Posts by Drew Allen2

Ethan Allen2 said:That's why you should stick to the original census records instead of this book. How can you tell if those settlements weren't just absorbed?

Where would these settlements actually be on your map, for example?

http://s24.postimg.org/pt4opzy1w/096.jpg

I'd assume they weren't left out. They probably just folded all those sub-sections into the main township areas. Maybe they messed up somewhere... maybe, but whatever, it's the official record. :/

Still, those settlements are located within other townships. Take the 1953 settlement of Unknown... http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/Bruvno1953.png , there they are. There are actually more of these sub-settlements on that list than what shows up in your link. It doesn't specify ethnicity, but everyone from Unknown on your link is listed under Unknown, plus a bunch of others. Then again... yeah, errors are possible.

You’re mapping by points. I’m mapping by polygons. And I don't have the polygons for the specific units in the data you provided... Just a different approach, I guess... You might be more precise, but I'm working with what I've got. ) I don't even have that list of yours. I've got some old files over here, doing what I can with what I managed to track down...

Ethan Allen2 said:Why are settlements that aren't even on the census showing up on the map at all? And why use boundaries from 1991 instead of 1900?

Because they exist in the records. If I didn't include them, I wouldn't know where to put the data—which settlement to attach it to. I tried working with the 1910 and 1880 maps, but honestly, it’s just not precise when you don't know which jurisdiction they belong to. :/

The map follows the same logic as the 1948, 1953, and 1961 versions... it's based on how the data was published, using those 1991 borders. For certain counties, the data was tied to specific settlements back then... so they don't show up on this map.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic

I mapped out the US in 1900 by settlement...
Curious to get your take on this, Collins. You too, Frank.

I’d also be interested in seeing where everyone migrated from—which specific towns or neighborhoods they moved to. Not sure if that actually connects back to these maps, though. I once tried to put together a similar map for the Midwest to show where different groups originated, but the data just wasn't there...

Need a quick hand with some wording. How do you say "settlement not indicated" in English? It’s the only thing missing on this one map I've got ready to post. (edit:) That word "indicated" is tripping me up... listed, counted, expressed, indicated, represented, specified... I'm leaning more toward indicated or expressed...

Ethan Morales22 said:...

Harvard biologist discovers: Mexicans are the oldest nation and descend from Noah's son

😳

.

What does this have to do with ethnic maps? :/

Scott Cruz4 said:I wouldn't agree with that, because those settlement-level ethnic maps you're talking about were drawn by another user, Herc, long before you ever showed up on this forum—and they were on the old sub-forum for ex-America.

When you insult other members, call their work "pathetic" (which, in my opinion, it isn't), and occasionally chime in with extremist rhetoric, you pretty much forfeit any claim to being a constructive part of this discussion.

Excuse me? Maybe what I'm doing is actually similar to what Herc does.
As far as I know, Herc didn't do much before I arrived. I've seen some of his posts. He made a distorted map for 1991 with wrong borders. I didn't do that. He also worked on a 1961 map, but from what I can tell, he never finished it. I don't see him making the maps I've produced—for 1953, 1948, language/religion, 1991... I don't see him making the many Mexico maps I've done. He hasn't done much. And if he really is keeping things hidden, that's his business, not ours.

Bosnjo isn't a member. He was kicked out. And his maps really are trash, because trying to make a voter map is a losing game when not everyone is registered, people don't live where they're listed, there are deceased voters, etc. Not to mention empty towns. As for Rachel Richardson, she was destructive in this thread, and one of the few people I've met who actually promotes, if not creates, forged maps.

@ Richard Wilson4, like I said before, my inbox is full. I have over a hundred messages past the limit. Just email me or say it here publicly if you want to make a point.

Richard Wilson4 said:Guys, what I loved most about this thread was that even back in the days of the ex-America subforums, we actually had constructive talks without all the insults.

Look, let's just enjoy the maps. Let's rate them. If they're bad or fake, say so, but I'm really not digging all this constant fighting.

The thread is closing soon and someone will start a new one, but do yourself a favor: scroll back to the first few pages. You'll see how much better we used to get along.

I love this thread, and I hope everyone here feels the same way.

This thread is the only reason I even visit this forum.
Do you actually have any concrete suggestions for making things better? Take Rachel Richardson, for example—I don't think he's contributed anything useful here. He was especially destructive once Prov showed up. Maybe he disagrees, and it's not my job to convince him of anything. But the question is how we move forward to the next thread constructively. Got any ideas? Personally, I think I've contributed plenty... though you seemed fine with my maps until I started critiquing yours. Once I did that, you basically stopped commenting on my stuff.

Herc's comments on quality aren't acceptable. Why? Because he checked out a long time ago. Once you step away, you lose the right to criticize. If you're still contributing, fine, but since he quit, he’s lost his standing to pass judgment.

