User talk:Bobanny/Archive 4

Femicide
How would you feel if I changed the title of the link to Gendercide, which the actual title of the article it links to? --Slp1 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just followed the lead of someone who added it to the Lepine article, and thought I'd include it here out of spite when it got reverted. Bobanny 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Harbour Centre
Hi Bobanny,

I noticed that you reverted my edit where I removed the claim that Harbour Centre has the highest Air Traffic Control Tower according to the Guinness World Records. However, it is in my opinion, that the previous editor has confused the Harbour Centre with the Vancouver Harbour Control Tower on top of Granville Square (approximately two blocks from Harbour Centre), which holds the highest Air Traffic Control Tower distinction.

Through my research for finding references for the Control Tower atop Granville Square (which I added just yesterday), I did not come across any references to it being in the Harbour Centre - only other individuals who were confused that it may be in the Harbour Centre where in fact, it is on top of Granville Square. Nonetheless, I will take a closer look at additional references to verify that the Control Tower is actually in the Harbour Centre and not Granville Square.

Cheers, Luke! 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Courier article on Wikipedia
I am working on a story about the WikiProject Vancouver for the Vancouver Courier newspaper. I would really like to get as much input for the story as possible so that I get a wide variety of opinions. You've been recommended as a good person to talk to by other Wikipedians. And since you're such an active member of the WikiProject Vancouver team, I really hope you'll be able to talk with me for maybe a half hour or so some time this week.

Please email me back with your answer at lavigne.chris(at)gmail.com.

Thanks for your time, Chris

Arrr matey 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No thanks. Nothing personal, but I don't like journalists. I notice from your contributions that you've only contacted a few of us, at least through this venue. You can find the complete list of WikiProject Vancouver members here. Bobanny 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's a shame, though. I think you'd have a lot to offer as far as making the article a better reflection of the whole team. I have contacted other project members through direct email and have now spoken to some, too. Should you change your mind, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Cheers.

Arrr matey 11:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More streets, more squares
If you have a min, please check out the latest merge request, which doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO: Category:Streets in Vancouver.--Keefer4 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.Bobanny 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Without addressing your thoughtful concerns, and with a cursory yet nonsensical address of mine, the decision was made to merge back. I have documented and responded to it at the Category talk:Streets and squares in Vancouver talkpage. (I see you've already noticed)..--Keefer4 | Talk 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've chimed in on the DRV log page for Category: Streets in Vancouver. Thanks for the pic, haven't been up there in years. Absolutely irrefutable for the cause of squares in this city-- which I'm pleased to say I'm usually not one.--Keefer4 | Talk 04:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't all for nought :).--Keefer4 | Talk 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that that business has passed, I nominated Streets and squares by city to be split. Maybe it's only the beginning. bobanny 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. What I'm )finding annoying in general with all of these things is simply a 'Daily newspaper'-like lack of wiki context/history on these discussions. At some point and after considerable thought I'm probably going to try and advocate a guideline ensuring that links to past deletion/review discussions are permanently posted at the article/cat talkpages and in subsequent review discussions. Sometimes they are, but there are a bodies of discussion/consensus precedents that seem to frequently get summarily dismissed and buried somewhere. I was trying to find, for example the discussion that created the combined streets and squares cat by city but couldn't (if one actually existed), and for that matter any earlier category discussions. Anyway, I'll make sure that this particular nomination won't be soon forgotten. Later.--Keefer4 | Talk 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Streets and squares by city was probably just created one day (Dec 4 2005, according to the history), and not the product of a discussion. But yeah, I agree with the lack of context problem, which is a communication issue for many organizations, especially volunteer projects like this where participation can be so fleeting. It also appears that maintaining categories is a pretty huge job, and I don't understand why the nominations are so often for individual categories, when a much broader discussion is needed, or reams of similar cats have the same issue (How many CfDs later and it's still "Ottawa roads" instead of "Roads in Ottawa" or "Streets in Ottawa.") bobanny 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Architecture book/paper
Hi; I'm "dunning" lot of my stuff, but two occurred to me as perhaps of interest to you. One is a paper by....Ed Gibson, I think the prof's name was - on local architectural styles and how to pick them out; old photocopy/gestetner from class in '79 or so. The other is one of the textooks for that course (Cultural Geography), Identifying American Architecture: A Pictorial guide to Styles and Terms, 1600-1945, John J-G. Bluemsnon, foreward by Sir Nikolaus Pevener, 214 photos, sort of landscape format booklet. I'm keeping only my BC specific stuff, and although Ed's is it does "go" with the Blumenson. I gather you're in Vancouver so if you'd like some resources to work with on architecture/building articles here, let me know maybe where I can drop if off or some other way I can contact you; my email is setup but I know you've chosen not to use that previously.Skookum1 21:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to find that Gibson paper again, now that I've offered it... ;-) It's turn up. In the meantime there's an article from yesterday's NYT which maybe is of interest to you re architecture - link is here.Skookum1 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver
The reason for my closing is that I interpreted the fact that ~90% of Category:Streets and squares by city follows the same naming as a naming standard. From recent reactions it seems that this standard is not all that consensually solid, so I would favor more debate on it. In the meantime, I'm overturning my deletion. HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Thanks!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Foo of mainland China categories
It was a consensus recently reached to undelete and to keep category:economy of mainland China. Regarding the term mainland China, please refer to the evidence that I have presented earler at Wikipedia talk:categorisation. The term is not defined purely based on geography. It means the People's Republic of China (PRC) excluding Hong Kong and Macao. The term also excludes territories governed by the Republic of China (ROC), which the PRC claims. You may ask around your friends in Vancouver to testify this. &mdash; Instantnood 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (modified 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
 *  Responses can always be surprising if you choose to ask only those who can be extremely biased. What to do with " international system " and the year 1648? &mdash; Instantnood 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Railroad police article
Great job on the revision. You did far better work than I probably could have. Equinox137 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

