User talk:Skookum1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

suggestion[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Read! Talk! 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)

Stay clear of cats - there not used anyway's[edit]

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 Wikipedia editors down. Either consciously or unconsciously, editors seek out trouble, and unsurprisingly, they then find it. Cullen328 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 Wikipedia 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?[edit]

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 Wikipedia?

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. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Anti-intellectualists or Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia) 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:

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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?[edit]

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 Wikipedia). 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: Wikipedia: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:
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 Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia, 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[edit]

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: [1], [2], "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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia; 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.....Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)[edit]

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[edit]

@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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

  • [post-edit conflict] :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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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" ("Wikipedia") 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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Beaver[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.....Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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[edit]

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

Nikolai Rezanov[edit]

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[edit]

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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

Hi Skookum1, just noting that I reverted these replies you added to a thread in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia depending on keeping contributing editors in line.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Transformer (spirit-being) and disambig[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Per WP:CFD please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision at Wikipedia: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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [[WP:NCL}] 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[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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia or off it.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Final warning[edit]

Just yesterday I warned you to dial the heat down in your conflict with Kwamikagami. Then you go off and do this [3]. 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 [4], after you had apparently inserted the claim there was a "Kavango language" [5].

"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've just granted Kwami his wish; non-interference by Skookum1 in anything he does; his past record can't be discussed, despite ongoing questionable activities on his own part, including the NCL edit war. Maybe even mentioning that on my own talkpage is fulfillment of your block-warning; Callanec advised me to summarize all the history of diffs and comments made towards me which have been consistently untowards, and submit an AE about it to ARBCOM..... but here I'm forbidden to get in kwami's way at all, or point out his past actions and comments altogether; that he is immune from guidelines, behavioural or content guidelines, when I am regularly made the butt of reprimand.....I tire of this; if you note my usercontributions I have been less and less active the last few days; his warring over the RMs last year led me to a stroke-like stress attack, I have my health and the rest of my life to think about, and I spend far too much time here already to want to either argue my case by spending a week filing an AE;
  • and in finding myself muzzled and inhibited in writing article content because of the increasing instruction creep in Wikipedia, combined with people messing with title/content issues on topics they know nothing about; guidelines have become more important than enyclopedic authenticity and integrity; the butchering of a long-stable older consensus has only been made personal because I have been made the target of debates, not the issues....bureaucracy's self-importance is a waste of time, and all too often combined with complete ignorance of the matters at hand; that guidelines and policy are flouted and any attempt to deal with that is met with threats of blocks, or actual blocks, underscores for me what I've heard from many editors.... that consensus is a joke, that trolls rule the roost, and that imperious adminshipping doesn't address policy issues, rather equivocates them away and makes excuses for those who disregard actual policy; and I see guidelines thrown about in the course of stupid closures made by people who apparently don't even read the whole of the guidelines they invoke, never mind knowing the subject matter. Closes such as what happen on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and others were wrong and made, not on the issues, but on the basis of perverse personality hostility and a complete misreading and mis-citing of guidelines invoked; and in Talk:Haida people actual stats were ignored, and I was again made the reason to retrench a title created by the "NCL rampage" rather than return it to its original title, as was successful in 90% + of other related RMs....the consensus evident in which has been the subject of the attempts to bring NCL and NCET into conformity with policy; all editors seeking to make those reforms have been met with absurdity and distortions of their own words thrown back at them....while the adminship as a whole looks the other way....other than breathing down my neck for knowing what has transpired and saying so. "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedians sure as hell are".

The person I must not name filed three nuisance RMs, making false claims about what I had done. Oh, gee, I can't mention that either huh?

And I don't care WHAT he said in his edit comment about "Kavango language"....he's given countless misleading edit comments before; fact of the matter is it was to a dab containing that, in that form, that he moved the redirect he created to the people article, in 2011, after SPhilbrick removed the db-move tag see here. Only after that did he redirect that new title-creation to Kavango-Southwest Bantu..... and amended his dabbing to "Kavango languages"; even his river-dab on the first dab was wrong; anything to keep the people from being the primary topic-title of Kavango, which it had been for years before he summarily moved it.

