User talk:Fishhead64: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 92: Line 92:
==L-G issues==
==L-G issues==


Please see [[Talk:List of Lieutenant-Governors of British Columbia]]. Consulting yourself, [[User:KenWalker|KenWalker]], IUser:Bobanny|Bobanny]], maybe [[User:themightyquill|themightyquill]] about the issues raised there; my main problem is the inclusion of the colonial governors with the provincial L-Gs, although the earlier thing about the plural form is still somewhat of a concern for me...but then, I ''am'' a traditionalist with this sort of thing...which is "part of our distinctiveness" IMO...thinking also of a section on the more prominent/powerful role of the L-Gs in earlier times, especially in the pre-party era.....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see [[Talk:List of Lieutenant-Governors of British Columbia]]. Consulting yourself, [[User:KenWalker|KenWalker]], [[User:Bobanny|Bobanny]], maybe [[User:themightyquill|themightyquill]] about the issues raised there; my main problem is the inclusion of the colonial governors with the provincial L-Gs, although the earlier thing about the plural form is still somewhat of a concern for me...but then, I ''am'' a traditionalist with this sort of thing...which is "part of our distinctiveness" IMO...thinking also of a section on the more prominent/powerful role of the L-Gs in earlier times, especially in the pre-party era.....[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:09, 27 January 2007

IF YOU INITIATE DIALOGUE HERE, I WILL REPLY HERE. WELL, SOMETIMES. CHEERS!
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 — 12/2005 through 04/2006
  2. Archive 2 — 05/2006 through 11/2006

WikiProject LGBT studies

Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the James Wolfe article

Thanks for taking up the challenge, and for doing a good job on a previously incoherent mess. I didn't have a good feel for the subject, so I didn't try doing it myself. Now I'm glad I waited, and the article is better for it. Happy editing! Chris the speller 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man! Fishhead64 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i added Dease Lake becuase it's a very remote town, and it is a "full service" town, much like Hearst, Ontario. RaccoonFoxTalkStalk 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


francais

hey there, fish, I too as you may have guessed an from Vancouver, but I'm from the village of Anmore up north of portmoody on top of hertiage mountain. Anyways with reagrds to the french thing, in general, I'm against the useage of french, but now I live in ottawa, I'm very used to having french rammed down my throat, and usually I just take it so whomever's doing it will shut up. So I'll leave the french in just cause I hate fighting with the french, I'd rather just ignore them, (though I have a french exam this friday so ignoring them there could be tough) thanks for your help on the article, I had been waiting for someone to write that piece for almost a year but since noon was doing it I was bold in making a change and did it myself, I'm quite proud of it, but of course it was you guys who made it a coherent and complete article, I would say it's almost done. I will visit your municipality soon, because I come home on the 22nd for christmas. TotallyTempo 03:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism / Roman Catholic Church

Hi, thanks for politely reverting my bolding of RC Church. I did scan through the Talk page before doing it, but not the archives.

Just to reassure me, I hope you see no possible objection to my current project of examining inbound links to Catholicism and changing them to Roman Catholic Church where I consider that the latter is intended. I am generally leaving Catholicism as the link for all saints, councils and other articles about the church pre-Reformation. RCC should be the link for most articles about Catholicism in Western Europe and most other continents, and recent Catholics in Western countries. I'm leaving Catholicism wherever it might be instructive, e.g. History of England. Does that sound good to you? Regards, Fayenatic london 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Of course I will take part in COTM. Merry christmas!--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC Social Credit League vs Social Credit Party

I put it that way deliberately; as someone else pointed out somewhere in these pages the name BC Social Credit League was the party's official name until 1973. It was most definitely its name in 1952 and 1953...Skookum1 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bornmann AFD

I'm currently drafting my position (Keep, Restore, Protect) but saw your "delete"....yeah, in the condition the article's in right now it's eminently irrelevant/deletable, and that's what rascalpatrol adn Randy3 have been working towards (rascalpatrol may, in fact, be Bornmann himself). Please read the materials deleted by Randy3 just after I was blocked and re-assess your position on this AFD; there's no need to delete it if the censored materials are restored (all citable, too).Skookum1 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Rider; not all citable, and some opinions/POV language were present, and some errors; but I submit that a bio of Bornmann is needed, same as with Bonner or Gaglardi (sure, he's not elected, but he's a political-party operative and a high-profile political lobbyist deeply involved in provincial politics...in the shadows, anyway).Skookum1 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see the Erik Bornmann AFD] for my recent posts on it. As you know, it was extended as I had had an unfair block during most of its duration. Please read my posts in full, lengthy as they are, and follow all links/cites and read them, and then please reconsider your position.Skookum1 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for contributing to Talk:Liturgy of the hours. Did you overlook the survey at Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Survey, or did you not feel ready to commit yourself to a vote? If you're not sure enough to add a vote, you can also add " # '''Comment''' ". Your current contribution at the end of the horribly long discussion will most likely not be seen by the administrator who will decide on this case soon -- admins usually only have time to skim discussions and therefore often give too much value to vote counting. --Espoo 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