thx
thx for fixing the pd50 template; hope you find the map useful; hope you like the map. It's occurred to me it might be useful for illustratin the route of the strikers' march in the 30s, the occupation of the post office, where all the guys were camped out (in the rail line cut between Columbia/Alexander and False Creek), and of course the location of Ballantyne Pier. And it just goes to show you how much has been fuzzed up of my memories of the civic landscape - it's not the A-B Pier that I've been going on about, but the B-C Pier (which is what's become Canada Place/Pan Pacific/VTCC).Skookum1 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be a good picture of the B-C Pier somewhere, e.g. perhaps a CP promotional image/postcard with one of the liners alongside? News photos from the '60s would strike me as off-limits unless there's pd possibilities there somehow...Skookum1 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find it on BC Archives, but a search for "Canadian Pacific terminal" brought up one result - Victoria's, the shot is from 1922 so we could PD50 it couldn't we? Not published in the US etc..Skookum1 20:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW I used to know a Bob on Rose St. who was a labour historian/union type who was into all this stuff. Think he was a longshoreman, fisherman maybe, something to do with the harbour.  That's not you is it?Skookum1 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, I ain't Bob. Did you get my email? bobanny 20:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, while ago - last week? Sorry if I haven't replied; been preoccupied.Skookum1 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

just 'cause you might know (MV/SS/RMS)
Please have a look at this. Something tells me you'll know some answers here.Skookum1 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair Centre
Just came across its creation, through something or other on my watchlist. Good one. I've reinstated one of the "new addition" troll's edits-- (removal of the word "landmark"). Those types never do any homework. Later.--Keefer | Talk 05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's kind of funny. As if I'd "blatantly plug" somewhere I can't afford to shop. bobanny 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just couldn't resist when I saw that in the book.;)--Keefer | Talk 22:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Architecture & crime
Hello! I saw your comment here at Police science, and wondered if, perhaps, you would be able to provide me with one or two references concerning this landscape modeling or other forms of urban planning related to crime prevention? Cheers! Tazmaniacs 13:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links! This book certainly seems interesting, I'll see if I get a hand on it. I hadn't see, previously, the Crime prevention through environmental design article, but there also seems to be some interesting links. A very interesting subject, at any cases... Baudrillard also used it to enforce his claims that "simulation precedes reality" (an interesting theme concerning the Foucault-Baudrillard relationship)... Cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the subject also interests you, a related book would be this one, I don't know if there's any available translation or articles, but it is a quite interesting studies on the political and military implications of architecture (English interview here). Tazmaniacs 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a fr:Histoire de la police article which I could start translating. It is however focused on traditional law enforcement. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Photos
I was going to upload those to commons, but was having issues with the tags and copyright laws. Also, I didn't put up the sources cause they're from the VPL collection, and they seem to charge fees for usage. Which I'm not too clean on, being that they are in the public domain. RichMac (Talk) 06:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

VanPan.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, VanPan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

something in Morley for History of Vancouver
Hi; I'm typing without glasses so please forgive typos; leaving a last-of-the-night afterthought for you as I know you have Morley and while I do, I donn't have time this next week as I'm focussing on about 40 unwritten Lillooett Country articles and fixing up others. There's a passage whose meaning, perhaps Morley's comments, would be useful on the still-not-expanded History of Vancouver page (what happened to plans to move stuff over? I guess we all got distracted, or if it happened i didnt notice....); it's where he's summarizing hte effects of the cycle of market crashes leading up to the big one in 1913, and how the climate changed form one of free-wheeling, even reckless entrepreneurialism to the get-a-job-and-hunker-down security thing that's typified the place since (on both sides, as even entrepeneurialism went looking for its own security; it was never the same here after; more on this later but just directin gyou to the passage, as it concerns working-envinroment hisory and also laid the foundation for greater mass unionism post-war and through the thirties; job security over high-stakes risk.  Whatever; just a thought that; Morley's obviosly trite in spots (not as bad as bwoering IMO) but occasionally he hits the nail on the head; also in there somewhere is the story of the guy who invented the rotary-wheel clothesline by adapting mill equipment for his wife to roll out the line with, and patented it; that's right, the pullley-system clothesline, whatever it's called, was invented here....and other things if you poke through the tidbits; Novell was originally six guys in Burnaby who got bought out by Salt Lake, for instance.....I meant to get started on a List of british Columbia disambiguation pages tonight too but my eyes can't handle the screen much more without proper diopter in; I think you see where Im going with that: Comox, Nanaimo, Cariboo, Lillooet, Okangana, ad nauseam (and not just region names) are all disambiguation pages.Skookum1 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I'm still getting to grips with this! :)

