User talk:Skeezix1000/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Mont-Laurier requested move
Hi Skeezix, I am here to tell you that the article Mont-Laurier, Quebec is propose renaming to Mont-Laurier without the province name and per WP:CANSTYLE. Feel free to participate at the Mont-Laurier's talk page the link is right there. Talk:Mont-Laurier, Quebec#Requested move I will see you at the talk page. Steam5 (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
New NHS
I realise today they updated the Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, we have now 963 NHS in Canada. --Fralambert (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes! They designated Westmount District and Cataraqui Cemetery in November. I noticed today that the site was updated too. It only took them 5 months! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea, though, what accounts for the remaining 5 "new" sites. ????? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- They probably don't do the anoucement yet, if I look the date, the board take is desision in july 2011. La Fabrique is a former brassiere mill, now a art school for un Laval University. [1] --Fralambert (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. They do show La Fabrique having been designated in July 2011, so you would have thought that the announcement would have been made by now. Frustrating, because they do not bother to update the HSMBC site. Do you know what the others are? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- 10 sites designated in 2011. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was about to say you can make a shearch by the year, like for 1919. I finished Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. --Fralambert (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- 10 sites designated in 2011. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. They do show La Fabrique having been designated in July 2011, so you would have thought that the announcement would have been made by now. Frustrating, because they do not bother to update the HSMBC site. Do you know what the others are? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- They probably don't do the anoucement yet, if I look the date, the board take is desision in july 2011. La Fabrique is a former brassiere mill, now a art school for un Laval University. [1] --Fralambert (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea, though, what accounts for the remaining 5 "new" sites. ????? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Thanks for your recent improvements to the Newspaper of record article. The article needed help and I especially appreciate that you were able to find good sources of content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC) |
Danforth Music Hall
The name of The Music Hall does seem to have changed after the most recent renovation. There are lots of references including thedanforthmusichall.com, Ticketmaster and published reports and revues. I don't have time today but I will move and reference it soon - unless somebody does it properly before that. Thanks for your vigilance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I vented on your talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts requested move
Hi there, I am here to tell you that the article Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec is propose renaming to Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts without the comma-province name per WP:CANSTYLE. Feel free to participate at the Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts's talk page the link is right there. Talk:Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec#Requested move I will see you at the talk page. Steam5 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hello once again, I know you didn't read my message cause you don't have time to read, In the Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts's talk page, four user are support my proposal to rename Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts. If you are ready to participate on the discussion to rename Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts. Feel to discuss if you want to support rename. Now take your time until you're ready to participate the discussion. I will see at the Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Fort Crevier
I finaly found and take a picture of Fort Crevier NHS, but the monument lost is plaque. Should I put the monument in commons event if it lost is plaque? --Fralambert (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. Why not? It's still a NHSC, isn't it? Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --Fralambert (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting to have captured it at an (hopefully) interim time between plaques. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --Fralambert (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. Why not? It's still a NHSC, isn't it? Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Designation list colours
Hi Skeezix1000, please see the discussion at Template talk:Designation#NYCL_colors. Kaldari (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
222 Jarvis
I agree -- using the Ont gov bldgs category is the way to handle this, not including a list. I didn't know when the category was removed. Thanks for adding it back in. Ground Zero | t 20:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. What would we have to change in order to make my efforts to embed the designation in the article's infobox work, as it seems to with other articles? Would you know? Does the armoury article need to be renamed? I chose the common name, but I won't mind if you chose to move it in order to fix this bug -- or what I see as a bug, anyways. No doubt it's just my own ignorance. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. It's quirky this template. I noticed that infobox building typically only has one embedded field, near the bottom, while the infobox in this article for some reason has two. So I moved the designation list template to the second embedded field and it worked. I'm not sure why it worked this way, and not the other way. Like I said, it's quirky. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, looks great. MTL Skyline seems to be taking care of all the other remaining redlinks in the Montreal NHSC list, and I'll add this when I get a chance. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good! Just in time for Wikipedia Loves Monuments Canada 2012 in September. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, looks great. MTL Skyline seems to be taking care of all the other remaining redlinks in the Montreal NHSC list, and I'll add this when I get a chance. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. It's quirky this template. I noticed that infobox building typically only has one embedded field, near the bottom, while the infobox in this article for some reason has two. So I moved the designation list template to the second embedded field and it worked. I'm not sure why it worked this way, and not the other way. Like I said, it's quirky. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. I see that editor Northern Thunder removed the CBC buildings category, uncontested, back in 2010 because it is "no longer owned by the CBC." But it's always been my understanding that we don't use categories like this in this way. That if there has been a defining association -- as there surely has been in this case -- we would continue to apply the category. Do you disagree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know that would be the case over at Wikimedia Commons, where I have more experience with categories. But they also tend to be more user-focused over at Commons, whereas here they can be quite pedantic at times. I think you are correct on the defining association issue. In other to avoid a fight and/or subsequent editors similarly coming along and interpreting the category too literally, might it make sense to create a category for former CBC buildings? Parts of the National Ballet School campus, for example, would also qualify. I'm sure there are other former CBC buildings, they just don't come to mind at the moment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I know from admin Good ol'Factory that we do frown on defunct/former categories in cases like this. I would not create such a subcategory and won't be too concerned if this category gets removed again. Let's see... thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, fair enough. I suspect the fear is that for some buildings, one could end up with dozens of defunct/former categories pertaining to former tenants/owners. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I know from admin Good ol'Factory that we do frown on defunct/former categories in cases like this. I would not create such a subcategory and won't be too concerned if this category gets removed again. Let's see... thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know that would be the case over at Wikimedia Commons, where I have more experience with categories. But they also tend to be more user-focused over at Commons, whereas here they can be quite pedantic at times. I think you are correct on the defining association issue. In other to avoid a fight and/or subsequent editors similarly coming along and interpreting the category too literally, might it make sense to create a category for former CBC buildings? Parts of the National Ballet School campus, for example, would also qualify. I'm sure there are other former CBC buildings, they just don't come to mind at the moment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
{{CRHP}}
Hi, you recently recommended that I use the Template:CRHP when adding external links to the www.historicplaces.ca site since the historicplaces.ca website has changed without notice. Thx. Please advise how to add images to the 'List of historic places in Ontario' (for example) infobox (Quebec, New Brunswick...). The infobox has a space and ? for images but I don't get the trick. Generally, in an infobox I enter
or image:imagename.jpg Victoriaedwards (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Answered on your page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Your approved HighBeam code failed to deliver: please email Ocaasi
Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please:
- Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.
Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
- The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
- To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
- If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
- A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
- HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
- Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
- When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Citation formatting in Pier 21
Hi Skeezix1000:
Thank you for the great photo of Pier 21's entrance. It adds a lot to the article. When it comes to citing, I think you are obviously well intentioned. However, as it pertains to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's standards WP:MAN, citations follow the same conventions within the article, not the institution. Since the article's citations prior to my editing were non-standardized, I standardized them under the WP:MAN guidelines WP:Cite, using the various APA templates provided by Wikipedia WP:CITEHOW. Although the citation you have included may be standard for that organization, it is not standard for the article, and if the article attempts to get rated a good article, your citation would be flagged as being non-standard. Therefore, please refrain from reverting the citation's style, as it is fully WP:CITE compliant.
Glad to see you have passion about this subject.
