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.

So I saw that you created the Maritime Fur Trade page. Have you ever considered nominating it for GA review? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I've thought about it..probably will once I figure out how. Pfly ( talk) 00:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to help should you need it. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Been fixing occasional spellings; I have some historical/geographical quibbles and can see the need for a lot more info in all sections, and further sourcing, but it's amazing work so far, and none of that is relevant to GA...for FA, yes, but this is relatively brand-new....tonight's the first night I've really looked at it, Pfly, sorry about that.....between bad connections, other wiki-distractions, and real life I'm fairly wiki-scattered lately.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to quibble away. I know there are some problems and some outright mistakes (the first map, for example, says Fort Taku was founded in 1811--haven't gotten around to fixing it yet). More info in all sections...heh, yes, it's a broad topic. I actually cut a good quarter or third of the text I had drafted up because it was getting too long, I thought. It wasn't just too long but long in a patchy way--lots and lots of details on some topics and very little on others. And some of the longer passages were...tangential. Still, perhaps I should cut and paste the last pre-cut draft into my sandbox, as a resource. And..I'm with you on the distractions and real life and scattered. I probably won't have much focus here for a couple weeks at least. Pfly ( talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On April 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maritime Fur Trade, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.

Materialscientist ( talk) 00:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm deluged with taxes and helping someone move today, but this has been sitting open in a tab for a few days - "Henderson Lake". BC Geographical Names. - Henderson Lake I found referred to on List of extreme weather events in Canada (maximum rainfall in 24 hours) but the history attached to the name I thought was kinda right down your alley, so fielding this to you as ship articles/histories are involved. Skookum1 ( talk) 11:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi; care to check over my additions to Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1825) and I'm wondering where to redirect Anglo-Russian Convention of 1839.... Russo-British Convention of 1839?? Skookum1 ( talk) 03:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Heya, sure, I'll take a look in a bit--and get to Henderson Lake perhaps too. I don't know about the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1839. What was it? The HBC lease? A quick google on the two names you suggest, and British Russian, directs me to Treaty of London (1839). That's not what you mean, I assume. Pfly ( talk) 04:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean the HBC lease, seeing the redlink at the Treaty of Saint Petersburg page. As far as I know it wasn't a treaty at all, but a contract between the HBC and the RAC. I can't yet find its official name--if it even had one. It seems to usually be referred to as the "lease". Nor can I find other treaties by which the governments made it more than a contract between companies--although they apparently agreed to leave it out of the theatre of war during the Crimean War. The HBC's page about Simpson describes it like this: In 1838 Simpson travelled to St. Petersburg along with Hbc Governor Sir John Henry Pelly to negotiate a deal with the Russian American Company. The contract, signed in 1839 by Simpson and Baron von Wrangel, saw the Russians lease the Alaskan panhandle to Hbc in return for the provision of fresh foodstuffs to the Russians' headquarters at Sitka. Such was the value of this arrangement to both parties that in 1854-55 during the Crimean War, its terms were respected and, at the suggestion of Simpson, both the British and Russian governments agreed to exclude the northwest coast from the theatre of war. This OHS page describes it as the "Russian contract". There's a lot of talk, over 10-20 pages or more, about the lease in the Proceedings of the Alaska Boundary Tribunal sources. An interesting part starts on page 153, when a British diplomat explains at length to US diplomats that the HBC lease cannot be taken as an act of the British government. The government was merely "notified" about it--mainly in order to say that the Dryad affair was settled and the government could stop working on its resolution. And that "the lease was negotiated privately between Mr. Simpson..and Baron Wrangell." Another source I found describes the lease and the context in which it came about: The Hudson's Bay Company. Linked to page 154, where the terms of the lease are laid out in five points. Anyway, I'll look into it more. I'm not at all sure what it rightly ought to be called at this point. But terms like treaty, convention, even "Anglo-Russian" or other national terms like that, don't seem quite appropriate. The Proceedings of the Alaska Boundary Tribunal calls it just "the lease" or "the lease of the lisière to Hudson's Bay Company in 1839". It would be interesting to find the actual text. I made some edits to the Treaty of Saint Petersburg page, but it reads rather choppy and could be much improved. Pfly ( talk) 07:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to follow up. Found an article about it at the library: The "Russian Contract": The Agreement of 1838 between the Hudson's Bay and Russian-American Companies", by James R. Gibson, published in the book Russia in North America: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian America. They way Gibson writes about it it sounds like it has no specific name. He mostly calls it "the 1838 agreement". Also "..this pact.." And: "..what some Bay men called the 'Russian contract'.." Looks doubtful that the original text (in English) are online. He writes "For English-language copies of the agreement see HBCA, F. 29/2: 162-70, 174-77v." HBCA is the Hudson's Bay Company Archives, Winnipeg. No idea what the letter and numbers mean. Pfly ( talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I must've just jumbled it up with the 1825 Convention....or someone I read did maybe....those numbers are file boxes/folders....lots of teh HBC Archives are online, though I've never hunted through them..... