User talk:Skookum1

BHG talkback

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at BrownHairedGirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandon, British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kootenay (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) 09:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coast Salish peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Fraser (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) 09:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Glad you have a sense of humor. I hope that you caught the none-too-clever Simpsons reference and realize that I don't think you are worse than Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Whistler

I don't have the patience to deal with it either. So I used a sledgehammer. The whole thing was unencyclopedic and some just incorrect. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie (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) 09:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AN

I don't know the ideal place for your recent post, but WT:AN is almost certainly the wrong one. The admin noticeboards use the WP: namespace, not the talk pages. You might want to move it to WP:ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

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

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)

Drama

Hey Skookum1, you know that I have often supported your ideas about article naming and such, but on this one, you need to ratchet down the drama a bit; I know you and Uyvsdi are spatting about category naming and some other issues, and I happen to consider BOTH of you to be valuable editors and hate to see you getting into the realm of making personal attacks on another user, which you know can't end well. The bottom line is that we all want to show respect to people by calling them what they prefer to be called, but when there is also a significant usage of an English-styled name, we can't just pretend it isn't there and erase it, we have to figure out a way to work it all in. (In my neck of the woods, Sioux and [{Crow people]] are good examples of this.) Categories help people find articles, so our naming conventions there, by necessity, may not be quite the same as in articles themselves. I'm a great fan of redirects and such. I hope you can stick just to the issues and try to back off on personalizing matters with you and Uyvsdi. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The most significant use of that "English-styled name" is of a very notable town, and it is by far and away the most notable topic on that name, using it undisambiguated in that form is a violation of PRIMARYTOPIC; the reason Squamish, British Columbia is disambiguated as such (unique Canadian placenames like Kamloops and Nanaimo carry no disambiguation) is because of the many uses of the name, and because of the conflict with the source aboriginal name; Squamish is a disambiguation page for the same reason that Lillooet and Chilcotin are. Drama? Drama lies in having to tell people over and over and over again, who keep on pretending it doesn't matter, the simple fact that "Squamish" by itself is confusing and most people are going to think of the town, not of the aboriginal people. Naming the category that is only going to cause confusion, including of the kind I pointed out re pages in Vancouver having a "Squamish" category on them. And as it happens now, given my recent google, "Skwxwu7mesh" gets more hits than "Squamish people", and guaranteed that the more recent the publication the more likely the native ethnonym is going to be used, especially when distinguishing between the people as a whole, their band government and/or the town. The other Canadian participants agree with this and understand it implicity as I do - that "Squamish" was never a viable category name and should never have been brought back from the dead, particularly by someone who has no idea of the town or the significance of its name as the by-far-and-away MOSTCOMMON use of the term. That this keeps on being shrugged off, and so many iffy quibbles posed, is a sign to me that the consensus process has no place in decisions required informed action; if this goes to "no consensus" and this category stays as is I'll have to seek ARBCOM or some other higher power; or just say fuck it, do what Uysvidi did and start my own fucking category with a name that's useful and clear. And then watch the chauvinists come out and say that it's not acceptable in global English, to hell with Canadian norms, unpronounceable non-English names aren't allowed in Wikipedia, and procedure has to be respected. Yeah uh-huh OK....go have a readc through the RM at Talk:Squamish people and check out some of the bias and narrow-mindedness, even the guy pontificating about the Suguamish without even knowing that the Skwxwu7mesh were in Canada, not Washington, or that the town of Squamish even existed or has any importance (15,000 may be small by US standards, it's quite large in Canada). such a person "voted" on that RM.... as did the person who damned Skxwu7mesh as a "meaningless string" or whatever...... that RM was closed in 7 days, with no effort to seek expert input, and was followed by a speedy CfD......thank god this didn't happen across the board in BC categories, or there'd be 10 or more parallel CfDs to this one, and no end of confusion with similar undisambiguated category names like Category:Lillooet, Category:Chilcotin and more....Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the issue is being handled well enough elsewhere. If the community has come around to Skxwu7mesh, that's going to help other names that use unusual diacritical markings. But I also know that there is a need to use dabs and redirects where needed to direct people to the articles they seek; otherwise, we wind up with "new" articles being recreated under the old names and then another round of drama. I would urge caution, though, with your work on USA tribal groups outside the Pacific Northwest; different legalities and such; many reservations and missions separate from tribes due to US Gov't policies and such. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Other than that '7' glottal stop, it's the non-diacritical form of Skwxwu7mesh I'm advocating; OldManRivers would of course prefer it in full Skwxwu7mesh orthography; but as with St'at'imc and Sto:lo when these terms do get used in English publications, it's without all the bells and whistles (those [t'] in St'at'imc are a single special character in the original for example). As with St'at'imc and Sto:lo I want something that can be typed instead of copy-pasted. And re work on tribal groups outside the PacNW, and speaking of redirects, all I'm doing is making category contents match what the content is for; see Category:American Indian reservations in California and follow the italicked entries; the same in reverse should be done from the tribe categories, and in fact starting there yesterday I found a few things that weren't in the reservation category; this is making sense of the category tree how it's supposed to work....the Washington categories used to be jumbled like this, with tribe-names showing up in language categories, reservations showing up in tribe categories etc; the notion that people=goverment=land may mean that there should be only one article but there's no reason to abuse categories by having titles in them that don't make sense for what the category is....ease of navigation.....I don't wade into the nitty gritty of the actual content of most US articles because I don't know the legalities (very different from Canada; where traditional territories, far beyond IRs, are still considered unsurrendered and sovereign; vs the US where the reservations are considered sovereign and larger-territory rights have been abdicated). All this began from me trying to make sense of a very jumbled set of category trees.Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"looks like the issue is being handled well enough elsewhere"....there's another discussion somewhere I'm not invited to? and re my discovery of Category:Chumash people, which is the ethno category not the "people who are Chumash" category, I found this very ironic.Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything else other than the CfD, which is what I meant by "elsewhere." That's more than plenty for me. I've got other fish to fry... literally!. Montanabw^(talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the Chumash problem; I've said everything I can on the CfD, and have wound up looking around and finding other things that need fixing..that don't need consensus, though there's currently an RM at Talk:Carrier people and a CfDS, which might be passed by this morning, at Category:Dunneza. Naming standards for indigenous peoples' categories need to be codified though, and certain categories and articles "locked"......there will always be dabblers come along who start re-arranging things without realizing the implications or knowing the subject matter....Category:Mohawk tribe and Category:Blackfoot tribe need resolution though; both of those are in "American language" and the FOO tribe thing implies a government; and in both cases the majority of those populations is on the Canadian side of the border.....given the old discussions on Talk:Mohawk people about the complications of "tribe" and "nation" that's a thorny one.....and the Mohawk political map and cluster of articles is just about teh most complicated of all indigenous categories there is....Skookum1 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Old Massett 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://maps.fphlcc.ca/old_massett Language notes], First Peoples' Language Map of British Columbia]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Kung 11

