User talk:Plasma east/Archive 3

Lumberjack Steam Train vs. Laona and Northern Railway
You edited the "Lumberjack Steam Train" so that it redirected to "Laona and Northern Railroad". Having lived in Laona and knowing the operators and virtually the entire board of directors of the museum, I can say that this action was a mistake. The railroad is known and referred to by all as the "Lumberjack Steam Train". Yes, if you call a board member they will be able to identify the term "Laona and Northern", but that is not how they or anyone else refers to it. I thought I'd give you the opportunity to change the redirect in the interests of better accuracy. 70.226.132.54 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll take a look at it.Plasma east (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you get a chance, could you take a look at how I split the articles out? Thanks. Plasma east (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! And amazingly fast. I'm terribly impressed, well done! 70.226.132.54 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked it. Thanks for pointing out the problem to me.Plasma east (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)✅

Railroad categories
I see you've applied a lot of "Defunct railroads of [state]" categories to categories about particular railroads, such as Category:Reading Company. IMO, this is inappropriate. It will nest all articles in a particular railroad's category under all the state categories. I was sporadically recategorizing the railroad categories into the most specific category applicable to all articles after a mildly favorable response at project talk. What is your opinion on this? Choess (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I followed the template that had been established for Category:Defunct New Jersey railroads and applied it to the rest of the states which had defunct railroad articles since railroads are easily defined by the jurisdiction(s) they operate in. IMO doing this makes the Category:New Jersey railroads (or any other state) more relevant (perhaps not the correct word) as it contains only currently operating railroads.  I believe I categorized the railroad categories at this time in exactly the same way as the main article to ensure consistency.  Many individual railroad articles and their categories for both active and defunct companies were confusing the Category:Defunct railroad companies of the United States and Category:Railway companies of the United States.  These articles and categories were also being categorized under the master Category:Rail transport in the United States which is intended for high-level sub-categories, rather than individual companies.  In short, it was all a bit of a mess, so I undertook to place them under defunct and active categories by state.Plasma east (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:SPUI has been heavily involved in rail transport articles and issues in the past few years. Perhaps he or others might have some input as well?Plasma east (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know SPUI, but he's essentially retired from Wikipedia AFAIK. We could bring it back to project talk, but see if my explanation about treating categories vs articles differently makes sense. Choess (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can explain more clearly. The reason I started doing my recategorizing was that I used one of MagnusManske's tools (some sort of photo finder) on, I think, Category:Pennsylvania railroads. The tool compiles all the articles in that category and its subcategories and tries to find pictures on Flickr for each article. I was pretty surprised when I saw it fishing around for photos of railroad infrastructure in distant states. The reason, of course, was that articles like Union Station (Chicago) are in the subcategory structure of Category:Pennsylvania Railroad (quite appropriately), and so they were now popping up in a category that's supposed to relate to the state of Pennsylvania. The reason I'm moving categories into Category:Rail transport in the United States is that the "master" is the most specific category that applies to that whole category. E.g., the Pennsylvania Railroad had operations in a number of states in the U.S. It's perfectly appropriate for the article on the Pennsylvania Railroad to be in the "Defunct railroad" categories in all those states. However, articles in Category:Pennsylvania Railroad might be in any or several of the states where the PRR operated. Placing the category for the PRR in all of the state categories is not appropriate, because then all the articles in the PRR category will be subcategories of, say, "Defunct railroads of New Jersey", even if that article refers to a place or thing that's in Pennsylvania or Maryland, etc. This seems to miss the point of making state-by-state categories.