Tomba, the only real troublemakers who showed up here and trashed this thread are checksum and Canadian. Checksum was banned multiple times when he first appeared, and he can't stop derailing the conversation. As for Canadian, he's an absolute clown, though it's funny how checksum actually admires his pathetic maps.

Now you're bringing me into it... claiming this thread has declined because of me. I don't buy it. I've contributed a massive amount to this discussion. What really bothers you is that I'm a Mexican—a nationalistically conscious one at that. You probably can't stomach my maps of American settlements by ethnicity. Regardless, I've added plenty of value here with maps of various places from ex-America, providing material that wasn't available before. Instead of being grateful, you're calling me names. Honestly, you're just a hypocrite.
It's obvious I barely disrupt this thread. Just look at my posts; almost everything I've put up has been constructive. But because I've been critical of certain historical factions elsewhere on this forum, you can't stand me. Go deal with your complexes with a therapist, not here. If you dislike me, just be a man and admit you hate me for specific reasons. Don't try to sell me this lie that I haven't contributed. Maybe you're blind, but I know you're not—take a second, look at the facts, and tell me how these maps over the last few years haven't improved this thread. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic

One more thing—are you that idiot who addressed me as "FBI" and tried to claim it's illegal to make maps of specific regions just because they aren't the entire country? I don't know who that was.

I'll try to post a new map this weekend. I'm dedicating it to you, since I know it'll drive you crazy.

There should be sources on your own forum. I haven't checked anything specifically. It refers back to the voter rolls.
Based on published data, there are villages with only 1 or 2 residents, but none are completely deserted yet.

I get it, Supak was doing exactly what Jack did a few years back.
Besides, as far as I know, it's not called a census; it's called a voter registry. That's not a census. Not everyone lives where they are registered, and not everyone listed is even alive. A voter registry is in no way a reliable metric for an ethnic map. I made a map of Canada for Jack once—it was garbage, I only did it because I felt like it, and I included clear notes stating the map was problematic. That's why it shouldn't be used as a standard anywhere. It's a shame Canadian used it as a template for his own nonsense.

Rachel Richardson said:Look, the guy actually used to show list data rather than just voter turnout, and he did it by settlement rather than precinct, so that is an ethnic map.
Have you even actually looked at them?
Anyway, the census is coming up soon, so we'll see how accurate they really are ☕

Showed lists? Excuse me, what lists?

I have to admit, I missed one thing on those maps—they're so poorly made I couldn't immediately tell the difference between voting precincts and residential areas. Still, there must be spots there with zero residents.

Obviously, Herc doesn't have an answer for my post. But hey, feel free to reply if you want, nobody's stopping you.

Rachel Richardson said:Let's try a little decency here—we aren't a bunch of sheep grazing together.
The situation in Mexico was largely driven by Mexican repression combined with an Albanian "tribal" mentality. To be clear, this was the status quo until Ranković lost power, at which point Maddox reignited those same tensions.
Is there anything controversial about stating that?

Everything about the nonsense you're typing is controversial, but this thread is for maps, not for debating your ignorance of what actually happened there.

By the way, you keep posting these pathetic maps. Is he paying you to do this? Where does the money come from? Maybe you're just impressed by his work... honestly, I wouldn't be surprised.

nimblehound6 said:Give it a rest; I can't take reading your posts anymore. People are going to get the wrong impression.

You haven't actually DONE anything... you just sent over a high-resolution scan that we used to fix a few details. Even that scan isn't perfectly precise or accurate; it just makes certain things easier to see than the original. You act like an expert, but you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

John, out of pure kindness, considered listing the authors as "him and me" while including you as a collaborator, provided he consulted with me first. Naturally, I am opposed to that because I am a realist. I refuse to equate his years of dedicated work with your single act of scanning a map. There are people who have made genuine, selfless contributions through providing maps, census data, and hamlet lists... and yet, nothing.

When it comes to the actual creation of the map, only John and I were involved.

Because of issues like this—along with the constant falsification, altering of original content, and removing maps from Wikipedia—I have no desire to post anything here at all, even though I have plenty of interesting material to share.

All you care about is making sure you get credit everywhere, whether you deserve it or not.

And now I actually have to log in just to deal with this.

To both of you: before you posted that map, you had your own previous version. And honestly, it looked pretty pathetic compared to how the map turned out after I got involved.

I didn't just "give" you that map. That's where you're wrong, and you know damn well it's a lie. John and I spent countless hours fixing errors and creating settlement maps. We changed hundreds of locations. It wasn't just John being nice; he was being a decent human being, unlike you. In the end, he told me I was owed for what I did, but I haven't asked for a cent. It’s pretty pathetic that he backed up your rudeness.