Huh? Yes, just removed (non-redirect) categories from redirects. But since redirects are only encountered by people who type in the term somewhere, they can't really be duplicates. Either that person gets taken to what they're looking for, or told it doesn't exist. WilyD 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The "FOO [number]" format for Canadian Indian reserves is a pain in the ass; originally only a form/shorthand in French, it got applied into English Canadian usages by some federal bureaucratic decision, and is used too readily by Wikipedians with no experience of what an Indian reserve is, or how they're commonly referred to. Not your problem of course, but quite oftne there's parallel "FOO [number]" items as well as "FOO Indian Reserve No. [number]" for the same item.Skookum1 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mi'kmaw

'Mi'kmaw' is actually a different word or part of speech from Mi'kmaq, in Mi'kmewey but is also used and it may just be that the pronunciation Migmaw is gaining in popularity in English over Migmaq recently. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Recently" would be the last 15-20 years of Canadian media usage and would be the new standard form in English; that the now-offensive and very archaic form English: /ˈmɪkˌmæk/ is given pride of place here speaks to the inefficacy of using out of date citations from academic/obsolete texts and not actually having a listen. see User_talk:Maunus#.22MIGmaw.22 and note that I'm consulting actual Mi'kmaq people of my acquaintance, and will look up the CBC and government style guides. The notion that "mikmaw" is only an adjectival form in Mi'kmaq may be technically true, but that's not the case in modern Canadian/Nova Scotian English where it is the ONLY form.Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You trumpet "overcoming systemic bias" on your userpage, but here you are, retrenching a colonialist pronunciation on the one hand with a colonialist logic to back it up, and are including in systemic bias towards Canadian English usages and its adaptation of native endonyms, which is now the norm; and don't forget that Canadian English speakers include the Mi'kmaq people of today, and it is they who use "MIGmaw", as I hear it and have learned it, and who do not make a distinction in English between the adjectival and noun forms. Perhaps the systemic bias you should work on countering is your own....Skookum1 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As a helpful hint, I suggest you tune into APTN or find some aboriginal news on CBC or any of the Nova Scotian TV channels and have a listen....Skookum1 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment has nothing to do with systemnatic bias. As one familiar with Mi'kmewey language, I'm telling you they are two different words in that language. (noun v.adjective) If anyone wants to find the People's language "offensive" for whatever reason that is their problem but hopefully you can cite that someone is offended by it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh so the line in the article saying that some Mi'kmaq find it (the Micmac spelling/pronunciation) "colonially tainted" doesn't register on you? Have you considered what they mean by that? that they find it parochial and disrespectful is what that means..... And this isn't about what the usage in their language is, it's about how the name is pronounced in Canadian English where it is in widespread and current use, irrespective of what references linguists and wikipedians want to point to about how it is in the native language. You can be familiar with the language in an academic sense, but have you lived in a Mi'kmaq community? Have you been in Canadian English media environments or Canadian social milieu where you might speak with (a) a Canadian or (b) a Mi'kmaq Canadian using the term in English? I have. Maunus calls that "original research", I call it "direct experience" = and am consulting my Mi'kmaq and other Scotian/Newfoundlander acquaintances for their input/citations. If you can't see your systemic bias against Canadian English, I suggest you adjust the dimensions of the shoebox you've chosen to put your brain into, and rather than tell this Canadian you know best, go look up parochialism. Systemic bias is all about misconceptions and misperceptions and a lack of perpective; and you should step back from your supposed "familiarity" with the Mi'kmaq language and consider that this is an English language article addressing a term used in English and t hat someone familiar with modern English usage in the country in question be given fair credit for their reporting that the current lede's pronunciatiosn are way out of whack with "how it is".Skookum1 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have lived in a Mi'kmaq community in Canada, yes, yes, yes. And you are talking about the older English term "Micmac" whereas I was not referring to that but to the form Mi'kmaq (/meeg-makh/) which is perfectly correct alongside Mi'kmaw. I wouldn't be surprised if "Mi'kmaw" is more favored than "Mi'kmaq" in Canadian English for the past 20 years though, I haven't been there lately. As for the obsolete "Micmac", it has some unsavoury meaning in French, according to some French dictionaries. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

