Talk:Chantry Island Lighthouse

Revise title of article? (Topic previously titled Naming)
The lead says that it is known most notably as Chantry Island Lighthouse, can I propose that it is renamed as such, rather than the odd Chantry Island Lightstation Tower which suggests that the article is only about the Tower...Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Jokulhlaup I wrote this article and it is about my home, all legal documents from the Canadian Government it is registered as Chantry Island Lightstation Tower. Maybe you should re-read the first paragraph again, the explanation regarding the name is sufficient and completely explains why it must be called and referred to Lightstation Tower. No, the article cannot be renamed.Imasku (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Imasku - I’d almost forgotten that I added this comment, the title Chantry Island Lightstation Tower is used by the Canadian Register of Historic Places to differentiate between the Tower and the Lightkeeper's Dwelling. As the article is about the entire complex, it should really be Chantry Island Lighthouse or Chantry Island Lightstation. (A similar situation has the CRHP link as Gannet Rock Light Tower but the article is named as the Gannet Rock Lighthouse)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jokulhlaup The wording lightstation is used to refer to the actual lighthouse, the property on which the lighted tower is situated, the tower's light and refers to any equipment or other buildings located on the island property. Why are you so intent on changing the name which the Lighthouse is registered in all documents I located by the Canadian Government. I do not recall you being anywhere around when this article was being researched and written. NO, the name cannot be changed I am the Creator of this article entirely.Imasku (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Jokulhlaup I also wondered if the title should be changed to Lighthouse, but the Government of Canada does refer to it as a Lightstation. http://www.historicplaces.ca/media/15197/1990-213(e)chantryislandlightstationtower.pdf Peter K Burian (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Jokulhlaup The more I think about it, the word Tower should be dropped from the title. The article is about the entire facility: tower, keeper's cottage, dock, boathouse etc. Not just about the tower. The word lightstation may be fine however, although no other lighthouse article on Wikipedia uses that term in its title. (Except Imperial Towers and that article is about the six towers not the entire facilities.) Your thoughts @ Sergecross73 ? Peter K Burian (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually WP:COMMONNAME is what we use for naming things - basically, the name most commonly used for the subject. It may be worth re-exploring this, as Imasku's reasoning sounds more along the lines of WP:OFFICIALNAME, which is not generally the end-all, be-all rationale for naming articles. Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I vote that we drop the word Tower because the article is about the entire light station facility, not just about the tower. And because no other lighthouse article on Wikipedia uses the term tower in the title. For example, see List of lighthouses in Canada. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference between "lighthouse" and "lightstation" in the topic area? Not challenging you, I just literally don't know. Sergecross73   msg me  15:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For many, many years, I have been vacationing on Lake Huron including in two areas with Imperial Towers lighthouses: Chantry and Point Clark. I have never heard anyone call either a Lightstation. (In fact, the Point Clark Lighthouse article does not call that one a station and it's virtually identical to Chantry.) The word exists and some articles about some lighthouses do use it. https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lightstation+Ontario+canada&start=10&*


 * The Society that manages Chantry calls it a Light Station. http://www.chantryisland.com/ '''People who have worked with that group probably do too.

'''
 * One government document calls it a Lightstation http://www.historicplaces.ca/media/15197/1990-213(e)chantryislandlightstationtower.pdf .......... but in local parlance, we do not do so. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, people try to determine WP:COMMONNAME through search engine hits. For example, as of writing this:
 * Chantry Island Lightstation gets 7,700 hits.
 * Chantry Island Lightstation Tower gets 41,500 hits
 * Chantry Island Lighthouse give 66,300 hits.
 * So, with that sort of evidence, one could argue that "Chantry Island Lighthouse" looks to be a more common name in in this instance. That's just one of many possible ways though, so it's just an idea. Sergecross73   msg me  18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

'''
 * I change my vote to Chantry Island Lighthouse  for consistency with nearly all of the numerous lighthouse articles on Wikipedia. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well its been a few days now, and there doesn't seem to be an active opposition, so it looks like you're free to move the article. Sergecross73   msg me  14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with changing it to Chantry Island Lighthouse, either. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both.

