User talk:The Tom/Archive 9

Image:Vanpol_vv_stripe.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vanpol_vv_stripe.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Campbell River/Strathcona RD: Northern or Mid?
Hi; just saw your refining the VI cat to the Northern VI cat....User:KenWalker is away (in India) but he's from Qualicum; he and I had debated about what to do for a name for what we BCers generally call "the Mid-Island" (hence Category:Mid Vancouver Island), which is the east coast of the Island, of course, not Ucluelet-Tofino of course but (maybe?) includes Alberni....where "Southern" starts is also debatable, although I submit that Duncan definitely is Southern rather than Mid but in my estimation (speaking as a Mainlander despite some time spent in the Capital, but also riffing off the usual geogrpahic descriptions in news/weather) while hte North Island starts just north of Campbell River, Campbell River itself is part of the Mid-Island; certainly the rest of the Island's portion of the Strathcona RD is in "Mid Vancouver Island", not the North Island. "Northern Vancouver Island" was used because "North Island" obvoiusly wouldn't make any better of a category name than "Mid-Island" would, and also as it happens "Northern Vancouver Island" is also BC Tourism's rebranding of what we generally call the North Island; butwhich is Gold River, Woss, Port Alice, Port McNeill, Port Hardy etc. Also I gather perhaps you've put the Northern VI cat on the SRD page/cat, but it spans the islands and straits to the Mainland....right into the heads of the inlets of course. This is one of the reasons I'm adamant that "regional districts are not regions", becuase they span regions; even our usual term "the South Coast" would not refer to the head of Bute Inlet, though it's "the Coast" in terms of people from the Chilcotin; Category:South Coast of British Columbia might suffice, but that the most populated part of the SRD is on Vancouver Island.....aaargh, I think you see my frustration maybe....anyway just some thoughts I'm on my way out the door before my gym closes (at 4, it's 1:15 now). but "what to do" about Island-Mainland spanning categories needs some discussion; it helps to discuss it with another BCer as other canadian Wikipedians "just don't get it" and think that RDs are just fine as region categories; this is an example of why they're not....Skookum1 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See edit comments on Category:Strathcona Regional District, British Columbia. In general I place RDs as subcats of teh actual regions, rather than the other way around....doesn't always work as quite often RDs incorporate two regions (e.g. Columbia-Shuswap, Squamish-Lillooet, Nechako-Bulkley); in this case we need a name for the Mainland coast north from the Malaspina Peninsula - "coastal inlets" is used in weather forecasts, that's all I can think of; it tends to mean from Knight Inlet southwards, I think, maybe it means Fitz Hugh/Dean Channel and northwards but I'm pretty sure north from the Queen Charlotte Strait is just referred to only as the Central Coast and North Coast.  For now both all Vancouver Island cats and insular cats like Discovery Islands and Gulf Islands are subcats of Category:South Coast of British Columbia but it seems to me unless we can come up with a name for mainland regions, in this case there's no choice but to include the subcats as well as their parent.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Reformbclogo.gif)
You've uploaded File:Reformbclogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver East and Vancouver East (electoral district)
Just curious why you re-dabbed the latter with "provincial" added in, since the first one, the federal one, doesn't need a dab (there are no other usages in that form, not even a city ward...the old city wards, which we don't have articles for anyway, were Grandview, etc. for that area). Normally there's no need to use "provincial" if there's no other kind of electoral district in the offing....btw on any provincial electoral districts, or historical/defunct districts, if you happen to have time, please add the riding=yes switch to the WPCan templates (I note that the provincial electoral district only had the WPVan tempalte on it but it really shoudl have the WPCanBC also....Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa cowboy....
Mackenzie (provincial electoral district) I've restored to it not-being-a-redirect to a different riding in a different region. "Whatever gave you that idea?" is all I can say.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on ADIE/AIDE
Thanx for updating Template:Political organisations at European Union level to take account of AIDE's dissolution. It was dissolved 31 Dec 2008 but no-one noticed until Feb 2009! Is there anywhere (other than here!) where the Europarties are registered? It'd really help if there was somewhere an official list of names, dates of birth, funding, etc. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