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to re-read Begg, I'll keep my eyes open for what he calls it. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This incredibly-garbled bit of history was removed for being uncited, though well-known to types like us (even if/when grammatical); there's a passage and cites on History of British Columbia which I could just cross-over but thought maybe you might want to make a short summary here, as I'm likely to be unnecessarily prolix. I kind of like the arcane syntax of teh attempted addition; would seem to be some Spanish-speaker who's taken an interest in this part of Northwest history....I should probably look at the corresponding articles in http://es.wikipedia.org as there's probably details, and sources, we don't have yet. Skookum1 ( talk) 18:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, curious how only Quimper got a "Don". More time later. Pfly ( talk) 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I added a few more comments to Talk:Maritime Fur Trade/GA1. You have seven days to address the issues, and more if you want it. It is a wonderfully interesting article filled with information that I did not know. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk) 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seven days, great--I am short on time this weekend and didn't know how fast it needed to be addressed. A week should be plenty. Some of the issues you raised might take some thought--structural type things--but all good points. Thanks for reviewing it, I'm glad you liked it. While writing it I learned a lot I didn't know too. Pfly ( talk) 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. You have the time you need. Funny how the information in the article isn't more readily available as common knowledge. But then, North American history is that way! Xtzou ( Talk) 19:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I feel guilty adding qualifications, after the hard work you have put into this really great article. However, I truly believe that the reader should not be left to navigate huge chunks of text. Also, if sections are disproportionately small, perhaps they shouldn't exist. Food for thought. Xtzou ( Talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a couple of heading as trial balloons to the article. These make all the difference for me. If you don't like the ones I added, perhaps you could add others that would function better. I think the article is good to pass GA. Please let me know what you think. Xtzou ( Talk) 16:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to take a look and post some comments. Should I wait until the dust has settled from the GA? Would it be worthwhile for you to ask formally for a peer review at WP:PR, which might get you comments in addition to mine? (It's OK to have a PR and a GAN open simultaneously even though this is not true at the FAC level.) I assume you're thinking of taking this eventually to FAC. It looks like a most interesting article; I was just admiring your map of the trading posts. As to the specific question about how to avoid head and sub-head repetition, one device is to add a modifier like a date range to the duplicative subheads. Under "Origins" you might use "Russians (1741–88)", for example; that would free up "Russians" for a second use under another head, and so on. Finetooth ( talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Better sooner than later--once the dust has settled I might lose focus. My thought was as long as I was working on it anyway it might be a good time to get other opinions. I have no plans for after GAN. A PR might be interesting (never tried it before, maybe better after GAN though, eh?). I couldn't handle the work of an FAC--not until my kids are older anyway, they eat up 95% of my ability to think! Tempting thought though.. Thanks re: the maps. They were fun to make. And good idea about subheads. Pfly ( talk) 21:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the maps are great. Really interesting. I looked in some of my history books today, and they generally ignore the information you present. Xtzou ( Talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a few comments and suggestions to the article's talk page under the head "Supplementary review". Hope this helps. Finetooth ( talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and award. Another editor was working on an overall approach to the Virginia tribes, so I decided it was worth extending to others - makes some basic data easier to see.-- Parkwells ( talk) 14:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey I must have missed your response to "map of fighting clans in punjab" in my watchlist. I linked to the map there but in case you miss it on your watchlist Map. Thanks for looking at it! -- Profitoftruth85 ( talk) 08:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Kudos on your work on the Illinois etymology.

Sorry to be so late in getting involved in the revisions, but I don't really follow the Wiki developments very closely and didn't know about the vandalism until somebody emailed me about them.