@ Sergecross73 Please direct me to a WP article that provides a nice, simple explanation as to how to do this. (Start new topic, move all content, .....?) Peter K Burian (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can just use the "move" button above. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done it on your behalf, Peter, but looking over WP:MOVE should help you with doing it in the future. Sergecross73   msg me  16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the article will require some editing to accommodate the change in title. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have revised the text so it is now in line with the new title. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chantry Island Lightstation Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209072239/http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/index_e.cfm to https://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=5F569149-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Lighthouse keepers... who is Mills????
Source says:

The Chantry Island lighthouse, now completely renovated, was completed in 1859, with Duncan McG. Lambert as the first keeper. http://www.electricscotland.com/history/canada/bruce/chapter38.htm

Was there a keeper prior to him?? Peter K Burian (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Robert Mills cared for the tower’s temporary light for a season before Duncan McGregor Lambert, who had many years of maritime experience, took charge of the light in 1858. In 1854, Lambert was first mate aboard the steamer Bruce Mines, when it sank near Stokes Bay, and was largely responsible for ushering the crew into two small boats and safely seeing them to Owen Sound, a voyage of over a hundred miles. http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=1048 Peter K Burian (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is fascinating - sounds like lifesaving was a good skill for lighthouse-keepers to have. Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but the bottom line is that Mills was not the first light keeper. That was McGregor. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted all of my edits? Mediation to follow
This article was not adequate to be even rated as START level.

I did a lot of work on it, adding fully cited content.

Today it was reverted by @Imasku

'''18:28, 14 March 2017‎ Imasku (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (14,086 bytes) (-3,444)‎. . (Reverted 16 edits by Peter K Burian (talk) to last revision by Jokulhlaup. (TW)) '''

With no explanation. I consider this to be vandalism. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * @Imasku This is the last version with my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chantry_Island_Lightstation_Tower&oldid=767943851 '''Nothing is showing up in red! There are many citations.


 * You might want to compare two versions (before and after my edits) and you will find that the content I added is cited. I'm sure that is where the Administrators would start. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Peter K Burian I am not going to fight over this and it appears that is all you wish to do. Maybe you should check cites 7, 13, 21 they are in red. I have researched this article in depth, this is also my home. Most of your add ins, did not have fully cited material -- they where missing titles, links etc. Which is why they came up in red. I am not challenging his work or time spent, I am challenging his content and proof. When I researched this article, there was a lot of material I wanted to add and could not, as I could not locate info that could not be challenged in verifying. Everything I put in this article and proved came directly from the Federal Government. I had to accept it, which is why I made sure website links where added to the article. I am sorry someones pride is hurt over this article, however, I am an historian on this lightstation and a Doctorate Researcher and the Creator of this article. 23:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that '''being the creator of the page affords no extra privileges with regard to content - see WP:OWN.

'''
 * @Imasku This is not a fight; this is the prelude to WP:DR because you deleted every single one of my edits. I doubt they will be convinced that living in the area, and having done research on it, is a reason to delete every single word of fully cited content added by another editor.


 * Citation "problems": ''' In three citations there is a single item that needs to be fixed, and that shows up in red. Two are only Check date values. (#7, #13, #21) Is that a reason to delete all of the content I had added?

'  "About Chantry Island". Chantry Island. Marine Heritage Society. 2016. Retrieved 28 February 2017.. Check date values in: |access-date=''   But the rest of the citation is fine.

''Chantry Island, ON. Lighthouse Friends http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=1048. Retrieved 28 February 2017. "Robert Mills cared for the tower’s temporary light for a season before Duncan McGregor Lambert, who had many years of maritime experience, took charge of the light in 1858. In 1854, Lambert was first mate aboard the steamer Bruce Mines, when it sank near Stokes Bay, and was largely responsible for ushering the crew into two small boats and safely seeing them to Owen Sound, a voyage of over a hundred miles." Missing or empty |title='' But the rest of the citation is fine.

''"About Chantry Island". Chantry Island. Marine Heritage Society. 2016. Retrieved 28 February 2017.. Check date values in: |access-date=''  But the rest of the citation is fine.


 * (I am not a pre-PhD candidate. I have visited Chantry Island with the tour, and have been in Southampton for at least a week, every year since I was 10 years old. And for 15+ years, I was a full time writer for magazines and sometimes the Editor. AND I have authored or co-authored 20 books. See https://www.amazon.com/Peter-K.-Burian/e/B000APJZYW So, clearly I know how to research. But none of that is relevant to Wikipedia.)