English: /ˈmɪkˌmæk/ is what I'm talking about; the current English usage is "MIGmaw" not an unaspirated 'k' but distinctly a 'g' and there's sometimes a bit of shcwa between the G and the m but that's kind of the same thing is "nu-cue-lar" for nuclear.... and the vowel is not "ee" but "ih". In English that is; tune into the youtube recast of the Atlantic Television News or CBC Atlantic's news.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I heard that kind of pronunciation (Migamaw) from Crees and Ojibwes 25 years ago whereas Mi'kmaq would say Meeg-makh; it sounds like Canadian English has picked up the "Migamaw" form from that western influence since then, from what you are telling me!Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is in fact a talking dictionary of Mígmaq online. That would be the best reference for pronunciation. But we are not talking about a difference in pronunciation, but about two different words as we have been pointing out, and which all sources confirm. And several of those sources are written by linguists who are native speakers. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

the issue here is how the name Mi'kmaq is pronounced in contemporary English, what a linguistics book says about how it is pronounced in Mi'kmaq is NOT what I am talking about; I am talking about ONE word, not two, i.e. the same word/pronunciation that is the same whether noun or adjective (well, in English "the Mi'kmaq" implies the Mi'kmaq person/man/woman, so...and I can't think of a noun usage of the term in English come to think of it, given that would always be implied...adjectival it is; but it's with a 'g' not a 'k', very definitely so. I know from experience the tortured RMs of last year, from asking about it, that the CBC style guide is no longer a separate publication but is a database tied into the Holy Mother Corp's computer system and can't be shared. What other print sources there might be for the current English usage remains to be seen, I'm looking....the impression currently given in the lede that the "Micmac" pronunciation is still in use, when it is long obsolete, needs to be corrected. Unless you have a linguistics book on Canadian English including adaptations of native loan words/endonyms, we'll have to find another kind of publication. I will, anyway. What I do know from experience, also, is that how people say a word in English vs the same word when used in their language is not always the same; this is definitely the case with Sto:lo, though you hear both pronunciations (ow and oh for the [o:]). So even a native speaker of Mi'kmaq, when using the name of his people in English, is likely not going to pronounce it the same was as if speaking his/native tongue; I know my Conne River friend refers to himself, anyway, as being L'nu. Until I hear from him, I'll be sourcing video/broadcast examples and any written style guides or other material I can find. For the English usage, not what linguists say about the language itself. The lede as it stands right now encourages people to use the archaic pronunciation......and given that that pronunciation is not in current Canadian English, and articles about people or places are to be written in Canadian English and from a Canadian context.....it's the current Canadian English, not "linguists' English" that's the issue....Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited K'omoks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comox (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) 09:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hat notes

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

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

Wahnapitae First Nation vs. Nickel Centre

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

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

Krishnan Suthanthiran

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

IPA edit

What's a common word with this vowel? [1] — Lfdder (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Well, I've changed it to the cut vowel in the meantime so that it won't throw an error. I know lots of Americans don't distinguish it from the schwa, might be the same for you. [2] — Lfdder (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sahtu & Nahani

The name Slavey (derived from slave [its loan translation from Cree Awokànak (lit. «slaves»)], and the suffix -y cannot cover its bad meaning: they are not slave, also nobody is not slave) is very very racist. This is a snub. The "Slavey" proper is the South "Slavey" and formerly called as Etchaottine (nowadays as Echo Dene in the name of Echo Dene School, Fort Liard). Dene Tha (for people) and Dene Dháh (for language) [in Alberta] and Dehcho [in Northern Territories] for the South "Slavey" (tr:Denetalar for this people, and tr:Denetaca for their language). The North "Slavey" is the Sahtu people (en-wiki: separate page) and Sahtu language (en-wiki: not separate page). The Sahtu is tritypic (K’áshogot’ine ᑲᑊᗱᑯᑎᑊᓀ [lit. «people of hare (gahcho/gahsho)» or K’ahsho Got’ine «Big Willow People» formerly common name is Hare] Sahtúgot’ine ᓴᑋᕲᒼᑯᑎᑊᓀ [lit «people of Great Bear Lake (ᓴᑋᕲᒼ Sahtú)» formerly common name is Bearlake], Shihgot’ine ᗰᑋᑯᑎᑊᓀ [lit. «people of mountain (ᗰᑋ shih)» formerly common name is Mountain]) and most common in Canada, and in my opinion: likeable. The name Nahani (Nahanni, Nahane) for Central Cordillera [Tahltan-Tagish-Kaska] Athabaskan-speaking Kaska, Tahltan, and Tagish peoples, and not used for Southern Tutchone people (Kwäch’än) and Shihgot’ine (Mountain) bands of Sahtu people. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Films set in Vancouver

