User talk:Lonewolf BC

Welcome!

Hello, Lonewolf BC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

Hi there Lonewolf BC. I was interested in the comment you left on User talk:Hmains. I have replied on User talk:Rebecca and thought you might want to contribute. It would seem to me on quick examination of Hmains' edits that his edits do add some value, quite apart from the reduction of overlinking to year articles which (it would seem to me) add nothing to the articles, at least in some cases. Can you explain your position please? You can answer here or in my user talk, I don't mind. Thanks for your time, --Guinnog 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Guinnog, and thanks for your message. I'm really glad to get a one, about this de-linking matter, that is more conducive to a reasonable discussion of it -- notwithstanding that at root you disagree with me about the worth of the links concerned.

As to the value I see in year-links, in short I think that they give a reader ready access to useful historical context. This is less so for recent years, for which a reader likely will be familiar with such context already (although we must keep mindful that some of Wikipedia's readers are quite young, and that the past fades from popular memory rather quickly). For more distant years, however, I think it is most valuable for a reader to see the general state of the world, and the major happenings of the year during which some event took place that is mentioned in the particular article. Doing so ties the particular event into its times, giving a reader a better understanding of it, and fostering something more than rote memorization of isolated facts, floating in a void of the past.

I acknowledge that this is a matter of opinion, though I know that other folk share much the same view as mine, even while others yet again disagree. The question them becomes how this disagreement ought be handled within Wikipedia. My beef with Hmains is mainly on that latter point. I have reviewed his editing history, and he seems to be on a bull-headed mission to de-link all year-only dates in as many articles as he can edit -- and he runs through a great many -- without regard for what anyone else thinks about it. That he also makes other kinds of edits (mostly likewise niggling) is really beside the point, whereas it does not take away from what he's been doing to date-links. Given the lack of consensus on the issue, common sense as well as common courtesy suggest that articles be mostly left alone in relation to such links, as against anyone determinedly going about placing them or removing them. A good parallel case is the use of "British" versus "American" spelling. Moreover, and although good sense and courtesy should be reason enough, I find that this is also essentially the conclusion that the Wikipedia community has reached.

Mr. Mains seemingly sets such considerations at nought and, in their defiance, feels entitled to carry on his search-and-destroy campaign, just because he, personally, holds that the links are worthless clutter. He's been repeatedly warned against this -- at an early stage, warned merely that it was unwise and liable to provoke edit-wars [1]; and later on, that it is unacceptable without a consensus to back it. Yet he stubbornly persists, while wrongly claiming to have policy behind him. Frankly, his actions seem disingenuous and wilfully disruptive -- though I do not say that disruption must be his real motive.

My own discovery of all this is a case in point: Shortly after I had carefully put a brief article into good order, Mr. Mains came along and de-linked most of the dates. Not much bothered, but puzzled and seeing no reason for the edit, I reverted it and put a note to that effect on the talk page, asking that he not do likewise again without our discussing it first. Some days later, he simply came back and delinked again, without a word to me. I did as before, this time writing at greater length. When this got no response, I decided to post on his talk page, also, hoping to get the matter amicably sorted out, and altogether ready to accept his edit if he could justify it. It was then that I discovered that mine was not an isolated case, but part of a campaign that Mr. Mains was waging in the full knowledge of its contentiousness, despite many warnings to leave off, and despite past wrangles with other opponents. So my message to him was a bit harder than I had foreseen making it. Mr. Mains' reply tacitly says that he has no intention of quitting, and attempts to justify that with misrepresentations (whether genuinely believed or not I cannot say) of Wikipedia policy and of earlier discussions.

Understand that at the outset I had made no study of these matters, but was simply going by my common sense and my casual observations of Wikipedia custom. I am heartened to find that these have been confirmed quite nicely by my subsequent delving into guidelines and past discussions. The core of the matter is that, under the present circumstances, neither Mr. Mains nor anyone else should be making it their business to change articles so as to make them conform to their personal opinion about date-links. If a concensus is ever reached for de-linking, I will of course respect that (though without agreeing with it). But really, the issue of the links themselves is secondary to that of Mr. Mains' behavior. That behavior, along with the loads of similar nonsense I discovered in looking into this whole business, I find quite disheartening. It must stop.
-- Lonewolf BC 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

[2] Thanks for that! --Guinnog 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

