Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:16, 29 May 2014

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

suggestion

Hi Skookum - I find it hard to follow your logic when you post walls of text, interspersed with disparaging comments about other editors. I think your case would be better served by outlining in clear, simple, bullet-pointed logic why you think these categories need to be deleted, and then let others weigh in. We will always have the namespace collision issue we spoke about earlier, but consistency is also another desirable quality of categories. I'm sure a good solution can be found but you should also AGF. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

when did *I* say that I thought these categories should be deleted? I created them, and with good reason, despite the OR/AGF speculations that they shouldn't exist.Skookum1 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

your actions in re-populating the incorrectly created category fly in the face of the CfD result, which isn't even a year old yet. It mandated the use of Category:Squamish people as the main ethno category title and though I obviously don't like it, I've respected the process and not barged on and created Category:Skwxwu7mesh on my own as now it seems I should have, since Uysvidi has - by your complicity in her creating of a category name that was negated as workable by consensus, and also complicity in her hijacking of the CfD ethno-category title for use as the "people who are Skwxu7mesh" category. You are entrenching and supporting misconduct by your actions in this regard. And, like her, you are blissfully unaware of the important geographic context as to why Category:Squamish had to be changed once it was speedied there because of teh outcome of RM2 at Squamish people. So what's next? I go launch RM3 there at Squamish people, pick apart RM2 for its various bigotries and gaffes, invoke MOS' new mandate to respect the original author's intent (here meaning OldManRivers and not Uysvidi), hope for a sane outcome (unlikely given experience) and then a speedy? or just say "FUCK IT" and create Category:Skwxu7mesh - actually hijack it because she created a redirect category instead of listening to my suggestion that she speedy her WRONG choice of "Squamish" as if it were in harmony with the other contents of Category:First Nations in British Columbia. She's not "up on it" enough to know that the equivalent to "Squamish" re the Skwxwu7mesh, would be "Lillooet" for the St'at'imc, "Thompson" for the Nlaka'pamux, "Burrard" for the Tsleil-waututh, "Shuswap" for the Secwepemc etc etc

I repeat, the simple solution here is to either overturn the speedy of the category name from Category:Skwxwu7mesh to Category:Squamish people, irrespective of the usual "category title must match main article" mantra (which is not an ironclad rule, only a guideline that has lots of exceptions that can be pointed to), or to revisit the decision made on the main ethno article's RM2 and realize it was a faulty decision. I approached fayenatic london immediately after his decision on the CfD and pointed out why "Squamish people" was not workable anymore than "Squamish" was and he conceded that there were grounds to have decided on "Skwxwu7mesh" but wanted more google cites or whatever....and if people keep on repeating the same non sequiturs, ignoring what I say the first time, or saying "I have a different opinion" (=lack of knowledge of the subject matter), and then I get criticized for criticizing their errors/attitudes...that's not proper grounds to decide anything like a CfD, RM or AfD or TfD on, as it amounts to a personal attack, making an editor's personality and volubility an issue when the guidelines say no such thing. Speaking of TfDs, the RM at Squamish people also precipitated {{Squamish}} as a speedy, and which similarly completely doesn't get that the PRIMARY TOPIC of "Squamish" is Squamish, British Columbia. So one faulty decision, based in bigoted and ill-informed RM participants, decided by someone who doesn't know the area or the people in question, precipitated changes to categories and templates and also the language and titles used in many sub articles and categories..... the clear solution, to recognize that the use of authentic endonyms (de-diacriticalized) in Canadian FN ethno category titles exists as an unspoken convention (one that was come up with at exactly the time OMR created the original Skwxwu7mesh article/category/template structure) DOES exist and should be used here, not an anglicism that has a geographic ambiguity to it that is of the same kind as to why those other endonym-categories were not given in their "anglicized" forms i.e. Category:Lillooet, Category:Shuswap, Category:Kootenay/Category:Kutenai, Category:Chilcotin have very large geographical-name ambiguities and all this was reckoned into why we should use the native-authentic forms (cf. already about Category:Okanagan in the same light).

But you have chosen to support someone's violation of the CfD decision and have chimed in on faulty suggestions for make-do renamings that were dispensed with in the course of the CfD long ago, and also in old discussions on the endonym you'll find on older areas of Talk:Squamish people and other articles. Do you not get it that it was Usyvidi who "depopulated" a category in order to change its intent? Rather than engage a discussion to change the main ethno category title, she just went ahead and created one that had already been taken down as inviable....how many times do I have to point this out? Procedure on this would have been to do a CfD properly on Category:Squamish people rather than wade into BC's geopolitical landscape on her own.....and the AGF thing I find hard to take, considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards...something perhaps I should revisit, at expense of an edit war...I'd mentioned the Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh problem in a current IPNA thread, to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do....AGF? Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process. The proper process here would have been to put a CfD on Category:Squamish people instead of to go off half-cocked, creating a new category using a deleted-for-good-reason's category name and behaving as though it were all peachy keen and allegedly in line with other conventions in the same category tree; it's not, it's an anomaly and has huge geographic context/complications that other in the previous CfD were well aware of, as CambridgeBayWeather also is, but doesn't seem to register on the rest of you in the current CfD as meaningful or relevant, when in fact it's why Category:Squamish was previously deleted by CfD. That can be a disambig category, yes, though I don't see why anyone would put it on any page if Category:Skwxwu7mesh and its attendant subcategories were in place - including Category:Skwxwu7mesh people as opposed to Category:Squamish people which has the same geographic problem as it parent. And re Category:Squamish culture, if you knew anything about Squamish BC you'd only smirk at how silly that sounds. The reason my replies are rambling is because simplistic non-solutions cause so many complicated problems that need explaining - as to why simplistic solutions are non-starters. Wel, other than the simplest solution of all; respect the authentic ethnonym Skwxwu7mesh for what it is, and stop defending the use of a confusing and geographically-ambiguous anglicism, and to remember that part of the point of respecting native choices for their autonyms is to prevent others from deciding what they should be called. That last part resonates strongly across IPNA, yet from so many other areas of Misplaced Pages there's this parochial attitude that between google "reliable sources{ and old textbooks, a "common name" doesn't have to hinge on what the people themselves have coined for use to replace "white man's terms" and can whatever a group of people only half-aware of the subject matter at hand decide is best for them. The cultural condescension implied is rank and it's why the RM2 should be overturned, for that reason alone (review it please) and why all current proposals are wandering around in the fog of colonialist error. I'd asked Fayenatic London to overturn his CfD decision, and provided him the reasons he asked for; he still didn't do it. So why didn't I do then the equivalent of what Usyvidi has done? Ignore him, and just move everything to Category:Skwxwu7mesh and be done with it; but then "Skookum1 violated process, censure him" will be the refrain...... again, making me the issue, rather than addressing practical and obvious solutions available; dismissing them because I'm the one making them amounts to "making an editor the issue, not the subject matter". the difference between making me an issue and me makign Uysvidis' conduct/action an issue is that I'm criticizing her actions, the sentiment against me is against my personality. Which is someone who knows his shit, and doesn't mince words when explaining the ramifications of any issue. I'm tall; asking me to write in point form is like asking me to be short; fitting into someone else's shoebox, the proverbial procrustean bed. Making me an issue is too often a refrain in faulty RMs/AfDs/CfDs et al...... and too often, also, people making a point of ignoring facts presented that pop the balloon on the logics/facts that they are advancing.... pointing at me is just an excuse IMO..... shoot the messenger.Skookum1 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• reply Skookum, I respect your passion, but I don't respect at all the way you're behaving right now. This is really important to you, but you need to accept the points of view of others, even if you think they are wrong. There are two matters: 1) whether the Squamish should have a cat for their culture, and another cat just for people and 2) what those cats should be called, by separating the cultural articles, Usv has done a Good service because this is in line with other such categories - we almost always have people separate. So please UNDO your reversions and repopulate the Squamish category, you are going against the practice in CFD and it makes it very hard to understand the target cat structure when you keep depopulating it. I don't want to but I will ask for admin intervention if you persist. Secondly, and totally orthogonal, is the question of what these cats should be named. But that is the point of this CFD - you're proposing a rename, or a reshuffling. That is fine, but if you wanted to rename to sx7 why not just propose that from the get go? By suggesting that you turn down the rant it is not shooting the messenger, it is a friendly suggestion that if you want to get the result you seem how you deliver the message matters. As it is now the CFD has turned into a mess and it wouldn't surprise me if people stopped voting and it was closed as no-consensus. People create cats all the time, and in doing so diffuse contents of other cats - but our practice is, if we want to delete that new cat, to keep it populated so we can see what the intent was. No-one is harmed if articles are at a slightly ambiguous name for a week or so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

People don't create categories in violation of CfD decisions they know about and discount - and clearly don't understand the gist of the why and wherefore never mind the subject matter. Yes, it's obvious that the people should have their own article, and a category from people who are of their people. Yeah DUH. And rather than have people who really don't know much about them, or about where they're from, deciding what they should be called, others are doing it for them, pointedly ignoring the commentary on the previous CfD and the history of the RMs and more, and ignoring the consequences to templating and also, once people start bypassing redirects, articles where the two meanings of "Squamish" are side by side..... "keep it populated to see what the intent was" ...... the intent was to ignore the geographic confusion and the primary topic problem that was the rationale of the 2013 CfD outcome, and also lay behind the original choice of Skwxwu7mesh vs Squamish. Do you not get it that hijacking the "Squamish people" category for what it had been expressly not created for is a violation of process. I'm not the one who made the mess. As for "harming the article" I have yet to see any sign of work from any of you on the article itself, or any sign of acknowledge of the Squamish-the-town problem; just more "give this a chance to see if it's useful when it was already rigorously decided that it was not. Do I have to go pull individual comments from the 2013 CfD about these problems, from other Canadian and BC editors and those aware of the problem. As for being accused of harming the article have a look article histories re category fixes in Category:American Indian Reservations in Nevada and Category:Federally-recognized tribes in Nevada. For trying to make categories contain titles that suit what they[re about by the use of redirects, I was edit warred and called a few names and the disorder still there now prevails; and now she comes to BC to spread disorder. Because that's what this is doing; fielding a category name she knew had been rejected, hijacking a title she knows had been created by a CfD, which somehow she feels she has a right to ignore without even informing herself on the subjects on the Squamish dab page, or the history of the main article and its title; she just wades in, ignores what others have decided, sets up shop with a poison apple thrown in a complicated problem, and sits there making up excuses and gets everyone dumping on me for "how you're behaving". It's not MY behaviour that's the problem here. If Category:Squamish continues to exist as a title, its only workable function is as a disambiguation category, not as the ethnic group category. Even by doing so it upsets the reality that Squamish BC is the primary topic, which is affecting the real world, not acknowledging it; it's also embracing a term for the people that many of them feel is unsuitable and tainted by colonialization and which is any case a mispronunciation....including the article and category's principle author and creator. "Squamish" has also been used to refer to the Skokomish and the Suguamish. We had a good solution, which despite its diacriticals was at least clearly not confusable with the usual and very common meaning of Squamish (the place, the town). And yes, my noise is out of joint at how the 2013 CfD went down (making me the issue instead of the facts) and that even Fayenatic confessed to me that a bit more evidence and less invective and he'd have done the easy path and accepted Skwxu7mesh....which I did not go on to create unilaterally....but then this person who's crossed swords with me - on categories no less - comes along and creates unilaterally another incarnation of a problematic category with no knowledge of the material...not, apparently, any concern for it, being interested more in her "opinion" even though she refuses to understand the facts nor even look at the history of the title. And I'm the bad guy for pointing this out? Come again? This is making me consider doing an

ANI on myself, about how facts presented must prevail over any resentment of the person providing them, and that if something is logical, it's logical, not subject to personal biases against its bearer. I've restored teh contents of Category:Squamish people to what the CfD said it should be; changing that should have taken a CfD, not a CfD caused by someone who doesn't get the nomenclature problem in, wading in with a chainsaw, and setting up shop her own way. I'll ask you again; what would the reception have been to me ignoring the CfD, and unilaterally creating filling Category:Skxwu7mesh and its attendant subcategories...and depopulating in the process Category:Squamish people in the very same way, but to a different category, as Usvidi has done, without mandate, and which you want restored, even though it's in violation of the May 2013 CfD mandate and all the same issues that led to its abandonment and deletion are still present. Do you not understand how important this is? Do you not have a mirror to understand that it is you who in fault here, by supporting a rash, uninformed action by asking her violation of protocol be given a chance? Why ever should that be? Setting a ship afloat to see if it will sink? Because sure as hell it can't survive (as anything but a disambiguated category)...It's like saying Category:Ottawa is the main ethno category for the Odawa people. "Categories get created all the time" is not a reason to allow the survival of one that should not have been re-created by someone unconcerned about the consequences or the background or even the subject matter.....and whether or not innocuous in motive as you would try to have me believe, ultimately destructive and time-wasting, and stubborn about even acknowledging the geographic name problem or the context of ethnonyms of this kind in BC...... maybe I should go crew around in Nevada categories again and set them to rights by moving them onto pages where they belong and off of pages where they don't..........And then wait for the ANI about my misconduct. Idle title-moving based on guidelines without any knowledge of the subjects affected should be interdicted by wiki policy; for certain areas, unless you know something about the subject/context you should not be doing unilateral changes to established situations without discussion.....or defending your ignorance as "opinion" and insist that it should be heard, while insisting that the person who is telling you the facts of you error should not be listened to .....even though he's the one who knows the material; I have Skwxwu7mesh friends and acquaintances, and friends who live in Squamish who aren't Skwxwu7mesh, I've driven or ridden through Squamish hundreds of times....but I should be ignored because I have to repeat myself when people reiterate the same WRONG ideas and continue to ignore the reasons why their ideas - and their actions - are not viable....not acceptable.Skookum1 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Making a person's alleged "behaviour" a reason to decide a CfD et al. against his valid informations/ideas is NOT in Misplaced Pages guidelines. The merits of the facts, the logics presented and their validity or not is what procedure should be decided by; not emotions brought on by personal insecurity about someone more voluble, or who is bearing truths and points that make your own ideas look bad? Making me an issue in cases like this is contrary to wikipedia guidelines.....my "behaviour" gets criticized, while someone can display flagrant and aggressive overturning of a CfD so blithely and get mollycoddled and defended........ can the uninformed be so easily trumped over those who know the material?? Because someone's style is seen to be a factor? How encyclopedia is that?? Not very at all huh??Skookum1 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi is trying to help you, Skookum1 and I wish you wouldn't turn his giving you advice into license to write another "wall of text". Perhaps style shouldn't matter but it does...people's time editing Misplaced Pages is limited and it is unlikely that many editors will read your entire rant to see the valid points you might have. To put it bluntly, most editors do not care as much as you do about this difference of opinion so you'd be more effective at winning support if you were brief...you don't have to use bullet points but break up your paragraphs so that each focus on a point of your argument. For better or worse, the burden is on you to make your position understandable and when most people encounter text like that (above), they simply won't take the time to read it. I can see you're irritated that this matter is up for debate but it is so the best strategy is not to complain but think of how you can present your argument to persuade other editors that your position is justified. Obi-Wan Kenobi is just taking the time to give you advice on how you might succeed. Liz 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Obiwan is done giving advice, and is unwatching this page. I officially no longer care. Sorry and good luck.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever; making me the issue in problems created by people ignoring procedure and also facts and getting on my case for not being short-phrased enough, while making excuses for people who have violated protocol by their actions and embracing their positions despite the obvious faults and lapses of logic and fact in them.....unwatch me all you want, you clearly weren't really paying attention in the first place.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hat notes

I added a "redirects here" hate note on Chemainus, British Columbia here, you may wish to check my wording. I am not 100% on the nomenclature for referring to First Nations.--kelapstick 13:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

because "First Nations" has so many variable meanings "indigenous" or "aboriginal" would be better, especially if the link was to a people article (which doesn't exist yet); singular "First Nation" is a wiki convention for a band government. One thing emerging in the real world, not recognized by/applied in Misplaced Pages yet, is when "First Nations" is used as an adjective, it's lower-cased e.g. "first nations person".Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wahnapitae First Nation vs. Nickel Centre

Did you miss the part in Wahnapitae First Nation where it explicitly clarifies that the community of Wahnapitae in Nickel Centre is not the same thing? If you need extra clarification, here's a Google Map — the "162 Trans-Canada Highway" dot is the community, while the separate "West Bay Road" dot, over 50 km away by road, is the reserve. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry no didn't see that part.....so the Wanapitae redirect should maybe go to a dab page instead; noting the reserve names are spelled differently from that of the FN. Shoulda read closer, was in the middle of a blitz of adding Category:Ojibwe reserves and reservations (cross-border category NB, hence that title), in said process creating redirects from IR names to the bands associated with them, unless the redirect would better go to a place.....where that one redirect went confused me.Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Krishnan Suthanthiran

I've started this article. Improvements welcome. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

IPA edit

What's a common word with this vowel? — Lfdder (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Trying to think of one....Shut maybe, or huh. Shuh-MAY-nus To me definitely more like a schwa than an "eh" like in debt - perhaps it's both depending on who you are; like how some people might say Nah-NAI-mo and some might say NE-NAI-mo (where E-schwa); I was going to use Mount Cheam as an example (of the latter sound but someone has made that /ˈʃiːæm/ and I really don't know who came up with that, it's wrong ("Shem") though maybe some people do say SHEE-em, but not "SHEE-am". I'm studying ESL and have had to do drills on IPA, and of course it being a British company I fail certain words because of the accent/vowels desired by the test.... The BC Names page says on some undated map that "She-am" is an approximation of the Halkomelem word for the lowland (Rosedale Prairie) beneath this mountain, but if so that's archaic; adaptation into English in the Valley by now (Fraser Valley), where I'm from, is decidedly "Shem" or if anything like the older pronunciation "She-em", -am wound sound really stilted and "newbie" (at least newbies don't say Tshee-am or I've never heard one, I imagine some might). Now about Chemainus the syllable breakdown is Sheh-May-nus or Shuh-MAY-nus, not "SHEM-ayn-us"; maybe both pronunciations should be there; not sure if that second example is to be a schwa or like in "cut"/"shut"..... the BC accents are generally fairly lazy about vowels i.e. "levelling" lots of things to a schwa. I'll make a recording later maybe. I'm not from the Island, and it's true people from Chemainus might be particular about either/or.... but I doubt it. I'd poll some friends I have on the Island - but none of them know IPA.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Shah" comes to mind, but then I mean the Canadian way of saying that, not the British; I guess that example is the same as Sha-na-na.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've changed it to the cut vowel in the meantime so that it won't throw an error. I know lots of Americans don't distinguish it from the schwa, might be the same for you. — Lfdder (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, though there still is a discernible difference between Washingtonians and BCers.....though maybe not about that. Can you fix Mount Cheam too please? Though the pronunciation as given could be stated to be a reference to the Halqemeylem pronunciation of their term for Rosedale Prairie.Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it definitely pronounced with the cut vowel? Not bed or father? — Lfdder (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I definitely pronounce it with the cut vowel or maybe the schwa; using the vowel in "bed" or "get" would seem stilted to me but like I said probably best to include both; the one guy I know from Ladysmith (next door) is from Nova Scotia and has a thick Annapolis Valley country-boy accent, I have a few friends in Duncan but one's on holiday in Ecuador, the other might offer an opinion.... thing about BC is between the Island's cadre of ex-Britons and also the wide variety of German-background and other Euro-backgrounds, including in Chemainus itself, pronunciation may vary and the "bed" vowel may be just as much in use as the schwa; "father" a bad example because the 'a' in that varies from dialect to dialect. FAWther vs FAther vs Fther etc. (don't have the ipa 'ae' symbol handy).Skookum1 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As in the 'u' in "omnibus", or can we just use the 'a' of "comma"? — kwami (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalking my talkpage huh?Skookum1 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And for the record I don't know what your own accent is, but in mine there's little distinction between the two examples you're positing.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder - um thanks, but no that's not right. The vowel is not as "cut" but as in "bed". Maybe sometimes with a very brief 'y' after the "sh" - but not as the previous version had it as a second syllable, more of a diphthong but we kinda do that with "shed" and "shit" too.Skookum1 (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops -- I was asking about Cheam the 2nd time above, I guess you thought I meant Chemainus. — Lfdder (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

About Cheam, I'm not sure if the Halqemeylem given ( /ʃɛm/ and /ˈʃiːæm/ in English, in Halqemeylem)is accurate because of what the BC Names cite says, that Shee-AM is "closer" to the original Halqemeylem, and so substituting "am" may still not be enough; myself I don't have a Halqemeylem dictionary handy.... the Sto:lo Atlas probably has particulars (incredible book btw); I may have asked for somewhere for an IPA for this page (I haven't looked all the way back into the file history, I might well have) but didn't look close at the results as not understanding IPA much then (slowly better now). I think what BC Names might be referring to also is that some people might assume that it's "Tsheem" or another Tsh sound on the start; and that it doesn't rhyme with "beam".Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sahtu & Nahani

The name Slavey (derived from slave , and the suffix -y cannot cover its bad meaning: they are not slave, also nobody is not slave) is very very racist. This is a snub. The "Slavey" proper is the South "Slavey" and formerly called as Etchaottine (nowadays as Echo Dene in the name of Echo Dene School, Fort Liard). Dene Tha (for people) and Dene Dháh (for language) and Dehcho for the South "Slavey" (tr:Denetalar for this people, and tr:Denetaca for their language). The North "Slavey" is the Sahtu people (en-wiki: separate page) and Sahtu language (en-wiki: not separate page). The Sahtu is tritypic (K’áshogot’ine ᑲᑊᗱᑯᑎᑊᓀ Sahtúgot’ine ᓴᑋᕲᒼᑯᑎᑊᓀ , Shihgot’ine ᗰᑋᑯᑎᑊᓀ ) and most common in Canada, and in my opinion: likeable. The name Nahani (Nahanni, Nahane) for Central Cordillera Athabaskan-speaking Kaska, Tahltan, and Tagish peoples, and not used for Southern Tutchone people (Kwäch’än) and Shihgot’ine (Mountain) bands of Sahtu people. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the Tahltan and the Kaska do not use it for themselves...maybe those closer to the Nahanni River? I was just noting the Nahane type names on the Slavey language page, and also noting the territorial overlap for BC..... per the racism of t he Slavey term, would a split between South and North into Sahtu and Deh Cho work; he was sloppy in that dab page, as Deh Cho are only South Slavey..... the racism of "Dogrib" (Tlicho) he was unconcerned about also, like various other terms where his nose is on his bookshelves and not in the real world, or the modern day.Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

the "we don't care what the people preferred to be called" line is grating every time I've heard it; it's surfaced in the Squamish RMS and CfDs repeatedly, with NOTCENSORED and RIGHTGREATWRONGS cited in response, as if avoiding inappropriate and/or derisive terms were "censorship".....WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) never gets cited, only his precious self-authored WP:NCLANGSkookum1 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Films set in Vancouver

Sorry, I've had to reverse your deletion of my text in this subsection of the main Vancouver article, though I have retained the list title you added, and added a little more material myself. The reason for the reversal is that the subsection title specifically refers to films SET in Vancouver - where it appears as itself - not merely to those FILMED there. The list title you have added is useful, as it enables the reader to find out more about the city's use as a general location for filming (particularly as a stand-in for U.S. cities), but as I'm sure you can see, the subsection title refers to something quite different! Regards Tai kit (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Please don't do any more of these! There's a tool to create AfC articles properly, with the templates being posted to creators' talk pages, etc., but it works to simply use the "move" tab. I've just had to do a fiddly bit of deletion and undeletion to merge page histories at Nakusp (disambiguation) and Kaslo (disambiguation), and even though I'm an admin, I find that kind of thing scary ... please just use the "move" tab next time, 'mkay? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never done an AfC before; in the absence of a pre-existing article how was I supposed to use a "move" tab? If there'd been Nakusp and Kaslo pages that weren't redirects to those towns that would have been simple enough to move either.....so what page histories? I don't get it.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of copying the content of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kaslo (disambiguation) into a new article named Kaslo (disambiguation), what you should have done is to move Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kaslo (disambiguation) to Kaslo (disambiguation) (by hitting the "move" tab at the top of the Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Kaslo (disambiguation) page and typing in the new title). The reason that it's important to move an article using the "move" button is that that way, the history is preserved for attribution; if you copy and paste, the history is broken (the new page is brand new, with no trace of who originally generated what content) and an admin has to come along and fix it. Admittedly, most admins are more adept with this fiddly stuff than me, but it's still far better to avoid it. Here's the instruction page - at the start of it it says why this has to be fixed. Alternatively, for AfC, as I said there is a special tool that moves the article and also generates the template on the submitting editor's talk page, the RFC Helper Script; the reviewing instructions page starts off by talking about it and tells you how to install it, but it's not mandatory. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Linguistics cabal"

I could have some sympathy with this if what you say is the case, but Kwami is not an admin I think. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

He was at the time of most if not all, hence the overwrite power he had, which maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour. By now you've seen my comments to JorisV about their little club on various other RM response where he says "go ahead and change the guideline" almost as if he were saying "make my day" like Clint Eastwood..... wading into a bearpit is not what I'll do, let's put it that way. Note the file histories summarized on the closed bulk RMs, which I have repeated and fixed up on the individual RMs. This "cabal" of sandbox bullies made no effort to consult other guideline pages or any affected wikigroups, and have been relentlessly hostile and laager-like in their resistance to damn near anything I do; the hypocrisy of Uysvdi oppose "FOO people" -> "FOO" per her justification for re-making Category:Squamish is really quite breathtaking; and as an admin telling me to "get a life" by deleting my criticisms-cum-suggestions is beyond the pale. WPNCLANG needs a higher-level review, I'm not sure where to take that, RfC or ARBCOM or ??Skookum1 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was criticized for the bulk RMs and told I should file them separately; which I have, now to be taunted by JorisV for not abiding by "no consensus" as if those invoking that noxious guideline made any qualitative points; the close was on quantitative grounds only, not because of the merits on each one; "time constraints" and "backlog" were cited (that backlog now substantially expanded by my new individual RMs huh??). Can't do nothing right, it seems, and when I do try to do things right I have the same old crowd not just blocking me but baiting me.Skookum1 (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Extended content

