User talk:Bobanny/Archive 1

Collaboration of the Month
A COTM is basically an article which is in need of improvement, as determined via consensus. In the case of the Vancouver articles, consensus is reached via WikiProject Vancouver. Anyone can nominate or vote on a COTM, and any article related to Vancouver or the GVRD is eligible to be the COTM. The article with the most votes at the 27th of each month will be named COTM. As COTM, that article will be the focus of improvements and expansion for the next month. I hope that clears it up. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bo, it's OneWomanArmy
I wanted to ask you more about your work in the DTES but didn't want to clog up the Vancouver Page. So what kinds of work do you do in DTES? I'll give you a little bit of what I do. I live in a very very clean SRO and work as a researcher at the BC Centre of Excellence for Women's Health. Currently we are researching aspects of women who use illicit drugs and attempt to get Primary Health Care. We are asking a lot of questions and our data is mostly qualitative in nature; we work closely with Vandu. I also work at an advocacy group for people who care for their mental health, also in DTES. I am an Editor in Chief who puts together quarterly publications on issues related to most of the people in this area. The one thing I can't stand is the bus fares. That drives me batty. OWA

WikiProject Organized Labour
Hi Bobanny, I saw your name at the project, so I thought I would stop by and say welcome. It made me laugh to see the WikiProject Vancouver notice on your page - I'm a Vancouverite as well. It's always good to see another editor interested in Labour, feel free to contact myself (or anyone else at the project) if you have questions, or if I can help. Cheers. Chris.--Bookandcoffee 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. Vandalism
Hi Bobanny, due to the high amount of reverts back from my adjustments, I have contacted Wikipedia with a complaint about you. They will be contacting you reference your ban etc in due course. The Breast Cancer article, I have first hand experience of male breast cancer, so I suggest you review your actions. I warn you that if you continue to adjust articles that I have changed I will re-contact Wikipedia with regards to this issue - this is your first warning. User:88.108.51.238 11:27, 22 September 2006
 * You're missing the point. Most of your contributions are made at the expense of someone else's work or are not backed up and are seemingly absurd, such as ONLY men wear hoodies. If you want to make controversial assertions, fine, but they must be verifiable, as per policy:


 * Unless your contributions can be something other than sabotage (in effect if not intent) or non-verifiable assertions of fact, than I believe you should be banned from editing. My gut feeling tells me you're being disingenuous. I will try to assume good faith however that there's some kind of misunderstanding if you are willing to dialogue with other users instead of your sneaky editing practices.
 * For the breast cancer contribution, whether or not it is increasingly common in males, its incidence remains overwhelmingly in females. So, you changed someone else's valid contribution with something unverifiable, and deleted what seems to me, and apparently others, is an important qualifier to that section. Assuming you're correct, surely there's a verifiable source you could draw from rather than you're own anecdotal claim. If not a study, than a published comment from someone who works in the field saying that their seems to be an increase of breast cancer in men. For all I know, you're a compulsive liar, or maybe you live in Chernobyl, and your anecdotes are meaningless. If you are sincere about the validity of your contributions, then make an effort to defend your position and contribution. I wouldn't have jumped to the 'vandal' conclusion about you so fast if there was any form of dialogue with the apparently long list of others who have taken exception to your contributions. That's all. Bobanny 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Bobanny, Is there anything we can so about this editor? It's driving me crazy having to revert all these nonsense, unsourced gender-obsessed edits. He/She seems to use several different IP addresses - User:88.108.51.238, User:Theradioguy, User:88.108.57.57, User:88.109.218.223 - these are almost certainly the same person. I don't really know how the admin side of wikipedia works, any ideas on how/where to report this? Spute 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

West Hastings as a neighbourhood
Well, obviously the city's definition of neighbourhood is strict, and here was meant in the old way of simply an area; and this was West Hastings, in fact the heart and core of it, when that was the city's busiest shopping street for so very long; that it's the back end of the various formal neighbourhoods flanking it is typical, as is the obliteration of its name and identity since the opening of Pacific Centre wiped out the old Woodward's-Eaton's connect along that strip; which wasn't Gastown, wasn't the Downtown Eastside (as someone had originally put here), it was just plain "downtown" and in those days core to its social and shopping life; long before (when Cordova was the main shopping drag) it had also been the city's financial hub, as well as central to the legal profession because of the old courthouse there; and of course it had been the press district until Pacific Press opened up its more modern shop at Granville and 7th. And as a former resident of 328 W. I can tell you that if I were to be asked where I lived, I'd certainly say "West Hastings", not even Victory Square (I'd expect the same of the then-residents of 303, across the street upstairs from the pot places) and other studio-residences in the area (all illegal in those days, as were our parties).