I have made a couple of comments about your revision, notably about Inoka. Inoka, of course, is the centerpiece of the "everything written about the etymology of Illinois for the past 300 years is wrong" school of thought. (That's a quote, or pretty close to one by David Costa.) Another centerpiece is that Moingona (a Miami-Illinois language/culture) means "shitfaced." I see that vandalism has been reposted on the Moingona Wiki page.

Inoka and shitfaced are not going to go away.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at my revisions of your revision. If you or nobody else has a problem with it over the next couple of weeks I will repost it.

As I said earlier, I really don't check my Wiki resources very diligently. The best way to get in touch with me is at jimfay@prairieinet.net

JPFay ( talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I recall you got the facts about the HBC presence at Yerba Buena than I ever did; I just noticed History_of_California_to_1899#Other_nationalities and there's a muddling of British and American fur trade histories and trails....there's also no mention of the Kanakas (not unrelated to the HBC, of course). Skookum1 ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yea, there were American fur traders who visited California during that era, like Jedediah Smith, who went via the Old Spanish Trail (trade route), iirc. Not sure how many others (if any). Some info over at California Fur Rush. Pfly ( talk) 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, I was implying or suggesting that you'd be the guy to add mention of the HBC's Yerba Buena post, which isn't mentioned and IMO should be... Skookum1 ( talk) 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep yep, I read it that way. Can't promise anything soon--Maritime Fur Trade is about to become a "good article" (or fail to) and I got a bit more to do with that and trying to stay focused on it. Add in a hugely packed weekend and next week and, well, you know. Plus I only have a little info about Yerba Buena--from Mackie's book "Trading Beyond the Mountains". Otoh, I did check a book out from the library called "The Hudson's Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821-1869", by John Galbraith. Big and dense and full of detailed info. Perhaps I'll find time to dig into it on several topics that we've talked about. While getting library books I also took the journals of William Fraser Tolmie, 1830 to about 1843, at various locations incl Ft "Nusqually, "Honoruru" (assuming Honolulu), Ft Vancouver, Ft McLoughlin, Ft Simpson, much else. Might be interesting. Hmm, opened to a random page: Sat., Jan 26: Till 2 P.M. dissecting albatross No. 1--species of Temminck Diomedea. Read Magendie in afternoon on circulation in veins & their absorption which from expts. made cannot be doubted. Um..huh? Pfly ( talk) 05:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In your readings have you come across the name of an old HBC post which stood at the south end of Teslin Lake? See the Teslin Lake Indian Reserve No. 7 mention on Taku River Tlingit First Nation#Indian Reserves, where it mentions it. Teslin Post was at the site of today's Teslin, Yukon and is the namesake of Teslin Post Indian Reserve 13 (which redirects to Teslin, Yukon, as they're adjoining each other). That link I sent you farther up this page about the exploration of the Liard basin I don't think will have it, partly because many of these posts were only started in the very late 1800s or early 1900s...(like Teslin Post, which was built in 1903). Skookum1 ( talk) 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

er, maybe that link is on Talk:Fort Stikine or one of those related pages we were on about a few nights ago, I see it's not on your talkpage here; I think you know the one I mean...relating to McLeod's explorations I think it was... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of it, but found some info:

• Sights and Sites of the Yukon: "The HBC had established a trading post on Teslin Lake in 1898 and a small settlement called Galbraith (or Galbraith's Post) grew up around it... The post closed after the brief gold rush boom but a second trading post was build in 1903 near Nisutlin Bay at the present site of the town of Teslin. The Inland Tlingit continued to trap and hunt, ranging over a large area of land, but the new settlement of Teslin became their summer headquarters.
• Teslin Tlingit Council: In 1898, the HBC established a trading post at the south end of Teslin Lake, near the Jennings River. Short lived, the post closed in 1901. A new trading post opened in 1904, where the Village of Teslin is located today. It became a meeting place for the local Inland Tlingit during the summer months. With the construction of the Alaska Highway in 1942, Teslin became a permanent settlement.