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Skookum1. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I really do not have the time to deal with any of this, but I've had it up to here with your endless personal attacks, e.g. "maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour," against myself and countless other editors, many of which are trying to help you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi You're one to talk, there's no way you're trying to help me, you insulted me and said "get a life" when I tried to explain the matters at hand and tried to offer a solution. You had a choice, from someone informed about British Columbia, to revert the stupid category thing you did, and rejected it so 'other editors' who don't even know the place directly could comment. YOu lecturing me on NPA is hypocritical in the extreme. I wanted to come up with guidelines a year ago, you shoved that aside and said "we" had better things to do. and given the hoo-hah you made about "FOO people" re the Squamish categories it's really amazing to see you step aside about the current RMs, given that position that you yourself said about "FOO people" meaning "people who are FOO". Your attitude has been hostile and contrarian, and you yourself attacked me subtextually during that little game you played with the Shoshone categories, your position there also being against guidelines for category use and harmonizing names with category titles. Kwami's out of line, and this ain't the first time (his little game with the K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke.Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Inuvialuk people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Against: User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Comox people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Against: User:Kwamikagami: "this is just more glib snideness from you, ... and "nobody fixes the lede after moving a title" and other snarky comebacks as you are fond of. ... But of course you only care what's in your academic linguists' texts huh?" -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi I agree. Skookum, I know that Misplaced Pages is sometimes frustrating, but please be speak kindly to others. You already know that uncivil comments are against policy and reflect poorly on the offending editor, but please be civil because it helps your cause. Wikipedians tend to avoid siding with those who make uncivil statements. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Anna, both Uysvdi and Kwamikagami have a history of attacking me. I'm only quoting back at Kwami things he's said to justify his drive-by renamings, and his stance is that linguistics texts outweigh modern usages in importance and he doesn't listen to reason and, geez, do you want me to compile the various criticisms he's launched at me? They are no one to talk; Kwami does only care what's in his linguistics texts, and he never responds to issues only goes for degrading and deriding his opponent. Your warning is ONLY fair if you warn him as well, he has a history of WP:BAITing me and right now is going to any measure conceivable to shut down discussions on articles whose titles he presumes to WP:OWN (on articles he rarely if ever works on. Glibe, snide, rude, derisive, and more - but the reality here is that none of the issues are getting discussed; instead he's trying to shut discussion down on any of the titles he moved (but doesn't work on) and has repeatedly criticized me for even trying, and repeatedly said things "we can't expect you to be rational" and other patronizing twaddle. If you are going to lecture someone about being civil, it's him you should be talking to; I use sharp language but it's because I've "seen it all before". He lost similar name disputes last year by consensus and was dressed down for his goading of me with stupid retorts and inane, derisive comments on the very same kind of titling issue that is at K'omoks/Comox, THE VERY SAME. Precedents abound for that move, including those RMs. He claims I'm disruptive for wanting to revert his thousands of undiscussed moves, calls me irrational....and has always resisted change to whatever he's done. I'm the resident "expert"/resident on British Columbia and was among those who built the article structure and category trees, I first edit the Comox people article in Dec 2005] (if you examine the history of the article back before that revision, you will find out that "Comox people" as a title was originally a redirect to the town/city, then even when it was first being set up to be about the people, kept on having contributors add material about the town (the title , which is a demonstration of the name confusion of Lillooet people which is of the same kind as Lillooet people (now back at St'at'imc where it belongs after a drive-by renaming by you-know-who, after a bitterly-fought at RM but closed by consensus to overrule his action) and Chilcotin people (now back at Tsilhqot'in, another one of the RMs that he doesn't acknowledge and if he could would overturn). Have a look at the article's history, His only edits to it were his aggressive name games this week: (cur | prev) 13:10, 20 March 2014‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,986 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kwamikagami moved page Comox people (temp) to Comox people/temp) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:09, 20 March 2014‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,986 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kwamikagami moved page K'omoks to Comox people (temp): rv. per WP guidelines) (undo | thank) going so far as to try and db a standing title on an article he's never worked on in order to protect his vested interest in his self-authored guideline. The title is inaccurate anyway even in English form; it should be Comox peoples but now given your admonition I don't feel right in moving it; the Sahtloot/K'omoks (Island Comox) should have their own article and the Mainland Comox (Tla A'min, Klahoose and Homalco are really one group, or were before being "cut up" by colonization) their own also under their native names; He doesn't even read the articles whose name he changes. Get it? Criticizing me is an old tactic, as is baiting me by being snide and derisive. I repeat I'm the one being targeted for attack and it's just a tactical manoeuvre and have seen all this before. Yes, I have a sharp tongue because I do not have tolerance for fools and talk directly rather than passive-aggressively; throwing his words back in his face is somehow "not allowed" but doing the same back to me is par for the course. I'm the one who has been attacked; I don't feel like dragging out Uysvdi's nasty bits, but they're there, and she's hardly the one to post the warning to me she did above. She also waded into BC titles without having a clue what she's doing, or anything about the place, or the K'omox/Tla A'min.....and though scoldingh me, nastily and calling me, effectively an anti-indigenous racist it was her uncalled for actions on the Squamish title, which like Comox is a major name confusion,and rather than listen to my input she insulted me and threw the title into (yawn) the bearpit of unnecessary procedure.AAAAAAAARGH do you get my frustration with all this nonsense? English wikipedia is so obsessed with background - guidelines, talkpages, procedure, wikiquette - that little meaningful work gets done on the articles affected; for comparison German Misplaced Pages articles on the same topic are extensive as are those, when they exist, in Croatian and Turkish and others. Misplaced Pages has lost indigenous contributors because of all this; somewhere in TITLE it says that t he interests of readers should be put before the interests of specialists (in this case, a hobby linguist) and the realities of modern British Columbia/Canadian English regularly pushed aside as irrelevant and derided......look at the bigger context here, and realize that it's me that's being bullied and WP:BLUDGEONed as a tactic to resist change to correct usages. SO frustrating and time consuming......Skookum1 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC) His edit comment here is typical of his attacks, insinuating that my rightful changes to that article and its title are not "reality", and cites sources that are out of date per the admonition that sources before an official name change should be discounted and those from after such a name change are to be given more weight (Wuikyala is an official name for hte language, see the Wuikinuxv homepage); his "sources" are out of date and do not take into account the modern reality of name changes that are now commonplace and not just accepted but expected in modern Canada. I could point you to hundreds of such derisive comments....but this is all about me, not him huh??Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Holy moly. That's 6,293 characters. I read the first couple of sentences. Really, what you are saying may well be true, but nobody is going to come to your defense if they have to spend 20 minutes reading walls of text and if you yourself are guilty of the same behaviour. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC) it's only a paragraph and by the usual clerical reckoning of word-count of 5 characters per words ionly just over 1000 words; not even the length of a short university or high school paper. And there are Wikipedians in the community who do support and realize that my posts are informative and contain useful points; instead I get personal attacks back, by those unwilling to educate themselves; And re warning me about NPA, see Kwami's comment that I am replying to here where he says "nobody would accuse you of being rational".....which he's repeated across dozens of articles. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....stuffing is required when roasting both.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC) For another example of his regular putdowns, in this case in a misleading and accusatory edit comment, see here. Nowhere in thte changes I made did I assert that Tsuutina and Sarcee were different languages - NOWHERE. Accusing of things I didn't do is par for the course with him, as is claiming that adding "archaically" (which is true, at least in Canada if not on his own bookshelves) is "censorship" is just more typical false accusation.Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I've interacted with you for less than 15 hours and you've typed over 17 thousand characters in response to what I've written. That's just too much for me to handle. Plus, I'm expected to dig into the massive amount of content to familiarize myself with the back story. Whether you think the community (including me) should be able to read all that is not relevant. The fact is that the community won't, de facto, and you ought to take that into consideration. As for your adversary's tresspasses, well, the "good for the goose" argument doesn't work. Ask a parent when their kids says "well, she stole my doll, so I..." and ask The Hague when a dictator says "well, he killed a whole bunch of my guys, so..." Kwamikagami has been blocked a lot and I think has a bit of a history at AN/I. He has 348 page watchers which means a ton of people follow what he does. So, I'm the last person who should come in and start taking action. I suggest bringing it up with those who have blocked him in the past, or are at least familiar with the long history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC) How do I find those editors? Via his talkpage archives maybe? As for page watchers, I don't know how to find that even for myself...Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Interesting to find examples of his ongoing contempt for those who disagree with him: "Knock off the bullshit, Nug. You're the one falsifying sources to win an argument you can't win on its merits . — kwami (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC) It's fraud ! Are you truly that clueless ?" From ]. I haven't found the actual blocks yet, though.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC) kwami hasn't been blocked 'a lot'. Don't mudsling. If you have something to say about kwami, just come right out with it -- I mean, even if it were true that he's been blocked a lot, what is it that you're trying to say? Both kwami and skookum1 haven't been particularly pleasant to one another it seems to me, but I don't see grounds for a behavioural block for either. — Lfdder (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Yes he has. Five times is a lot. Saying that's a lot isn't mud slinging. I'm not going to block anyone. In fact, I haven't even warned anyone. All I've done is given a bit of advice. And I'm not blind to what Kwamikagami does. I am, however, staying out of that, as others should be better qualified to act if and when needed. They know the long history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) there are block warnings above. Yes, it is mudslinging. You're trying to pass it off as some sort of objective measure and you're obviously trying to suggest something by it. — Lfdder (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "...there are block warnings above...." and I disagree about what you say about mudslinging, passing it off as anything, and suggesting something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I think he's referring to Uysvdi's warnings that started this section, which are hypocritical in the extreme. I'm trying to figure out which ANI bulletin board to take her various attacks against me, and Kwami's and Maunus' and JorisV's to, re WP:CABAL and harassment re the RMs and more. I'm tired of this; I try to use procedure and guidelines and get called "disruptive" and now getting warnings from an admin whose behaviour has been very questionable herself. But damn, more procedure, more time used up that could be being used to improve and expand articles......."when will the madness stop?" as I've said elsewhere about this.Skookum1 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I would love to see diffs on my theoretical attacks against Skookum1. "Get a life" is the worst thing I've ever said to him (after weeks of insults, projections, and conspiracy theories against me), which hardly constitutes an attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi Oh, I thought Lfdder was referring to me. Okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Pfffft, have you so readily forgotten your nastiness in the things you said to me about the Shoshone cats, or accusing me of "vandalism" in the edit comments, when all I was trying to do was put the categories on the redirect titles as is supposed to be done in regards to titles matching the categories they are in?? I guess not huh? And the "get a life" comment was in response to my entreaty for you to consider your opposition to the use of "FOO people" because, you said, it means "people who are FOO" which indeed it does; you deleted that with "get a life". And if you really believed that so strongly you waded into a controversial category like a thief in the night and coopted it for your own use as a "people from FOO" category and re-created Category:Squamish whose geographic confusion you are only now coming to terms with. And where are you in standing up to your buddy Kwami's asssault on the RMs concerning "FOO people" titles? Silent as a tomb.....I think you should get a grip and buy a mirror.Skookum1 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Diffs of personal attacks? -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi Indeed, you don't have a mirror. I suggest you re-read your derision and subtextual racism on your reply to me about me "vandalizing" the Shoshone articles. And "Get a life" you may downplay, but it's very un-adminlike commentary and an extreme put-down in my part of the world. Your hostility and blatant disdain towards me continues here with your derision about my own supposed thin skin re "get a life" and the deletion of my attempts to raise the "FOO people" problem with you, because you so formerly hot-to-trot about it; I'd called for a discussion on guidelines on indigenous nomenclature and categories and more, and you shoved it aside saying "we've got more important things to do" or something to that effect. The very discussion that Kwami is now calling to be held to protect his host of name changes, which you are still avoiding comment on re your "FOO people" = "FOO" antics re Skwxwu7mesh.Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC) So, no diffs of actual text with an actual personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi I've been busy dahling, it's not like I have to sit up and bark for you. So instead of getting on with the "FOO people" problem your silence is deafening on now, you just re-attack me with another sneer?? Go away, I'll get to you; while you've been sniping at me I've been working on articles, new plus older ones that have been in need of expansion sometime - among those your NCL pals only screw with the titles on without knowing or caring about the content or working on. Something you should try sometime instead of pontificating on guideline talkpages and attacking people who dare to criticize your actions.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Then kindly stop of accusing me of things that did not happen. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi Apparently you have memory problems too. "Things that did not happen" ROTFL that's a good one.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "get a life" in the course of deleting my points on issues at hand as if they were worthless, and me as well. Calling you onto your own carpet about issues you have made a big deal out of without taking consistent action on them is apparently not allowed huh? "Get a life" is a serious putdown in my country, I don't know about yours, evidently; condescension as you displayed with this edit was vulgar and rude and clearly an NPA; yet you warn me about NPA for things said on my own talkpage. Go buy that mirror soon OK? This one of several you incorrectly reverted per category title consistency you only said restore article, as if the article were damaged by the transfer of two categories to an appropriate title, which a tribe title is not. On one of those redirects, you likewise said [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Yerington_Colony&action=history only "restoring redirect" - what did you mean by that, that I'd blanked it? Redirects carry categories all the time; I know on others you said more than oncesomething to the order of "revert vandalism", there were a couple of dozen of these, I don't have time to look for your handiwork all night (it's late evening here). I'm browsing to find our exchange about that where you railed against me for not being indigenous and not respecting elders yadayadayada, I can't find it right now, it may be in your archives but I can't be bothered just now, I thought maybe it was on the IPNA talkpage but it's not. I remember it clear as a bell - do you regularly condemn and deride people who aren't indigenous and accuse them subtextually of racism and then not remember saying it? It was highly offensive given my track record on indigenous sympathies, which in fact is what brought me back into Misplaced Pages after a long boycott (during which Kwami run amuck and the first Squamish RM was held, with someone gloating that I and OldManRivers not around anymore so who cares what we think) re Idle No More and Theresa Spence, which had been defaced and vandalized by anti-native propaganda right during the height of that crisis. Geez, you probably don't even know anything about those events and who she is, and what people were trying to get into print about her, do you? And yet you accused me of being anti-indigenous and told me to go away; that was more than a personal attack, it was derision and racist. But you don't own a mirror and don't see things about yourself you don't want to admit to...I'm not expecting you to retract any of that, that's not your thing; stonewalling and counter-attacking IS huh? So, here you are, completely in denial of things you did and said, and by looking at my watchlist I note you still haven't partaken of any of the "FOO people" RMs......not that you care, you only cared long enough to disrupt a BC category tree because you still had your nose in a snit about my efforts to organize Nevada Rez/Tribe cats according to "policy", rather than your ideological position that tribe/reservation/people are all the same thing; that's not how the category trees are to be organized, each of those should have separate titles and categories even if some are redirects to the same article; but you took an ideological position and lecture me on my lack of indigenous sympathies, implying I should butt out of indigenous topics altogether. Why? Maybe you should say that to Kwami given his penchant for archaic/colonialist and/or offensive names for indigenous peoples. Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Where is the diff? "you railed against me for not being indigenous and not respecting elders " <- that never occurred. There's a reason why everything we type here is permanent record. "Restore article" is not a personal attack. You can't find the reverts talking about "vandalism" but I didn't call the category changes "vandalism." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi You're in denial and if not then have a split personality and this part of you doesn't remember what that other part of you does. It was the argument that Montanabw told us to settle down over etc. if you don't remember that then you have serious memory problems. I have eidetic memory and remember it all too well. Why don't yhou just apologize for being offensive' and start talking issues instead of defending yourself after your hypercritical go-for-the-throat "warning" above and start working on the RMs about the "Foo people" issue you're so hot to trot about or at least once you were anyway? I didn't edit war with you over your arrogance and stubbornness on the categories issue because you're a waste of time and I took MTbw's advice to give it some distance and stay out of Nevada, I have done that. Why didn't you stay out of BC?? In my view you pulled the Squamish nonsense deliberately just to be disruptive, and your ongoing silence on the RMs issue on the same convention is deafening. You tolerate attacks by Maunus and Kwami against me and presume to threaten me with sanctions on my own page for standing up for yourself; your denials are meaningless to me, I remember very well what you said and how you treated me. Get a grip and start working on articles instead of guidelines and wikiquette and LEAVE ME ALONE.Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC) You should point out to your buddies from NCL that they have been totally out of line with the jackbooting on the "must have people" issue, here's a guideline (or whatever the f it is) for you to cite to them. Maybe you should heed it yourself, points 2,3,4 of : Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions. There were other items on WP:Tendentious editing and others of that kind that apply; and you should note that last one above re your actions re Squamish, which ultimately are what touched off not just the "FOO people"=>"FOO" RMs (and there's a few thousand more that are up for nomination, no doubt, given Kwami's railing against me for going against procedure in the course of trying to shut them down when he never address proper procedure of broad discussion in the first place and whines about thousands or RMs being "disruptive" when 99.9% of them were created by him is way out of line. During this contretemps here tonight (it's 2:37 am where I am), I've created new articles, expanded and modified others, and you have been here denying things I know that you said. Your deletion of my attempt to engage you in the FOO people=>FOO issue was hostile and negative and despicable (as well as cowardly and hypocritical, just as you are being tonight with your denials). It is YOU who have been unCIVIL in the extreme on more than one occasion and bitterly too, and you're behaving like a wiki-bully using your admin powers to threaten me. You're an example of the kind of cultus ikta that makes people give up trying to be constructive contributors, and among those who regularly violate the wikilawyering points above BIGTIME. I'm going to bed. YOu shoudl learn what contrition and humility are about and give up on your confrontational ways and start dealing with the issues instead of using your power to attack someone who is trying to deal with those issues; something your closed club of NCL types are resisting by any means necesary, including trying to shut down the discussions and defame me in the process. I'm going to bed, I've had enough of you; if I don't see any comments repeating the invocation of your interpretation concerning "FOO people" on the RMs that proves to me you are not ready to be either consistent or willing to deal with issues/problems you had a hand in creating and are boycotting the RMs because they were launched by me. Go take a humility pill and think about what yhou have done and said - once you actually remember them, I sure do and don't patronize me by claiming I'm "irrational" or that you "can't take my word for it" like your pals have done. Damn, I could have gotten so much more done tonight if not for your assault on me here on my own talkpage. Your position and denials here are an insult to my intelligence and one of the reasons why English Misplaced Pages is the horrifying bearpit of weirdness and guideline-clobbering that it is. Sickening.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC) These also apply to what has been going on thanks to the small-group concoction known as NCL: Misplaced Pages:Gaming_the_system Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI not a guideline but completely apt. Why don't you use your admin bludgeon to go dump on Kwami instead of me; he's guilty of all of those, and you have been complicit in standing by and letting it happen when you have the power to stop it but obviously are too busy criticizing me to even think about it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chipewyan people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Directed at JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi Oh geez, so JorisV makes a directly negative comment towards me, and I'm the one getting warned?? He said clearly that he was voting because I'm allegedly not capable of having a proper discussion, which is both an insult and making an editor the target. AGF/NPA/CIVIL. Likewise with Kwami's ongoing derisions and putdowns. You are abusing your power as an admin, and you yourself have not been willing to answer direct, simple questions on the NCET guidelines discussion, all in neutral language, either because you are not willing to answer or have no answers, or as a demonstration of contempt. I hear AGF all the time from people who don't show any signs of it themselves. Other editors have no problem with my writing style; many consider me a good writer and very informative. Why don't you answer to the issues I raised, instead of filing another threat like this again? And rein in the tongues of your NCL colleagues; they're the ones doing the attacking. I'm only defending myself from false and rather rude accusations. Demeaning comments in place of "proper discussion" are way too common coming from those presuming to a moral high ground they are not themselves standing on.Skookum1 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chipewyan people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Directed at JorisvS: "until your lot came along with your guideline-cum-wrecking ball, but I know that you don't care about anything other than NCL ... You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi Your conflation of that criticism of how NCL is being abused and other guidelines derided is oversensitivity in the extreme and is very apt, considering the virulent opposition and obstructionism and regularly derision targeted towards me by those who think NCL is HOLYWRIT. It is not, and you are no saint yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comox people move

Please see Talk:Comox people#Moving this article

Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

K'omoks

That's right. The anglicized form Sathloot for θaɬaθtuxʷ (Comox people in the Sliammon dialect of Comox language). Kmoksy is not K'omoks; he is a semi-Yup'ikized and semi-Athabaskanized Meskhetian Turk. Thanks. --Kmoksy (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Sliammon name for them is the same as it is in their own dialect. Similar but may have slightly different phonemes. The bits about history and former territory and integrating into themselves the surviving Pentlatch (who they seem to consider part of their cultural collective, as they put it) was interesting to read. Even on the Island (we capitalize that when referring to Vancouver Island) they were not one people but several. Much like the Okanagan/Sinixt/Colville/Similkameen/Spayomin were and remain, though greatly weakened in numbers. The Lekwtiltok invaded and conquered that area a few hundred years ago - that name in English is most common historically as "Euclataws", also you'll see Yuculta; the wiki article is Laich-kwil-tach; they were kin of the Kwagyuilh (Kwakiutl proper) on northern Vancouver Island before escaping warfare there by coming down the Johnstone Strait and settling on K'omoks land; the K'omoks were enslaved, though they won't talk about that SFAIK, you'll notice a terse reference to it; they're now part of the Southern Kwakiutl, who still use that term unlike the Kwakwaka'wakw who have their own names and don't like that one; one 'Namgis I know (Alert Bay area people) said that the Kwagyulh were low down the social hierarchy of the various Kwakwaka'wakw peoples and the name is not suitable for the higher-caste groups, if caste is the right word. The Euclataws terrorized the Georgia Straight and up the Fraser to Yale and to the head of Harrison Lake, and like the Tlingit/Haida/Tsimshian raids into Puget Sound, raided there also; it was because of them that the chief of the Kwantlen moved the main village from near what is now New Westminster to Fort Langley once the HBC showed up with its guns and bastions; not just to control trade but for protection; Fort Langley repelled at least one Euclataws attack. But back to the K'omoks, in the wake of the b.s. over the name I'm thinking separate articles for Island and Mainland groups are needed partly because of the different history; and so Comox people becomes Comox peoples and there'd be a Sathloot page and a Tla A'min page (all three mainland groups were once one group, before colonization; the three names refer to where they lived (Homalco/Homathko the Klahoose in Toba Inlet, the Sliammon on the Malaspina Peninsula). There may be a battle to name those Island Comox and Mainland Comox, but we'll see. Somewhere on BC Archives I saw a really cool pic of the old K'omox Cemetery in Comox, I'll try to find it again; the style is a mix of Salishan/Georgia Straight/Fraser carving styles and the northern influences brought into the area by the Lekwiltok; very unusual and not typical of totem poles as you normally think of the style.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

PS hope that wasn't TLDR which I hear a lot from people who can't stand reading lengthy passages, and who don't learn anything about the subject at hand because they won't listen; remedial reading for Wikipedians is called for; I speed type, and speed read, so given I obviously have a pool of knowledge I try and lay it out completely; this gets called a "rant" or a sign that I'm "irrational" and more. Quite tiresome LOL. Merhaba, good night.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

material from K'omoks website

Lots from that history page of theirs could be put on the people(s) page; more later (into the article).Skookum1 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider archiving

Your talk page is around 300k and I'm having trouble loading it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll try, I've never done it myself before, others have done it for me.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And re Comox people and various others like it now at RM, please read at least the closer's comments on Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move if not the whole RM; the closers at the parallel at RMs made no comments, just "moved" (Ktunaxa, which Kwami had speedied to Kutenai people, Secwepemc, which he'd moved to Shuswap people, Nlaka'pamux which he'd moved to Thompson people, Tsilhqot'in, which he'd moved to Chilcotin people; Dakelh was only recently moved back to its original title, authored by the presiding expert in that field User:Billposer, Kwami had moved it to Carrier people which is ethnographically incorrect, which he should have known had he had actually researched the title and its prevalent usage and greater accuracy.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Would you like auto archiving set up for this page? --_nonsense ferret 02:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes please; at this point I don't know in what time increments, maybe until 3 months ago for what is there now? Thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've set that up for you, it should archive anything older than 90 days, the archive bot doesn't run immediately, but it should happen in a number of hours. If you wish to change the parameters you can read more about the settings here --_nonsense ferret 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dabs

Hi Skookum1, there's a few dabs being created, which aren't very conformant to the style guide WP:MOSDAB, including the primary topic. Not sure if this is from AfC, but may be worth fixing them at creation. Good to see new dabs being created, regards Widefox; talk 00:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Or just stop the editor who went and made huge numbers of them because he and NCL he wrote say that language is a primary topic equal to the people who speak it, which is rubbish to anybody but a linguistics groupie. Well, too late to stop him, he's already done thousands, and is now trying to use procedural complaints to shut down RMs to have debates on guidelines that already exists but which he and the club from NCL ignored. And redirects back to current title containing unnecessary title-additions to "distinguish" from the supposed primarytopic equivalence of the languages....even when there isn't one. In some cases "two and a half dabs" were created, e.g. Gitxsan people/Gitxsan Nation/Gitsxan language, or Mi'kmaq people/Mi'kmaq language/Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing .....TWODABS should be amended because of games like this (those were both originally titles Gitxsan and Mi'kmaq as the people are the primary topic in the real world. The interests of readers should come before those of specialists, says right in TITLE, but the specialists are claiming the volume of output in their field outweighs media and whatever other sources.... anyways 'tweren't me who made those.....maybe one or two long ago but no longer....and I strongly believe UNDAB should be RfC'd because it needs to become policy; the NCL crowd are trying to discredit citing it because it's only an essay.Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

Hi Skookum1,

You need a break. Take this as a gift. Enjoy a couple of days away from Misplaced Pages.