"Crosstown", which apparently lately has been dusted off by real estate types, was originally spawned in the early '90s at a meeting in 328; the idea was to come up with a "new" name for the area, as "Victory Square" sounded too 1984ish to the punk/politico types who affected their a priori values in the arts/nightlife scene then (as now). It was either the late Ian Hunter - a predecessor of Marc Emery in the marijuana-legalization campaign - or myself who concocted "Crosstown", and within the group of the various possibilities "Crosstown" seemed the most useful; the term having not to do with being "across town" (the usual sense, by which the term never "fit" for me) but with it being a crossroads within the downtown, i.e. between different areas. It became the name-of-use for various funding/organizational applications put to the city, the Sayde Bronfman Foundation andothers, as well as in local half-baked press releases (Ian's wacky ideas in other areas were a detriment t to these funding attempts, which nevergot approved)> Funny further aside about this is the archbishop, or his secretary I guess, came down to meet with us from their offices in Holy Rosary Cathedral as they were concerned that "cross" was a reference to the Christian Cross, and the one on their cathedral, and they didn't want it associated with nightlife, headshops, artists gallieries/parties and what-not; they were reassured when they found out that wasn't the intent. But as far as where this (Victory Square) is, I'd say that neighbourhood now is "Victory Square", or at least just "Cambie and Hastings" (since the old "West Hastings area" is no more, and that name refers now more to west of Seymour and farther west beyond Burrard).Skookum1 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Louis Taylor
—Centrx→talk &bull; 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Only move pages using the move tab at the top of the screen. This is necessary in order to preserve the page history.
 * 2) Wikipedia naming conventions are that the most common name of a person used, so unless this person is more commonly referred to by his full name including his middle name, then it belongs at its former place.
 * 3) I have merged the page histories and moved it there.
 * 4) Good work on writing the article.

Vandalism
You've marked me twice for Vandalism, but without any sort of mention of what entries you are referring to. Would you mind explaining? --Navstar 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for apologizing. It's quite alright. Although, you gave me quite a shock this morning! :)  --Navstar 17:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