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

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phra Nakhon District 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:

• including [[Rattanakosin Island]]. Neighboring districts are, starting from the north, clockwise) [[Dusit]], [[Pom Prap Sattru Phai]], [[Samphanthawong]], and across the [[Chao Phraya River]] [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chipewyan people 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:

• The Denesuline people are part of many [[band government]]s] spanning Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories
• * [[Salt River First Nation#195]] (Reserves: Fort Smith Settlement, Salt Plains #195, Salt River #195, Fitzgerald #196 (Alberta), ca.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pauquachin First Nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• '' is the [[band government]] of the [[Pauquachin]] group of [[North Straits Salish]]-speaking [[Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast|indigenous peoples. Their reserve communities and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kwikwetlem may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 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:

• The '''Kwikwetlem''', whose name is on the modern map as that of the City of [[Coquitlam]], [[British Columbia], [[Canada]], are a [[Coast Salish]] [[Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast|
• ] whose traditional territories and modern reserves are located in that city and its neighbours [[{Port Coquitlam]] and [[Port Moody]]. Speakers of [[Hunquminum]], the Downriver Dialect of [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

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

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

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

"Linguistics cabal"

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

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

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

March 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Skookum1. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I really do not have the time to deal with any of this, but I've had it up to here with your endless personal attacks, e.g. "maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour," against myself and countless other editors, many of which are trying to help you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You're one to talk, there's no way you're trying to help me, you insulted me and said "get a life" when I tried to explain the matters at hand and tried to offer a solution. You had a choice, from someone informed about British Columbia, to revert the stupid category thing you did, and rejected it so 'other editors' who don't even know the place directly could comment. YOu lecturing me on NPA is hypocritical in the extreme. I wanted to come up with guidelines a year ago, you shoved that aside and said "we" had better things to do. and given the hoo-hah you made about "FOO people" re the Squamish categories it's really amazing to see you step aside about the current RMs, given that position that you yourself said about "FOO people" meaning "people who are FOO". Your attitude has been hostile and contrarian, and you yourself attacked me subtextually during that little game you played with the Shoshone categories, your position there also being against guidelines for category use and harmonizing names with category titles. Kwami's out of line, and this ain't the first time (his little game with the K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke.Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Inuvialuk people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Against: User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Comox people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Against: User:Kwamikagami: "this is just more glib snideness from you, ... and "nobody fixes the lede after moving a title" and other snarky comebacks as you are fond of. ... But of course you only care what's in your academic linguists' texts huh?" -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I agree. Skookum, I know that Wikipedia is sometimes frustrating, but please be speak kindly to others. You already know that uncivil comments are against policy and reflect poorly on the offending editor, but please be civil because it helps your cause. Wikipedians tend to avoid siding with those who make uncivil statements. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Anna, both Uysvdi and Kwamikagami have a history of attacking me. I'm only quoting back at Kwami things he's said to justify his drive-by renamings, and his stance is that linguistics texts outweigh modern usages in importance and he doesn't listen to reason and, geez, do you want me to compile the various criticisms he's launched at me? They are no one to talk; Kwami does only care what's in his linguistics texts, and he never responds to issues only goes for degrading and deriding his opponent. Your warning is ONLY fair if you warn him as well, he has a history of WP:BAITing me and right now is going to any measure conceivable to shut down discussions on articles whose titles he presumes to WP:OWN (on articles he rarely if ever works on. Glibe, snide, rude, derisive, and more - but the reality here is that none of the issues are getting discussed; instead he's trying to shut discussion down on any of the titles he moved (but doesn't work on) and has repeatedly criticized me for even trying, and repeatedly said things "we can't expect you to be rational" and other patronizing twaddle. If you are going to lecture someone about being civil, it's him you should be talking to; I use sharp language but it's because I've "seen it all before". He lost similar name disputes last year by consensus and was dressed down for his goading of me with stupid retorts and inane, derisive comments on the very same kind of titling issue that is at K'omoks/Comox, THE VERY SAME. Precedents abound for that move, including those RMs. He claims I'm disruptive for wanting to revert his thousands of undiscussed moves, calls me irrational....and has always resisted change to whatever he's done. I'm the resident "expert"/resident on British Columbia and was among those who built the article structure and category trees, I first edit the Comox people article in Dec 2005] (if you examine the history of the article back before that revision, you will find out that "Comox people" as a title was originally a redirect to the town/city, then even when it was first being set up to be about the people, kept on having contributors add material about the town (the title , which is a demonstration of the name confusion of Lillooet people which is of the same kind as Lillooet people (now back at St'at'imc where it belongs after a drive-by renaming by you-know-who, after a bitterly-fought at RM but closed by consensus to overrule his action) and Chilcotin people (now back at Tsilhqot'in, another one of the RMs that he doesn't acknowledge and if he could would overturn). Have a look at the article's history, His only edits to it were his aggressive name games this week:

