User talk:Pfly/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You are most welcome. It was just one of those minor things that are hard to see. I like what you've been doing with the article. How did the map discussion turn out? I didn't take part in that debate, and I've lost track. Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You are basically doing everything right with the cite templates. They are intolerant of deviation, and small errors are hard to see. In this case, the date in the Mockford citation was red because the date was entered in the template as 2008-10-4. I fixed the problem by adding the missing leading zero to yield 2008-10-04. Finetooth (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

not in the mood to make an edit and unsure of info, but Simpson visited the Columbia Department in - 1841? 1839? - whenever it was he gave the orders to shut down Durham and Stikine and McLouughlin and concentrate North Coast operatioins on Fort Simpson; did Fort Rupert survive the cut? Don't think so, or was it closed earlier on? Reason for my query here is how Simpson chose it at the earlier ate - did he make two trips to the PacNW? Or did he just do it by maps and reports from the local office; wasn't there some resistance by McLoughlin to this, or some other issue at play.....I don't have the energy (focussing on track edits right now) but int he Begg and Howay/Scholefield on-line stuff, likewise Bancroft, all this is somewhat searchable; they may be uncomfortable to read but the search tool on historica.ca, at least, works fairly well (i.e. within books)....I think the meaty stuff on this was in the Howay/Scholefield material, Begg condenses the fur era somewhat....Skookum1 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi; would you mind going over my recent edits to Oregon Country, also those on Jedediah Smith (and note my edit comments there....); I seem to recall you have acitation for the "ufr desert" policy....also the Smith article claims he was teh first to explore Oregon from California, which is nonsense since his trip was in 1828-29 but I let it stand. I don't have the stomatch for more edits today, wrastling with a cold and have life-survival stuff going on, including CD-workup.....I'm beginning to feel like sisyphus with Wikipedia, constantly chewing away at reinsertions of monodeienesional popular history of the kind amended in the edits linked.....it's as if American history exists in a half-reality where actual facts don't matter, but some kind of visionary incarnation "manifest destiny" guides the hand of what will never be the truth....the details of the 1824 and 1825 treaties I don't have the stomach for, as said, not today anyway, similarly the denuncation of the provisional government by British and others in rthe region otehr than McLouughlin (whoc in Canadaian history is osmething of a traitor, rather than a hero figure...). As fro the "Mntreal basd" substititon for "Anglo-Quebecker" the latter term is pointedly modern Quebecois in nature and inaccurate as the NWC were Scotsmen, not English (many with Gaelic as their first language no less; but the angl0Quebecker edit when it appeared is a sign that my placement of {{Canadian colonies}} would attract more Canadian editors to this article.)Skookum1 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The map on the Jedediah Smith labels the confluence of the Snake and Columbia as Flathead Post; that's not right is it?Skookum1 (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Like what you did to Crab Creek. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Swedish & Norwegian have many cognates & skål is certainly one. And a very useful one at that, as your Swede-Finn Grandfather must have told you. Keep up your excellent work on the northwest rivers!

Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 04:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I never seem to tire of creeks and rivers. If things go well, the Washington locator map may soon be up and running thanks to User:Ruhrfisch. I didn't realize until today that it lacked something essential. The Oregon and Idaho ones worked fine for me, and I just assumed the Washington one would work seamlessly. Not. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pfly, just wanted to let you know that I finally made Template:Geobox locator Washington and apparently it works pretty well. Sorry it took so long, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Figure you might have something to add on Template talk:Canadian colonies - see here - note the last few parapraphs/posts especially.....it's always interesting to me when someone "from east of the mountains" opines that the stuff in question doesn't have to do with tehi story of Canada. Perhaps not Canada, but definitely BC - and the same crowd tell me that BC's no different from teh rest of Canada :-D anyway figured you might ave osme opinion on the rationales/historical contexts....Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo; where's all that stuff on HBC posts that you'd amassed; I just added a comment to Talk:fort Durham about problems with that fort-stub's wording, evidently drawn from "fuzzy history" and would have added the dates of estabslishment, closure and dismantling if I'd been sure and had the cite....."they" listed James Douglas as "architect" which I found rather amusing.....the article says there were three HBC forts in what's now Alaska. Where was the third (otehr than Stikine I mean)?Skookum1 (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This you mean, User:Pfly/Sandbox? Haven't had time to do much more with it. You're right about the not-competing thing. I check later about what the third fort might have been, if anything. Pfly (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there doesn't seem to have been a third HBC fort in Alaska. But the Russians apparently contested the establishment of Fort Simpson as a territorial infringement, which led to the high level negotiations and the eventual HBC "lease" of the panhandle. Pfly (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to Mackie James Douglas was the "architect", even if that is far from the right word. The relevant bit from Mackie: "In 1839, [James] Douglas was instructed to establish posts at Taku and Stikine, and in June 1840 he left in the Beaver to take possession of what he called the company's 'newly acquired territory at the coast'. Douglas's trip is one of the most extraordinary in the history of the fur trade, comparable to Ogden's trek to the [Gulf of California].... Douglas explored the lower thirty-five miles of the Taku River...; between June and August he built Fort Taku (also known as Fort Durham)...". Maybe the term architect is too grand. "Established by", or something similar, might be better, but the nrhp infobox doesn't give you a choice. Pfly (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, putting Douglas and folks like Imhotep and Inigo Jones under the same rubric is a bit odd; although considering hte number of forts he built, or supervised the repair of, perhaps there was a distinctive "Douglas style" to the palisades :-) Certainly he was an "architect" in the metaphorical sense, as in being the architect of the Hudson's Bay Co's operations and t he architect of British plans in teh region.....infoboxes often have that kind of problem; I've found where the US contexts (state, county) are the only options for things that are clearly not US-limited.....(someone should do a book on such National myopias - which Canada has lots of too...especially prov to prov).....Douglas was a remarkable man/adventurer, I'm always stunned that latter-day historians and politicizing rehashers try to portray him as some kind of stuffy British import without any regard to his frontier life, which was the bulk of his life.....his later journeys around the mainland colony just after its establishment are often portrayed as epic, but in reality a trip to Cayoosh (Lillooet) or Osoyoos/Rock Creek was just a walk in the park for the governor, given his earlier life...the other unsung adventurer-heroes of the earliest days are John Campbell and Samuel (?) Black.... by teh way about that comment by Douglas that he considered the leased region to be "newly acquired territory", remember that Hong Kong was also a lease, yet considered "part of the Empire" territorially; I think there's other examples; and this issue came up, as you're probably aware of by now, in British Columbia's protests to Ottawa and London over American encroachment on the leased region post-1867 (detailed in Begg's books/pamphlets); it was assumed by the Colony that the leased regions were "part of BC", particularly in teh wake of the chartering of the Stikine Territory.....just speculating that if Simpson hadn't ordered Taku and Stikine closed it's possible that hte 1849 renewal of the lease might have been translated into an actual territorial transfer, or rather if Russo-British relations had n't been so bad post-Crimean War the empire might have undertaken to secure the coastal territory at the time of hte creation of the Stikine Territory......Simpson was incredibly short-sighted IMO.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea if the HBC posts had been kept it could have been different. It's a little hard to imagine the Russians giving up Sitka in 1849 though. I actually don't know much about that region's history, other than a vague notion of the gold rush route to the Yukon, and the continuing boundary dispute in Dixon Entrance. Someday I'll take a trip up the coast and see it for myself, I hope. On Simpson- maybe short-sighted, but then he seems to have always looked for ways to keep the HBC profitable by cutting unnecessary expenses, etc. It's remarkable he did keep it profitable even during the fur trade decline and the loss of the lower Columbia Dept. Pfly (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All true, and somewhere and in more than one source I've seen it observed that Simpson's interests were those of the fur company, not of British imperialism/territorialism; he closed Taku and Stikine to save costs, and I suppose it was iplicit that hte lease would still give HBC access to thsoe regions while having only operations at Ft Simpson. It's odd though that the Russians were pissed about Ft. Simpson, since they'rd already agree in 1825 both to 54-40 and also to the boundary line running up Clarence Strait, but I recall subtleties in all that that aren't easy to lay out for the casual reader.....Norfolk Sound (now Sitka Sound I think) was "busy with ships from all nations", particularly American ones, during the lease years - that's in Begg or Howay, Begg I think as I read him more recently. Sitka itself wasn't in the leased area, also, although it did face towards it.....anyway Simpson wasn't a habituee of teh region in teh way Douglas was, and itwas Douglas who proved to ahve the imperial vision/ambition later on; the argument - never recorded in full -b etween him and Simpson over the northern forts' closures I betcha was sumpin' to hear......although Douglas also "knew his place" so maybe didn't take simpson on in private, though I suspect hte normal British social protocols didnt' apply so toughly that far from home....the Inside Passage is most known, yes, for being a route to the Klondike Goldfidedls; but it as also the main route to the Stikine and Cassiar and Atlin rushes, and during hte Cassiar as noted tensions were high, as the Americans didn't acknowledge the treaty rights guaranteeing Britons the right of access to the Stikine and Taku and American authorities waylaid them, tried to charge tolls etc.....Canada did f* all during the Cassiar excitement to protect BC's interests...in the case of both Stikine anc Cassiar rushes thet British and/or Americans placed gunboats at the mouth of the Stikine....must have ben the Americans or a British military vessel in those waters might have precipitated a war (well, it almost happened anyway but neither Britain nor Canada were interested and had issues with the Aemricans elsewhere; same as the Oregon, San Juans and Alaska settlements; BC got shoved aside.....my time-guilt keeps me from writing up Fort Stikine and the Stikine Gold Rush properly, likewise the Alaska boundary dispute expansions I keep talking about; were I getting a paycheque for all this it'd be different.....speaking of which time to get back to my tracks, got to make room the hard drive for editing space, gonna take a few hours.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The things you find while looking up other things; I was trying to find info as to which Haida group had seized the Georgiana and its crew in order to flesh out the [[Queen Charlottes Gold Rush[[ article and a google for "BCGNIS + Georgiana" found me this on Choquette Bar on the Stikine, which was the site of the first strike of the Stikine Gold Rush and also is the namesake of Choquette Hot Springs......there's mention of waht sounds like an HBC post at "Shakesville", which I take to be the settlement that grew up under Chief Shakes around the site of Fort Stikine in the years after the HBC's withdrawal from it.....which I don't understand, unless in response to Shakesville's existence the HBC re-opened the fort site as a post....thought it's pretty interesting, though, and may fit into our discussion above somehow; and certainly I'll have another look att he Chief Shakes article....if only other chief articles were as well-compiled....Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo; more HBC post stuff - see this...been bugging me for a while, but I've never seen any specifics on the post, or on the HBC's agrreement with Mexico or the governate of Mexican California to know where it was or its proper title; or if it remained until the Aemrican overthrow of Mexican rule....Skookum1 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my oil replenishing question on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My home turf, should be able to donate lots of pics. As you can see I stuck away from it because of hte amount of material I knew... no page cites, all valid though... pretty much; hope it's not too hype-y, isn't meant to be just a fascinating place.....gonna be hard to prove that local parlance site, unless I can get someone to take a picture of the bridge-sign and I think I could probably also just give Edwards as a cite for that, as it's in there and probably also in Harris. Should be lots of hydrology reports because of the power proejcts/licneses; Walden North I don't know who owns it know, black ops for all I know......Pick was a genius/paranoid who built two fallout-proof-as-possible bomb shelters/scientific redoubts, the other's down in Arizona or Nevada, made everying from photocopier drums and waht turned out to be microchip precursor technology and also fake antique French furniture, huge mansion, room in the mountain for 300 people in case of nuclear war....think Stargate....a Ph.D in physics who was working for the railway in '79 when I worked there for DoH told me that Pick had his own pet bevatron deep in the mountain, and all other kinds of stuff. Probably made more money out of that place than all logging revenues in teh same area, i.e. Lillooet's not just a logging town ;-); I don't know how to cite that, I'm not sure what's published but I have various leads in some old email boxes deep in another hard drive, including some correspondence from some mining/engeineering colleagues of his....great stuff for a bio-book if only I had thte balls, sounds dangerous to wriet about though :-). Taht campground's real nice, by the way; and no bugs in that area, too dry, with a great beach just around the terminal moraine at the end of Seton Lake. Anyway there's probably lots of typos and incomplete setnences/thoughts; wish I had my books here for the oncoming citation templates.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In the same general area as your haro Straits and area maps.....just a suggestion, and maybe you have some more maritime/spanish history? I know that it's the lcoation of the actual deepest channel between the 49th and Juan de Fuca- if they'd had the soundings this is where the boundary technically should have gone - that's citable from Derek hayes in fact.... "the Historical Atlas - nice map of it too in there....prob public domain/scannable given datestamp.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You may already have accounted for it, I hvaen't x-ref'd the info in this history of Masset so was; that Bob Gray, writing about Captain Crowell of the Hancock? Main reason i dropped by is, this page says the Spanish captain's name was Masseta - that's a redlink so maybe Masstta although that's more Italian/Sicilian looking; almost too much like Heceta isn't it?, in case that turns up in your readingts; hopefully we can get somebody working on WikiProject Spain/New Spain who's into naval amtters to take an interest; you never know what might turn up in Spanish....Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 established the joint Anglo-American occupation of the Oregon Country

The Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 established the border between the Kingdom of Spain and United States at the 42nd parallel north.

The Russo-American Treaty of 1824 established the border between the Empire of Russia and the United States at the parallel 54°40′ north.

The Treaty of Saint Petersburg of 1825 established the border between the Empire of Russia and the United Kingdom at the parallel 54°40′ north.

The Oregon Treaty of 1846 established the border between the United Kingdom and the United States at the 49th parallel north.

I've lived in Seattle and Fort Lewis, as well as Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Indiana. --Buaidh (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Buiadh, I drop by this page so much I thought your message was for me, i.e. I thought I was on my page....hence my reply on your talkpage which you must be scratching your head over. In light of your above list though there's also the Russo-British Convention of 1839.....see this and note that the book the blockquote is from has all kinds of details in it, including on the above treaties....Skookum1 (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stubbed up Samuel Crowell from what's in the BCGNIS entries (see refs on that page); figured you might have more than I can dig up on the Hancock (brig)....note also the Masset history page again and I note on re-reading it that hte namesake of the vessel was none other than John Hancock.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lst night I found a fulltext copy of A. Begg's history online, in txt format - worth printing out, but also nicely searchable from within the browser's "find" function.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL I'm trying not to leave stuff in your lap, given there's so much here already I dropped, but I found this very interesting...is there an article on teh Dryad?Skookum1 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it's quite alright. Quite often I'm unable to follow up, but now and then it's the perfect time. Pfly (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just found this at the end of an article on McLoughlin Canyon (which is probably a redlnk...):

The following spring, four companies of soldiers built Fort Colville, 14 miles southeast of the Hudson's Bay Company post at Kettle Falls, called Fort Colvile (spelled with one l). Two other companies accompanied surveyors marking the international boundary. All troops withdrew in 1861.

