Talk:Hollywood North/Archive 2

message: I am taking this article on as a part of the WikiProject Vancouver. As a film student, I had only known the term of 'Hollywood North' used to describe Vancouver as it is now the largest production centre in Canada. However, I will look objectively and research in more depth whether the term still applies to Toronto. If not I will be sure to include a history of the term. I have started work on the Vancouver section and will start on the Toronto section in the upcoming days. I have also archived the previous discussions of this page as they date back a couple months. Thank you for your patience. Mkdwtalk 22:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "still applies to Toronto" is the wrong context; it's "now applies to Toronto" as, yes, this was originally a Vancouver term, and meant only Vancouver, and only secondarily the entire Canadian film industry (technically only the branchplant-productions, i.e. Hollywood material made in Canada).  It didn't take T.O. long to coopt the term - within months of its coinage.  But now on Entertainment Tonight Canada as well as on regular CBC/CTV arts/business broadcasts, you hear comments referring to the Toronto Film Fest as "Hollywood North's big night" or "when you want to get this xxx done, you gbo to Hollywood North, and that means more big-screen excitement featuring Toronto" and other juxtapositions of TO-as-Hollywood North, with no reference meant to Vancouver or anywhere else in Canada.  They stole Big Smoke too, apparently because Hogtown is a bit too desriptive....Skookum1 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Vancouver

message: I am having some trouble finding legitimate references to Toronto being Hollywood North. Almost all the references I have that suggest Toronto is Hollywood North relate to campaigning in the means for publicity. Either for politics or travel guides. Relatively Vancouver has had several books written about the subject specifically, along with analytical studies, and journal stories. If anyone could possible find some references that would be ideal. Thanks. Mkdwtalk 07:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely in TO's press kit and the Global and CBC styleguides; I hear it all the time on-air; Ziya Tong uses it obsessively (Entertainment Tonight Canada); but I'll see what "hard copy" I can find.  As for the 2002 provenance date, I'm sure the term is much older than that; I began my acting classes in 2001 and it was already an old and established term by then; dates to the X-Files days or even before.  Have to think who to ask for a cite ("I'll talk to my people....").Skookum1 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although media is using the term, they still may be using it incorrectly. It's a 'catch phrase' that media hosts may be using as a selling point or 'catch' to their stories on Toronto as is common with news media. News media is world famous for creating terms that already exist and even more so incorrectly using names. Until I have some further references of credibility, I hestitate to make a factual statement about it. Mkdwtalk 07:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually in 2002, British Columbia was the leading film centre in Canada by a considerable margin. I refer to the Statistics Canada Hollywood North: The Canadian film industry Report. Also your search results are misleading. You searched for Hollywood + North + Toronto and Hollywood + North + Vancouver. Naturally there will be more pages about Toronto. There is no solid way to see the true number of articles that refer to Toronto as Hollywood North but if you search for the phrase "Hollywood North Toronto" you will find about 205 search results. Where as if you search "Hollywood North Vancouver" you will find about 2,080 search results which is roughly 10 times more than its Toronto counterpart. It may appear biased but I am trying to be as objective as possible. Again, if someone can provide some credible references that would help a lot, but so far really the only true credible reference we have is a 4 year old campaign speech summary from Toronto and a bunch of travel guides. Vancouver in this case has a huge number of references. In this case it may be the use of a slang word being inproperly used or adopted. The article does give credit that Toronto is often described as Hollywood North. Mkdwtalk 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Over analyzing and doing research are two different things. For example, upon my own research I found numerous quotations, fact sheets, books, and magazine articles describing New York City as "The Big Apple". In fact the very first search I did on Google for "The Big Apple New York City" is a link to the City of New York Government describing New York as "The Big Apple". The Government of New York City is not a travel guide and a very credible resource. Names that have a