1918-1919 General Strike in Vancouver
Saw your comment about that on your main userpage overleaf; there's a bit of an account in Alan Morley's Vancouver: From Milltown to Metropolis (which also includes revealing details of the 1907 riots and the overall context of what has in recent decades been portrayed as knee-jerk racism but was far more complex). Re: the strikes in 1918-1919 you should look up the Soldier parties - the Grand Army of the United Veterans - which included the Soldier-Farmer Party, the Soldier-Labour Party and the Soldier Party among others in a grand coalition of returned soldiers. As Morley points out, in their absence during the Great War most available construction and various other work had been taken up by Asians and newly-arrived European immigrants (Italians mostly), and it was against this lack of opportunity in their own city that the strikes were held. Escalating political tensions at both federal and provincial levels led to efforts by governments (and the powers behind them, obviously) to appease the returning veterans; one of these consequences was the 1923 Exclusion Act, although that's usually painted as simply a continuation of "racist policy"; it had to do with the right-to-work, ditto with the Cumberland Mine Strike before the War (which was due to Chinese scabs being brought in by the Dunsmuirs). I'll get on about this on the History of Vancouver talk page, which I've been holding off replying to you for lack of time to sit down and lay into it (and the last 40 years of BC historiography are, to me, largely prejudicial and in fact rather simplistic as well as full of faulty logics - and yeah, I've been subjected to a lot of it for various reasons, cringing at the evidence/analysis used and the overall drift of negativity that's endemic in BC historiography of late). Oh - about the strikers. Another thing they were pissed off about is that, while they were away, the newly-enfranchised fairer sex - for whom the drive to vote was hand-in-hand with teetotal movements - had voted in prohibition; meaning a returning soldier couldn't get a decent drink, not legally anyway (Chinatown and Hogan's Alley of course obliged....); Prohibition was dropped fairly quickly because of the mounting unrest among the men (i.e. the veterans) but the parochial liquor laws brought in have been fairly restrictive ever since, as we all know and still suffer under (unlike the freewheeling days of the pre-war); but the labour unrest continued and to pre-empt revolution the senior governments were forced to deal with resentment against non-veteran immigrants; one measure was, as noted, the Exclusion Act; the deportations of Italians, Ukrainians and others in the same period were part and parcel of the same thing (though also tied to left-right politics, but moreso in the East than in BC). Gotta go; will try and spend some time on the History of Vancouver talk page later; pls read something else than the "eggheads", as you might have your eyes opened a bit about the one-sided nature of current "official" historiography; most of the local histories - the popular narratives which at least one academic I sat down with dismissed as "romantic history" - contain a lot of details that put the LIE to the trends in current historiography, and in the simplistic rehash of ethnic politics as presented in the mainstream media of late (e.g. re the Head Tax Redress); racism is a two-way street, remember that; and lately the "victors" have been freely rewriting the history with no regard to actual fact (see Talk:History of Chinese immigration to Canada, for instance).Skookum1 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Also suggest you read J. Morton's In the Sea of Sterile Mountains; The Chinese in British Columbia, which includes discussions of the Soldier parties (more detail than in Morley, who was "merely" a journalist and his book is only popular history) as well as frank discussions of the Chinese-businessman/labour contractor (aka "snakeheads") role in Asian labour issues that are usually blamed (in our latter-day press/academia) on white culture (e.g. not returning them home to China as promised, or leaving them abandoned in the Canyon without even a way to the Coast).Skookum1 00:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to this here, because, well, we're both prone to making lengthy replies, and you haven't responded to my history of van stuff yet. I have Milltown to Metropolis, and admittedly, I haven't read the whole thing, but often look up specific things there (as with Nicol's book), and I couldn't disagree with you more. On one hand, his account of 1918-1919 is standard, but not the way you described it. On the other hand, it fluffs over some very important stuff so that he can get to the gushy positive history that you seem to be lamenting. He doesn't mention Chinese or other immigrants being the brunt of a backlash by returning veterans. His account, like others, implies that vets were pissed at the government and capitalism, though he doesn't use that language. The immigrant-related problem was with English immigrants, working class, coming over here with trade union consciousness that they picked in the motherland. The fear of revolution was the working class against capitalism, not race riots. He doesn't mention Ginger Goodwin as the spark, or the wobbly-types, pre-commies who were trying their damnedest, and somewhat succeeding in realizing their dream of a general strike. He doesn't use that term at all. He doesn't mention that this was a red scare, and says the nice Canadian veterans, unlike their violent US counterparts, were non-violent, except for one little raid at the labour temple (411 seniors centre today). He doesn't describe that raid, where a mob hung the president of the VLC out the window threatening to kill him and made him kiss the union jack, not because he was foreign, but because he was a red. Most people who have written about that incident believe that those vets were paid to do what they did. But Morley ignores that because it would interfere with his picture of harmonious social relations with a few unfortunate interruptions. Nor does Morley mention the Vancouver Citizens League in 1919, which mobilized strike breaking forces of the city (which included the boy scouts to be messengers in order to undermine telephone operators out on strike). He mentions that the police even got a pay raise. He doesn't mention, though, that the police were only able to unionize the month before because the Trades and Labour Council rep told the mayor that if the police weren't permitted to unionize, it would trigger a general strike, and the Mayor would have to deal with it without a police force. Morley whitewashes this history in order to make it gushing and glowing, and that's a blatant distortion of the past. The knowledge I do have of this period comes from stumbling across old newspaper accounts and thinking, holy s**t, I've never heard that before. I could give other examples that I've tagged in this book. It's not totally without value, but is out of date for good reason, and I think it should be read as a primary source, i.e., not all that reliable. And just to defend myself against charges of snobbery against 'pop' histories or romantic histories, Daniel Francis's bio on LD Taylor was extremely well done, readable, non-academic, not at all po-mo (doesn't mention 'discourse' once), and doesn't get into theory at all. It is also sympathetic to the subject but presents LD as a complex person, warts and all. It's negative in the sense that it doesn't ignore Taylor's racism, or the fact that he was a wanted man in the US and that's why he came here. He wrote it as a corrective to the bs history perpetuated by David Ricardo Williams, who takes Gerry McGeer at his word about how great he was. Morley-type histories need revision because they distort the past.