Sincerely,
--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Abenjoe, sorry for the delay in responding. I have not been on Wikipedia hardly at all this past week, and when I did try to respond a few days ago I got pulled away. I wasn't ignoring you. Sorry. Thank you for your good work on this article. I too am sure that you are well intentioned. First, there is nothing in th WP:CITE that precludes the use of the CRHP template. Second, there are hundreds of specific-source templates on Wikipedia, used for cases like this when a particular source is used routinely on Wikipedia, and it is absurd to suggest that they all must be deleted whenever an article is improved. The use of these templates is standardized across the project. Third, the url format over at CRHP has changed at least twice since the project went online, and there are still hundreds (if not more) dead links pointing to CRHP on Wikipedia from the last change. Ensuring that references remain pointed to active links (one of the two main obejectives of the CRHP template) is far more important than adhering to subjective views of what constitutes a standardized form of reference. The last time the CRHP urls were changed, I spoke with a woman at Parks Canada in Hull, who advised that as the CRHP project grows, further url format changes are possible and cannot be ruled out. Fourth, I can assure you that the use of the CRHP template will not "be flagged as being non-standard" in the event that article attempts to get rated a good article. John A. Macdonald was made a featured article and it uses the CRHP template. During the FA process, the only comment about the CRHP template was a polite request that one of the commas used by the template be changed to a period. Otherwise, it was not a problem.
You are the one wanting to make this change to the article. As per WP:CON and WP:BRD, I ask that you take your request to the article talk page before reverting this again. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Abenjoe, sorry for the delay in responding. I have not been on Wikipedia hardly at all this past week, and when I did try to respond a few days ago I got pulled away. I wasn't ignoring you. Sorry. Thank you for your good work on this article. I too am sure that you are well intentioned. First, there is nothing in th WP:CITE that precludes the use of the CRHP template. Second, there are hundreds of specific-source templates on Wikipedia, used for cases like this when a particular source is used routinely on Wikipedia, and it is absurd to suggest that they all must be deleted whenever an article is improved. The use of these templates is standardized across the project. Third, the url format over at CRHP has changed at least twice since the project went online, and there are still hundreds (if not more) dead links pointing to CRHP on Wikipedia from the last change. Ensuring that references remain pointed to active links (one of the two main obejectives of the CRHP template) is far more important than adhering to subjective views of what constitutes a standardized form of reference. The last time the CRHP urls were changed, I spoke with a woman at Parks Canada in Hull, who advised that as the CRHP project grows, further url format changes are possible and cannot be ruled out. Fourth, I can assure you that the use of the CRHP template will not "be flagged as being non-standard" in the event that article attempts to get rated a good article. John A. Macdonald was made a featured article and it uses the CRHP template. During the FA process, the only comment about the CRHP template was a polite request that one of the commas used by the template be changed to a period. Otherwise, it was not a problem.
- I've created a section in the talk page, but reverted your changes. Since I archived the url with Webcite, it won't matter what happens to Parks Canada (even if Harper completely defunds it), in terms of changes to their url standards. During the assessment process, I've been grilled about citation format style conformity on many Canadian and Aerospace articles that I helped achieve either Good or Featured status, and nothing you have said would change that. My style isn't arbitrary, it is following the APA format that Wikipedia endorses through its citation templates in both ProveIt and the older citation template. It's not idiosyncratic, and the citation that I've produced provides more information at first glance, such as where the source is from, which is missing your version of the citation, where its from (location), what year it is from, etc.... All information useful in understanding the relevance of the citation, and more importantly for Wikipedia, verifiability. In case you are wondering, I was one of the people that edited Apollo 8 (I wrote the lead) and the main editor for David Lewis (politician), both Featured articles, which also use different citation formats, the former using full citation, while the latter using APA short citations. In both cases; however, they used the same format within the article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not revert again. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will give you a week, as per WP:MAN.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I have already said, I am not sure what the reference to WP:MAN means (Wikipedia:The newcomer's manual?). I am happy to discuss alternatives, but no one here is "giving" anyone a week, or imposing any deadlines. You need clear consensus to make this change, whether I suggest alternatives or not. And, by the way, you too should be thinking of amicable solutions. It isn't my job to satisfy you. I'm happy to give thought to solutions, but this isn't some sort of one-sided discussion where you impose deadlines and wait for me to propose ideas to you. That's not how Wikipedia works. -Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am struggling to come up with anything helpful, but I am still working at it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I have already said, I am not sure what the reference to WP:MAN means (Wikipedia:The newcomer's manual?). I am happy to discuss alternatives, but no one here is "giving" anyone a week, or imposing any deadlines. You need clear consensus to make this change, whether I suggest alternatives or not. And, by the way, you too should be thinking of amicable solutions. It isn't my job to satisfy you. I'm happy to give thought to solutions, but this isn't some sort of one-sided discussion where you impose deadlines and wait for me to propose ideas to you. That's not how Wikipedia works. -Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I will give you a week, as per WP:MAN.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
List of heritage buildings in Victoria
Hi there! I rolled back - at least temporarily - the List of heritage buildings in Victoria article and added comments to the talk page. My thought is - why lose additional information about the buildings, links, and images, if we can capture them.
Also, I did a lot of work to clean-up the article, but didn't start it. Is it clear that all the rows in this article are in the redirected article?
Do you mind commenting at: Talk:List of heritage buildings in Victoria? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm getting really confused and the conversation is taking a turn - so I thought I'd come here.
- I AM going to do the cut and paste move of the material (merging the info to the places article), add the columns I mentioned there - and then put in the redirect. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
- In the end: 1) the article will be redirected and 2) the content will be merged.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was clear. No worries. I wasn't disputing that, nor questioning your solution. I was simply puzzled why you thought you needed to reverse a redirect/add a merge tag to accomplish that. That's all. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah ok good!, it's a processing issue I have. If I can work with the article without having to go into history, that will help me a LOT.
- It was clear. No worries. I wasn't disputing that, nor questioning your solution. I was simply puzzled why you thought you needed to reverse a redirect/add a merge tag to accomplish that. That's all. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- We'll get there! I just have to finish up something and I'll get right to it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no rush whatsoever. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- We'll get there! I just have to finish up something and I'll get right to it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
/* Eastern Ontario */ added trenton cenotaph
Hi according to the wiki loves monuments page you handle the list for Canada? I added a monument located in Trenton Ontario, Trenton Cenotaph but when I went to submit a photo of it I needed a provincial, federal or municipal id, which I couldn't find, any ideas?
