User talk:Skookum1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Rugged Point volcanoes
2 Volcanics near Rugged Point
3 Chinaman (dab)
4 Taking A Stab At
5 Not sure why FN cat is displaying here
6 BC Treaty Process
7 An Automated Message from HagermanBot
8 Sockpuppet
9 Mark Britten
10 Category:Vancouver Island
11 English Names for Chinese People
12 maps
13 Hereby...
14 Bornmann

[edit] Rugged Point volcanoes

It appears that there are no volcanoes on Vancouver Island, just on the mainland of British Columbia according to Volcano World. Black Tusk 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volcanics near Rugged Point

I found out that an ancient tectonic plate called the Kula Plate used to have volcanic and sedimentary rocks about 55 million years ago that were scraped off and plastered against the continental margin when it was being subducted under the North American Plate, forming Vancouver Island. Black Tusk 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinaman (dab)

I presume the edit I made will be bastardized within hours. Whether the term is derogatory or outdated or floral shouldn't be placed on a disambig page because then there becomes an edit war over "proof" that the word is whatever. This leads to the "need" for references on a page that shouldn't have them. The question, proof, explanation, etc. of what the term means is gone into on the article's page itself. Disambig pages should only consist of concise descriptions to help a searcher determine which term they meant to be looking for, not in depth explanations of said terms. Thanks, I hope it holds, too. Chickenmonkey 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

because then there becomes an edit war over "proof" that the word is whatever.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened here over the last few weeks, in fact. The demand for references was by HQG, who's since backed down variously/considerably on what the page should have and/or be about. But there's always going to be someone who wants to rev up the language (and politics) to suit themselves; to me it's no better than the hooligan vandalisms of the last few days, as it's much similar in tone (esp. re the one edit commented on in recent edit to the main talkpage, about the tone of invective, which is of course rooted in emotion. Encyclopedias can document that emotions exist, but they shouldn't express them, no? Thanks; this page is going to always take some watching over...Skookum1 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree encyclopedias shouldn't express emotions, in the general sense, and disambig pages in encyclopedias definitely shouldn't. It's kind of like a phonebook listing the ugly John Smith or the famous Jane Doe. Chickenmonkey 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

....something that might be useful to say on the talkpage...Skookum1 02:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly keep an eye on the page and mention these things if need be. Whether anyone will listen? Who knows. Chickenmonkey 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. With the dab page on Chinaman, or with any dab page, the most common usage should be the intro (if there is to be an intro). Given that a search for "chinaman" goes straight to Chinaman, I assumed the most common usage was accepted to be "a term used to refer to a Chinese man". That, along with the qualifier you used "or in a less common usage", I would say that the other two uses in the intro should probably be listed with the other "alternate" uses. Which, according to policy (I think) all "alternate" uses listed should be linked to a page that mentions the term. Porcelain doesn't mention "chinaman". I don't doubt the three uses listed without being linked to an article that uses the term are accurate, but I'm going to remove the "drug reference" usage and the "porcelain" usage for now. I'm sure, with the China trade ship usage, the Old China Trade article (I think would be accurate, not sure) could be edited to include a sourced usage of the term "chinaman" to refer to their ships. Chickenmonkey 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the Chinaman as a porcelain dealer is well-established, and in fact in one dictionary quoted on the Talk:Chinaman page (or its archive) it's the first listed; the ship ref is even older, but much less common; I found two usages in Kipling, as well as somewhere out there today I found a 1740 cite for it, in a time when we were still toying with "Chinnish" and "Chinian" to name the people of the new country "we" were trading with. But as for the chinaware thing:

The Chinaman - a shop in the UK

shows that it's alive and well, and probably quite normal in England; I suspect it's pronounced China + man, with more emphasis on "man", as in "old China hand"; or like some Newfs instructed me long ago, "Newfoundland rhymes with 'understand'". Whatever; there's no article needed for Chinaman (porcelain dealer), not that I can see; but it's certainly a real usage, and in fact older than the demonym. And as for the ship, I'm not sure if it was a physical type of vessel, or more the nature of the ship's business/trade/route; maybe we'll find that out somewhere....Skookum1 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking A Stab At