The Teslin Post you mention would be the second HBC post at "Teslin"? Funny that the first one's settlement was called Galbraith--that's the name of the author of the book I just mentioned above. Weird coincidence. But hey! I was supposed to be finishing up Maritime Fur Trade right now! ;-) Pfly ( talk) 05:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotsmen=HBC=Scotsmen. There was also a Galbraith's Ferry somewhere....might be the same Galbraith's (if I was a bit more awake I'd remember where)....quite possible that historian is a relation, and wrote an HBC history because of the connection... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Wild Horse Creek/ Fisherville - see "Tobacco Plains (plain)". BC Geographical Names. about Kootenay Post (which was at/near Fisherville, aka Kootenay, British Columbia). Quite possibly the same Galbraith (as at Galbraith's Post and I wouldn't be surprised if the historian was his son or something).. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about it a bit more. As a result, I have started a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. I will do my best to inform everyone who might be interested without violating WP:CANVASS. Thanks for your input in this matter. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Droll's talk page.

I was looking up Old Hogem in google and found a good account of the Omineca Gold Rush and other matters; laughably it uses Wikipedia as a source for Tsay Keh Dene history (wherever that material came from, possibly User:Billposer), but it's fairly interesting in many ways, including connections to the land-based fur trade and accounts of trails that most people (including me) have never heard of....the Omineca Gold Rush is one of the "lesser gold rushes" but like all of them an epic story of overland travel and wilderness hardship and strange and often deadly glory...all so much more interesting than template-wrangling... Skookum1 ( talk) 03:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember the gulch/hollow thing? I ran a search on GNIS just now for "bearwallow" because of the old name for the Sustut River and its headwater-lake, thinking that it was maybe a rare name. Nope, there's 130 instances in GNIS, though one or two are "bear hollow"....no time for a Bear Hollow/ Bear Wallow set of disambiguation pages but even the wiki-search turns up a large number of entries..." Bear Wallow", though directs solely to an unincorporated "crossroads settlement" in Kentucky LOL.....needless to say a lot of Omineca gold miners were American, but it's interesting to me sometimes the prevalence of American-style placenames in certain parts of BC....lots of "gulches" aroudn Lillooet, for instance, though few of those are in BCGNIS (not official names, just local parlance). Skookum1 ( talk) 04:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yea, I've read, somewhere, about the surprisingly widespread "bear wallow" place name. GNIS returns 277 places with "wallow" in the name, nearly all are some animal + Wallow: Coon Wallow, Hog Wallow, Bear Wallow, Gator Wallow,.. Elk, Burro, Sheep, Wolf, Buffalo, etc. Bear Wallow is by far the most common. Hog and Elk Wallow are pretty common too. I looked it up in the OED just now, and got a chuckle from reading: bear-wallow U.S., a hollow in the ground attributed to the wallowing of bears. hog-wallow, a hollow or ditch in which pigs wallow; also, spec. in U.S., a natural depression having this appearance. And plain old "wallow" (noun, def 1.b): A mud-hole or dust-hole formed by the wallowing of a buffalo, elephant, or rhinoceros. How odd, there are no Rhinoceros Wallows in GNIS.

Bear Wallow sounds funny probably because people think of "wallow" as a verb instead of a noun. These days people don't usually come across wallows, but in the days of pioneers (and place naming) it was probably fairly common. Wikipedia even has a photo of a wallow (buffalo in this case): File:Johnson 1920 HighPlains.jpg. In a sense, the place name Bear Wallow is sort of like Beaverdam. It's not about the animal itself but evidence of it. Beaverdam doesn't sound as funny though, for obvious reasons. GNIS returns 575 places with "beaverdam" in the name.