 * Are you saying you will not take steps to get my edits back into the content? If so, we have reached an impasse and I will move to the next step. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Whose photo is it? Lighthouse, In the lede. Tasha Heart?

 * @Imasku The EXIF data for the photo says it was taken by Tasha Heart and the copyright is owned by Tasha Heart. I don't know your name, but if it is not Tasha Heart, you may need to explain this.

Lightkeeper's Dwelling, Lighthouse and Shed Imasku - Own work

Camera manufacturer Canon Camera model Canon EOS REBEL T5i '''Author Tasha Heart Copyright holder Tasha Heart''' Peter K Burian (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * user:Peter K Burian I will be filing a complaint against you with the Administrators. I am rather sickened by your attitude. It is fairly obvious you think only men, can hold doctorate degrees. Your attitude toward everything is absolutely disgusting. You have no right to challenge me on this article or any images I legally OWN! Hopefully I have made myself clear and perfectly understood! Imasku (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I was only pointing out that the photo's Copyright was Tasha Heart. At no time did I suggest whether the name Imasku is male or female. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * user:Peter K Burian In everything I have read you have lowered me to being a 'he' that is what you have written all over your mediation. Your attitude is absolutely disgusting, however, does not surprise me I expected it. Imasku (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please you two, go to your corners and stop fighting.
 * Peter K Burian - you could have just asked about the image without the implication that something untoward was going on - and yes, your implied tone was very clear.  To say "I was only pointing out" is disingenuous.
 * Peter, you're the one who asked for mediation in this instance, mediation's purpose is:
 * "to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content. ... It is not an aim of mediation to produce mutual amity between the disputants, but increased tolerance and respect is an important goal."
 * It is obvious that Imasku cares very much about this subject, it would help the situation if you could approach them with more civility than you think you need.
 * And Imasku, not every post on this talk page or on your user talk, not every edit on or change to the article is an attack against you or your editing.
 * You both need to try to work on this together, you both need to be able to build consensus together. It doesn't mean you have to be friends, but if you both intend to work on this article or other similar and associated articles in the future then you will have to be able to put up with each other when you run into each other around Wikipedia.
 * Try to remember - please? - to comment on the edit not the editor.
 * I've tried to do what I could do, both on the article and now between the two of you, but you two are the ones who have got to find a way to work together. if you can't, going down the road of Dispute Resolution is not for the faint of heart, it would be better if you two could settle it between yourselves.  I am sorry you're both upset, you've both been editing around WP for quite a while, can't you see your way around this present unpleasantness? Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Shearonink This was a good learning experience for me - on how to not to proceed when another User deletes every word of content that I had added to an article. As you can tell, I was very unhappy when that happened. This has been a good learning experience for me. The Reply from Mediation gave me good direction on how to handle such as situation in future. Yes, I have been on Wikipedia for some time (Created on 16 February 2007 at 13:46) but once in a while I still learn something about procedure. I was involved in mediation in the past, and it went very well, so I know the process can work if I use the approach the Mediators suggested. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added edits
I have made a few changes and additions. Fully cited with no problems in the citations. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Peter K Burian I forgot to thank you, thanks for destroying an article that did not require or need any further information, it was already there, however, you do not know enough regarding proper research to recognize this.Imasku (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The intro to an article usually includes a bit of the content that is provided in more detail later in the text. Is that duplication of information? Apparently not because that seems to be the standard method on Wikipedia. WP:LEAD:

The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.


 * Thank you for not deleting the brief summary paragraph (and citation) that I added last night. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Thank you for restoring info
User:Jokulhlaup I did not get the chance to thank you for adding the lighthouse portal information to this article, which I did not know how to do and was removed by a user on the 15 March. Thank you for restoring it. This article sadly has been destroyed with information altered and removed since February. Wikipedia has the reputation of being an ‘unreputable source of information’ and that will be its legacy which wikipedia has brought upon itself. I have taken steps to ensure this Lightstation will be preserved in another encyclopedia where the information cannot be changed once researched and written and most importantly, the encyclopedia and all its content is considered ‘reputable’. Please do not respond to this message I will be seeking how to permanently delete my account from wikipedia I will not ever return, I have already left such on my user page. Hopefully one day wikipedia will wake up before every article on this site is destroyed. I apologize for not thanking you sooner for your time, energy and work on this article, it has been greatly appreciated.Imasku (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin offering assistance
Hello there. I'd like to offer help in trying to get some resolution here on this subject. I see there's many arguments over content. If editors agree to comment strictly on content and not editors, and go through points they want added or removed bit by bit, I'd be happy to help. I emphasize the bit by bit part though - issues like this need to be addressed one point at a time, as to not create giant walls of text where issues that are too overwhelming to read and fully address.