In technical terms, I've blocked you for 48 hours, but let's not put an officious label on it.

Best wishes – Fayenatic London 08:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Langley, British Columbia (city)

Confused by the title, but not for reasons that I've seen mentioned. With US articles, we use TOWN (type), STATE and never TOWN, STATE (type) when multiple places in the same area have the same name — for an example, see Alburgh (town), Vermont, which surrounds Alburgh (village), Vermont. Is the TOWN, PROVINCE (type) format in accordance with a convention (either written somewhere or simply normal practise), or is it applied randomly? WP:PLACE says nothing for Canada except "look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles", which doesn't address this issue at all. If there's no convention whatsoever, I'd like to propose that the US format be added to the Canada-related MOS page as the standard, but there's no way that I'm going to ask for changes if there's already a convention in place. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That convention is firmly in place; originally, several years ago, I was among those lobbying to retain the comma-province designation on many titles, either because of historical usage/ former post offices, or because the places were well-known with comma-province attached; I have since changed my position and have begun resolving many of the unique town names via RM; some cannot be resolved such as Ruskin, British Columbia which straddles two municipalities; the two Langleys are separate municipalities and also of course Langley has many other uses; North Vancouver's two municipalities also have separate articles but that is a unique name and so a joint non-dab page for both is used; maybe the same could be done with Langley, though comma-province would still be required.Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the link handy, but maybe the best place for this issue would be at the Communities subproject of WikiProject Canada. I'll ask User:Hwy43, who's also working in this same area; see WP:CANTALK for a listing of towns having comma-province taken off by RM, many of them already successfully closed.Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by your response — either you misunderstood what I was asking, or I misunderstood your response. If I made the suggestion I was talking about, and if it got consensus, Langley would end up at Langley (city), British Columbia and Langley (district municipality), British Columbia. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's a nationwide convention, or at least provincewide, to put disambiguators after the whole name, instead of putting them in the middle like the US articles do. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's nationwide, and the dab form for those as they are was decided by consensus.Skookum1 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, very good, and in that case I won't ask for any changes to the articles. Could you point me to the discussion, so that I can ask for it to be mentioned at WP:CSG? Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already explicitly in CANSTYLE at Misplaced Pages:CSG#Places. Where the discussions are is a good question; all over the place in the archives of WP:CANTALK and likely at the talkpage on CANSTYLE as well.Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've read through that section three times (including twice before my previous note), but the only things I can see about parenthetical disambiguation are (1) Halifax, and (2) neighbourhoods not using that format. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm I don't have time to look around for it right now; I thought it might be on Talk:Langley, British Columbia but that's a TWODABS page and that needs resolving also; it might be on other municipalities' talkpage, or else it's somewhere in CANSTYLE's talkpages or at WP:CANTALK archives about how that form came into being; there are other cases other than Langley and North Vancouver, as I recall...somewhere. Suffice to say that whatever practices apply in the United States are not taken into account by WikiProject Canada, nor should they be expected to be, as most WPCANADA people would agree.Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

using their formal titles City of Langley and Township of Langley was considered but was dismissed as an aberration from norms; otherwise we'd also see Corporation of Delta instead of Delta, British Columbia and Resort Municipality of Whistler; the one exception to that being the new Regional Municipality of Northern Rockies which is an expansion of both Fort Nelson, British Columbia, formerly a village, or town maybe, and the Northern Rockies Regional District.Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note Talk:Langley,_British_Columbia_(city)#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There are three examples of this format being applied to communities in Alberta - Fairview, Alberta (town), Fairview, Alberta (hamlet) and Taber, Alberta (municipal district) - which shows consistency among the two neighbouring provinces. I believe 117Avenue led the charge in determining the resting places for these three. Perhaps he recalls a location of the convention or past discussion that established this format. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflecting a bit further on this as I stall from falling asleep, I think the logic behind the "Community, Province/territory (status)" convention is that the province/territory is the primary disambiguator for community articles. In the rare case that level of disambiguation isn't enough, it makes more sense to append the second level of disambiguation to the end of the title rather than inject it in front of the first disambiguator, which would therefore not respect the first level of disambiguation. Further, FWIW, injection of it between the community name and the province makes it harder for readers to search for and find the article because the title is illogical. Hwy43 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We have another problem at Langley, British Columbia which is a WP:TWODABS violation; North Vancouver avoids this by an article summarizing both municipalities; maybe that can be done here?Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

North Vancouver should be a dab and a dab only. I raised a similar concern with this article previously at Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities#What is plain title? (immediately after the outdent). Hwy43 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

then, like Langley BC, it would be WP:TWODABS unless in Langley's case the dab page also included Fort Langley but WP:THREEDABS isn't much better; I really can't think of anything remotely equivalent on the North Shore that could prevent North Vancouver if pruned of its content from being TWODABS.Skookum1 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have edited North Vancouver to be what it always should have been - a dab page with four entries on it. Hwy43 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I think maybe the electoral districts didn't have articles in the way-back; I've added Vancouver (electoral districts) to the See alsos. Could the same be done for Langley, British Columbia or has it already?Skookum1 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, it's still TWODABS and there the hitch is that Langley (electoral district) is not Langley, British Columbia (electoral district); unlike North Van where the primary title needs no disambiguation as a unique name. As I noted maybe above, Fort Langley was "Langley" until the founding of the Township; that's a "dead usage" but would it qualify?Skookum1 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only disambiguation I knew at the time was parenthesis at the end of the existing title. And this still makes sense, just like Hwy43 said, a reader would not look for the disambuator in the middle of the title, because it is illogical. According to WP:CSG#Places ambiguous places should be disambiguated by the surrounding community, (e.g. Armstrong, Thunder Bay District, Ontario). I take concern with this, because in Alberta villages and towns are enclaves of rural municipalities, and for rural municipalities this would not work. According to CSG, and US convention, Fairview, Alberta (hamlet) should be at Fairview, Lethbridge County, Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• If that same model were applied to BC, we'd see things like Williams Lake, Cariboo Regional District, British Columbia and Spuzzum, Fraser Valley Regional District, British Columbia. On the other hand many sources for non-municipal locations might say, e.g. Garibaldi, Squamish Forest District, British Columbia or Pavilion Lake, Kamloops Forest District as forest districts are commonly used in scientific research, and after all the Ministry of Forests controls something like 90% of the landbase of the province; newer consulting reports tend to use regional districts though, and BC Names uses Land Districts e.g. Jesmond, Lillooet Land District, British Columbia - but if "Regional District" weren't included (a bad habit, as is the substitution of "District" which if anything tends to mean the Land District, or the Mining District (once upon a time the same thing). There are all kinds of ways to subdivide BC and other provinces; dabs are too complicated, would vary in form from province to province......and are just cumbersome clutter in category listings.Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Are there two Williams Lake communities in BC? Two Spuzzums? If no, then that model would not apply. Hwy43 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring only to Nyttend's suggestion that we follow US disambiguation practices; Spuzzum is now a no-dab title, Williams Lake seems to be a candidate, like Campbell River too (those are links to dab pages so you can see what I mean). BTW see my googles on the Lillooet RM re PRIMARYTOPIC claims that the town isn't the primary topic.Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Response to Fayenatic London re his threat to unleash a longterm block on me

Even been here, Skookum?

Just wondering.... I wrote a lot of term papers in that cabin, back before it was hip. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why confusing?

Hello, Skookum1. At Talk:Chipewyan people you wrote, 'Why "confusing"? There would be a hatnote...' etc. That may have been a rhetorical question, but in case it was an actual request for clarification, I will attempt one. I wrote, 'Either name without the word "people" would seem to risk confusion with Dënesųłiné language.' By that I meant that referring to either of the pages currently at Chipewyan people or Chipewyan language as 'Denesuline' creates a situation in which it is possible for Misplaced Pages readers to mistake one thing for another – that is, to find the people when they were looking for the language, or vice versa. (I don't think this situation would "confound" or "bewilder" such readers, other senses of the word confuse.) As you say, hatnotes can direct such readers to the other page they were actually looking for, but that is an extra step. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:UNDAB and WP:PRECISION for starters, I'm busy teaching online right now so cannot continue until later.Skookum1 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to continue; I was simply trying to clarify my wording. Again, happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Forks

Hi, Skookum1. Registered 10/27/2005; 80,057 edits. Wow. You've been around so long. You must see the fork in the road because you've seen it with so many others over the years.

• Left: The community tires of the massive resources spent reading walls of text, of being attacked, and of AN/I posts. They start to think in terms of cost/benefit. WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and even WP:TEND starts to get mentioned. The community has finally had enough. An indefinite block. The talk page grows with posts about how this is wrong. Nobody dares to unblock and see the behaviour resume. You no longer have any say over the content at Misplaced Pages. You feel frustrated and angry. You miss Misplaced Pages, a lot. Anna Frodesiak (talk)
  • I miss sanity in Misplaced Pages is what I miss, and the days when guidelines were not wielded as "policy" and essays were not used as BLUDGEONs as they are in fact being used; I came back to Misplaced Pages after boycotting it because of censorship during the Canadian election campaign, and since have plugged at re-asserting titling conclusions and consensus that have been persistently ignored even as my personality has been regularly attacked. I haven't even look at the ANI yet because of the inherent bias and partisanship already displayed towards me by the admin who filed that, who herself has engaged in personal attacks and derision on a regular basis. The obstructionist behaviour manifests itself in various ways, including the abuse of TLDR.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Right: You ask yourself about outcomes. You want the articles to be a certain way, but you realize that you have to work with the community in a certain way. You make short, concise posts. You gain readers and support because of it. You win some. You lose some. You accept the losses and walk from those. You are happy about the wins. You start to see the short posts as a good strategy because they get results. You see how those long posts may have been just been an expression of frustration by bombarding editors to make them understand. Life at Misplaced Pages becomes and joy. You help many articles improve. You say to yourself "Ahhhhhh, outcomes. Yes. It's all about the outcomes". You buy a canoe anyway. You paddle along and think how great and satisfying Misplaced Pages is and that you are making a difference, and that you should have brought more sandwiches. You live longer. You have less stress. Live is good. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Now, how's that for a wall of text? :) Seriously, why am I spending 10 minutes to write to you? It's an outcome thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"The community" you speak of is only people who don't want to acknowledge the points I raise and use TLDR as an excuse to not read what I have to say; others do and TLDRites are not "all" of the community. RM after RM is closing in "my" favour right now, the only failed ones are where obstructionist b.s. and "oppose" carpet-BOMBing by flawed and often very biased and misdirective "votes" were given UNDUE weight, and closers ignored all the precedents and guidelines they have already ignored. Outcomes? As far as outcomes go, those failures to properly address guidelines and precedents and where I have been made a wiki-football contrary to the guideline "discuss content and do not make an editor the subject of discussion", which ironically has been thrown at me while I continue to be made the target of attacks, including officially. TLDR is not a guideline....it is a weak excuse being used to either claim I am not worth listening to, or to be wielded as a club....not by the community, but by a club of people who apparently aren't used to sustained argument and are only interested in quantitative character-counting instead of tackling their hostility to things that they can't, and don't, want to admit to....and regularly engage at shooting at the messenger, often in the most crude and patronizing terms.Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. What I'm hearing from you is that we are working within a flawed system and the community ought to be able to read long posts. You may be right. So, what's your plan? You could fight against the system and community to try to change them. Or, you could see these issues as unchangeable fact. Which plan do you think is the better of the two? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of the community have been reading long posts, and are capable of understanding them. The short fuse and impatience about this by those who are challenged by words they are unfamiliar with and intimidated by extended argument are IMO advancing the cause of semi-literacy.Skookum1 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem here is people that think they are experts in topics they have never really studied and jumping into debates based on personal experience over knowledge. The second is people that jump into debates just to chastises people over procedure (this is the one that hurts us with the newbies and the latter with older editors). Third is bullies that simply think they know best and generally lack the skills to communicate in a adult fashion. The fourth is older editors that simply cant walk away from a debate without winning - thus the debate never ends. -- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

that votes have been cast in opposition directly saying that they don't like me is a very real issue here; and JorisV, on whose behalf Uysvdi has threatened me, abusing her powers in a partisan fashion given her own role in the same activities, and her failure to take action on insults made at me, is hypocritical in the extreme. The underlying theme of hostility towards native people and Canadian English that underlies all this is noxious, also in the extreme.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And right now "I" am winning in many RMs, other than those closed prematurely before knee-jerk responses and false statements can be challenged and debunked; Atlin, Comox, Squamish and others all fall in this category; and in the Squamish RM and CfDs I was made a target by long posts, bludgeoning me while citing BLUDGEON against me instead of addressing the issues raised; not all "the community" is "tired" of me; many understand exactly what I am saying and proposing and teh guidelines and consistency and context I am always referring to; those that are hostile to what I have to say are going to extreme ends and regularly WP:BAITing me.....in the midst of all this harrassment and denunciation, I continue to create and tend articles and respond to the inane arguments made in defence of the NCL group's ongoing campaign of denial and obfuscation and derision. Valuable time is being taken up with obsessive and puerile procedure and mindless hostility and laager-like turf warring; Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You may remember me from a cordial interaction at North American Cordillera. Anyway, someone once told me that "ANI" is plural for something. That is all.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Vaguely yes, I do remember, and that's of course an area I've done massive amounts of work on; see my reply to DangerousPanda here and to the ongoing witchhunt by Uyvsdi....I really do think the adminship is being played here and this whole farce is BAITing....... I'm being told if I speak up again, I'll be blocked - WTF??? Proof to me that the nerdship is a reactionary force not interested in a better encyclopedia, but only in their own power to get rid of those who are in their way.....I'm being monitored by the person who launched the witchhunt and she'll probably go scurrying back to the ANI with that coinage...... if I do get banned, it will release me to write in an environment where I don't have a bunch of "ANI" and wannabes telling me what words I can or can't use, or complaining that they can't read more than 25 words at a time without their eyes glazing over. Being literature and articulate is a crime to the semi-literate; being knowledgable and thoughtful is hateful to those who are not; being a talented writer even worse. I may not be able to say anything more, as my last block prevented me from even editing this page or using wikipedia email......not just a muzzle, but a muzzle with a gag stuck down my throat. Dissent will not be tolerated etc....this place has become a 1984-ish nightmare of doublespeak and doublestandards......freed from it will see me branch out, even make a living s a writer instead of spending my days here defending msyself against wiki-haters......I've refrained from expanding or creating various history articles and bios because of the frustrations incurred, and because Ican't speak from the heart, and because of bad article-names are expected to use out of date terms favoured by those who don't actually know the subjecty matter.....the inanity goes on and on and on.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I'm sick as a dog today, coughing nonstop. But I can give brief advice. If you do speak again at ANI, imagine you 're talking to kindergarteners who have the attention spans of squirrels. And do so very respectfully.  :-) Will get involved if I feel any better. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Obsequiousness and pandering is how someone becomes an admin, and I'm tired of being disrespected by those who show no signs at all of disrespecting me. That closes on important Canadian social and geographic and historical topics are being made by foreigners whose main wiki-article activity is movie reviews and the like is one of the main problems with wikipedia: people who want to play gong show deciding to make input and decisions on topics they know nothing about, ignoring guidelines and instead making proponents a political football. I've called it a witchhunt and kangaroo court, which it is. I will ignore it for a few days and continue with my wiki-work, which has been extensive despite the harassment and the ongoing resistance by those who can't or won't read/learn to do so, instead of making my writing and by extension my personality the subject of discussion. ANI is a bearpit, full of narrow minds and pompous judgment and very little reference to the real world, I've seen it before e.g. in the 2011 ANI which resulted in me being blocked during the Canadian election campaign for trying to get Stephen Harper ads masquerading as Misplaced Pages articles removed as the spam that they are, where votes from abroad which were openly partisan (conservative) were made, and the closer was a teenager in Scotland with no knowledge of the Canadian political milieu or any political acumen whatsoever.....

it was because of that block that I boycotted Misplaced Pages, during which boycott Kwami took advantage of my absence to foist the St'at'imc/Lillooet et al. switcheroos; it wasn't because of those that I came back in, but because of the mounting campaign to vandalize/twist wiki-coverage of Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More movement by SPAs and IPs who were the same voices/derisions seen in the trollpack in news forums......then seeing articles where "St'at'imc" had been used getting "fixed" to "Lillooet", which is obsolete and inaccurate, and other archaic, colonialist names in place of the modern proper usages in articles and on topic matters I use all the time, well, that was where last year's RMs came from; Uysvdi's own wading in where she did not belong re Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh is what led to me filing the bulk RMs - which were closed as procedurally not allowed (sez where?) and, being told to file individual RMs, I did so, only to have the usual naysayer claim that centralized discussion should be held....... even though I'd just tried that; now, instead of addressing the issues I raise and acknowledging the "new consensus", my criticisms of the attacks and wheedling made in response to those issues are now fielded as more strokes against me, in a place where the fangs are red with blood and those who love a kill are already talking about dead meat......Skookum1 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Your story above reminds me of what happened at Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) where I was a happy contributor making 51 edits starting in 2012-09-28, until on 2014-01-18 I made a fatal mistake — I added a few banners such as WikiProject Canada to the talk page and started a whole chain of events, when an editor we are both familiar with — Obiwankenobi -- who had no involvement in that article up to that point, showed up and removed the banners I had added with this edit summary: "clean up. the relationship to other country project is tenuous at best". Shortly thereafter our friend Mrfrobinson showed up in support and the consensus was clear: w-project Canada did not belong on that talk page. By the way did you notice how Obiwan said he was not watching your page, but posted to it right after I did?

Back to FATCA -- I was left with no other option, so on 2014-02- 05 I created FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States where there would be no question this was a Canadian topic. Logical? -- not according to my regular companion. Mrffrobinson was the first to show up and nominate it for deletion, not once but twice, and when that failed, started a merge discussion (back to the original FATCA the one I was driven out of)— which Arthur Rubin supports in fervor to this day.

None of this would have been possible without the active involvement of admin Arthur Rubin who has been making my wiki-life hell since I first bump\ed into him On 10 February 2014.

All three editors have since joined discussion at w-project Canada:

• 8 edits Mrfrobinson starting 2014-01-24
• 3 edits Obiwankenobi starting 2014-03-26
• 2 edits Arthur Rubin starting 2014-03-11

making themselves at home just like they do in my own user space. They managed to dupe everyone - they are the heroes and I am the country bumpkin who doesn’t know what Misplaced Pages is all about and they all so sophisticated using all the right wiki-buzzwords. Never mind I am the one trying to contribute content, whereas all they are doing is working to remove it. Hey, but of course this is all one big coincidence and/or a figment of my overactive imagination. All the best, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I know very well that Misplaced Pages can sometimes be a very uncongenial place, and I may be kicked out soon myself. But there seem to be some laid-back, reasonable Wikipedians as well, and I guess you might want try gravitating toward them. I don't think they'll be attracted by discussion about "the fangs are red with blood and those who love a kill are already talking about dead meat". That quote may or may not be correct, but people volunteering some spare time to noodle on Misplaced Pages generally won't want to get involved with such negativity (unless it's backed up by the most clear evidence imaginable). I hope this comment helps a little bit. If it was me, I'd probably think about taking a new tack here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Plan from here, now that the peremptory and anti-consensus block has ended, is to focus on articles in need of creation/improvement and get busy with long-put-off language fixes on South American, European, Asian and other articles much in need of grammar/wording/idiom fixes. I'm de-watchlisting a huge amount of articles and categories, including many I created, because I'm tired of having to deal with half-educated people quoting guidelines they don't even understand in the course of fiddling with titles on topics they really know very little about and not doing much else. Looking over my watchlist is a constant tiresome bore of seeing minor tweaks here and there, very little in the way of substantive edits, and endless name quibbling and picayune nitpickery. And though not watching the RM and CfD boards and the like is a bad idea, considering what went down with Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish, Lillooet/St'at'imc and more while I had my back turned, but you're right; they are shams mostly populated by habitual naysayers in the cliquish behaviour of those described in the excerpts from WP:EXR below. That I have adjusted my writing format and refrained from even replying to outrageous insults and deprecations from those who accuse me of same I get no credit for at all, as evinced by the schoolmarmery and ongoing pompous judgments seen below; and yes, people claiming that they do not watch my page still come here to dump on me....... and never to address actual issues and REAL readings of the FULL guidelines. Better I stay in parts of Misplaced Pages where work is needed and there are fewer quibblers and harassers making participation here highly unpleasant and bothersome. I'm an old man and don't need the b.s. from those who are themselves dishonest and hypocritical about their own behaviour. Not being allowed to call someone "dishonest" when they really and demonstrably are is too much like the farce of the parliamentary Rules of Order where you cannot call someone a liar even if they are.Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your brilliant line on Jimbotalk: "I've been around one hell of a long time and have contributed massive amounts to Misplaced Pages, and remember the days when AGF and NPA were not used to inflict AGF and NPA, but when people actually sought to talk to each other and reconcile differences..." Please do hang in there, Misplaced Pages needs you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it's nice to have some support instead of spite and scolding.....I'm still plugging at it despite all, and getting good things done.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, guess I'll add not just that barnstar to my userpage but also that line to my maxims....I bloopered a goodie tonight, since edited out, "Sometimes I make brain farts" i.e. missing phrases or writing incomplete sentences because "in flow" and managing multiple thoughts.....I think I'll add that too with "" or "when firebreathing" maybe.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

map Vancouver Island Ranges

• hi - I was hoping to use your 2007 map on Vancouver Island Ranges to identify locations of mountains on their individual articles. I put a request into the Map Workshop group: Misplaced Pages:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Vancouver_Island_Ranges to seek the geographic coordinates for the boundaries of the image. Canuckle (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah that'd be fine, it's accurate; I'm not the one who drew the little outlines, can't remember who did that, but I did upload it once it was made.....hm maybe it was Qyd?Skookum1 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with the trolls

I read your post on Jimbo's talk page and just wanted to let you know your not alone with being trolled. I had that problem when I stopped editing a couple years ago. Now, more often than not, I am accused of being another editor who has been banned from the site, oddly because we shared the same view of being distrustful of many of the admins on this site. That was the primary reason why I left a couple years ago and why they were banned. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that IMO if your arguments are against an admin, it won't matter if you are right, they will always side with an admin. The culture on this site has become one of us and them between editors and admins and editors are thought to not have a clue. If you get too tired of the environment here I would invite you to try out editing at Wikia. Its a lot more enjoyable than it is here and there are a lot of projects to find interesting. Good luck172.56.3.189 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to create an account on Misplaced Pages Review but it wouldn't accept any of my webmail addresses; gmail yahoo etc. Are they shut down, or now no-newbies? Never really realized what Wikia was, I'll have a look. Thanks for the empathy and voice of experience. I've been through hassles before; been thinking of making a rogue's galleries where I was ardently opposed but through very ardent research managed to win the day; now no matter what I cite or explain, I'm either not read, and dumped on for being unintelligible (to them, not others obviously), or gambits will be tried to twist my words back on me or claim a guideline says something other than what it says. Without ever addressing the guideline issues raised or the history of the title(s) and their modern context.

Damn I could write a book on the tactics that have been thrown at me and anything I propose or try to get done that needs doing.......I definitely need a freer writing environment where I'm not told what words/names I can and can't use and endless niggles are thrown up demanding cites for the obvious or well-known; dab templates thrown on a link with no effort to try and fix it themselves; I won't go off about my experience with "code warriors" and MOSites, or party agitators/p.r. types and worse; all so much bother by so many fiddling with the design and impacting content.....and in my case, anti-AGFing me in my own area of expertise; BC geography/history/toponomy/political geography - the ongoing campaign to block my RMs constitute harassment and obstructive behaviour, but "the club" generally doesn't eat its own, and likes a good kill....the relish in the list of banned editors which I found by looking up Kauffner the other night (who started the whole Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh mess and precipitated all else since) for the judgment, and the sentence, is almost gleeful in spots. Oh, no doubt U. will clip that and take it to the ANI just to say "see! See! See!!" but she's done zip towards constructive work on the articles and areas she and her friends are making so much fuss about having their way. I understand that

I don't claim to be an expert in indigenous affairs I just know what the issues, and the linguistic realities are, whether re Canadian English or re the respective native languages; more participation is needed from FNs for their own pages but it's a balancing act; my stubs are often that because I don't want to politicize the articles or just add ongoing news updates for them, rather than the textual equivalent of Curtis photos; my opponents in those cases just don't get that these are living peoples and their self-identification is important to them; they are also, in their own minds/culture, sovereign and so constitute "national varieties of English"........