Another odd one is Possum Trot. GNIS returns 47 places named Possum Trot (more than double the number of Hog Wallows!), like Possum Trot Creek, Possum Trot Church, Possum Trot Cemetery,.. Hollow, Ridge, Ditch, etc. Including five towns and one "locale" simply named Possum Trot. A quick search on this suggests that "possum trot" was an expression similar to "middle of nowhere" or "one horse town". And that "trot" refers to a trail formed by possums, not their gait (I can't even imagine a possum trotting, they are so slow). So calling a place Possum Trot suggested it was so remote that possums formed regular trails. Then, of course, there are those thousands of "lick" place names, which occur in all manner of possibly funny forms. Big Lick. Beaver Lick. Big Bone Lick. French Lick. I won't go on. ..but I was somewhat surprised that Wikipedia doesn't have a page about "bear wallow" or "possum trot", as place names. Well, not that surprised. Pfly ( talk) 05:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised either; so many "Wikipedians" are busy designing templates and finding reasons to delete public domain images that they don't actually do any research or create any articles.... Skookum1 ( talk) 11:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See [ [1]]....I'd say an article just on Bear wallow as a "thing" might be amusing....makes me wonder about the Sustut headwaters too, I know the map in that area, looks like miles of swamp in the valley-basins....must have been a hair-raising journey to get to the Omineca from Hazelton (that was one of the primary routes). Skookum1 ( talk) 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I de-POVized this somewhat just now, mostly by taking out my weedwhacker and removing extraneous US domestic politics and fixed some wording that was decidedly USPOV in nature, as well as fixing the irrelevant logic applied to Fort Ross; the remaining bumpf at the bottom about things become BC and Alaska needs work, but I saw no reason to discuss Polk etc in relation to Oregon. What it needs, other than more de-POVizing, is an explanation of why the 1824 and 1825 agreements were reached, i.e. things to to with the maritime fur trade, adn teh terms of the Ukases of 1799 and 1821......more on this later, just wanted to apprise you of it as it relates to the Maritime Fur Trade article. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just saw on my TV listings that the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network is showing a Canadian Geographic documentary, Dance of the Sea Otter, in 12 minutes (8 pm Atlantic time). It's probably viewable on line via either APTN's site or via Canadian Geographic's...if not you could probably request that Seattle-PBS find it and air it; I'll watch it for you, see if there's anything interesting; it's either that or Dog The Bounty Hunter (I get very limited cable) LOL. Skookum1 ( talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, found it's page here--not online it seems. I don't have a TV at all. Looks like it is mainly about the reintroduction of sea otters on the BC coast (from the Aleutians I think) in the 1970s. I've read that this had been done, but know almost nothing about it. I think there are still sea otters off the coasts of Washington and Oregon, but may well be wrong. There's still some Californian sea otters, I'm pretty sure. Apparently the variety that had lived on the BC coast was totally eliminated. I've been thinking I should someday add a subsection to the "Significance" section of Maritime Fur Trade titled "Sea Otters". The article describes the long-term significance of the trade on PNW natives, Hawaiians, China, New England, etc, but not the poor sea otters themselves. Pfly ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, watched most of it...turns out they are in conflict, ironically, with the local native people of Kyuquot (Cai-YOU-ket, sorta) for fish and invertebrates (shellfish especially, in great abundance since they were wiped out of the ecosystem but now reduced that's they're back); but they keep down things that destroy kelp, and so the kelp flourishes, and the fishery rebounds....pretty interesting; stunning footage throughout...one seastar they showed, only 8" in the shot, apparently grows as big as 10'...even the little ones can catch a crab, so it makes you wonder about lolling around in the tidal pond.i.e. as to how fast they could catch you....worth watching, sort of a pity that it's not online, but Canadian Geographic is probably a nice magazine to subscribe to.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for getting started on this article. I did some work on related articles but have neglected this area for a while. As you know many fur traders spent the winters in Hawaii so there was much influence. Recently I got the book "The Life and Times of John Young" by Cahill which has some good material on this era, but I have not had the time to add it yet. The Hawaii Journal of History also have some papers online. Let me know if I can help review or integrate. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you did a good job on the names, thanks for the article. I can do a pass on copyediting (there is a little duplication, for example) and maybe add a biobox, but it is in good shape already, e.g. for a DYK. One problem I have is where to put the battle boxes for the related incidents. Right now the Olowalu massacre box is on Olowalu, which makes sense. I wanted to emphasize the Fair American incident was separate, so had another box for that, but putting it in Olowalu is odd. The main problem is that I do not know where the capture of the Fair American actually was. Generally sources say somewhere in the Kona-Kohala coast. As you discovered, the names are not well defined - Kona just means the downwind side of the island, and is most confusing in that each island can have a Kona district. One theory in fact is that it was in a bay that was filled in by the 1802 eruption of Hualalai, which would put it somewhere around the current Kona International Airport. So maybe we should put that box in this article (or maybe Isaac Davis, actually?). I did have a source that said there were only five crew, T. Metcalfe, Davis, and three others.

Is it right to "captured by the Haida"? I guess I was not familiar with the native groups of the area and had to click through to find out that's what it was. Would "members of the Haida tribe" be better or worse?

