| Revision as of 13:30, 28 November 2014 editSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 edits →RAND: reply to threat of block from harassing troll, who is conducting and launched the edit war. NB I have NOT reverted as he claims, if you examine the history of the article in question. Pot kettle black← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:20, 28 November 2014 edit undoLegacypac (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers158,031 edits →RAND: edit warring warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] (]) 12:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] (]) 12:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I didn't "revert", I restored the information YOU are edit-warring about, but with different wordings so as to not be faced with the 3RR brinksmanship your friend LP engaged in and presumed to take to the edit-warring noticeboard, to no great effect. ''I have not reverted anything'', I have ''restored'' context that YOU are edit warring over and seeking to '''''censor'''''. {{ping|User:Callanec}} sorry to drag you into this but given this nonsensical block-warning from someone actively reverting and edit warring on a highly POV matter, I'm tired of the game, which is all too reminiscent of the gamesmanship of a certain K-named editor (I think you will remember, if not email me) and what is going on here is ] according to a recognizable pattern. '''''This is harassment from a troll'''''. The dispute here is entirely "manufactured" and groundless; the post from ITFL is a ''threat'' to take action against me to silence me so I'm not in the way of the "lie machine" that has sought to purge the Ottawa shootings article of content not favourable to the "official line"; the technical dispute matter this troll is edit-warring over is whether or not the ] should be identified as to its highly political/military and nature/origins; he says no, other editors say yes, and he keeps reverting it whenever added and now presumes to warn ''ME'' for edit-warring and threaten me with a block. The larger issue of "war on terror" articles on Misplaced Pages being subjected to disruptive edits, procedural gambits, mis-use of cites to forge SYNTH and OR content goes beyond this individual but it is ''very noticeable'' in relation to the two articles on recent events in Canada. I'm under no illusions as to the "agenda" of those doing it; one thing is certain, they all engage in teh kind of procedural threat and imperious/pompous warnings as you will see above in this section. Note two ANIs involving ] currently underway, one of which was launched against me by him, the other launched against him by others for ongoing misconduct and gamesmanship. My "assailant" above is cut from the same cloth and not incidentally from the same "faction" whose agenda is simple; neutralize information they don't like, claiming NPOV or some obtuse mis-use of guidelines/policies to justify their activities, or go for the throat and seek to have people in their way blocked, as is being done here. I'm a valuable editor here as you know, prolific on a host of subjects, and don't deserve the imperious bullshit above or threats from someone who has cast himself in the role of censor. {{ping|User:Floydian}}, {{ping|User:Carrite}} {{ping|User:Bearcat}}; threats from someone wanting to purge an article of information very relevant to the context of an important article are more than questionable. Misplaced Pages needs a purge, already, in my very honest opinion....of "information managers" and "terror pushers" who deride and degrade all who stand in their way. This whole affair, the "terror faction" pushing their agenda on various pages and harassing editors who are trying to maintain balance and honest coverage, is almost becoming media-worthy in its own right, to be quite blunt....NPOV means "neutrality", but it is being used to mean "neutering" and "neutralizing" by those seeking to "information manage" content on Misplaced Pages and attack those who dare to differ with them, ''ad nauseam''. This should really go up to ARBCOM - whether or not Misplaced Pages should allow itself to be used by propaganda agendas instead of fairly covering and representing sourced material properly; what's going on here is censorship pure and simple, now hiding itself behind threats of DR and threatening me with a block. '''It's not me who should be blocked''. ] (]) 13:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | :I didn't "revert", I restored the information YOU are edit-warring about, but with different wordings so as to not be faced with the 3RR brinksmanship your friend LP engaged in and presumed to take to the edit-warring noticeboard, to no great effect. ''I have not reverted anything'', I have ''restored'' context that YOU are edit warring over and seeking to '''''censor'''''. {{ping|User:Callanec}} sorry to drag you into this but given this nonsensical block-warning from someone actively reverting and edit warring on a highly POV matter, I'm tired of the game, which is all too reminiscent of the gamesmanship of a certain K-named editor (I think you will remember, if not email me) and what is going on here is ] according to a recognizable pattern. '''''This is harassment from a troll'''''. The dispute here is entirely "manufactured" and groundless; the post from ITFL is a ''threat'' to take action against me to silence me so I'm not in the way of the "lie machine" that has sought to purge the Ottawa shootings article of content not favourable to the "official line"; the technical dispute matter this troll is edit-warring over is whether or not the ] should be identified as to its highly political/military and nature/origins; he says no, other editors say yes, and he keeps reverting it whenever added and now presumes