I sifted through some other articles on the coast with the Indigenous cultures and nations. I realized for a group which is heavily written about, there was little about. So, my main focus is working on the Kwakwaka'wakw, it's affiliations, and tribal groups. I moved a few articles around, and fixed up a couple others, but you noticed that already. The Kwakwaka'wakw article will become my main focus, along with the tribes. I'm probably going to create articles for all the tribes, if they are not created, but I think you kind of did that with 'so and so Nation'. I just think it should be the name of their nation, with other links following, ye know? I'll search around for pictures, and maybe stop by VPL to get some resources for books on the Kwakwaka'wakw. Let the article pimpin' begin! OldManRivers 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See the

Kwakwaka'wakw peoples

and other templates for tribal breakdowns, non-band.Skookum1 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure why FN cat is displaying here

I just noticed "I" am in the BC First Nations category., I just had a look through the page to see if I could spot where I didn't, maybe, use the colon format Category:First Nations in British Columbia, but I looked through the edit-source and can't see/find it. What's causing this? If anyone else can find it, pls rmv.Skookum1 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See the section directly above this one. The template in there puts pages that transclude it into the category. Xiner (talk, email) 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you know that you, Skookum1, is First Nations? lol OldManRivers 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, I just noticed that and tried to fix it; must be a hidden Category reference, maybe on one of the archive pages; I've asked User:Xiner to help me as I can't find it myself, despite thorough searching.....still can't find that map I'm talking about; lots of pages to sort through, might be a language page or main nation page, or even a subnation page - one of the external links, goes to a really elaborate language-areas map with neat floating overlays you can turn off. BTW YOU should have a look at the BC MapPlace links I just put on the BC WikiProject page, and check out the First Nations displays...this is the same technology used to build the other map; maybe that one is linked off the main MapPlace page....hmmmm.Skookum1 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BC Treaty Process

I started it. Personally, I think it's great as it is, but I think others will want to add more. If you want to help out with it, that would be great. I'm going to find source material on the whole BC Treaty Process. I don't know a whole lot about the actual histories of each things, but, I know the Nisga'a Treaty was a template for the BC Treaty Process, or as I like call it, Selfish-Government. I also plan on starting senakw soon because the history of that village, pertaining to Vancouver would be great. (Ya know, how the missionaries and government murdered and destroyed the village.) OldManRivers 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's the title it's usually known by these days; but NB it's for THIS process, not the previous ones with the NDP, or the century-long abstention by the BC government that led to the Land Claims impasse in the first place (Ottawa wanted them to settle over a century ago; 85% of the province was Government Reserve as a result, land held in abeyance of eventual settlement, until its original political purpose/stake was forgotten/shoved aside and in 1976 the new Forests Act assigned the whole shebang to be run by the Forest Industry; this was, IMO, a tactical/pre-emptive move to take the resources before they could be handed back over; and the deal is that MacMillan Bloedel, who got over half the wood (maybe as high 2/3; I've forgotten - this is from an old Allan Fotheringham article, I think....), was the main backer of the Bill Bennett election campaign in 1975. The item I saw on the Forests Act was coming from the environmental angle and didn't make the FN connection; I recognized it when in another article or book I came across the Government Reserve-as-collateral-for-eventual-land-claims-settlement context in an analysis of how the land claims impasse had come about. As early as Dufferin's visit in 1874 BC was getting dressed down about needing to settle, so as to not leave a legal vacuum, and it was an issue in the Confederation discussions; the BC position post-Confederation was that the plebiscite to join Canada had somehow wiped any provincial responsibility for land claims or native governance, which was all Ottawa's problem; but Ottawa couldn't settle without BC, and Ottawa wouldn't/couldn't come to the table if BC didn't, and BC wouldn't. Anyway (as I could go on...). I think a history of Land Claims in British Columbia or something is a separate potential article, covering all the history of the various native political/legal manoeuvres and statements, from the original Nisga'a declarations and the Lillooet Declaration and others like those right down to Delgamuukw, Vander Zalm's grandstanding at Toba which was quickly followed by the chopper visit to Seton Portage which was followed up by five dozen riot-squad mounties, the NDP's "go" at a treaty process, the Campbell government's about face, which then introduces the current Treaty Process. The bands/peoples who abstain or have only observer status should all be noted, of course.Skookum1 22:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh gods Treaty just agitates the hell out of me. OldManRivers