The fierce resistance to reverting his moves began with St'at'imc; and has continued nonstop; the number of times I've been directly insulted...."idiotic", "ridiculous", "nobody would accuse you of being rational", "talking nonsense" and more have gone unaddressed (Callanec, again, invited me to file an AE after his invocation of discretionary sanctions on NCL.....; but my ire in response has made me the villain....not uncoincidentally it was as the momentum or RMs closing/moving as I ...and the subject of blocks and ANIs by people more interested in punishing than in actually examining the issues that are the reason for the dispute.....Kwami can CANVASS, like he did with very pointed editorializing on WP:Languages re NCL; if I do that I get an imperious note to fix the problem "or else".

I waste my breath; I've learned that what I say means nothing around here, that I can be criticized while being forbidden to be criticized, that others can tell lies and make actions based on distortions of guidelines, even citing guidelines/policy while doing the opposite of what they say, and that people who can't read more than seven sentences at once without being offended at having to think and scream TLDR/"walls of text" ... are in charge of what goes on behind the scenes....commonsense is in short supply, while demands for decorum are given the weight of interdict by the Inquisition.

Blaming me for making policy issues personal when I've been personally made the target by someone with a history of BAITing (as was pointed out about him in St'at'imc/Ktunaxa/Secwepemc/Nlaka'pamux/Tsilhqot'in RMs last year) is noxious but typical. "Blame the victim" is the game, that I'm feeling the lash to standing up to the baiting and misrepresentations that are ongoing, and have a long history, is just "more of the same".

The "walled garden of Kwami" comment above, which someone, maybe you, called "childish", was my throwing Kwami's own "walled garden of British Columbia" bitch about me he's fielded in the guideline debate, and ironically he had first made in Talk:Tlingit#Requested move about a people who are mostly in Alaska and Yukon (a handful live in BC)...... he doesn't know the ethno subject matter but moved titles willy-nilly, even making excuses for actual derisives like Sarcee people ("bad ones") and blabbering about "sources" while openly showing disdain for WP:Self-identification and WP:MOSIDENTITY (in the St'at'imc and other RMs last year, he called that "parochial" while insisting that academic and missionary/linguist sources determine what the titles should be (without ever producing those sources).

I am old and have life to get on with and only so many years to go; I spend too much time at my computer as it is.....and am completely bored with people reprimanding me for standing up for myself, or standing up for guidelines and policies that they themselves ignore, or take no action to deal with. Kwami's not the only problem child in the little nest known as "the community".....and the "FOO people" issue may seem simple to you, but it had untoward and useless results since the old consensus was disrupted by one editor, who fights tooth and nail at any action to revert his own agenda..... I shouldn't have looked at Wikipedia tonight, there are articles I've been planning on making......maybe in the future someday.... I live in paradise and am tired of being dragged into wiki-hell..... and hearing myself slandered and misrepresented and my own agenda assailed while the root of the trouble goes un-dealt with. Perhaps I will join that long list of "Missing Wikipedians" who can't stomach this place further; in the last few months I've significantly expanded geographic coverage and native topics in my region; yet another unfinished work....and all involving the interaction of native endonyms, placenames, and more which were why the old consensus made sense and was coherent with guidelines..... but no doubt in the long run the {{tl|systemic bias}] against native peoples and the "walled garden of British Columbia" and its history will get screwed up again once I am dead and gone...

I'm going to bed; this game of official threats of blocks is a huge bore and endlessly ironic; that you treat me like the bad guy while prohibiting me from pointing out the history and context; I can't help it if 90% of the moves were kwami's; that I am perceived as making it a personal vendetta when the reverse is true is yet more irony...and yet more shallow thinking....the status quo is unpalatable..... when a site you've worked on for years gets to the point where you don't even want to open the page, it's time to say "fuck it".....Tla A'min, Hwemelthkwu, Tlo-os, the Skeena War, Cassiar Gold Rush and expansion of Tsetsaut, which I recently added, and more, just aren't getting done; and absurdity and POVism is everywhere, per Talk:New Albion; so it's not just Kwami; I see a lot of POVist narrow-mindedness all over Wikipedia, and ridiculously OR titles like Quadripoint tolerated......