to warn ''ME'' for edit-warring and threaten me with a block. The larger issue of "war on terror" articles on Misplaced Pages being subjected to disruptive edits, procedural gambits, mis-use of cites to forge SYNTH and OR content goes beyond this individual but it is ''very noticeable'' in relation to the two articles on recent events in Canada. I'm under no illusions as to the "agenda" of those doing it; one thing is certain, they all engage in teh kind of procedural threat and imperious/pompous warnings as you will see above in this section. Note two ANIs involving ] currently underway, one of which was launched against me by him, the other launched against him by others for ongoing misconduct and gamesmanship. My "assailant" above is cut from the same cloth and not incidentally from the same "faction" whose agenda is simple; neutralize information they don't like, claiming NPOV or some obtuse mis-use of guidelines/policies to justify their activities, or go for the throat and seek to have people in their way blocked, as is being done here. I'm a valuable editor here as you know, prolific on a host of subjects, and don't deserve the imperious bullshit above or threats from someone who has cast himself in the role of censor. {{ping|User:Floydian}}, {{ping|User:Carrite}} {{ping|User:Bearcat}}; threats from someone wanting to purge an article of information very relevant to the context of an important article are more than questionable. Misplaced Pages needs a purge, already, in my very honest opinion....of "information managers" and "terror pushers" who deride and degrade all who stand in their way. This whole affair, the "terror faction" pushing their agenda on various pages and harassing editors who are trying to maintain balance and honest coverage, is almost becoming media-worthy in its own right, to be quite blunt....NPOV means "neutrality", but it is being used to mean "neutering" and "neutralizing" by those seeking to "information manage" content on Misplaced Pages and attack those who dare to differ with them, ''ad nauseam''. This should really go up to ARBCOM - whether or not Misplaced Pages should allow itself to be used by propaganda agendas instead of fairly covering and representing sourced material properly; what's going on here is censorship pure and simple, now hiding itself behind threats of DR and threatening me with a block. '''It's not me who should be blocked''. ] (]) 13:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::Actually ] 's count is quite correct. Please knock of the combative behavior and edit warring. ] (]) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | == A barnstar for you! == | ||
Revision as of 18:20, 28 November 2014
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Please
I don't know what's going on, but PLEASE let me not start a fourth line on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to lie, you do strike me as a little angry at times for reasons I don't understand (and I say this as as a male who when pushed can be very aggressive), but aside from some minor referencing formatting issues, I've never thought you're anything other than a valuable editor. You've done a tremendous amount of good work on British Columbia topics and if you're serious about retiring long term I'll really miss you. I understand how annoying wiki can be at times so hopefully things will blow over but it might take time. We can't afford to lose productive editors like you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be sorry to see you go too. I've been aware of, and appreciate, your many contributions to Canadian topics. Meters (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Alice Arm
Thanks for tweaking those coordinates Skookum, much appreciated. Not sure why they were originally targeting Vancouver Island. --kelapstick 11:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nor I...may have been an old mistake on BC Names, not sure; I often let them know of errors...I think it was me who started Alice Arm and used what they had. When looking for coords for BC articles, I always go to BC Names/ for outside-of-BC articles then CGNDB. Too many out there are "gns-wiki" or the like, which is OR. In the case of Alice Arm, as noted in the comments, the geolocation of the arm is not the same as that of the community, but the article is primarily that of the arm, so....used those coords rather than the community's; in future they may have non-rounded coords for the community;but BC Names is only one overworked person with filing cabinets full of notes yet to be transferred to digital. BC Basemap is another place to go when the BC Names coords are rounded, as they often are.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I more or less just took the general location of the body of water (I don't think it was labeled on Google Maps) and added it in. I will keep the spots to look you mention in mind. Thanks, --kelapstick 23:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
HazelAB (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Boya Lake and Charlie Boya
Hey Skookum
The Boya Lake Provincial Park article says the park (and I guess the lake) are named after an "Indian from the area," which you took from BC Geographical Names db. I just changed Indian to First Nations because I can't figure out his specific community. Any google searches for "Boya Lake" and "Charlie Boya" yield that same BCGN quote. I found, however, a Kwadacha guy named Charlie Boya had a cabin way up near Terminus Mountain, not too far from Boya Lake, both of which are between Kwadacha/Fort Ware and Lower Post. Do you think he's the Boya the lake was named after? Any other sources you might consult? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- In that area, he'd most likely be Kwadacha (a branch of the Kaska Dena. A local history, if you can find one, might have something; or ask the Kwadacha Band or one of the Liard River bands maybe; if you're in Vancouver, MacLeod's Books has a good range of local histories from all over BC, and it's amazing how much can be out there about obscure corners of the province (in this case a really remote one overall huh?). Doubtless the same guy, given the small population in that region, though could be father and son or whatever of course.Skookum1 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Adam Matthew
