User talk:Themightyquill/Archive5

__NOINDEX__

Hi
Regarding this discussion, the page's title should not had been changed unilaterally in the first place. I have restored the original title, if the other user insists on using a different title, he or she should follow proper procedure and a request a move. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Themightyquill! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Heddy Honigmann -

CfD nomination of Category:Hungarian politicians by political party
I have nominated hungarian politicians by political party for renaming to hungarian politicians by party. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Terrorism category definition
Template:Terrorism category definition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Angliotti
A tag has been placed on Angliotti, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu
Requests for comment/Mayumashu IZAK (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello old timer
If your at all interested pls jump in,,,,---> Talk:History of Canada/GA1..Moxy Moxy (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Romani_people
Replied. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal title in Canada
"Canadian aboriginal caselaw" should not be a subcategory of "Aboriginal title in Canada". There are plenty of aboriginal cases that have nothing to do with land rights. If anything the latter should be a subcategory of the former. If you are really enterprising, you could create "Aboriginal title cases in Canada" which could be a subcategory of both. Savidan 05:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Map
Hi,

I reverted to the old partition image for the following reason: the new map was displaying the borders in a very inaccurate manner. This is especially true for the map of Bangladesh. Please compare the maps to see the discrepancy.

Can you please fix the newer SVG image to reflect accurate borders? The new image has so much more info that it is a shame the borders are incorrect in it. If you can fix the border, please update the Bengali language movement article with the fixed image. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying ... but having had to draw the map of Bangladesh many times in my school days, I was able to spot the problems right away.
 * If you put the maps side by side and look at the borders of Bangladesh, you'll notice the errors. Here is a short list:
 * The entire Sylhet Division is missing from the new map.
 * Large parts of Chittagong Division are missing, both on the northern and southern parts.
 * Large parts of West Bengal appear as part of Bangladesh.
 * In general, almost all the details of the border are missing in the new map, leaving the map of Bangladesh as a green blob.
 * Once again, just put the two maps side by side, and you'll see what I'm saying. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to add further that the Sylhet division in the north east part of the map is particularly important in the context of the partition, as that area broke away from the Assam province and joined East Pakistan during the partition (based on a plebiscite). --Ragib (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the latest map is much better ... though the outlines can be made crisper. Right now, the boundaries are slightly crude approximations of the actual boundary. If you could make your lines thinner, and use a higher resolution canvas to create the map, perhaps an acceptable amount of details will be there.

Since I have no idea of the Pakistani side, you might want to check up on that as well.