clear history dedicated to a city usually have substancial referencing much like Vancouver does with its documentries, books, and magazine stories written about it. For example in the early 1980's many travel and advertising campaigns marked Vancouver incorrectly as being home to 'the' largest gay community' in North America. So far this article has not denied that Toronto is nicknamed Hollywood North, but it is clear that Vancouver is the most common, and original name for the nickname. While you could say my argument is biased. I also encourage you try and keep a NPOV such as your contributions about the Toronto mayor: "outgoing mayor Mel...". While you may think its not important for an encyclopedia, I do not share that opinion and neither does Wikipedia, especially with a disputed article. See any featured article. Mkdwtalk 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you review your version, you linked Toronto Access it says nothing about Toronto leading the film industry in 2000. The article by Toronto Access says:<BR>
"Toronto continues to lead Canada as the most attractive city for film and 
television production. Production companies lavished $1.322 billion in Toronto 
in 2000 according to statistics released today by the Toronto Film and 
Television Office of the City's Economic Development Division."<BR>
That says nothing about leading the film industry in Canada in 2000. The reference quotes the $.1322 billion in Toronto to which my direct link to Statistics Canada has a largest number quoted for Vancouver. Further reverts to this will be considered as vandalism. Mkdwtalk 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you compare the statistics released by the Toronto Film Commission and the Vancouver Film Commission, you will see that Vancouver led the television and film industry in the year 2000. BC Film Commission Stats and Toronto Stats. I consider this debate closed. Mkdwtalk 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop vandalising the citation templates. All the citations for Toronto had their publisher, accessdate, and proper title. Do not remove that information and only leave the url. You are continuing to vandalize this article and I will have to report you. Mkdwtalk 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth noting that the opening line of that quote: Toronto continues to lead Canada as the most attractive city for film and television production. is exactly the kind of self-flummery associated with Toronto's notion/promotion of itself as Hollywood North.  If it's the most attractive city in Canada for film and television production, why do the bulk of the American productions go to Vancouver?  Because you can't "attract" hometown productions; they're already there whether they want to be or not; attractiveness to film production means attracting productions, and Vancouver easily outpaces Toronto on that score.  But again, this isn't a pissing match.  It's who the name rightfully belongs to, and I hold to my own position that the variant meanings need separate definitions, explanations, with TO's coming in third place (behind Vancouver/BC on the one hand, and Canada as a whole on the other-which was the original secondary meaning before Mel Lastman's appropriation of the term).Skookum1 00:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto as Hollywood North

message: Just a couple of touches for now; I'll try to respond to your other requests later but I lost my reading glasses last night and am typing this through blurry low-diopter ones (well, they're kinda dirty too).  Made some adjustments to the intro as follows, a bit POV but essentially true; not edit history comments associated with this edit.  What's the mention of "Asian" in your last edit comment btw?  Guess I'll look back at the history; it's true that kung fu and bollywood stuff gets made here, but that's not part of the Hollywood North machine; they've got their own machine; the one exception is that recent Bollywood-in-Canada thing, whatever it was called.  Transplant HK and PRC productions are surprisingly few and far between, given the scale of Chinese capital and Chinese-language markets in BC.Skookum1 06:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hollywood North", an allusion to Hollywood, California as the most notable film centre in North America, is a nickname originally coined for the movie industry in Vancouver, British Columbia  and later adopted by Toronto, Ontario as part of its promotional image. The erm was used by Mike Gasher in his 2002 book, Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia [1][2]. It originally referred only to BC and was first used to describe Toronto by Mayor Mel Lastman [3]. The term has also been used to describe the entire Canadian film industry[4]. To date, the term is used separately by two groups, the film industry in reference to Vancouver, and the Canadian media in reference to Toronto.