Hi Skookum1, Are you still interested in getting access to the Adam Matthew database? Your application was approved and an email message with a link to the signup form went out on October 1. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Internet here in Cambodia, and/or power supply, is intermittent; just haven't gotten to it though did see it, thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Good to see you back, hope you resume with your Canadian articles! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lejac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Fraser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Synonyms
Hello Skookum
Sinixt: I was thinking about Arrow Lakes Band and Arrow Lakes Tribe when I referred back to Arrow Lakes. There was method to my madness. Peter Horn User talk 01:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Make that Arrow Lakes tribe. Peter Horn User talk 01:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note my edit comment about "tribe" being unsuitable due to its other connotations in both countries; "the Lake people", "the Lakes" etc.... you do see "Arrow Lakes Band" in some sources...referring to when they still were a band (before Indian Affairs declared them "extinct"). As you know by now I adjusted "Arrow Lakes tribe" to "Arrow Lakes people" and took out the Band item altogether, as they do not have a constituted band in Canada, and though incorporated within the Colvilles they are not a separate government either. The people/band/tribe usages were debated long ago and all these issues observed...but since then various title-meddlers without any regional context and awareness have screwed a lot of that early consensus around totally....more about which I'll leave aside for now, except that the muddle of "tribe" and such has often been imposed by editors from afar who don't "get" the realities of the usages.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your exposition is very enlightening indeed. As for the band being declared "extinct", well the band got screwed. What else is new. So the people "exist" only in the Colvilles. Peter Horn User talk 15:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- "extinct" in Canadian government terms means that the band (i.e. the designated government created by the Indian Act, not the group of people as such, were "decommissioned"...partly because there were none living in BC full-time, other than maybe one or two; I don't think there were even Indian Reserves set aside for them, though I'm not sure about that. It doesn't mean that they were ethnographically extinct, only in a sense of legally constituted. One group that has never had official recognition are the Hwlitsum (Lamalchi) on Vancouver Island, who though connected and part of the larger "Cowichan" grouping (of which the Cowichan Tribes band government is only a part), they succesfully fought the Royal Navy (humiliated them is more like it) and part of the revenge was to give their lands to other bands, and not allow them status; Hwlitsum First Nation has some links about progress towards recognition. Think I spelled that right anyways; I know them as the Lamalcha.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Sinixt are considered by the Syilx (Okanagan) to be a subgroup of their own; and in their capacity as a component people of the Colville Tribes, are "represented" in the Okanagan Nation Alliance tribal council, which is bi-national; the Sinixt maintain they are a separate people...as far as Canada goes, that is; in the US they are integrated through government and marriage with the Okanogan of the Colville Federated Tribes. They also have a bitter long-standing rivalry /resentment with the Ktunaxa; one Sinixt editor here was going through all articles with Ktunaxa names and changing them to Sinixt, and negating Ktunaxa presence in the area concerned; I got called a racist for daring to police that and keep the ethno-vandalism under control; there's more about this kind of thing external to Misplaced Pages I won't go into.... suffice to say that "loaded language" is common on native topics, on "both" sides (or "all sides", since often it's not just native/non-native that's the dialectic; more like trialectic or quadrilectic at times).Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- "extinct" in Canadian government terms means that the band (i.e. the designated government created by the Indian Act, not the group of people as such, were "decommissioned"...partly because there were none living in BC full-time, other than maybe one or two; I don't think there were even Indian Reserves set aside for them, though I'm not sure about that. It doesn't mean that they were ethnographically extinct, only in a sense of legally constituted. One group that has never had official recognition are the Hwlitsum (Lamalchi) on Vancouver Island, who though connected and part of the larger "Cowichan" grouping (of which the Cowichan Tribes band government is only a part), they succesfully fought the Royal Navy (humiliated them is more like it) and part of the revenge was to give their lands to other bands, and not allow them status; Hwlitsum First Nation has some links about progress towards recognition. Think I spelled that right anyways; I know them as the Lamalcha.Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your exposition is very enlightening indeed. As for the band being declared "extinct", well the band got screwed. What else is new. So the people "exist" only in the Colvilles. Peter Horn User talk 15:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note my edit comment about "tribe" being unsuitable due to its other connotations in both countries; "the Lake people", "the Lakes" etc.... you do see "Arrow Lakes Band" in some sources...referring to when they still were a band (before Indian Affairs declared them "extinct"). As you know by now I adjusted "Arrow Lakes tribe" to "Arrow Lakes people" and took out the Band item altogether, as they do not have a constituted band in Canada, and though incorporated within the Colvilles they are not a separate government either. The people/band/tribe usages were debated long ago and all these issues observed...but since then various title-meddlers without any regional context and awareness have screwed a lot of that early consensus around totally....more about which I'll leave aside for now, except that the muddle of "tribe" and such has often been imposed by editors from afar who don't "get" the realities of the usages.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '' in 1996, and was an associate producer what CFMT-TV (now Omni) in Toronto in 1999 and 2000.<ref>[http://www.voiceonline.com/about-our-editor/ ''About Our Editor, Indo-Canadian Voice''</ref> Also
- the Diaspora: The Experience of Orthodox Sikhs in Vancouver." '']'' 4, No. 1 2008), p. 17-32.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
About your About.com question
Questions about specific sources (such as your original question regarding About.com) should be raised at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This is mentioned in banners at the top of the talk page, in the FAQ, and in banners that show up when you edit the talk page. This isn't meant to be unhelpful; you'll get more uninvolved editors looking at your question at the actual noticeboard, rather than the general guideline page. The Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources page is for discussing changes to the Identifying reliable sources guideline, not for individual source questions. Thanks.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK. For as long as I've been around here, the wiki-bureaucracy is a maze.Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"that merge discussion"
I pointed more than once that both of you violated wikipedia rules in the discussion about such trivial thing like Foo in BC or Foo in Vancouver. Although I agree that WhisperToMe should be sanctioned because they are admin, your comments about them are such blatant violation of WP:NPA that I see them as your kamikaze attempt to provoke them and get both of you sanctioned. I have never reported anybody at AN, at least until now, and I don't have intention to do so in future, at least for now. If there is anything I hate more than WP:NPA at wikipedia, it is WP:DIVA behavior. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- DIVA huh? More like "expert in his area(s). The separation in question was not "trivial" (though the illogics being used to justify it most certainly are), it was provocative and arrogant and I'm not the one committing SYNTH/OR with every post, never mind now WEASEL also. Legitimate frustration with someone's ongoing AGF is what it is; calling every criticism "NPA" andignoring AGF/OR/SYNTH et al.... oh well....so the merge discussion, it's derailed.....so bound for a dual RM to try and enlist some COMMONSENSE at the RM board.....wherre it's sadly in short supply.Skookum1 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That AN discussion
I've no idea why it was there, but should it be copied/linked/whatever to the two places you mention? There seems to be enough useful stuff there to make it worth while doing that. I think most people outside the US and Canada haven't a clue about any of this. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Too many. And it's made a pain in various RMs and such where votes and closes were made by misinformed/half-informed people. Also have similar going on re Indo-Canadians vs "Asian Indians" with some guy from Texas lately. The idea of a styleguide/conventions guide for IPNA related articles is "still out there", but got dissed by certain newer IPNA editors who weren't around when the "map" of the "system" was derived; I made a draft in a sandbox somewhere about what I call "the old consensus", which got swept aside by BOLD moves and retrenched by some of those "bad closes" I'm referring to, plus retrenched in certain "lone-wolf guidelines" (WP:NCL especially but nm), though I did get a lot of RMs passed and the consensus reaffirmed; it's still shoved aside in various arenas, but piecemeal decision-making by people who don't know the background, or "get" current language/name expectations, means there's still some issues out there, as I'd indicated re the Duwamish.Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- In Canada, terminology is very important because of hte layers of political and constitutional meaning, and the peoples' own preferences; which get swept aside by so-called "reliable sources" invoking older usages e.g. see Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 - the follow-up comments; it should be Denesuline if the "old consensus" had been respected instead of swept aside.Skookum1 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Mountain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Harper in a closet