 * I'm not sure what you consider to be the crappy revisionist histories. Academic histories are more likely to get the facts right than journalistic accounts, and if they screw up, you can at least check their sources, unlike Morley. If they screw up often, they're simply not good at what they do. Typically, its not facts that fuel historiographical debates, but theory, ideology, what to emphasize, etc. I think Francis's book shows that local histories don't have to be either academic or popular, rigourous or journalistic. Kay J. Anderson does mention the post war backlash against Chinese after the war because the prosperous Chinese business began to relocate into white neighbourhoods - and she's about the most po-mo I've drawn on - and I don't think the word "racist" appears in the entire book. Generally the academic trend is NOT to write victim histories. Quite the opposite: everyone has "agency" nowadays. 1970s and '80s feminists, for example, tend to hate the current trend in academia as much as you do, because it depicts women as historical agents who willingly (and eagerly in some cases) participated in what feminists see as exploitative situations. How can women overthrow patriarchy if women themselves help perpetuate it? Yes Chinese exploited Chinese, workers exploited workers. Minorities scabbed on whites all over the place, not just Chinese. I don't know any academic historians denying this stuff. If you're looking at propaganda for an advocacy group, of course you're going to get a slanted history, because advocacy groups are pursuing a different agenda. Check out the article on Woodward's and my comment on the talk page for another example. Yes, whites can be discriminated against because of their race, that doesn't make it a two-way street. But I'll stay away from that hornet's nest for now. ciaoBobanny 02:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Reading a bit more of Morley, who says that Chinese labourers were brought into Vancouver, "idled by the gradual completion of CPR main line construction, to do the work at 50 cents to 75 cents a day, when white laborers were demanding two dollars."(115). I recall seeing someone disagree with such claims (as do the pomo multi-culturalists). Maybe you're thinking of Eric Nicol's book, Vancouver.Bobanny 06:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Sullivan photo
Re/ your feedback on my talk page... Thanks for the heads up. Since the previous SamSullivan.jpg image is also described as being both non-commercial and copyrighted (though some would argue, fair-use, but still copyrighted), I think the current image is a step towards free. Replacing it with a copyrighted image again may be a step backwards, so removing the image completely, without replacing it by the copyrighted image, may be the best course at this point. But I'll wait for others, if any, to chime in on this. --Ds13 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your photos
I like your photos. Have you considered uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons so all the foreign Wikipedias can access them as well? :) -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™ / ?!  20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - though most of the credit should go to Photoshop. I plan to upload them to wiki commons, but methinks that might take a while so I've been procrastinating.Bobanny 02:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rape culture
May I make a suggestion? A more appropriate tag for it would be an expand tag. Alternativly, you can tag it with a more selective stub tag than the stub so it is categorized in a proper location. You can use to find an appropriate stub category. --- Skapur 01:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1930s items
Hi; I'll get to the other pending replies in History of Vancouver later; just saw your new articles on the Relief Camp Workers Union and the Battle of Ballantyne Pier etc. You obviously know more labour history than I do and I've been wanting to see coverage of 1930s near-revolutions in BC for some time; one of those many instances in Canadian history where troops/police were trotted out to quash political revolts IMO, which is more the norm than the "conciliation and cooperation" mythology of Canadianism. I'd looked at the On To Ottawa article some time ago and noted it's only got a Prairies/Saskatchewan context; the fate of the Vancouver group is not mentioned, it being (SFAIK) that the train carrying them was stopped just east of Mission City with a gatling gun placed on the tracks and the men were all arrested and sent off to, ahem, relief camps. Where those camps were I'd also like to find out about; I think some were places that became Japanese interment/relocation centres not long after; and I'd also be curious about the number of men who were arrested/interned. My source for the Mission City/Gatling Gun thing is Andreas Schroeder's Built From Wood about Mission City (which also has lots of good detail on the Japanese in the Fraser Valley pre-1941).Skookum1 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi; pls see current replies on My talk page.Skookum1 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Law Enforcement
Since you have shown interest in Law Enforcement articles on wikipedia, I hope you don't mind me leaving a polite invitation to join and work with the Law Enforcement Wikiproject. Many thanks --SGGH 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for joining! Please feel free to get started, if you have any ideas or questions don't hesitate to send some messages my way, all help is appreciated. Thanks again, --SGGH 15:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, obviously as a British special constable, my work will be more around uk policing. However, seeing as the current project leader doesn't seem to be answering my messages, running the project itself might be taking up more of my time. Not sure... --SGGH 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooo, also, if you wouldn't mind assessing Youth Offending Team and Techniques of neutralization for me? As I wrote both of them (well, majorily re-wrote the YOT article) I can't justify assessing them. Thanks again--SGGH 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed the YOT article based on your kind assessment, would appreciate if you could have another look and make more suggestions.--SGGH 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver
Hey! Stop calling me an incompetent vandal. :) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI resources from J. Morton
Hi. Still putting off the "big answers" because of ongoing distractions, daily life etc, other wiki topics which keep me somewhere else and all that. Just wanted to let you know, though, that I've added to my sandbox pages a set of excerpts on Joe Martin from the Morton book, as someone else had volunteered to flesh out his bio page if they'd had the materials; Morton's out of print and hard to get (and yeah, with errors and relies too much on newspapermen); anyway the page is at User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources and on that Resources page will eventually be other material, ranging from other texts to various maps/references (well, the maps I might make as a /Maps directory but it'll all be linked). With what you told me about Canadian copyright and the "false copyright" perpetrated by BC Archives et al, there's also a large collection of edited Archives pictures I have (i.e. without that stupid border) that are now public domain, so I'll build a directory of them there, other than those that I may insert into other pages directly.Skookum1 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article
Good grief, those two with their objections are ridiculous. Add hyphen here, not a temperate rain forest, here's a personal website with a personally written definite here, as if any of these things are really important or relevant. But thanks for all the help on trying to get Vancouver ready. We're very close and if this one fails it would not be very far for Vancouver to get there. Mkdw talk 05:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks, Selmo.Bobanny 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC ettiquette
I know you're trying to help, but you do not ever cross out other people's entries, you notify them and let them do it. Rlevse 12:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you had no bad intention and I know others have done it, but they're not supposed to. Think of it like me changing a letter you wrote. The writer of the criticism is to mark out a point when he's satisfied it's been met. When a 3rd party does it, he may be crossing it out when the objecter still isn't satisfied. The quickest way, without making a faux paus, is to leave a msg on the objector's talk page saying that you think his objections have been met and if so could you change your vote and/or cross out the objections. As for my point on the refs, they're still highly inconsistent. I even changed several last night to show the submitter how to fix them.Rlevse 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heritage photos copyright discussion
Hi; I saw your item about the 50-year expiry rule on photos in Canada, other than material covered by Crown Copyright. Could you please have a look at my response to Mkdw on the WikiProject Vancouver page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver directs to the proper section, hopefully. More later.Skookum1 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again
Hi; just another quick note to direct you to some of my late-night additions to English-Canadian and Talk:English-Canadian, with some ideas for articles and content, particularly the need for a Demographics of British Columbia article. There's as yet no BC WikiProject, as was dummied around for a while on a sandbox page from Buchanan-Hermit, but I'm back on the warpath about it again; typically Wiki is focussed on Vancouver, hence the Vancouver WikiProject; in its own way this is like Toronto writing about itself as if it were writing about the whole of Canada; ditto for Vancouver's relationship with BC, or even its relationship with the Lower Mainland. But I'd like there to be a common place, other than the talk page at the Vancouver project, where I can post notices about BC-wide content/article issues, so I don't have to individually message people (User:Themightyquill got a late-night note from me about the English-Canadian page but no one else so far). I'll try and do some work on the History of BC page, post-1970, sometime over the next few days. Tricky stuff because very POV with almost anything you can say due to political polarities/differing value systems; which is why contemporary historians stay far away from it, except for shills like Bercuson and D. Mitchell and Peter Newman (who doesn't write about British Columbians anyway); Barman and Bowering sugar-coat it and bowderlize recent events to the point of unrecognizability, apparently because they're afraid of offending either side of the prevailing polarity.Skookum1 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

