Talk:Columbia River Treaty

message: Could someone give me some advice on adding pictures to this article?  I have a number of great pictures that would significantly improve the presentation, but need some guidance on the process to follow.  Thanks.
Depends on where the pictures are from.  If they're your own, no problem; if they're from another source, depends on what the source is and the copyright situation attached to it.  (post was by User:DAR56, id added by User:Skookum1
:Here's the code to use to put in a picture:
:
:Wikipedia formatting prefers PNG and certain other formats; JPGs are common but apparently there's a patent issue like there is/was with GIFs; PNGs are better for certain things like maps, also.  Anyway, copy-paste that code into the article, putting in whatever your image filename is in place of "xxx.jpg", and save the page; then on the left below the go-search window you'll see "Upload file"; click on that and follow the directions; the best copyright tag to use (they're in a drawbar on the page that opens up) is the one that says "I created this work and release it into the public domain" - that's if it's your own, though.Skookum1 16:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I'll have to study up on this, as I haven't examined the treaty in detail; is it in WikiSource or otherwise online?  The Canadian treaty dams are clearly in the upper Columbia (Mica, High Arrow, Duncan) and AFAIK are the result of WAC Bennett's insistence on the "Two Rivers Policy" (which meant that the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers would remain separate, rather than one big lake.  I think what you're referring to are the "Downstream Benefits" which he secured during his stonewalling for a better deal for BC (Ottawa was prepared to sell us down the river, quite literally....), but I thought that referred to the production of power from Mica, High Arrow (Keenlyside) and Duncan, but I guess, given your comments, also involve American-side production facilities.  Bennett's vision was that when the treaty "matured" the downstream benefits, meaning a certain reserve of power, could be used to develop advanced industry in BC; the treaty matured during the NDP era of the 1990s and the NDP sold off the benefits rather than used them for development in BC, i.e. the power continued to be sold south instead of being applied to develop an industrial economy in BC (i.e. more than resource sector, which was Bennett's intention); not blaming this on the NDP; the Miniwac Socreds and the current Campbell regime would have done the same; only Gordon Wilson objected.  I'll be back; my library free-time is about to expire and if I don't save this it'll be zipped.  Please cite the relevant passages and if it's not the downstream benefits that you're meaning, please explain further.  Recommend Paddy Sherman's book Bennett, if you can find a copy, which gets into the Socred finagling/stonewalling on the treaty.....Skookum1 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shouldn't this have the Dams in Canada category?  Or not, because it's not about any one dam in particular?Skookum1 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category question

message: Please see 
RE BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum re: Talk:List of United States military history events#Border Commission troops in the Pacific Northwest.  If you think maybe I should also move some or copy some of my other stuff from NW history and BC history pages let me know; I never mean to blog, but I'm voluble and to me everything's interconnected; never meaning to dominate a page so have made this area to post my historical rambles on.  Thoughts?Skookum1 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory|BC & Pacific Northwest History Forum]]

message: Introduction:
Adding basic information such as: What is the river? Where is it? what are the dams? when was the treaty passed?
Background:
Looking into the motivations of why BC and the US wanted to sign a treaty.
Treaty Provision:
(This one is going to be left as is, but we wanted to add "Canadian Entitlement" into this section)
Implications (previously labeled "Controversy"):
Social Impacts: Regionally (effects of relocation/ varying attitudes towards the dams) and Provincially (economic and political impacts)
Environmental Impacts: Specifically looking at how the river was altered and ultimately how that changed salmon runs, spawning grounds, and health of the fish.
Cayleym (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do rename that "Controversy" section to something more descriptive. The introductory section should summarize the entire article; everything that is in that introductory section should be supported someplace else in the article. maclean (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIST 396 Columbia River Team Outline For Proposed Changes 

message: This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course.  As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.
If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article.  Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work.  If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further.  If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.
Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
* 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
* 1 - A few minutes of work needed
* 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
* 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
* 4 - More than an hour of work needed
Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact of recent student edits

message: This was in The Tyee in today's edition, contains more information about the Treaty and also upcoming renegotiations; just dropped this here for use as a cite for later expansion.Skookum1 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  new material on upcoming renegotiations