GO Transit Infobox
You've been working hard! Couple of minor things I've noticed:
 * 1. Extra blank line between the image and the caption.
 * 2. Lots of white space around the line information imbalances the remainder. (Do we really need this in every infobox?)
 * Thanks. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ITN credit templates
Are you going to do the credits for the recent ITN updates? I can do it if you don't want to. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no worries. I am doing both... --BorgQueen (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Churchillsmall.png
Thanks for uploading File:Churchillsmall.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BC prov electoral districts template
Thanks for taking all that on....just wondering on the template if that Vancouver / North LM split vs Fraser Valley South LM split is something Elections BC cooked up; "North" and "South" just don't seem right geographically/compass-wise, it's more like "West" and East".....I'm imagine there's reason to your rhyme; dito Vancouver Island/South Coast which is a-geographical somewhat if North Island is included (the Queen Charlotte Strait region is part of the Central Coast). If those are divisions used by Elections BC I guess that's what it is, though....I can make some additions to various pages describing the changes relating to ridings they're made out of and waht areas are in/out in each case.....and since the districts were created in 2008, shouldn't hte title say that instead of 2009?Skookum1 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also wanted to comment off-article that the obvious gerrymandering of the redistribution is nothing new historically, but another noxious reminder how sad and bad it was that STV wasn't approved by the political parties (since the public thesmelves clearly approved of it). 33 safe seats vs 18 safe seats for Lib/NDP is not reflective of their general proportions in the popular vote, needless to say; I could make various specific comments but that's beside the point, other than to observe that taking Keremeos out of what had been Yale-Lillooet and putting in Ashcroft-Ccche Creek-Clinton and some of far southern suburban Kamloops seems pretty much a guarantee that that will no longer be a swing riding, as it often has been; similarly cutting the wealthier east side of Mission out of Maple Ridge-Mission weakens the NDP share in the latter, while stregnthening the Liberal hold on teh Abbotsford ridings...I'm sure such a pattern is consistent across the redistribution although unilkely to be discussed by the "reliable sources" (CanWest papers and network...).  Anyway noting your inclusion the redistribution article of the Vancouver Sun editorial, please see Monte Paulsen's lead article on The Tyee, which is fairly neutral and mostly stastical in nature, and surprisingly not all that partisan (given The Tyees leanings towards the NDP, which is maybe why that article dwells on the Green vote-split0.  A huge task all of this; I'm wondering if on the adjusted and new ridings section there cam be NPOV cmoments about what was added/changed and what's in each riding now; e.g. "Maple Ridge-Mission: Ferndale, Hatzic, the former area of Mission City, and areas eastward were removed and added to the newly-created Abbotsford-Mission", re Fraser Nicola "Keremeos and the Lower Similkameen are now in XXXX while Clinton, Ashcroft and Cache Creek, formerly in XXX were added to what had previously been named Yale-Lillooet" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Three Rasmussens
Hi. You updated the sorting of the articles on Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and Lars Løkke Rasmussen to sort by their middle name rather than Rasmussen. I have undone all three edits, as Rasmussen is indeed their last name, and they all three have two first names (in Denmark, you can only have one last name). Just letting you know. Cheers! - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count)• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

David O. Marley
Saw your de-linking, and I just added article issues to his self-bio and added PPAP/WP:Canada....wasn't sure what to use to indicate it was a "resume" re switches...maybe you know. Figured I'd alert you to his article; I suspect he'll be quite persistent and his bio is gonna need some patrolling....Skookum1 (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

BC-STV
You were mentioned at WP:EAR. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 STV referendum gag law

Thank you The Tom for your contributions on BC political stuff in wiki. I need to convince you the STV gag law is real and important for BCer's to know about. Different then the election gag law, different Act completely. Please phone BC elections at 1 800 661 8683. Verbal confirmation. Yes you can read the regulations from BC election's webpage, goto resource section, legislation. Better you speak to a BC election official directly, and know it is the truth and in play. Thank you for allowing this back onto Wiki. BC (Canada) needs you Tom.

