know you don't see it, but you are making assumptions about facts. It's a variation on our prohibition against synthesis, where you say if X and Y are true, then Z must be as well. There is an official list of NHSCs administered by Parks Canada, and Beausoleil is not on it. I can think of several reasons why that might be the case. You keep explaining why you think the list is wrong, and you may be correct, but that doesn't entitle us to ignore the source. I'm not sure Facebook is the best way to get any meaningful response. I would email. In the meantime, I've added a reference to the lead for what is sourced - there is one site located in a National Park managed by Parks Canada. (I used the word managed simply to avoid overuse of administered, but am not wed to that word if there is a better one). But we need a source for the administered NHSCs.

Good work on the list of events! Well done.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Skeezix1000 and Yoho2001: I probably found a accurate source for the number of NHS the number is 971 on the Departmental Performance Report 2013-14. --Fralambert (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm going to have to do another count. They have yet to announce any designations for 2014 (my suspicion for that outlined above), so I wonder if that number contains the 2014 designations. I'll check. As always, Fralambert, thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Skeezix1000 and Fralambert: Thanks, Fralambert, for sharing this source. It does not say when in 2014 it was published, but if it's a fiscal year document, we can guess mid-year, perhaps. That's helpful in knowing how up-to-date their counts are. I notice the document, in reporting those counts on pp. 5-6, uses the term "places of national historic significance" instead of "National Historic Sites". Again, the "167" number is used, which is off, unless they've delisted a site. Indeed, Skeezix1000, I have been in touch with Parks by email, phone, Facebook--and at more than one location--in an effort to find something in print making the Parks connection to Beausoleil explicit. It's bothersome how difficult this has been, but it doesn't change the fact of its location within an existing national park system unit. That alone makes it a park system unit.
As you have noted, the website cannot be counted on to be fully accurate. When I attempted to have the national count in the article reflect the source used to support it, you were willing to overlook the source as unreliable, and changed the number to one unsupported by the source. I suggested that, if a different number were to be used, an explanatory note be added. Yet I have also shown how the website can be unreliable in a count, and you say we must adhere to the source. Do you not sense the contradiction?
Adding "with one site (Beausoleil Island) located within a National Park" is appreciated, but misleading because there is more than one NHS located within national park system units, both in and outside Ontario: First Oil Well in Western Canada NHS is within Waterton Lakes NP; Peterborough Lift Lock NHS is within Trent-Severn Waterway NHS; Merrickville Blockhouse NHS is within Rideau Canal NHS, et al.

Regarding the note on designations, I am not sure what you mean when you say "the distinction [which I say] isn't obvious is actually patently obvious to me". If one canal is a Site and another is an Event, or one person's name on a plaque can't be relied upon to refer to a Person, then it isn't obvious at all which is which. For anyone looking up a particular subject to see if it's federally commemorated, it's a valuable caveat to include a note on this, all based on the facts of the three categories of commemorations. Such a note seeks to inform, not confuse.

Regarding 2014 designations, I'm not sure what you mean by "They have yet to announce any designations for 2014...". None will be made because it's 2015. I only came across one designation in 2014, an Event announced in December, making its inclusion in the Performance Report unlikely: Nine Mile Portage and Willow Depot. This is a perfect example of what I mean by the ambiguity of designations. The portage route and the depot are physical locations, leading one to logically presume they would be a Site. Wrong. They're an Event, and users of the Site page would be well-served in knowing subjects they might think are in one category could easily be in another, thanks to the mysterious ways of the HSMB and the ministry.

Thanks for the thanks on the Events list. Did you know there is a 'thanks' button next to 'undo' on the edit history page? It's a relatively recent feature.

Care to have a good chuckle over designations? Check this out: the Cathcart [Martello] Tower on Cedar Island, Ontario, is part of Kingston Fortifications NHS, which is a combination of two other national historic sites--Murney Tower NHS and Shoal Tower NHS--among other properties. The island on which Cathcart Tower stands is part of Thousand Islands NP. So you have a historic site within a NP which is joined with other NHS's to form another NHS, which is joined with *another* NHS (Rideau Canal) to form a World Heritage Site! A site within a park within a site within a site! LOL!! I suspect we'd find a similar comedy in Quebec City.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Sigh. There is no contradiction, as I have explained many times. All of the NHSCs are sourced separately. Which means that if one source, that has on occasion been unreliable in the past, suddenly suggests that 8 have been delisted (unlikely), the sites are still otherwise properly sourced. With respect to Beausoleil, you're making assumptions, which might be correct, but run counter to the official source. There are no exceptions to our rules about verifiability and original research - it needs to be sourced. Don't email their main email address - you won't get anywhere with that. Maybe that's not what you're doing. I'll see if I can come up with a better contact, but it may be awhile.