Kwami's having a beer, laughing at your warning to block me....... he'll say in ANIs various posturings denying that; but between attrition and obstinacy, he's got his way; his "walled garden of FOO people" titles will remain, and Skookum1 is leaving the ranch...I came back in after a long absence to set to rights some very POV nastiness on certain indigenous articles (Idle No More and Theresa Spence..and then discovered that long-standing consensual endonym titles had been moved to regressive, outdated, and sometimes offense older usages that are in disuse or discredited..... all by one "BOLD" move, claiming "sources" without ever providing proof ..... that other Canadians agree with my position on them played into the successful moves of most of them, and doing away with TWODAB and THREEDAB pages he'd created; but those Canadians were ignored in the Chipewyan RM and Squamish CFDs/RMs; Canadians knowledgeable about the modern native political-cultural reality of the new names see the point of why the older names should not be used; and why the name-conflicts with major toponyms in Canada are one reason why the endonyms now in current use were created by the peoples whose names they are, and why they were chosen as the wikipedia titles until Kwami-knows-best was invoked. His damage to North American titles has been mostly undone...but I got tired of hearing claims that "FOO people" was the widespread norm, it's not, and knowing that that premise was used to screw up the Squamish title debates........is where all this started. And why? Because I believe in what's right....not what's wrong.

But there is no right or wrong in Wikipedia.....more's the pity.Skookum1 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

When I hear this one, the irony screams at me in capital letters "You are to remain matter-of-fact and firmly focussed on the content, not the contributor at all times." That would be nice, if that wasn't done so consistently to me......NCL, NCET, any number of RMs and CFDs.... I was very matter-of-fact in things that were TLDR'd by closers, i.e. not "walls of text" but "walls of facts" went unread; while slags against me abound and go, it seems, rewarded rather than rebuked.

The imperiousness of admin behaviour has been noted to me by many other editors, as has the lack of interest in truth and facts vs wikipedia's "community standards" being some kind of Holy Writ....here it is again. using a bludgeon instead of looking at the history and the context.... the result is not consensus, but a kind of tyranny of the rule-makers, in a place where there are supposed to be no rules.Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight, Skookum1 - I am now embroiled in much the same fight with Kwami on a host of Celtic language articles; your numerous complaints against him could have been written by me! I have been on Wikipedia for many years now, but have always avoided the bureaucratic side of it - I guess I should have paid better attention, as now Kwami is attempting to use the system against me and silence me for daring to stand up to his many ignorant, destructive, and ultimately pointless edits to the Celtic language articles. I feel like giving in, but it really makes me mad to think that others who are just starting to learn about Celtic languages will be seriously mislead about the subject - one that is near and dear to me and that I have dedicated the last 30 years of my life to intensively studying - all because egomaniac bureaucrats have usurped power on Wikipedia.Cagwinn (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Skokomish Indian Tribe. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