 * In short, I think your work is just fine (and much appreciated) as regards articles, but the categories for given railroads need to be treated in a different way from the articles about those railroads — "consistency" is not the right thing to do here. Am I making sense now? Choess (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah shoot! I do follow you but I'm sorry that I didn't realize how my "categorizing the categories" would affect things in this way, especially with railroads that operate across multiple states.  I'll look at your edit history and see how you're doing it and whether there's any way I can help.  Thanks for alerting me to this as it's been several months since I was last looking at the railroad categories in any detail. Plasma east (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries at all. I think you've already done the hard part, which is to get the articles themselves classified under all the proper states. All that really needs to be done is to strip the categories off Category:X Railroad and put it in either Category:Rail transport in North America or Category:Rail transport in the United States, depending on whether it crossed national borders. (I don't think we have any railroads that warrant their own category but were entirely within the borders of a single state, although I'm not absolutely certain. Work on it if you like, but don't feel obliged; I'll get around to it sometime. Glad my notion does make some sense when I explain it right. Best, Choess (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)✅

Edits to HMCS Vancouver (FFH 331)
I've noticed that you have cut out a lot of detail to the HMCS Vancouver (FFH 331) article; please remember that sourced material should remain in the article, not removed unless a reason is given in the edit summary or in the article talk page, and that the goal is to improve the article through adding more detail, not taking them out, as we want to upgrade articles from stub status to a more fully fleshed out article. ThePointblank (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the information contained on the HMCS Vancouver article was specific to the Canadian Patrol Frigate Project (which I copied it into) - what would later become the Halifax-class frigate. I feel that it is important to maintain a common look and feel to Canadian warship articles and edited them for this reason, without having extraneous information that is better linked to in an article such as the CPFP.  Plasma east (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, but when you do that, you need to provide a reason why in the edit summary or on the talk page, otherwise, it could be seen poorly amongst other editors. ThePointblank (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing - I think it was part of a big editing surge that I did one day a few months ago so I probably got sloppy and missed adding comments in the edit summary.Plasma east (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ✅

Parc (AMT)
When writing about the Montreal area it is best to consult either Alex@MTRL (talk) or yours truly. Peter Horn 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. Plasma east (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ✅

Ontario Northland
I like the idea of splitting off the divisions - but you've left a mess in your wake again. The articles all need cleanup caused by your cut and paste without any research or formatting of the articles. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How so? I thought that I grabbed the appropriate references. :-(  I'm glad that the effort makes sense as it came about as part of my effort to categorize bus transport by province and ONT Motor Coach Services are distinctly separate from the ONR. Plasma east (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see - the ONTC article needs referencing. I'll try to find some to back up what's there. Plasma east (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Added a few from the history section of the 2002 Annual Report. Hope that helps.  Cheers Plasma east (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am following your Category restructuring and appreciate that it can be a complex project. I will help and move anything I find that has been missed and will consult you if there are any problems there. The ON articles were missing basic things like cross linking to each other; creating a heading to hold references, some of which are out of date; ensuring that links to the "Ontario Northland" REDIRECT page, now connect to the relevant article - Commission, Rail or Coach. The ON Coach entry needs substantial cleanup to become acceptable as a stand alone article - and I will improve that one. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, and thanks for pointing out the missing references.Plasma east (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but the Ontario Northland redirect, in most cases, should point at either Rail or Coach rather than the Commission. Due to these new articles and you moving the redirect this is not the case and still requires each linked article to be checked to find out which one is relevant and relink it there. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just started going through those and should be finished shortly.Plasma east (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And finished! Plasma east (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)✅

Image copyright problem with Image:Halifax NS Maritime Centre.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Halifax NS Maritime Centre.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Next time I'm in Halifax I will take a similar photo to replace this one. Plasma east (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) ✅

G8 summits
I wonder if you might have a view to express in the following context: I have expressed an opinion, but I'm not certain that my views are necessarily more important than anyone else's. --Tenmei (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)✅
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 25

AfD nomination of Texas Railroad Museum
An article that you have been involved in editing, Texas Railroad Museum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Texas Railroad Museum. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200p talk 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Nv8200p talk 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)✅

CfD nomination of Category:The Raccoons
I have nominated the raccoons for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)✅

Acadieville merge
Hi, there's a merger proposal at Talk:Acadieville Parish, New Brunswick re an article that you have contributed to. Your input would be welcome.  Were Spiel  Chequers  22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)✅

Proposed deletion of Camp 5 Museum
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Camp 5 Museum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Seems to be a start-up with no real claim to notability yet.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no position on this article. It was created to more clearly define the heritage railway operation that this museum is involved in.Plasma east (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ✅

Could you please discuss...
Could you please discuss this redirection?