It's from Historylink.org which I've read before but never noticed that bit; Colville Gold Rush awaits a writeup, also Idaho Gold Rush and certain others; there also seems to be a secondary name source/claim for the US Army Fort Colville, some officer or other, rather htan the Colvile referred to in HBC naming (forgotten how, member of the board in London?). Still I don't think it incidental that the Americans stuck by the name Colvil(l)e for that area as it "was in currency"; but as in other cases they need to re-brand it so it had an American rather than British name-origin. The McLoughlin Party is one of the more infamous on the Okanagan Trail, as David though halfbreed himself was an Indian-hater (his brother had been killed in an Indian raid on Taku, or Stikien?); I have yet to pull together all the various "parties" that travelled the trail, and all the various skirmishes that went on; it was a "linear war"...the use of Cariboo Trail in this article is interesting and sums up that usage well; I'd forgotten it was used in the US too - "the trail from California to Cariboo"; generally north of the Okanagan that would have been the Brigade Trail.....anyway went by that site looking for stuff on Chief Tonasket who needs an article....Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on Tonasket directly though he's mention in this article which gives a nice rundown of the land-evolution resettlement and mining and such...Chief Tonasket I know was involved in Yakima War skirmishes, or skirmishes that happened in the wake of the border-division anyway if not hte gold rush....maybe I'll look on that page (Yakima War)....hard to google him because the town and associated things/placenames come up way first....he's discussed in J.Teit (from the Jessup Expedition papers) but I don't have my digicopy, or don't know where it is in my bottomless drives....Skookum1 (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I always thought, or guessed anyway, that the shift from Colvile to Colville was simply that ubiquity of -ville in placenames, making -vile look like a misspelling, even though it comes from a personal name, if I remember right. If nothing else it would be, and still is easy, to write Colville when one means to write Colvile. At least I've made the mistake a number of times. Pfly (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a mistake; I think British sources adn Mr Colvil(l)e himself probably varied it, as is also teh case with James Duffey/Duffy of the REs and otehrs; even a read through Palmer's or Mayne's journals and you'll find the same individaul or place spelled differently, and it's either the printer or teh author who didn't seem to care about any difference in many cases; so while the quote does say that, I think it's interpretive on the part of the historian and perhaps not the origina lcontext, that being a world where spelling wasn't yet orthodox in any way; you've seen stuff from even earlier in teh century and in teh 17th right? Just thoughts....gotta head for the gym, gonna make a stab at the ukases tonight....maybeSkookum1 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Meant to metion taht once there's seprate HBC/US Army Fort Covile/Colville articles my peremptory deletion of hte info about hte US Army officer Colville, who was assigned to head it (surely not by accident! considering hte history fo the location and no doubt a jarongized form of hte name in local indigenous languags making it "current" as a placename; either that or some eccentric general's idea about giving the guy the post because of his name, maybe as a lucky charm (Colville wasn't all that lucky as I recall, though)....anyway I waa a bit hasty in my deletion of that; it wno't make any sense to restore except in teh context of s eparate US Army Fort colville from the HBC Colvile - if that's the spelling we'll go with, which I'm still not sure is either correct or in wide use; I'll look in BCGNIS under "Fort Shepherd" (there isn't an entry but "Shepherd's Flat" mentions it Colville think, or another article around there or online somehwere does...)

Where was that cite you had, I think from Meinecke, about the fate of the Chinese labourers at Nootka Sound; thought it was on your talkpage or mine; I searched "San Blas" but I'll look around related pages; maybe in your sandbox? Need it for a cite.Skookum1 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea I can't remember offhand where i saw it. We talked about it and I mentioned it and the source... somewhere. But who knows where? Could be any number of random talk pages. It wasn't from Meinig or Mackie, or Penthick. I don't think it was from the guy who wrote about Narvaez either. It may have been the book on Colnett:

Galois, Robert (2004). Voyage to the Northwest Side of America: The Journals of James Colnett, 1786-89. University of British Columbia (UBC) Press. ISBN 9780774808552. online at Google Books

But I'm not entirely sure, and rather pressed for time these days, sorry. That book is semi-readable at Google Books, perhaps a good keyword search there might turn something up. (and oop, I should add that one to my user page book list) Pfly (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. You quoted it on a talkpage somewhere; at least your user contributions are thinner than mine so I'll try back about a month ago and do some "shopping"...want to tidy up mentions of the Chinese workers on various Chinese-Canadian history articles; I'd added a mention of San Blas and someone line-commented it out as uncited (never mind that all the bulltwaddle on those pages goes unchallenged, except by me...). Found lots of great googlebooks lately; was it you or OMR or BlackTusk who told me that to see the pages you cant' see, dump your cache and re-load the page; didn't work for me when I tried it last night but maybe actually closing thebrowser is needed, not just dumping the cache...Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This turned up just now, one of those tightly-written things that are tighter than the Wiki article that results from cribbing them :-D Jason Allard, btw, is Ovid Allard's son - but the latter name you wouldn't really know unless you'd read a lot of HBC history and/or the stuff about McGowan's War etc (he was the HBC staff in Yale when the gold rush began).Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To complicate matters there's a Fort Shepherd, West Virginia; see the google for Fort Shepherd....Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pfly. I added you to Wikipedia:RD regulars. Hope that's all right. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Zain Ebrahim111.

Heh, sure it's ok. I didn't realize there was a Wikipedia:RD regulars page. I have to admit to reading the RD pages in part as a way to get tired and go to bed. :-) Pfly (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha - I usually have to drag myself away from WP to get to bed. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a big item but when looking up stuff around Kyuquot found Hohoae Island and Hohoae Point (and user:BlackTusk will be happy I found Volcanic Cove and Volcanic Rocks in the same aera...). I'm partly leaving this note on your already skookum1-cluttered posts as I don't want to lose track of these links; I'm going to try and find Capt. Walbran on-line. The reason is that neither of these words look like Nuu-chah-nulth and I'm reasonably certain they're an alternative spelling of Oywhee, i.e. Hawaii - especially when you remember that "H' was often used by Brits to mean the glottal stop....anyway, back into the fire; this last week the Canadian political quagmire has been taking up a lot of my energies in wikipedia and elsewhere; the last few days I started doing geographic articles again just for a reprieve...(see Talk:2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute and its archive....Skookum1 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Merry Xmas. I'm far from any family Xmas celebrations so will probably be holed up all day eating junk food and eating wiki-snacks....I was updating List of place names in Canada of Aboriginal origin and came across a blank space for Tofino, which someone had put on the list but I have my doubts whether it's actually Nuu-chah-nulth language or not; there's nothing in BCGNIS or Walbran, was wondering if you'd come across anything in teh Spanish logs...there's tons of placenames missing, so I looked up Toba Inlet which I'd thought was maybe Mainland Comox, but BCGNIS says it's Spanish in origin, an engraver's mistake for "Canal de la Tabla".....was wondering if you'd seen/heard that before......Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, both are from Galiano and Valdes. I added the info to the pages on them some time ago! Merry xmas! Pfly (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I should have looked at the Tofino page, likewise Toba....being lazy I guess...I'll remove Tofino from the placenames list....Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If only we had all twenty volumes online and not just the "index and dictionary" - check it out:

• "Index And Dictionary Of Canadian History", Edited by Lawrence J. Burpee, F.R.G.S. Librarian of the Carnegie Library, Ottawa, and Arthur C. Doughty, C.M.G., Litt.D., Dominion Archivist, Ottawa, publ. Morang & Co., Toronto 1911
  • Oh, found another copy, easier to read....Skookum1 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating to have only page numbers but as a sample, here's the portion of the index on Gov. Douglas:

Douglas, Sir James (1803-1877). MS A man of Imperial mind, 225 ; highest

qualities as administrator, 225 ; with Dr. McLoughlin, 225 ; marries daughter of William Connolly, 225 ; chief factor, 1840, 226 ; governor of Vancouver Island, 1851, 225; knighted, 225; receives Simpson at Fort St. James, 238. D Visits Etoline, Russian governor, 1842, 45-46 ; in New Caledonia, 59-60 ; character, 84-91 ; dearth of documentary material for Ms life, 90 ; born Demerara, Aug. 15, 1803, 91 ; parentage, 92 ; educated in Scotland, 92-93 ; sails for Canada, 1820, and enters service of North West Company, 93 ; meets John McLoughlin at Fort William, 93; McLoughlin persuades him to join Hudson's Bay Company, 94; accompanies McLoughlin to Columbia department, 94 ; MeLoughlin's friend- ship for Douglas, 94 ; his training under McLoughlin, 96 ; sent to New Cale- donia. 96 ; accompanies William Connolly over mountains, 99 ; with Connolly at Fort St. James, 100; with John Tod at McLeod Lake, 100; his activities there, 100-102 ; marries Amelia Connolly, 103 ; transferred to Fort Vancouver, 1830, 103-110; family life there, 103; eldest daughter marries Dallas, after- wards governor of Hudson's Bay Company at Winnipeg, 103 ; his work in New Caledonia, 104; his connection with Fort George massacre, 105-109; receives Sir George Simpson at Fort St. James, 109; at Fort Vancouver, 110; revises system of accounting at Fort Vancouver, 121 ; in charge of York Factory express, 1835, 121 ; in charge of party that raised British flag above Fort Stikine, 1840, 121-122; builds Fort Durham, 122; sent to dismantle Fort Durham, 122 ; moves Fort McLoughlin to head of Vancouver Island, 122 ; sent to treat with Mexi- can governor, 1840, 126-127 ; succeeds McLoughlin as manager of Puget Sound Agricultural Company, 132 ; severs his connection, 1859, on accepting governor- ship of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, 132 ; becomes chief trader, 1852, 135 ; chief factor, 1840, 133 ; founds Victoria, 1843, 146 ; examines site for fort on Vancouver Island, 176 ; commands expedition charged with the build- ing of the fort, 177 ; selects site, 178 ; proceeds next to dismantle Forts Taku and McLoughlin, 178; brings Bplduc, first missionary, to Vancouver Island, 178 ; completes Fort Camosun (Victoria), 179 ; returns to Fort Vancouver, 180 ; associated with McLoughlin and Ogden on board of management of western department, 187; succeeds McLoughlin in charge of western department, 1846, 187 ; succeeds Blanshard as governor of Vancouver Island, 205 ; dual posi- tion of Hudson's Bay Company officer and representative of crown, 207 ; estab- lishes representative government, 1856, 208-210; his inaugural speech, 211- 215 ; reports gold on Queen Charlotte Island, 220 ; issues gold-mining licenses, 221 ; reports gold discoveries on Upper Columbia, etc., 223 ; difficulties with the miners, 227; visits the camps, 227-228; appointed governor of British Columbia, 229 ; retires from Hudson's Bay Company, 229-230 ; full powers of government given him under instructions of colonial secretary, 1858, 231 ; Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton's opinion of him., 234-235; his administration of the government, 236; appoints provincial officers, 240-241; second visit to the mining camps, 243-245 ; proposes Queensborough as name of capital of British Columbia, 247; settles Hill's Bar affair, 248; builds roads, 249-253; 257 ; his resourcefulness, 249-250 ; plans for a transcontinental road, 253-254 ; financial problems, 258-262 ; charged with extravagance, 261 ; his prejudice in favour of Hudson's Bay Company, 263; defends their policy, 264-265; justice to the natives, 267 ; recommends church endowments, 270-271 ; conflict with Assembly over site of public buildings, 272-273 ; governorship of Vancouver Island ends, 1863, knighthood, succeeded by Arthur Kennedy , retires from governorship of mainland of British Columbia, 1864, 289 ; advocates union of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, 295 ; public appreciation of his rule as governor, 304 ; leaves British Columbia and sails for Europe, 308-309 ; his personal side, 309; death, Aug. 1, 1877, 310; wife dies, 1891, 310; his char- acter and achievements as man, fur trader, and statesman, 342-354 ; compared with McLoughlin, 351-353 ; personal appearance, 350-351. Bib. : Morgan, Cel. Can.; Dent, Can. For.; Cyc. Am. Biog.; Bancroft, History of British Columbia; Begg, History of British Columbia.

Douglas, Captain W. M. D With Meares on North-West Coast, 1788, 27; at Cook River, 27 ; arrives at Nootka from Cook River with cargo of sea-otter, 28 ; sails for Sandwich Islands, 28 ; returns to Nootka, 28 ; sails from Nootka

to Queen Charlotte Islands, 29.

(Note In included Capt. Douglas re the Meares voyages for interest)

"Manuscript Sources" for the same estimable gentleman:

Douglas, Sir James, and his Time, Colonial Secretary's Despatches to

Governors of Vancouver Island, 1846-1867, Serie G, Volumes No. 342-346. Governor of Vancouver to Colonial Secretary, Letter Book, 1858-1864, Serie G, Volumes No. 360-362. Governor of British Columbia to Colonial Secretary, 1864r-1871, Serie G, Volumes No. 363-365. Colonial Secretary to Governor of British Columbia, 1858-1871, Serie G, Volumes No. 347-359. Correspondence of Douglas as Governor of British Columbia. San Juan question, 1859, Serie G. John McLeod's Journal and Correspondence, 1811-1842. Hudson's Bay Com- pany, Correspondence and resolutions, Serie M, Volume No. 372. Hudson's Bay Territory, Correspondence of J. Anderson, 1850-1858, Serie M, Volumes No. 719-720. D. Thompson, geographer, papers, Serie M. Captain Van- couver's Despatches, 1791-1793, Serie M, Volume No. 379. Hudson's Bay Com- pany, Papers re British Columbia, Serie M, Volumes No. 731c, 731d, 731 E 9 731 F. British Columbia and Vancouver. Journals of Jno, Work, 1823-1835, Serie M, Volume No. 731-4. Correspondence of Douglas, 1839-1864, Serie M. Copy of Correspondence of Douglas re British Columbia, 1871-1874. Papers re Graving dock at Esquimalt, 1873-1875, Serie G. Imperial Blue Books, 1851- 1864. British Columbia and Vancouver. Journals of Ermatinger, 1828 ; Dean, 1829; Tolmie, 1830-1833; Douglas, 1835; Tod, 1841; Pemberton, 1855, Serie

M, Volume No. 7316.