What say you? ? ? I see no reason why this can't be hashed out with calm, rational discussion. We're talking about a Tower, not some sort of multi-faceted, bias prone, sensitive topic like religion or politics. Please give your brief thoughts below. Sergecross73  msg me  15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sergecross73 . Yesterday, I again added paragraph two to the lead, with citation, that had been previously reverted (March 14). This time it was not deleted.  Now, there are really only two important issues from my perspective:


 * Issue 1: the list of lighthouse keepers. My research indicates that Robert Mills was only a caretaker and should not be in the list. (I had revised the list, twice, but both times it was reverted). Mills should be mentioned of course, as he was, in my edit, but should not be in the list. Note especially the first two sources below:

Duncan McGregor Lambert Collection: about Duncan Lambert (first lighthouse keeper) - Bruce County Museum www.brucemuseum.ca/wp-content/uploads/Chantry-Island-Finding-Aid.pdf

An excerpt from the book, History of the County of Bruce, Ontario, Canada By Norman Robertson (1906) The lighthouse at Chantry Island, a circular stone structure, that exhibits its light at a height 94 feet  ... Lambert was the first lighthouse-keper Quoted at http://www.electricscotland.com/history/canada/bruce/chapter38.htm

A temporary fixed light was established atop the lantern-less tower in 1857,... Robert Mills cared for the tower’s temporary light for a season http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=1048

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Issue 2: The article does not fully cover the reason the lighthouse was built, so I felt this was useful info, preferably in the lead, which should also include the date of the opening. (I had added this but it was deleted in the major Revert):


 * Chantry Island Lighthouse was first lit on April 1, 1859. Underwater shoals of massive granite boulders made navigation in the area dangerous; there are many accounts from the 1800’s on of disasters and lost lives. The lighthouse was valuable in its day, but now, buoys and modern navigational tools safely guide boats through the area. |url=http://www.chantryisland.com/about.php |title=About Chantry Island |website=Chantry Island |publisher=Marine Heritage Society

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Other content that I had added was also deleted in the major Revert (March 14), but the two above are the only ones that I feel very strongly about. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem with discussions breaking down is that editors write very long-winded responses on a multitude of things, and its gets overwhelming to read and address. I've collapsed your "Issue 2" for now, and we'll get back to it after Issue 1 is resolved. As far as Issue 1 goes, your case seems pretty straight-forward, but I was waiting to see if Imasku has a rebuttal before discussing too much, to see if there's issues I'm missing from their side of things. Sergecross73   msg me  19:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly it appears that she has left Wikipedia as per her talk page "Update- Decision Final - Good Riddance Wikipedia". Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a shame. Not that anyone around here is ever entirely blameless in these types of situations but *still*...I hate to see editors (who have made meaningful contributions) feel that it is necessary to leave. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * her last edit was at 13:19, 16 March 2017‎ Imasku ... I don't know what time that is in Ontario, Canada.Peter K Burian (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I saw her edits...but in my experience, people commonly say things like that, but still end up returning relatively quickly. Its still good to have some discussion just in case Imasku returns. She'll forfeit her right to keep reverting it out of the article if there's a well reasoned argument or consensus on the talk page that counters it, and she refuses to participate. It could alleviate future issues. But if she truly does not come back, then Peter will be free to make his edits unless/until he is challenged by anyone else (within the confines of policy of course.) Sergecross73   msg me  19:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, Imasku has not left, but she also seems unwilling to collaborate in my offer to mediate. As such, Peter, you are free to make your changes, as long as no one else objects to them. My two cents, as a compromise, was going to be to convert the the section about keepers from a list to prose, and basically write out what you had explained to me. (One person was just temporary help, the other guy was the first official one, etc). But that's completely up to you. Sergecross73   msg me  18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Classified Federal Heritage Building differences in info
The article body says "The Chantry Island Lightstation Tower was formally recognized as a Classified Federal Heritage Building on 14 November 1991." whilst the lead section says "The tower is a Classified Federal Heritage Building due to its historic, architectural and environmental value. It was listed on The Canadian Register of Historic Places on 22 July 2005." which is correct I wonder? Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point.