I don't mind that you deleted the text -- I'd only added it to try and address your concern.

Designations from one year are often announced the following year. Don't ask me why. It happened for many of the 2012 and 2013 designations. I don't know if this is a new thing the Tories are doing, or something that happened in the past as well. I'm somewhat frustrated by it, but that's what it is.

As for the distinction between Events/Sites/People, I've already provided an example, and I can't keep talking in circles about this with you. Again, you're making assumptions about Nine Mile Portage and Willow Depot. YOU logically presume they'd be sites. That doesn't mean it's correct or that everyone shares your assumption. It depends on what aspects are being commemorated. I see you switched your proposed language to things being "treated differently" - which again is your own personal assumption. The canals may have treated quite consistently in the overall scheme. You're assuming that the starting point is that all canals should be treated alike, which is a logical jump that you yourself are making and doesn't necessarily hold water. And you can't really make a remark about whether they were being treated differently without an understanding of what criteria were used at the times of the respective designations and why the two were commemorated. Otherwise saying that are treated differently is just a bald, unsupported statement. Whether something is obvious, ambiguous or different is your opinion - our opinions are not proper Wikipedia content. Stop adding your personal observations and remarks. If you think readers would be well-served by the information, then source it. Otherwise, it violates our content policies.

I use the thank function all the time. A great addition. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you at least got a chuckle out of that designations mess in Kingston! No? Ah well, back to being serious, I suppose. Sigh, indeed. It's legitimate to point out to readers that what they might reasonably presume falls into one category might well have been placed in another, and that it's wise to check all lists. The plaques are not a guide, for they don't tell us which category (Event, Site, Person) something falls under. This wouldn't be an issue if we had one Grand List that included everything. But since we've carved them up into three separate lists, users should be alerted to them, and that another might contain what they're looking for--that a canal might be a Site or an Event; that a person's name on a plaque could be a Person, but might be an Event or a Site. An example: the marker to John Macdonell does not refer to a NHP, even though its entire text is about the man. It and its cairn were erected because his home, Glengarry House, is a NHS. The plaque doesn't even mention Glengarry House. Odd, yes, but something to take into consideration when perusing these lists, especially when a visit to these pages is inspired by having seen the plaque in person or online. A helpful, factual statement can and should be made to this effect.

Using one's power of perception is not to be discounted when relating and sharing information. You rely on it, yourself, when offering to count the NHS's. Yes, it is based on sources, as the information I'm sharing is, but in counting them, you are making an individual calculation which contradicts the published one(s). Yet you rightly suggest that your count should stand, though one could argue it is based on original research. I might suggest adding a footnote to explain the difference. It's a valuable addition.

Regarding Beausoliel, including it in the park system is not a stretch, because it's already in the park system by virtue of being inside a national park. Meantime, I’m pressing for documents which state it, something the service might feel is simply implicit.

About designation years, I'm interested in examples of those which were announced one year, but which were actually designated in a previous year. It would be interesting to see how the news releases read. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Another UN sock?[edit]

See the IP active at Talk:List of universities in Canada and the IP's contribution history. Contributions to Canada Day and Battle of Ontario. Edit summaries featuring "lol", "peacock terms", "nonsense" and pushing BRD. Quack? Hwy43 (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have any comments with respect to my above message, consider adding them at User talk:Miesianiacal#Another UN sock?. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Saying 'Hello'[edit]

Sorry to see you have departed Wikimedia Commons (but hopefully only for a while). Glad to see you are still active on Wikipedia. We crossed paths once at Digby Pines (File:DigbyPinesFromLawn.jpg) - though a year apart (File:Digby Pines 2010.JPG). Best wishes. Verne Equinox (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Verne Equinox: - hi there. Thanks for the nice note. Not very active here. Just pop in occasionally. I may return someday (both here and at Commons). Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)