• • (cur | prev) 13:10, 20 March 2014‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,986 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kwamikagami moved page Comox people (temp) to Comox people/temp) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 13:09, 20 March 2014‎ Kwamikagami (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,986 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kwamikagami moved page K'omoks to Comox people (temp): rv. per WP guidelines) (undo | thank)

going so far as to try and db a standing title on an article he's never worked on in order to protect his vested interest in his self-authored guideline. The title is inaccurate anyway even in English form; it should be Comox peoples but now given your admonition I don't feel right in moving it; the Sahtloot/K'omoks (Island Comox) should have their own article and the Mainland Comox (Tla A'min, Klahoose and Homalco are really one group, or were before being "cut up" by colonization) their own also under their native names; He doesn't even read the articles whose name he changes. Get it? Criticizing me is an old tactic, as is baiting me by being snide and derisive. I repeat I'm the one being targeted for attack and it's just a tactical manoeuvre and have seen all this before. Yes, I have a sharp tongue because I do not have tolerance for fools and talk directly rather than passive-aggressively; throwing his words back in his face is somehow "not allowed" but doing the same back to me is par for the course. I'm the one who has been attacked; I don't feel like dragging out Uysvdi's nasty bits, but they're there, and she's hardly the one to post the warning to me she did above. She also waded into BC titles without having a clue what she's doing, or anything about the place, or the K'omox/Tla A'min.....and though scoldingh me, nastily and calling me, effectively an anti-indigenous racist it was her uncalled for actions on the Squamish title, which like Comox is a major name confusion,and rather than listen to my input she insulted me and threw the title into (yawn) the bearpit of unnecessary procedure.AAAAAAAARGH do you get my frustration with all this nonsense? English wikipedia is so obsessed with background - guidelines, talkpages, procedure, wikiquette - that little meaningful work gets done on the articles affected; for comparison German Wikipedia articles on the same topic are extensive as are those, when they exist, in Croatian and Turkish and others. Wikipedia has lost indigenous contributors because of all this; somewhere in TITLE it says that t he interests of readers should be put before the interests of specialists (in this case, a hobby linguist) and the realities of modern British Columbia/Canadian English regularly pushed aside as irrelevant and derided......look at the bigger context here, and realize that it's me that's being bullied and WP:BLUDGEONed as a tactic to resist change to correct usages. SO frustrating and time consuming......Skookum1 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

His edit comment here is typical of his attacks, insinuating that my rightful changes to that article and its title are not "reality", and cites sources that are out of date per the admonition that sources before an official name change should be discounted and those from after such a name change are to be given more weight (Wuikyala is an official name for hte language, see the Wuikinuxv homepage); his "sources" are out of date and do not take into account the modern reality of name changes that are now commonplace and not just accepted but expected in modern Canada. I could point you to hundreds of such derisive comments....but this is all about me, not him huh??Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly. That's 6,293 characters. I read the first couple of sentences. Really, what you are saying may well be true, but nobody is going to come to your defense if they have to spend 20 minutes reading walls of text and if you yourself are guilty of the same behaviour. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

it's only a paragraph and by the usual clerical reckoning of word-count of 5 characters per words ionly just over 1000 words; not even the length of a short university or high school paper. And there are Wikipedians in the community who do support and realize that my posts are informative and contain useful points; instead I get personal attacks back, by those unwilling to educate themselves; And re warning me about NPA, see Kwami's comment that I am replying to here where he says "nobody would accuse you of being rational".....which he's repeated across dozens of articles. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....stuffing is required when roasting both.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For another example of his regular putdowns, in this case in a misleading and accusatory edit comment, see here. Nowhere in thte changes I made did I assert that Tsuutina and Sarcee were different languages - NOWHERE. Accusing of things I didn't do is par for the course with him, as is claiming that adding "archaically" (which is true, at least in Canada if not on his own bookshelves) is "censorship" is just more typical false accusation.Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've interacted with you for less than 15 hours and you've typed over 17 thousand characters in response to what I've written. That's just too much for me to handle. Plus, I'm expected to dig into the massive amount of content to familiarize myself with the back story. Whether you think the community (including me) should be able to read all that is not relevant. The fact is that the community won't, de facto, and you ought to take that into consideration.

As for your adversary's tresspasses, well, the "good for the goose" argument doesn't work. Ask a parent when their kids says "well, she stole my doll, so I..." and ask The Hague when a dictator says "well, he killed a whole bunch of my guys, so..."

Kwamikagami has been blocked a lot and I think has a bit of a history at AN/I. He has 348 page watchers which means a ton of people follow what he does. So, I'm the last person who should come in and start taking action. I suggest bringing it up with those who have blocked him in the past, or are at least familiar with the long history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I find those editors? Via his talkpage archives maybe? As for page watchers, I don't know how to find that even for myself...Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to find examples of his ongoing contempt for those who disagree with him:

"Knock off the bullshit, Nug. You're the one falsifying sources to win an argument you can't win on its merits . — kwami (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's fraud ! Are you truly that clueless ?"