You're not the only one. It's taken me years to straighten out what went down, i.e. technicality wise, and it's frustrating to watch/hear rehashes and modern-day press/political spins on it that don't conform to the actual history. Most British Columbians don't want to know; most also want it settled in the natives' favour, although you wouldn't think that from the letters to the editors and op-ed columns (that's intentional; they give airtime to loudmouths to drive readership, as people love to read people they hate...); and when I say "most British Columbians" I'm not referring to the new wave of immigrants, wherever they're from (Asia, Eastern Canada, Europe, Africa, wherever) but to the "old" BC intercultural community; sympathy for the native positionsn and a "damned right of course they own it" attitude has been around for a long time; it's just never given a media voice unless the person can be painted as a leftist or a loon or protesthead or whatever; calmer voices like Suzuki's and Glavin's are deliberately drowned out....whatever, it's sunny, man, and I've got to get outside with the guitar and open up for a while...talk to you later.Skookum1 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And btw most people I'm talking about want a settlement not because of economic/market stability, which is the political motivation lately (as well as land scams right and left, as with Tsawwassen and Temexw), but because they want to see justice. Canadians, though a bunch of up-tight pricks for the most part, are inherently decent-minded and believe in fairness, and although there's some bozos who say "get over it" or "they deserved it/no better" who get a lot of airtime/copyspace the vast majority of people are horrified and also know that they wouldn't like it if their grandparents were stripped of their rights, lands etc; you'd think the Chinese community, so hot-to-trot for its own settlement, would have recognized the much more severe abuse your people went through, and continue so to this day; but all new groups just see it all as dollars and sense; settlement for new money types, whether from ON or China or wherever, is all about economic stability and political embarrassment; but consider human/indigenous rights in places where most of them come from, and you begin to see why IMO, if I'm right, there's a general lack of sympathy for the natives among the newer elements, as they just have no connection to it and don't want to know anyway; although how natives were treated is brought up as something to be critical of the so-called "dominant culture" with. So "be of good faith" Wiki-style with some of us hwelitem, even ones that don't know as much as I do (and I know too much for my own damned good), as people want to know, they do want to fix what's done, and they're just as frustrated with the politicians as you are (and about nearly everything). Don't confuse the people with the politicians, I guess, is the way to sum that up. It goes for the old days too; there are lots and lots of stories of ordinary folks getting along with their native neighbours and cooperators etc; it's the bad stuff that gets print/air.Skookum1 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 07:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Shut the heck up Hagermanbot. I guess you're perfect and always remember eh? ;)--Keefer4 | Talk 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Hagermanbot's just a little too hasty. At least give me a minute to re-open the page to add my sig when I realize I left it off; fine to do it for me I guess, but I don't need a f**king robot telling me what to do because he beat me to it!! "He" and his "scolding" is more annoying than Hong or Uncle G. Guess I'll add a note on hagermanbot's little talkpage, wherever it is....Skookum1 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That (Personal attack removed) bot that just (Personal attack removed) goes and (Personal attack removed) leaves its (Personal attack removed) stamp should be (Personal attack removed)(Personal attack removed)(Personal attack removed). Oh that felt good, on so many levels. Now. Back to being civil.--Keefer4 | Talk 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can opt out of Hagermanbot. Just use the link in the heading, here, and go from there -- its simple and self-explanatory. Hagermanbot is well meant, but annoyingly officious. It really needs a reasonable time-delay, instead of jumping on unsigned posts the moment they appear. -- Lonewolf BC 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Skookum1, a piece of advice. Obviously the 4. person is an experienced Wikipedian, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it is a sockpuppet. Until you have that evidence, it's better to assume good faith, because premature charges can doom the prosecution even if they are correct. Xiner (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than one comment in the last few days 4.x.x. has backed down since I mentioned the checkuser report. I've been waiting for more before filing a report, but "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck" applies here. It may not be who I and others think it is; but it's someone who's a regular Wikipedian who's "hiding" behind an IP address in order to make insults etc. "Assume good faith" is exactly what's not going on with the opponents of rationality in this fiasco. Well, it's not a fiasco because it's not over yet. But it sure is a nasty can of ideologically motivated worms, all writhing and posturing and puffery with their self-importance and righteousness. I left university to get away from sophomoric attitudes among people who think they're educated, and whose childish behaviour they hide behind procedural and bureaucratic manipulations; I may leave Wikipedia, ultimately, for the same reason.Skookum1 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've heard checkuser can go back about a month, for what that is worth. That gives you a little time to see if they continue the suspected sock behavior. Are editors allowed to use different names for different articles, so as to avoid someone being moved to stalk and undo every edit because of conflict in some contentious area? Edison 22:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Britten