And if you want another interesting character who went through the Pacific Northwest and Hawaii, did you know about John Ricord? His article could use more on his time there. W Nowicki ( talk) 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better. The "captured by the Haida" thing should probably be expanded. I'm sure I've read more about it somewhere. The source cited here, Howay, doesn't go into much detail. The phrase "captured by the Haida" seems reasonably equivalent to something like "captured by the Spanish". But yes, it would be better to explain who the Haida were/are and what group was involved. The Haida were not politically unified. I think it was chief Koyah and his people who killed Metcalfe, but will have to do some research. ..I hadn't heard of John Ricord, interesting. Pfly ( talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you and W Nowicki filed a DYK yet? Viriditas ( talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not me; haven't had time. Pfly ( talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, but it is not a good idea. It's way too vulnerable to single-digit typos or vandalism, for starters, but there are several other reasons. Instead, please consider {{cite book|title=The Sun|isbn=0123456789}} The bot can still fill in the details, but this way subtle errors are more likely to be caught if there is at least a modicum of information to cross check. The more info you provide, of course, the more likely it is that the book you looked at will be the one the bot correctly populates. Using |year= is highly recommended. Similarly {{cite journal|author=Smith J|jstor=1234567}} Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was just wondering anyway. Pfly ( talk) 17:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I noted at WP:TFD, I wrote more stuff in my user space in an attempt to answer your question about the use of PAGENAME. You can find it here. – droll  [chat] 01:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Google book on Ignacio de Arteaga y Bazán. The anon IP is very pushy about Basque edits and edits without supplying citations. I followed it here to this article from another he did a similar edit on. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 22:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I've noticed similar edits in various places--using surnames in Spain as indicative of a person's ethnicity. I'm can believe that surnames are a fairly good indicator, but it seems unlikely that there's never an exception. Pfly ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly there are some people who have traced names to delineate their heritage, coat of arms, nationality, etc. It becomes a matter of was the research properly done and can it be verified. Then, there editors like the anon IP who push edits based upon some kind of POV they have. In some cases or articles, they get away with and I have two or three editors who "gang" up to push the edit. Names in and of themselves are not a good indicator. For while my surname could be supposed to be Mexican, it traces its roots to Spain and I have heard are Portuguese, Italian, Polish and Czech versions. Scholarly research with verifiable documentation would be the only way to firmly establish nationality. Even then you get into a problem that many European countries did not have delineated borders, states or provinces. It was like one set of people living next to each other. The Basque region has always been hurt by the fact that it was a minor kingdom, region or people depending on who the victor was in writing history. But, that gets into original thought. . .---- moreno oso ( talk) 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)R

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you wanted an excuse to visit San Diego, the maritime museum here has an excellent collection of early exploration maps of the west coast, including Spanish, Russian, British, and French (?!) explorers. Kmusser ( talk) 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Chimakum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Nsk92 ( talk) 12:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On 9 July 2010 I changed again the map, and it was afraid of a new surge, but not. Actually the merit of droving off rather seems yours, I can find many sources, depict them as better I can on a map and justify them, but in short, the resultant map is the object of a degree of displeasure ergo I induce that displeasure. Best regards. Trasamundo ( talk) 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chimakum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Pfly. You have new messages at Plastikspork's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Pfly. I was wondering whether you could play the sequence B♯-C' in your file, rather than the opposite. Your file is used in the article Diesis, where the definition cleary states that the diesis is B♯-C', because C' is 128/125 ABOVE B♯ (in other words, 128/125 is larger than 1/1). Thus, it would be nice to have an ascending diesis (ratio 128/125), rather than a descending one (ratio 125/128) in your audio example. This would also make the caption simpler and consistent with the definition. Thank you.