Your efforts are commendable for their goals, but I fear they shall not solve the problem unless Mr. Mains becomes willing to allow for opinions beyond his own, and for broad principles of co-operativeness and consideration among editors, as against some guideline explicitly forbidding his reckless de-linking. This, alas, I do not foresee. On the other hand, if it can be reached, agreement between some of his opponents and some of his (perceived) backers might discourage him, and might be a step toward a guideline he will feel obliged to follow. So perhaps the exercise is worthwhile. -- Lonewolf BC 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year linking and delinking

Hi there. I've posted a cut-down version of the discussion you participated in at the above policy talk page. I hope you'll be able to contribute there.
Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McEvedy

Hi lonewolf, my edit was really just to tidy up the slightly over elaborate sentence structure- my only remaining objections are where you say "witty and engaging writing-style, with which he often made reasoned challenges to established opinion", which to me implies its the style with which he is making the objection, as opposed to the substance of his writing, and also to the word revered, which seems like it might need to be supported by a reference, its not that clear that he was admired to that extent. Anyway, rather than just edit, I thought I'd let you know my thoughts... Dek-ko 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we seem to be in quite good agreement, then. I know that my sentences sometimes get overly long and elaborate, but I believe that I've mended that in the case of this article. I gather that you concur. (Leaving a draft for a while, and coming back to it later often helps much.) Turning to our two remaining points of difference, I do mean to suggest that the witty style, besides enlivening McEvedy's writing generally, was used in challenging established opinion. More than one of the obituaries makes note of this -- "witty digs". The substantiality of the challenges is, I think, covered by "reasoned" and illustrated by the next sentences, about the standing that McEvedy and his views eventually gained. So it's both their style and their substance that are notable about the challenges, and my aim was to indicate that. I believe I have succeeded. As for "revered" one of the obits uses that very word. I could add a reference if you like, but the WP article is quite short and the obits are already listed for reference, so I'm not sure a specific reference for "revered" is really needed.

Anyhow, I'm not adamant about any of this, so don't hesitate to make further changes if you think they are needed.

Best regards, Lonewolf BC 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about changing from "McEvedy's witty and engaging writing-style, with which he often made reasoned challenges to established opinion among historians and demographers" to "McEvedy's witty and engaging writing-style, which he used on occasion to challenge established opinions among historians and demographers"- I've read everything on the list (except rise of the world cities, which I've never seen on sale) many times over, and I would say "occasionally" is more appropriate then "often" for this- really its just in the population history atlas and the intro to the new atlas of ancient history that he does this. Also, I still don't really like "revered", I just think respected is more than enough
Dek-ko 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glad we could agree, if you want to add stuff about medical career thats fine- I get the impression his views on hysteria are still controversial, so it may be opening a can of worms!
Dek-ko 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"mcevedy" redirect

re mcevedy redirect- yeah go ahead and delete it I didn't know how to rename the title so I redirected it as you thought. Dek-ko 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candlelight Records

Hiya Lonewolf BC.
Why did you put up a lack of notability? The label hosts popular bands that have been reviewed in several major music magazines. Plus every wikipedia album page has links to music labels, so suggesting this link isn't it important would create a lot of deadlinks. I'd consider it notable. Andrzejbanas 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalukya

Sir, I see you have been making lots of edits regarding "dates". Just a week back another user removed all the wikilinks I had for dates like 543 CE. He insisted that unless dates have significant meaning it should not be linked. You have put them back. I am not sure where this is headed and I certianly dont want this to become an edit war on "dates" as the article has just come through successfully on FAC review. Please see the WP rules for dates and make sure this matter is put to rest. I like the 9th century kind of links though.
Dineshkannambadi 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianization

Hi. I've noticed you've been changing "World War II" in some articles to the "Second World War" to reflect Canadian usage. I have no problem with this, but I am curious as to why that one might be more Canadian (assuming there's a reason besides Canadian historians preferring it). I've always thought both were acceptable for Canadian history. I think my interest comes from noticing recently that the "dirty thirties" is more of an American name for the Depression, while the "hungry thirties" is the Canadian term. On a related note, I wouldn't be surprised if they get changed back. I've noticed that some Canadian articles on my watchlist were previously changed from the "Second World War" to "World War II," which I assumed was because the article it links to is entitled "World War II." Bobanny 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how it is I wound up here too, for very much the same reasons. What's "standard Canadian", and moreso what's a standard Canadian usage, anyway? I'm Canadian, like it or not, born and raised, and I'll use either, and heard my parents and other veterans use both (I was around a lot of them as the folks ran the local Legion and other community organizations, and I was b.1955); I've never considered either one preferable to the other; the one variation that I do know of is that Canadians may say the Great War where for Americans that seems invariably to come out World War I, unless they're read in history and are in a conversation with Brits or Canucks or whomever. It's true you may not hear "Second World War" in the US, or in parts of the US, but that doesn't mean that its presence in Canada is linguistic-cultural pollution in any way, which is the subtext here (I'm not meaning to assert that Lonewolf BC is from beyond the mountains, just speaking to the theme). BC in particular has a very different "dialect" than other parts of the country in all sorts of ways, from pronunciation to lexicon to style and, of course, attitude; and it also has a long history connected with Americans living here, or us coming and going; any "American" traits here are still Canadian, IMO, even if someone from Ontario or the Maritimes think something we say or how we say it is more American. Or, as someone from T.0. put it once, when I'd said a-tpyical instead of ah-typical, that we sounded rustic or hick or something to that effect, and there were other words he remarked on that we pronounced differently; and in an older version of the Canadian English page there was an edit that there were variations from the supposed Canadian norm in BC that "weren't really Canadian", by implication American; they were meaning the cowboy/redneck way of talking in the Interior and up the Coast and the North, and some of the Valley; a drawl, a twang, or whatever it is, but that's historical and built-in to the place since 1858, and in a big way, right through the 20th Century (a lot of media people, business people, educators, and so on are American expats, d-d's or not). It's all British Columbian, if not "really Canadian"; if British Columbian accents aren't fully Canadian, but they're totally British Columbian. That there's places here where people don't talk like Kingston or Ottawa or Yorkville or London ON, it has to do with who settled here and the fusion of accents and peoples that takes place here on a regular basis. The Prairie provinces have their own range of accents and flavours and fusions that underlays the newer overlay of Newf and mock-Yank and transplanted T.O'er and New Canadians and such; so what the hell is standard Canadian? There's a thing called Standard American, but it's only used in dialect coaching as a tool to "neutralize" non-American accents before local dialects can be taught; but there's no "standard Canadian" that I know of, except because of the growing homogenization of the media, and the controlled stylebook and pronunciation guidelines built into CBCers.
Sorry to ramble; but about this World War II/Second World War thing; Bobanny's right; I almost reversed it but was going to come here and opine on it first; but someone else will reverse it at some point without asking, just as Lonewolf BC changed it in his own right; is there a stylebook emerging at whatever WikiProject Canada there is, and what if it's in conflict with any emerging stylebook, or local linguistic reality, that may exist in the "regions", otherwise known as the provinces. The frontier here was rich with people from all over the world, just as it is now, and that "all over the world" included a lot of American settlers; American-sounding usages are intrinsic to the space and place that is BC; and as Bobanny and a few other people here know I'm opposed to the homogenization of the Canadian identity, as if that were singular or could ever be.
-- Skookum1 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really an expert, but I'm taking the word of some editors who seem to be Canadians with a special interest in military subjects and who have commented that "Second World War" is considered the proper Canadian term by Canadian historians, especially (or at least) Canadian military historians, while "World War II" (or "...Two", or "...2") is considered an Americanism that is sub-standard for scholarly purposes. (I gather that the same holds for other Commonwealth countries.) These are comments that I've run across, made where someone has changed the "Canadian" form to the "American" form in articles on Canadian military history. Of course in informal usage, either term does just fine in Canada. However, I figured that, in line with said comments, I'd change to the "proper" Canadian form for these Canadian subjects. -- Lonewolf BC 10:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a conflict does arise about which version belongs in Cdn articles, I'm think using [[World War II|Second World War]] should satisfy both sides.
Bobanny 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm sorry to say that I don't think that piped link would help. It would appear in an article as simply "Second World War", so I don't see how that would satisfy anyone who wants to insist on "World War II". Also, [[Second World War]]" redirects to "World War II", so piping the link like that would make no effective difference. I don't see any need for conflict over this point of terminology, though. -- Lonewolf BC 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that the issue is precision rather than preference and that if your edits get reverted, the motivation would be because the article is named "World War II." I'm also under the impression that there's some technical reason that makes it preferable for wikilinks to link directly to an article rather than via a redirect. But yeah, I can't imagine anyone getting too worked up over this; besides, there's enough actual conflict on Wikipedia without worrying about ones that haven't happened yet!
Bobanny 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines given in WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken are of some worth here, I think. In short, valid redirects are nought to worry about. Anyway, enough about all that. Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless Information?