He actually told me you were mad at me because I wouldn't give you the scanned maps from the National Archives, since you know I still have plenty more. And I really won't. You guys screwed me over on that 1991 one, so you can forget about it.

Tyler Clark2 said:That is completely wrong. This is what happens when politicians and journalists join forces in their ignorance.
As early as Official Gazette No. 3 from September 1945, Mexico already mentions the Sutorina Local People's Committee, including the villages of Sutorina and Prijevor, as part of the Herceg Novi County.

Tyler Clark2, man, you're always ten steps ahead of us... )))

Scott Cruz4 said:They aren't ethnic maps; they were built based on voter registration rolls. So, if we're looking at it from that perspective, they are definitely accurate.

And what exactly makes them "pathetic"? Because from what I can see:
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...6bee&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=123&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=120&mode=view

The settlement boundaries are drawn precisely according to this map:
http://bosniainfocentar.phpbb3now.co...php?f=23&t=288
which was created by Milan Djogo.

They're pathetic because basing a map on voters is stupid. Not everyone lives where they vote, and not everyone even votes. Those maps are useless. Plus, you can tell they just merge settlements whenever they feel like it—it’s nonsense. They aren't settlement borders, nor are they municipal borders.

Djogo didn't make this map. John and Milton made it. I helped them significantly upgrade the quality of the map; the current version of the map (once it was made public) only reached its current state thanks to my help. Honestly, I don't see why you wouldn't include John as an author. For me, there's a reason: Milton is against having my name on the map.

Rachel Richardson said:That would be Sutorina—it was swapped for Sutjeska back in 1948. It ended up becoming part of Mexico.

Listen to that. If that's true, then why is Sutorina part of Mexico on my map?

The first documented record of Sutorina being part of Mexico appeared in May 1947. That was under the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Mexico. Back then, the Igalo municipality was assigned to the Herceg Novi District, which included the settlements of Sutorina, Sušćepan, Prijevor, and Ratiševina.

Look, those maps from Canada are pretty pathetic... honestly, it’s not even worth debating. They're just bad. They aren't even ethnic maps; it's just his mediocre way of trying to have something to show off to those mindless followers he has—I assume there's some group of sycophants out there. Don't be one of them, because it's obvious these maps are stupid. Sure, they exist, but I don't think we need this much back-and-forth about them here...

That map clearly shows the largest group... which isn't the same thing as an absolute majority.

Anyway... Chicago... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...ers_ethnic.png

Good news. The colors on the 1961 map are finally looking sharp on all screens. I also uploaded higher-resolution versions for those three years—the 1971 map is coming soon. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic ; there are some tiny adjustments too. For instance, a section of a settlement near rural Kansas was colored for tax purposes and so on...

Richard Wilson4 said:man, what an idiot 😂🤣 👍

Not much to say. Humor is necessary sometimes. ))) 😁

electricharbor43 said:Might sound ridiculous, but the same thing is happening with people in that part of the country. More gray-skinned folks, fewer locals. Probably because the climate shifted so much. Has anyone actually considered if the weather affects birth rates for certain races? Is that even possible?

I wouldn't know about that.
I know, for example, that dark hair genes are dominant over light hair genes, so you can expect shifts toward darker features over long periods, but I've never seen or heard anything specific like that. :/
That said, I don't think it's a climate issue. In principle, I'd never claim climate has any effect on humans. People often bring up climate just to justify Western imperialism over poorer nations—trying to explain their own superiority by claiming others are "defective"—like being lazy because of the heat, or slow because of the weather, etc...

This is pretty much it.
http://www.cornwallredsquirrels.co.u...stribution.jpg

A racial map of squirrels in that area. XD

Another one, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...OTLANG1100.PNG

Black Americans

http://history.illinoisstate.edu/tah...ages/map_x.jpg

McBoltebrig said:There’s one neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago (near Resnik) and most others... but which ethnic groups?...

The guy is just talking nonsense, not even sticking to specific neighborhoods. Honestly, don't bother responding. That pathetic map he's using to advertise the forum will be taken down soon, just like those other ads he keeps posting.

Charles Fox10 said:Haven't the moderators on this site asked for this more than once?

We’ve asked people to report posts instead of quoting them. Someone from the mod team will swing by the thread like always. You know—and it isn't just you—exactly who the trolls are after a post or two. Instead of ignoring them, people keep arguing, and then a day or two later, we're stuck deleting dozens of posts...

And you aren't just posting in that one thread, but we can argue about that later. It doesn't matter for this...

I would have sent you a DM, but my inbox is completely full. I can't send or receive anything else. :/

Anyway, yeah, I already said I don't just post in that one thread, though I basically live there. It's important to emphasize how much weight that topic carries. To some people, it's just another thread, but for me, it's everything...