Paolo.dL ( talk) 23:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see what you mean about 128/125 vs 125/128. That makes a lot of sense. I made that example a long time ago now and someone else converted my plain MIDI into a nice ogg using a sine-like synth tone instead of the ugly default MIDI piano. It would take some time to figure out how I made the MIDI file and even then it would need to be converted to ogg. The MIDI version worked, but could come out wrong due to different computer sound cards having their MIDI pitch bend's set differently. So it may take a while for me to get to fixing it. 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Yes, I have read on Talk:Diesis that Keenan Pepper converted it into OGG. Also, it seems you used a software called Scala. Unfortunately, I cannot help you because I don't even know what the "MIDI pitch bend's set" is, and have never produced a MIDI file. However, as far as I know MIDI is a kind of programming language, and the MIDI file is a list of commands (probably in ASCII code), so you might be able to fix the file by just swapping the two commands producing B♯ and C', even without using Scala, with a text editor such as "block note" in Windows. If you will be able to fix your file, please let me know, or change the caption in Diesis accordingly. Thank you. Paolo.dL ( talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(The next posting was moved from User talk:Paolo.dL into this section)

Hi, I only just noticed that you're using your talk page for this open letter. Obviously my earlier post about the diesis page didn't belong here and was removed. That's fine, but I have to ask: how should editors like me write to you? In the diesis case I could have (and will) responded on my talk page, but what if something new came up that would be best posted on your talk page? My first thought was that maybe your open letter could be a subpage? Anyway..I've only skimmed the open letter, but it looks very useful. I've seen numerous newbies "bitten", sometimes really badly. I'll read more carefully later. It really is a problem that happens too frequently. (you can, of course, delete this section I'm posting right now--reply at my talk page if you wish). Pfly ( talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That open letter was and still is my talk page! I just mildly refactored it, but it contains postings that I received there. I just added a title and a short introduction. The only difference from a typical user talk page is that I prefer to keep there the messages I received when I was a newby, rather than the latest messages. Other people uses my talk page sometimes to post messages. And everybody, including you, should feel free to do it. Typically, however, I discuss on the talk pages of articles. Other editors very rarely use my talk page. When they do, I answer on their talk pages, and either copy their posting there, or archive it. It is a little bit unconfortable for me, but I like the idea that everyone can post there their comments about the open letter. And as you can see, comments about the open letter are not removed (unless they are too wordy or redundant with respect to what has already been told).

It is important for me to keep the open letter there because I want it to be read by as many people as possible. Maybe someone will, in future, try to implement my suggestions to make MediaWiki's user interface a little bit " wikier", with the ultimate purpose to make life for newbies a little bit easier.

By the way, if other people had not supported my statements in my talk page, I would have probably run away from Wikipedia. Without that open letter, I wouldn't be here, trying to fix Diesis. And you would not need to write me... :-)

Paolo.dL ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, works for me! Glad you survived your newbie experiences. I'll read your suggestions when I have more time. I once saw a newbie get indefinately blocked with no ability to even request an appeal, for supposedly being a sockpuppet of a banned editor. The blocking admin was personally involved in an issue that the newbie had mildly criticized as unhelpful (it was unhelpful too--the admin was making a giant mess), and that admin had had trouble with the blocked editor this new one was supposed a sockpuppet of. The only proof offered was a supposedly similar style of writing. The newbie managed to appeal via email and after an ugly argument with other admins the newbie was unblocked and the blocking admin "scolded" for being "excessively draconian" (but never offered the least apology). I was amazed the newbie didn't just quit Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll read your page when I have the time. Also I asked Keenan Pepper if he could help with that ogg file, and will get to it myself eventually. It may take a bit of time though. My two year old son got six stitches on his forehead last night, ow! So things are a bit hectic here. :-) Pfly ( talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied to this thread at File talk:Diesis-example.ogg. — Keenan Pepper 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the Bull Run River article. Cedar River looks good, nice lead image and interesting image of the Renton Library over the water. I'm guessing that's a unique occurrence. By the way, reading one of your notes related to, I think, the Jordan River, I picked up a copy of Cadillac Desert, which I had never read. I'm only part-way through, but I'm liking it a lot. Thanks for the tip. Finetooth ( talk) 16:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I started looking into this and I think this article is wrong. The long river that parallels the Bermejo is for the most part the Bermejito which is intermittent, and most of which flows back into the Bermejo. Some of that might flow into the Guaycurú, which is also parallel, but that is not the same river as the Negro - it flows to the Parana independently. As far as I can tell, while they are in the neighborhood, neither the Bermejito or Guaycurú flows into the Negro. Best on-line map I found of the area is [2], it shows all of the rivers in question and seems to agree with my GIS data. Kmusser ( talk) 16:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Nice map you found. Streams around there are confusing--lots of wetlands. I'll make changes to articles as best I can. Pfly ( talk) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Any progress on the template? I have been messing with a few and can pick up where you left off if I know what the current situation was. Thanks.-- NortyNort (Holla) 12:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news!!! I got the chart up in the assessment page and fixed the template. Here is what happened. You (or someone) made two different sets of importance/quality categories. For quality and importance, the wrong ones are Category:Dams articles by quality and Category:Dams articles by importance. Category:Dam articles by quality and Category:Dam articles by importance are correct and are the ones being read by the bot. The bot has two different projects in its directory "Dams" and Dam", "Dam" happens to be the one that works. I also added some parent categories here and there which I think helped as well.