Thanks ~~Scotttech1~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotttech17 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Two requested moves
Hi Skeezix, Thank you for sending a message on the requested move about the new title Qualicum Beach. And now it's your turn, I'm going to ask you a favour. I am proposing a requested move for the article title Cowansville, Quebec to rename Cowansville and to undisambiguate the comma-province name per WP:CANSTYLE also another user by the name of User:Tanneryvillage is propose the Mount Royal, Quebec to rename the article Town of Mount Royal, Quebec. I already vote Super Strong Oppose for renaming the article Town of Mount Royal, Quebec title. If your free from editing, feel free to comment on both the Mount Royal, Quebec article and the Cowansville article. Here is the link for Cowansville Talk:Cowansville, Quebec#Requested move and here is the Mount Royal link Talk:Mount Royal, Quebec#Requested move. I will talk to you later at both talk pages. Steam5 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:DEADREF
Could you help out on the issue at Newspaper of Record instead of reverting? I obviously don't know as much about Wikipedia as you do. Seems that editing is getting very complicated. Those links don't go anywhere. What happens when the average user comes on and finds 3 dead links out of 5 on the Globe and Mail entry? That's frustrating. Can you please help instead of shouting policy and doing nothing? Kenojuak37 (Talk | Contribs) 19:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's charming. Perhaps if you show some willingness to discuss, instead of trying to bulldoze anyone with objecions to your edits, and then leaving patronizing comments ("Can you please help instead of shouting policy and doing nothing?"), we could work together on this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would also just point out that sources don't cease to exist because a link stops working. One of the links you insist on deleting is to a newspaper article, for chrissakes, which exists quite independently of that link and has not ceased to exist or be a valid source whether it remains online or not. Potential solutions include finding working or archived links to those sources, changing the cite templates so they are not url-based or finding alternate sources. Drive-by deletions do not help anyone. My intention is to try to do all the above, but I frankly hadn't even known they were dead links until you came along, but I'm sorry I haven't found time in real life to do that work in a manner that seems to fit your schedule. I will do it when I can.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- A deletion like this makes no sense when you know that there are other sources available on Wikipedia. That's not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I spent a few minutes and provided archived links to two of the sources that trouble you so much. That's all I have time for tonight. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did more updating. It only took a few minutes - there are lots of reliabel sources that refer to the G&M as a newspaper or record. I hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I spent a few minutes and provided archived links to two of the sources that trouble you so much. That's all I have time for tonight. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- A deletion like this makes no sense when you know that there are other sources available on Wikipedia. That's not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would also just point out that sources don't cease to exist because a link stops working. One of the links you insist on deleting is to a newspaper article, for chrissakes, which exists quite independently of that link and has not ceased to exist or be a valid source whether it remains online or not. Potential solutions include finding working or archived links to those sources, changing the cite templates so they are not url-based or finding alternate sources. Drive-by deletions do not help anyone. My intention is to try to do all the above, but I frankly hadn't even known they were dead links until you came along, but I'm sorry I haven't found time in real life to do that work in a manner that seems to fit your schedule. I will do it when I can.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's charming. Perhaps if you show some willingness to discuss, instead of trying to bulldoze anyone with objecions to your edits, and then leaving patronizing comments ("Can you please help instead of shouting policy and doing nothing?"), we could work together on this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Louiseville requested move
Hi Skeezix, I am going to tell you that I am propose the article Louiseville, Quebec will be renaming to Louiseville by undisambiguating the comma-province name per WP:CANSTYLE. Feel free to to participate the discussion at the Louiseville, Quebec's talk page. There's the link right here. Talk:Louiseville, Quebec#Requested move I will see you at the Louiseville talk page. Steam5 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Waterloo Region, Ontario
I am contacting all opposing parties to see my extension. [2] ChemTerm (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vive le Canada back in 2006, you may be interested to know this article has been renominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vive le Canada (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Timmys
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
a belated reply. The Interior (Talk) 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Two propose requested moves
Hi Skeezix, I haven't talk to you in almost a long time. Here's what I am going to tell you. I am doing two requested moves at the same time. This is my first time doing two requested moves. I usually did requested moves one at a time. My first requested move is the old title Baie-Saint-Paul, Quebec is to rename to it's new title Baie-Saint-Paul. And the second requested move is the title Maniwaki, Quebec to rename the article the new title to simply Maniwaki. Both titles are for WP:CANSTYLE. If you want to participate both discussions here are the two links, It's right here. Talk:Baie-Saint-Paul, Quebec#Requested move and Talk:Maniwaki, Quebec#Requested move I will see you at both talk pages. Steam5 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: Kitsilano→Buildings: the CRHP confers no historic status or notability
While the CRHP is not itself a historical designation, the register is only made up historic sites already recognized at the local, provincial, territorial and national levels, and is an official collaboration of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. To me the CRHP essentially acts as a clearing house for all levels of historical recognition throughout Canada, and so using it confers much the same historic status and notability that pointing to the specific recognitions would. That the recent Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 photo competition used the CRHP for its list of historic places in Canada is what led me to think the CRHP was already an acceptable and useful recognition for use on Wikipedia.
If you think that pointing to the specific designations would better confer historic status and notability, I don't disagree with that and you're free to add those in, but it seems to me that simply removing the mention of the CRHP only acts to make the inclusion of these buildings as 'historic places' have even less credibility, status and notability, as now the buildings are listed as 'historic places' without any mention, reference, or citation of designation or recognition whatsoever, whereas being included on the CRHP confers at least some manner of recognition. MRDXII (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I read over and do agree with your comments about the CRHP being a directory/secondary/incomplete source and that the actual primary designations ought to be used and preferred. I also admit that before looking into the CRHP a bit more in response to your edit I too was "missing the forest for the trees" and had originally thought the CRHP was a more substantial source than it actually is.
I guess for me it was not so much a concern over whether the CRHP was the best or most appropriate source, but more-so the secondary issue of the deletionism/inclusionism debate and whether it's better for an article to refer to the CRHP, an admittedly second-rate source, than to have those sources removed for being less-than-ideal and have the article instead end up not referring to any sources whatsoever for particular claims, as that line on the Kitsilano page now stands. Although of course second-rate sources should be removed in favour of better ones, to me the proliferation of unverified articles and claims on Wikipedia is a greater evil and does more harm than the use of things like the CRHP. To use your William Gladstone and Stephen Harper examples: of course we should want to include the fact they were both Prime Ministers and so on, along with proper sources, but to me an article that says "Stephen Harper was an important Canadian politician", but only cites him being in the Parliamentary phone book as proof, or one that says "William Gladstone was a significant historical figure" but only cites him being in the Encyclopedia Britannica as proof, are better (although obviously still not very good) than articles that make those same claims without any citations or references.
I recognize, however, that for the Kitsilano page in particular the question is largely moot, as the edit was a minor one and the article is far from perfect anyway, and that in editing we should be working toward making things as best we can, not just the lesser of two evils. I haven't been doing much editing over the past few weeks, but I will return to working on the Kitsilano page in the near future and will make better use of proper designations for historical landmarks and buildings from now on. Thanks, MRDXII (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove some content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Square One Shopping Centre, without giving a valid reason. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. BouncyGlow (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry!