"when a naming discussion is underway" WTF? There was no naming discussion, not that anyone told me about; I was familiar with the Twana title meaning the Skokomish (being the only remaining one and the absorpter of all the other eight) and discovered its cooptation by you-know-who for a language-article redirect; and in the course of doing that went to the tribal article to confirm that usage/story and saw the name change and did the correct thing to do.
Tribal/band articles are governed by WP:Self-identification and wheezing and wheedling about wikiguidelines and "precedents" or whatever's in whatever name discussion there is really beside the point and mis-using guidelines for....time-wasting purposes (I had no reason to look at its talkpage, if that's where that discussion is). You're a big stickler on proper names of tribal governments per the big cumbersome Nevada titles (FOO tribe of the WHATZIT Reservation), so why in heaven's name is there even any discussion about this?? "Sources" naming the old name aren't relevant if that's what the issue is; and you should know best of all that tribal governments, being sovereign, are where "official use" is determined; not in their exo-listings with state/provincial or federal governments. If those governments still have them listed differently than the tribe itself has decided it's called, and that's what some Wikipedians are arguing about, that's an example of non-indigenous sources being used to outweight indigenous sources; of one dominating "official" use overriding the sovereign official use of the peoples themselves.
Why there would even be a dispute about respecting a tribal government's official style is quite beyond me, but also typical of the inanity that besets authenticity and integrity of titles and content far too often. Typically made by those uninformed and unacquainted with indigenous political/cultural realities; and "colonialist" sources with names different from the ones used by the peoples/tribes themselves. It's not for non-native sitting in chairs armed with books and online sources to decide what native peoples/governments are called; that's {{systemic bias}} of the very first order. Numerical counting of sources is a bugbear I've seen too much of; which is why Sta7mes is at the "anglicism" "Stawamus (village)" which has various dab style problems and is out of step with other Skwxwu7mesh village article titles, and why many language articles that were changed by you-know-who at the same time as the corresponding people articles since reverted by RM (Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move and others) are still at archaic/obsolete "academic" titles; CONSISTENCY has been ignored, as has MOSIDENTITY; any mumbling about sources from the past, or by external governments to the one being named, should not even be a factor. Taht the "SOURCES" argument has wound up seeing a derisive-origin exonym still being the title at Chipewyan people or Sarcee language is noxious but a further example of {{systemic bias}} and the use of questionable sources to outweight self-identification. Skookum1 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WHAT "naming discussion" are you talking about? There's nothing on Talk:Skokomish Indian Tribe. Do you just make this s**t up? (you sure as hell made shit up in Maunus' hypocritical ANI, in spades) Your reversion is against tribal self-identification and embraces an older media citation and the US government's listings; the only source that matters if the tribe itself; apparently as an indigenous person yourself you are more concerned with what non-tribal sources still have in their listings. Ridiculous, as is your claim of an ongoing discussion of this title, and "consensus", which apparently means your own opinion only.Skookum1 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You falsely accused me of "disparaging" tribal govenrments. Apparently you just ignore them altogether.Skookum1 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread about Kwami[edit]

Just the necessary formal heads-up that I have brought up the various issues with Kwamikagami at WP:ANI again, mentioning you in that context. You are not directly affected so I don't think there will be any need for you to comment there, but, if I may make this request, if you do wish to comment, please please please keep the rancour and wordiness out. If you were to say anything there like what you have been saying on my page, that would be absolutely certain to destroy any chance of getting a useful outcome at ANI. Fut.Perf. 08:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone who knows me outside of Wikipedia sent me that link; I haven't been logging in (rare for me) and there's lots I could say but I'm a bete noire at ANI and don't like the pack mentality that can happen there....the edit warring and tactics accounted by you and others are a persistent pattern stretching back those years of this I told you about; from a hyphen-dash RM that shouldn't have been dragged out, but was, also challenging the validity of sources and picayune IDONTLIKEIT b.s., on Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District#Requested move, and the same on the "First Five" RMs last year (I won't link them all) and on many since; and on NCL and NCET; there was another move war over Wuikinuxv and their language which is still at Oowekyala dialect instead of Wuikyala, same as other language articles which were moved at the same time as people articles he was adding the people dab too, and changing to sources he claims mandate the term he prefers, which he never produces vs denouncing any sources he doesn't like; or as in the ethno RMs will fight a self-identification title claiming nobody knows how to pronounce it and/or it's "not English".
I followed Cuch's link to the item on his talkpage, as usual he claims I'm doing what he does = "pushing POV" and "straw-man arguments".... citing policy and guidelines is what he calls "POV"....the edit-warring over Bantu and the Kavango and other items is all part of the persistent pattern. He's learned to game the system and maybe this is all just a twisted video game for him; it's not responsible editing and his attitude is anything but collegial; consensus for him means a veto of anything he wants to filibuster as at the NCL page, where you will find a list of those misleading edit comments that are noted in the ANI to do with that guideline and related ones..... personality attacks are par for the course, alongside his disputatiousness on sources; he used them in the regional district RM and throughout the St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Ktunaxa and Secwepemc and more since; as I noted, I could come up with maybe hundreds of diffs but it's an energy sink/timehole.....wasting other people's time seems to bring him pleasure...which is why he makes BAITing comments and non sequitur edit wars like the template-war over db-move and only-two-dabs that brought you to me/us....
And just to note, on a related matter but concerning a different editor, please see the previous section. Uyvsdi's claims about me, or about discussions, are very often just not true; and she never answers my rebuttals; I haven't started the RM now needed there for reasons of exhaustion and aversion to procedure; it should be an open and shut case, as with other things she's reverted; but when I see claims that I've done something wrong because a discussion is underway and there is no such discussion, all I can do is shake my head and wonder how it is she's a university professor.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I stood off from Maunus' harassment ANI, but replied to an archive of it later without realizing it was archived; comments about similar ubsubstantiated claims against me are still available in this diff; it seems allegation is taken for the same thing as guilt around here. Yet in trying to address the conclusions of very evident consensus across dozens of RMs, my attempt to change WP:NCET to address those were reverted by her "no consensus"... but she raises questions in her comments on the talkpage I ask for particulars on; she never replies. How can you form consensus with a brick?Skookum1 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kootenay Land District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kettle River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Bering Sea Arbitration[edit]