So, from here, I think we should CfD the two empty and unused categories: Category:Dams articles by quality and Category:Dams articles by importance. The only page under these categories is User_talk:Shannon1/Dams and maybe she'll turn that into a redirect. It is an incorrect name ("Dam") that the bot lists the correct chart but I am ok with leaving well enough alone. Also, I fixed the assessment template (95% sure). I added the infobox, importance and hydroelectric fields along with documentation. This was done by re-engineering the coding from the Rivers project template. I also connected the existing Category:Dams articles needing attention into the template and created and plugged in Category:Dams articles needing infoboxes into the template as well. I tested all this on a talk page and it works.

This was my first time messing with this stuff and don't know for sure how it all came together. You did a lot of the leg-work. If anything is wrong, please let me know. If everything is good, we can go about tagging articles and will have to re-tag most of the ones we tagged already. -- NortyNort (Holla) 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well then I will CfD those categories later and we can use the template. I asked Rehman if that was what he had in mind but in any event, I don't know how much more WP:Energy representation we can do. There is nothing wrong with having both tags on the talk page but if there are a lot, they need to be collapsed. I agree about the South American Dams. I expanded the Tucuruí Dam a few weeks ago. There are a lot a big dams/hydroelectric stations in that continent. We can put it on our "To Do" list. I am currently working the Manic-Outardes project now in Canada.-- NortyNort (Holla) 05:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If the attention field is filled out as "Yes" then the page will be listed here: Category:Dams articles needing attention. I saw it on other projects and I would only tag an article with it if I saw an article that was in aweful shape, i.e. it has no cats, it is vandalized, needs a move, etc. That category and the infobox cats use "Dams" instead of "Dam" like the rest, so I am going to switch those too and will fix templates on any already listed. As far as the energy tag, if there are no WP Energy tags on the talk page, someone can place it there. The more I think about it, the more confusing it seems to make a link to WP:Energy. What if both have tags? Now there is two links to WP:Energy. Like you said, dams aren't much of a huge priority too. If it falls under both projects, then it should get both tags. What do you think? -- NortyNort (Holla) 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think under any circumstance we should have to remove either tag. Tags serve a bunch of purposes and we can just collapse multiple ones. I will give a heads up over on the WP:ENERGY page now and see how it goes.-- NortyNort (Holla) 07:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Started it here. -- NortyNort (Holla) 07:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are good tips, thank you. I decided that the Kings River was slightly under 40 and discarded it, but I don't remember how I came to that conclusion. Maybe I just wanted it to be 39 so I could ignore it. :-) I'll have to re-check and see if I can find my notes (such as they are). The other one, Big Sheep Creek, I had not considered, but I will. If you spot any more, please let me know. The work-in-progress is at User:Finetooth/Sandbox3 if you'd like to see what it looks like. Finetooth ( talk) 04:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pfly,

I am so delighted to have someone encouraging me as you did in your message ;) though, I mainly contribute to the Arabic Wikipedia, perhaps because of my insufficient knowledge in English and of course the tiny number of Arabic articles compared to English. I seems you like visiting places, and I hope you can visit Yemen whenever you like (but be careful of tribes rather than terror lol).

Best regards, Email4mobile ( talk) 13:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that things like embezzling money have just as much punishment as a violent murder. The murder is always excused as "He is insane", "His childhood was rough", "It was a natural reaction to the situation", "We should be tolerant", and don't give him his just punishment. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 11:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The main law in the Bible is that people should love each other. When people love each other, they respect each other's private property and right to a life. Murderers of "innocent blood" should be punished by death. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Another quote: Matthew 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. It might be wiser to turn the other cheek. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 13:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)