Harper was not in the closet for the whole time of the shootings. So it is not factually correct. And the closet was in the caucus room anyway. So it is a bit of a misrepresentation, and I don't think it is in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. And it would be too prominent to mention that minor aspect. What could go in the caption, as it is in the reactions section, is how he labelled it a terrorist attack. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was in a cited piece, and all reporting I've seen said that he was hid in the closet (passive voice might work better for you); your suggestion is highly POV and I would oppose it, all I did was correct the incorrect caption according to what I've read and seen cited. If you add in the reactions section how he labelled it a terrorist attack, there is more to be added about that, including criticisms of him and his agenda and some commentary about jumping the gun out there too (meaning jumping the gun in the tweet-fest and extrapolations thereof that went on; you have seen those summaries, haven't you? What's your timeline and cite to state "he was not in the closet for the whole of the shootings"....I've seen no such statement anywhere, only that he was put in when shooting broke out, and was ushered out once the shooting was over.....cite please.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm trying to take the POV out of it. You yourself said it looks like POV. Well, I agree with you. If you say shootings, then the time period includes the shooting at the war memorial. He hid in the closet while there was shooting outside the caucus room. I doubt Harper was aware of the war memorial shooting at all. Also I noticed that someone had changed it to his security detail put him in the closet. His detail was not present, the Conservative caucus did not even let them in at first. Alaney2k (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Big difference between looking POV, but it's not POV if it's a fact. And it is; if "during the shootings" is there, that can be reworded; "once teh shooting began in the Centre Block", then. But what is a plug-photo for Harper doing on that page anyway? It's election season, he's not hte primary topic of the article or even one of teh players in the events....Kevin Vickers should be on the article, if he's not already; I can't see any reason to have any politician on the article; the way that caption read was a bit of advertising/poli-spam to me.....I say take it out entirely; I've seen /edited countless articles with "Harper plugs" over the years, about him cutting some ribbon or being there for some event, as if it were notable and not just political stumping.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- If we can, I'd like pics of Zehaf-Bibeau, Cirillo and Vickers, as well as Harper. The problem you mention is prominence. If all pictures were available, then it would not be an issue. Alaney2k (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- If Harper's there other political leaders have to be, then; sure he's "led the debate " but for balance Mulcair, saying the opposite, should be there; the only ones that really belong on there are ZB, Cirillo and Vickers....including Harper only would not be balanced.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- If we can, I'd like pics of Zehaf-Bibeau, Cirillo and Vickers, as well as Harper. The problem you mention is prominence. If all pictures were available, then it would not be an issue. Alaney2k (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Big difference between looking POV, but it's not POV if it's a fact. And it is; if "during the shootings" is there, that can be reworded; "once teh shooting began in the Centre Block", then. But what is a plug-photo for Harper doing on that page anyway? It's election season, he's not hte primary topic of the article or even one of teh players in the events....Kevin Vickers should be on the article, if he's not already; I can't see any reason to have any politician on the article; the way that caption read was a bit of advertising/poli-spam to me.....I say take it out entirely; I've seen /edited countless articles with "Harper plugs" over the years, about him cutting some ribbon or being there for some event, as if it were notable and not just political stumping.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm trying to take the POV out of it. You yourself said it looks like POV. Well, I agree with you. If you say shootings, then the time period includes the shooting at the war memorial. He hid in the closet while there was shooting outside the caucus room. I doubt Harper was aware of the war memorial shooting at all. Also I noticed that someone had changed it to his security detail put him in the closet. His detail was not present, the Conservative caucus did not even let them in at first. Alaney2k (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikiprojects re native/indigenous talkpages
Will do. I haven't come across too many yet - maybe three or four total - but I'll add it there when I see 'em. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have added it to four of those. The fifth I had already added it to. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oregon boundary dispute may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- extending south into the Strait of Georgia from the south side of the Fraser River's estuary) is an ] of the United States.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Issues regarding a few BC provincial parks
While updating the BC provincial parks articles, I ran into a problem with Sudeten Provincial Park. It doesn't appear to have an entry in BCGNIS (see this search result; other parks may not have info, but at least they have entries). I suspect, given transfer of ownership to a municipal body, that it should no longer be listed at its current name.