Rather than making a million edits to this article, by inserting references and then finding conflicting ones, I've moved the work over to my sandbox. See: User:Mkdw/sandbox for my latest updates. You may find that version has solved some of the problems with the current article. Mkdwtalk 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjustments

message: Mkdw got this via email during my recent block, now revoked, when I was unable to respond here.  Essesntially the gist of what follows is that Duhon's interpretation of what Hollywood North means is decidedly itself a Torontonian perspective; it's (the original usage) not about dominance in the Canadian film industry, or about number of productions, or about celebrity/glitz/notoriety; what follows are relatively uncitable, short of lots of work that is, citing media coverage/usage, about the difference between what Hollywood North means vis a vis Vancouver and how it's used in Toronto's self-promotional image-mongering:
Duhon's context is typically T.O.-ian on the Hollywood North thing.  He thinks it's about scale of production, as if simply being a film production centre made one "Hollywood North".  The big differences are in that T.O. gets the lion's/hog's share of Canadian film and T.V., whereas Vancouver's core and bread-and-butter is branchplant productions from the US.  That's part of it, another part is the obsession with glitz and glamour and, as Michael Buble put it on ET Canada the other night (I only get CBC and Global so I'm stuck with that crap) there's a Canadian star system now....focused on Toronto (espite Ziya Tong's origin in Vancouver).  Another catch is that T.O. people do not mean all of the Canadian film industry, they mean Toronto's role as the "second Hollywood", as it fancies itself.  Vancouver's Hollywood North is much more workaday; it's about being interconnected with L.A., about the similar cultures between the two cities (despite the rain v. sun), the non-glamour environment in which Goldie and Kurt can go shopping on W. Broadway with no one hassling them, or Bob Hope could stroll the 'Strasse and not get mobbed as he would have in L.A. (and T.O.).  Vancouver's blithe indifference to celebrities, relative to TO's obsession, is another big difference; it's changed with the star/gossip columns in the Sun/Province in very recent years, but who's-in-town buzz was much more casual here, whereas in Toronto it's a matter for bragging.  Another BIG difference is that the film biz - the "import" film work done here instead of the U.S. - is a huge sector of our economy, much more important than being part of a p.r. package; we don't have the big banks, the corp HQs (not on the same scale), the auto industry and other heavy sectors; film and TV for us was a branching-out from the Resource Economy behemoth, and lots of people, proportionately, are connected to the industry; it's part of the working fabric here.  That's not the case in Toronto, despite the concentration of the Canadian entertainment industry there (not by choice, but by boardroom power and political patronage), as film/TV is just one of amny industries; here it's a central one.
Hollywood North in Vancouver is about infrastructure, work culture, identification/proximity by the real Hollywood, and that kind of thing.
Hollywood North in Toronto is a star-machine glamour-image thing, a point of boast for that city, and yes Duhon's right, promotional usages count, especially the regular repetion of the Hollywood North-means-Toronto mantra that started with Lastman (who first appropriated it) and continues with Ziya Tong, Evan Solomon, the Znaimer CHUM crowd, and again, they use it in a different way than waht it means in VAncouver, or in Hollywood.  The only equation of Hollywood North=Toronto comes from Entertainment Tonight's US program, when it very stiltedly (on occasion) introduces Toronto's Entertainment Tonight Canada, or has some Canadian story (Howie Mandel bringing Deal or No Deal here, for instance).
But, primarily, my point about Duhon's recent posts/additions is that the term is NOT about how much film production there is on a per-unit basis.  IKn Vancouver it's about a culture, a state of mind, a practical extension of Hollywood's sets northwards (to somewhere that like LA vs NYC, has a year-round filming climate...).  In Toronto it's about something to brag about, to claim the focus of Canadian entertainment/film/TV life.  Lastman's and the then-Ontario regime's changes to their own tax credits were also, pointedly, an attempt to siphon off B.C's burgeoning film sector to their own city/province (long story with union politics re why the UBCP exists to fend off the dominance of Toronto's main glob of ACTRA).  Glamour, glitz, boasting/promotion - that's how Hollywood North is used in/by Torontonians (and those corrupted by their definition of it); work, career, climate, talent pool (esp. animation, stunts, lighting/sound, set deck/design) and other aspects which aren't
about self-promotion.  It's a nickname we were conferred with, not one that we seized and tub-thumped loudly to convince people we were just as famous/interesting as Beverly Hills etc.  Hollywood North in Vancouver when it began took fame in stride, which is what many of the stars/celebs commented about - it was NOT a high pressure, high-glitz environment, not obsessed with celebrity or glamour but WORK.  And creativity.  In Toronto it's all about the ersatz Walk of Fame and all those award shows they hold for themselves year-round.  In Vancouver/BC Hollywood North is a phenomenon.  In Toronto it's a promotional package and self-glamourizing hype machine.   The difference in definitions/usage should be laid out but it will be hard to research/cite (and many/most of the T.O. usages are on TV, rather than in print).  So citing is going to be hard, I guess.