It's okay, I did not know you removed Square One Anchors for a vaild reason, I thought you did it to make he article shorter. But I understand why. Have a nice weekend. :) --BouncyGlow (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)BouncyGlow
Template Infobox hotel
Cannot see the point in waiting for a consensus on wikipedia, it’s like waiting for hell to freeze over. Disagreement is endemic and decision never seem to be agreed either way. From my point of view, with the rise of internet bucket shops, most people in will choose a hotel by price anyway. The star rating is not so relevant these days. Basically having the AA star rating information to hand will just aid a readers understanding of what quality and facilities a Hotel may have. Surely this is better than having no information, and anyway the element doesn’t have to be filled in. removing it from the template’s syntax is wasting everyone’s time and energy. stavros1 ♣ 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Template: Hotels
If you had bothered to read carefully the contribution you have removed from this info box you would have realized that this element is to do with a nationally recognizes grading (Look Here) for historic building and has nothing to do with star ratings or standards and is to do with the protection of Historic buildings. It is an important part of any historic or interesting building within the UK. I do not see that this should be a problem. I am guessing that you are not from the UK and probably do not know of the body known as English Heritage. I suggest that you maybe do a bit of research before interfering with legitimate editing contributions. stavros1 ♣ 22:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have now left a comment for discussion about this here stavros1 ♣ 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Charming. You might want to review WP:CIVILITY. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I must apologize to you for offending you with my patronizing comment I left on your talk page. I have now realized that I had left the comment unfairly vented at you. At the time I was feeling rather patronized myself, but this was because of a comments made by another editor who had left a message on my talk page concerning this same subject. Maybe i should pass on WP:CIVILITY to Vegaswikian stavros1 ♣ 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. We all get ornery sometimes. Thanks for your nice note. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I must apologize to you for offending you with my patronizing comment I left on your talk page. I have now realized that I had left the comment unfairly vented at you. At the time I was feeling rather patronized myself, but this was because of a comments made by another editor who had left a message on my talk page concerning this same subject. Maybe i should pass on WP:CIVILITY to Vegaswikian stavros1 ♣ 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Charming. You might want to review WP:CIVILITY. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have now left a comment for discussion about this here stavros1 ♣ 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You know better how to deal with improperly sourced and licensed images than I do. Could you have a look at this one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Public art and copyright
Hey Skeezix. I was going to head down to photograph a sculpture in Van for The Drop (sculpture) (there's an improvement drive going on with the article), but now we are thinking about copyright. If you've got any light to shed on this, drop by Talk:The Drop (sculpture)#Suggested_improvements_deux. Regards, The Interior (Talk) 05:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to that discussion, it's a bit over my head legal-wise. If non-US FOP sculpture images become problematic for US servers, do you think it would be possible to host CDN FOP images on a Canadian server and use them on en-WP? The Interior (Talk) 22:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Canadian heritage property ressources
Just for your knowledge, I actually work on liste of ressources for heritage designations in Canada. You can found the result here. --Fralambert (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's fantastic. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Undisambiguating Alberta communities
Hi Skeezix, glad to see you've started to undisambiguate Alberta communities. I've been patiently wondering (or eagerly anticipating) when you or Steam5 would get to Alberta. Keep it up! Whitecourt, Alberta is eligible. I tried to move it over the redirect two years ago based on the opinion shared by the majority of editors in this discussion, but another editor opposed it. This discussion ensued. As a courtesy, I'll invite him to comment here if he feels still feels the same way. Hwy43 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- To add. In what way are you going through to decide what to move? I think it should be done from most populous, down. You have moved some small communities. It would also be nice if you would clean up after yourself, and bypass redirects. 117Avenue (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm. Every once in awhile I tackle a few of these, and I have never gotten any real attention until now. Something about Alberta, I suppose. :) Yes, Hwy43 is correct, I was going alphabetically. Easier to keep track. It may be awhile before I get to Whitecourt -- it takes a while to do Google searches, Wikipedia searches, etc. 117Avenue - of course. I do redirect tags, double redirects and templates afterwards. Yesterday afternoon, though, my efforts were cut short and I never got back to those last two. I'll probably get back to it this evening. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- 117Avenue, just one extra point in respect of the population issue you raised. I believe that the cities in Alberta that can be moved to plain title have already all been moved (you and Hwy43 probably have a better handle on that than me). So, from a population perspective, now we are on to towns. It's imperfect, but alphabetical seemed like a good way to do it methodically. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm. Every once in awhile I tackle a few of these, and I have never gotten any real attention until now. Something about Alberta, I suppose. :) Yes, Hwy43 is correct, I was going alphabetically. Easier to keep track. It may be awhile before I get to Whitecourt -- it takes a while to do Google searches, Wikipedia searches, etc. 117Avenue - of course. I do redirect tags, double redirects and templates afterwards. Yesterday afternoon, though, my efforts were cut short and I never got back to those last two. I'll probably get back to it this evening. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed it is a good approach. 117Avenue's approach to cities two years ago was incorporated cities, city equivalents, and former cities (e.g., Drumheller). I'd suggest the same for towns. Once the incorporated towns have all been reviewed, move onto the town equivalents and those communities that formerly held town status. I'll add a list of former towns to List of towns in Alberta in the near future.
La Crete, Alberta is a candidate to move back to its undisambiguated title. I led the charge to move it back to its disambiguated title back in 2010 in my editing infancy where I was more concerned about consistency rather than WP policy/guidelines/etc. I'm more focused on the latter now obviously. Hwy43 (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed it is a good approach. 117Avenue's approach to cities two years ago was incorporated cities, city equivalents, and former cities (e.g., Drumheller). I'd suggest the same for towns. Once the incorporated towns have all been reviewed, move onto the town equivalents and those communities that formerly held town status. I'll add a list of former towns to List of towns in Alberta in the near future.
- In the meantime, here are the former towns: Beverly, Blairmore, Bowness, Carmangay, Coleman, Cynthia, Diamond City, Forest Lawn, Gleichen, Grand Centre, Grouard, Irvine, Jasper Place, Lac La Biche, Lodgepole and Montgomery. Hwy43 (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah! I hadn't even noticed that La Crete got moved! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- In the meantime, here are the former towns: Beverly, Blairmore, Bowness, Carmangay, Coleman, Cynthia, Diamond City, Forest Lawn, Gleichen, Grand Centre, Grouard, Irvine, Jasper Place, Lac La Biche, Lodgepole and Montgomery. Hwy43 (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
April - National Contribution Month
During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.
Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.
If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.Benoit Rochon (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Square One Shopping Centre
Would it be fine if I could add the anchors section once again with the refrences? I have been researching Square One over the internet and I found helpful refrences to the article. Would it be fine to add it again? --BouncyGlow (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)BouncyGlow
Okay, I read the message yesterday. BouncyGlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by BouncyGlow (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Skeezix1000, I believe BouncyGlow may be a very young editor (or, maybe, impersonating one), so certain WP policy quirks may be somewhat opaque to that user. Mindmatrix 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Possibly. I'm not sure that a young editor necessarily means an incommunicative one, as is the case here. Really not sure how to deal with him/her. Thanks for your help, though. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Bay
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Farine (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
New NHSs
For information, Parks Canada begins to update the «Directory of Federal Heritage Designations». Quebec have two new sites, Arvida, Quebec and Tadoussac Chapel. Ontario and Alberta have also have 1 new site each. Note by looking the statistics [3], BC, SK and QC seem to have lost one NHS each. If you found one of them, I would like to know. --Fralambert (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Salut, Fralambert. Thank you for the heads up!!! I will take a look. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. Did you ever figure out which sites are no longer NHSCs? I know Galt Irrigation Canal in Alberta is now a NHE, but I haven't figured out the others yet. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since i am in the middle of a Wikiconcours, I dont realy have the time to over look all the list. --Fralambert (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I found the one for Saskatchewan, the Battle of Cut Knife? I think I will wait a little for this one, I don't event see it in the national event. --Fralambert (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- That's one of those old 1923 designations that possibly was delisted as it isn't considered something that should be commemorated positively anymore. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I found the one for Saskatchewan, the Battle of Cut Knife? I think I will wait a little for this one, I don't event see it in the national event. --Fralambert (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since i am in the middle of a Wikiconcours, I dont realy have the time to over look all the list. --Fralambert (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. Did you ever figure out which sites are no longer NHSCs? I know Galt Irrigation Canal in Alberta is now a NHE, but I haven't figured out the others yet. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
For Montreal, the Mother House of the Grey Nuns of Montreal no longer appears to be a NHS, or anything else for that matter. Odd, since it was only recently designated (in 2011), and it was already being transferred to Concordia at the time of its transfer. Once we have the whole list, we should email Parks Canada and ask for the rationale. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interestingly, Amherstburg First Baptist Church is no longer listed on the DFHD as a NHSC (or anything else), but is still shown on the CRHP as a recent designation. The DFHD does, however, now list T'äw Tà'är in Yukon as a new NHSC.Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- As for BC, McLean Mill National Historic Site is no longer listed as a NHSC or anything on the DFHD. Odd, since recent news shows the site is still in operation and makes no mention of being delisted as a NHSC. I will try contacting Parks Canada and/or the HSMBC this week to see if I can get more information. We need to understand if these are actual delistings, hiccups with the DFHD website, or a bit of both. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
April - National Contribution Month
During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.
Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.
If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.Amqui (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, if you already recieved this message.
Inactive WikiProjects actually are, based on the evidence, one of the reasons editors leave wikipedia
Yes. The evidence actually supports that. As you know, one of the stated reasons for WikiProjects is to promote some form of collaboration regarding that content. One of the reasons that editors frequently leave is that they don't get any sort of real "collaboration" on the content they deal with. I unfortunately remember myself one of the best and most productive editors we had, whose field of greatest interest was Calvinism, retired because, after posting a message on one of the noticeboards after posting messages at the relevant WikiProjects' talk pages, he received neither response nor assistance. And that was an editor who had been around for a few years and had made numerous substantial contributions. So, yes, if a new editor were to leave a message on the talk page of an inactive WikiProject asking for help, and never get any, that potentially productive editor would very possibly retire then and there, thus costing us their potential contributions. I have also personally contacted a few local professors about maybe trying to make developing content here about their topics part of a class assignment, as some other academics have done and still do. In at least two cases I remember, they said it wouldn't be worth their effort to do so, because while it would be useful and beneficial for some of their students to receive some peer review of their writing, there isn't much, if any, real peer review involved, even when it is sought. So, yes, I very much disagree with you that trying and failing to succeed in reactivating a dormant WikiProject is something that would do no harm. There is a very real chance that it might help a newer editor to retire prematurely, and, honestly, the sheer number of them make it that much harder for some editors like me, who would like to assist in the academic peer review some professors seek, to even know about all the cases where such is sought.
I know from your earlier commentsyou consider any instance of someone with experience telling you about what they have seen in their own previous actions regarding Project collaborations as "condescension." However, I also believe that it is a good idea for anyone who wants to revive or start a WikiProject to know what a good, successful, WikiProject does and how it remains a viable entity. The Wikipedia:WikiPRoject Council/Guide contains the comments of other editors who have been involved in maintaining effective collaborations, and to the best of my knowledge I myself have added little if anything to it. If you haven't already read that, I would definitely urge you to do so, and maybe, on the completion of it, take some time to consider whether you believe, considering the apparent risk of losing editors truly inactive projects present, exactly how best to approach the dormant Toronto project. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry. You have surpressed any enthusiasm I might have once had. And, no, I do not find people sharing their ideas, views or past experience as condescension. You can check my edit history. I found your comments and approach to be condescending. There is a difference. Regards, Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just to add - I do know that your comments were intended to be helpful and were made in good faith. As I said earlier, I apologize for being sarcastic. Just a suggestion, which you can disregard if you wish, but the Wikiproject council needs to find ways to encourage and/or redirect enthusiasm and interest, rather than quashing it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry. You have surpressed any enthusiasm I might have once had. And, no, I do not find people sharing their ideas, views or past experience as condescension. You can check my edit history. I found your comments and approach to be condescending. There is a difference. Regards, Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
A new NHS
The Former Lamaque Mine and the Bourlamaque Mining Village National Historic Site of Canada --Fralambert (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Mall wikiproject question
Hey, I've seen you post on the mall talk page. What do you think would be the best way to handle a list of defunct shopping malls in the United States? Just the ones that are abandoned/demolished/converted to non-retail, or the ones that are no longer in a "mall" form (i.e., mall-to-strip conversions)? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. I think a list that covers demolished, abandoned or repurposed malls, as well as malls that have been converted to other retail forms, is too unfocused. Those are two very different fates. Moreover, I think it is debatable as to whether a mall converted to a power centre or some other retail form ceases to be a "mall" - probably not, but I think the term is sometimes still used. They are definitely still shopping centres, so it's a muddy distinction. So I would avoid that class of entries, and stick to locations that are no longer retail in nature. Just my two cents. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
Please answer my question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Newspaper_of_record — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoahbay (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Deming Armory
Hey Skeezix1000. I noticed that you were somewhat active at Wikiproject:Historic sites and was wondering if you'd lend me some help. I just created an account and decided to work on an article for The Deming Armory. I hoped that you could help me identify ways to improve the article and also tell me how to move the article to Articles For Creation when it's ready -- I don't understand how to make it a submission. It's not ready for the creation process yet, but I'd like to know how it works. If you don't have time, maybe you can suggest someone else to help me? Thanks! A Frog Prince (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. The draft is in my sandbox. A Frog Prince (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
your opinion please...
I just came across File:Toronto rail 1921.jpg, currently published here as fair use. Well, 1921 -- there is no reason it shouldn't {{PD-Canada}}?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata
Just to inform you, since I work a lot on wikidate from the last period that Alberta Register of Historic Places identifier, Historic Places identifier (Canada) and Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec identifier are created as properties on wikidata. I plan to create other properties about provinces with a online register. --Fralambert (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ha. I have no idea what that means. :) --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. I was merrely doing a database about the heritage properties of Canada, they would «maybe» in the future be usable for the Infobox or the table. You can look in McAdam Railway Station for the result. You can also see here, the comput of designations (the green part in the table). --Fralambert (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- For help in Wikidata, what are the diferrent heritage designations in Ontario (Provincial), except of the Heritage Conservation District, I don't realy know wich name to use in Wikidata. --Fralambert (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! Sadly, there isn't really one. The Ontario Heritage Act doesn't use a formal name, like National Historic Site, Monument historique or Designated Heritage Place, etc. etc. Given that the Ontario Heritage Act states "a municipality may, by by-law, designate a property within the municipality to be of cultural heritage value or interest", arguably "Designated Property of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest" is a term you could use (the Act also considers "listed" properties, which have not been formally designated and do not have the same protection/recognition, to be of cultural heritage value, so the word "designated" is important). However, nobody really uses that term, even though technically it is accurate. Perhaps you could use "Property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act", which is the term that people actually use. Hope that helps. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok... I will probably use the Municipal Heritage Designation (Part IV) term used in the Canadian Register of Historic Places. Just a note, Monument historique was replaced by Immeuble patrimonial (The english version of the law translate it by heritage immovable) one year ago by the new Cultural Heritage Act. We have also different statuses; the ministry can classify (with protection) or designate (without protection) a property, the governement can declare a heritage site or designate a cultural landscape and a municipality can '"identify (without protection) and recognize (with protection) a property. So at the and Quebec have 6 differents statuses and 8 different categories of a property. --Fralambert (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- For help in Wikidata, what are the diferrent heritage designations in Ontario (Provincial), except of the Heritage Conservation District, I don't realy know wich name to use in Wikidata. --Fralambert (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. I was merrely doing a database about the heritage properties of Canada, they would «maybe» in the future be usable for the Infobox or the table. You can look in McAdam Railway Station for the result. You can also see here, the comput of designations (the green part in the table). --Fralambert (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Armory edits
Hey, many thanks for all the work you did on my sandboxed article! I can look at the diffs and see all of the different things that you did, it's quite helpful to me. I'll probably submit to AfC sometime soon. Thanks again! A Frog Prince (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Heritage Minutes
Greetings Skeezix1000, your edit summary on your deletion of Heritage Minutes implies that the link is being added indiscriminately to Canadian articles. If you view the list of episodes of those Minutes you can verify that one was produced on the creation of Expo 67. Readers following the links to that online video will benefit significantly, and the See also link is quite appropriate.. The episode noted is of high quality, and adds a measure of respect to the people who helped build and organize the world's fair. HarryZilber (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks for the note. First, I apologize for suggesting that you were adding the link indiscriminately to Canadian history articles. In the future, you might want to consider more detailed edit summaries when you do a group of edits like this one, so that others do not get the wrong impression.