I'm also unsure about Simson Provincial Park, as BCGNIS does not contain an entry for it, but does have an entry for "Simson Marine Park". I've added this as the BCGNIS entry for the article, but if it's wrong, could you remove it. Ditto for Sabine Channel Provincial Park.
If you get a chance, could you check these out. Thanks. Mindmatrix 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sudeten Park I don't know the story of other than it exists per this information which I used to improve the Tomslake page. Tomslake is not a municipality, the park might be administered by the Peace River Regional District and maybe is listed on their website alongside other regional parks; or it could be maintained by a legacy from descendants of the Sudeten pioneers the monument is for.
- "Simson Marine Provincial Park" would be the same as "Simson Provincial Park", likewise BC Names does have "Sabine Channel Marine Provincial Park" while BC Parks has "Sabine Channel Provincial Park" and also Simson Provincial Park. I'll take it up with BC Names next time I write her about why it's missing; she's overwhelmed with work/backlog so it may be an error of omission. Why the names don't match is a mystery of inter-ministry politics no doubt.....not the first time one arm of the government doesn't know or care what another one is doing. I've been sticking with the BC Names "FOO Marine Provincial Park" title and have moved some accordingly - and just moved both Simson and Sabine Channel to the "Marine Provincial Park" title since there was no redirect in the way. Have you tried these on CGNDB btw?
- There's a few parks I came across in my own recent updating that were no longer provincial parks and now "local government"...not always clear if it's to an RD or a municipality, but when outside a municipality my guess, or the necessary conclusion, is that they are now regional parks, when not city or town parks. Sometimes RD and muni websites list their parks, often not; for Cascade Falls Regional Park, which was created under Dewdney-Alouette Regional District governance and is now run by the Fraser Valley Regional District, the cite I've found though haven't yet used (busy) is from a heritage site of the Mission Museum and Community Archives; the falls isn't in Mission District though the MCA site includes "greater Mission" (areas to the east as far as Lake Errock). Regional parks there's tons of that don't have wiki articles, though some do (Kanaka Creek Regional Park I think is already there) and many are quite major in local prominence/role. Whether a category for "regional or municipal parks that were formerly provincial parks" is warranted remains to be seen....there's quite a few of them, actually.
- btw when searching BC Names be advised that the percentage symbol /%/ is the "wild card" for searches.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re the Sudeten Park, I just looked at the PRRD regional parks, it's not one of theirs. I'll write the Peace River Country tourism site and see what they might know about it. I'm not aware of Tomslake being in a municipality but it might be (I don't know that part of the province well). Re regional parks and regional district-operated/affiliated community facilities, those should all ultimatley be on regional district pages and if there's not already Category:Regional parks in British Columbia could use creating; only some will be worth having subcats-by-RD for e.g. GVRD, Capital and certain others which have lots of regional parks.Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into those. I was going to move the articles too, but thought there might be two independent but associated areas. I also figured the now-municipal park was dropped as a provincial park. As an aside, I'll be finishing off the category in the next day or two - I have about 60 articles to re-cat for years of establishment. I'll do some minor cleanup as I go, but not much more than that. Mindmatrix 00:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dealing with personal attacks. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
RAND
It's best if we discuss your revert here before anything gets out of hand. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I included information on who backs RAND, what RAND is, because on an article already struggling with government agenda/propaganda vs media/public opinion/sentiment, RAND's nature is highly relevant to the quality of the comment being made..... that paper in fact is teh genesis of applying those terms to the "perps" at Ottawa and SJsR. It's also from a blog (Daily Beast not being a newspaper) so that opens the field for "declarations" of who's behind it. This is a Candaian article, RAND is a foreign body, that opinions circulated and supproted by people associated with them have a particular military-derived POV/context can not be omitted without deception/misdirection = POV.Skookum1 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I did NOT "revert", I resinserted a more condensed version of what you elided (wrongfully IMO).Skookum1 (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to have a proper discussion about this, then stop reinstating your edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yessir, nossir, FU sir. I'm not your boy, but you clearly are from the crowd that likes giving orders. If you want to be a proper Wikipedian, stop