This was the entire content of the deleted article: <<Mark Britten is an American comedian whose stage name is "The Chinaman"..>> There's not much point in my restoring that one sentence. There's no block on reposting the article once it has some content. NawlinWiki 19:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have waited 5 minutes, could you, from the moment I created the article? Was it my fault for not putting a inuse on the article? Was my fault that I didn't warn other users possibly interested in expanding the article that it was tagged for sd? Oh, wait a minute, I DID warn other users possibly interested in expanding the article that it was tagged for sd. And I did IMMEDIATELY. Problem is, you were even faster in deleting the article. Now I'll have to report your behaviour, sorry. --maf 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that the preceding post was directed at User:NawlinWiki. --maf 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Behaviour reported. --maf 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Britten article has been restored/written using available web resources. I'll be emailing him personally to tell him that the first try at this article got deleted in less than two minutes; maybe that'll find its way into his act.....Skookum1 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vancouver Island

Just created this today after near cardiac when I discovered there was/never had been such a category. It will obviously need to be subdivided at some point, but when/if your wikitravels take you to the island feel free to check/add to the cat. I guess in a sense this would also be the first of the traditional/historic region categories so we can work towards things like the elimination of the silly Regional District classifications for where people hail from &etc. Anyway, later. --Keefer4 | Talk 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that as lots of them are on my watchlist and I saw them all go by; it's the one definable region in BC, unless we define Category:British Columbia Coast or Category:Coast of British Columbia (not West Coast of Canada which irks me as a title and usage but may be mandatory by Wiki rules; cf. my notes on Talk:West Coast of the United States early tonight about "West Coast" as our self-definer, not of either nation; that commonality between US and LA and Seattle etc. Category:British Columbia Interior seems fairly well-defined, other than the Skeena maybe, and the Canyon and Pemberton; it implicitly includes the north, or maybe there should be Category:Northern British Columbia, from PG on up I guess, including of course the North Coast, though, so also overlapping, unless sep categories (and articles) for North Coast of British Columbia, South Coast of British Columbia, Central Coast of British Columbia were established; easier to just have of course Category:Coast of British Columbia which both Category:Lower Mainland (if it exists) and Category:Vancouver Island can be subcats; my notion about the whole thing is the tripartite division of the place, and also my old idea about the "traditional" regions; i.e. vs. using the RDs as how to further subdivide other cats and such; but there's overlap between regions all over the place, and Yale and Pemberton which aren't quite one or the either; and the North Coast are more connected to the Island than the rest of the Coast, and so on. I think we can safely establish categories Category:Cariboo, Category:Kootenay, Category:Chilcotin, Category:Fraser Canyon, Category:Okanagan, Category:Similkameen, Category:Shuswap, Category:Omineca etc (within the historical cats there could eventually be - hmm can't be Category:New Caledonia so (prob Category:New Caledonia (fur district) but I've never really noticed paranthetical titles in cats. So should these be made bold and let the chips fall where they may? Wiki rules would probably prefer that we identify what those are as officialized regions somehow; they're easily recognizable, even when they overlap or things don't fit right, too, though; but we also say "(the) Cariboo" as well as "(the) Cariboo Country" and so on through the list, eventually Stikine and Liard and Dease and Peace River Block (??) when there's enough articles up there to warrant; the Peace already but that cat name's going to be problematic, huh? Anyway, thoughts on seeing your Vanc Isl. cat; makes me think we can get away with all the others, and wondering on these other cat ideas; gona sign off; it's nearly 2.Skookum1 08:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note overlap between e.g. Category:Chilcotin and the already extant Tsilhqot'in, which would seem to necessarily be a subcat of the otheres; not all native nation cats will coincide with these regions, but a lot will; or they could when necessary be in more than one region-cat, or only in the one that applies, e.g. Category:Ktunaxa in Category:Kootenay (provided that the Slocan is defined as being part of the Kootenay; I've never been clear on Nakusp and Revelstoke, Nakusp is maybe Kootenay as it's Arrow Lakes, but then so would be Galena Bay and Beaton and nearly Revelstoke; and again there's areas that don't fit like Category:Big Bend of British Columbia, though that's already in Category:Columbia River in its own way; as should be Category:Kootenay when it comes into being; the Okanagan cat is an issue because of the differential spelling, and it does span the border; it's one reason I specificaly chosen Category:Syilx as the name for the Okanagan people cat, because of course in teh US it's got two o's.Skookum1 08:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Y'see to me there would seem to be an obvious parent cat of some kind of the American Okanogan and the BC Okanagan; I dodged the bullet with the FN/Native American cat but harder to do as a purely geographic region (in a non-national sense, like that problem with the Georgia-Puget Depression wherever that winds up at now.Skookum1 09:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Depression, Georgia