 * When I read the body after finding out about the Register, I did not see any of these words: Federal Heritage ... Canadian Register of Historic Places so I believed it was discussing another type of designation. And it was.


 * The 2005 Government source I cited is about a later designation, after the lighthouse had been restored.

1991: The Chantry Island Lightstation Tower was designated Classified

2005: LISTED ON THE CANADIAN REGISTER: 2005/07/22


 * So the 2005 designation is at a higher level. Since Imasku is not currently doing editing, I will modify the body to reflect both designations, with both citations.
 * Peter K Burian (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision is done. It now discusses both designations, with both citations. I also reworded the body of the text (paraphrased) since it was almost verbatim from the government document. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * fyi from Portal talk:Lighthouses

Hi Peter, I added the Chantry Island Lightstation article into the Category:Lighthouses on the Canadian Register of Historic Places on the 16 March. It is not in Category:Lighthouses on the National Historic Sites of Canada register as it does not have the higher designation AFAIK. Jokulhlaup (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Awaiting a revised rating by Portal:Lighthouses
I have asked them to rate the Importance of this article fairly highly. They may also review the rating of the Quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Lighthouses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 22:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting citations
Thank you. @Theroadislong

We had an Edit Conflict a few minutes ago. I hope that did not mess up the format of the citations you had provided. I am working on several of the articles about the Imperial Lighthouses and have not had time to fix the formatting. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Somehow, @Theroadislong I think I inadvertently deleted your request that I should use the full format for citations. My apologies. Or is it in another section of Talk?


 * In any event, here is my reply. I do know the full method for citations and when I am not working on six related articles at the same time, I do use it. See below. (AND earlier today, an Admin asked me to get rid of as many quotes as possible in all six articles, and paraphrase instead. I did so (including on this article) and that took a lot of time for the revisions.


 * However, Wikipedia does accept the shorter style that I have been using for a few days now. Still, now that I have almost finished re-editing the six articles, '''I will revert to using the preferred format:

'''  e.g.


 * Thanks for doing what you could with the citations in the meantime. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in editing lighthouse articles, see these five related articles too:

Point Clark Lighthouse

Imperial Towers

Kincardine Lighthouse

Cove Island Light

History of Lighthouses in Canada

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see they all have similar problems with the referencing format! I think I'll leave it to you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly, because in my spare time, I am trying to do edits on five articles. When time is this tight, I use the short form. But I will revert to using the templates for the full format. (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the photo I was trying to insert; it did not work for me. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The document she recommends is raw data but might be useful in a list of References for people to read if they want a great deal more data: CCG-788 designation (Canadian Coast Guard) which is not easy to locate: https://www.notmar.gc.ca/publications/list-livre/inlandwaters-eauxinter/i768e.pdf Peter K Burian (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are MANY instances of references being used more than once these all need combining using a reference name. I've done a few but it's a nightmare trying to unravel them all. Theroadislong (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Peter K Burian I am rather tired of your constant attitude which formed the main reason I will not return. There are so many navigational lights, (which they are now all called) being combined into waiting to be accepted the Federal Government uses what you call Raw Data, making it easier to change as another aid is added. If you had even checked the Government website is being moved to accommodate them. Imasku (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I did read https://www.notmar.gc.ca/publications/list-livre/inlandwaters-eauxinter/i768e.pdf That is how I know it is raw data, six pages of it. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * user:Peter K Burian still with the attitude..you know it allImasku (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read, what you have now done? This article in several different paragraphs says the very same thing just re-worded differently. Why did you not just leave the article alone. I will say it again, thanks for destroying this article. Imasku (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not helpful can you point to specific errors that can be changed or addressed? I have removed some repetition. Theroadislong (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * user:Theroadislong I see, however, alright for him to treat me as such, have you actually read this page? With the attacks made against me.Imasku (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see no attacks above? Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any either. Peter has not said anything that would cross over into personal attack territory. I'm not even reading his comments as rude even... Sergecross73   msg me  18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The 1906 book, The history of the county of Bruce and of the minor municipalities therein, Province of Ontario, Canada, by Robertson, Norman, 1845-1936, is available online. The section about the lighthouse (Chapter 38) is very brief: Peter K Burian (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

These are the templates an Admin found for me several years ago. Note the Cite does not start with a captital C.