TransLink
Bobanny, you were wrong to adjust the date in the TransLink article - I'm actually living three days in the future, and am just trying to give temporally-disadvantaged Wikipedians an early "heads-up"... seriously, though, thanks for catching that mix-up. I must be tired today, as that is the fourth little glitch that I've let slip by. Cheers! --Ckatz chat spy  05:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver refs
Nice work on the refs. I tweaked a couple, but there's something wrong with ref 52, it only displays "ab". It is because 52a is set to reuse a ref preceding it, but that ref was deleted, so there's no ref line for 52a and 52b to retrieve. 52a needs to be recreated as a first ref. Open it in edit mode where those two refs are and you'll see what I mean. When this gets fixed, let me know and I'll change to support. The article has come a long way. Rlevse 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI
I moved Image:New trolley bus.jpg over to commons, it's now @ Image:Vancouver trolley2101 050720.jpg - we had to do a name change to avoid breaking the other 15 wikis that were using a copyvio image that was previously at that location. Thanks for the image - I hope you survived the windstorm ok -- Tawker 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Joke137
I'm not entirely sure to handle this. His comments are completely irrelevent to the point of an encyclopedia and this article. I admit he has some good points, but some incredibly short sighted ones that mainly have to do with a self motivated goal of making the article 'more interesting' for himself rather than focusing on the true point of the article. Mkdw talk 09:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Your discussion page is coming close to size where you'd want to archive it.