My research shows that Michael A. Healy may not have been the captain of USRC Thomas Corwin during the summer of 1886. According to a Coast Guard source[1] Captain C.A. Abbey was assigned to the billet from 6 May 1886 to 30 November 1886. Healy is shown to have been transferred effective 9 April 1886. Charles A. Abbey was most likely to have been the captain of Corwin during the summer of 1886.[2]

Notes
  1. ^ Record of Movements, 1790–1933, United States Coast Guard, p 192
  2. ^ Noble, p 1
I only responded to the "which?" template someone had put on mention of the revenue cutter, I have no further knowledge of interest in that aspect of the article. What is glaringly missing is what else is in Scholefield & Howay and also in Begg, that the British Columbians were the first to engage in pelagic sealing; as is so often the case in cross-border articles like this and the Oregon and Alaska dispute ones, USPOV has been the framework of the article; I've had no time to expand for BPOV/globalize them. Fussing over American minutiae like who captained the US vessel without exploring the nature of the British-Canadian fleet or its ownership and the impact on the BC economy of the seizures and the politics thereof just digs the Yankee-based content deeper; who the captain was is not a POV issue, but the focus on American detail vs obliviousness to the "British" ships and the British point of view remains out of whack in the article.Skookum1 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Link added to your user page in good faith, not vandalism[edit]

Hi Skookum1

Woke up to find a notice that my edit to your user page may be considered vandalism, and I want to assure you it was done in good faith, without knowing the convention (now I do).

I'd found a series of your edits - no problems with them - and was curious about the editor so I had a look at your page. Very impressed by your range and quantity. When I came to the list of poetry you liked, I added a link to the Metaphysical Poets, thinking it would be useful, but not knowing that I shouldn't have. Sorry. Keep up the good work.

I hadn't been logged on (109.79.140.204), but am now, and so can sign this: Concord113 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

NP, that was someone else monitoring my page who removed the link; I didn't know that such a link existed or might have added it myself, I don't edit my userpage often except to add occasional quotes/maxims now....it needs an overhaul.Skookum1 (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

BNA Access[edit]

Hey Skookum1, you have a user email waiting with instructions on how to get access to BNA via the Wikipedia Library Partnership, Sadads (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Skookum1, just pinging you again for you to fill out the Google form in the email I sent last wek, Sadads (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Blackbeard[edit]