Hello Lonewolf BC. On the page for Pierre Trudeau, I had added a brief comment beside the listing of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson: "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada." I added it because this was arguably Mr. Trudeau's most important Supreme Court of Canada appointment. At the very least, the appointment made history. You have seen the need, however, to delete this historical reference to (as you say) "trim needless information." I can't argue with your other edits of this section, but there are many people who would be interested in knowing that the Prime Minister took this (for 1982) unprecedented step to have a woman on the Canadian Supreme Court. I think Mr. Trudeau's made history here. Would you not agree that the phrase "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada" could be added back to the Pierre Trudeau article, or do you maintain that it's needless information? Que-Can 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, although it is somewhat of a distinction for Justice Wilson, it is a slight matter with respect to Trudeau. So I would expect it to see it get passing mention in her article (which it does), but no, I don't think this is the place for it. I don't think this appointment reflects much on Trudeau at all. I doubt that he chose Wilson for the purpose of appointing a woman, but assume that it was on her qualifications. The appointment was scarcely a radical step by 1982. Women in Law were old hat. Woman judges were old hat. Some had reached the heights where they were considerable for appointment to the Supreme Court. It so happened that Trudeau picked one. This has very little to do with Trudeau, who merely happened to be Prime Minister at the time. So I really think it does not belong in Trudeau's article, and that including it therein has false implications about the appointment.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. I shall copy this to the article's talk page, as the input of other editors might be helpful.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lonewolf BC. Thank you for sharing your perspective on how the appointment of Justice Wilson may have been received by the public in 1982. I recall the appointment, and I thought at the time that it was significant to have a woman on the Supreme Court, but it would be interesting to review the media coverage at the time, and how historians view it now. Indeed, the decade from the mid-70s to the mid-80s was a time of historic firsts for women in Canadian public life: first woman Speaker in the Senate, first woman Speaker in the House of Commons, first woman on the Supreme Court, first woman Governor General ... and later, first woman Premier (1991, in B.C.) and first woman Prime Minister (1993). It may not have been a "radical step" by Mr. Trudeau to appoint Justice Wilson, but it was certainly long overdue to have a woman appointed that esteemed position.
Que-Can 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect2

Is the Sprotect2 template meant to be invisible? It seems to have content that is meant to appear on the pages it tags, when I look at that by using "edit" (I didn't change anything, or even save, but just looked), but is not visible on any of the pages it tags, at least among the ones I looked at. -- Lonewolf BC 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not invisible. See the top right corner where there is a lock Image, it links to the policy page. Tell me if you still don't see it. semper fi — Moe 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Yeah, I see it now. I guess my monitor is slightly out of adjustment; the lock icon is was half out of view, at the edge of the screen. I think a better place for the icon would be just to the right of the article-title. I don't know whether that is possible. Either that or make the icon bigger. It's too inconspicous as and where it is (even aside for my monitor-adjustment problem). Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can adjust to it to where it will reach the article's name or not considering the length of every articles name is different. I will however increase the size a little to make it more noticeable. Cheers! :) semper fi — Moe 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi. You asked me to review your interaction with Chris.

I honestly think you over-reacted to his attempts to discuss the topic on Talk:Mister Rogers. I don't think you have done anything particularly bad, but I think you do sometimes have a tendency to be brusque which will come across as harsh to some. I also think you should remember to distinguish between another user's actions which you may or may not like, and that user's right to do certain actions. In this case, Chris was acting as an admin, and being an admin does lead you of necessity into dealing with conflict. I see that you don't agree with certain warnings he has given you. You should beware of jumping from that to accusing him of being unfit to do his job.

As to erasing warnings, it is a contentious area and I believe consensus nowadays is that you have the right to erase or archive warnings after reading them. They remain, of course, in the page's history. However, I think you should either let them stand as written or erase/archive them. Changing the headings in the way you have may look confrontational.

Finally, I think you should ask for a second or third opinion on things sooner the next time. You are obviously both very intelligent and talented people, and dealing with your conflict in this way has led to a lot of essentially wasted energy, as it has led to no improvement in the encyclopedia. I suggest you refrain from interacting for a few weeks, cool off, and try to learn something from what has happened, as I'm sure Chris has as well.

Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown, Demerara

Hi Lonewolf BC! Thank you for your contibution[3]. --Electric Eye (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, back at you. It was a WP-novice's honest effort, and predictably flawed in some ways. Nevertheless, it is, I believe, a good example of one sort of thing that Wikipedia should do, which conventional encyclopedias cannot. That was my thinking in contributing it, at least. I plan to chip away at it some more, eventually.
-- Lonewolf BC 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gray (sea-captain)

First off, thanks for improving the Robert Gray (sea-captain) article. However, your last edit is entirely inappropriate. If you have questions about the content of the article, you need to take them to the talk page and make them there, not in the article itself. The only time HTML comments are to be used are when you are leaving instructions for other editors. I have reverted this edit and encourage you to repeat your questions on the talk page. --Bobblehead 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries -- although I mean that in two ways: Firstly, I'm not (much) bothered that you reverted the edit, and I see your point. (At least I think I do. Your objection is to my use of in-text comments that appear to an editor like so: "... article-text, article-text, article-text article-text, article-text..."; and is not to the substance of those comments. Right?) Secondly, your calling the edit "entirely inappropriate" seems like rather an overstatement, especially given that it included a number of other things besides the comments. The comments were mainly just my way of "making notes" to myself on the various content problems I found while I was in the process of making the other edits. It's a big PITA trying to keep track of such a number of problems of that kind, while going about something else, so I just "marked" them each, the better to take the lot to the talk-page, afterward.
Um... You do understand that those comments are invisible to a reader of the plain article, and only show up in editing-mode, don't you? Now that I come to think of it, if you didn't realise that were so, then that would very well explain what I take to be somewhat of an over-reaction on your part.
Anyhow, I can fetch all that back out of the article-history any time, so all is well -- except for the loss of the other edits I made at the same time, but I can re-instate those without any huge trouble.
If I've not rightly understood the nature of your objection, please straighten me out on that. -- Lonewolf BC 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a bit of a throwing of the baby out with the bathwater action with reverting in that the revert did undo edits beyond the editorializing. I'm also aware that the comments are not visible to viewers of the page, but they are visible to other editors of the page. However, that being said, a suggestion would be to create a subpage for the article in your userspace and adding your commentary there if you're just using the comments to leave notes for yourself for future changes. Then once you're done with the rewrite of the article in your userspace, copy and paste it into the existing article. If you aren't sure how to create a subpage in your user space, just select the following link and create a page. User:Lonewolf BC/Robert Gray (sea-captain). If you do go that route, you'll want to leave a comment on the talk page saying that's what you're doing.
--Bobblehead 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather much baby for the amount of bathwater, at that. ;-) I'd actually forgotten how much other work I'd included in that same edit. But that's okay; I rescued it from out of the page-history, without over-much trouble.
I'm not going to put back the intercalated remarks, in consideration of your objection to them, but I honestly don't see that they were a problem -- unorthodox, yes, but not unsuitable under the circumstances. I would not have done likewise in a busy article, but scarcely anyone else is working on this one. I know that the remarks were visible to other editors (as against readers) of the article, and that was actually part of their purpose, besides as notes to myself. I figured they should be good aids to any discussion on the talk-page, as points of reference and as in-context statements of the perceived problems. Therefore, I cordially disagree with the target of your revert (leaving aside the matter of collateral damage). But I don't propose to fight about it, either, so if you don't see my point (or do see it, but nevertheless still think the comments were a bad idea) then let's forget about them.
In any case, thanks for your suggestion of making a user-space sub-page, and for saying how. I think I might do that, and am glad to know how to create such a page, anyway. -- Lonewolf BC 08:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC Wikiproject

Invitation to join

Hi Lonewolf BC. Seen your name before but seeing your intensity on the Robert Gray stuff I'd like to invite you to join the BC Wikiproject. Seems like your help/collaboration on early regional history is a valuable resource and has depth; not sure what your other interests are but I'm collaborating with User:NorCalHistory on History of the west coast of North America and (likely) a roster of wrecks for Graveyard of the Pacific (which originally was written only in the USA centric context of the Columbia Bar.Skookum1 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining!! (and fixing my bad link). Just so you know, the usual discussion page is the talk page for the project is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia; I'm not sure anyone else will see your post on the Members page (you were the first there, as you probably noticed).Skookum1 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC WikiProject Userbox has been made