Second, while I now see your point, why were you adding the link to pages such as NHSC? That's partially why I got the wrong impression. I might be missing something.
I have to say that I am a little bit on the fence with this. We can't have an endless list of "see also" links at the end of each article, relating to anything that had something to do at one point in time with the article subject. For example, you can imagine how see also sections would become unmanageable if we started adding links to Canadian Who's Who or Front Page Challenge (etc., etc.) for every article subject that has been included in those works. Admittedly, those are somewhat extreme examples, but they do illustrate the point. I'm just not 100% convinced that a separate link belongs on every article that has has as its subject a topic covered in a Heritage Minute (although I must admit I don't feel that strongly about it). Personally I think it is better added as a topic to {{History of Canada navbox}} instead. Others may feel differently and agree with you. If I were you, I'd raise the question at WP:CANTALK - if others do agree, or seem indifferent, then I think you are in a better position down the road when people like me scratch their head and worry about the precedent. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. The MOS's See also guidelines are loosely structured and are open to some interpretation, viz-a-viz its last paragraph which offers " links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I felt that NHSC was appropriate as they are all 'historic' and a number of them are heritage related. Nevertheless I will be more detailed on future edit summaries to allay similar concerns. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but on that basis you can list every article on Canadian history at NHSC. That's neither desirable nor practical. That's the problem. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. The MOS's See also guidelines are loosely structured and are open to some interpretation, viz-a-viz its last paragraph which offers " links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I felt that NHSC was appropriate as they are all 'historic' and a number of them are heritage related. Nevertheless I will be more detailed on future edit summaries to allay similar concerns. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just clicking through articles and came upon this one, realizing that even though it seems like it should be a GA, it isn't. So my question to you, the primary contributor of this article, is, "Why won't you just nominate the article for WP:GAC?" --K.Annoyomous (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'm semi-retired, so please notify me by writing back on my user talk page. Thanks!
The Globe and Mail
Why does the The Globe and Mail need so many references? Even on its page it only has four.--Simfan34 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean "so many references"? Given the nature of just about all of the references, I think that these (and other) references are necessary. This isn't a numbers game. Substantively, I am puzzled by the very notion that there are "too many". Comparing this to the actual article is apples and oranges - this chart is focused on that one issue, while the article is not.
On a related note, how do the notes in the "Notes on Publication" column pertain to the status of these publications as newspapers of records. This chart isn't for random facts about these newspapers - that's for each individual article. And how can there be a newspaper of record in a country (China) with such dubious freedom of the press? I note a previous editor deleted the previous references to such newspapers, which I can restore.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I mean, why do you belive so many sources are needed to establish the fact that it is considered the paper of record in Canada, compared to the other papers? But my primary concern is to how it needless widens that one column
The notes section is necessary, I feel is necessary to establish that some papers have a longer history of publication than would otherwise be suggested, that would contribute to their status as "papers of record" in a society. And indeed, unfree nations can have "newspapers of record", that if we consider it to be defined as " considered professional and typically authoritative. It may also be used to refer to a publicly available newspaper that has been authorized or maintained by a government to publish public or legal notices," I don't think you can dispute that Remnin Ribao is considered to be "authoritative.
And please, stop reverting the edits. It's a clear violation of [[WP:PARTIALRV]], particularly when you say "if you want to maintain some of these edits, I have no objection, but I am not myself going to wade through and do it myself"... the burden is clearly on you to do so. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to discuss it all with you, but please do not make silly accusations, since you have been quick to revert as well. Please engage on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have done that. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Much appreciated. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have done that. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to discuss it all with you, but please do not make silly accusations, since you have been quick to revert as well. Please engage on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I mean, why do you belive so many sources are needed to establish the fact that it is considered the paper of record in Canada, compared to the other papers? But my primary concern is to how it needless widens that one column
Icon for Parks Canada sites
Skeezix, that's exactly what I had in mind. It looks great. I'd be happy to help add it to the other lists, if I can find some time. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Skeezix1000. Thanks for your review of the Newmarket Citizens' Band DYK nomination. I found the article Sahoyúé-§ehdacho as a result, and noticed you've nominated it for DYK review. I just thought I'd warn you that, as I write this, your review will fail because the article text is roughly 150 characters too short. Perhaps you can add a tidbit explaining that it is only the surface title that was part of the land transfer agreement. Mindmatrix 15:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Sahoyúé-§ehdacho
Hello! Your submission of Sahoyúé-§ehdacho at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Oreo Priest talk 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Sahoyúé-§ehdacho
 | On 14 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sahoyúé-§ehdacho, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sahoyúé-§ehdacho is the largest National Historic Site of Canada at almost the size of the province of Prince Edward Island? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sahoyúé-§ehdacho. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There's been ongoing discussion at wt:MOSMED about how best to reflect the intent of GALLERY, particularly in the context of anatomy articles. Your perspective would be welcome.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Comox
thanks for your support; as with other such cases the Canadian viewpoint on primarytopic gets shoved aside by RS-quoters who don't even know what they're searching for. I doubt you're watching this page but your comments would be appreciated; I used to look askance at the native names but now in the wake of the Squamish people CfD (still underway, you could be of help there, too; too late for the closed dual RM for Squamish and Squamish, British Columbia) and last year's RMs, and watching and hearing hte bigotry and chauvinism against native names, my views have changed substantially; and I don't like the idea that people from Georgia and Nevada feel their lack of knowledge of Canada or Canadian English is just fine and dandy when messing with Canadian articles and categories, or that not respecting native peoples' self-identification is "how wikipedia works"....Skookum1 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You participated in the move request for Comox. I wanted to let you know I've put forward a more comprehensive move request. Whether you're supportive or not, your input would be appreciated given your past participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
{{Canadian English}} - proposed amenment
Please see the talkpage at that template.Skookum1 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fort York may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[Fort York Armoury]], as a [[Historic district|Heritage Conservation District]] in 1985.<ref>{{CRHP|3567|Fort York Heritage Conservation District|7 May 2014</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Alberta community article moves
Message added 17:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
finally wrote this down
Has work to go yet, but pertains to things we've been running into e.g. the Comox thing and others. Wanted to get it done while I still could; mostly been creating Central Coast island/channel/indigenous/reserve/village/locality articles, filling in the map.....in rich detail (Tribune Channel, Gilford Island, Waddington Harbour, Gwayasdums and more. Trying to stay out of harm's way, but vented a bit in response to an observation of Kayoty's at this discussion but mostly staying restrained....though determined that irrelevancy and irrationality shall not hold sway (in the long run, albeit only) on certain guideline discussions which I can't name without accusation of POLLing or CANVASS etc. The Interior had suggested to me about working up the Fraser article, I guess to FA; and from my end there's Fraser-related articles like Yale which beg tons more content because of its history and erstwhile primacy as an important centre of the pre-railway mainland; so much good things out there to do, only so much time/energy and not many active BC contributors...I should be working on WPThailand articles (that's where I am now) but find myself still connected to the erstwhile home turf here.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Don Jail may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [[File:National Museum of Crime and Punishmen - Hangman Rope from Don Jail 1915 (2869481808).jpg|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