Finally, thanks a lot for taking the pains to re-do the map. The new info is useful to show the context of the partition. --Ragib (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Accepting your request. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about having to pull out of mediation, but the long and short of it is that I think the entire article should be deleted. To my mind, Wikipedia's "voice" should never be used to label individuals or groups - especially when it is something controversial like "terrorist". What I don't want to do is get embroiled in a wiki battle. I'm thinking about asking an administrator for advice in this matter, but in the meantime I'm going to keep the page watchlisted. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll probably ask for advice from Bigtimepeace. He is familiar with this sort of topic and is very skilled at diffusing battleground editing problems. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did talk to Bigtimepeace, but he is busy with other things at the moment. My feeling is that an AfD is unlikely to be successful, so there is little point in my proposing it. That only leaves one option - trying to improve an article which I don't think should exist. I've got lots of irons in other fires at the moment, but I will monitor what goes on and chip in if I think it is appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Themightyquill as a scratcher of history
Themightyquill as a falsifier of history! I am pretty shocked that somebody as a Themightyquill can have such impress on falsifiaction of history. I strongly recommend to revise all his activity on wikipedia. He hides all facts about supression of Slavic or non-hungarian and non-german nation in Europe which has taken for 1000 years. Actually he falsifies history to describes victims as criminals!!!!!! What nazi rasist chauvinist and liar! What about history of Hungary! Where is chapter about hungarian war crimes, about racial genocide of non-hungarian nations in Hungary, about original slavic residents of contemporary Hungary?!? pls. read real history: http://www.archive.org/details/racialproblemsin00setouoft racial problem in hungary by Robert Wiliam Senton-Watson
 * This is what I get from suggesting you make changes yourself? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New West v. Fort Langley
New West has had a long tradition of asserting its "first capital" status but, yes, Fort Langley (or rather Old Fort Langley, aka Derby) was in fact the first formal capital (as declared in the proclamation of the Colony I believe). Moody as you know didn't like the site, but his REs were already surveying it for a townsite when the colonel's decision to move it to New West; the survey work was aborted....it's safe to say that New West was where the first mainland Government House, i.e. the official governor's residence, was built (that would be SFAIK also where the colonial council met, once it came into existence). I didn't want to add extra detail into there about the Old Fort Langley site not being where today's Fort Langley is....but as noted, that article needs lots of work (and lots of de-Britishizing....er, "de-Britishising").Skookum1 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alabama Claims
I think that may be a separate article, maybe as Alabama claims because of "Wiki-lower-case-ism" - what was in the section in the BC article can be merged there, and it coudl be mentioned in passing with the link, but it has no place in the BC article, certainly with so much high visibility/detail. The context I've heard in relation to BC re the British and Civil War/southern US is the Trent Affair, but that's a different matter. While BC may have been collateral in negotiations/ambitions over Alabama, it's not part of BC history; during the Trent Affair/Civil War, on the other hand, Baynes and Douglas wanted to invade and annex Puget Sound....annexation issues were why the mainland colony was declared, and by now you must know the story of McGowan's War, though that was opera buffa and not really an annexationist uprising, though word reached Victoria as though it was (thanks to McGowan's enemies and the hysterics of Whannell, not to any real plans to take over the goldfields for the US - a move btw which would have precipitated war between Britain and the US for sure. More pertinent were the previous creation of the irregular companies which marched north from Yale during the Fraser Canyon War and teh Snyder Treaties reach with Spintlum at The Forks (Lytton), which have disappeared into oblivion (any copy of them apparently destroyed by Douglas, as they were treaties reached by American citizens with natives and were anathema to the concept of British sovereignty, as were the miner's committees, a la California, which had begun to appear around Yale; Spintlum was soon after created a magistrate, as had been Kowpelst, chief of Spuzzum who'd faced off with the "Boatmen of San Francisco" at Hills Bar. American annexation remained a theme throughout the 1860s, though usually in the form of British worries rather than any actual agitation; as of the opening of the Civil War and contemporaneous gold rushes at Colville and in Idaho and Colorado saw most of the Americans of the early rush leave the colony (which is why the Cariboo Gold Rush was dominantly Canadian and British with relatively few Americans; prob more Germans and other Northern Europeans, in fact). There was a pro-annexation settlement among some of the non-American colonists, mostly ex-Californian miners but also others who didn't want to become annexed to CAnada; this was parallel to intentions on the part of the colony's "old guard" to see separate Dominion status. The formula remains much the same today - Confederation, annexation or sovereignty. This was reborn during the 1870s when it was clear that Ottawa's promises were not getting done (you'll see reference to "Carnarvon Terms or Separation" in images and documents from the time; Dufferin's visit in that decade was confronted with the agenda at nearly every stop; the agenda included deires to see Britain help get teh railway - or Douglas' vision of a road to Fort Garry built with British labour, Ottawa insisted on cheaper Chinese labour and hired an American to get it done, since no British Columbian could associate themselves with such a venture or face opprobrium and shunning by other colonists (Ottawa imported the Chinese and the low pay scales were Onderdonk's doing and that of Chiense labour contractors, but BC gets blamed for it....). Annexation though was only a slim issue after the initial tensions of the Fraser Gold Rush and accompanying restiveness at Rock Creek and Wild Horse Creek - gold finds a little too near the US border (Rock Creek was virtually right on it, as later was also Rossland); hence the Dewdney Trail, which was built for security reasons and to assert British control over the Southern Interior, access to which was easier from adjoining US territory (this was also the reason the Kettle Valley Railway was built during the industrial mining boom of the 1890s). We have to have a section on the issue of colonial-era annexation pressures - also independnece pressures (most Canadian histories always write it as though union with Confederation was destined/a foregone conclusion, but it wasn't); but the Alabama Claims are highly peripheral and had no impact locally, nor I submit were the colonists even aware of it, though some in the upper echelons of the colonial government may have been advised by telegram). A similar "flaw of context" is in the Alaska boundary dispute article, which deals with resentment in Central Canada but doesn't get into the actual conflicts in the disputed area, nor to BC's position re same (I've been too busy/distracted to get back at that, ditto the US-heavy content in Oregon boundary dispute and related articles).Skookum1 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Richmond islands cat
Pls see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Med Cabal
Hello! There is a mediation cabal case still open in which you are a named party. It appears the other mediator has withdrawn. Is there still a need for the mediation cabal to deal with this? If so, I would be glad to volunteer and help out. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will wait and see whether the other editor wishes to participate in mediation. If he doesn't now, maybe try mediation again in the future after more attempts to reach consensus have been dealt with. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)