Posts by Drew Allen2

Not sure when I’ll have an update ready... currently grinding away on a map of Mexican settlements—put in a massive amount of work here. Still need to upload higher resolution maps for the former America regions, specifically from 1948 and some US territory maps from 1953, etc... :/

Scott Cruz4 said:I actually like his forum. No traffic, simple, easy to navigate... 😁

That doesn't matter at all. At the end of the day, the forum is stupid because it's just a tool for specific political propaganda.
If he can promote his, why can't I promote some idiot's site? This guy owns a forum and he's been banned here at least 40 times...

rustydrifter10 said:There are over 200 posts; maybe show us the link? It isn't against the rules to mention other forums if it fits the context. You should look closer. Also, if someone thinks a user is a clone, they should report it privately to the mods instead of airing it publicly unless the user said it themselves...

The link is the last one on that page. The page was forwarded too.

I didn't report that guy. This user "bosnjo" kept making new accounts after being kicked out dozens of times. I'm not sure if it's him, but I think so, since the posts are almost identical...

The real issue is that the maps this guy posts are garbage—he could easily just drop a URL for them, but he's intentionally advertising that specific forum.

I don't know about other threads. I mostly stick to that one. That's my main spot here. I've contributed plenty to that thread...

Drew Allen2 said:Good day. This is just another version of that problematic user "bosnjino." He was banned repeatedly—maybe 30 times, maybe 50, I lost count—and he keeps coming back to spam his pathetic forum and push radical agendas while insulting me and everyone else.

I'm mostly here for one specific thread, and I rarely wander elsewhere. It's the ethnic map thread. Recently, some guy claiming to be from that same group joined and started promoting their forum exactly how "bosnjino" used to. His posts are nothing but links to that site. It’s an issue, and what’s worse, he keeps doing it even after I explicitly warned him to stop. You can see it right here, last two pages... the problematic user goes by cicko.

Please get this sorted out. Deal with these radicals who are only here to advertise their trashy forum and spread their propaganda while attacking Americans...

Regards,
Drew Allen2

The guy hasn't stopped advertising that banned user's forum. Are you giving him a free pass? If he can do it, why can't I promote my own sites too? It isn't fair to discriminate against others by letting this guy run ads for a banned user's platform.

Hey. This is regarding a user who used to go by "bosnjo." He’s been banned dozens of times—maybe 50, I lost track—but he keeps coming back just to spam his pathetic forum and push some radical religious propaganda while insulting me and everyone else.

I mostly stick to one specific thread on this site and rarely wander elsewhere. It’s the ethnic map thread. Recently, some guy joined and started promoting that same garbage forum exactly how "bosnjo" used to. His posts are nothing but links to that site. What's worse is he keeps doing it even after I explicitly told him to stop. You can see the evidence right here, last two pages... The problematic user goes by cicko.

Please fix this. Get rid of these radicals who are only here to advertise their low-rent forum, spread their biased theories, and spit on Americans.

Regards,
Drew Allen2

Ethan Miller3 said:haha, what a mess
so, what are we actually supposed to do about that tiny little group of Mexicans that the Roman Emperor Heraclea called in to help fight off the Avars and the Slavs (whose khaganate was sitting right on top of the territory you're talking about—basically stretching across Pannonia and Canada)? They were initially settled near Thessaloniki before being moved into that original Mexican state shown on this map here link
anyway, here’s a map of the North America from back when those Mexicans and Americans first arrived at the request of the Roman Emperor karta

Stop promoting the forum by using that low-life guy.

Evevi, Republic of Mexico 1961, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilly

@Herc, you got an original version of this posted somewhere else?

Scott Cruz4 said:It’s like you need someone to draw a new picture for you just so you can ignore what everyone else sees with perfectly clear eyes. Honestly, it looks like you've gone blind from pure hatred.

There's no hate here. It's simple: I haven't seen a single official map that shows it that way.