From [[3]]. I haven't found the actual blocks yet, though.Skookum1 (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

kwami hasn't been blocked 'a lot'. Don't mudsling. If you have something to say about kwami, just come right out with it -- I mean, even if it were true that he's been blocked a lot, what is it that you're trying to say? Both kwami and skookum1 haven't been particularly pleasant to one another it seems to me, but I don't see grounds for a behavioural block for either. — Lfdder (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes he has. Five times is a lot. Saying that's a lot isn't mud slinging. I'm not going to block anyone. In fact, I haven't even warned anyone. All I've done is given a bit of advice. And I'm not blind to what Kwamikagami does. I am, however, staying out of that, as others should be better qualified to act if and when needed. They know the long history. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

there are block warnings above. Yes, it is mudslinging. You're trying to pass it off as some sort of objective measure and you're obviously trying to suggest something by it. — Lfdder (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "...there are block warnings above...." and I disagree about what you say about mudslinging, passing it off as anything, and suggesting something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think he's referring to Uysvdi's warnings that started this section, which are hypocritical in the extreme. I'm trying to figure out which ANI bulletin board to take her various attacks against me, and Kwami's and Maunus' and JorisV's to, re WP:CABAL and harassment re the RMs and more. I'm tired of this; I try to use procedure and guidelines and get called "disruptive" and now getting warnings from an admin whose behaviour has been very questionable herself. But damn, more procedure, more time used up that could be being used to improve and expand articles......."when will the madness stop?" as I've said elsewhere about this.Skookum1 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see diffs on my theoretical attacks against Skookum1. "Get a life" is the worst thing I've ever said to him (after weeks of insults, projections, and conspiracy theories against me), which hardly constitutes an attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh, I thought Lfdder was referring to me. Okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Pfffft, have you so readily forgotten your nastiness in the things you said to me about the Shoshone cats, or accusing me of "vandalism" in the edit comments, when all I was trying to do was put the categories on the redirect titles as is supposed to be done in regards to titles matching the categories they are in?? I guess not huh? And the "get a life" comment was in response to my entreaty for you to consider your opposition to the use of "FOO people" because, you said, it means "people who are FOO" which indeed it does; you deleted that with "get a life". And if you really believed that so strongly you waded into a controversial category like a thief in the night and coopted it for your own use as a "people from FOO" category and re-created Category:Squamish whose geographic confusion you are only now coming to terms with. And where are you in standing up to your buddy Kwami's asssault on the RMs concerning "FOO people" titles? Silent as a tomb.....I think you should get a grip and buy a mirror.Skookum1 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of personal attacks? -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Indeed, you don't have a mirror. I suggest you re-read your derision and subtextual racism on your reply to me about me "vandalizing" the Shoshone articles. And "Get a life" you may downplay, but it's very un-adminlike commentary and an extreme put-down in my part of the world. Your hostility and blatant disdain towards me continues here with your derision about my own supposed thin skin re "get a life" and the deletion of my attempts to raise the "FOO people" problem with you, because you so formerly hot-to-trot about it; I'd called for a discussion on guidelines on indigenous nomenclature and categories and more, and you shoved it aside saying "we've got more important things to do" or something to that effect. The very discussion that Kwami is now calling to be held to protect his host of name changes, which you are still avoiding comment on re your "FOO people" = "FOO" antics re Skwxwu7mesh.Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So, no diffs of actual text with an actual personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I've been busy dahling, it's not like I have to sit up and bark for you. So instead of getting on with the "FOO people" problem your silence is deafening on now, you just re-attack me with another sneer?? Go away, I'll get to you; while you've been sniping at me I've been working on articles, new plus older ones that have been in need of expansion sometime - among those your NCL pals only screw with the titles on without knowing or caring about the content or working on. Something you should try sometime instead of pontificating on guideline talkpages and attacking people who dare to criticize your actions.Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Then kindly stop of accusing me of things that did not happen. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Apparently you have memory problems too. "Things that did not happen" ROTFL that's a good one.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• "get a life" in the course of deleting my points on issues at hand as if they were worthless, and me as well. Calling you onto your own carpet about issues you have made a big deal out of without taking consistent action on them is apparently not allowed huh? "Get a life" is a serious putdown in my country, I don't know about yours, evidently; condescension as you displayed with this edit was vulgar and rude and clearly an NPA; yet you warn me about NPA for things said on my own talkpage. Go buy that mirror soon OK?
• This one of several you incorrectly reverted per category title consistency you only said restore article, as if the article were damaged by the transfer of two categories to an appropriate title, which a tribe title is not. On one of those redirects, you likewise said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yerington_Colony&action=history only "restoring redirect" - what did you mean by that, that I'd blanked it? Redirects carry categories all the time; I know on others you said more than oncesomething to the order of "revert vandalism", there were a couple of dozen of these, I don't have time to look for your handiwork all night (it's late evening here).