''four templates that can basically be used to make consistent citations for any source you can think of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_news

[User:Peter K Burian|Peter K Burian]] (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

sentence makes no sense?
The following sentence makes no sense..."Information regarding the Chantry Island Lightstation Tower can be seen in the Ghostly Guardians of the Bruce Coast, were Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, very treacherous lakes at certain times of year." Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * user:theroadislong yes, it does make sense, there is an entire wing dedicated to this lightstation and that is what it comes under. I know I worked at this museum.Imasku (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * it's the word "were" that seems to make no sense here? Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not add that section. Hmm... it was an 2009 exhibit http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2009/06/30/exhibit-sheds-a-new-light

I will check whether it is relevant in 2017.

It's a sunny, spring-like day here so am not spending much time indoors. Will take a look at it tonightPeter K Burian (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Should it read Lake Huron and Georgian Bay were very treacherous lakes at certain times of year" I wonder? Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Should be present tense; I cannot find that section now, so please change to present. Yes both are perilous in the fall. Numerous shipwrecks on Huron and on Georgian Bay. See and 

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Theroadislong: The last info (news reports) I can find about Ghostly Guardians of the Bruce Coast is from 1999. The exhibit may have continued for some time after that, but according to the museum's Web site, it is not on now. I revised that section adding info about the only current exhibit that includes content about the lightstation.Peter K Burian (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Destroying of article
I am so disappointed in the altering from course of this article which took me 6 months of research before it was written. It has been sent to another encyclopedia and will remain permanently listed on my own personal website to preserve its heritage. Imasku (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * None of us own the content here everyone is free to change it provided it is backed up by reliable sources. Having your own content at your own website is a good idea, though you seem to have copied the content from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article without attribution. Any thoughts? Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * user:Sergecross73, user:theroadislong Change the article, it most certainly has and in no way represents anything I researched and wrote. The version I have is my own for which I researched and wrote, without others edits, might I remind I was the Creator of this article. Any articles I have written are complete from start to ending. I will continue to update my own version as material is available from the archives. Imasku (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia however is a collaborative project and if you cannot work with other editors then sadly it is not the place for you. Good luck with your version. Theroadislong (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If Imasku copied a version that she had written, without edits by other users, she would not need to make any attribution, IMHO. Until recently, all of the edits by other users seemed to be fixing citations and other minor errors, not adding content to the article. If so, would attribution be necessary, @Theroadislong Peter K Burian (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help to avoid Edit War
I see that Imasku made a very significant addition that was reverted by user:theroadislong with a request that such a large change should first be discussed on the Talk page.

That was then reverted by Imasku. I have reverted that, also asking that the planned revision be discussed on the Talk page. My main concern is that a large paragraph debating the name of the article should not be in the lead section which would then be too long. (Do we need such a long treatise on lighthouse vs. station?)