Of course if I stay blocked from Wiki (when I submit my unblock request later I'm refusing to apologize and protesting the block as unfair and also biased given the heavily-politicized ongoing changes AND the AFD at the Erik Bornmann article) I could just start writing columns/books on this and other stuff that you guys could then use as cites.........hmmmmmmm.
Just keep the Hogtowners from taking over the Hollywood North page, which was all about T.O. when I found it, and downplayed Vancouver; it's been back-and-forth.  This is the most "together" the page has been, but I think the tangent about scale of film production is irrelevant; esp. when the reality that Toronto hogs all the Canadian film budgets (English ones anyway); it's the farmed-out stuff from L.A., and the close proximity/culture between the two West Coasts that is the context in BC; not an invented media campaign (particularly of the p.r.-rebranding type that does not use the word/name in its original context, i.e. Vancouver is not usually heard of at all in T.O.-centred media scripts as being Hollywood North, while Toronto incessantly is).Skookum1 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Toronto page doesn't even have the phrase "Hollywood North" on it, for one thing.  And no, no other individual from Vancouver is trying to "take away the fact that etc"; but you don't hear BC media referring to TO as Hollywood North; at most they'll use it to refer to the whole film industry, but its local context is so established there's no reason to shoot down TO for its "me too!" appropriation of the term.  Your focus on the TO content has been to focus on film production figures and celebrity presence, but that's not the root meaning/origin of the term.  Fine, so Toronto uses it now; it should also be stated clearly that Toronto uses is as if it were the only place that carried the name, and behaves as if it's natural that it should have that name; in the industry, Toronto is Toronto, Hollywood North is Vancouver....Skookum1 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toronto's taken away lots from Vancouver in its time, including two nicknames (Hollywood North and the Big Smoke); the issue here is that the word has a different meaning IN Toronto and TO Torontonians than it does to anyone else.  Toronto use of the term specifically omits or downplays Vancouver's role, focussing on TO as the Hollywood North; my position is that there are TWO definitions at play, and Vancouver's is the a priori one, partly because it's the one in use in the industry itself, where the term originated.  I may just have to write Katherine Monk about this and see what she might provide from her books/articles as citations of some sort (she lives in Vancouver now; and she uses the term for the whole Canadian industry); so there are at least three meanings; the phenomenon of "branchplant L.A" in Vancouver, the Canada-wide branchplant film industry, and Toronto's redefinition of it around glitz, glamour and its own position as the focus of Canadian film/TV production (ie. Canadian-market/produced films, whose budget/financing it controls); the term originally was also about brancplant U.S. productions, not involving the Canadian film/TV industry which always WAS concentrated in T.O.Skookum1 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for staying on top of this; just wanted to comment that that assertion that we're "trying to take something away from Toronto" can only make me grin somewhat sarcastically; part of the story here is how Vancouver got a good thing going because Toronto wouldn't let it have any of its own cake, and when Toronto saw Vancouver was getting somewhere , it not only brought in tax credits ro try and replicate the phenomenon but also rebranded itself with Vancouver's nickname and pretended to be the centre of the industry that Vancouver actually was (and still is).  The story of UBCP v. ACTRA T.O. might get told here sometime, too, although I wasn't in the biz then.  The "take away" thing is especially, um, poignant, because it bespeaks the prevalent insecurities built in to the Canadian mentality, all the more tellingly because the claim of "taking away from Toronto" is on behalf of the most powerful, most acquisitive, most arrogant and most egotistical city in the country.  Yeah, I know that's POV, but this isn't the article....Skookum1 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes/rejoinder to Duhon's input/changes