While the wikipedia's underlying software allows redirection to subsection heading, I very concerned with the use of the feature -- or bug -- in article space.

Powerful aspects of the bidirectional linking are not supported with wikilinks that are actually links to subsection headings.

Redirection makes sure that links continue to work even when the names of articles are changed. But changes to the name of a sub-section heading that is the target of a wikilink will silently break any wikilinks that point there. I regard this as a very strong reason not to use wikilinks ot subsection heading in article space.

With regular wikilinks othe "what links here" button tells the reader which articles link to the current article. But there is no corresponding feature to tell readers "what wikilinks point to this section of this article. I regard this as another very strong reason not to  use wikilinks ot subsection heading in article space.

If something is worth making a link to, it is almost always worthy of an article of its own.

I'd like you to consider please agreeing to reverting your redirection.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I believe I was heavily involved in minor editing of CCG-related articles such as vessels and class names, etc.  This one appeared to have been caught up in my efforts so I've restored the original article.  Hopefully editors can flesh out this article on the proposed vessel class just like the Polar 8 Project article.Plasma east (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirection from Royal Naval College of Canada
I am interested in starting a new article on the Royal Naval College of Canada. This was a specialised Naval training institution in Halifax from 1911-1922, and where Canada's great WWII Admirals were all trained up. This is not the same at all as the Royal Canadian Naval College which was founded in 1942 and became Royal Roads. I am however a bit of a wikinoob and am not sure how to undo the redirect that you have created (I am sure with the best of intentions) some time ago. Do you see any problem with deleting the reirect, and can you do this for us? Then I can start a RNCC stub. Thanks. Please post reply here. Friendofleonard (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendofleonard (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Green Gables House.png
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Green Gables House.png, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Green Gables House.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Green Gables House.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sniff (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No issues. Hopefully someone can take a photo and upload it. Plasma east (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Category:Shipwrecks of the Canadian Pacific coast has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Schnitzel MannGreek. 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that - fixed the edit summary. Plasma east (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Shipwrecks of the British Columbia coast
The convention in BC is that, when referring to the region or the landform as a region, i.e. in a proper-name sense, "Coast" is capitalized, as also are "Interior" and "Lower Mainland" (e.g. not "lower mainland"); note the article British Columbia Coast. Other than that, and partly because ships involved in the coastal trade were also on the rivers (Fraser, Skeena and Stikine) and that there were lots of wrecks on inland waters (even those not part of those river-navigation routes), the category would have been better titled Category:Shipwrecks in British Columbia (or "of", whichever is the Wiki-convention); to me "Shipwrecks of Canada" implies wrecks of ships owned by Canada, i.e. by the government; many wrecks in BC were foreign-owned, e.g. the Tonquin .... and some that occurred in Alaskan waters were of signifance to British Columbia, e.g. the Sophie (or Sophia??) and registered in BC etc... either way, a general BC category rather than a coastal-only one is needed as if there is to be a coastal category, then Category:Shipwrecks on the inland waters of British Columbia or Category:Shipwrecks of the British Columbia Interior is needed (note capital "I").Skookum1 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see where you are going and I can assure you, the same convention is used in eastern Canada such as the use of "coasts" and "shores" in New Brunswick (North Shore, Fundy Shore, East Coast), the use of "coasts" in Newfoundland and Labrador (East Coast, South Coast, East Coast, West Coast, Labrador Coast) and the use of "shores" in Nova Scotia (North Shore, South Shore, Eastern Shore, Fundy Shore) and Prince Edward Island (North Shore, South Shore).


 * To be clear, I copied the naming convention used for Category:Shipwrecks of the Alaska coast and Category:Shipwrecks of the Washington coast when creating this category for British Columbia. It would appear that most sub-national jurisdictions in North America are using a convention based on the small "c" for coast.   Although the region known as the "British Columbia Coast" or "Coastal British Columbia" is definitely a distinct geographic area within the province that deserves capitalization, my interpretation is that the use of "coast" with a small c denotes the navigable salt waters of the province and its immediate offshore regions, and not only the land-sea boundary which sees the use of the term "Coast" used somewhat ambiguously.  I used to live in BC and many places far inland called themselves "coastal" when they were anything but!.