your POV deletions/censorship. I see you as an "information manager" out to sanitize the complete truth and replace it with neutered (not neutral) hobble gobble, and you're not the first "terror advocate" out to protect the "official line". Changing "said" to "suggested" was rank OR /editorializing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sanitizing anything, but I understand why you would write that because you are obsessed with pushing the "mental illness" line when it comes to the shootings. There's way more things I could have done if I completely believed in the official line, like citing more sources that supports that narrative or inserting a criticism of what your idol, Glenn Greenwald, wrote. Inthefastlane (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not that your criticisms matter s**t to me, but "pushing the mental illness line" (38% of Canadians think these were mental health incidents, 36% say "terror") and presuming to say that Greenwald is my "idol" (that's one of the first articles I've ever read by him) shows me what a low-life you are and out to attack the messenger. That article was a rank war-on-terror-Tory screed until balance was brought in by rendering other views than the government, the police, and that of he US "terror establishment". Removing the POV context of the nature of the RAND Corporation WAS "sanitizing the article of associations that apparently you don't want your pet propaganda think thank/organ to have to admit to. Your agenda is clear; mine is the complete and whole truth; yours is the edited and controlled not-really-truth.Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- What are you getting wet for? Nearly all of your edits on the page have been pushing the mental illness narrative and you've made multiple edits giving Greenwald the royal treatment by insisting that he be described as a putlizer-prize winning so don't give me this horseshit about how I am attack you. Like I said, there's way more things I could have done if i actually believed in the "official line." Also, you need to drop the nauseating, broken record sermonizing about how you know the complete and whole truth and I don't; there is no "truth" when it comes to complicated events like this, there are only interpretations of facts, and if what you said about what narrative Canadians believe about the shootings is true, then it stands to reason that your version of what happened is not a complete and truthful interpretation of the facts of the events. You keep throwing the accusation that removing the nature of RAND is POV like an infant; how about you argue, first, how the USG (with which RAND is affiliated) is even connected to this shooting? Inthefastlane (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not that your criticisms matter s**t to me, but "pushing the mental illness line" (38% of Canadians think these were mental health incidents, 36% say "terror") and presuming to say that Greenwald is my "idol" (that's one of the first articles I've ever read by him) shows me what a low-life you are and out to attack the messenger. That article was a rank war-on-terror-Tory screed until balance was brought in by rendering other views than the government, the police, and that of he US "terror establishment". Removing the POV context of the nature of the RAND Corporation WAS "sanitizing the article of associations that apparently you don't want your pet propaganda think thank/organ to have to admit to. Your agenda is clear; mine is the complete and whole truth; yours is the edited and controlled not-really-truth.Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sanitizing anything, but I understand why you would write that because you are obsessed with pushing the "mental illness" line when it comes to the shootings. There's way more things I could have done if I completely believed in the official line, like citing more sources that supports that narrative or inserting a criticism of what your idol, Glenn Greenwald, wrote. Inthefastlane (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yessir, nossir, FU sir. I'm not your boy, but you clearly are from the crowd that likes giving orders. If you want to be a proper Wikipedian, stop your POV deletions/censorship. I see you as an "information manager" out to sanitize the complete truth and replace it with neutered (not neutral) hobble gobble, and you're not the first "terror advocate" out to protect the "official line". Changing "said" to "suggested" was rank OR /editorializing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to have a proper discussion about this, then stop reinstating your edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I did NOT "revert", I resinserted a more condensed version of what you elided (wrongfully IMO).Skookum1 (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Go shove it and stop posting your bitching on my page, you're boring. The propaganda machine of the War on Terror is very much connected to how the shooting has been portrayed in US media and blogs; and calling me an "infant" for insisting that your POV removal of the military connection is not just NPA it's asinine, and your bitch about Greenwald "being given the royal treatment" endorses my view/interpretation that you are part of that propaganda machine, such derision is too-common fare and overblown rightist hype. The mental health theme is a main current in Canadian sources, if not in the US (excepting Greenwald and others like him) so don't bitch about me "pushing" it, it was absent from the article and all I did was add balance. Not cut things out, other than conflated abuses of sources like a certain other "terror fanatic" has been doing repeatedly.