Strait-Puget Sound Basin?? - Anything but Whulge or Salish Sea. Fine if there were a common regional name spanning languages, but then it probably woudl hvae become part of regional english if that were the case, no? Whatever; g'nite for the second time, it's now 2:24am. One last PS I'll be reworking my Lillooet article, which needs work as I cribbed it from what was already there, but it's never been brought up to par and has errors; writing this tor emind myself, similarly with others in htat area, including those that need creation; I should really be spending my time writing/publishing a book on the area....but it's aresources thing, time/money spent while writing. Not that I'm making any money here, y'see... and get more grief than necessary sometimes ;-) Skookum1 09:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Geographic regions of British Columbia has Aspen parkland in it, which isn't the purpose of the cat but I can see someone seeing it there; maybe a Category:Biogeographic zones of British Columbia, provided there's a Biogeographic zones of British Columbia or a similarly-titled List article.Skookum1 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. We've got a good redlinked 'to-do' list of possible future cats above this now, which I may cc to my to-do page, actually. I have been frequenting the Categories for Discussion boards lately, and chiming in occasionally-- since the streets and squares issue arose, and has since been overturned entirely. Anyway, it seems category deletion impulses are usually triggered by "over-categorization" and "non-notable" cats that don't specifically have articles associated with the cat. titles. In the case of most BC regions, we should be ok (Van Isle being the easy 'no brainer'), although there could be sourcing issues again re: the vaguely defined regions. But certainly in the cases of Category:Kootenay and Category:Okanagan, which are better defined, creation shouldn't be controversial. I think fairly strong community support could be obtained from the project members too, if we were to discuss this on the WPBC proj page. Of course, those subcats would/could (as you alluded to) be based on those obvious larger region articles which you compiled a while back, which would have cats (Category:Lower Mainland, Category:British Columbia Interior (purely a parent, really)..., Northern... &etc.). The categorization would have to follow existing articles, but would provide a more sensible and realistic flow of organization for articles relating to any BC subject. This way, we actually could realize and incorporate the different levels of self-identity into the cats (ie: "I'm from the Island" or "I'm from up in the Shuswap"), which we know exist at the various levels of regions. Same with the biogeographic zones under the geo cat.. Precedents elsewhere would be useful, I'll keep perusing the boards and other cats for some guidelines, so as to try and pre-empt deletionists, although I'm sure a few will surface in all this. Still some inevitable cat. overlaps with peoples/towns, but hey, things are different here, as we know ;). Later man.--Keefer4 | Talk 09:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK just found Category:Oregon Coast which bodes well for an overarching Category:Coast of British Columbia here, esp considering the British Columbia Coast article, of your creation.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Just created it, running on fumes...--Keefer4 | Talk 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC). Just started adding to coast cat. Need a fresh pair of eyes on it though... for example, put the whole category Category:Bays of British Columbia as a subcat of coast, which was probably wrong, considering Kootenay Bay &etc. but then all the bays were on the coast... a few conundrums, correct/organize as you see fit. ZzzZzz.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bays of British Columbia? Yikes. Now is that geographic bays, or towns named "bay"???? And what about Category:Inlets of British Columbia and whatever you'd put sounds in or call; and don't forget that a lot of things that are Sounds and even Straits are actually also part of Category:Fjords, according to strict definitions of fjords....and BC has a lot of freshwater fjords (Harrison, Pitt, seton-Anderson, chilko, Kootenay, dozens of major ones more...). freshwater bays and marine bays might be a useful distinction (sorry given up with my shift key....). anyway, just got in, haven't looked at you-know-where yet and need to eat and, er, tune up. I'll send ya a letter about other stuff. (PS bornmann watch in effect with the trial opening and today's press coverage, haven't noticed anything yet but we should all stay tuned....the case is gonna be hard stuff to right; alreaDy the articles aren't up to date because of complexity; like so many - hey, you don't have any old copy on the Salmon War of 1996, do you? Have to be bothsides POV of course, so alaskan/washington papers which I've never read their side of the crisis in would be interesting research.....like so much else, but there's only so much time in this world, and so much else to do....sigh.Skookum1 07:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nada for Salmon War material, unfortunately. Seems the only 'sounds'/inlets cat is in fact Category:Fjords of British Columbia, which I moved to coast. WIll probably move it back to general Category:Geography of British Columbia, and tag some of the individual fjords/inlets etc with 'Coast' or 'Interior' cats as applicable. Lots of close category calls today in your old neck of the woods, from Port Douglas up to Pemberton country and beyond, tagged some with both coast and int cats, same with a few rivers, mountain ranges and trails which straddle. 'Bays' category contained both geographic and settlement put it back to general 'geo of bc'. A few more then ZzzZzz.--Keefer4 | Talk 09:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Names for Chinese People