WorldPride
I'm going to let you guess which one of the six brightly coloured ladies behind Olivia Chow in File:Olivia Chow with Pride Colours.jpg I actually know personally. I, for the record, only watched the parade and didn't participate, although my vantage point wasn't actually all that far from St. Paul's (I was just down the street by the Shaw Media building.) If I'd known you were going to be there I might've even have asked if you wanted to meet up for coffee or something! ;-) Bearcat (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ironically, I wasn't there. I just downloaded a group of images from Flickr. We were wandering around Church Street Sunday morning, but my husband wasn't feeling great so we left around lunch time and missed the parade. Too bad, because it looks like it was a lot of fun this year. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canadian Museum of History may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- The '''Canadian Museum of History''' ({{lang-fr|Musée canadien de l’histoire}}, formerly the '''Canadian Museum of Civilization''', is
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Garrison Petawawa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- architecture|modern classicist]] architecture common among federal buildings of the period. <ref>{{DFHD|7061|Building F-16|</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 14 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Tintamarre page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
You've weathered some heavy abuse from more than one Wikipedian lately. You deserve this for keeping a level head throughout. Bravo! - SweetNightmares 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
- You too. Unbelievable. What I found most chilling is that he seems to think that someone expressing an opinion which which he disagrees somehow constitutes incivility and entitles him to be uncivil. I've learned over time the best route is not to engage with editors such as that. Walk away from them, and keep discussing the issue with others. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Poirier Project
Hello Skeezix,
You may not remember, but since many years, I tried to have a GLAM collaboration with Canadian institutions... and now we finally have it (well it's a pilot project), and I'm pretty sure it will interest you because I know how active you are on Commons and futhermore, I know how you like old pictures... That said, BAnQ accepted to upload a thousand files from Conrad Poirier funds (wow a red link on WP-en, I'm surprised 
) an anglophone freelance photojournalist (The Montreal Gazette, Montreal Standard, La Patrie, La Presse...). Anyway, Florian Daveau, a young archivist at BAnQ Old-Montreal, and few students from Montreal University are currently uploading all the files on Commons. Poirier's funds have over 22,000 scanned files and BAnQ's team have done a spotting check to get only the files that would have an interest for Wikimedia's projects (no cats & dogs images)... They're doing a huge spotting job!
Now the success, the reconduction of the project in winter and eventually other collaborations from Canadian institutions are mainly based on Poirier Project's statistics... Two weeks ago, I've met Magnus Manske at Wikimania London and he kindly add Poirier Project in his Baglama2 hypra-magical tool (July is currently processing), in order to harvest all kind of stats to measure the success of this pilot-project.
Now here's my question! Are you available for helping in the growth of those stats? The only way to make things happen is to add these pictures in Wikpedia's articles. So if you have free time (which I'm sure you probably don't have, but I'm asking), can you give us a hand with this ? I'm currently adding these pics in many WikiMedia projects, but a thousand pictures is a lot, I need some help here!!!
So if you have some time, here's a couple links :
- unused images in the articles. Feel free to add the images also in other languages.
- All files in Commons category
- Main project page (If you find English mistakes on that page, pls correct me!)
Thank you in advance for helping with this GLAM project, the first one in Canada. If you have questions or comments, feel free to contact me. Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course I remember you! Sorry for the delay in responding - but I have been largely away and haven't had a chance to check out the links you provided until now. Happy to help. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Ontario heritage properties (again)
I created on Wikidata a while ago designation of Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and I am always not sure of the name I sould give. If I follow the nave gived on the Canadian Register of Historic Places it give the name of Municipal Heritage Designation (Part IV) but the Ontario Heritage Act give on the definition of Part IV the name designated property[4]. If I look on the municipality with good online register like Thunder Bay or Toronto use designated heritage property, should I rename for the item on wikidata. <chauvinist mode> "Recognized heritage immovable" (the official translation of immeuble patrimonial cité [5]) is maybe a horrible barbarism in english, but at least is a clearer label.<chauvinist mode/> --Fralambert (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Fralambert! It depends on what you want to do with this. As you know, the Act allows a municipality (and, in some cases, the Province) to designate properties (Part IV) and heritage conservation districts (Part V) (not to mention archaeological properties (Part VI)). In theory, therefore, "designated heritage property" should be fine for anything done under Part IV (since Part V deals with districts). However, a heritage conservation district contains properties (obviously), and some (difficult people) might argue that "designated heritage property" could potentially refer to a property within an HCD even if not individually designated under Part IV. Plus, I notice some people here on Wikipedia really seem to like references to Part IV (I couldn't care less). My instinct is that the path of least resistance in the future would be if you used something like "designated heritage property (Part IV)" or a variation thereof. It might give you less grief down the road.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't anwser sooner. Tanks for the anwser. My idea was primally the name of d:Q15080599 on wikidata. --Fralambert (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just a question like that, I sould probably rename Category:Historic monuments of Quebec since it was renamed heritage immovable in 2012, but how I name a category fot the heritage sites since the main category have the same name. Maybe Category:Heritage sites of Quebec (Cultural heritage)? --Fralambert (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't anwser sooner. Tanks for the anwser. My idea was primally the name of d:Q15080599 on wikidata. --Fralambert (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Fralambert! It depends on what you want to do with this. As you know, the Act allows a municipality (and, in some cases, the Province) to designate properties (Part IV) and heritage conservation districts (Part V) (not to mention archaeological properties (Part VI)). In theory, therefore, "designated heritage property" should be fine for anything done under Part IV (since Part V deals with districts). However, a heritage conservation district contains properties (obviously), and some (difficult people) might argue that "designated heritage property" could potentially refer to a property within an HCD even if not individually designated under Part IV. Plus, I notice some people here on Wikipedia really seem to like references to Part IV (I couldn't care less). My instinct is that the path of least resistance in the future would be if you used something like "designated heritage property (Part IV)" or a variation thereof. It might give you less grief down the road.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest SPI for UrbanNerd
Hi Skeezix1000, as you were involved with one or more ANIs and/or SPIs for UrbanNerd in the past, I'm notifying you that another SPI has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Please keep an eye out on your watchlist for any suspicious activities in UrbanNerd's former stomping grounds as perhaps there are more than the three IPs I've come across thus far. Any additional IPs or evidence you may uncover would be appreciated at the SPI. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Skeezix1000, the above SPI investigation included four suspects but only one was blocked. One of the suspects, 50.98.156.21 started editing articles of UrbanNerd's interests, then took a editing vacation with Hawaii articles, and is now back editing articles of UrbanNerd's interests again. No flagrantly obvious edit summaries yet. Please keep an eye out. I will continue to do so myself.