message: I'm not sure they're even relevant to the article, especially in the contest of a pissing match between Vancouver and TO meanings; it's not about the number of productions, it's about the nature of the business and the working climate (in Vancouver).  But given that Hollywood North in its proper meaning is about American offshoot productions in Canada, it's only them that matter; Canadian shows produced for U.S. syndication like Relic Hunter count, but not purely-Canadian-made stuff like The Sweet Hereafter (even though it got US audiences/syndication) Toronto's various knock-offs of American-format crime and legal dramas (i.e. the ones set in Toronto which other Canadians are forced to watch, thanks to the networks, but are never seen or marketed to the States; the exception being Da Vinci's Inquest because it was marketed to the States right off the bat...).  The important productions are the ones that defined Hollywood North, e.g. X-Files, Stargate, certain big features; a full production list is constantly changing and will always be incomplete; and incredibly lengthy (I don't think there's a List of shooting locations in Vancovuer as there is for List of shooting locations in Toronto or whatever it's called; it would be way too lengthy and would have entries like 400 block W. Hastings, 200 block W. Hastings, 100 block E. Hastings; nearly everywhere has been a location.....Skookum1 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TV/Film credits/lists

message: The map which was at the head of the page was not illustrative of Hollywood North.....how could a map be?  It looked like an old elections-results map, in fact, with ON and QC in red, BC in a darker red, and everyone else in blue.  What does that have to do with "Hollywood North".  More illustrative would be a set/production pic, i.e. a bunch of trailers parked outside the Vancouver Art Gallery or Marine Building, maybe, or set deck and makeup people fussing around the DoP and Prod Mgr.  Either that or maybe a map of Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland showing the locations of the main studios, from old Panorama in West Van to Winston Ryckert's stunt ranch out in Stave Falls.Skookum1  (Talk) 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of map

message: Someone (Ckatz) beat me to the undo/revert, but the Toronto "me too, me first" theme was placed again by IP address editors overnight; even in one edit replacing Vancouver with New York City in one paragraph, as if Vancouver's name should be downplayed.  I'm almost of a mind to think such edits are coming from someone at the the Toronto Film Commission or the City of TO's marketing department...but that's just paranoia from dealing with certain professional p.r. men - or rather unprofessional p.r. men - on certain other pages lately.....Skookum1  (Talk) 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the Hollywood North Map was not a bad image to have. It represented Hollywood North refering to BC and Ontario as the  'Canadian Film Industry'. Maybe it should have been moved to the bottom rather than the top, but still an image of explination. Mkdwtalk 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are also centres of film production; and Quebec is really its own Filmy-wood.  And why should ON and QC be brighter than BC, since BC's the most important and the namesake?  And really, of course, it's effectively on the Lower Mainland/South Island.Skookum1  (Talk) 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, de-POV the phrase, BUT it's still true: Toronto uses the phrase in a different way than the reason it was coined, or in the context it was originally coined, and uses it exclusively to mean itself.  I'm confronted by this every time I turn on ET Tonite or see Evan Solomon or Strombo holding forth about Toronto-as-Hollywood North; "catchy" is POV but "catchphrase" is not.  And the term of course wasn't invented by the founding fathers of Vancouver (who used "the Terminal City", without the connotations of "terminal" now current because of "terminal disease") - it was invented by film industry people/execs, which is what I've been trying to tell that yellowsnow guy.  Toronto has co-opted the phrase to be about glitz and glamour, and Toronto's role as the Centre of the Universe in Canadian film - but it's not about Canadian film, or wasn't meant to be; it was in reference to "runaway productions", the kind yellowsnow is bitching about so loudly.  The Beachcombers wasn't part of Hollywood North; X-Files was....The phrase now can refer to the whole of the Canadian subsidized-foreign productions thing, whether they're in Alberta or Nova Scotia; but Toronto never uses it that way - they speak of "of course THIS is Hollywood North", meaning Toronto (nearly quoting Evan Solomon there....) or "where else but Hollywood North" (meaning Toronto) and so on.  Vancouver does NOT use it so self-consciously, or in reference to the glam; here it's about the working environment, technical milieu, and particular close relationship with L.A. - a much closer relationship, historically and at present, than Toronto has; Toronto sees itself as a second Hollywood; Vancouver as a neighbourhood of Hollywood....Skookum1 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW marking the deletion of a whole sentence as a "minor edit" is deceptive; that's for punctuation, typos, missing link bits and stuff, not for contextual changes.Skookum1 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Torontification reversed