Before this turns into an Edit War, WP:EDITWAR, we need an independent Administrator to help us get a consensus. @:user:Sergecross73, can you help us again? Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Imasku just did a second revert. I will not proceed further. Someone should send a warning re: WP:EDITWAR Peter K Burian (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * threatening me again are you burian Imasku (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I filed a detailed complaint to all this 21 March 2017 with wikipedia.
 * I've issued a final warning to Imasku. Imasku, this behavior is unacceptable. You've reverted three without an edit summary or talk page discussions detailing your actual opposition. You need to discuss the issue constructively, or walk away. Burian has done nothing threatening in the least. He's just asking for explanation, something you 100% owe him. Sergecross73   msg me  17:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Explanation-- read it it's all there, revert the name . period. I do not remember any other article where anyone has to explain edits. I find it interesting that burian gets away with whatever he wishes on this article however, I continue to be bullied, threaten and attacked all of which has been reported. (including you). to wikipedia 21 March 2017 Imasku (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Any time any there is disagreement on Wikipedia, you are required to discuss it on the talk page. Regardless of whether you were aware of it in the past, I'm making you aware of it now. It's not bullying. It's basic Wikipedia protocol. You need to explain your opposition here and now. None of this "I already told you". You need to reiterate your current, specific concerns. Rewrite it. You undid a ton of content edits. Please explain why specifically. Sergecross73   msg me  17:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Of I see first of all it was alright for burian to undo and change a ton of edits? Second, I just went through all the links I provided and the explanations for what a lighthouse, or lightstation are are all there, maybe you should learn how to scroll through a document to locate. Why? I wrote wikipedia on the 21 March against the name change, as lighthouse is not the proper name. It is Lightstation Tower. period.Imasku (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Within Wikipedia policy, Peter Burian did have the right to make the edits. He has outlined his arguments up and down this talk page. You've refused to constructively participate. Then you said you were leaving Wikipedia forever. He had every right to make his changes.
 * Same with renaming the article. They held a discussion about the name. You did not participate. They made the change. You're free to not like it, but you need to start up a new rename discussion for that, and make the changes only at that point. Sergecross73   msg me  18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed most of the commentary about the name. The article itself isn't the place to make a statement or argument about the naming. More over, the relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME, which the text even noted that the common name (wrongly or not) was Chantry Island Lighthouse. As a compromise, I've added a note to the lead for the official name. The move appears to have been correctly executed based on discussion and policy however. -- ferret (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ferret By the way, the term "lighthouse" is by far the most common in the article names at List of lighthouses in Ontario. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Common use for other places/lighthouses/lightstations, or in other Wikipedia articles, is unimportant and not really a valid argument. All that matters is the common naming by sources. If most sources refer to it as "Lighthouse", even if that's not technically correct, then that's the name we'd use. If however, sourcing stuck with "Lightstation Tower", even if it clashed with other articles or lists, we would go with that. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it; just fyi, this Government of Canada document refers to it as Lighthouse: http://www.pc.gc.ca/APPS/CP-NR/release_e.asp?id=1887&andor1=nr Only the Parks Canada pages that discuss its historic designation say lightstation tower. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * incorrect this government document shows its real name, you forgot about: http://www.historicplaces.ca/media/15197/1990-213(e)chantryislandlightstationtower.pdf Imasku (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are there two pictures again showing the exact same thing? Totally unnecessary Imasku (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Two different government sites are referring to it differently. That's a simple fact. There's also no limit on having photos as long as they don't violate NFCC policies, it doesn't hurt anything. -- ferret (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll need to take time to find my digital photos of the lightstation. Taken 2 years ago. Quite different in perspective since they were taken while I was actually on the island, with the Marine Heritage Society tour. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Different angles would be preferable though, yes. -- ferret (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Chantry Island versus Chantry Island Lighthouse
A great deal of this article appears to talk about Chantry Island, rather than the lighthouse. I recommend this information be removed from this article and moved to the island's article. For example, almost all of the section named "Currently" is about the island, not the lighthouse. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I have done so. There is also an article about Chantry Island and I moved content from Currently to that page. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, that is a disambiguation page. Its okay if the dab page is redundant. They just basically exist as a "list of options", to help direct people to the right article when there's a multitude of different things they could be looking for. Sergecross73   msg me  20:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, the correct title of the other page is Chantry Island (Ontario).. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality level of this article?
@PKT Please check the rating for this article in terms of Quality. Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ferrett Yeah, I forgot about the Infobox. I have never created one so I wonder if you could help. It would be very much like the one for Point Clark Lighthouse .... But where do we get this type of info?

Characteristic Fl W 10s.

CHS number CCG 782

ARLHS number CAN-388

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow what you're asking. This article already has an infobox. -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant Cove Island Light.  Peter K Burian (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

First Nation land claims (islands)
The citation re: native land claims is not to a forum but a Media Release by the First nations. It is the only neat summary I could find of all the claims.

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=2116

Nawash/Saugeen First Nations Launch Aboriginal Title Lawsuit Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:16 pm

Nawash & Saugeen FNs lay claim to the lake bed of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it's definitely a forum. But it appears they're using it as a news platform with locked topics (Or at least low participation). -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)