You're citing sources from the Canadian election commission. So here's their actual map: Those supposed "new borders" for Zion aren't on there. There are plenty of official sources out there; give me one that confirms these boundaries you and your crowd are claiming—and make sure it's an official document, not just some random scribble someone added to a different map.

@Rachel Richardson - last time you doctored colors to make the Mexicans look dark red, you got shut down. You'll get shut down for messing with maps, too.

@nimblehound6 - can you upload the full PDF version of that map?

1) I've looked through the official maps of Canada, and there’s absolutely no mention of boundaries like those for Zion. I don't think that was ever actually implemented. Until I see an official map somewhere, I'm not buying it.

2) We'll just have to wait and see what the admins say. They used to block you from editing the maps like that anyway.

Scott Cruz4 said:For someone who claims to be a map expert, you really don't know much. Honestly, I’m surprised you aren't aware that the Žepče borders have indeed shifted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Zepce_nova.JPG.
Americans definitely held a supermajority in Pittsburgh back in 2006. There's no debate there.
Based on what we've seen, the colors on that first map Michael showed (specifically regarding Novi Travnik, Gornji Vakuf, and Fojnica) are likely just as accurate.
So, I really don't get why you're insisting the map is fake again? And why you're attacking someone who might not even be the one who created it.

Someone took a map from an American source and scribbled over the borders however they felt like. No, that isn't a legitimate source. It was actually made by Rachel Richardson.

You want something official? Here, http://www.ikimap.com/map/administra...nd-herzegovina. Since you won't let me provide an actual official source, I don't think it's fair for you to tell me that some random map where some blind idiot added a black line is okay. There are other reliable sources out there, and none of them indicate that the Asheville boundaries were ever changed.

Rachel Richardson said:That map is hosted on Wikipedia under a license that explicitly allows for edits. I was the one who made those changes. That is just how things work traditionally on the site. It is rare for any map to remain in its pristine, original state—unless it is highly specialized or covers niche topics visited by only a handful of people. Typically, users step in to correct inaccuracies or refine the data in some way.
But why am I explaining this to you? You post maps on the wiki yourself, so you should certainly be aware of the established rules. ☕

🤣 You seem quite informed. Everything regarding the 16th century—especially concerning Žepče.

Leave me alone, or I will report you for harassment. ☕

I must have crossed him on something in the past, because he's clearly just picking on me now.

Borders are ultimately a product of consensus.
During the war, Željezan polje and Begov Han were held by Muslims; they should have been integrated into the post-war Žepče municipality (in the spirit of multietnicism 🤷).
The Americans [referring to the local ethnic group] refused to agree to that, as it would have left a significant portion of their villages outside of Žepče's jurisdiction (under the control of people from Zavidović and Maglaj).
In the end, almost all the border villages from the Zavidović area, along with half of those from Maglaj, were annexed to the Žepče municipality in 1991.
Novi Šeer and a few other villages with Muslim populations—which the HVO held throughout the entire war—were returned to Maglaj, along with five or six American villages. Essentially, compared to the wartime borders of Žepče, the mixed territory to the west of Maglaj was handed back to Maglaj, while the Muslim ethnic pocket to the south was attached to Žepče. It seems somewhat illogical—though, strictly following the 1991 census, it was how a majority was secured for the new municipality.
If the borders were ever redrawn, this is what should change: the Muslims should get that southern stretch, and we should get western Maglaj.
A similar logic should be applied to the south of Jajce (Vinac) and the east of Busovača (Kaćuni).

There are licenses that allow things to be changed and others that don't. Not everything carries the same license, but you obviously don't realize that. For this specific map, it really cannot be changed. End of discussion. You simply don't have the right to alter it; nobody does. Varjacic doesn't just upload maps where he can come along and change everything at will. Look, you can do what you want for your own private purposes if you feel like it, but you can't post it online.