Well, actually a Knight is not a gentleman, it was a figure of speech....(the Equerry are one notch up the protocolic ladder from the Gentry, unless they're also Nobility).

I was looking for material on the perennially-unwritten Fort Stikine article, and also as I'd noted there were no articles yet on John McLoughlin, Jr., who died there, and David McLoughlin, who died on the Okanagan Trail just south of the border at McLoughlin Canyon (perhaps best titled Battle of McLoughlin Canyon, or else just incorporated into the Okanagan Trail article. But in searching for "Fort Stikine" I came across a long listing in the "H' section of all Hudson'a Bay forts and posts, as listed in 1911 anyway, including Fort Glenora (now Glenora, British Columbia, near Telegraph Creek) and Fort Mumford, which I'm not sure where on the Upper Stikine, exactly, that was (and odd to hear, because "Mumford" is the name of a bus exchange and shopping area here in Halifax). There's a few other BC-pertinent entries and sections but the ASCII format/OCR mistakes make it a bit hard to deal with; but even as a timeline for different personages and events, it's a bit on the useful side, no? I keep on, by the way, wanting to start addressing the necessary changes/expansion of Alaska boundary dispute but get bogged down/overwhelmed by the complexity of Begg's points and writing; so much ground to cover/condense into wiki-formula and what it would present in the way of an overwhelming amoutn of new copy on the dispute's article...he's too persuasive, for one thing....history has shown, and is showing again, that summaries of logical facts in BC rarely get the proper political attention they deserve, and compromises and supprssion of facts are rather the norm than the exception; for a modern situation that positively rankles those of who know about it and are following it see this.Skookum1 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That is very kind of you to say, and I choose to believe you! :) Truth is, I've evolved, I've mellowed.

You seem to be quite reasonable yourself, Pfly.

As to that page: it's going to get its deserved archiving before the week is out. At long last.

Happy New Year! SamEV (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Happy New Year....still procrastinating about Fort Stikine but thought I should refer you, maybe, to comments I made on Talk:Lax Kw'alaams, British Columbia and Talk:Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories tonight...I'll leave it at that, I've been on wiki for hours, up to all kinds of no good :-) but got to go get some eats....take this up when you can, if you want; Fort Simpson (Columbia Department) was one of the prime HBC forts in BC, it deserves moer than a passing mention on what is mostly a native-culture/clan page at this point....Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, happy 2009 to you too! I saw those comments on Lax Kw'alaams and agree. Time's been especially short over the holidays and continuing shttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pfly&action=edit&section=28now, but perhaps will it improve soon. The page name "Fort Simpson (Columbia Department)" looks a bit odd to me, but after browsing the HBC fort category no other option appears obvious. Maybe (British Columbia)--the parentheses would indicate it isn't a current town, which would use a comma, and at least most people have heard of British Columbia but probably not Columbia Department. Anyway, first reaction. Will think about it and look for time! (of course, whatever the page name, it can always be changed if desired whenever, so no biggie). Pfly (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the official name trumps what most people call the place, as far as the article for Port Simpson goes, I'll try and dig up some cannery-era content as it should be something more than a tribal/clan-culture article....anyway the bottomless pit of the fur trade threatens to suck me away from my efforts to expand British Columbia gold rushes a while back; it's all intertwined isn't it? For a while I've wondered whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Fur trade wouldn't be worthwhile (you know about WP:WikiProject Ghost towns right?); I'm just not sure how many editors it would attract.....WP:Companies and WP:History just don't seem adequate...anyway here's another tier in the bottomless pit - the Ontario fur districts and their forts: Talk:Fort_Frances,_Ontario#HBC_fort_.26_fur_district......02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, one could spend their whole lives expanding Wikipedia; I'll never get all my tracks listened to/edited/assembled/picked through to get my CD(s) done at this rate LOL. And as you can see in t he edit that started this paragraph, WP:Gold rushes has occurred to me too; maybe it and the fur trade WP idea could be workgroups within WP:History and others? All only more work, though....Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never really delved into wikiprojects, except perhaps when searching for something or looking for a guideline or clue. A fur trade project would be vast in scope, to say the least. Not only the eastern Canada type things you mentioned, but people and organizations from long ago, like Abraham Wood and his business. I just noticed that quite a lot of the people listed under Category:Hudson's Bay Company people are not listed under Category:Fur traders. Some clearly ought to be, but what about someone like George Simpson? I'd think yes. Abraham Wood, after all, ran a business and had other people doing the field work. Anyway, it is a bottomless pit--best not to look too deeply. :) If nothing else there are gobs of notable people with no pages, like Aemilius Simpsom, for whom Fort Simpson was named. Seems best to look for particular key missing topics, especially if they are notable for multiple histories and places (eg, Fort Boise is notable not only for Canadian HBC history but also for US Oregon Trail stuff; similar case with Peter Skene Ogden being famous from a variety of perspectives). And yes, more time for music ought to happen! I plan to do that myself, perhaps managing to get something up for Fort Simpson in between piano-ing and such, now that I have a whole two hours free! Pfly (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know dams and such aren't your usual fare, but I just reversed an edit on Similkameen River which un-redlnked the Enloe Dam, which I deemed important enough to redlink as it's on the US National Register of Historic Places...few other Washington editors seem active lately; if it's not your cup of tea maybe I could throw it by User:Murderbike (who I think is from Deming or thereabouts...); unless there's a US WikiProject/workgroup specialising in NRHP pages...??Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW on that same item I linked up Ashnola River and wrote it; it begins in Washington somewhere, I'm unsure of its length but from Basemap I'm estimating its Canadian length is about 50km, given meanders; I measured at 56000:1 and got 46.5 km....Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A vandal had deleted the refs/xternal links, legacy and categories etc...I just fixed it, but also linked Chief Trader which I'm nominating YOU to write at least a stub for....I've recused myself from topography v. geology/ecology, what a friggin' waste of time, and will try to get back onto the needed historical materials and away from quasi-scientific flakiness/gee-whizzery.......Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