A fellow BCer, Haida chieftain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Materials task force
A His Dark Materials task force has been created here, you are invited to join. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nechako Lakes
I added the unreferenced tag and mention of the usual names for the region these are in; this term, to me, has only become even partly current because of the coinage of the school district name and the electoral district, both of which are rather new; Seeing Stuart, Takla, and Trembleur in the same "group" as Ootsa and Francois is rather, odd, to say the least.....I suppose perhaps Cariboo Lakes, Chilcotin Lakes, Shuswap Lakes etc are all fair game, too, though the government has not seen fit to coin a group/region name in the same way; to me it's rebranding but in any case some references are needed for the name; i.e. other than the school district and the electoral district, which to my knowledge are the only usual usages.Skookum1 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template
A template you created, Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Vision, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish to draw your attention to this
I have opened a discussion here to which I wish to draw your attention. This is a friendly notice under the auspices of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about
The Saskatchewan Liberal Party is still affiliated with the federals. You need to find a source on that. It's not on me to find a source because they started out affiliated. DO NOT revert my edits removing that they aren't affiliated until you do. Sorry but let me tell you some Saskatchewan history. The provincial PC and Liberals ran as one party to take down the NDP and called themselves the Saskatchewan Party, but the provincial PC and Liberals still remained different parties and the Liberals are still affiliated with the Federals. They ran as a single party so the didn't split the vote. You see they are still Liberals who refuse to join with the PC and run under the Saskatchewan Liberal Party and they are still affiliated with the Federals. When YOU find a source on when they stoped you can put it back. Remember the burden of sources are on you because the part started out affiliated. When it comes to Canadian politics I know what I'm talking about.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Beaver Pass
I realize there is currently only one Beaver Pass article, which got created due to its relationship to localities around Cottonwood, British Columbia in a string of article-creations in that area, i.e. Beaver Pass House. The more important and notable Beaver Pass topographically-speaking is between the Beaver River (Selkirks) and the Duncan River, and was to be Beaver Pass (Selkirks), though that name is not in BCGNIS it does appear on maps, and oddly I recall it occurring in Basemap, which is theoretically based on BCGNIS but they don't always coincide. There are also two Beaver Passes in the US - one in Whatcom County in Washington, the other in Bonner County in Idaho. My intention was that Beaver Pass would be a disambiguation page as there doesn't seem to be any one of these, other than the Selkirks one, which is more notable than any of the others, though I'm unfamiliar with the history/locations of the US passes.Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sifton Pass
I haven't made this yet, should have a long time ago; it's the pass in the Rocky Mountain Trench between the Finlay/Kwadacha and Liard/Kechika-Fox basins....it's neither in the Rockies nor in the Cassiars, technically speaking, though forming a crucial "col" between them....I suppose when made it should be in both those categories. Also just wanted to ask that when you make a new pass article, to place the WP:Mountains and WP:Canada:Geog/BC templates, and the respective range category...there's more in the Rockies yet, of course......Skookum1 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Swift River (Teslin Lake)??
Shouldn't this has been changed to the "Teslin Lake" dab, as above, rather than to "Teslin River"? btw I'd used "Teslin" originally to refer to the region/country ,as also with Swift River (Cariboo River), though in both cases it happens that the dab is also the name of the parent watercourse.....oh, that's not actually been made...I gather the correct one to use is "Cariboo River" rather than "Cariboo"??Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-UN vs UN non-
Can you please argue why UN non-member states is better than Non-UN member states?

Non-UN member states receives 31700 hits on google while UN non-member states gets less than 1/10 of that. Furthermore, even the UN uses the former version (check on of the first links on the google search: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/question/faq.htm). The fact that some other wiki article also uses the less common wording is not a valid arguement. --Xeeron (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kosovo–New Zealand relations
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kosovo–New Zealand relations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Kosovo–New Zealand relations. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Irishgraph.PNG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Irishgraph.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

File source problem with File:Lincolnsmall.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lincolnsmall.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lauriersmall.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lauriersmall.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bcstv2005.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bcstv2005.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for File:Hmcs-terra-nova-badge.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hmcs-terra-nova-badge.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hmcs-terra-nova-badge.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hmcs-terra-nova-badge.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hmcs-labrador-badge.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hmcs-labrador-badge.jpg. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)