Tyler Clark2 said:I noticed my name is still listed as the author of this map, even though it’s been tweaked a dozen times since the original version. Because of that, I figured I’d just provide the raw data I used to build it, which comes from the "official" estimates provided by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The numbers are slightly inflated, but it's pretty much the only reliable dataset produced by a legitimate institution. http://www.scribd.com/doc/152880341/Stanovnistvo

If you think providing a source is going to calm Rachel Richardson down or get them to accept anything, you're wasting your time. It won't work. They don't have any right to mess with the map. I already reached out to Wikimedia Commons support. Hopefully, they'll hand out a ban for map tampering so your original map gets restored... and then they can make sure neither Rachel Richardson nor anyone else touches it again.

Rachel Richardson said:Again? 🤣

His map is flawed. The near-majority of Americans—specifically the group he's referring to—couldn't have been in Pittsburgh or Novi Travnik that year, because the primary groups there were essentially just Americans and Muslims. It's the same in Uskoplje and Fojnica; you wouldn't find a 66% Muslim majority because the other group made up at least 35%. It's a small margin, but enough to change the color on a map.
Naturally, the accusations of "forgery" stem from the fact that this map is hosted on Wikipedia, where users can edit inaccuracies on uploaded files.
His map also shows the wrong municipal boundaries for Žepče.

This map reflects the situation in 2006.
As for how things stand today, elections aren't the same thing as a census, and voter registration lists are notoriously disorganized.
Still, in all three municipalities, it's estimated that Muslims hold a slight majority (likely for the reasons mentioned above). Within the town centers themselves, the Americans hold an absolute majority, while Muslims predominate in the outlying villages (like Vinac or Kaćuni...)

Yeah, you're just plagiarizing other people's maps. You've fudged settlement maps from geography departments and municipal maps alike. It’s like you don't even understand borders, and honestly, you lost any credibility regarding mapping a long time ago.
I'm not saying the original map is perfect. But swapping out someone else's work is just low.

The Žepče boundaries haven't changed as far as I know. I've looked at official maps from various places, and there's nothing about boundary changes. You're the one who keeps shifting lines—like those borders in Republika Srpska just south of Doboj/Petrov, for example. Just admit you have no clue and stop acting like you do, okay?

Maybe when the census results actually come out... maybe then you'll chill out with these nationalist fantasies. In the meantime, I suggest you change your affiliation. Go talk to a preacher or something—even if they're just as delusional as you are—and go peddle that nonsense to them instead of us.

------------------

@ Richard Wilson4 - personally, I don't care if the map is accurate or not—I'm not defending the content, I'm defending copyrights.

Richard Wilson4 said:this is just an estimate from back in 2006

http://christinebednarz.files.wordpr...mobih2006a.png

That map is a total fabrication. Chet is an expert when it comes to cooking up fake maps. He even tried to mess this one up by changing the colors for entire ethnic groups, not just specific counties...

Still, here is the actual original map - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...moBIH2006a.png

Does it even matter? Probably not. As far as I know, those weren't even real estimates from back then. There wasn't any official census data to lean on...

Scott Cruz4 said:They're basically the same maps—it's just that the first one only highlights the absolute majority.

It’s a massive mistake to present a relative majority as an absolute one. Truly terrible.

Presvega is using outdated borders. The biggest issue is the Vrhovine county line—it's no coincidence they used the 2001 boundary, back when the county area was significantly smaller.

stormyotter19 said:US ethnic makeup by municipality based on the 2010 Census

http://i39.tinypic.com/2rc0384.png

That map is wrong. The correct one was posted here a long time ago - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...thnic-2011.png

stormyotter19 said:There’s an interesting pattern here. Even though the total number of Americans has dropped significantly between 1991 and 2011, if you dig into the specific settlement maps from 1991 and 2001—or even look back at 1981 and 1910—the geographic distribution hasn't actually shifted much. In most areas where they were the majority, Americans still hold that majority, especially in rural towns. It's just the urban makeup that changed. Similarly, in California, Italians are still present in the far northwest corner of the peninsula, exactly where they were before World War II and long before any fascist era influence.