I noticed your concern over a bots action in regards to questioning the copyright of certain images. The bot simply goes through and checks to see if an image has a proper copyright tag. If none is found, the image can simply be deleted in the next 7 days. To fix this problem, all you have to do is go through the list of Image copyright tags, and find the appropriate one. Once you have done that, you 'tag' the image, and remove the warnings placed by the bot (bots normally comment out questionable images, so you are going to have to go through each page the bot went though to get the image to show up again). For more information, see Wikipedia:Untagged images and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I have fixed Image:Archbishcantarms.PNG so look at the page history and my recent contributions to see what I did. Feel free to ask more questions, or just look at a similar properly tagged image to get an idea what a proper image page should look like. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Anne Jeff 555.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Anne Jeff 555.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Father, Thank you for your confirmation of my thinking. May I copy your comment to the talk page discussion involved... or better yet, would you add a similar comment to the discussion on the talk page. Blueboar 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for you input. Looking at the article in question, I think it needs to have a brief statement about Anglican practice in the 1700s, to allow readers to put the fact that Washington was not known to take communion, and would leave services before communion into the context of his time. And to do that, I need a reliable source or two to back the such a statement up.
In other words, I need to do some background research. So... can you recommend any good books or websites that discuss such practices? Blueboar 13:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might like to know I just compiled this; intending on expanding role of various vessels in the region; list was drawn from the Akriggs' British Columbia Chronicle and also from the BC Archives visual records collection. Planning another that will be a list of civilian and trading vessels, including HBC-commissioned ones - the Beaver - from the same sources; US military vessels are another possibility, as well as Spanish military and Russian military/commercial ones.Skookum1 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested - PSAC title

Hi. Please see [1] and [2] re the best/preferred name for an article on Puget's Sound Agricultural Company (that's my own pref).Skookum1 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Legitimacy of the Provisional Government of Oregon"

Hi; I've got this ongoing snarl at Talk:Oregon Country and related stuff on Talk:Oregon boundary dispute and Talk:Oregon Treaty that I'm getting weary of arguing with this User:Aboutmovies guy about; is it just me or are the sophomores taking over the world? Anyway, my fault for not digging through Akriggs, Ormsby and this new Kerr source and making sure the BPOV (British point of view) is present on these pages; but lately this kid - and I'm sure it's a kid, although apparently he has a BA (a kid, in other words...) is adamant about "proving" the legitimacy of the Provisional Government of Oregon, even making it a central theme of the article; British perspectives on the American claims and tactics are absent, and dismissed in discussion, and the Native American perspective omitted entirely; I don't know if you'd care to provide backup but it's really getting to be a waste of time for me; no matter what I say to point out his non sequiturs he wants to keep on "proving" the legitimacy of this provisional government thing the Williamette squatters set up in their own image in 1843, and isn't interested in anything else. There's a certain breed of "Oregon nationalist" that's out there, and there's similar problems on Pacific Northwest regarding what I call the "Cascadia agenda"....."historical imperialism" or "historiographical imperialism" is what I call all this stuff; revising history to justify its iniquities is an old game, of course. I'll fly this by User:KenWalker as well, though he's delightfully non-confrontational/non-committal on most things, but tends to know his early BC/NW history...I've got to do my laundry and go shopping......Skookum1 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L-G issues

Please see Talk:List of Lieutenant-Governors of British Columbia. Consulting yourself, KenWalker, Bobanny, maybe themightyquill about the issues raised there; my main problem is the inclusion of the colonial governors with the provincial L-Gs, although the earlier thing about the plural form is still somewhat of a concern for me...but then, I am a traditionalist with this sort of thing...which is "part of our distinctiveness" IMO...thinking also of a section on the more prominent/powerful role of the L-Gs in earlier times, especially in the pre-party era.....Skookum1 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]