On another item did you have a chance to take a look at this? I thought you might be interested in it given your comments at the recent similar Ontario discussion. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Another one to look out for - Moka Mo, who did this contrary to the recent consensus. The editor's contribution history is nearly identical to the above IP's contribution history. Feel free to tell me to bugger off if you don't want me to share future observations! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, Hwy43. UrbanNerd is like lice - the more we work together to keep him at bay, the better it is. Keeping each other informed of suspicious activity is par for the course. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
aboriginal Canada MOS
Hi; saw this. I'd tried to think of another example than QCI/Haida Gwaii but haven't yet. I made those changes there after following a link to MOS on the FLQ RM and found the French language section. For a long time I've been advocating an aboriginal MOS section, particularly for Canada where native endonyms and native names are in wide use in English; which was disputed by UK and US "votes" on the RMs to restore the indigenous RMs, claiming "global usage" and sources trumped Canadian English usage; they were wrong, though some RMs were still refused (by whom and why is a longer story); some language-titles have never been reverted back after Kwami BOLD/bulked moved them (and then in the case of the RMs on ethno/people titles fought viciously, arguing that the native preferences were "parochial" and that CANENGL/ENGVAR was irrelevant. I made a sandbox outline of what I call the "old consensus" and will dig it out and link it for you; what's in it was well thought-out in the way back when, it was swept aside and ignored and derided when I raised it again; thousands of articles were moved re WP:NCL which had been edited/changed by K, who also bitterly fought and edit-warred and obfuscated any attempt to make it conform to TITLE and other guidelines; it's still locked where he edit-warred it to, I haven't had the stomach or inclination to go back there. WP:NCET also had some argument but now more or less reads correctly though it needs a line somewhere about "when a tribal government's name for itself is different from that of another government's (e.g. Canadian or American federal/provincial/state government's) than the tribal government's preference should be the title; See the edit history at Skokomish Tribal Nation's redirect where the US name for them was reverted to as "official"; but since when is a sovereign government's usage not "official"?
Other than that there's things about "aboriginal style" and Canadian English usages of same that need spelling out, including title structure (FOO First Nation for band governments, and notes on when and when not to use nation/Nation and so on). Lots of stuff familiar to use is alien to UK and US editors. I'll draft some MOS additions but would prefer to debate them with other Canadians and IPNA editors before taking it to the naysayer/quibbler bearpit of MOSTALK. That being said, when I raised this and other matters at IPNA I got shot down by the same person who, though indigenous herself, applied the US name for the Skokomish government instead of the tribe's own, which I had moved it to per the tribe's own website, and like others there went "we have better things to do" and was among those who fought the endonym-reversion RMs...including launching one ANI and supporting another claiming I was doing "bulk undiscussed moves" as if RMs were undiscussed moves and that they were caused by someone doing thousands of undiscussed moves...then warred with me over category structures and redirects re Nevada goverments/reservations.....might be better to keep it to WPCAN folks until cohesively draftedSkookum1 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also worth mentioning re French usages in CANENGL, there are titles where the English pronunciation is different from what it would be in French; both IPAs are needed perhaps, with the English one going first as for Maillardville, which in English is mal-LARD-vil and in French is mai-YARD-viy. Similarly Lac La Hache is known by its English pronunciation with an English /h/ rather than the French glottal stop for the /h/. Theres's others like that, and cases where the English name even has a cedilla on it i.e. François Lake (originall lac des francais); across the Prairies and definitely in Newfoundland there's similar cases where the MOSTCOMMON pronunciation is English-style (or, er, Newfanese style).Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Port Radium
Hi, thanks for your comment about Port Radium being a National Historic Site or not. I am basing this on newspaper articles and photographs from 1978, when a delegation from Parks Canada erected a plaque. I included the one newspaper article as a reference under the Port Radium article on Wikipedia. I may have the definitions wrong, but the article talks about it being a 'Historic Site'. True, that I could find not modern day reference to it being a National Historic Site, but clearly the intent was there in 1978 and often these things get forgotten over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansilke (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
TfD for Inofbox NHSC
Skeezix, I don't disagree with this assessment [6], and I am sorry that the discussion has veered off into a tangential discussion about the nominator's refusal to notify template creators. My intent was to get him to acknowledge his responsibility to do so; instead, we've got 10,000+ bytes of argument with another editor who wants to defend that failure to notify. I'm going to hat those digressions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I don't necessarily disagree with the points you were making about notice. I wasn't trying to be judgmental, or to be dismissive of the point you are/were trying to make. It was intended to be a neutral comment that the discussion had unfortunately veered off topic, with no implied criticism of any party. Sorry if it read as a criticism (my reference to a dead horse didn't help) - that was not intended. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Skeezix, the conversation had clearly veered far off track last night, with the extended digressions about the alleged marginalization of discussion participants and the extended argument over notifying template creators. I was going to let it sit until the end of the business day, give everyone the chance to finish venting, and then hat the digressions. Your comment simply prompted me to do that four or five hours sooner -- which is probably a good thing. In any event, the notice problem is clearly going to have to be addressed in an RfC, because there is at least one regular TfD/TfM nominator who believes that such notices are not required by the TfD instructions, and there are supporters who want to defend that [non]practice. I'm a lawyer, of course my perspective is colored by the idea that proper notice of the concerned parties is fundamental to any procedurally fair decision; others apparently don't share that perspective. In any event, it needs to be brought to resolution in a forum that has the authority to impose a mandatory change and implement clarifying changes to the instructions that allow for no perceived wiggled room. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. And, frankly, the Wikiproject in question should also be notified whenever the template is used on a fair number of pages and the Wikiproject in question is active. Sometimes the creator is no longer active/no longer cares. It's the template users who sometimes are left in the dark - the notice that gets added to the top of templates is easy to miss. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- You're preaching to the choir on all chapters and verses, Reverend Skeezix. In fact, the current TfD instructions suggest notifying major contributors and concerned WikiProjects that have tagged the template talk page. I would love to see those suggestions made mandatory, although it would obviously remain a subjective judgment call as to who constitutes a "major contributor." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. And, frankly, the Wikiproject in question should also be notified whenever the template is used on a fair number of pages and the Wikiproject in question is active. Sometimes the creator is no longer active/no longer cares. It's the template users who sometimes are left in the dark - the notice that gets added to the top of templates is easy to miss. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Skeezix, the conversation had clearly veered far off track last night, with the extended digressions about the alleged marginalization of discussion participants and the extended argument over notifying template creators. I was going to let it sit until the end of the business day, give everyone the chance to finish venting, and then hat the digressions. Your comment simply prompted me to do that four or five hours sooner -- which is probably a good thing. In any event, the notice problem is clearly going to have to be addressed in an RfC, because there is at least one regular TfD/TfM nominator who believes that such notices are not required by the TfD instructions, and there are supporters who want to defend that [non]practice. I'm a lawyer, of course my perspective is colored by the idea that proper notice of the concerned parties is fundamental to any procedurally fair decision; others apparently don't share that perspective. In any event, it needs to be brought to resolution in a forum that has the authority to impose a mandatory change and implement clarifying changes to the instructions that allow for no perceived wiggled room. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I don't necessarily disagree with the points you were making about notice. I wasn't trying to be judgmental, or to be dismissive of the point you are/were trying to make. It was intended to be a neutral comment that the discussion had unfortunately veered off topic, with no implied criticism of any party. Sorry if it read as a criticism (my reference to a dead horse didn't help) - that was not intended. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI
[7] [8]. keyboard wifi key missing, will inbox you.Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- ok. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
NHS total number, Delistings
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[9]). But maybe the status disapered in the 1911 act. I see the same term was used for Jasper [10]. --Fralambert (talk) 01:43, 3 March 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)
- @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)
- 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?
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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
@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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
Another UN sock?
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'
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)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Skeezix1000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
UrbanNerd IP socks SPI
Hi Skeezix1000, as a past commenter on previous SPIs involving UrbanNerd, just want to advise of the latest here. Hope all is well. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Holtrenfrewcrest.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Holtrenfrewcrest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada
Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [11]. To send messages to the list, write to general(at)discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
List of National Historic Sites of in Kingston listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of National Historic Sites of in Kingston. Since you had some involvement with the List of National Historic Sites of in Kingston redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)