Rathwell
I need to read up on posting protocol. Thanks again Jacarr 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BCPP
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Philippe 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the image you removed and changed.... in a section on the first chief constable, you removed the image, which was appropriate, to substitute another that frankly doesn't add anything to the article. Also, I'd encourage you to be a little less hostile on other users' talk pages.  Philippe 02:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes condescension begets hostility. I'm an experienced editor with an extensive and solid track record on Wikipedia. To get a template message on my talk page, disingenuously welcoming me to Wikipedia before accusing me of "experimenting" and telling me to shove off to the sandbox and not come back until I get some schooling on the welcome page is about as insulting as it gets. Personally, I would've preferred you to be up front and called me an incompetent fool instead of implying as much with a template.
 * As for the photos, I replaced the Chartres Brew photo (which was added by me earlier) because he has his own article and that's what it illustrates (which isn't removing content from Wikipedia, since I added more than I removed and the image is used elsewhere). There is no section on the first chief constable; the article has no sections. I uploaded these other photos specifically to illustrate the BCPP (and did use the edit summary, btw). The BCPP was a major force in the province's history, and I don't really get how you think a studio portrait of some guy in a suit illustrates that. The images I added show different aspects of the BCPP as it existed and convey as much if not more than the text of the article. If you sincerely want to contest that, then bring it over to the talk page and make your case there instead of implying I'm incompetent, ignorant, or both - that's how it's supposed to work. If these photos don't add anything to the article in your opinion, then show some courtesy and back up that opinion with constructive reasons if you can.
 * Perhaps before trying to school legitimate editors and making absurd allegations, you might consider brushing up on some of the guidelines yourself. I'd suggest starting with WP:AGF and WP:AHI. In light of how discouraging your authoritative actions might've been received by a less-seasoned editor, I'd also suggest WP:BITE. I appreciate the need to keep on top of vandalism and inappropriate edits, but it's no less important to avoid undermining the volunteer efforts that build Wikipedia in the process. bobanny 04:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct that you should not have gotten a templated note - ordinarily, I check to see someone's contribution history before sending a template macro: I'm not sure how I neglected that step, but I'll continue to pay attention to that in this process. I appreciate you calling it to my attention, and apologize that you were offended. Philippe 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good enough, and sorry for my grumpiness. bobanny 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Volcanoes of British Columbia
Hi Bobanny, I noticed that you "moved preamble to its own article", by deleting all text from Category:Volcanoes of British Columbia and creating Volcanoes of British Columbia. However, there is no need for such an article, since Volcanoes of Canada already exists, and 95+% of all Canadian volcanoes are in BC. Also, someone else has already come by and added "wikify" and "unreferenced" tags to the new article.

I'm going to delete the text in Volcanoes of British Columbia, and change it to redirect to Volcanoes of Canada. Just wanted to let you know why it had been done. Hope this is OK with you. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. It just seemed a little excessive for a category page, but too detailed to justify deleting. On second thought, it was probably lifted from "Volcanoes in Canada" in the first place. bobanny 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Courier
Hey Bobanny, I'm sure you've thought of this, but I'll mention it anyhow. You might want to double check with an admin about that trivia tidbit. There are two edit deletion processes here, the first is simply an Admin deleting the revision - the edit still exists, but it is no longer visible in the history. I know they use this from time to time to remove potentially libelous information. There is a more permanent deletion process as well, I used it recently to have a vandal posting of a person's personal phone number removed - that deletion is done by email (Requests for oversight). So the possibility exists that it is the record of the edit that is missing. Just a thought. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible, but unlikely for this actual quote. It's the Courier's readership that is insulted there, not the newspaper itself or individuals associated with it, and if there was something that bad in the article, they probably would've called their lawyer instead of drawing attention to it in the paper. If there was a seriously malicious comment that had to be permanently removed, said administrator would probably have this on their watchlist and have intervened by now. Also, the only place I've seen that style of insulting Vancouverites is in Geoff Olsen's cartoons in the Courier, whom I believe is also the paper's editor and writer of the 'Kudos and Kvetches' column. So it's possible but not probable that it wasn't a fabrication. bobanny 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)