Made a stab at a userbox; check 'er out: Template:User WikiProject British Columbia (use {{User WikiProject British Columbia}} ). Fudged around with the colours and borders for a while, tried to use colours taken from the dogwood but wound up blue-adjusting the background, not quite happy with the bkgnd colour but it's better than the grey-transparent on the Vancouver userbox. Trying to think which stubs are needed; I think one for mountain and moutain range stubs (there'll be hundreds of these...), though the dogwood won't do for that; could use it for parks stubs, though, no? There's already a protected area stub that has a thing from the US Southwest on it; might as well replace it with the dogwood (d'ya like the dogwood? It's from Wikimedia Commons...I thumbed it down though). Trying to remember which other stubs are needed....bio-stub I guess for biographies, I'm thinking one for communities/settlements, have to think what else. Suggestions?Skookum1 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. I guess I'd lean toward using the coat-of-arms, for members of the project, and perhaps use the dogwood for some natural-history topics within it. Organising this sort of thing is not quite my line, though with all respect for those whose line it is. So I hope you'll forgive me if I mostly leave you to it.
Best regards, Lonewolf BC 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter wording

I didn't check the history and reverted from your wording of "which latter..." with a comment suggesting that it's an error. I'm sorry.

I admit that I'm probably flatly wrong. Your alternative might be grammatically correct. However it looks wrong to a lot of people. The fact that three editors spontaneously revised it should tell you it's awkward. Please leave it alone. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested - PSAC title

Hi. Please see [4] and [5] re the best/preferred name for an article on Puget's Sound Agricultural Company (that's my own pref).Skookum1 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the Vietnam War

Hey, thanks for your work on the article. A thorough copyedit was long overdue. - TheMightyQuill 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, and thanks back to you. I'm always glad to contribute, and am never sorry also to I get some appreciation for my trouble.
-- Lonewolf BC 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

I notice that you have reverted my attempt to revamp the Ann Coulter argument. I appreciate that you may disagree with the totality of my edit. I welcome you to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yeah... the article talk-page. That would've been the place for you to begin...
What does "BRD" mean? -- Lonewolf BC 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Interesting technique. I'd not have bitten off so much at once, were I you. Lonewolf BC 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter CSPAN source

Thanks for reading the talk page and adding a source. This source can't stand either because it's a blog, but I have no intention of editing the article again. Cool Hand Luke 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Coulter

I'm sure Kizzle did not want the removal to be a secret (I certainly didn't want to hide it). Kizzle realized that you may have taken my post differently than it was intended, (turns out kizzle was right) and that it may sidetrack the discussion. FTR-- I am not angry with you personally for proposing a change to the text, it is your right as Wikipedian to do so. What annoyed me was that it appeared to me that you were simply trying to edit around consensus, while ignoring the consensus. And since you appear as a red name, I wrongly assumed you were not aware of the ADR procedures, or consensus. BTW-- You may want to create a userpage, so that other's wont assume you are a recent addition to the community. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Please do not remove citations from material as you have done here on any article (I am not talking about moving cite information). I know you have done it in the past due to the idea that if all material in a section is from the same source then only one cite is required. First, I have never seen that as a wiki guideline/policy. Second, though that may be accepted in some writing areas, it is not in all (for instance in legal writing everything needs to be cited that is not one’s original thoughts). Third, and most importantly, as wiki is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone at anytime new information can be added into a paragraph to where eventually a section or paragraph no longer is properly cited and sourced. This can lead to information being removed for lack of being properly sourced. I hope this is not intentional. For instance I have inserted new information into the Robert Gray (sea-captain) article to previous sections where citations were removed, so that these sections can no longer be properly verified as to the content. Thank you. Aboutmovies 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One citation for a paragraph from a single source is fine. Not every statement needs to be sourced, and doing so makes for needless clutter. Sorry, but no. -- Lonewolf BC 08:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Trudeau

Please do not remove valid tags with odd edit summaries. I hardly think that my adding an unsourced tag qualifies as bias. Frankly that section has become rather contentious over the last few days with an editor adding a lot of OR material. So I don't really see how asking for a source for a section that makes wquite a claim is in fact bias. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag was "by-catch". Sorry for my oversight. On the other hand, you might have guessed, and so avoided writing to me about it with unfitting assumptions and tone. -- Lonewolf BC 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the tone. I had received email from that user along with some other users about different things and was in a bad mood. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Let's both be more careful, but we're only human. Best regards. -- Lonewolf BC 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. One of those things. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax

I noticed you reverted my edits replacing the statistics for population, etc. You should be aware that the stats are a Stats Canada conglomeration of the urban core of Halifax and Dartmouth and outlying areas of the former county - they are not representative of the former city of Halifax pre-1996 boundaries.Plasma east 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because they were pushing the point-of-view that "Halifax" now means HRM, and that Halifax, the city, has ceased to be. Specific correction the population figures for Halifax, without implication that there is no longer such a city, is fine by me, and last time I looked at the article that seemed to have been seen to. -- Lonewolf BC 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]