The degree of resistance to modern reality around here is amazing to me; an inherent conservatism with built-in negativity, not trusting its own editorship who started a lot of the articles in question (town and native ones, plus most of the BC mtn range/geographic regions and more); to be told I have to produce the goods, front and centre, based on vague claims with no direct statements by someone who knows nothing about the place but wants to play guideline games and waste time and energy.........that's disruptive and tendentious to the max, but nothing will get done to those doing it;

Your words " if your arguments are against an admin, it won't matter if you are right, they will always side with an admin" is why most people don't want to go anywhere near ANI or adminship, because of that mentality....consensus I learned long ago winds up being a club-dictatorship, with single-member vetos; but only for members of the group, not anyone else is admitted into what one called "the community" and their views, even if coming from areas of their expertise, are worthless. Reminds me of the community of immortals that Sean Connery breaks into in Zardoz. Highly exclusionary and given over to a particular variety of passive-aggressivism, where polite tone is used to manipulate forceful and aggressive statement/intent; provoking response so that it can be condemned; and "my ignorance is better than your education....and I have guidelines!!" mentality that I'm encountering a lot of (Asimov said that about the rise of the new right in the early '60s).

So decisions on content and title are being made by people who know little about what they are deciding on, and who pretend to authority over those who do. The imperialistic tone of global English vs Canadian English I'm hearing, and seeing, and the "speak white" undertone of some of the anti-native-name opposers....all disturbing but also part of the world beyond wiki; anyone can edit, and that's part of the problem; worse yet, anyone can be come an admin who learns the game of pretending to be nice, or even having convinced themselves that they are when really they're not...

I need dinner, just came in from the gym; broke this into paragraphs for you but I don't think you're the type who can't read longish bits to the point of going into attack-mode about it, like so many.....I'll check out wikia and have in mind a blog for the place I live, something more productive .... and my Lillooet site has needed work for a while; I have had all kinds of stuff I was going to write for Misplaced Pages, but given the way I have to work with a chokechain on and twenty people watching everything I do and say...... with their finger on the button to punish or banish me at whim......and why? Because I stand up for the guidelines and also stand up for myself against ongoing blockading and criticism that has nothing to do with the issues......or t he content. Yet who gets told to not talk about editors and focus on content? Me, who's working on content and am the one being talked about....and provoked to respond so I can be hauled before The Inquisition.Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to reply. Been busy. I think your looking for Wikipediocracy Misplaced Pages review is pretty much locked. I actually did read all of what your wrote. My deep reading skills are pretty good, my Misplaced Pages bullshit meter has pretty much fizzled out though. Good luck. 172.56.3.170 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days

Hi Skookum1

You have been repeatedly warned about the need to use discussion pages appropriately, per WP:TPG. That includes being civil, being concise, assuming good faith, and focusing on the issue in hand rather than on other editors. The discussion at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested_move_2 is merely the latest of many in which you have been unacceptably verbose, made repeated personal attacks, assumed bad faith (for example by accusing those who disagree with you of being "cabals"), and expounded about your own personal views on a topic rather than sticking to the narrow issue under debate.

I strongly urge you to consider the advice given above by User:Anna Frodesiak about the fork in the road. You are clearly passionate about the topics you work on, but the way you are approaching them is not working. Please choose the right fork! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

See also this discussion on my talk page, where I provide diffs of how the unacceptable behaviour continued. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

Skookum1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Aside from noting the support votes and other supportive comments for me ( &endash and please note this comment from the closer "There is no consensus here for a block or ban.") at the ANI which called for no block at all, the wording of the block says "persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2" re [(persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2 this post on April 1 at 15:09. That is one day after the ANI began, and most "most recently" given the 750 or so edits from that time until my block; in the course of the last week of the ANI I was consciously minding my p's and q's on article-discussion and guideline-discussion pages, as a review of my contributions from, say, April 7-12 will clearly show; April 1 is not "most recently" considering the volume of edits I made in that period, in which I heeded advice from the ANI and others privately to say within boundaries and write more clearly and less reactively to actions, statements and claims by others. I have also made a point of breaking up my posts into smaller paragraphs for easier readibility/comprehension. Noting again that others said there should be no block at all, because of the block I could not reply to requests made in the final hours before closure to supply the diffs re various actions and statements by others; I am in Asia, 12 time zones and a dateline away. I woke up on Songkran, which is New Years Day here in Thailand, to find myself blocked and the ANI closed so I could not respond. As for what I will be doing if unblocked, as per what Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks says, I think my long history here and its multitude of contributions speaks for itself, as do the commendations of those who know I write quality articles and have useful things to say, if not always clearly understood and so often maligned. Among the projects in abeyance because of all the distractions and time demands of the ANI and other discussions are a number of history articles and not-yet-extant indigenous articles and improvements and expansions to existing ones, and likewise for British Columbia and other history and geography and community articles, long delayed, and also in other wikiproject/topic areas such as WP:Bodybuilding and WP:Southeast Asia/Thailand to address stubs and citation issues there where proper sourcing is difficult and COI is common and, in the case of SE Asia/Thailand and other non-anglosphere article areas, bad grammar and wording are much in need of fixing.

Decline reason:

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your block

Hi Skookum1,

I see you have been blocked by User:BrownHairedGirl. I know that you have had some issues recently (sorry I was too involved in my own wiki-problems to pay close attention) but I must say I am surprised that it was this particular admin that blocked you -- I thought you have had words with her in the past, at least enough to consider her "involved"? Am I remembering correctly? XOttawahitech (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:UNINVOLVED: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, XOttawahitech. Yes, you could say I've been rather under duress lately, though am also heartened by the various shows of support for me throughout. As for your question, I'd say, yes, and that "involved" may be too light a word; there is definitely a "history" beginning with the this CfD which I think is remarkable for its invective, but then so are a few of her more recent ones, also. I have some comments on what she replied to per Cuchulain's question, but am not free to speak here by any means.

I obviously am not free to speak openly or point to individual concerns here, which is a sad comment on what Misplaced Pages has become of late. I made some notes in reply to you just now about details to do with the RMs and comments she made in reply to Cuchulainn on her talkpage; I see Floydian has had things to say too. But I do not feel free to post them here, as I have been warned that the slightest sign of criticism of what has been done to me, and any opinion of mine as to why, will be punished by a longer block. Misplaced Pages is not censored, but all too often Wikipedians are.

I will refrain from deleting BHG's comment in reply to your question to me the same way she has deleted comments of mine from her talkpage; it probably is not allowed to do so, huh? Please email me so I can discuss this more freely. But yes, "involved" applies and there are COI as well as NPA and AGF issues here; I really don't want more process and procedure where I will be crucified instead of the issues I raise examined; one public stoning for the year is quite enough, thank you.

I'm an old man and have had one round of Misplaced Pages-related health problems (last fall from the infamous Ktunaxa/St'at'imc/Tsilhqot'in/Secwepemc/Nlaka'pamux RMs and sundry) and find what has happened her not just distasteful but aggravating; if the intent is to drive me from Misplaced Pages it has almost succeeded, but there are huge areas of Misplaced Pages in need of improvement that are being neglected (bad English in non-anglosphere-region articles of all kinds, for starters), and I see no reason to quit just because there are those who don't like long "walls of text" and find them, apparently, personally offensive.

As for calling me incompetent, please fix her bad move of Okanagan people to Sylix instead of the correct target, as nominated, of Syilx, which was also the category title until a CfDS after that RM moved it to the mistaken spelling, also. I believe all her other RMs should be reviewed and placed within the larger context of other recent RMs and the consensus that is emergent there, and within existing standards for other related articles in parallel topics/categories.

I don't want to log on again tonight, it's 9:40 on a beautiful tropic evening in Lamai, and I need some dinner, and to get away from the negativity that has been heaped on me this last couple of weeks here. Please email me as I cannot email you.

Anything I say can and will be held against me.....even if I've done or said nothing wrong. That I cannot feel free to speak about my concerns here is not a compliment to "the community" and its "culture", nor to the credibility of Misplaced Pages as an institution. If I've said anything here that comes back at me with another block, or another ANI, or other retributive action against my impertinence for speaking my own mind, then there are things wrong with this place that cannot be fixed....and can only get worse.

Please email me so I can provide you more links and comments than I feel free to be able to post here.Skookum1 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, I can'r speak for any other editor, but I can firmly assure you that I do not want you driven from Misplaced Pages. Quite the contrary; as I wrote above, I hope that you can continue to work on the topics which interest you. That's why I urged you before to heed advice given above by User:Anna Frodesiak about a fork in the road.

If you follow her advice and try to work with other Wikipedians, there will be no question of your being prevented from staying. But you need to accept that you will win some arguments and lose others, and that editors who disagree with you do so in good faith rather than as part of a "cabal" or a vendetta against you. You also need to work very hard on ensuring that your contributions are concise, not because other editors are lazy or stupid, but because they have limited time available, and avoidable verbosity wastes that time.

If you prefer to take what Anna called the left fork, and treat the problem as one of others being unfair to you ... then as Anna warned you, the community will start weighing the cost-benefit ratio of your presence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"The cost-benefit ratio of my presence"?? I'm not the one with the WP:DIVA problem - you are. See below for quotes from what others have said about how you have treated me, and cherrypicked guideline (which don't say what you claim they did) and tried to shuffle others to the side. Your RM closes were, IMO, COI because of the personal hostility you evince, mountingly, towards me; they also wiki-lawyered away core guidelines; i.e. TITLE; that you posted my response to Maunus on Talk:Chaouacha without posting what prompted it and the completely NPA/AGF diatribe that followed it which contained very, very, very false accusations and a disingenuousness about the "norms" that the "Foo people" ethno title issue that are not borne out by evidence, nor by actual guidelines on this matter, or the actual existing norms, which were there before I began to try and set to rights Kwami's 2010-2011 avalanche of undiscussed moves; "curiously" M also maintains I do not have support for my position, which belies the vast majority of recent RMs, and those five of last year:

• • • St'at'imc
    • Ktunaxa,
    • Secwepemc
    • Nlaka'pamux and
    • Tsilhqot'in
  • a series recently complemented by closures at
    • Talk:Dakelh#Requested move
    • Talk:Shishalh#Requested move
    • Talk:Wuikinuxv requested move
  • all countrparts to "Skwxwu7mesh", as is Syilx)
• So clearly Maunus is out to lunch in saying I "do not have support"; in which consensus and reason prevailed; unlike in your "hostile closures" where you dismissed support votes, view stats, and did "get me a shrubbery" on supposed mandatory use of GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar only.
  • Re the link re Maunus' attacks and the others you posted to claim your block was "preventative" rather than punitive, which is the actual case, such one-sided targeting and cherrypicking of me without the full context being given is typical of the witchhunt/lynchmob mentality. "The fork in the road" indeed..... I'm the one on the path of the guidelines and of "trying to do the right thing" and have been opposed, insulted, misrepresented, and now hectored by people who won't even read the arguments presented and make me the issue instead. And re saying I "lack competence", your misspelling of Syilx was an ironic gaffe that is rather.....rich.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• You are in Lamai? Lucky you (I think?) Just a couple of points on your note above:

• It is my understanding that editors are free to edit their own wikispaces however it suits them. I have been getting into trouble about this for years now, because some editors try to edit my space claiming they are trying to help me(?) and I am still having trouble when I reject their good-will even when I use all the tact (I probably need lessons in that area) I can muster.

Yes, they're trying to "help" me something like a cult indoctrination, continuing to scold and criticize and demanding I conform to what THEY see as correct behaviour and telling me to shut up when I am confronted by incorrect behaviour. Being lectured by people who have abused me with a hammer and told to play nice etc....I am free to edit my own wikispace, yes, but even here I have been attacked for my own words; I have to teach in a few moments, I will return later with a few comments on the links used to equivocate the non-consensus block as if it were not punishment; which it was.Skookum1 (talk)

• Sorry, I don't use email.
• As I said above, I am currently facing my own battles which to me is depressing because it forces me to engage in much more "talking" than I prefer to.

All the best, XOttawahitech (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see....Skookum1 (talk)

That is a good summation of my problem, too; in last year's RMs I was baited and sent on "bring me a shrubbery" errands; same as this year with the conundrum and mis-conceptions and actual mis-application of guidelines in "the Squamish affair", I wound up trying to explain things to people who either refuse to get it or engage in personal attacks based on my writing style. See the passages from EXR below.

• comment Hi Skookum. I'm sorry to hear that you were blocked. I wanted to comment on one thing here you said "I see no reason to quit just because there are those who don't like long "walls of text" and find them, apparently, personally offensive." I don't think the vast majority of people who have engaged with you on various topics want you to quit - for example BHG has made it clear this isn't her goal, and speaking for myself it's certainly not my goal. However, the fact that you consistently do not listen to concerns of other editors and sometimes take a battleground approach (something, it should be admitted, I myself have been guilty of) is problematic. Our talk page guidelines specifically note this issue here Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration, stating "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." In the recent RM for Squamish, you posted over 100k of text that I, and likely many others, ceased to read entirely, as it simply wasn't worth the effort. I think you make good points and you are fighting the good fight against systemic bias, but if you don't make your points clearly and concisely it doesn't matter, and you'll never bring people to your side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

when will people stop counting characters and start reading WORDS??Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Re systemic bias (including the growing bias against more voluble writers like myself, over those who have latter-day attention spans), in looking over one of the Squamish CFDs or RMs I found a link to WP:EXR posted in support of me (from Moxy maybe?) which had these interesting tidbits, showing I am not alone in my views on the use of "consensus" to impose a tyranny of supposed wikiquette that in fact has very little to do with good content or proper use of the guidelines.

• RE "cumulatively dysfunctional system":
  • "..... Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say...."
  • "People who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that and must be stalked and rebuffed."
  • " words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments yet refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas."

• re "Peer review system in Misplaced Pages":
  • "The main issue never really mentioned for obvious reasons is that dispute resolution on wiki happens on a personal rather than substantive/professional level. Just look at the any resolution board or such, and observe that ~100% of decisions are made on the basis of trite rule violations or other politics by so and so and almost never on the veracity of the content itself. "
  • "This is result of the fact that most admins (or any editor with social power) simply don't have the background to grasp that there's such a thing as "objective reality", and are evidently more comfortable with people drama than arguing or otherwise working with facts. There's no fix for this sort of system incompetence, and as a whole wiki just falls back on the coincidental premise that technical topics are not contentious enough for the incompetent to get involved."

It appears I am not alone in my views on what is wrong here, and my observations about the tactics in discussions of attacking the proponent instead of addressing issues raised are not unique.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In regard "objective reality"; we are specifically not supposed to describe objective reality, only what reliable sources say about that reality (with some exceptions for WP:FRINGE). There are some articles where I know what is in the article is blatantly false, but, as it's attributed to a reliable source, I'm forced to let it stand. And, I don't see a way around it other than to have a panel of "experts" who "control" the articles. But, that violates the basic principles of Misplaced Pages, and doesn't always help if the "experts" do not agree. I don't know if it applies to your problems, but it does apply to Ottawahitech's problems, where he claims to be the expert and usually the only one who has that position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

reply to disingenuous "who ?me?"

I should really just delete the following post but will return later with diffs that put the lie to the disingenuousness shown here; for now I will just make it smaller to show my opinion of this bit of blatant hypocrisy:Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason I don't read what you (Skookum) write is that I've found it's heavy on personal attacks and light on substance, so why bother? But of course, I must be saying that in bad faith. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are; get out of my talkpage; your oppose posts are full of outright persohal attacks - "no one would accuse you of being rational" and you've used "idiotic" and "ridiculous" and more, and thrown AGF comments and rebuttals right and left, and played word games trying to turn what not just what I've said but also what other people have said, and guidelines have said, that your words here are beyond ironic to the point of being comical.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read these wise observations?

Speaking as an editor who watches your talk page, who wishes you well, and who hopes that you can find some peace in your Misplaced Pages editing, I am wondering if you have read the wise advice at the essay WP:OWB? Cullen Let's discuss it 04:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges

Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Get back to work and stop fucking around!

My friend, STOP posting to AN, AN/I, and Jimbotalk. There is absolutely no good outcome that can result from your doing so. You're a valuable contributor on Pacific Northwest topics, leave the drama and the histrionics to the people who know little and who can't write... Just let it go. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to keep participating at the drama pages, you must learn to pretend to be perfectly sane and entirely undisturbed. Everyone at Misplaced Pages who does that is safe from the men in the white coats, but the people who don't pretend very well get taken to see Nurse Ratchet. Cheers.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Who's afraid of the Spanish Inquisition?".....etc. I've de-watchlisted that charnel-house of hatred and negativity, tired of hearing hyperbolic invective from people who can't hear the irony in their own voices/words......on the CfD I'm still there - have to be - though it continues to be a wallow of AGF inanity and false logics/claims/SYNTH see here. Nothing I say at ANI is treated with respect or even acknowledged (other than the call for an interaction ban on "her"), but then those people thrive on disrespect and their own very evident vanities as to their superiority over others and the "right to judge", while being unable to judge themselves, or even act with the civility they accuse me (and so many others) of lacking.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a break

I have been reading this snafu. You are doing yourself no favors; please take a break. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to work on improving and creating articles etc. Yes, defending myself is a laborious activity, but to hear exaggerations and hypocrisy thrown at me in an effort to demonize me for expulsion "to protect the encyclopedia" is hard to stay away from; the overall nature of said activity is WP:BAITing and things like the CfD and the hostile RM closures is AGF/NPA in the extreme; who should 'take a break' is the chorus/cadre whose primary activity on Misplaced Pages seems to be attacking contributing editors by any specious and POV/AGF rationale available; I know I'm not alone in being attacked and vilified this way; and yes, there's far more productive things to be doing than arguing with people who only want to argue.Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith about everyone around. When you get to that point, you need to take a break. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith are not assumptions when there's a pointless and groundless CfD launched at me, and RMs closed with me as the closer's rationale; never mind all the stupid things being said and alleged the ANI (which I'm de-watchlisting; anything I say there gets little respect anyway and defending yourself is a stroke against you, in the previous ANI I was directly told to shut up and that I had no right to speak there).Skookum1 (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

and re "assuming bad faith from everyone around is not factual; there are many people who treat me and what I have to say, and the real wiki-work I do, with respect and GF..."everyone" is hyperbole and untrue.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours

Extended content

Responding to this where you replied to BrownHairedGirls' four day CFD summary with "That's an outright falsehood/distortion but all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region". Your recent behavior is not OK. You seem to be remarkably resistant to the message that a large number of uninvolved editors and administrators have been trying to tell you here. I believe you have a perfectly reasonable point on the CFD discussion. The way you are presenting it has gone from rude to aggressive to out of control, here launching into an outright personal attack. This is not OK behavior. Any number of editors have been trying very hard to communicate this, but let me say it again: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia created not by any one individual, but by a cooperative community. It is mandatory that you cooperate with the community in editing Misplaced Pages. Attacking people and insulting them incessantly, as you have done, serves no good purpose. It disrupts the community, it drives people away from the discussions, and in the long term degrades the value of your own contributions. I have imposed a 12-hour block on you for the latest personal attack, out of the long string of them. It is my fondest desire to see you not respond at all to anyone on ANI or the CFD, as I believe you're just making things worse for yourself when you do so. I am inclined to close the CFD under IAR with a one-month hiatus; after everyone has calmed down it can be revisited. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. @Georgewilliamherbert: How about also blocking the admins who have belittled Skookum1 by saying things such as :"Skookum1 hasn't cracked how to work within that framework" and "Would a mentor help?" for twelve hours as well? XOttawahitech (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Misplaced Pages has lost several contributors who are capable of building good content but who ultimately were unsuccessful due to clashes with other editors. A common factor is often that the problematic behavior is never addressed because someone will chip in with unhelpful commentary that the problematic editor interprets as support for their position. It is a shame that such unhelpful commentary can be sufficient to encourage behavior that spirals out of control until an indefinite block occurs. An editor may be correct in everything they write yet still be unsuitable for Misplaced Pages because being right is not sufficient—collaboration is required, and that means people have to get on with others. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see either side making much of an effort. — lfdder 00:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC) REPLY LOL. votes in support of my position from people who know the material are "unhelpful commentary?? LOL you people are a piece of work. And yes "you people" applies. As for the supposed "personal attack", I pointed out a direct falsehood in one or the nom's posts; and it is a falsehood. Perhaps, given AGF, a mistake from not actually looking at or understanding the categories in those listings (perhaps BHG thought Alaska was part of Canada?? - a common mistake, in fact), but still *FALSE*. Claims of OR about well known regions and completely citable mountain ranges (which have fixed boundaries and are not subject to change) are mere hand-waving without evidence; the use of NPA to "go after" people who point out mistakes/distortions and "bad actions" is not what that guideline is intended for; "contrary to the spirit of the guidelines". And Ottawahitech is quite right, and I've said the same thing in the ANI myself - that NPAs and outright AGFs - including the premise of this CfD - are committed against me all the time; touting Wikiquette while flouting it openly. Stalking me in the wake of her peremptory block is not just AGF, and as noted by someone in the ANI, shoudl be grounds for an interaction ban. It's not me who won't collaborate; it's people who don't do their research but still want to have not just an opinion not based in facts, but wave in the direction of conventions that don't formally exist. BHG has waved her hand at guidelines like SOURCES (in one of "hostile" RM closures, which they so clearly are given they go against the grain of similar closures and both existing and emergent consensus), claiming they say things they don't actually say; her statement here that you claim is a "personal attack" is what it is; not researched, not accurate, and like so much else of her nomination completely misleading and without any knowledge of the places in question.Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC) The adminship protects its own from examination, and does nothing when they violate the very rules they invoke; persecution of contributing editors and dicking around challenging titles and the like, by people who have no knowledge of the subject matter, THAT is what's driving them from Misplaced Pages. That includes many BC Wikipedians who were around when these categories were created and took part in what debates there were; to a British Columbian, they're obvious. But to someone from WikiLandia, armed with guidelines they don't accurately cite or, I think, even really understand, they're "original research"......and yet they have nothing viable to replace them with, and sure as shootin' aren't the types who will undertake to apply whatever other system they come up with; and doing so would involve original research and GAWD, actually take some skill reading lengthy texts as cited. Another acronym got tossed out above; does anyone talk in plain English anymore??Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Further comment. Shutting me out of the CfD during one of its last days falls in the "unfair" category, especially given that it was clearly AGF in motivation to start with, despite all claims of UNINVOLVED and innocence, this is politics, and "in politics optics is everything" and BHG's hostility towards - and contempt for - me is a well-established fact. This is in the same kind of procedural irregularity as the RMs she closed during the block she imposed. Have you people no shame?. I know you don't have self-critical examination skills, that's for sure....or you'd see the bizarrenessx of your action, and recognize that the CfD itself was an NPA.Skookum1 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC) @Johnuniq: What's "spiralling out of control" is the abusiveness of admins and the group-hysteria of tongue-clucking and hypocritical use of NPA and AGF to discredit their latest victim; I started work on articles and categories in my main area of contribution, and found the same admin who blocked me launching a CfD that has no basis in guidelines or fact, making mistaken/false claims and labelling evidence and cites provided as "irrelevant". something's very wrong in Wikiland when that is tolerated, very, very, very wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Freeing myself from bothering with being on the dinner menu at ANI, this is what I did yesterday, created and cited articles, and was going to do more today......halting contributions and calling for more procedural discussions is all about not being collaborative in the slightest. If the people opposing this CfD would put some work in filling in the redlinks of List of British Columbia rivers and citing/researching them, they might have a better leg to stand on but they'd also educate themselves about the topic; instead of trying to throw everything out as OR simply because they know nothing about the subject.Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC) RE WP:AIR Funny you should invoke that to force a one-month hiatus; I refer to "There are no rules" (the FIFTHPILLAR) all the time; it appears that guideline, like others, can be used to obstruct contributing editors and defray discussions to no great end; instead of doing that to the CfD, why don't you read the geography lessons contained in my posts and start thinking with more than a Wikipedian admin's narrow field of wiki-view? The evidence supporting all these articles and titles is all over the actual physical map and the history of British Columbia and is part of the vernacular of the place (COMMONNAME). Try reading about it before you hastily close the CfD without really understanding the subjects it's about...Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Stay clear of cats - there not used anyway's

Hello Skookum1 - - just stay clear of categories (cats) - They are the most convoluted and unsourced, OR area here - they are also the most unused format for navigation by our readers. Lets look at how cats are really a waste of anyone's time, as very few people even look at the cats. i.e Canada has been viewed 476524 times in the last 30 days. Portal:Canada has been viewed 3976 times in the last 30 days. Outline of Canada has been viewed 3065 times in the last 30 days. Category:Canada has been viewed 1515 times in the last 30 days. Is it worth all the drama as cats are barely used - even the outline and portal two type of pages that people have fought over as being useless (even tried to get them deleted) do better for traffic then cats do. -- Moxy (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I did stay away from cats; other than creating one in all innocence based in logic and reality; and was dragged into a resistant and hostile/AGF CfD.....it's not like I go looking for trouble....it hunts me down and wants to have its way with me. What system will replace the regions categories? It's not just the categories that are under fire, it's a whole series of very valid region articles, also.Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's my attitude towards categories: I add obvious, self-evident and uncontroversial categories to articles I work on. I never, ever fight about categories, any more than I would fight with another human being about a penny laying on the ground. It simply isn't worth it.