there is a Chief Factor article, isn't there, or is that just a redirect to Factor?Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what a Chief Trader was exactly. I don't think any books I have actually define the term. Not sure if it is one generally used or was specific to the HBC. I'll keep an eye out for such info though. Pfly (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Howay/Scholefield actually define the pay scale - i.e. Clerk->Trader->Chief Trader->Chief Factor....not sure if Factor is in that hierarchy....I'll be re-reading that again soon so will keep my own eyes open; Factor (Hudson's Bay Company) seems like a split off needed for Factor as a precursor to Chief Factor (a position my own uncle held, in fact...though Montreal-based...).Skookum1 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Having had three seconds just now I found this webpage which defines Chief Trader and Chief Factor, if tersely. Could prolly reword into a stub. I'm guessing that the term was an office/rank within the HBC, thus capitalized; while in other contexts it might be lowercase, "so-and-so was a chief trader...". Though I wonder if the NWC used similar "ranks" of office. Gotta run! Pfly (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be some details at Hudson's Bay Company#History#19th century. Pfly (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In historical writings and elsewhere (popular histories, journalistic history, e.g. by Stephen Hume or Terry Glavin) it's habitually capitalized at least in Canada. However in Wikipeda guidelines/conventions there may be those who woudl argue against that; which is the case with Governor General so-and-so vs. "the governor general will do this". To me the non-capitalization is grating, and like many Wikipedian naming conventions invent a convention rather than follows one. I would not like to see as an article title Chief trader for example, as it's a proper title, even when occurring mid-setence and especially without a name, i.e. to indicate it's a position, not just a "chief of traders". To me it's important to reflect the historical usage, rather than impose a modernistic styleguide upon times that knew nothing of Wikipedia, or of publishing houses and styleguides; similar examples - Pacific slope looks very odd (ref North Slope, which doesn't). I've been of a mind to create a styleguide especially for BC/Northwest history/geography, as it's been quite a catfight at times over capitalizing "Interior" and other BC usages which those from outside think aren't proper names and are just descriptive (but are fine with the Lakehead, which is the term for the area from Nipigon/Thunder Bay and more or less includes the Rainy River district. e.g. Athabasca District doesn't exist yet, but there are those who would wiki-argue that it should be "Athabasca district". Simlarly Royal Engineers, Columbia Detachment was originally titled with a small-d even though that's not how any history or specifically any British Army history ever titled it. Myself, I think the admin/OCD drones who labour over Wikipedia naming guidelines adn other bits of Wiki-religion go to far in trying to homogenize language usage....Skookum1 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give you a heads-up on a trail I've been following: Talk:Pavel_Pereleshin#Lieutenant_Pereleshin.2C_1863 Gotta eat and go back to bed, had to get up with a grumbly tummy, it's 7:35 am not used to being up until about 9...Skookum1 (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found a small map you created of the Ouachita River Drainage Basin. You credit USGS for the data. I would like to create a similar map, however I'm not sure where on USGS you got the data and created the map. ANy clues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.253.93 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I used some of the GIS datasets here. To make maps with them you need a Geographic information system software program. (also, I removed your email above to prevent spammers from getting it and sending you junk mail) Pfly (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yo; please see User_talk:Black_Tusk#North_Coast_Archipelago.Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you see anything in your readings pls see User_talk:Ezhiki#Khiatka. also, got your CD, thanks, listened to some last night while puttering on the iPhone (figuring it out....). You must like Morton Subotnick, maybe? and George Crumb?Skookum1 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In your perusings of Meinecke and Mackie, and Pethick if you have him, somewhere there might be a mention of a Russo-Spanish accord/agreement, if not exactly a treaty, limiting New Spain to Cook Inlet southwards and similarly limiting Russian interests southward, with a huge overlap; it's the precedent for later agreements on the 42nd Parallel I think. HAd a look around google, can't see anything, I think it's in Pethick's Nootka Connection, or maybe I read it somewhere else, not sure.....haven't seen you editing much lately, must be busy with "homework" huh?Skookum1 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've read about a Spanish-Russian agreement, but can't recall where. I didn't think it had anything to do with the 42nd parallel though. I'll look around. And yea, been a bit busy crazy around here, with more to come! (oh and I do like George Crumb, though I wouldn't say I actually listen to him much--challenging stuff. Morton I don't know hardly at all, perhaps I ought to try) Pfly (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your commentaries of support and especially for the moderate and sensitive commentaries. I have left in my talk page more references [1] that they indicate that the Spanish presence was on the coast of Georgia.

Finally there is a pending issue about were territories of the Spanish Empire or were ruled by the Spanish Empire, it is necessary your knowledge of the English language to discern the suitable words that mean territories subject to the control of the Spanish administration and do not give place to include claims. Trasamundo (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm....Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a perfect word exists. Also, even though your map leaves out "claims" it still includes regions that were not subject to Spanish rule, such as a large portion of northern New Spain and Louisiana. So the word needed isn't exactly one meaning "subject to the control of Spanish administration". Personally I find "territory" suitable. It has several meanings. The OED gives the first two definitions as: 1. The land or country belonging to or under the dominion of a ruler or state. And 2. A tract of land, or district of undefined boundaries; a region. The first definition seems to fit for most of the sense you are looking for, while the second definition fills in the less clear regions, if that makes sense. Another possibility is "possession", but to me that sounds more strictly legal in meaning. One could simply use vague words like "regions", "lands", or "areas". I think "territories" sounds a bit better when talking about regions lost to treaties and wars. But this is just my personal feelings. In general I don't think there is a single, obviously appropriate word. Pfly (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Been needed for a long time, along with other coastal bodies of water; I redlinked it on sound (geography) during a minor expansion of PacNW examples there. Thought you might have some further resources/hsitory for it.Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Got myself busy, made Bedwell Sound and will do others like Campania Sound, but happened across Gil Island (Canada) and added quite a bit from BCGNIS, as well as correct mistakes and such from the Columbia Gazetteer...turns out to be a Spanish name....then in linking Aranzazu (ship) and already known about Aranzazu, Caldas I did a [W side of Whale Channel in entrance to Douglas Channel straight wiki-search] and turned up some interesting stuff; and the Admiral de Fonte/Fonti came up in Walbran there, too....much in need of an articvle/bio....I suspect the vull name of the Aranzazu may have been Nuesta Senora de Aranzazu....Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Made a whole bunch more, note Gil Island especially, but see Category:Sounds of Canada and Category:Straits of British Columbia. Also unsure whether to split Dundas Islands from its target Dundas Island (British Columbia). But in going over some things I found, location references apparently from the Columbia Gazetteer Iv'e been correcting from BCGNIS and just lookign at the map; Pitt Island for example is not "on Hecate Strait" but is between Grenville Channel and Principe Channel; ditto Hunter Island not being on Queen Charlotte Sound - on its west is actually Queens Sound and Cultus Sound, the QCS is farther out . Somewhere I'm going to make a list of "unreliable sources"; the CGA seems OK for size, elevation etc but its locational references suck.Skookum1 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, making all these. Will look more closely when this trip is over and I'm back home. Pfly (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At last.....adn see Talk:Fort Stikine and comments on WP:Alaska and WP:Russia....Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This belongs in another category. Yes, it is a part of US history but in no way should this article take away the great feat the United States accomplished from the Louisiana Purchase. The Indians were not an organized country. If you feel that there is merit in this paragraph, you may paste the article in "Native Americans in the United States" section. The Indians were not a part of the Louisiana Purchase. I will remove this paragraph again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded over at Talk:Louisiana Purchase. Pfly (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. To accept this invitation, click here!

Still very much under construction! Bms4880 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul; please see User_talk:KenWalker#Category:Clayoquot_Sound_region_or_.3F.3F.Skookum1 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi; just looked at Puget Sound region and Puget Sound....they're near-identical, not sure why that is. I'd venture it's difficult to separate the region from the water-body (which is btw incorrectly described as an estuary, it's really a fjord AFAIK). I suspect what happened is someone split the article, then someone else filled in copy from the one to the other.....region vs waterbody also applies at Strait of Georgia (and I'm still nonplussed by the equation of the Strait with the Gulf....one of the eco-cites btw shows a picture of upper Jervis Inlet as illustraitve of the terrain of Georgia Strait...yet another reason I'm starting to dislike ecological quasi-academicism....). Also nothing that capital-R Puget Sound Region does exist (so the article says) and that's part of my ponderings re the categories I'm looking at creating; those have to do with the improper (to me) use of regional districts as if they were useful geo-region divisions of BC; they're not; on the coast, the sounds and inlets are...is there a Category:Puget Sound region? Probably not....maybe I should just create-away and let the chips fall where they may; I need something to do an end-run on other (usually non-bC) wikipedians obsessions with trying to make regional districts meaningful (which they're not, unless you're a municipal government or someone needing a septic permit).....Skookum1 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for continuing in Spanish Empire. Now I am involved in finishing the map with a better resolution, and I hope to disappear of the discussions little by little, but I have seen your interest in the juridical matters, and I wanted to show you a series of sources in order that you could see the issue more comfortably in English. I did not put them in the talk page of the Spanish empire because I do not want to create more conflicts. Bye. Trasamundo (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1.Principle of effectiveness. Sovereignty. Unhabited territories. Frontiers:

• [2]:Occupation was effected through two necessary elements: first, an intention to take possession of the land (animus occupandi), and second, the effective display of activities over that piece of land, generally cultivating it (corpus possessionis). It is clear that possession, which in the very origin of Roman law was identified with property, became a just title to acquire property in the case of land belonging to nobody, and its theory was transposed to international acquisitions. Possesion stressed the role of effective occupation on a certain land.