message: The nickname Hollywood North is by all defenitions a catch-phrase on its own. Yet on this page it is being insinuated that somehow for Vancouver it is not. The media is as responsible for perpetuating the term Hollywood North for Toronto as it is for Vancouver. Yet this article continues to try and portray that name Hollywood North as simply a media invention for Toronto that has no actual basis. If the article is going to state it is used as a catch phrase in Toronto the same should be said about vancouver.
Compare the sections for Toronto and Vanouver. The majority of the Vancouver article states fact and figures about movie productions and studio's while the Toronto section seems to be filled with conspiracy theories about the "Toronto dominated media" which has little to do with the actual movie or televison industry in Toronto while the Vancouver page goes to great length about its own film and TV industry. 
--Duhon January
:The mention of it in the Toronto section underwent several edits mainly because the point of that it was used as a marketing selling tool over an industry term. 'catch phrase' was the decided upon concensus until now. If you wish to mention marketing-selling point in Toronto and industry term in Vancouver, you may do so. Langara College 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, for all the 'new' people who have come here. Look over the archived discussions, check the previous versions. This article in the last two months has been the target of huge NPOV issues that you are only now just coming upon but making jurastic decisions that have already been faced. Not doing so makes this process repeated. Langara College 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catch Phrase in Toronto but not in Vancouver 

message: Well, it seems recruits are on the way, and the cavalry too.  But everything that Brodey just added serves to prove what I'm saying about what Torontonians think Hollywood North is supposed to mean, or what they're intent on making it mean, and trot out justifications why it's Toronto's term most of all; why else go on about how important Toronto's film industry is?  Hollywood North in its inception, and in general usage, and still out here, is a reference to the presence of out-of-country productions taking advantage of Vancouver's lifestyle, year-round shooting climate, light, diverse restaurants, and all the other attractions that entice Hollywood people to hang out there (even when they're not working on something); and even in general usage, the core of that part of the industry in Canada is focussed in Vancouver (if we're counting numbers): the value of Toronto's English-language programming exports vs the rest of the country is irrelevant to the concept of Hollywood North; 
Amd gee, if TO has the biggest export market for Canadian-made TV productions, that's because private Canadian money doesn't invest in Vancouver-shot projects, and also because CBC is focussed on its own Torontonian navel at M5W 1E6 (any Canadian who listens to AM Radio knows that postal code); claiming priority when the reason for that priority is overweening political priority is exactly why film in Vancouver grew up around American backing and investment - because Toronto, and English Montreal before it, had and has a stranglehold on entertainment-venture capital.  And that would also be because Toronto gets the lions share of federal patronage and private investment ventures, not because there's any fair ground in this country in any economic sector.  Unless you're from Toronto, apparently, and that's my point.  Toronto wants to "own" the term, and redefine it around itself; the edits by Brodey and Duhon are proof enough of that, clear as day.  Brodey's edits are cited, but on the one hand POV, and on the other highly irrelevant to the subject of what Hollywood North.  Again, what it means outside of Toronto; if it means something different to Torontonians, as it obviously can be shown to be (including by these two users' edits), then the different contexts should be spelled out.  Toronto types use Hollywood North as a self-promotional brag; Vancouverites, even film industry ones, use it kind of cynically/wrily, like a "ain't that the way it is", just a workaday thing, and damn those circuses clogging up certain streets all the time anyway; it's never used as a brag out here except by the most starry-eyed, and by the growing crowd of celeb-infatuated reporters.Skookum1 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Toronto POV from [[User:Brodey]]