I'm browsing to find our exchange about that where you railed against me for not being indigenous and not respecting elders yadayadayada, I can't find it right now, it may be in your archives but I can't be bothered just now, I thought maybe it was on the IPNA talkpage but it's not. I remember it clear as a bell - do you regularly condemn and deride people who aren't indigenous and accuse them subtextually of racism and then not remember saying it? It was highly offensive given my track record on indigenous sympathies, which in fact is what brought me back into Wikipedia after a long boycott (during which Kwami run amuck and the first Squamish RM was held, with someone gloating that I and OldManRivers not around anymore so who cares what we think) re Idle No More and Theresa Spence, which had been defaced and vandalized by anti-native propaganda right during the height of that crisis. Geez, you probably don't even know anything about those events and who she is, and what people were trying to get into print about her, do you? And yet you accused me of being anti-indigenous and told me to go away; that was more than a personal attack, it was derision and racist. But you don't own a mirror and don't see things about yourself you don't want to admit to...I'm not expecting you to retract any of that, that's not your thing; stonewalling and counter-attacking IS huh? So, here you are, completely in denial of things you did and said, and by looking at my watchlist I note you still haven't partaken of any of the "FOO people" RMs......not that you care, you only cared long enough to disrupt a BC category tree because you still had your nose in a snit about my efforts to organize Nevada Rez/Tribe cats according to "policy", rather than your ideological position that tribe/reservation/people are all the same thing; that's not how the category trees are to be organized, each of those should have separate titles and categories even if some are redirects to the same article; but you took an ideological position and lecture me on my lack of indigenous sympathies, implying I should butt out of indigenous topics altogether. Why? Maybe you should say that to Kwami given his penchant for archaic/colonialist and/or offensive names for indigenous peoples. Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the diff? "you railed against me for not being indigenous and not respecting elders " <- that never occurred. There's a reason why everything we type here is permanent record. "Restore article" is not a personal attack. You can't find the reverts talking about "vandalism" but I didn't call the category changes "vandalism." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You're in denial and if not then have a split personality and this part of you doesn't remember what that other part of you does. It was the argument that Montanabw told us to settle down over etc. if you don't remember that then you have serious memory problems. I have eidetic memory and remember it all too well. Why don't yhou just apologize for being offensive' and start talking issues instead of defending yourself after your hypercritical go-for-the-throat "warning" above and start working on the RMs about the "Foo people" issue you're so hot to trot about or at least once you were anyway? I didn't edit war with you over your arrogance and stubbornness on the categories issue because you're a waste of time and I took MTbw's advice to give it some distance and stay out of Nevada, I have done that. Why didn't you stay out of BC?? In my view you pulled the Squamish nonsense deliberately just to be disruptive, and your ongoing silence on the RMs issue on the same convention is deafening. You tolerate attacks by Maunus and Kwami against me and presume to threaten me with sanctions on my own page for standing up for yourself; your denials are meaningless to me, I remember very well what you said and how you treated me. Get a grip and start working on articles instead of guidelines and wikiquette and LEAVE ME ALONE.Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You should point out to your buddies from NCL that they have been totally out of line with the jackbooting on the "must have people" issue, here's a guideline (or whatever the f it is) for you to cite to them. Maybe you should heed it yourself, points 2,3,4 of [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]:

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
• Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
• Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

There were other items on WP:Tendentious editing and others of that kind that apply; and you should note that last one above re your actions re Squamish, which ultimately are what touched off not just the "FOO people"=>"FOO" RMs (and there's a few thousand more that are up for nomination, no doubt, given Kwami's railing against me for going against procedure in the course of trying to shut them down when he never address proper procedure of broad discussion in the first place and whines about thousands or RMs being "disruptive" when 99.9% of them were created by him is way out of line. During this contretemps here tonight (it's 2:37 am where I am), I've created new articles, expanded and modified others, and you have been here denying things I know that you said. Your deletion of my attempt to engage you in the FOO people=>FOO issue was hostile and negative and despicable (as well as cowardly and hypocritical, just as you are being tonight with your denials). It is YOU who have been unCIVIL in the extreme on more than one occasion and bitterly too, and you're behaving like a wiki-bully using your admin powers to threaten me. You're an example of the kind of cultus ikta that makes people give up trying to be constructive contributors, and among those who regularly violate the wikilawyering points above BIGTIME. I'm going to bed. YOu shoudl learn what contrition and humility are about and give up on your confrontational ways and start dealing with the issues instead of using your power to attack someone who is trying to deal with those issues; something your closed club of NCL types are resisting by any means necesary, including trying to shut down the discussions and defame me in the process. I'm going to bed, I've had enough of you; if I don't see any comments repeating the invocation of your interpretation concerning "FOO people" on the RMs that proves to me you are not ready to be either consistent or willing to deal with issues/problems you had a hand in creating and are boycotting the RMs because they were launched by me. Go take a humility pill and think about what yhou have done and said - once you actually remember them, I sure do and don't patronize me by claiming I'm "irrational" or that you "can't take my word for it" like your pals have done. Damn, I could have gotten so much more done tonight if not for your assault on me here on my own talkpage. Your position and denials here are an insult to my intelligence and one of the reasons why English Wikipedia is the horrifying bearpit of weirdness and guideline-clobbering that it is. Sickening.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC) These also apply to what has been going on thanks to the small-group concoction known as NCL:

• Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system
• Wikipedia:Policy shopping
• User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI not a guideline but completely apt.