• [3] Effectiveness then seems to be best illustrated by actual display of sovereign rights, the maintenance of order, and protection. But as a matter of fact sovereign rights can be exercised only over human beings [...] Acquisition of territory thus is not an instant fact in international law. Rather involves a process of demostrating effective possession. In that interim inchoate phase the claimant state is permitted the right to demostrate actual responsible ownership, without interference from the other governments

• [4]: Effective occupation as title to sovereignty has not meant that jurisdiction should be effectively exerxised over every 'nook and corner' of occupied territory, but it refers rather to the possibility of excluding others from and to potentially extending jurisdiction over those parts of the territory which are not possessed [...] Exercise of legislative and administrative funcions are equally considered forms of effectivité

• [5]: Although continous in principle, sovereignty cannot be exercised in fact at every moment on every point of a territory. The intermittence and discontinuity compatible with the maintenance of the right necessarily differ according as inhabited or uninhabited regions are involved, or regions enclosed within territories in which sovereignty is unconstestably displayed, or again regions accesible from, for instance, the high seas. It is true that neighbouring States may by convention fix limits to their own sovereignty, even in regions such as the interior of scarcely explored continents where such sovereignty is hardly manifested, and in this way each may prevent the other from any penetration of its territory. The delimitation of hinterland may also be mentioned in this connection. If, however, no conventional line of sufficient topographical precision exists, or if there are gaps in the frontiers otherwise established, or if a conventional line leaves room for doubt, of if, as, for example, in the case of an island situated in the high seas, the question arises whether a title is valid erga omnes, the actual continuous and peaceful display of State functions is in case of dispute the sound and natural criterium of territorial sovereignty

2. Discovery vs occupation. Historically:

• [6]:It is difficult to determine how long this title of first discovery was recognised as valid by the law of nations. In particular, this is because it still remains highly controversial whether it was ever a complete and independent legal title. [...] (page 397) The recognition of the Dutch colonial possessions, which Spain was compelled to concede in Münster in 1648, had been based on the principle of uti possidetis [...] In 1670, England and Spain dealt with the problem in a similar manner in the America Treaty of Madrid. The Spanish did invoke the papal demarcation once again during the Franco-Hispanic negotations over Cayenne in 1701. However, Louis XIV replied that, according to the law of nations, sovereignty could be acquired through effective occupation, and that the papal demarcation consequently was not intended to convey sovereign rights over territory.

• [7]:Occupation is a method of acquiring territory which belongs to no one (terra nullius) and which may be acquired by a state in certain situations [...] (page 425) Occupation, both in the normal sense of the word and in its legal meaning, was often preceded by discovery, that is the realisation of the existence of a particular piece of land. But mere realisation or sighting was never considered (except for periods in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and this is not undisputed) as sufficient to constitute title to territory.

• [8]: Cuanto mas, que el derecho de nuestra propiedad y posesión estaba claro para nuestra justa ocupación, á lo ménos no se podia negar que tenemos fundada nuestra intención por derecho común, segund el cual las islas y tierra nuevamente halladas, eran y son de aquel que primeramente las ocupaba y poseía, en especial ocupándolas con abtoridad de la sede apostólica, á la cual, ó al Emperador... (The any more, that the right of our property and possession was clear for our just occupation, to the less it was not possible to deny that we have our intention founded for common right, according to which the islands and land new found, they were and they are of that one that firstly was occupying and possessing them, especially occupying them with authority of the apostolic see, to which, to the Emperor...)

• [9]: While the Spanish and the Portuguese did adhere to the division of zones of responsability that Intercaetera authorized, other European rulers did not. Protestant rulers were not the only ones who failed to heed the papal regulations for European entry into the New World. The Catholic King of France, Francis I (1515-47), mused aloud that before accepting the terms of Inter caetera he would like to see the terms od Adam's will that granted such power to the pope. [...] Even the Portuguese and the Spanish, who gained the most by these bulls and had the greatest interest in their application, only adhered to their terms when it was useful and convenient

• [10]: In the mean time, Pope Alexander VI issued a bull bestowing the whole of the New World upon the kings of Spain and Portugal. Neither England nor France allowed the right of conferring this magnificent and undefined gift; it did not throw the slightest obstacle in the path of British enterprise and discovery, and the high-spirited Francis I of France refused to acknowledge the papal decree

• [11]This language clearly echoes the language of Alexander Alexander VI in Inter caetera. That to say, claims to possess vast regions based on papal or other documents had no value unless backed up with settlement, functioning government, and other signs of actual control. Thus, although Alexander VI had authorized Spanish possession of the Americas fron pole to pole, the English could occupy lands within the alleged Spanish zone of jurisdiction if the Spanish had not taken actual control of them.

• [12]: Discovery by itself may create mor problems than it solves and can exacerbate rather than lessen possibilities of international controversy. This is true both where claims are based on conflictive situations involving discovery as well as where they are predicated on conflicting theories of territorial acquisition [...] The sine qua non condition for territorial sovereignty is effective occupation. Even so, the content set by international law for attaining the principle of efficacy is neither precise nor inflexible. [...] Effective occupation embodies the legal order for determining sovereign acquisition of all land areas on earth. It has envolved through state practice as a tenet of international law over nearly three centuries, and its fundamental quality has elevated it to the status of a universally recognized international legal form.