Have a trout-shaped WP:3RR warning. Whether to use an obscure one or a common one is a difference of opinion rather than blatant vandalism, so either take it to the talk page or let other editors deal with it. --McGeddon (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gimme a break, being told to "fuck off" and "fuck you" is not part of the normal "edit war" experience; fixing overblown and vague English is what is supposed to be done, not insulting someone for making the necessary correction. And it's not a "difference of opinion", it's right in MOS and very blatantly as second paragraph, first sentence. "In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult to understand terminology and symbols.". I'm getting tired of seeing "wikipedia English" built out of wanton use of thesaurus type equations supplanting normal words, it's noisome and wikipedia's influence on language at large does set precedents; all other links to cognomen are for Romans, as should be the case; Blackbeard is a nickname and nothing more, no f%$#$ng wikipedian-ite equivocation about using an obscure and unfamiliar term to most readers should never be part of "calming" an edit war where the apparent OWNer of the page is hostile to all comers to the point of being vulgar about it. Pretentious and puerile like all too many wikipedians; and hearing someone dress me down for it when it's in the guidelines - and saying it's a "difference of opinion" is why wikipedia is being bogged down by neurotic policing of behaviour over content disputes where the guidelines about content and style get equivocated away while a*******s prevail and are given "due courtesy" when none is deserved.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
And duh, I was going to take this turkey's behaviour in defense of this ridiculous imposition of an arcane old word in place of normal English to the edit war board; but someone already showed up to wiki-cop me instead of dealing with the core issue. PLAIN ENGLISH.Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree that "cognomen" is a ridiculous word to be using, and will chip in on the talk page to that effect - it just seemed past time to remind you (and Parrot) that 3RR still applies, after you were both batting it back and forth multiple times a day. MOS disputes and sweary edit summaries are not the "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" that 3RR has an exception for. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Question for you ...[edit]

Any idea where the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council fits in to our articles? -- Djembayz (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you mean the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council title itself, or the indigenous language apps. There was a category for "indigenous languages with phone apps" or some such but it got CfD'd. There's probably room for, if not already, some kind of article covering all native languages programs in Canada or per province maybe. Dunno; if it's the tribal council article that you're asking about I guess that'll show up when I hit "submit" and find out if that's a redlink; a lot of bands and TCs and other organizations don't have articles yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The category has morphed to: List of endangered languages with mobile apps. :) (a note from your friendly talk page stalker ...) Djembayz (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

English is a DAB page[edit]

Hello, you reversed this edit, apparently (judging from your edit summary) because you think that I think that sǂuqan is an English word. I do not. My point is that English is a disambiguation page and not an article. I am removing the link on the rationale that (1) I'm fairly certain that you or whoever added the link did not intend to link to a disambiguation page, and (2) most readers of Wikipedia in English don't want the specific information that English language provides. If you disagree and think that readers of Slocan, British Columbia need more information about the English language, you may be interested to use the templates {{IPAc-en}} (for formatting International Phonetic Alphabet renditions of English words, including proper nouns) and {{Lang-en}} (to specify that a word is English; but see the documentation for that one, which recommends against linking to English language in most cases). Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What you did was delete the English pronunciation along with the link to English; I could care less about pandering to the template-crafting crowd, there should be no need to have "English:" in a lede anywhere, but it adds it. I didn't put that there, and don't like it; but deleting the IPA of the English pronunciation and leaving only the Ktunaxa one demonstrates to me a bit of knee-jerkery and not-thinking, as does coming here to lecture me on your motive, instead of apologize for your mistake.....if you don't know about a subject/topic, why are you screwing around on articles about it? Fiddling with templates and formats by people who don't even read the articles, or care about content, is rife in Wikipedia now....and wasn't it you who was afraid to join the NCL discussion because you don't like "walls of text"? Maybe that's why you don't read or significantly improve articles like Slocan and only fuss on tidbits within them.Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Split of Category:Bantu people[edit]