 * I too noted the lack of a Category:Shipwrecks in the British Columbia Interior and believe this is a valid name based on a uniquely named geographic region, similar to Category:Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, etc. Plasma east (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Public transport in Indiana
This should really be Category:Public transportation in Indiana since the US does not generally use transport in names like this. If you need to discuss, reply here and leave a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with the proposed change. I only realized this after most of the state public transportation categories were already created so kept this terminology for standardization.  Perhaps they can all be changed by a bot if requested. Plasma east (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CfD does not have a way to request a speedy rename by a user when you are the only one to have edited the category. The change needs to go through a full CfD.  About the only way to do this quickly is to empty the category yourself and then nominate it as a G7 speedy.  I do this when I make an error in a newly created category.  Don't use C1 or C2 for the speedy request since those are being reviewed for out of process changes and both really require you to empty the category first.  I don't consider something like this to be an attempt to evade the process, simply an attempt to fix a mistake. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad
Plasma, please see my comments at Talk:Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad and add your comments there. Peter Horn User talk 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Plasma, I hope to have your imput soon as NE2 appears to be very combatative. Peter Horn User talk 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Plasma, On about the 19th of september I got rid of two spurious edits by an unregistered (spurious) user, any comments? I hope you had a good trip. Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotian Institute of Science
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nova Scotian Institute of Science, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Science/NSIS/history.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Middle of editing -- Sloppy edits on my part.Plasma east (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Military forts of Acadia
I have nomed this cat for deletion, here. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland
I have nominated maritime museums and museum ships in ireland as well as transport museums in ireland for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 07:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Laurent class destroyer
Thanks for adding information to St. Laurent class destroyer. Please could you add some inline citations showing where the information comes from.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Isle of Man
Have suggested merger of categories. Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 23. Simply south (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pine Grove Behavioral Health and Addiction Services


The article Pine Grove Behavioral Health and Addiction Services has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Westmorland County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Westmorland County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Victoria County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Victoria County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Saint John County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Saint John County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Restigouche County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Restigouche County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Queens County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Queens County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Northumberland County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Northumberland County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Madawaska County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Madawaska County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Kings County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Kings County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Kent County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Kent County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Gloucester County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Gloucester County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Charlotte County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Charlotte County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Albert County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Albert County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Carleton County.png
Thanks for uploading File:Map of New Brunswick highlighting Carleton County.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

EMC merger
I think EMC Emergency Medical Care Inc., a subsidiary of Medavie EMS, needs to be merged into the parent article. if you don't do it, it will likely be deleted sooner or later. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Island EMS is another one. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with having just the parent company if you think that's the way to go. I wasn't sure if they warranted separate articles, since they are legally incorporated companies operating in different jurisdictions, so I erred on the side of caution by creating the subsidiaries as well.  Medavie EMS is a New Brunswick-based holding company for these different operating units which provide all of the contracted ground and air ambulance services throughout the three Maritime provinces.Plasma east (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Medavie EMS


The article Medavie EMS has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:ORG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of New Brunswick EMS


The article New Brunswick EMS has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:CORP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Proposed Bonaventure Station.png
Thank you for uploading File:Proposed Bonaventure Station.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

CFS Debert
Hello, I'm working at the Debert Military Museum, and for a bit of a summer project we're trying to improve the (already very good!) article on CFS Debert. Just to make our job a bit easier -- what are your main sources for the info in the article? (I saw that you'd done a complete rewrite a few years ago.) The only source currently listed is our museum's website. If you could reply to my talk page, that would be great :) QMarion II (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ACSTC Argonaut


The article ACSTC Argonaut has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CSTC HMCS Avalon


The article CSTC HMCS Avalon has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of CSTC HMCS Qu'Appelle


The article CSTC HMCS Qu'Appelle has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:MILMOS/N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of CSTC HMCS Acadia for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article CSTC HMCS Acadia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/CSTC HMCS Acadia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anotherclown (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)