By the way, "trouble" most certainly does not hunt Misplaced Pages editors down. Either consciously or unconsciously, editors seek out trouble, and unsurprisingly, they then find it. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It was very clear in this case that I was stalked, and that the nom had clear personal bias/hostility. The CfD has been turfed anyway, with "behaviour problems" cited as the reason, as if the CfD itself weren't AGF/COI in origin; and citing IAR, which doesn't even apply. That none of the issues and citations I raised doesn't mean they'll go way; in the meantime I'll be citing all the supposedly-OR article titles......it's not just categories that were assailed here, but COMMONNAMEs of very well-known BC regions.....by people who have never been there, won't read citations, make suppositions and bad comparisons etc....logic is almost in short supply in Misplaced Pages as decency, while hypocrisy and ignorance have overtaken the self-serving bureacracy.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

and I saw nothing in that category, or any other similar, when I created it; it was made controversial, by waving vaguely at guidelines that don't actually prohibit them......not the first time that same editor has misquoted guidelines, claiming they say things they don't. She's an admin and has the backing of other admins who share the same wikiquette-hypocrisy about their own actions.Skookum1 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy for the most part. Cats "are the most convoluted and unsourced, OR area here" is a good way to put it. There's a few cats I depend on to find various things, but mostly they are a giant mess of little consequence. Cats for rivers I have almost no use for—turning instead to the various lists of rivers pages. This is part of why I didn't care much to follow that CfD thread until it seemed to expand into wider topics. My reaction was basically, eh, whatever. If there were similar proposals on things like actual articles I'd be much more concerned. Like, as you put it, if "a whole series of very valid region articles" came "under fire". It didn't seem like that was happening or even likely to happen though. If by chance it does though, well, it would be of much more concern.

I did wonder if BHG started that CfD thread because she was annoyed at you for other things. Then again, you are annoying, as I'm sure you know. Still, the whole thing seems like a case of "pick your battles". There's a lot to be done and limited time. Some things aren't worth it. Even if BHG started the CfD for some personal anti-Skookum1 reason, so what? Who cares?

it's a reason to toss out the CfD....and haul her into an RfC/U on her conduct; but as well all know admins generally don't eat their own, and will typically gang up on those who point out their own misconduct.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just don't believe "It's not just the categories that are under fire, it's a whole series of very valid region articles, also". If region articles come under fire and I don't notice, let me know. That's something I care about. The cats....meh. Pfly (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

they haven't tagged any of the region articles yet, but I have them all watchlisted of course so will let you know once that starts, if they try; most are already cited; something they didn't even look at while ranting about OR, of course.

the CfD was started within minutes of the category's creation, and within an hour or two of the end of my block that she had imposed without consensus to do so. She has been one of my most strident (and hypocritical AGF/NPA-wielding) critics and didn't like me talking back to her about her close of the Squamish CfD, which was also on grounds of hostility and her being hostile to "walls of text" as a reason to not read rationales; her closures of RMs during the ANI, and during the block, were all questionable in the extreme, given that all the rest (other than David Leigh Ellis') went 98% the other way; all COI, POV, full of editorializing and one-sided personal attacks and mispresentations........ and yes, read what her and Arthur Rubin posted, it's the region articles themselves they claimed with ORs, with the categories they are the main articles for attacked for those (unsubstantiated and false) reasons. All this is being chatted up at the ANI, I'm sure; I've de-watchlisted it and was trying to get at constructive work creating various mountain and river and inlet articles when the current block was imposed. In an hour or so, I'll be swimming here and putting the hypocritical witch hunting of WikiLandia out of my mind.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That she challenged the Haida Gwaii category as if that were not a political region is beneath comment; I know you know the history of that name and what it represents, and who. Much the same could be said about the Chilcotin, the Lillooet Country, and other areas where the regions coincide with native territories whose claims/ownership are now affirmed by Canadian courts. Try explaining that to someone who doesn't want to listen and never intended to, though.....another example would be the West Coast of Vancouver Island (no particular article for that yet) which could be and is summed up largely the Nuu-chah-nulth territory and rights, likewise re the Cape Scott region and Queen Charlotte Strait being dominantly Kwakwaka'wakw; in both cases and similar I can foresee name changes coming similar to Haida Gwaii; technically now, also, the Nass Valley is pretty much effectively the Nisga'a Lisims, though they didn't gain complete ownership of the Nass Country per the treaty. But to people who are colonialist in attitude about English-language usages and region-named, expecting them to understand Aboriginal law/reality in BC isn't on the menu.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are problems with categories so hush-hush?

There are five editors on this user talk page all in agreement that categories are a mess - so why is this not discussed in a more appropriate forum on Misplaced Pages?

User:Moxy just stay clear of categories (cats) - They are the most convoluted…Moxy (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Pfly I agree with Moxy for the most part. Cats "are the most convoluted and unsourced, OR area here" is a good way to put it. There's a few cats I depend on to find various things, but mostly they are a giant mess of little consequence…Pfly (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 Here’s my attitude towards categories…It simply isn't worth it….Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 I did stay away from cats; other than creating one in all innocence based in logic and reality; and was dragged into a resistant and hostile/AGF CfD..Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

XOttawahitech (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with the editors above. I think categories are for some, but not for others. In other words, some editors naturally gravitate towards work on categories and enjoy it, while others don't. This isn't a problem - I would never spend my time editing template syntax, but I'm quite glad there are wikipedians who enjoy template work. As to @Pfly:'s assertion that categories are unsourced and OR, this is one of the reasons CFD exists - if you visit the CFD page, you'll see every day discussions about deleting or merging or renaming categories that are problematic - because unsourced, or because OR - e.g. Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Anti-intellectualists or Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_16#Category:Anti-Muslim_organizations. Now, MEMBERSHIP in categories is more problematic - as you can't easily monitor additions/deletions to a category in a centralized place, the way one might watch a list - as such, membership in categories tends to be debated on a per-article level. In any case, if CFD didn't exist, we would have many thousands of _really_ bad categories. There are hundreds of categories created every day (most of them likely harmless or decent) and CFD can only process a small subset, so it's really a struggle to manage against the onslaught of new and sometimes policy-violating categories, and is the reason why some of the really bad ones escape notice for so long. In any case, Ottawa, if you want to have a broader discussion with the community about categories, there are of course many venues to do so, including the categories wikiproject, the categories guideline talk page, or you could just open up a broader RFC, but we need to first have a question in mind that we want to ask - e.g. if many people think categories are broken, fine, but how should the problems be addressed? I for one would welcome MORE participation at CFD, there are a number of regulars but that number is pretty small, most people don't bother to go there. More diversity of opinion and insight is always welcome at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, that's a good one Obiwan; I just got up will answer you in more detail after my lesson today (I teach ESL online).Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, those who "gravitate" toward work on categories usually have a specific categorization scheme (or categorization scheme schema) in mind, which may or may not be at all usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the ones "I" (and others) built ARE' usable because I know the place and the history and geography and terminology of the region in great detail; that applies also to the First Nations categories and others; they and the article titles behind them are not based in some kind of speculative fiction, as was the gist of the OR challenges and "OWN" confabulation. Misplaced Pages should be grounded in reality, not extrapolations of its own hosts of guidelines and instruction creepery run amuck, all too often with what those guidelines ACTUALLY say vs the ways they were used and get used to field non sequiturs and irrelevances from people who haven't read the articles, looked at the maps, understand BC's topography and systems of governance. It's like having the planning department nix a building permit on a long-stable building and demand it be torn down, without anything ready to replace it.Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the tribal categories; I have not expressed an opinion as to whether the correct usage is the tribes' suggested (non-English) orthography, as you suggest; or the standard English orthography, as was there previously. Just referring to the rivers, you speak with forked tongue (sorry, that's a (US) Native American stereotypical expression, not a First People expression). As I said, you need to provide a single (reliable) source which uses that regionalization to categorize rivers (even with a little variation of name), or to use an existing (in Misplaced Pages) categorization of British Columbia into regions. Otherwise, a few "Rivers of mountain range" categories might be appropriate, but Category:Rivers of British Columbia could not be diffused by region. You have provided different sources for each of your regions. If you had described the regions on the category pages, that might be adequate to indicate you have an appropriate category structure for diffusing "Rivers of British Columbia". If the categories are deleted/merged as expected, I would support their re-creation if you have a reliable source which uses the categorization. (Sorry, the CfD is suspended.) If you provide a reliable source, as I requested above and at the CfD, at Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region (I would have suggested the category page, but some may disagree), I would support the diffusion unless someone provides other reliable sources with a different regionalization, and probably even then.

To use your analogy, it's like your moving a "building" (categorization structure) from your personal property (far away from a city) to a city with a building code. You can't do it without a permit. As for your direct analogy, we've had some long-standing buildings red-tagged after the recent La Habra arthquake. Those which can be repaired, must be repaired to meet the current building code. In this case, a delete at CfD would serve as a reasonable analogy to a red-tag.

As far as I can tell, neither you nor Ottawahitech has ever' created a new category with a description; he has created some with a {{catmain}} (many of those being clearly incorrect). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't tell very much then, and don't have a clear handle on exactly how many BC categories of all kinds I've created. When there is a main article, also, there is little need for further description; category pages are not articles, though some start to read like that with excess description/commentary. and where in which guideline does it say that a category creation has to include a description?Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you both seem intent on shepherding the region categories and these subcategories into CfD again in a month time, might I invited you to educate yourself in the meantime as to the geographic realities of BC and the nature of sources available, also of the overlapping political subdivision-systems? Regionalization systems for BC are complex as are the nature of citations available; talking about that without any familiarity with them or with BC's geography or history has been a bugbear of all discussions lately; and again re guidelines where does it say that a category system has to have an official basis/citation as a system to survive? That premise is false, as there are scads of categories with no "official" basis whatsoever, and also with no descriptions. I will be citing the disputed regions in the course of the next month, and also discussing with my contact at BC Names as to inclusion of other region names than the ones they have already (including Lower Mainland, Robson Valley and more, though nothing specific for common region names as such; e.g. Okanagan does not have a listing for the region itself, though it is very well-known and obvious to anyone who lives here. Whatever...here are some resources for you to read up on before wading into discussions of BC geographic categories and issues of political geography again:

• Bulletin 48: Landforms of British Columbia, linked edited is from 1976 and is the basis of terms and definitions on BC Names and elsewhere. Its chapters are based on landforms, including ranges and regions, and mention rivers within those landforms/regions/ranges.
• the map that came as a fold out in print version of that publication, showing landform/mountain range boundaries
  • this page has links to shape files for use by mapmakers
• Water Powers of British Columbia, a major 1950s work documenting river flows and hydroelectric potentials.
• explanation and map of ecoregion systems, BC Ministry of the Environment
• Another map of major landform groupings, this time from the Ministry of Forests directly (the Holland book was published under the aegis of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, it only happens to be in the Ministry of Forests library per that URL above
• Map of Water Districts of British Columbia; the water permit and licensing branch of the Ministry of Environment is who governs rivers and their use in BC; most regions shown are cognates or combinations of others that are claimed to be OR, and are generally listed here by the location of their branch office; e.g. Nelson for the West Kootenay, Cranbrook for the southern East Kootenay, Golden for the northern East Kootenay and Big Bend of the Columbia, Fernie for the Elk Valley, New Westminster for the Lower Mainland other than Vancouver and burbs north of the Fraser and west of the Pitt, and including the Pemberton Valley as its main river, the Lillooet/Harrison, is one of the main feeder streams of the Fraser in this area.
• Water Resource areas in southwest BC on a paper/project from Vancouver Island University
• the Canadian Encyclopedia's BC article only mentions a few regions, namely the Okanagan and Kootenay, but it is by no means a comprehensive source/article and in my experience with FN and colonial history is often full of major gaffes; I do not consider it a genuinely reliable source, and is anything but authoritative.
• there is a map of one regionalization system on page 23 of this textbook; the same names show up in various combinations and with different boundaries in other sources
• Air quality "regions" are listed by their major towns. Same with Forecast regions (Environment Canada)
• the map on page 9 here will not display because of copyright issues; but the linked book covers various regionalization systems.
• Agricultural Regions of BC (official) follow groupings of regional district boundaries, as to Development Regions of British Columbia. Note the use of "Thompson-Okanagan" on this map, which name will show up on others; but not including the Big Bend of the Columbia and Arrow Lakes and northern East Kootenay as shown on this map.
• BritishColumbia.com, which is not a government site, uses the regions established by the Ministry of Tourism
• http://books.google.co.th/books?id=kmfyCBT4KHYC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=%22Water+Districts+of+British+Columbia%22+map&source=bl&ots=aFg3KLwVid&sig=1tZWapqL0J6ja6Y_JhlgSroVSHU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1wxbU8H6H9GD8gWc3oCQCA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Water%20Districts%20of%20British%20Columbia%22%20map&f=false Atlas of British Columbia]; various regionalizations are discussed in this, which like nearly everything else here, I've read (and in this case used to own a copy of)
• Fish and Wildlife Branch regions
• Note the use of "North Coast", "Central Coast", "North Island" and other allegedly OR names on this map from the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations showing Forest Districts in the North Coast/Nass/Skeena areas.
• I have only just found the MNRO's site but this is their description of the "North Coast" region, which has been alleged be an OR name, like so many others familiar to people actually familiar with the province; here they mean the North Coast Timber Supply Area, which is a type of land use designation in BC (and is out of reach of the jurisdiction or interference of other systems, namely regional districts but also others; the MNRO is a "super ministry" and has sweeping jurisdiction overriding that of other government ministries/departments.
• Wildlife Management areas, including region names alleged to be OR as imputed above or stated blatantly, without basis in knowledge or fact, at the CfD.
• Wildfire Management Branch map; the many subregion boundaries shown but not labelled are recognizably those of regions claimed to be OR; this map shows the major regions of that government department
• Welcome BC regions page (main government website visitor portal)
• the point of all the non-water citations above is to demonstrate the range and variety of regionalizations, as well as to highlight the existence of the names that "those who will not know" have asserted are original research and should be done away with; there's more, those are only the tabs I had open while waiting for my ISP to come back online (three-day outage on the whole island).

Looks like you've got some reading to do if your planned re-CFD is going to have any basis in citations/reality.Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin: "I'm not talking about the tribal categories" - I only mentioned them in the context of knowing their names and appropriate terminologies by way of example of my applied knowledge of BC categories; as it happens many of their territories coincide rather exactly with regions or combinations thereof e.g. Lillooet Country matches the territory of the St'at'imc, Nicola Valley matches the territory of the Nicola people, the Lower Mainland matches Solh Temexw, which is the Sto:lo name for the same place/area, for the simple reason that landscape determines human activity and organization in BC quite overwhelmingly, as you'd find out from trying to navigate the place.
  • "whether the correct usage is the tribes' suggested (non-English) orthography" - the premise so often heard from non-Canadians that the indigenous people's modern names are not in English is a complete and total fallacy; please educate yourself; as sovereign nations (which in BC is legally arguable and constitutionally/treaty-wise a fact) they are also official sources for the names to be used for them as much as any other government.
• Arthur Rubin "You have provided different sources for each of your regions" - yeah and so what? There is nothing anywhere saying all citations come from the same source, nor as observed already is there anything saying a category tree has to come from an official system.Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • • Yes, a single source is required for the definitions of diffusing categories, if not grammatically obvious. If you intend to move all (or even most) of Category:Rivers of British Columbia into the subcategories, someone familiar with the area (not just you) must be able to determine which category(ies) are appropriate. If the definitions aren't from the same source, then there will be overlap or missing rivers, so the rivers would also have to remain in the main category. If you're in agreement that these are non-diffusing categories, then it wouldn't matter if the definitions are inconsistent. There still needs to be a definition for each, with a source (preferably in a Misplaced Pages article on landforms or regions of BC; there seems to be a custom that categories should not have references.) It probably should be discussed at WikiProject Rivers, but that would fall into WP:BEBOLD. I didn't check your dozen references for different aspects of landforms or rivers; a single reference should suffice, and you are in the best position to choose one, presumably having read all of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "Yes, a single source is required for the definitions of diffusing categories, if not grammatically obvious" - "not grammatically obvious" is quite the way to put something so specific, no? I dispute that any such guideline specifically exists and it's coming across as "instruction creep" of a very picayune kind. A "single reference" is the corpus of BC history and geography, the Landforms book being the one for mountain ranges in unpopulated areas where no "social/cultural regions" like Okanagan and Chilcotin Country or Lower Mainland exist. The point of the dozen or so cites above, which will be expanded, is to demonstrate the existence of these names and also if you were to actually read them, you would learn that they are in COMMONUSE and are COMMONNAMES; there is a List of landforms of British Columbia, I believe, which is the article you are talking about; currently I think that is a redirect to Regions of Canada, where other Canadians have seen those titles for years without any dispute, as they are familiar to them; many overlap e.g. the town of Hope is both in the Lower Mainland and is considered also the southernmost town of the Fraser Canyon. Some are subsets of others; the region known as the Columbia Valley is a part of East Kootenay region, which is the southernmost part of the Rocky Mountain Trench landform. The disputatiousness of your speculations and your "not grammatically obvious" claim about a guideline you haven't actually cited is very, very, very AGF and flies in teh face of the linguistic and geographic realities of British Columbia and its toponomy; I will be discussing this month with my (very friendly) contact at BC Names about the "traditional" region names that underlie so many other kinds of regionalization titles in BC; she is overworked but may have time to add them; she certainly would not dispute them as you are doing without any awareness at all of the geography you want to recategorize under as yet unspecified regionalization system; you do not have the experience or background to know what is appropriate; you have just conceded that I do, but are engaging in wikilawyering-type specificity on technicalities that is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages and, also, as noted already, very AGF.Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE In the zeal to jump down my throat over these categories, the existence of Category:Rivers of the Alps was ignored; turns out there's also List of rivers of the Rocky Mountains, created in 2009 by User:Hike395; so the claim that rivers are not and should not be categorized by mountain range is baseless and also IMO not slightly POV; geographic objects classified by geographic categories are logical and natural.Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Category:Rivers of the Alps is not intended to diffuse Category:Rivers of Europe; nor is it, apparently being used, in spite of being created 6 years ago. I'm not saying that your attempt to clean up Category:Rivers of British Columbia is bad, just that there needs to be a single source for the definitions of a categorization scheme intended to diffuse an existing (appropriate) category, to avoid ambiguity or the chance that a river might be lost as belonging to none of the categories. I suggest discussion at Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region, without creating walls of text or adding dozens of contradictory sources. In fact, I'll start the discussion, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Look that "walls of text" thing is not a guideline and I'm tired of hearing it; what you have is walls of cites and resources to educate yourself BEFORE launching a discussion; it seems that people would rather have discussions about subjects they don't understand and haven't taken the time to learn about first.....and you still haven't pointed me to POLICY that says such cats need citations, if it's some guideline (which you also haven't said which), then your own BEBOLD admonition - which is what encouraged me to create these cats years ago - and also the Fifth Pillar "there are no rules" apply; aaaaaargh another discussion fielded to take up still more time. I trust you have posted your new discussion to CANTALK and WPBritishColumbia/WPVancouver and WPRivers etc, so I don't get yelled at for CANVASS.....I was going to raise this at WPBritishColumbia/WPCANADA and WPRIVERs myself, to engage people familiar with Canadian geography, and with rivers/geography cats.....but noooo, someone who's more into deleting and challenging things than developing beat me to it and obviously isn't trying to learn about the subject while wanting to direct debate on it.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As an aside, Regions of Canada#British Columbia has two subheadings "South Coast". Perhaps you can properly clean up that list, as you are so familiar with the regions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have been doing stuff like that the last few months if not being harassed for standing up to people trying to shut down discussion by attacking me instead of addressing the issues (and that was before the ANIs and what led to them); I hadn't noticed that duplication, it's been a long time since I worked on that list and I'm not the only one who edits it. I'll see what needs rearranging.Skookum1 (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

create lists?

Hi, i came to this page to ask a question / make a suggestion. I am not familiar with all the history leading up to the CFD (closed) and to the ANI (still open). I tend to think that of course it is likely to be reasonable to list and categorize rivers by the mountain ranges they drain, instead of or in addition to listing and categorizing them by political region. The former especially in less populated areas like northern BC. My question or suggestion is: why not create a list-article for each topic, e.g. Rivers of the Boundary Ranges or List of rivers of the Boundary Ranges, corresponding to each category, e.g. Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges? And start List of rivers of the Alps and List of rivers of the Himalayas, too, to move the focus away from BC. I imagine there would be more direct support by editors interested in the Alps and Himalayas; few know or care about the rivers in BC (though certainly they merit good coverage and good indexing in Misplaced Pages). By the reasoning expressed in wp:CLT, there is a lot of benefit of having corresponding lists and categories and navigation templates. A list has advantage that it can include sources and pictures, and red-links. If there is a list there can be a category and vice versa. Maybe creating the lists and including coverage there would eliminate grounds for contention about the categories. Somewhere in the discussion I saw mention of a list of BC rivers with many red-links. Should that be re-organized into sections by drainage / mountain range area (so each section is one list)? Or should there be separate list-articles on each mountain range area? Sincerely, --doncram 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi doncram, I assume you are referring to the wiki-drama at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Skookum1_again started 19 April 2014 on the ani board?

First I would like to provide some more background for those less familiar with the issues:

• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_20#Another_CfD_for_Squamish
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_20#Re_the_CfD_closure_at_.22Squamish_people.22
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_20#RMs_on_the_Comox_and_Squamish_disambiguation_.28and_town.29_pages.
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#CfD_on_Category:Rivers_of_the_Boundary_Ranges_etc

To answer your question "why not create a list-article for each topic" I will counter with a question: why not use categories for this purpose?

XOttawahitech (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's common to have both, no? Gjs238 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, both of you. Yes, i meant for there to be both. Having a list article, which can include sources and whose existence establishes Misplaced Pages-notability of the topic, would make it clear to all that the category is reasonable too. I am not meaning to impose a burden, i am not saying there must be a list-article in order to have a corresponding category. But if the point is to develop Misplaced Pages, maybe the list-articles are of interest to create. And would have side benefit of ending the category contention. --doncram 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the Boundary Ranges, the CfD was filed so quickly there was not time to add a section to the range article for a list of rivers; of course I agree with the notion that geographic items should be grouped by geographic region, not by political geography; the Himalayan rivers are often mentioned that way, particularly the Indus, Brahmaputra/Tsangpo and the Ganges; that they are not entirely in the Himalayas is a non sequitur but that kind of argument has been made re e.g. should a river be categorized by its origin, its mouth, or its course? The answer in the case of large region-spanning rivers like the Fraser seems obvious; it is the dominant river of the Interior Plateau, its upper course follows the Rocky Mountain Trench, and its source, like others in Category:Rivers of the Canadian Rockies, is very much a river associated with the Rocky Mountains. Arguing with those who don't understand ranges-as-regions or who dispute the existence of the regions entirely has proven pointless, and somewhat hazardous; with those who don't know the topography or the rivers concerned, and who seem unprepared or unwilling to learn and are instead positing alternatives (political geography, by whichever of seven or eight possible systems) that would inherently be OR and not all that citable and require a lot of work to create, even more pointless. Other comments I'll save in reply to those above who continue to pretend that the regions are OR and who seem intent on re-filing this CfD a month down the line, as also encouraged to by the closer. If any of them actually educate themselves on the rivers and regions and BC political geographic subdivisions/jurisdictions in the meantime, I'll be surprised; more likely the discussion will be about cherrypicked guidelines taken out of context than about the actual geography; rivers as part of the natural and social/historical/cultural landscape are, like mountain ranges, important - dominant - parts of British Columbia's reality; that mountain ranges generate these rivers and that the ranges themselves are defined by those rivers' courses seems lost on those who oppose this as IDONTLIKEIT without knowing anything about the subject matter.Skookum1 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Skookum1, for replying. So what you suggest is needed, if there is to be explicit list-type development, is a section at, say, Boundary Ranges#Rivers? I'll try creating that. I hope you may add sources and other develpment. And maybe we could go through the other mountain ranges too. I do happen to agree the CFD was too quick, but I would hope at this point we could just work to develop explicit treatment and hope that will head off any future questions. Please do watch the Boundary Ranges article. Thanks. --doncram 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I will reserve further comment on the AGF and COI nature of the CfD's origin, and also on its very biased close re "behaviour problem" and its exhortation that it should be re-opened in a month time, due to disputes from those who do not know anything about the subject matter that the closer says should be deleted or renamed; another voice from the darkness, less concerned with the issues and facts than any respect for the subject matter or for the in-WPCanada standing consensus about these region-names. I have hesitated due to the quasi-official hostility towards these needed categories and title from creating other rivers-by-range categories such as Category:Rivers of the Cassiar Mountains, Category:Rivers of the Skeena Mountains etc; south of those northern, mostly uninhabited regions, other than re the Pacific and Kitimat Ranges and the Rockies, as those populated regions do have a very visible identity within normative English geographical usages in the province e.g. Category:Rivers of the Chilcotin and Category:Rivers of the Okanagan, Category:Rivers of the Cariboo, Category:Rivers of the Lower Mainland, Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island are all bona fide region names and COMMONNAMES; in the case of Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii, they are also political units of one kind or another; (Vancouver Island as you may know was its own colony originally and still has a separate identity from the Mainland). See my comments/replies to Arthur Rubin in the section above.Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: this

Sorry dude, but you are dead in the wrong here. Arthur simply corrected your error by adding a colon to the front of your category example. That's it. The "Is there a point?" question which you have attributed to Arthur was actually part of Kwamikagami's post below - and which you have now broken up. Your entire rant in this case was predicated on your own assumption of bad faith, and that is a large part of why you are currently on the ANI treadmill. If you want to get off of it, you need to moderate your tone when interacting with others. Resolute 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, I struck out my comments and apologized to Arthur, I definitely had mistaken Kwami's snide one-paragraph/sentence retort for being part of Arthur's edit; I did not see the colon (old, bad eyes) and didn't understand the "escape category" comment. I should have recognized the snidery as I'd seen the post before, but it was late and I'd been slogging through article-creation all day (see my usercontributions). I'm also irritated, too often, by people invoking guidelines that don't say what they person quoting them claims/thinks they say, e.g. here and here and in various of the RM/CfD closures by BHG and DLE, and also in "votes" on those discussions.