Uncle G reverted your and Falsedef's edits AGAIN. Is there any way that his POV agenda can be stopped? It's pretty obvious that the article won't be deleted, so there needs to some way to get him to stop reverting everything that others write that conflicts with his narrow-minded view.Zeus1234 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise! The article was deleted after all. Looks like my note above was premature.Zeus1234 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] maps

yeah, hey, if you've got maps for stuff around bellingham bay (Portage Island, Lummi Peninsula, etc.) i'd be glad to deal with them if you don't have time. i've got plenty of time to work on that stuff right now. Cheers! Murderbike 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hereby...

		The Original Barnstar
		Skookum1 is hereby awarded the Original Barnstar for his extensive work throughout British Columbia related articles. Adding the new cats over the past few days has enabled me to see just how extensive that work has been. It is clearly an invaluable contribution taht extends to nearly all facets of the province. Also, for standing your ground, albeit colourfully, against such accusations of "hysterics" and acting like a "chicken with your head cut off", and being told to go get a blog, &etc. amidst controversies. The fact that you continue to contribute in the ways described above trumps any of these.--Keefer4 \| Talk 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I now have two - one for CanCon, of all things, given I'm virtually a BC separatist, and a Bridge River-Lillooet separatist on top of that ;-) Should I put these on my userpage or what? Been thinking of overhauling it and archiving what's there; esp. since my Grand Recuse is about to start....Skookum1 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bornmann

Congrats on that barnstar. I'm sure it is well-deserved. I doubt that anyone has added more BC content than you. Which is partly what brought me here. I was wondering if you saw the article about Bornmann in the Sun yesterday? "Liberals can thank 'Spiderman for exposure" from the Saturday paper, B1. I tought that you might be interested in adding something to our article. I was also wondering if you had any plans on cleaning up Hollywood North or runaway production which was in a pretty sorry state the last time that I saw it. --JGGardiner 01:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been in a certain other bloodbath lately; there's only so much I can stomach at times ;-) and I'm starting to feel like sisyphus with articles like that, although I don't think we'll see much in the way or targeted you-know-what in future; I didn't get a chance to see the article, which I guess was in the second section because I looked through yesterday's front page tonight looking for it; but remember to be fair it's not only Erik's article that needs work, Basi and even Justice Bennett (or Barrett? whichever) all need articles, as with the defendants and more on Brian Kieran; the tie-in to Marissen and all that; we can expect your standard rant-edit from potty-mouthed and/or politically upset British columbians like on other pages, but while I think POV watch is worthwhile I don't think we're going to see any more savage edit wars. Now, as for myself cribbing the news into the article, it's partly awkward because I was such a main combatant and I'm also as you know rather prolix :-| in the extreme; what I've done with other topics is to make a list of points needed to be addressed and ask someone else to stich them together in simple language ;-) The other side of my writing situation is that I'm going to be un-webbing in about a month and have a host of articles I need to amend, and only a few weeks to go (adventures await...), and tidying up the BC Wikiproject. I meant to save that article, and the one before it, but I was hoping the expansion-momentum might come from somewhere else; I'm good at seeing what's missing, or what needs to be put in context; and I'd be wary of my POV throughout if I was original-writing it.Skookum1 05:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/o/User_talk%7ESkookum1_940d.html"