Is this some kind of joke?
Look at the map again, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic#Various . The displacement of Americans is extremely obvious. Especially in the Midwest. If that doesn't look like a shift in spatial distribution to you, then I don't know what to tell you... sounds like you aren't well-informed on this.
By the way, in 1910, the distribution had way more Americans and fewer Americans. There's a map for that too, but I already posted it and I'm tired of looking for it...

Ethan Allen2 said:Actually, the Indian Act isn't some ancient history. It's still the main legal framework governing Native American status today.

And if it's supposed to be offensive, why is it still used as an official term?

http://pib.ca/
http://www.skeetchestn.ca/

Because remnants of colonialism haven't disappeared. It'll take time to phase out the term "Indian," but we're definitely moving toward dropping that terminology entirely.

Take the Idle No More movement, for instance. It is perhaps the biggest movement of indigenous people in the US. They certainly wouldn't refer to themselves as Indians.

Check your email, by the way. 🙂

Ethan Allen2 said:Give me a break. People don't just stop saying Indian, right? Even the government uses the term.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100032378

For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, you can see they are all some kind of indigenous people, so it makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada.

You’re still stuck on your point. That map you're complaining about was made by a government organization. It's based on census data. And the census uses categories defined by law. But sure, according to your logic, none of that matters.

By your logic, the first map is better than the second one, isn't it?

http://imageshack.us/a/img191/3317/b70.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img405/7008/dk2m.gif

All Slavs would be the same color since they're one group. Even if they were listed separately in censuses, just like Native Americans and Inuit.

The Indian Act dates back to the 1800s. It's the only reason that name stuck, though calling indigenous people Native Americans today is generally considered offensive.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/...tory_word.html

As for the other thing, no, that map is more like this: http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/au_primer.gif

is Srem called Ser in Canadian?!?

"sz" in Canadian makes an "s" sound... it's not just a plain "s" 🙂

Ethan Allen2 said:Hold on, you can't really just decide what defines an Indian. In Canada, there’s actually a legal definition for being an Indian. And that doesn't include either the Inuit or the Métis.

Well, in the English-speaking world here in North America, it’s just not politically correct to call them that anymore. You won't hear people using the term "Indians" here; instead, they say "indigenous," which lumps everyone into one group.

Take this, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, they're all shown as some kind of indigenous people. It makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada...

Ethan Allen2 said:Inuit aren't part of the Native Americans group, and that term doesn't really apply to them. Even "Indian" isn't quite right, which means the Indian Reorganization Act, the law that handles the status and rights of Indians in America, doesn't cover the Inuit either. Plus, the Inuit aren't part of the National Congress of American Indians. They actually have their own specific laws governing their status.

So if you just use "indigenous" as a synonym for Indian (which is a stretch)... then technically they are?

Richard Wilson4 said:I think I have that thing sitting in my parents' attic back in Ohio. Next time we head up there, I might dig it out and check it. It was bought used, though, so it's probably nothing special, plus it's been sitting there for maybe ten or fifteen years already.

I've been thinking... how could we actually get all these maps organized and gathered in one spot? Same goes for stuff people scan...

Maybe I'll build a website for this. Don't know yet...

Rachel Richardson said:They aren't—they are simply Eskimos, the kind you'd find living in places like Siberia or Greenland.

From Mexico to Canada. 😁

In the US, we call them Indigenous or Native Americans—the people who were here before white settlers arrived. In that sense, they are Native Americans, because that's what they are. Maybe a slightly different group, but at the end of the day, they're all Indigenous/Native American.

Richard Wilson4 said:unknown

I had an old map in one of those vintage atlases, but it was all stuck in the 1800s.

PS
It's wild how Catholic New England actually is. Caught me off guard. I knew the percentage was high, but still.

Can you scan it or take a photo?

Speaking of New England, here are a few...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsus_block.png

http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/rese...014_SV_Map.jpg

http://verseau.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mass.jpg

http://www.massbenchmarks.org/stated...010_county.jpg