There's a huge list of such misquotes/misclaims and I see more and more instruction creep being interpolated into guidelines, and the insistence that they are unbreakable rules, which is not the case at all; also with guidelines being claimed to be policy (WP:NCL) and seeing obstructionism and circular arguments and non sequiturs being used to claim that there is no consensus, when other than the few dissidents who want their preferences to override policy (TITLE), there definitely is. I won't bother with a list of diffs to demonstrate that but here are a few from the usual suspect, who seems immune from any disciplining from ANI: , , "idiotic" here, and something like 30 times copy-pasted across various RMs something to the effect of "no one would accuse you of being rational". Can't find the exact phrase just now, but it's typical of the overt NPAs/AGFs made against me, while me simply criticizing somebody's actions of interpretations policy - or responding to such rank NPAs - gets dumped on as ANI-worthy NPA.

There's tons of this, I don't want to go on about it but am starting to compile a list of such disturbances and insults; I should also draw your attention this this very bizarre equivocation about MOS:IDENTITY, which corresponds to Self-identification passages in TITLE and also in WP:NCET, and about the very illogical and defensive responses/evasions by Maunus and BHG there. Floydian is right; we are seeing a lot of illogical behaviour and extrapolative "interpretations" of guidelines far beyond their spirit or intent; BHG's own stalking of me I'll leave aside for now, but her AGF/NPA commentaries on RM and CfD closures are a matter of record, which I'm also documenting, not that anyone will listen to me, or do anything about such bad closures and false invocations of guidelines that do not, in fact, say what is being claimed (e.g. claiming that SOURCES orders that only googlesearches from GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar are admissible, and that they must be formatted a certain way).

Arthur continued the CfD discussion on the BC Rivers subcats, even though the closer of that (who was also NPA and AGF) said there should be a month hiatus, making the same kind of claims as to what guidelines say when they don't as BHG has so often done. I tire of this; as you know I know the material in the region in question, and am tired of giving geography lessons that go unlistened to by people who want to only talk about wiki guidelines and who have no time or interest in learning about the subject matter before shooting their mouths off .... or closing RMs and CfDs on topics they are not qualified to even blink about (e.g. "Squamish" re PRIMARYTOPIC as the town) and who express their own impatience at "having" to read things they don't understand nor want to (nobody forces anyone to close or read an RM or CfD).

Other than the aforementioned, I tired of heretofore-unheard-of people stalking me only to criticize and dogpile the hatred, such as here on CANTALK, where such commentary is very out of place and against wikiquette and also AGF. The NPA comments and bad faith attitudes and statements on various RM/CfD closures and "other discussions" are all, to me, very hypocritical and "ironic", if that's the term. I'm not burning out on writing for Misplaced Pages, but I am getting burned out at the negativity tossed at me by people who themselves have been AGF/NPA towards me, and/or who do not validly give the context of the frustrations that have led to the comments that I get dragged into NPA for; or for those who come out of the woodwork claiming to speak for "the community" and indicating in their comments that discussions have been going on about me without me being notified. Where? In MRC? Email? Whatever; the peremptory and judgmental behaviour I'm seeing, and the to-me-very-strange notion that more-than-four-sentences is a "wall of text" or "too long to read" leaves me to be very sad about the current state of literacy in both education and in Misplaced Pages; I come from an older time, before "computerese" and the modern-format education/examination-by-point-form.

That I am being whipped by people over this, by people who apparently also consider both the articles they are kibbitzing over TITLE for as TLDR, and also guidelines which they clearly haven't read or understood the completeness of, has had my suggestion that they take t heir problem to remedial reading sessions has also been conflated into NPA. I tire of this insecurity and the hysterics around it and find at all very unseemly and childish and an endorsement of semi-literacy and shallow thinking and something very much like cult-behaviour, including the practices of shunning and banning to silence dissent. Oh, anything I say here can and will be held against me, of course, huh? So peopel are free to criticize me, but I cannot safely speak my own mind in return. Wiki-cops, thought police, whatever.....Misplaced Pages is indeed not a democracy; and while it itself may be censored, some Wikipedians have to self-censor themselves while others seem free to make any ol' AGF or NPA they feel like.

Whatever; my "tone" is a response to increasing frustration with obstructionist games, whether word-games or guideline-tossing or whatever else; all this RM stuff began last year when I set out to keep from having to see obsolete and no longer in use names come up on Canadian history and ethno articles, and re their interactions with Canadian town-titles. I have prepared, though not yet posted, a draft of the "old" consensus (actually the same as what RMs have been reestablishing, much to Kwami's chagrin and persistent denials, often made in insulting terms, and not just to me), and also a critique of the poorly-closed town and native-endonym RMs, those few that did not get closed correctly as by Cuchullain, Xoloz, BDD and certain others, who were not targeting discussions launched by me as "certain others" were.

Didn't mean to on this long, my main response is that as per the sections on CANTALK and WPBC there is a need for Canadian input on Canadian-topic RMs...I know there are only so many of us, and am pained to see so many British Columbian Wikipedians, some of whom I know on the side now, demur from dealing with Misplaced Pages again because of the tiresome and useless games with titles and categories and more perpetrated by (mostly) non-Canadians who don't know, nor want to learn, about the subject matter they are "fiddling with".

You may not be aware of the number of times that disputes as to the validity of CANSTYLE and ENGVAR have cropped up lately, it's also a case where policy and consensus-based guidelines are being claimed to be invalid vs personal preferences or "global usage" as determined by UK and English usages/perceptions (which are not in fact borne out by viewstats or googles or incoming links...); the discussion at {{Canadian English}} I haven't been back to lately because of all the fracas, but that template needs some strengthening and more specifics such that we DON'T see someone try to impose archaic terms into Canadian topics again as happened with last year's RMs, or at least have a wording that's not so open to violation/misinterpretation as if only spelling and punctuation where all that Canadian English is about; Americans and Brits may still use Kwakiutl for Kwakwaka'wakw; it doesn't mean Canadian articles should.Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok... I would like to start out by noting that, despite some of our previous run-ins, I'm not trying to pile-on or bait you into anything. I mean this simply as advice and critique. I do think your post here represents a good example of why people are getting frustrated on all sides. I can only really describe this as being a 1300 word diatribe, nearly the whole of which is irrelevant to the reason I posted here. It makes it very difficult to hold a discussion because I can either focus on one aspect and ignore the rest, or fracture the discussion into numerous tangents. This, I think, is a lot of why people become frustrated with your long answers. Likewise, while you are obviously feeling like you are under attack from other editors, consider how many times in this post you have aimed the same at others? I won't lie to you Skookum, I don't think you handle being challenged well at all. It just feels like you get your haunches up any time someone disagrees with you, and end up in one of these feedback loops where both sides grow increasingly frustrated. I commented as much in one of the ANIs when I said you are a great editor when left alone to edit. So in that respect, I do think some "self-censorship" would help, but only in terms of tone, not message. And if others fail to reciprocate, any issues with NPA/ABF of their own become that much more obvious.

As far as some of the naming convention arguments goes, I can certainly sympathize with your view of the Talk:Chipewyan people move request (as the example I will focus on). I don't necessarily agree with BHG's close - but nor can I argue that her close was not made in good faith. She is absolutely correct in determining that common usage still favours Chipewyan over Denesuliné. It takes time in a lot of cases, but common usage does get there eventually (i.e., the Tsuu T'ina are never called the "Sarcee" anymore). Where I disagree - and where policy/guidelines may or may not adequately cover - is the question of when and where proper name trumps common name. This is not a new conflict on Misplaced Pages, and I see it most often with respect to the use of diacritics and whether "English" uses them or not. And as a veteran of those arguments, I can tell you there is no obvious consensus.

What you can do is perhaps launch an WP:RFC at WT:Article titles asking whether the self-identified proper name of a people should trump common usage. I would, however, suggest that you wait a month or two before embarking on such a path. Partly to allow all sides to cool down a bit, and partly because there are already a couple of potentially contentious discussions ongoing at that talk page. If/when you decide to go down this route, I would keep the question focused - i.e.: use the Chipewyan people question as your central example, but note that there are others this would affect, and keep the opening comment succinct. Focus only on the core argument, and avoid wandering to other, related aspects. The Bradley/Chelsea Manning dispute could be handled as a relevant example, though it is also a bit of a grenade given how emotional that debate was. (And I would note that while Misplaced Pages eventually got it right, it was not without a lot of argument and even an Arbcom case, iirc, so what you are experiencing now is hardly uncommon with these debates.) But most importantly Skookum, if you go down this route, I can't stress enough how damaging to one's cause replying to every opposing comment with increasing vigour is. People are going to oppose. Probably quite a few. Don't argue against how wrong they are, but make targeted and concise comments on how right you are. Anyway, just some thoughts. Resolute 14:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, to add to this, I am also sympathetic with your arguments around the preferences of peoples to be titled in the way they choose. However, the Cote d'Ivoire move request back in the day soured me, and attempts I previously made to allow subject preference into WP:AT policy also failed. I note that there is an attempt now to do this, but only for individual biographies. If we are going that way, I think it should be expanded, to countries and ethnic groups as well, when such a preference has been clearly stated. However, on a personal note, I have in several cases disengaged from discussions, even in places where I agreed with you on principle, because of the fashion in which you talk. Discussions simply become unreadable. You are a valued contributor, but multiple people have told you the same thing and at some point it would be great if there was a willingness to say "Ok, maybe I can make an improvement". I'd be happy to help in any way that might be useful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There's much to answer here, it's bedtime for me, but it's important that it be understoood that it's not just the name peoples preferred to be called by, it's also whether or not that term is seen as derogatory or not and/or whether its etymology is derisive in nature; which is the case with Chipewyan, Slavey, and Sarcee just like it is with Eskimo (in Canada at least). This was raised in that RM by more than one person, and the equivocations may have equally voted in favour of keeping things like they are, but that did not address guidelines; and in a post in the Squamish RM which Bushranger pronounced a BLUDGEON I cited passages from TITLE which said that most common sources do not necessarily apply, especially when in cases there is a problem with the title that is more common; I'll repost those in the morning. The other point about Chipewyan/Denesuline is that it is being taken out of context re all the other identical RMs which were not closed by BHG, where AT and more was heard out; all of them were moved at the same time, whether to archaic and/or derogatory RMs, at the same time as adding "people" (see the stonewalling going on at WP:NCL where the person who did all those moves without discussion continues to....say all the same over again....); those included St'at'imc/Lillooet, Nlaka'pamux/Thompson, and about seven others; including moving Tsuu Tina language to Sarcee language, nb Reso re that name; they were all long-standing titles and 'indigenously sensitive', something that others have ranted against as RIGHTGREATWRONGS etc. as if this werent' current reality.

There are issues with all her RM closures where not only were policies ignored, but the guidelines she invoked didn't even say the thing that she claimed they ordered. This is the gist of my complaint above, about the Boundary Ranges subcat, which Arthur jumped in on the same terms, demanding that something be provided which the WP:CAT guideline, which somebody finally cited as what they mean, doesn't even say anything about what is being demanded....demanded or ELSE. This kind of confabulation of guidelines into hard and fast rules that don't actually exist and aren't actually even in the guidelines is going on way too much. The other RM closures I've been meaning to critique one-by-one, point-by-point alleged, as they are the odd men out in a sea of RMs that did correctly resolve the matters at hand, and did follow policy; Atlin, British Columbia/Atlin, Haida people/Haida, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Comox, Nisqually people/Nisqually, Modoc people/Modoc, Nez Perce people/Nez Perce....a few others. The Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Comox - and Saanich - items all were for PRIMARYTOPIC towns per CANSTYLE; what I saw in those closures was not just NPAs and AGF towards myself, but also a complete lack of even addressing the stats/googles that had ben provided, and in Comox's case completely ignored the wishes of all participants that the Town of Comox is the PRIMARYTOPIC....and don't get me started about how "Squamish" was imposed the way it was, and then misused; that like Lillooet and Sechelt and others of the very same kind should be for the town/district, not for the disambiguated-because-the-endonym-got-ditched-title.

What happened there was brutal in terms of its abusiveness towards me, which got piled on, and then when I tried to point out the mistakes in the call, I was rudely and abruptly deleted and told to f-off and go away (if in not so many words) and then to have the same person block me, without consensus to do so, then barge into the remaining RMs and close them 'against the wind' while making AGf/NPA editorializations and mis-citing guidelines and blatantly IGNORING policy.......aaaaaarrgh then to have that same person, once my block was over (the next one...) pounced on a new category by invoking a demand that something be provided that no guideline anywhere says, then saying all evidence and citations provided in response, when she had provided nothing, not even the guideline she invoked.........do you not see the madness here? Do you not see where I'm coming from about what is wrong? And don't tell me me explaining all this is a "diatribe", it's an accounting of what happened and what the issues at hand are; too many people are throwing around rules that aren't rules, invoking guidelines that don't say what is claimed, ignoring policy and making the proponent the issue rather than the TOPIC and it's hurting content and titles.

I have to go to bed, I"m tired of being treated as if I were the problem when it's a huge problem that was made by someone acting recklessly across hundreds maybe thousands of titles that is where all this started, and there's still damage left that hasn't been fixed; Chipewyan is one, Lillooet language, Thompson language, Sarcee language and others; and now we also have Canadian primarytopic towns being pronounced not so, by people who don't even know where the places are, or what they are, who claim other topics as potential primarytopics that aren't, and who do this same old shibboleth about conflating misquotations of guidelines into RULES and using them as sledgehammers, then getting antsy about NPA for being told they're wrong, and start hurling NPAs and AGFs and "get rid of the bum" invective themselves.....

Then to be told that all BC region names are OR, when they're common names and the basis of all official-regionalization names (in all their multilayered and overlapping complexity), is just asinine, when coming from the same people who don't even read or understand the guidelines they're using with an iron first, and have no patience to read responses, or to investigate the subject and topic are before shooting their mouths off and demanding deletion and/or expulsion..... and Canadian English and CANSTYLE are regularly under attack as invalid, and that "global usage" should prevail....claiming that even when most citations ARE Canadian, that all those should be tossed out and American and UK usages imposed (as was done with Category:Power stations in Canada.

I'm going to bed; tomorrow I'm continuing filling in all the redlinks on the BC rivers and BC Coast pages and more....including the Boundary RAnges and those other regions/ranges in BC where categorization is being trumped up as yet another issue to treat Skookum1 with rank AGF over, while pretending innocence. I've been around too long to not see it for what it is; interference, harassment, and narrow-mindedness wrapped up invocations of guidelines that don't even say what is being claimed....if people would learn about things before pontificating on guidelines Misplaced Pages would be a lot better off; those same people who spend 90% of their time at RM and CfD don't do anything at all in the topic areas they're rendering their impassive from-on-high decisions on....and seem very, very hostile and/or insecure about someone who has the cites, goes and gets the view stats and googles to show them wrong, and claim NPA when somebody tells them they're wrong (which they are). All this is reminding me too much of why I left academia......I count myself in the wiki-idealist camp, still trying to stick with it and expand content and fix real problems, not made-up ones, vs the wiki-bureaucracy about who I will say little, less this wind up on ANI, so I can have another witch trial held in my honour where people come out of the woodwork saying "the community has been discussing you"...from people I've never heard of before, never seen on articles or talkpages I've worked on, or as with CT on CANTALK, showing up only to say 'burn him, burn him, boot the bum out'. Even "protecting the encyclopedia" as if someone who generates and has generated massive amounts of good content is someone that Misplaced Pages needs protecting from.....whatever, it's time for bed.

The diatribes are what is being made against ME, what else sums up the rants and invectives denouncing me in the ANIs, or the BLUDGEONING of me personally in CfD/RM discussions and closures? If explaining policy and pointing to examples and providing citations are "diatribes", that's a thesauric invocation of that term; originally it mean "extended discourse"......and if you want to see a display of useless and disruptive obstruction, go drop by NCL....Ill nbe posting a full listing of ethno titles and what's happend to them, and also a summary of the original-now-reborn consensus, within a day or two; the Bella Coola thing got me going, we now have someone with roots there, and I'm populating the area's peaks, rivers, IRs and more.......apparently that's the kidnb of thing that Misplaced Pages should be "protected from" by booting me out.....yeah whatever.Skookum1 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Redskins are still the Redskins despite the name being derogatory. When the real world isn't ready to move forward, we at Misplaced Pages are often locked into the same mode because we are not meant to lead change, merely reflect it. Two years ago, Chief Wahoo was the primary logo of the Cleveland Indians. This year, he's been relegated to secondary position as the cap logo. He's on his way to retirement, but the world of baseball hasn't gotten there yet, so neither has our article. Misplaced Pages, ultimately, does not exist to right great wrongs. However, in my suggested RFC, noting if the subject people consider the current title derogatory is fair game as part of the central argument. Resolute 22:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

All that is stated straight-out in MOS:IDENTITY and the self-identification passages of TITLE and NCET; point is it was raised in that RM repeatedly, but was ignored or equivocated by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which is what you are doing) and the closer ignored all that, as she ignored or equivocated a lot else. And it was you who observed that we don't use Sarcee anymore vs. Tsuu Tina; that was indeed how those articles were.....until Kwami came along and turned the clock back forty years unilaterally, along with all the rest I mentioned (oh, including Heiltsuk-Bella Bella and Nuxalk-Bella Coola, too... and says he would have liked to move Kwakwaka'wakw to Kwakiutl and Nuu-chah-nulth to Nootka....).....and it's a totally different thing re the Washington Redskins...that's not an article about a people with a self-identification who are living people (really collective BLP applies, imo), it's a brand name with a mass audience. BIG difference. I'm not talking about "righting great wrongs", I'm talking about (as were the "old consensus" wikipedians) respecting living people - and, as it happens, official terminology (they are sovereign governments, no less, but it's not just their governments who use the "new" names, it's the fed/prov/muni etc and the media....but not academics, it seems, or at least not those in foreign lands who are a little more backwards about all this and need to catch up with their subjects, so to speak). The effrontery for potential indigenous contributors, or a couple I could name who have left Misplaced Pages, of having people from far away decide what they will be called does not sit well with them, needless to say. Especially as with Sarcee, Slavey and Chipewyan - and Dogrib (now back at Tlicho) - when it's rude terms for them coined by their enemies....Skookum1 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting that I should show BHG good faith when she has showed me none at all, whether to do with the facts of the Squamish matter, or the presentations of citations and policy in the RMs, or in the launch of the Boundary Ranges subcat CfD which was entirely in bad faith and challenging my credibility as an experienced geographer in Misplaced Pages altogether, even saying that citations and examples supporting t hat category were "irrelevant" moments after I posted them i.e. not reading them at all......no, that's asking me to swallow obvious stalking as if it were innocent; rather than malice, as I believe the closures of the RMs and the launching of the CfD to have been. Granting good faith to those who treat you with none is a sucker's game, and tolerating ignorance that arrives in the backdoor with magisterial demands and condemnations with acceptance as if "good faith" is only encouraging more. When such people toss around guidelines which it is clear they have no more taken the time to read than anything else that's "TLDR" and taking the high ground their ignorance does not warrant, and have the power to arbitrarily block someone purely on personal dislike, then there's something seriously wrong with what is going on in Misplaced Pages.

What this means is that important Canadian RMs/CfDs have been fiddled with by people who don't know the material, who don't know Canada, who don't care about citations or consistency or precedents, and just want to cherrypick in the course of extended vendettas.....and are ready to blacklist and block people who do not submit to their flaunting of ignorance by official means.

As for giving the Washington Redskins and Bradley/Chelsea Manning as comparisons to the Chipewyan/Denesuline case, and other than noting that American standards of what is acceptable and what is not area clearly different than in Canada (cf. Edmonton Eskimos of course), that's not comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and turnips.Skookum1 (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Arthur's continuation of that non sequitur and without-basis-in-guidelines-or-policy OR challenge-cum-"discussion" was only more of the same, and contrary to the closer's comments (who should have addressed the "behaviour problem" of t he person who launched the CfD, not the person who it was launched to attack/harass with irrelevance and fabricated guideline-demands). Others have seen fit to support my work, who also don't take me to task for "diatribes" but know I provide lots of information and cites and know my shit and are more patient than those who are, it seems, burning out by too much time mega-processings RMs and CfDs without having the patience or the knowledge to deal with them adequately and who displya more concern with wikiquette, as they perceive it, than with content or the integrity and validity of titles their decisions affect/derail. Atlin, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Comox, Squamisn and the rest will have to be resolved and informed discussion is needed, not more b.s. oppose votes positing non-possibilities as DABs or "quoting" guidelines out of context; and should be closed by people who do not "set their expertise by the door" when they enter to do the close (which BHG stated when bragging about why she didn't need to know the subject matter or the context or....anything).Skookum1 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And see here in reply to votes/comments by CambridgeBayWeather on the Comox people RM about how if we don't speak up for CANSTYLE and CANENGL, we might as well not have them at all. I collapsed them to avoid yet another invocation of "walls of text" and TLDR; the latter is not supposed to be used on discussion pages at all and its use, as it says clearly, is seen as unCIVIL...but was the pretext for ignoring all the very valid arguments on the Squamish CfD, and part of that close. "She" has since found an actual "behavioural guideline" to use instead in such instances; it's one of the many reasons the Squamish CFD close was bunk and illegal; but as I've found out by looking around, places like Move Review and Dispute Resolution and RfC are not about lookign at issues and guidelines, but only about wikiquette and "conduct".. Not about content, in other words, but about editors. How far as "wiki" come to mean something very different than "quick, fast, easy".....Skookum1 (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say you need to show BHG some good faith (though I would encourage that). I said that her close in that specific RM was made in good faith. Bear in mind that acting and good faith is not necessarily a synonym for being right. I tend to side with you, but that instant request didn't pass due to a conflict of opinions on where precedence lies between common name and proper name in cases like this. That is why I suggested an RFC. (Incidentally, WP:RFC is about content and policies. WP:RFCU is about user conduct.) CANSTYLE is a guideline, not policy, and there is nothing anywhere in Misplaced Pages that says Americans or other foreigners should not be allowed to comment on Canadian topics.

As far as apples and turnips goes, I think you should pay much greater attention to the nature of the Bradley Manning dispute on Misplaced Pages. That entire battle centred around the question of what common sources said ("Bradley") and what the subject wanted ("Chelsea"). Seems like a good parallel to the Chipewyan/Denesuliné naming question to me. One big difference though: The Manning naming dispute had huge volumes of passionate support on both sides, enough that when some editors were blocked, those that supported their side still drove the debate forward. But in this case, if you walk into another block - and the next one will undoubtedly be for a longer term - then this debate will halt. I can only ask you to consider that your current mode of turning any opposition into a battle is not working. It isn't helping you, and it isn't moving your cause forward. I understand that you are frustrated, but the path you are on is self-defeating. Resolute 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In both cases, Chipewyan/Denesuline and Boundary Ranges, the battle came looking for me; C/D had enough support votes and stats to pass it properly as was done in umpteen parallel case, and I'm not the only one who thinks that close was a bad call; see the section below the RM launched by Floydian, and read through the support comments in the RM itself (and the support comments in the BR RM also). THEN compare to the Lillooet (town), Shishalh and last year's St'at'imc closes; and scads of others (and see my new section on Talk:Haida people = which is one of the only remaining Kwami-built "FOO people" titles on unique people names left, since all the correct RM closures went down).