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see I'm not the only one who thinks the RAND Corporation's nature should be in the article. And as for calling that paragraph "OR" in your one "revision" of it, that whole passage was put into the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu article by another "terror propagandist" who tried deleting the Glenn Greenwald comments as being "fringe", which Greenwald is anything but; I only copied it over to this article, the wording was his not mine.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Inthefastlane (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't "revert", I restored the information YOU are edit-warring about, but with different wordings so as to not be faced with the 3RR brinksmanship your friend LP engaged in and presumed to take to the edit-warring noticeboard, to no great effect. I have not reverted anything, I have restored context that YOU are edit warring over and seeking to censor. @Callanec: sorry to drag you into this but given this nonsensical block-warning from someone actively reverting and edit warring on a highly POV matter, I'm tired of the game, which is all too reminiscent of the gamesmanship of a certain K-named editor (I think you will remember, if not email me) and what is going on here is WP:Gaming the encyclopedia according to a recognizable pattern. This is harassment from a troll. The dispute here is entirely "manufactured" and groundless; the post from ITFL is a threat to take action against me to silence me so I'm not in the way of the "lie machine" that has sought to purge the Ottawa shootings article of content not favourable to the "official line"; the technical dispute matter this troll is edit-warring over is whether or not the Rand Corporation should be identified as to its highly political/military and nature/origins; he says no, other editors say yes, and he keeps reverting it whenever added and now presumes to warn ME for edit-warring and threaten me with a block. The larger issue of "war on terror" articles on Misplaced Pages being subjected to disruptive edits, procedural gambits, mis-use of cites to forge SYNTH and OR content goes beyond this individual but it is very noticeable in relation to the two articles on recent events in Canada. I'm under no illusions as to the "agenda" of those doing it; one thing is certain, they all engage in teh kind of procedural threat and imperious/pompous warnings as you will see above in this section. Note two ANIs involving User:Legacypac currently underway, one of which was launched against me by him, the other launched against him by others for ongoing misconduct and gamesmanship. My "assailant" above is cut from the same cloth and not incidentally from the same "faction" whose agenda is simple; neutralize information they don't like, claiming NPOV or some obtuse mis-use of guidelines/policies to justify their activities, or go for the throat and seek to have people in their way blocked, as is being done here. I'm a valuable editor here as you know, prolific on a host of subjects, and don't deserve the imperious bullshit above or threats from someone who has cast himself in the role of censor. @Floydian:, @Carrite: @Bearcat:; threats from someone wanting to purge an article of information very relevant to the context of an important article are more than questionable. Misplaced Pages needs a purge, already, in my very honest opinion....of "information managers" and "terror pushers" who deride and degrade all who stand in their way. This whole affair, the "terror faction" pushing their agenda on various pages and harassing editors who are trying to maintain balance and honest coverage, is almost becoming media-worthy in its own right, to be quite blunt....NPOV means "neutrality", but it is being used to mean "neutering" and "neutralizing" by those seeking to "information manage" content on Misplaced Pages and attack those who dare to differ with them, ad nauseam. This should really go up to ARBCOM - whether or not Misplaced Pages should allow itself to be used by propaganda agendas instead of fairly covering and representing sourced material properly; what's going on here is censorship pure and simple, now hiding itself behind threats of DR and threatening me with a block. 'It's not me who should be blocked. Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually Inthefastlane 's count is quite correct. Please knock of the combative behavior and edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For speaking truth to power, for calling a spade a spade, and for pointing out the failure of the "information managers", who aren't here to build an encyclopedia but to whitewash it. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
- Gee thanks, aw shucks. And here, seeing the yellow 'you have new messages' alert, I was going to delete the section above with "delete harassment by troll" but you've encouraged me to leave it, to bear witness. I'll transfer your nice shiny new barnstar to my userpage now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)