• [13]Today, discovery of itself confers no title but in the 16th century it was arguable that it conferred an inchoate title which had to be followed by effective displays of sovereignty

• [14]:In the light of the foregoing discussion, it can be maintained that there is a greater weight in the opinion that discovery alone does not constitute an independent mode for the acquisition of territory; at best it creates an inchoate title which must be perfected within a reasonable time by effective occupation, or else it will lapse

• [15]: Claims based on discovery or symbolic activities or phisical contiguity cannot serve as independent sources of title to territory. Their relevance is relative rather than conclusive

• [16]: In short, claims based on discovery or symbolic activities or phisical contiguity cannot serve as independent sources of title to territory. Their relevance is relative rather than conclusive

3. About terra nullius and if the territories are considered as terra nullius, then mere title of discovery is insufficient:

• [17]:The American jurist Charles Hyde, for example, explained that "at the time of Europeans explorations in the Western Hemisphere in the fifteenth and sixteenth ... States were agreed that the native inhabitants possesed no rights of territorial control which the European explorer or his monarch was bound to respect". Hyde accordingly concluded that "the American Indians have never regarded as contituting persons or States of International law"

• [18]:The Christian-European character of the law of nations was of greatest importance in respect of the legal titles of overseas expansion. Most of the arguments that were advanced, including papal investidures as well as discovery and occupation, were based on the assumption that the natives were incapable of holding property and having lawful government, that they lived in a legal vacuum and that the lands they inhabited were terra nullis and could therefore be the object of discovery or occupation. Not only the Spanish but also the English operated on this assumption

• [19]: Acquisition by occupation of a territory must satisfy two main, conditions (i) In the period immediately before the act of occupation the territory in question must clearly belong to no State [...] (page 327) The territory in question must be occupied in a visible and effective manner, by taking possesion and establishing an administration over territory in the name of, and for the acquiring State. [...] These conditions are essential for existence of title on the basis of occupation. If the are both satisfied, no protest by other States could invalidate the title of occupation. As was said, that title then does not depend on recognition or on acquiscence by others. But if a declaration of occupation is not followed by taking and mantaining possesion, it is then a matter of fictitious occupation. Hence, a title of discovery is not sufficient in itself. It remains an inchoate title.

4. But if the territories are not considered as terra nullius, then mere title of discovery is flimsy:

• [20]:of all the claims to sovereignty made by the European powers in America, discovery had, in what by Marshall's day had become known as international law, been the one discredited most easily. As English jurists of the seventeenth century were quick to point out, even the Spanish had been reluctant to base assertions of either sovereignty or possession on anything so flimsy. "Discovery," observed the great Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria, "of itself provides no support for possession of these lands, any more than it would if they had discovered us"

• [21]:Vitoria had dimissed any claim based on mere discovery as unconvincing. Discovery, he adduced sardonically, of itself provides no support for possession of those lands, any more than it would if they had discovered us. The core issue that was to run through the ensuing debate was the nature of the rights of the Indians, and in particular wether they enjoyed a right of possession of the lands they inhabited

• [22] The Arbitrator discussed in detail what were the legal effects of discovery as such, i.e., the mere fact of seeing unknown land, without any act, even symbolical, of taking possession. He stated that there were two interpretations: the first, that discovery as such involved ipso jure territorial sovereignty and, consequently, a definitive title; the other, that it meremely created an "inchoate title", a jus ad rem. In the first interpretation, account must be taken of a problem intertemporal law. The effect of discovery is to be determined by the rules of international law in force at the time, but a distinction must be made between the creation of rights and thir existence [...] In the second interpretation the ichoate title of discovery existed, it is true, without external manifestation, but it had, at any rate since the 19th century, to be completed within a reasonable period by the effective occupation of the land claimed to have been discovered.

Trasamundo (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have finally finished the map of the Spanish empire, and specially, for the depiction of the territories of the kingdom of Portugal between 1580-1640 I have used a series of sources, which gradually I will add little by little in the talk page of the Iberian union, when I could organize them and depends on my availability of Internet this Easter. There is also another version of the image in .svg in order to do easier changes of colors, labels... Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi buddy, made a couple of maritime entries which maybe when you've got time you could pls make a comlementary map like the one you did for Haro Strait etc - Sansum Narrows and Trincomali Channel, which I at first redlinked on Gulf Islands after revising someone's claim that Gulf of Georgia was a misnomer....Houstoun Passage, Ganges Harbour and others - just the major inter-island waterways, all deserve articles/maps at some point, but these are "two biggies" though Sansum is less well-known (one of my fond memories of a summer-month on Saltspring back in' 76 was being on the top of Mount Maxwell and seeing a pod of orcas come up - or was it down? - Sansum Narrows, which is really narrow south of Burgoyne Bay....Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PS that previous section looks real interesting but I'm not gonna get myself distracted, nope ;-=).....Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look at those pages. Never heard of Sansum Narrows... Trincomali Channel sounds vaguely familiar. And yes, avoid being sucked into more topics, lest you find yourself researching whether Patagonia was part of the Spanish Empire based on animus possidendi ...actually I've learned a bit about international law and its history and how it relates to territorial claims, disputes, etc--which relates to the Pacific Northwest history as well as such places as Patagonia. After reading about the history of international law on this topic, the old US claim to 54-40, or even 49 seems even more ludicrous than I thought. That the US diplomats even mentioned the papal bulls is weird, as no state other than Spain and Portugal had ever recognized their validity over any state other than Spain and Portugal, and apparently even the Papacy nullified them long long before the Oregon dispute. I suppose when it comes to territorial disputes you use any and everything you can, meaningful or not. Still, sheesh. Pfly (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I present this Barnstar to Pfly because I admire that efforts made in helping to remove a regional bias to the Spice trade article, plus all the other great work you do. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I responded to a comment left on Talk:Spice trade. It is in reply to a reply made to you. Great job, and I hope you don't stop! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. Nice lead photo. Finetooth (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo, Pfly, thanx for helpin me along when I was havin a little trouble with vandalism & what-not on few articles. I really appretiated your help. Cheers AndrewEnns (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo. You've probably picked up on the Category:Canadian Cascades cat and the CfD for Category:North Cascades of British Columbia. In the course of attendant edits to the North Cascades article I've been wondering if the American usage "North Cascades" really does include the Okanagan Range, given its different topography and formation and its inland location. The North Cascades article until my CanCon additions was mostly about the terrain of the area of the North Cascades National Park and attendant wilderness/state forest areas; if the Okanagan Range is included we need more terrain-description for that. I'm also wondering if the Entiat Mountains and other northern-inland subranges of the Cascades belong in the article/category also. (the Entiats need an article, as you can see). Re that CfD, it's become clear the Category:North Cascades of Washington was mis-titled, though for different reasons than its BC sister; it doesn't need "of Washington" but I"m hunting around for a bot to move the contents of that one to Category:North Cascades, which can be started from scratch an then a CfD launched to delete the "of Washington" one...Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pfly

Just a question. You have a Flickr account, which I believe allows you to post photos on Google Earth. Do you ever post photos on GE? By the way, I'm thinking of getting a Flickr account very soon. Right now, my Flickr Account is my Wikipedia talk page; people probably think I'm crazy putting photos on it but I don't care. It's my talk page, screw em' haters! Cheers to you AndrewEnns (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you are giving very little info in the lead sections of articles you create- such as: Boeing Creek is a stream in the U.S. state of Washington, located in the city of Shoreline, just north of Seattle. It is about 1.6 miles (2.6 km) long and empties into Puget Sound. The article is very substantial, but supposedly you should summarize the article in the lead, not just give a speck of information. I'm not trying to sound disappointed with your articles (you generally do a great job on them) but if you want to see what I mean by "expanding" the lead, you can see articles like San Juan Creek for an example.Shannon1^{talk contribs} 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just volunteered you see Talk:Columbia_Valley#There.27s_two_of_these....actually_three. If you can think of someone better maybe Peterforsyth or Northwestern please say so, I know you're more of a Puget Sound kinda guy.Skookum1 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this article a long time ago, can't remember if I sent it by you; the title's workable, I guess, so long as the content is de-USPOV'ized. The Old China Trade began with Cook's load of furs at Canton and of course involved the marine fur trade of the NW Coast....I'm not in the mood to rewrite teh article, but I suspect a lot of it's Copyvio, if it's not it has a lot of synth/OR in it....have a read (article and my comments on the talkpage) and tell me what you think....Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sacajawea Peak, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)