As for the CANENGL thing, while some of that does have to do with policy i.e. self-identification, which is in TITLE, when you have someone opining that Bella Bella and Bella Coola Atlin can't be primary topics because they only have a few hundred people, and saying that what Canadians think is a PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't matter shit if people in the UK and US think those are people-names or language-names, and that Canadian sources showing that's 1000:1 not the case should be set aside as parochial (because 98% of googles out there are Canadian-origin therefore....invalid??), then you have severe logical fallacies/inadequacies being put forward; Each of those towns is the only thing of any size for miles, and the DAB candidates that were suggested weren't even viable candidates (Atlin Lake is not a PT competitor for Atlin for the same reason that Sioux Falls is not for Sioux, or Vancouver Airport for Vancouver, for that matter) same with those who on remove-comma-province RMs have said that they think that's wrong on 108 Mile Ranch (see here) because the comma-province would help "readers" understand that that's a community (WTF?). That the interlopers in a few of those cases (eg. Bella Bella/Coola with Dicklyon were also people who bogged down RMs with nitpickery Talk:Poland-Lithuania, which was an offshoot of Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District#Requested move) and "silly walks" is not just more frustration, but needless disruption, as in those cases, as will happen with the OR challenge to BC region-names that BHG and Arthur no doubt will resume, without ever learning about BC or those regions, by going to the main sources to prove the obvious; at how much wasted time, and in response to bad faith from people who, I'm sorry, are not displaying good faith, nor an open mind, nor have any interest in the topic, but rather in persecuting/harassing a certain editor. "Keeping an eye on" is a euphemism for "let me see if I can trip him up on something". The sound of axes grinding is all over discussion-space and official forums; the use of personal hostility/condemnation to forge RM closures without proper reference to policy and citations/sources is one of the system's biggest flaws; and as a result there's a lot of stupid decisions going down, and AGF/NPA being made in such closes by people who haven't even read the guidelines that they're citing in making the call.Skookum1 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

prime example of unpunished AGF/NPA attack (against me, not mine)

Well, I think he's an admin; whatever, I've pointed this out before, and not a single one of those who whipped and put the torch to me in the ANIs or ranted and scolded me here on my own talkpage have said/done anything about it. See here. there are dozens of examples of this kind of thing, only one other very pointed one by him......so don't lecture me about having to "play nice" when other people aren't even talking softly and ranting/AGF'ing on me like that. he should have his adminship stripped and blocked for a month; that's far worse than anything I've said by way of criticizing actions and motives, which were all valid and born out by evidence, direct, circumstantial or otherwise. I'm working on finishing that big list of ethnonym titles that I've mentioned, but have to do a "border run" tomorrow so it won't be posted for a couple of days unless I get it done tonight....it's very revealing about the "+ people" issue as fomented by the architect of NCL whose opposition to wide consensus continues to stonewall changes to that guideline to take out the passage which damaged hundreds of titles without any real discussion. And for which I've taken heat, and rank, vulgar accusations like that one from Maunus above, and been brought before the Inquisition, for trying to correct; and for standing up to the gang-opposition against the RMs needed to do that. The taint of hypocrisy and partisanship and schoolmarm-ish behavioural discipline in place of actually addressing policy/guidelines and sources and citations as should be the case that has happened to me will always hang over my feelings about this place, and maybe about its futility. My real-world friends ask me why I would spend so much time, and take so much *shit*, for something that doesn't even pay me money, and it's a good question; I lost my income last year because of Kwami's harassment and delaying/degrading tactics in the St'at'imc and related RMs, and as some here know had something t hat seemed to be a stroke as a result ...... and for which I've been mocked and had ANI comments about being off medication or needing medical care.....insults galore, and yet I'm the one who's being hunted, vilified, and my attempts to organize articles into categories on proper grounds being challenged by somebody just because it's me. I'm very disappionted that more Canadians didn't take part in Canadian RMs and CfDs that were railroaded by furriners (and a certain Albertan) and where we've had PRIMARYTOPIC on town names and proper modern endonyms for native peoples overridden by people who've never been to BC, don't give a f**k about proper Canadian usages (and say so, though without that expletive), and who engage in personality attacks in order to win RMs.......then accuse the victim of doing what they did to him.....gaaaaaagh. I'm going to the beach.Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Boundary Peaks articles needed

@Doncram: Thanks for you interest and willingness to work on Boundary Ranges topics; last night I went by the List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska–British Columbia/Yukon border and, having been "distracted" elsewhere in Misplaced Pages by "various things", including having to rescue that page from the effects of an unasked-for/imposed rewrite of one of the cite templates which made that page too long ( ;-| so that it would not properly display...), realized I hadn't gotten around to making many of the peak articles still redlinked on that page; some of them very high. So as a "when you've got some spare time" thing to do, creating those mountain articles, using one of the existing ones, e.g. last night I made Mount Gallatin, Boundary Peak 67, which is immediately to the north of the Stikine River's crossing of the boundary..... why the elevation sort in those tables isn't working right I don't know; it may have something to do with.....unnecessary codes......sigh. The Boundary Peaks area whole category in their own right; eventually there will be so many in the US-Canada border category a subcategory will be needed; at least in that case we've got the treaty to refer to as an "official set" (not that any guideline actually spells that out, but it's a loud demand coming from people who are category-warriors, despite any real leg to stand on about it). If more people were populating categories and creating articles and doing less game-playing with titles and categories, there's be a lot more Misplaced Pages content than there currently is.....and a whole lot less stress huh? Don't know if mountain articles are your thing, but if they are, that list article is a great place to start.Skookum1 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skookum1 and thank you for the invitation. I believe i will be able to contribute new photos and maybe some text into some British Columbia and nearby-parts-of-Alaska articles in the next few weeks. Watch Destruction Bay, Yukon, and Lake Kluane, Yukon, and there will be some others. I am more interested in doing so because I have become more aware of your good efforts in the geography and other aspects of these general areas. I don't happen to have any info or expertise related to these peaks though. I dunno if maybe a pic or two will have one of these peaks in the background, really not sure. Thanks, cheers --doncram 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

re: Waterhen Lake First Nation infobox removal

Waterhen Lake First Nation is both a band government and a community. In this case it has only one reserve with one community in it so it needs a settlement infobox. Both the band government and the community are called Waterhen Lake First Nation.-- Kayoty (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the community article is Waterhen Indian Reserve No. 130, the use of "First Nation" to mean the land/community is common enough, but this problem was addressed long ago within Misplaced Pages as the official name of the place is not the same as the official name as the band government. Because many bands have multiple reserves, this confusion does not serve categorization well. There is no "infobox government" other than one for {{Infobox government agency}}, which will not suffice. A government is not a community; it governs a community, but it is not the community as such.

More pertinent to problems with this article is the spammy/soap/promotional content promoting the band government; I've fixed some of it, and there's more on many other pages.

In looking into this, I also found Waterhen, Manitoba, which appears to be Waterhen Indian Reserve No. 45, which is the home of the Skownan First Nation, formerly the Waterhen First Nation, and there we have the curious terminology "Northern Affairs community", as if the community were part of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; that article needs major cleanup, as do many of these; and can have coordinates on it because it is about a PLACE. Band governments are not places, and while they can have maps showing where there reserves are, location maps showing the location of "the First Nation" identified as such are totally misleading and actually original research.Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accidental reverting of other material at WP:CFDS

Skookum1, please reinstate what you deleted accidentally here, and re-delete what you incorrectly reinstated. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reinserted your question, and expanded my reply a bit; I don't recall deleting anything, I'd created whitespace beneath BR's post......something like an edit conflict that diddn't show up as one. Because Haida Gwaii is an archipelago, we normally speak of things being "on" it, as we do with Vancouver Island; there's also technical issues re "of" as though the islands are not yet a full sovereign country (unless you're talking to a Haida), that preposition implies ownership, which they do not have (of the airports anyway, though a sovereign Haida Gwaii may indeed acquire them). As per my comment, the claim made in another CfD that Haida Gwaii as a region of BC is original research is a bit of a sore point and yes, given who it was that did that nomination, I reacted unfavourably when I saw a template I associate with deletion....Skookum1 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, you would do well to spend longer reading rather than writing. It would have saved you from making that embarrassing oppose. Please look again at the diff that I provided above, and use your Page Down key. You deleted my reply to BDD about an unrelated category. You also reinstated four African-American Civil Rights categories that I had removed for processing. Please revert these. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that other people don't even read guidelines and won't read citations they ask for........I don't know how I deleted any of the things you mentioned; I saw on the diff you gave only my accidental deletion of your post; which again, I don't recall seeing and did not select/delete anything.....coudl there be something wrong with the edit conflict function? I only inserted my now-struck-out-comment, I didn't do anything else anywhere else on the page, and nothing was selected/deleted by me in the course of doing so; that it shows that way isn't a reflection of what I actually did. I found the entry, created a space, put in my comment/oppose, and that's all.Skookum1 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You must have gone into the page history, and edited an old version of the page. Now, are you going to re-do my comment to BDD which you deleted, and remove the processed African-American ones, or leave it for me? I could do them again but do not want to cause an edit conflict. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I just tried, but looks like you already did it, what I was about to re-add was already there...but that that got deleted from the Opposed Nominations section and I know I had opened only the Current Nominations section means that I, personally, could not have done it. There's a ghost in the machine, IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(with revision by me after ec) From a Talk-page stalker: Sorry for adding to confusion. It was I who just restored Fayenatic's comment to BDD that had been deleted somehow accidentally. And i further also re-deleted the 4 items that had been restored somehow accidentally. However the changes were included in what shows as Skookum1's edit, whether it was a software glitch or otherwise accidentally, i don't understand, either. I just logged onto Misplaced Pages and noticed this, thought this was an hour or two old, not an immediately current conversation. Hope that my butting in didn't hurt, hope this is settled now. Over and out. --doncram 14:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

K, thanks Don; here's my post-edit conflict further comment/reply to FE: The weird part of that re-instating those civil rights categories is that they were nowhere near where I inserted my comment; something's up, and it ain't me. I noticed this on various talkpages too, where it seems like someone is replying to someone, but there's no previous edit from whomever......some glitch; I'm not a coder, I wouldn't know where to start as to why; but I would have had to copy-paste those other posts, I was not in an older version of the page etc....Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, doncram and Skookum1. Skookum1, let's see if we can pin this bug down. When at 13:55 you put in the <s> and </s> tags around your own comment, were you responding to my 13:28 paragraph that started "***{{ping|Skookum1}} The convention is" ? and if so, did you intend to delete it? (no problem if you did intend that one; it's the unrelated ones that I was bothered about) – Fayenatic London 15:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I never put in a nowiki......just the /s/ tags and my repost, that's all. I may come across those other cases where there seem to be missing edits, saw one this last week, will see if I can recall it. I remember other "accidental deletions" like this on some discussions too....... ones I hadn't done the way they showed....Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The nowiki was just part of my comment here so that the /s/ tags would show as text rather than work as tags... So you never even saw my 13:28 comment about "in" rather than "of", but figured it out for yourself? – Fayenatic London 16:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ya, and made a few more airports-by-region cats/lists in the meantime....they're often sorted by regional district, which isn't quite right because they're federally-licensed and the RDs have nothing to do with them, unless they own them as they do in some cases.Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so somehow at 13:55 you made an edit to the version before 13:28, and the system let you save it. Are you sure there was no edit conflict warning despite my three intervening edits on the page? And the next question will be, can you remember any other edits where this happened? – Fayenatic London 18:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I"ll see if I can remember where I noticed the recent ones, there've been others over the years....the only edit conflict I saw was when I tried to update as you had asked and ran into Doncram's edit....nothing until that point.Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've now reported this at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Edit_conflicts_not_reported, along with another one that happened to me the day after yours. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum

Don’t let admins wouldn’t know British Columbia from British Petroleum grind you down. From Victoria to Potlatch Peak, an entire province is counting on you to turn the redlinks blue. If a first nation wants a numeral its name, are we going to let a bunch of pommies tell them “no”? Remember, we all stand on guard for you. It tastes bad (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• :The way COMMONNAME and USEENGLISH have been abused to override core principles and TITLE I'm way too familiar with; yet there are passages in them both which account for SELFIDENTIFICATION and also CONSISTENCY; but which are regularly ignored. That WP:IPNA has on a welcome template for indigenous editors (of who I am not one, granted) saying if they find any instances of WP:Systemic bias to let the project know; yet colonialist names are rigorously re-asserted, by dint of SOURCES that include citations of the systemic bias; corporate government, the church etc. The historical record is soaked in that bias; and not just about native peoples, as we have seen with the (to us) bizarre bias about international perceptions of Bella Coola and Bella Bella not being about those well-known places (to us), but names for the peoples once called that which are no longer relevant in modern Canada, and more than a bit embarrassing to see foisted upon Misplaced Pages by those who neither care nor are prepared to learn about the current cultural and political realities in Canada; more recent cites, and official name changes, are never given the weight deserved, with one or two rare exceptions....and invective about RIGHTGREATWRONGS and other invocations of Misplaced Pages's non-involvement in justifying not using the new names, and accepting names which are alien in other forms of English. That Canadian English itself is under fire in many cases, with "global usage" some kind of homogenist mantra, is counter to the diversity that Misplaced Pages should be about. The use of personality attack/condemnation to avoid discussing issues and actual guidelines (not misrepresentations of them, as is too often the case) is the tool of propagandists; and unwitting collaborators. That other titles with numerals in them exist is dismissed as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the subtext of chauvinism and colonialist parochialism not just to native but to "the colonials" is rank, but so drenched in that mindset they cannot see it, and take offence at having it pointed out......likewise trying to impose standardized guidelines for countries not as mountainous or empty on Canadian categories; or imposing British usages such as power stations instead of generating stations.....it's multi-issue, that systemic bias, and never easy to sum up at once. And when I do, I'm condemned for "walls of text"......in my time, people were able to read and think in more than eight sentences at a time. All I can do is keep on, like you say, keep on filling in the redlinks and expanding and integrating long-needed content and regional coverage/detail; lord knows all the people kibbitzing and arguing irrelevancies of title and orthographic conservatism aren't doing anything of the kind; while wanting to control how they are organized, how they can be spelled, what sources are valid etc, while openly dismissing local input and knowledge as 'original research', as if their own weren't. Exclusionism is very much alive in Misplaced Pages.

Thanks for your support; the issues you bring up with your comment are relevant to anyone aware of our colonial past and continuing colonized present, whether by the US or Britain; the mouse may sleep next to the elephant, and they may not like the squeaking, but the mouse is fighting for survival in a world that wants to wipe away distinctiveness, and tout up numbers instead of meanings.... dismissing Atlin or Bella Bella or Bella Coola as PRIMARYTOPICS because they have tiny populations is only one example of quantitative condemnation vs. qualitative information; that they are the only towns of their sizes for a couple of hundred miles, or in Atlin's case, within BC anyway, several hundred miles of forbidding wilderness, is completely lost on those who live with hedgerows and subdivisions....it'd be nice to think the whole province really was counting on me; it's good to know that at least a few are. Straight-talking is unwelcome to those from those other places; in BC historically as now it's expected and necessary to put the truth to various lies and misperceptions...unless you're a politician or a p.r. consultant or bureaucrat, that is. Anyways, thanks, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings, and I ain't fat, and I ain't no lady either.Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's as funny as a joke you told earlier. There's not a single admin on this project (including those of us who have lived in BC) who doesn't want Skookum to continue his work on articles. What the community has clearly stated is that the battleground behaviour, incivility and personal attacks - as well as the seemingly automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees or tries to help is an "enemy" - will not be tolerated as those edits progress. It's not rocket science the panda ₯’ 13:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And here, @Dangerous Panda:, have Talk:Chaouacha have a read as to the kind of thing that gets thrown at me for something as simple as moving a disambiguated title to an undisambiguated redirect. And if I'm not mistaken ,that's from an admin. So get real about me not having "enemies"....I'm no fool, but I'm sure as hell being treated as if I was one, also somebody's in particular. Oh, is that a personal attack? Apparently defending yourself against insults and invective is a "personal attack". I'm from a place where pussyfooting and mumbledy pegs is frowned upon in polite company....Skookum1 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Gee, you stalking my page too, Panda....how nice. The "battleground behaviour" is blamed on me, but the oppositionism in RMs and CfDs that is consistently both wrong and degrading in content and tone and as others are well awarely, rightly gets my back up about having to prove the obvious to people who have slogged in with ignorance and guidelines they invoke without fully having read, and making personal jabs throughout. The one-sidedness of the situation was rank, as many of my supporters commented one way or another. That you are stalking my page to check in on me suggests that I am, if not with actual enemies, with those who are looking to find fault, or offer patronizing judgments such as you have just done.

My WORK includes being able to use correct titles and dabs, and that means taking on RMs and CfDs to correct bad ideas foisted upon people who cite one guideline without any context or as if it were the only one; and who use behavioral essays (TLDR =unCIVIL) as a close justification (the Squamish CfD and others, where TLDR should not even be invoked, certainly not in a close) and who pollute discussions with personal attacks about my writing style and alleged personality issues (also in the Squamish CfD) while calling any criticism of someone's misuse of guidelines or history of undiscussed controversial moves as "personal attacks"..... it's all very tiresome and gets in the way of the constructive work that I have been trying to get done in spite of all the harassment and what is coming off as only more stalking of my thoughts and activities. I'm the one being treated as the enemy, even have had my sanity impugned; the supporter above raises a reality about authenticity for coverage of BC, and the need to stand fast against unwonted and hypocritical and often completely unjustified personal criticism in place of actually listening to what is being said. Or, as too often it turns out, people slamming down readings of guidelines which actually don't apply and where exceptions and conditional situations are all laid out. Instead of trying to concentrate on cites and guidelines, instead I am vilified for being thorough....and not able to boil it down to pat sentences and oversimplifications like the stuff that gets thrown in my way. User:it tastes bad you mock for voicing a Canadian in-BC sentiment; only more systemic bias and a demand that the world conform to Misplaced Pages's "rules". Funny thing is "there are no rules"........but there sure is a lot of b.s.Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:it tastes bad is, if you're not aware, Panda, referring to both Sta7mes and the Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish debacle; where in both cases people ignorant of and /or even hostile to native names and apparently peoples and who show no regard at all for Self-identification/MOSIDENTITY weighed in about places they don't even know what they are or where they are; neither of those issues will go away, and ultimately will have to be addressed; the Skwxwu7mesh are now one of the only BC native groups whose name in Misplaced Pages is now disambiguated and not in native form; Squamish in Canadian English and in BC English especially is primarily used for the town (ok, well, district municipality); that these were stonewalled and refuted by people either oblivious to those realities or who just don't care and feel that "they" ("Misplaced Pages") have a right to tell those people what they will be called is noxious in the context of Canadian standards of diversity and cultural respect; it's also against Misplaced Pages policy, but just try telling that to someone who really hasn't read all of same....Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And gee, if that sockpuppet allegation is true, it's you who CfDSd-by-bot the Skwxwu7mesh cat and template in the wake of the RM that you also were against the with-numeral titles....how ironic. Perhaps strange; I'm going to save this conversation outside of Wikpedia however, as some earnest admin may decide to delete any exchange with you......it's really too bad as the author of those changes you can't go back and fix the problem; which lay behind all those RMs I filed in recent months......and the various CfDs and associated official criticism/harassment I have received since.Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Gwayasdums

Hi, can you refine the coordinates. It currently points to forest. Is it the one to the southwest or north?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Gwayasdums.Skookum1 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	An impressive number of decent new geo stubs coming in from you of late! Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Port Harvey

Hi Skookum1, Apologies for not being clearer. I have no reason to doubt that you have the correct Captain Harvey. The problem is, the Wikilink was the wrong attribution. It linked to a disambig page on which the only Royal Navy captain named Thomas Harvey died in 1741, and so was the wrong Thomas Harvey. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, it seems we need another Thomas Harvey title, Thomas Harvey (Royal Navy officer) being taken, what else could be used? By rank?Skookum1 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WARNING

Stop spamming my comments or I will report you to ANI for trolling. Don't sign my comments as if they were yours, and separate your comments so that readers can see that I'm not you. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Add my sig then, and "spamming" means advertising.Skookum1 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And as for readers mistaking me for you, given our different styles that's just not realistic; I make sense, you call anything that makes sense "nonsense", and it's been you that has been edit warring on the NCL guideline itself.Skookum1 (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Discretionary sanctions apply to the Manual of Style and article titles policy

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33

The Beaver

Hi Skookum1, I used to use the definite article before ships' names too, until an editor pointed out that to do so was in violation of some Misplaced Pages style rule. (I fully endorse not using it before HMS, and almost always using before SS.) The issue is do we say that "the Beaver sailed", or "Beaver" sailed? Like you, I was somewhat annoyed at being enjoined to change what I thought was a perfectly acceptable practice. On reflection though, I went with the style rule, on two grounds. The first, simply, is that Misplaced Pages should follow consistent parctices. (And I didn't want to get into pissing contests that would distract me from editing and that I would lose anyway.) More substantively, I decided that the rule "Omit needless words" (see Strunk & White), was a pretty good one. So, now I omit the definite article unless there really is a strong reason to use it. Your mileage may differ and I have no desire to get into a fight with you over this; I generally leave rule enforcement to others. Best, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is another one of those areas where I think Misplaced Pages's mounting instruction creep is out of line; I went through this with the imposition of endashes to replace hyphens in regional district titles in BC, which took an exhaustive RM to fix and involved me having to "prove the obvious" and go to the Big Horse and get the legislation that created them and its regulations from the Office of the Counsel-General of BC's style guide (that's the lawyer for the government, not the Attorney General's Office) and that resolved it, though the closer opined that he still didn't like it (so what??). In this case "The first, simply, is that Misplaced Pages should follow consistent practices" should be corollarized with "as used in the real world" and "in the variety of English called for in the article in question". It looks odd, sounds odd, and isn't right. Oh, but it's Misplaced Pages.....Misplaced Pages is not supposed to change English, I've heard that time and again in the course of people resisting uses of terms common in Canada, but not elsewhere (long story).

So which part of which guideline exactly says this? Somewhere in MOS? Somewhere in UE? Point is, if it's not normal use in England (where I gather you are), and it's not normal use in the United States, nor in Canada, nor in Australia nor India etc.....then why does "Misplaced Pages" feel it has the right to impose it (meaning those editors who crafted this so-called "rule", in a place where there are supposed to BE no rules; Fifth Pillar and all that)? Setting new standards for English usage is not Misplaced Pages's job; I'm all too familiar with the attitude of those in the MOS pits that indeed it is, and who use weird rationalizations to justify those positions. Weird rationalizations for stupid ideas in Misplaced Pages are nothing new of course....

Am I in the mood to go to war over it; no, not right now. Point is, if you don't agree with it, then don't impose it. And repeat after me "there are no rules".

They're NOT "needless words", they're called for by normal English usage conventions. Oddly, I see "the" added before things like inlet and bay names and even mountains......unneeded and not-normal usages. Ships are different, same as rivers (which I also see a lot of removed "the"'s on).....Wilde said "consistency is the refuge of the unimaginative" but here it's something more than that; it's a false consistency concocted within Misplaced Pages with no relation to the real world beyond it.Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Actually, methinks "instruction creep" is being far too kind. "Kafka couldn't have dreamed this up in a million years" would be a more apt, albeit more wordy, description of the way things are headed. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kafka's The Trial and The Castle come to mind constantly when working on Misplaced Pages, or being subjected to its.......drama boards. The Building of the City I think is the title of one of the shorter parables; it's online somewhere....and yes "instruction creep" is too kind a word, but we're not allowed to use others. Suffice to say that it works well as a plural (that's not aimed at you, Acad Ronin).Skookum1 (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise that it was in the MOS. The one place that I keep wanting to add it, is before Yukon but most times that should not be done. Still looks odd. I've also seen things like "George Harrison was a member of Beatles" even though the correct name of the band is The Beatles. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 02:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yukon without "the" is the official style, but COMMONUSE, including by Yukoners, is "the Yukon". Kind of a dicey one to resolve; certainly quotes from sources using it with the "the" should not be changed. As for ships, I looked up WP:NCS and tried to find the origin of the passage in question; an earlier version I just chose at random said ""The" is not needed before the name of a ship (but neither is it wrong):" When this was changed, and by where in the discussion page and why and by whom, I have yet to figure out. To me, the current version is not acceptable nor is it correct, nor part of normal English usage, historically or currently.Skookum1 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Instruction creep" as a term seems pretty apropos to me too, though creep seems a little mild. I will adopt a "live and let live" approach to the definite article in other peoples' articles, and go with what sounds right in my own. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That guideline seems to override WP:ENGVAR, of which {{Canadian English}} is only a part. I'm in no mood for a debate there, but discretion should be used in the application of such things as rules. There are no rules. And normal English conventions, in whatever type or species of English, should be respected and not dictated, nor homogenized as has happened in some cases. Was going to ping you, there are some officer names and such on Drury Inlet, a new article I just made, another in the series charting the maze of islands and inlets on the BC Coast that are Admiralty-related, which came up as having to be dabbed redlinks (in this case crew of the HMS Pandora).Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My area of specialization is realy RN in the Revolutonary and Napoleonic Wars, and I have no resources, other than Google, for earlier or later periods. That said, I will help on occasion if I can. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep you in mind for any earlier placenames, then, as many were conferred by Capt Vancouver et al; many of those vessels were in the Napoleonic Wars after being in the Pacific Northwest (see List of historical ships in British Columbia, which hasn't been much updated lately, also List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest).Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you and KWamis move wars at ANI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Nikolai Rezanov

Re: the Monterey police chief paragraph. What mass for two lovers? Who, where, when? Who cares what the police chief was doing in Siberia, or, for that matter, what his name was. Ditto for the red rose. This paragraph simply injects material about extraneous people, thereby detracting from the subject of the article, Nikolai Rezanov. Best regards, Lahaun (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple article moves

Hi Skookum1, I know you posted at the move discussion for Cape Breton Regional Municipality. Are the other moves proposed by that editor legit? To me they appear to be disruptive to make a point, but if they are legit, I'd like to know so I can just back off. The last thing I want to do is start a war with a new editor. Cmr08 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

He seems legit but with an agenda..... I had a look at his user contributions and they're all on a theme; he created Category:Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; doesn't realize that per Canadian naming conventions now the HRM is at Halifax, Nova Scotia and the cats with it that Bedford, Sackville, Dartmouth and all the rest of the former separate cities/towns within the HRM are now, or should be Bedford, Halifax, Sackville, Halifax, Dartmouth, Halifax. He's [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Sydney,_Nova_Scotia&diff=prev&oldid=608825611 proposed that the Sydney article be deleted and replaced with one on "all the Sydneys" (which, um, comprise the CBRM plus a few other places between them) and wants county names to be town-type names, e.g. [

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Colchester_County,_Nova_Scotia&diff=prev&oldid=608877699 Colchester County -> Colchester, Nova Scotia]. Blurring counties and towns and RMs is a slippery slope. I think he should be referred to WP:CANSTYLE maybe, about such disambiguations...that he (she?) knew how to create a sandbox and went straightaway at a category creation suggests previous wikipedia experience.....but also a not-liking-the-way-things-are agenda (not surprising, I have my issues in that department myself). Which posts of his were disruptive, do you think, or just his whole line of position/argument as such? I have noticed new and/or IP users kibbitzing demanding things be different than guidelines dictate, e.g. the Kiowa and Cheyenne thing on CFDS under Opposed Nominations, and have seen similar elsewhere by others.