message: Well, first as mentioned above in a reply to Ckatz, Duhon plopped a complaint on my page that he'd undone my deletion/reversion of his material on the talkpage; and above Ckatz returns it, politely saying it was "inadvertently" deleted.  Well, I'm sorry, but there's a skunk in these woods - I just looked at edit where his edit-comment says "rv vandalism".  But the "vandalism" he reversed was MY POST - as if it was vandalism.  So what gives, Duhon?  For somebody who signed up pronto at the mediation thingie you're sure starting off on the wrong foot, by deleting my stuff, saying I deleted yours and putting "vandalism" in the edit comments so admin would think that _I_ had done something naughty when it was you who did it.  What's wrong?  The truth in what I was saying hurt too much?  Sheesh.  Kudos to Ckatz for catching it or I might not have noticed.  So, I repeat, what gives?  This is not a way to start a CFM, especially for the person whose troublesomeness at this site caused the recent round of edits which prompted Langara College to start behaving like a hallway cop...and now that I think about it, and look at the history again, Langara College had NO problem with Duhon's "rv vandalism" and went on to make a series of other edits; this doesn't look good for Langara College's motives here, either.  Remember, in politics as well as in community orgs, optics is everything; and in the absence of fairness and decent conduct you have to assume the opposite is true in both cases.Skookum1 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed this when looking at the history. Please do not remove comments other than your own. This is a poor character and is reportable offence. Be considerate and we can work this out. Mkdwtalk 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: false claim by Duhon in edit comment

message: I am personally going to disagree to the mediation. See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North for my comments. Mkdwtalk 08:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, and after reading those comments I totally agree.  I had been waiting to add my name to the mediation to see if anyone but Duhon and Langara College signed up; now that the cool-headed and methodical Mkdw (take a compliment when you can get it!) has opted out, I feel right in doing the same thing, despite my earlier "well, OK, if I have to...".  Especially in the wake of Duhon's hostile edit of my talkpage comments, and Langara College's very unimpartially looking the other way on it....Skookum1 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mediation IS a form of discussion. It assures its done in a civil manor per WP:CIVIL. You rejection for wanting to do it is a contradiction of what you're saying. Langara College 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, for someone who wasn't part of the discussion and then plopped down an arbitration on us - without exhausting the prescribed prerequisites for same - you're hardly in a position to lecture us on being civil; Duhon - who eagerly signed up for the Mediation - even less so, given the evasive and highly sneaky deletion of a talkpage post as if it were "vandalism".  The discussion was taking place here just fine, testy as it was, until you invoked procedure - without following procedure - after not actually taking part in the discussion yourself.  And you didn't seem to have a problem with Duhon's vandalism of my talkpage post, or his/her calling it vandalism in the process of deleting it.  Give your head a shake; Mkdw is right - proper prerequisites for a mediation weren't followed, period.  And I'd still like to know "who" the "UBX facility at Langara College" is, as it seems to be a multiple-person account; are you one people or several (asking again, since you ignored me the first time).Skookum1 01:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Donteatyellowsnow added it, GeeCee deleted it minutes later. I've now restored it, without discussion (my apologies) in an attempt to prevent another edit war over a minor (and related) link. We've got bigger issues to resolve, and if there's even the slightest chance that one link can help calm things down. I think it's worth trying. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problems with Runaway film being there, but what's Stockton, California got to do with the price of tea in China? (that's an old expression, for those who don't recognize it).  If Stockton's there, why don't we add, say, oh, Campbell River, British Columbia, where The Last Warrior was shot?Skookum1 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Runaway production