I have already posted this in several other places, but apparently I need to post it here too: Please bear with me while I split Category:Bantu people per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Category:Bantu people. If you have any concerns about my edits, please discuss with me rather than revert. It is a heck of a job and trying to figure it all out while someone else is reverting me is more than my brain can handle. HelenOnline 07:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Was this edit summary really necessary, considering I have asked people to bear with me not so long ago and I have a talk page you could post to? I have been very busy with other Wiki projects, so cut me some slack. If you had not sabotaged the CFD I could have done it before things got crazy for me. HelenOnline 07:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I sabotaged the CfD?? That's quite the allegation to make, considering I did what YOU reverted without knowing that the CfD was underway. Never mind that the CfD wasn't necessary to start with as Category:Bantu peoples was a redlink and available for use; deprecating/cleaning the Bantu people category should have been where all that energy went...you know, the non sequiturs and red herrings and "gee, I don't know...is there anything else we can quibble about" coming from he-who-shall-remain-nameless, and who misrepresented my edit of Ambundu's category as "[Skookum1] got it wrong", meaning that I was allegedly wrong that the article was not about individuals but about the group; falsity and misrepresentation, there's quite a track record in this department, you should know; that you didn't see or comment on that and chose to indict me for simply moving a non-about-individuals article to plain-jane Category:Bantu was hiliariously off-kilter; though not funny at all. And why not funny? Because categories for ethnic groups without ANY disambiguation are the actual norm....I could list you a 100 but enough of my life has been taken up with this nonsense; "Bantu peoples" now exists....but didn't take a CfD to start, and is inherently redundant with "Bantu" (cf Category:Anishinaabe, Category:Mi'kmaq, Category:Dene and a few thousands others). So why not funny? Because I'm bored with people who haven't done their homework and go "tut-tut" at me for trying to straighten out something without pandering to the endless bureaucracy of Wikipedia bearpits, where nonsense and bad information, or really off-the-wall misperceptions and projections are taken at equal value with actual reality; and guidedlines are cited without ever being fully read or understood, or even blatantly claimed to say something they do not.

I repeat, there was no need for that CfD, as I pointed out (and was ignored and/or patronized) and it went on even after I called for just using the redlinked title available, since some anal interpretation of the "rules" ("there are not rules") was touted that the plain-jane Category:Bantu was backwards, and not meant for the ethnic group(s). So go scold someone else, and enjoy cleaning up the mess of the African categories and their confusing "FOO people" titles, I've washed my hands of it; for all the energy you put into defending the CfD so that procedural delay and time consumption could continue, to an inevitable conclusion as to where it is now, could have been spent doing all the category changes that you are now free to enjoy; or you could have realized the obvious COMMONSENSE of un-dabbing the "people" cat to Bantu, instead of getting hysterical about it and scolded me for "sabotaging" the CfD. You seem to have had no problem at all with the sabotage of ethnic titles and categories that preceded all this, or the sabotage of my posts and moves that went on endlessly and has gone on for a couple of years now from the same quarter. I tire of this; your CfD was a [expletive deleted] waste of time, and your whining to me here about me "sabotaging" it just more of the stupid same. And don't talk to me about unCIVIL for talking like that; you're the one who treated me as a criminal for violating a pointless CfD I didn't even know was going on, and accused me of SABOTAGING IT. That's AGF in the extreme, and inherently NPA, and I'm bored with this shitSkookum1 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"no one user owns naming rights"[edit]

You were very wrong in moving Stanley Park arbitrarily and without discussion; PRIMARYTOPIC=NODISAMBIG was established long ago. Central Park is another example of a best-known park by that name being undisambiguated; your undiscussed move I'm not in the mood to submit to the bearpit known as WP:Requested moves and will find an admin to correct you; after that reversion of your BOLD move, you can file an RM. I'd have reverted it myself it you hadn't made a further edit; but have redirected the main PRIMARYTOPIC title back to the Vancouver item. And , you're where again? Never mind, I already looked....Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll look for a consensus for such stuff in future. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Mkdw moved it back already; he's also Canadian and familiar with the park and its rep. Thanks for not arguing or trying to rationalize/equivocate, which is too common around here.Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuxalk vs. Nuxalk Nation[edit]

