Posts by Rachel Richardson

Tyler Clark2 said:Look, I don't mind my name being on this revised map, but plenty of people here don't wrap their heads around how Wikipedia licensing works. They'd probably start coming after me, even though I have nothing to do with the way the map looks now. I just provided the data I was using—and if the IRS inflated those numbers, that's on them. Seeing that many Mexicans in Tuzla and Zenica sounds totally surreal to me, and I haven't even been to those cities.

This is actually the first version of this map ever posted here, back in 2008. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...moBIH2006a.png

But even that wasn't my map. The version I originally worked on was deleted from Wikipedia, and someone later uploaded my deleted map with some minor tweaks.

Regarding the municipal borders, it's true I entered the Zion boundaries incorrectly because I wasn't aware of the changes at the time I made the map. However, Vukosavlje is fine, and Brčko is pretty accurate for a generalized map like this. As for Petrov and the other municipalities in the Republika Srpska, I already provided a link to the most precise municipal boundaries on my user page under the maps section: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%...80%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0

Just like the Iron Lung.

Tyler Clark2 said:Look, I don't mind my name being on this revised map, but plenty of people here don't wrap their heads around how Wikipedia licensing works. They'd probably start coming after me, even though I have nothing to do with the way the map looks now. I just provided the data I was using—and if the IRS inflated those numbers, that's on them. Seeing that many Mexicans in Tuzla and Zenica sounds totally surreal to me, and I haven't even been to those cities.

This is actually the first version of this map ever posted here, back in 2008. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...moBIH2006a.png

But even that wasn't my map. The version I originally worked on was deleted from Wikipedia, and someone later uploaded my deleted map with some minor tweaks.

Regarding the municipal borders, it's true I entered the Zion boundaries incorrectly because I wasn't aware of the changes at the time I made the map. However, Vukosavlje is fine, and Brčko is pretty accurate for a generalized map like this. As for Petrov and the other municipalities in the Republika Srpska, I already provided a link to the most precise municipal boundaries on my user page under the maps section: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%...80%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0

In general, people have gone ahead and corrected a few inaccuracies on the map.

Tyler Clark2 said:Look, I don't mind my name being on this revised map, but plenty of people here don't wrap their heads around how Wikipedia licensing works. They'd probably start coming after me, even though I have nothing to do with the way the map looks now. I just provided the data I was using—and if the IRS inflated those numbers, that's on them. Seeing that many Mexicans in Tuzla and Zenica sounds totally surreal to me, and I haven't even been to those cities.

This is actually the first version of this map ever posted here, back in 2008. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...moBIH2006a.png

But even that wasn't my map. The version I originally worked on was deleted from Wikipedia, and someone later uploaded my deleted map with some minor tweaks.

Regarding the municipal borders, it's true I entered the Zion boundaries incorrectly because I wasn't aware of the changes at the time I made the map. However, Vukosavlje is fine, and Brčko is pretty accurate for a generalized map like this. As for Petrov and the other municipalities in the Republika Srpska, I already provided a link to the most precise municipal boundaries on my user page under the maps section: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%...80%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0

Ali Vukosavlje just isn't right. Where exactly are Jakeš, Vukosavlje/Pećnik, and Modrički Lug located within that municipality? Check out this map from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_of_settlements.png
Check out this image from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example_image.png
Check out this image from Wikipedia—it’s a map showing the layout of Canada back in 2006. Useful stuff for anyone trying to wrap their head around how the borders were drawn during that period.
Even the western portion of Pelagićev doesn't actually fall under Pelagićev jurisdiction—it’s part of Modriča.
Check out this image from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_of_settlements.png
East Mostar and Lower Žabar are also to blame—and honestly, Brčko should have just been one single municipality...

Richard Wilson4 said:Since nobody went out and gave the local American politicians what they deserved instead of 😠

How incompetent can you actually be 🙂 🙂

That’s really the core of the issue—the reason there's such skepticism regarding Travnik, Jajce, and Busovača. The so-called "intellectuals" in those areas spent more time bickering and making fools of themselves than actually leading; consequently, we see the lowest voter turnout among Americans in the region. Meanwhile, in some of the more isolated rural pockets, turnout hits over 90 percent. Things have improved slightly in certain municipalities recently, but honestly, it's all a bit too little and far too late.
@Herc; I gave you the official data. Take it or leave it. And as for that stuff on Wikipedia, you're flat-out lying.