I'm not sure what to say about Cape Breton; as Cape Breton, Nova Scotia for Cape Breton Regional Municipality he's kinda right; we only have one RM in BC, the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality but there's no usage "Northern Rockies, British Columbia" or "Fort Nelson, Northern Rockies". We don't use Surrey, Greater Vancouver or Abbotsford, Fraser Valley (per the GVRD and FVRD). Cape Breton (region) or some such title is definitely necessary; Cape Breton, Nova Scotia in that form is for a municipality called Cape Breton. So technically the move is right; but has a big ambiguity issue; unless Cape Breton were a region-article title and then the city-province within that is Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Merging all the Sydneys is not right though; North Sydney isn't even contiguous with Sydney, for example; in BC there's "the Hazeltons" but we don't make all three places (two munis and a big IR) into one article; but then it's on an RM.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What gets me is that it's a new user who appears out of nowhere and jumping right into article moves. As for deleting the Sydney article, that makes no sense at all. You have a former city, and former towns who just happen to have the same word in their title. I don't really know if any of his edits are disruptive on their own, but possibly disruptive in the fact that he's going from article to article proposing moves because he's upset over the HRM name change. His argument that county should not be in the titles because other article titles use only a single name is kind of bizarre. Those other articles have a single name and no mention of county for a reason, none of them are counties. As for his other edits, he did create an article about an organization against using the Halifax name, but it was deleted as not-notable, so we do see where his agenda is. This editor wasn't part of the HRM discussion, but another editor who was the only one really opposed vowed that if the HRM article name was changed than he would be pushing ahead to have the CBRM name changed to Cape Breton, but for some reason has not bothered to participate in the CBRM discussion at all. Regardless, I'm going to step back from all this, because the last thing I want to do is start fighting with this editor at every article he wants to move. I just wish he would have taken the time to understand how article titles work before trying to change so many of them. Cmr08 (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, same with the IP user who kibbitzed points contrary to guidelines at the opposed nominations re Cheyenne, Kiowa etc at CFDS. Sometimes you have to wonder about meatpuppetry, or the return to Misplaced Pages of an exiled ("banned") editor.....equivocation is very common in lots of wikipedia discussions, not just from newbies, and people misinterpret or disinterpret guidelines all the time. The county moves are all a waste of time and will not be passed though.Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

For your reference, here is a permalink to the opposed nominations at CFDS. – Fayenatic London 07:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-archival replies

Hi Skookum1, just noting that I reverted these replies you added to a thread in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840. You really shouldn't be posting substantive responses to archived threads. While I understand that clarifications or corrections might sometimes be necessary, it has long been my understanding that substantive posts in archives are inappropriate. If for some reason you disagree with this, I'd be happy to discuss this with a third party. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that had been closed; it's so full of bunk that needed responding to; I didn't notice the URL. All of what I said is true, what was alleged is hokum - unnecessary moves are not RMs and technical RMs/db-moves, which is all I've done except moving to redlinks; Kwami's disigenuous and claims that he thinks I'm OK is hogwash and typical of his wheedling.... all this began with the Squamish RM from Skwxwu7mesh/diacriticalized, which was partly because the @$%@% who ramrodded that referred to other First Nations in BC article titles, which at that time were in the Kwami-ized state now reverted by RMs last year..... and when Uysvdi moved into the Squamish category issue without knowing what she was doing or even what the PRIMARYTOPIC was, and said "FOO people" was the issue, that's when I started first with the bulk RMs t hat got shot down, and I responded as instructed by filing a "frenzy", as she AGFs them, of RMs.....and when those got to be going too much my way, she then trotted out that infamous and detestable first ANI of a few months ago....... look at my contributions in the last weeks since those uncalled-for and anti-consensus blocks levelled on me; I've been creating articles far more than the moves that Maunus complains disrupt his precious watchlist; the whole thing is based in character assassination of someone trying to be constructive and actually apply guidelines and policies, instead of equivocate about them and then haul the nom to ANI instead of talk about issues....rant ended; again, I didn't know that that was archived, another editor had sent me the link in FB in reference to a discussion we were having about all this and.....I hate seeing bullshit go uncorrected.Skookum1 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And here and here, I've been doing a formal survey of all ethno titles and cats, so that there's a reference point when somebody starts shooting their mouth off about what is "normal" and "most common". The appendix (first link) is nowhere near finished; I'd proposed setting this up in IPNA last year and was shot down by Uyvsdi saying "we've got better things to do"...but got on the start of it during one of those @###% blocks....so much bullshit, so little time....Skookum1 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea where that went, or where Kwami's bogus 3RR one about his own reverts; I de-watchlisted ANI and think it's waste of time inhabited by a culture of negative and character attacks; policies concerning content and validity of titles get the back seat there in the course of the ad hoc star chamber atmosphere....Maunus complaining about discussions over titles and guidelines and then going and launchign another discussion which was all NPA from the start, is typical to me of the double-talk and not-so-hidden motives behind the ongoing fray there; similarly I de-watchlist RM and CfD unless there's a particular item I'm watching; I work on articles, which is why having to do with bad name changes is a pain in the ass....in so many ways. The culture of malcontent that is part of the discussion board environment is immature and unprofessional (but too much like institutionalized academia, granted), more energy goes in there than actual work on articles as such; and the obvious nature of the RM conclusions this last year, given all the hot air and mistaken/groundless/anti-guideline notions that get fielded in them, is a demonstration to me of why informed dicsussion/decision is needed... and also why RMs and CfDs should require notification of affected WikiProjects and also of, per each article, all those who have edited it; Squamish was changed by people who'd never worked on the articled and didn't even know anything about the poeple OR the District/town of Squamish, for example. An actual knowledge test should be required for admins so there's not so many loose cannons around, and people are actually equipped to read "walls of text" isntead of ranting and screaming and taking offense at them; I see a culture of semi-literacy entrenching itself, not any kind of encylopedic grasp of content ..... and behavioural guidelines being given more weight than issues of content; no accident that those were authored by the kind of people who like to wield them instead of address issues of content/title PROPERLY. To be told I'm "not capable of proper discussion" by people who field illogic and opinion as if it were fact is nauseating.Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that there's a lot involved in this situation. Anyway, commenting on the wrong page happens to all of us; I didn't mean to imply you were trying to do anything improper by making the comments. I really just wanted to let you know that I had removed those comments you'd posted in the archive page rather than risk causing confusion had you later wanted to refer back to those comments. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I realized that, so felt free to speak. Actually it was refreshing to get something from ANI-world that wasn't the Nurse Ratchet routine scolding met to behave "or else". My responses there I'll save the revert-link to for later use, as unfounded twaddle like so much in that ANI and elsewhere is going to be the subject of a submission to ARBCOM at some point about the problems with the kangaroo court system and the fielding of groundless hysterics as if all of Misplaced Pages depending on keeping contributing editors in line.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Transformer (spirit-being) and disambig

Just so you know, "belief system" is wording that I got directly from the linked article and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that language. I also don't really have a problem with "tradition", but if you want to dispute the accuracy of "belief system" then you should probably open a discussion on the linked article. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am bad translator

I am bad translator. Thanks.--Kmoksy (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This {Kmoksy is not K'omoks} is a humour. Ayeahjuthum (ʔayʔǰuθəm) is endonym for Mainland Comox (Homalco-Klahoose-Sliammon) {ɬəʔamɛn and ƛohos} --Kmoksy (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

By now you've seen my comments about that, lots of work to be done in that particular area, lately I've been doing things like List of Kwakwaka'wakw villages and its subarticles and similar lists for the Haida and others; will do one for the Tla'Amin and K'omoks at some point too. The Kwakwaka'wakw villages are well-documented by artist pages, and lots of pics available; not so for most of the others, other than Haida and some Nuxalk ones like Kimsquit. Tons of history yet to be done; name-games tire me but to me using what the people want is paramount vs. the {{systemic bias}} in many government and academic sources. And don't mind me correcting/teaching again, "This...is a humour" you meant "This....was a joke".Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Move requests

I see quite a few requests for page moves. I had processed quite a few, then I saw somewhere that there was some controversy about the requests. I left a note on my talk page indicating that i would not feel comfortable processing any more until I saw that the controversy had been resolved. You may have missed that note, so I am asking here. Can you point me to a resolution, if it has been resolved?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

TITLE has been resolved long ago, let's put it that way. There is nothing controversial about simple redirects; the TWODAB pages maybe but TWODAB pages shouldn't exist and were created by undiscussed moves of the standalone primarytopic people titles, all by the same person, citing a guideline that, after a certain point he authored himself, and before that cited MOS as if it says what he continues to contend in defiance of proven consensus that "the people are the primary topic" across 80+ recent RMs (more like 100+, especially when including five major ones last year)......for TWODAB and simple redirects to be done away with, those are all mandated by TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC and NCDAB; to me the matter is resolved, though stonewalling/filibustering to prevent bringing WP:NCL into line with policy and other guidelines (the disputed passage claims/ed that the people/language are the primarytopic; it is not resolved there because of an edit war to prevent changes he doesn't want, and it's "stuck" on his version now until the 26th. But it's a language guideline anyway; WP:NCET, which also has its issues but is more in line with what TITLE etc actually say, is the ethnic groups guideline. The controversy isn't over whether or not TITLE etc don't call for the removal of unneeded dabs, it's over the use of scripted language guideline to override, unilaterally, ethno article titles without consultation or without heed to policy; and absurdity and misrepresentation and edit warring abound...... Desist from any ones you feel controversial then, but I really don't think they are in terms of standing policy at TITLE/PRECISION/CONCISENESS and all the rest mentioned. Most undiscussed moves carried lines like "lang vs naming convention" or made allusions to the dabbed titles as being the most common form; even before he had moved thousands of them. The titles were stable for 7-9 years before that; and conformed to TITLE/etc which the moves did not; Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. I saw that there was a controversy, although I didn't memorize the location, so can't put my finger on it now. That was a couple weeks ago. When I saw them popping up again at CSD. I hoped that meant the controversy had been settled, and I wanted you to point me to the place where it was settled. Citing your view of policy wasn't responsive. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that G^ is for situations that are "non-controversial or consensual" and if you cannot point me tot he resolution of the discussion, then they are not eligible for G6.

I will start cleaning out the ones not yet processed. You can either go through the normal move request process, or get a clear resolution of the bulk issue, but they should not be tagged as G6 while there is some controversy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The controversy is a one-man controversy; if not for him, the offending passage in NCL, which can't override policy anyway, would have been resolved by now, as consensus there, other than him, is very very very clear; there is no "resolution" for TITLE etc, they were resolved long ago. Reverting undiscussed moves that created redirects to themselves, or spurious two-dab pages that shouldn't exist, is clearly already mandated by policy and the consensus behind it. I was criticized for fielding RMs and in the case of the redirects told that technical requests would take the load off the discussion boards. Can't win for losing around here; standalone titles were long-standing until messed with. There is no controversy on the policies in question; one person's obstinacy and wordgaming is not worth discussing further in terms of "resolution", because he does everything he can to prevent or ignore those resolutions; and did what he could to shut down RMs (and failed), complaining that there was no centralized discussion, when he never held one himself for all the moves he's tried to fight against and lost. Of the RMs I and others filed to correct these, over 90%, maybe 95%, affirmed TITLE and "the people are the primary topic"; the only ones that should go to RM are the ones where dab pages exist (beyond two items and a few three-item ones where all derive from the people/primarytopic name); Again, you can't win for losing around here, I try to use RMs and get criticized, I am now using technical requests and getting criticized and told to use RMs. Have a look at the date of creation of the articles vs the date when they were summarily moved without discussion, or with misquotes of policy/guidelines (before he got NCL amended to his liking he was making edit comments that MOS mandated adding "people", which is one of very many false statements he's made). How many RMs do I have t o link for you to demonstrate that "the people are the primary topic" and "redirects from the original title to an unneeded dab should be reverted"? I'm actually building a global list, with move-histories; somebody has to, since there's so many claims about what is and isn't the norm. Wiki-bureaucracy's inertia tolerated the unwarranted moves; and now it's coming back in the form of coming up with excuses not to correct them, or in your case field them back into RM where the same editor habitually uses confabulation and obfuscation and derision to shut things down. That's not controversy, that's inanity.Skookum1 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• case in point, there is no reason at all for a TWODAB page to exist when a hatnote could suffice; he will war and war and war over these if sent to RM, however. and has filed a 3RR ANI against me when it was his 3RR and I was only at 2RR....lies, misrepresentations, edit warring, and illogic are his tool kit; there are, as he puts it "thousands of articles at stake" in a CANVASS he made on WP:Languages trying to recruit support for his attempts to confound consensus by other editors at NCL trying to get that guideline to conform to policy and other guidelines; he even said "five thousand" at one point; he would know, he's the one who moved them in 2010-2011 from titles that had stood since 2002-2003. Controversy and obstinacy are not the same thing; he's warred against restorations of native endonym titles that he'd moved to linguistics-scholarship-driven titles, bitterly.....and lost. I see your own removals of things that are obviously G6 i.e. that are only redirects to the "FOO people" title, all of which were undiscussed and in contravention of policy and c.100 have been corrected by RMs....the controversy should be over, but as long as simple redirects to unnecessarily disambiguated titles are not welcome at RM, and not welcome at TR, then the systemic problems of the wikipedia bureacracy are only asking for more time to be wasted, because one rogue editor went on a tear three years ago and rejigged the world to his own liking; an AE is in the offing because of all this, and the only way to resolve the problems he created may be to discipline him officially; instead of coming down on me for trying to apply policy as directed by yet other admins than yourself. Harassment ANIs have taken place, direct insults and blatant misrepresentations of what others have said are rife; the "FOO people"="FOO" matter has been resolved; the controversy is about his opposition to further fixings of the problems he's created, and the guideline he authored himself. Geez, maybe I should have authored one myself huh? Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Get a clear resolution of the bulk issue" was tried, and the bulk RMs about that shut down as procedural because of unwritten opposition to bulk discussions; so I was told to file individual RMs, and have since been criticized for that too, even seeing those being described as "undiscussed moves"; those that were simple redirects back to themselves were all closed/moved..... The Alice-in-Blunderland world of illogical unreality that abounds around here has many offshoots; one is the confusion over the meaning of "FOO people", such that after those were changed in Africa, a whole bunch of ethno articles wound up in the "people who are FOO" category for the Bantu i.e. Category:Bantu people vs the main ethno category Category:Bantu. I've been moving those ethno titles into the proper category.....something that the name-mover doesn't care to do....nor anyone else it seems. Trying to restore order from wanton disarray has brought me under fire, and making me the target of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised, or addressing policy, is the name of the game. A bulk RfC on the redirects may convince you; but that RfC would be about what TITLE, PRIMARYTOPIC, NCDAB and more already say.Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Don't edit war over nominations for speedy deletion. Follow normal procedure. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ME edit war, you're the one edit warring. One more reversion and you're 3RR, but this will go, along with all your other b.s., to AE instead of an ANI like the last one you falsely claimed I was 3RR when you were. And the Bantu reversions are idiocy pure and simple; there is a Category:Bantu where ethno articles belong; your addition of "people" to "thousands of articles" has confused other editors about the use of "FOO people" categories. Your shamelessness about misrepresenting and NPA/AGF'ing other editors in the course of warring for reversions at NCP and NCL and beyond is documented and seems endless. When will you stop wasting time by opposing policy in advancing your own preferences and stop playing wordgames with what others have said in disputing you? It's not just me that you have done this to, and it's disruptive in the extreme, but you make a point of trying to implicate me as the problem and....it's boring and a waste of time. the AE will take some time as t here are hundreds of questionable and hostile/misleading/AGF reversions of yours that will be submitted. "Five thousand" perhaps, given the number of articles you know you moved without discussion and now demand discussion over so that you can obfuscate and derail the discussion. Your mistakes about K'omoks and Halkomelem prove to me that you don't know the subject matter you're screwing around with endlessly.Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you've not done anything about your inappropriate reverts, I am notifying ANI now. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you work at being boringly repetitive? Sometimes I wonder if you're actually a bot, with some logical circuits missing. The last two ANIs you went and wailed about things I hadn't even done but you had. Since you don't take rational part in discussions, as at NCL where your "walls of illogic" have shown your inability to admit you have done wrong, or even with Halkomelem been blitheringly mistaken and in error, and you continue to defend you own ideas/preferences as if they were academic fact ("languages and peoples are parallel primary topics", a claim you have yet to substantiate, and even when confronted with view stats, googles and more you don't acknowledge them to even once try and prove that claim, seeing you run to a discussion board in the hopes of getting me a spanking or, better yet, blocked so that I'm not around to show you wrong and stop me from cleaning up the mess you so wantonly made.....it's all really quite comical if not so obnoxious is its persistence and various non sequiturs.....I ignored your last two ANIs after pointing out they were groundless and will do the same with this one, wherever it is. I could care less. It seems you believe in wasting other people's times and have an inability to admit you're wrong, or even concede that, gasp, you might even change your mind.

The "walled garden of Kwami" is defended with edit wars, false accusations, claims that a guideline supports created TWODABS, when it says the opposite, and ranting about what a bad person I am.... until you get to ANI and say "well, Skookum1 would be a good editor and I don't want to see him blocked" with your finger stuck in you cheek as if you wished me well. You bore me. That 50% or more of my wiki-time in recent years has been consumed by battling your inanity and ongoing accusations and scorn is on record; your distortions and outright false renderings of what others have done or said is noxious. From hyphens/dashes in regional district titles to imposing archaic, disused names in the course of your rampage across ethno titles, to dozens of RMs you put forward your self-authored guideline as if it were policy instead of pure fiction, to 5000+ redirects with no other purpose than to add "people" to titles that don't need it, and in many cases should have something else, points up failings of intelligence and courtesy on your part that make going to ANI to rant about me only so much more hypocrisy and posturing. "Waaah, admins, Skookum1 is defying me again!!" Your spite and scorn towards me were evident in last year's St'at'imc RM, and seem to have only accelerated once you realized that my invocations of policy and guidelines that put the lie to your own guideline were winning. Go write some articles for a change, not just tweak unicodes and screw around with titles; you might start by fleshing out the "people" articles you say are not notable because they're only stubs; your own neglect of those is matched only by the gross errors you made in many....Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

category "Bantu people"

If you read the category, it is clearly intended to be for ethnic groups. Who are these individual "Bantu people" you think will be added to the category? If you wanted to move it to "Bantu peoples", that would be fine, but "Bantu" is too broad – that is for everything Bantu, not just the peoples. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So what the hell is Category:Bantu for? Nothing at all??? No, it's the primary ethno category like hundreds of others that do not have "people" in the title; "FOO people" is the normal convention for "people who are FOO" though you continue to try to obfuscate that. Your illogic is not worth discussing about further except with ARBCOM.Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ROTFL re your mistake on Skookum

• this wa comical, but your hostility and ongoing disruptiveness and accusatory nature are not.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I must not look at stuff like this while I am drinking tea.

I must not look at stuff like this while I am drinking tea.

I must not look at stuff like this while I am drinking tea... – Fayenatic London 07:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you didn't splatter your tea all over you keyboard..... ;-) Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bantu people

Per WP:CFD please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Category:Bantu people. Edit warring while there is a community discussion in progress that you haven't even commented on is unconstructive and demonstrates bad faith. HelenOnline 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh gee, yet more procedure from yet another edit war.....what you have advocated, and now CfD'd is at wide variance to established norms for main ethno cats. Does anybody know how to think anymore?Skookum1 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DABREDIR

Please read the guidelines before you use them as an excuse to edit-war. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been stated loud and clear on Talk:Kavango by a rational editor (unlike yourself) that there is NO language called "Kavango language" yet you continue to pretend as though there WAS. Your asinine removals of the only-two-dabs template also state loud and clear where you are coming from, that you don't give a s**t about guidelines and policies that conflict with your own personal preferences and "languages are as important as the people who speak them" b.s. Your creation of TWODABS pages, claiming "per TWODABS", and then the removal of the only-two-dabs templates also saying "per TWODABS", when TWODABS mandates the application of that template NOT its removal is typical of your inanity and persistent misrepresentations on behalf of your very strange agenda.

The edit wars are your doing in resisting the application of guidelines; so don't go throwing guidelines at me when you have persistently ignored and opposed TITLE, PRIMARYTOPIC, NCDAB and more......... you are a nuisance and seem to enjoy wasting other people's time with you ongoing opposition to anything that intrudes on the "walled garden of Kwami", to turn your own stupid phrase about BC back on you. You created TWODABS pages from redirects-to-primarytopics that, if they are controversial, it's because you are making them so; by implication you are behaving as if TITLE, PRIMARYTOPIC and all the rest of the guidelines that you don't address are illegitimate and controversial (to quote JorisV, "if you don't like the policy try and change it" though he wa idiotically pretending that NCL was a policy; the policy in my coining of his phrase is, of course, TITLE, which you endlessly have ignored or wishywashy'd away); You display rank contempt for those seeking to apply policy and consensus (not just me, but others such as the other very sane editors at the NCL debate you claim aren't making any sense when it is you who do not make sense, and indeed seem to have no idea whatsoever what it is). You bore me, go away. Your are an insult to common intelligence and your ongoing attempt to blame me for the edit wars you initiate against applications of existing, standing policy gets more and more ridiculous with each accusation you make against me in posturing about your own behaviour as if it were in line with policy which it is not. Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Sorry, but if no evidence has been presented, re. which is the primary topic, then you can't claim one way or the other. And since you're the one making the claims, you're the one who needs to present the evidence. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Mr B.S.er, YOU are the one who has to prove there is no primarytopic before adding a template saying there isn't one. the only-two-dabs template allows other editors to investigate that; your assertion that "language and peoples are parallel primary topics" has been proven over and over and over; only in rare cases e.g. Lomwe people vs Lomwe language do view stats show different; and in that case it's because you made the redirect point to the language. Your claims of expertise and "playing by the guidelines" are laughable since you always demand others disprove you without you ever even once presenting data to support your claim - which is utterly OR and not in one of those linguistics texts you think define reality; you bore me, go away.....if you were so principled about guidelines and policy you wouldn't have ignored TITLE, PRIMARYTOPIC etc and long-standing titles/consensus in your swashbuckling all over wiki-hell's half acre adding "people" to titles that don't need it. Is it because you took so much energy to do all those thousands of changes that you are now resisting any effort to undo them? Seems likely that's the reason; WP:OWNer ship of titles you don't even work on, to the point that many remain the stubs you have said aren't important vs the languages because nobody (including you) has sought to expand/improve them. YOU ARE A BORE a CFWT.Skookum1 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to notify you that there's a discussion about your edits at WP:ANI. My suggestion is to list one (or all in one suggestion) at WP:RFD and have at it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Last time I tried a bulk RM it was shot down on procedural grounds...then individual RMs have since been criticized as being a "frenzy of moves" and even claimed to be undiscussed even though closed/moved as nominated....... you can't win for losing....the game here is attrition and exhaustion and, failing that, provoking edit wars so as to wind up at ANI where behavioural guidelines are the major issue obsessed therein, instead of actually addressing the policies and content/title guidelines which should be of primary interest/debate. I tried to use db-move to deal with things clearly mandated by policy, i.e. TITLE, PRIMARYTOPIC and more, and saw the templates removed as "controversial" and since then those redirects have been turned into TWODABS and the very meaning and purpose of TWODAB(S) been touted as mandating the removal of the template saying that no primary topic isn't established; Kwami doesn't want a primary topic established so his own claims that languages are "equally primary" go unchallenged......edit warring as provocation he's done lots of, including on and it's all a tiresome bore.Skookum1 (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, just a suggestion. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Skookum: please Revert Yorke Island Bc Canada BACK to Yorke Island Coastal Fort. You have undone five years worth of reference work and made thousands of dollars of signs on the island ineffective. Thanks for that alot!!!! Otherwise, I will merely apply to have the article deleted and will re-write. Seriously, sometimes things dont need to be edited. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.52.226 (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yorke Island Coastal Fort Edit

Please revert Yorke Island Canada to Yorke Island Coastal Fort. Many signs on the island refer to the YICF, not the new edit. This is waste of thousands of dollars. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.52.226 (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

there is no need for reversion, and signs on the island are not relevant to Misplaced Pages titles; islands are always named islands, with rare exceptions (none that I can recall just now); Yorke Island Coastal Fort redirects to the island article, and all citations that were on it are still there. In the course of working on that I discovered the clutter on Barrett Point and similar, now all on List of World War II-era defences of the British Columbia Coast. The thousands of dollars spent on signs by whomever has no relevance in islands' names, whether on Misplaced Pages or off it.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

Just yesterday I warned you to dial the heat down in your conflict with Kwamikagami. Then you go off and do this . Again, flooding a discussion with irrelevant complaints about unrelated cases, casting aspersions against the personality of your opponent and even against a whole branch of science, mixing everything up with bickering over irrelevant typographic details, and, while doing all that, not even bothering to get the other editor's position right.*

I am sure if you take a step back and reflect for a moment, you are too intelligent not to understand why this is not a constructive way of dealing with your issues with that editor. But if I really have to spell this out for you, I will: from now on, you are on a strict no-personalizing-of-disputes parole. When you have to engage in a dispute involving Kwami, you are strictly prohibited from making any remarks regarding the other editor's past or present conduct, and any remark drawing connections to prior conflicts unless they are strictly needed in order to make your argument on the content. You are to remain matter-of-fact and firmly focussed on the content, not the contributor at all times.

I hate it that it has to come to this, but this is a formal and final block warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

* For the record: Kwami wasn't asserting the existence of a "Kavango language", as you claimed, but the existence of a group of "Kavango languages", which is indeed sourced as such as a subgroup in the language article in question, and in fact he had himself made that point in an edit correcting yours , after you had apparently inserted the claim there was a "Kavango language" .