Yeah, I understand the distinction, and I think that such articles are victim of "scope bleed" a fair bit, because an editor may not really understand the division. What I put there is actually work on the language that the organisation itself has been deeply involved in (creating a radio station, contracting a linguist to produce greatly-improved linguistic materials). However, you may think I should be clearer on that, or that they don't really belong at all. If so, cool. I'd be happy to see your improvement, and I imagine I will probably agree with it.AshleyMorton (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Programs run by a government, or started by them, or under their auspices, do belong on their pages, as also with any companies they own or are any deals with companies external to them. Definitely a band-operated radio station belongs; and NB to get a broadcast license, an organization has to be incorporated, which the band is. Ethno and history on band pages should be summaries, with the bulk of such content on the "ethno page", same as detailed information about the language would go on the language page. NB there is as yet no Nuxalk art page, and one is sorely needed (disregard the old conversation farther up the Nuxalk talkpage, where I was being lectured for not having started one...by someone who has had nothing to do with the article other than its name debates, if that much....or some other schoolmarm pretension). I've been meaning to get at more detail on the Kimsquit and Tallheo pages, and a Kwatna page is definitely needed (oh there is one now); somewhere also I saw the Nuxalk name for the IR community in Bella Coola, can't remember where now; while looking things up re the merge someone wants to do to merge the IR into the community article; but as you have noted, "Greater Bella Coola" aka the Bella Coola Valley is primary, not the town, as such, of Bella Coola per se. You've noticed List of Nuxalk villages I guess; I'd like to add coords to that where possible, and other identifiers to make it more useful/mappable.Skookum1 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked at your edit; we need a citation for that, and I can't add much until I see the citation....and someone will eventually add a "citation needed" tag without it. It should be made clear that it's a program of the Nuxalk Nation government; I'm pretty sure that the language is available in the provincial school system curriculum there, not sure that's on the language page or not.Skookum1 (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cacik[edit]

Please don't badger each person who disagrees with you. It's pointy and makes you look like an ass, undercutting any constructive argument you may have made Calidum Talk To Me 16:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I"m not "badgering" them, I'm responding to each gullible, uninformed "well I've only heard of tzatziki" comment one-by-one, as each and every one is fallacious and and sad experience with RMs has shown that people repeat stupidity and bad information willy-nilly without having a clue what they're talking about. Or, as in that one case, hadn't even heard of cacik so assumed, listening to the other mistaken/misleading comments, that they're the same thing. The POV nature of the nomination is so blatant it's painful to read; Balkan politics yeccch seen it before; and "each person" wasn't "disagreeing with me", I'd only just arrived and no one has disagreed with me yet. I'm disagreeing with them. Big difference. And if one-by-one is needed to counter WRONG votes, so be it. And you styling this "badgering" and saying they're disagreeing with me when they haven't even had time yet makes YOU an "ass" as you're being NPA and AGF towards me. Gawd I tire of the pretension of Wikipedians who indulge in hectoring those who speak their mind and call a spade a spade. The anti-Turk nature of that RM is very clear; as clear as the difference between the big soup bowl that cacik comes in vs the little dish that a dollop of tzatziki comes in; one is eaten with a spoon, the other spread with a knife; but hell you don't care about facts, you're just here to lecture and call me an ass, so you know where you can go.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stikine River 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:
  • [http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/7821.html BC Names/GeoBC entry "Stikine River"]</ref><ref>[{{gnis|1416405}}</ref><!--there's a Tahltan meaning around that should also be here, can't find the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Music by place [Cfd][edit]

Hello, i put some effort in answering your questions on this topic, if anything is still unclear, note me. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR on Norway[edit]

Hi. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, WP:ENGVAR is the only guideline that applies. In this case, however, it does appear that UK English is the pre-existing variant. I appear to have erred in this case.

The problem was instigated by a user who, in flagrant violation of WP:ENGVAR, unilaterally converted over 100 pages to UK English via script (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blanket_changes_of_English_variants_in_violation_of_WP:ENGVAR). Because of the immensity of the mess he made, in cleaning up behind him it's difficult to give thorough scrutiny to each page and tell which of the pages were actually in UK English to begin with. Again, sorry for any trouble this caused. Oreo Priest talk 08:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)