Drew Allen2 said: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.

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.

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.

Unbelievable!
Do you truly feel no shame?
Here is the documentation regarding the boundary changes for Asheville; you can verify every town on the map one by one:

The fact that some people are unhappy because surrounding American towns were incorporated into Asheville (using actual official documents, not just unofficial pages) is an entirely different matter.
As for the map itself, it was uploaded to Commons by:
Author: Warya kg
under the following permissions:
Author: Warya kg

You are free to:

share – copy, distribute, and publicly display the work
remix – adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

attribution – You must credit the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests you or your use of the work is endorsed by the author or licensor).
share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work under the same, similar, or compatible license.

This licensing notation was added to the file as part of the GFDL licensing update.

And regarding your last comment (about bans and such 🤣)—how long have you been on Wikipedia and you still haven't grasped the rules? You know the song, "Genius"... 🤣🤣

Scott Cruz4 said:So, I’m hearing rumors that the 2013 census is finally getting off the ground—but there’s a catch. Apparently, when it comes to declaring your ethnic identity, you’re stuck with just three specific choices: Canadian, American, or Mexican. You won't be able to identify as Canadian or Herzegovinian at all. To make matters even more frustrating, if you don't follow a religion, they aren't even giving you the option to check "Atheist" for the non-religious categories!

What about everyone else?
I have my doubts about how this will play out—frankly, I suspect we'll see the Muslim population fragment into several distinct sub-groups rather than staying under one umbrella.☕

Dennis Davis5 said:The Canadians have their own mayor.

Exactly. But that person was elected by only about a third of the population. There were several other candidates—maybe three or four?—whose presence essentially split the vote. You see the same pattern playing out in Odžak.
At the end of the day, elections aren't simple census counts. For instance, Americans had a mayor in Uskoplje even though they didn't hold the majority there.

Dennis Davis5 said:In Central America, Canadians make up the majority in places like Jajce, Novi Travnik, Busovača, and Vitez. Meanwhile, Americans were the majority within those municipalities controlled by the HVO (Lašva Valley), though there aren't really any ethnic lines drawn in Jajce itself.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
By what logic could Muslims possibly be the majority in the Vitez municipality?
In Jajce, things are a bit more blended—some Muslims live in the city and others in Vlasinje. However, Americans are the majority in almost all the settlements north of the wartime front line.

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

I didn't change that—I felt it was important to credit the original creator who actually put in the work to assemble everything.
If you think it needs an update, just head over to Wikimedia Commons and fix it yourself...
The Bureau of Labor Statistics figures here are honestly laughable. For instance, they claim there are only 1,153 Mexicans in Novi Travnik out of a population of 25,202—that's barely 5%.
Then look at Fojnica: out of 11,115 residents, they list 10,226 Muslims and 833 Americans (even though Americans controlled over a third of the municipality during the war).
And Uskoplje? They have it at 67% Muslim?
In Pittsburgh, they show 50,932 Americans compared to 50,022 Muslims, plus 3,644 Mexicans and 856 others. 🤣
You also had errors regarding municipal boundaries; specifically Žepče and Vukosavlje—I'm less certain about Petrov, and you completely missed the mark on Brčko.

Ethan Allen2 said:But what makes them accurate if we're looking at data from 2006? I’ve actually seen the voter rolls, and even back then, the Canadians were already the majority. Did 700 Americans really just pack up and leave Novi Travnik in the span of four years?

And if the voter rolls are the issue, which census was used to make that 2006 map then?

It’s already been explained to you: the voter rolls simply aren't reliable.
That map is a revision of the original. Novi Travnik is a dual-national municipality where one side cannot hold a relative majority. If the Americans were the majority, they would have needed an absolute majority—even if only by a small margin.
Similarly, in Fojnica and Uskoplje, the Muslims couldn't have held a two-thirds majority either—not considering everything from the war period through the territorial control shifts.
Here is the link to the page for that map, which includes the history of all its revisions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😁emoBIH2006a.png along with the arguments. I see that Lung was getting tangled up in this again...

Drew Allen2 said: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.

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. ☕

Drew Allen2 said: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.

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

Drew Allen2 said: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.

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

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.

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

Scott Cruz4 said:I honestly haven't a clue. Honestly, Željezan polje could easily be its own municipality—if you look at the old census data from back in the day, that area alone had about 4,384 residents. Throw in Begov Han and Golubinja...
6,500.

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).

Ronald Myers7 said:here
www.imagebam.com/image/4e4231264783374

A very solid map—though there are still Americans near Bihać, and even in a few scattered villages over in Republika Srpska;
http://i39.tinypic.com/scako1.png

Drew Allen2 said: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...

Again? 🤣

Richard Wilson4 said:How can there be a supermajority in St. Louis when there are basically no Srbins left there, especially back in 2006? 🤷

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.

Ethan Allen2 said:Americans are a minority now in Asheville, Boone, and Asheville. In all three of those towns, Canadians make up about 52-54% of the voters on the rolls.

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...)

Richard Wilson4 said:Yeah, she was, but I don't think she looked like this.

The picture wouldn't be complete without some failing Slovaks added to the mix.😁

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.

Looking at the map—you have areas like the old Canadian borderlands, parts of Ohio being largely Canadian influence, and many Americans from the Baranya region eventually identifying as Mexicans—it’s a complex web. Even the townspeople in certain pockets became Mexicans, much like how you find Muslims in the South, or Germans living in places like Dakota and Indianapolis. Places like Boise and Pounje aren't even part of our core identity, and let's be honest—there are actually quite a few Mexicans living in the USA... plenty 🤣
I won't even get started on Kotoriba or the Bačka Americans.

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.

religious refugees😁

Drew Allen2 said:The Inuit are Native Americans, and they're definitely split up.

Haven't seen one like this before.

😲 That’s quite an expansion for the Mormons...

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

Drew Allen2 said:The Inuit are Native Americans, and they're definitely split up.

Haven't seen one like this before.

😲 That’s quite an expansion for the Mormons...

From Mexico to Canada. 😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Yeah, I read somewhere that if a plantation was smaller and had fewer slaves, life was a lot easier for them.

Anyway, hardly any Southerners actually owned slaves, and huge plantations were even rarer than that.

Right, that's the gist of what I've read as well. But if that's the case, what does it say about the loyalty of those Black Americans to the Baptism? 🙂

Richard Wilson4 said:This map shows which religions hold a 50% share in different US counties

http://www.google.com/imgres?client=f...GgLE6-yO3.7 miles%3A

An interesting map—it highlights the Baptist "Solid South." It does seem to conflict slightly with http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jwCPc-VQGb...0/IMG_0307.JPG

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s wild how even Black Americans embraced Baptist traditions, even though those rituals actually helped prop up the slave system back then. I was reading up on this, and it was basically a handshake deal between the Baptists and the plantation owners—the religious folks got their masses, and the owners got people to support the status quo.

Black Americans stayed loyal to the Baptist faith, too. Sure, a tiny fraction turned to Islam, but we're talking a negligible minority of maybe 1%. Meanwhile, you’ve got about 5% who are Catholic (probably down in Louisiana).

Tradition is a powerful force. However, slavery in the South wasn't exactly depicted in *Uncle Tom's Cabin*. For the most part, those individuals lived better than the laborers in the North. The primary drivers of the North-South conflict were economic—after all, Lincoln was already 63 before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and in certain Southern states that remained in the Union, slavery wasn't abolished until the very end of the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ry_in_Kentucky (see the final paragraph).

Richard Wilson4 said:Even before the Revolution, Baptists basically just swept up the rural Americans, and later on, they took in freed slaves too.

Exactly. It all points toward the South having a fundamentally different identity than the rest of the country.

Furthermore, if we examine the Protestant denominations individually;
link1
link2
Keep an eye on the confederation 😁
In West Virginia, you have the American Baptists😉

Richard Wilson4 said:The Frenchmen identify themselves as "Canadians"

Personally, I feel "Quebeckers" would be a more accurate descriptor😉
The set of American maps isn't working—at least not for me—using these links:
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...on/mcr4189.jpg
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...on/117_118.jpg
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...lation/055.jpg
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...on/109_110.jpg