Why don't you use your admin bludgeon to go dump on Kwami instead of me; he's guilty of all of those, and you have been complicit in standing by and letting it happen when you have the power to stop it but obviously are too busy criticizing me to even think about it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chipewyan people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Directed at JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh geez, so JorisV makes a directly negative comment towards me, and I'm the one getting warned?? He said clearly that he was voting because I'm allegedly not capable of having a proper discussion, which is both an insult and making an editor the target. AGF/NPA/CIVIL. Likewise with Kwami's ongoing derisions and putdowns. You are abusing your power as an admin, and you yourself have not been willing to answer direct, simple questions on the NCET guidelines discussion, all in neutral language, either because you are not willing to answer or have no answers, or as a demonstration of contempt. I hear AGF all the time from people who don't show any signs of it themselves. Other editors have no problem with my writing style; many consider me a good writer and very informative. Why don't you answer to the issues I raised, instead of filing another threat like this again? And rein in the tongues of your NCL colleagues; they're the ones doing the attacking. I'm only defending myself from false and rather rude accusations. Demeaning comments in place of "proper discussion" are way too common coming from those presuming to a moral high ground they are not themselves standing on.Skookum1 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Skookum1. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chipewyan people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Directed at JorisvS: "until your lot came along with your guideline-cum-wrecking ball, but I know that you don't care about anything other than NCL ... You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Your conflation of that criticism of how NCL is being abused and other guidelines derided is oversensitivity in the extreme and is very apt, considering the virulent opposition and obstructionism and regularly derision targeted towards me by those who think NCL is HOLYWRIT. It is not, and you are no saint yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comox people move

Please see Talk:Comox people#Moving this article

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

K'omoks

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

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

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

material from K'omoks website

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

Please consider archiving

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

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

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

Auto archiving

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

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

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

WP Mountains in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Mountains 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) 19:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dabs

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

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

Blocked for 48 hours

Hi Skookum1,

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Coast Salish peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Empire Stadium, Tongass and Haida

Snokomish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Serpentine River, Kwantlen and Semiahmoo

Kwikwetlem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kwantlen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Langley, British Columbia (city)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posting this here so as to not load more onto his page, given the threat he made there to curb my tongue, and also because I know I have supporters who watch my talkpage, and other interested parties.

@Fayenatic london: I am copying the whole section from his talkpage I am reply to; my new comments begin after the threat of longterm blockage. This is a bit of a manifesto on what has become of Wikipedia since my joining it so very long ago; some may call it a RANT, and there are those here who condemn me for daring to defend myself at all from what are extremely unfair attacks on my writing and on myself. I know there are fully literate readers among my watchlist; please also read my recent comments on Talk:Comox people#Requested move about the assault on WP:CANADA guidelines and standards and Canadian English usage in general. I really would have rather write a few more needed articles and import-stubs tonight, but once again am forced to defend myself against both bureaucracy and overt hostility - and being told to shut up when not actually derided and insulted in so very many ways. I am a seasoned and prolific contributor who knows his topic areas very well, and am now learning more and more about guidelines and exactly how far off-course has been going as its core group gets smaller and smaller, and work on procedure and guideline are dominated by a smaller and smaller and more regulatory (though less informed or open-minded than before ) adminship. I am not alone in perceiving or feeling this, and no doubt I will be scolding for saying so, just as I will be scolded for posting my thoughts about it on my own talkpage. It may even be responded to with that long-term block I'm threatened with below, if not by Fayenatic then someone else; but at least I have dared to say it, and have said it so it is here for posterity. During the arbitrary block for 48 hours last week I was not even allowed to post to here, or use email user, or post at ANI because no ANI was filed. Arbitrary measures are not justice, but then wikipedia is no more about justice than it is about democracy, is it. Them's who hold the power makes the rules, after all. They tell me it's NOTCENSORED too. Funny about that, huh? yeah, sure.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A post made by another editor as what would have been an edit conflict at Fayenatic's page had I posted this there I have included in italics. I really have been trying to work on articles but I keep getting called onto the carpet to defend myself (and then get condemned for doing so). Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Earlier at User_talk:Fayenatic_london#this_is_getting_ridiculous

When will the madness stop? I get patronized, my writing and efforts insulted, and I'm given an NPA warning by one of the group who refuses to have the proper discussion I always try to have; and others who do worse go unpunished and unthreatened. Once upon a time Wikipedians were an open group of minds, who weren't insecure about reading long points-of-information and who actually responded to questions. I've tried to engage the guidelines discussion on NCET with cogent, clear questions, and have been pointedly ignored - apparently as a show of contempt (and don't say I'm questioning their motives when my own motives are regularly grilled and insulted). See here which to me is a clear abuse of an admin's position and also favoritism and.....hypocritical. I can't find the hostile comments she herself made; I think montanabw may have deleted that whole section from his talkpage, or it's in his archives; or deleted from her own talkpage, as she's done before when I tried to raise with her the very issues on NCET she refuses to answer to. They're out there somewhere. Unlike some people, I don't make stuff up; or deny what I've said.

Perhaps she has no answers, but to me it's anti-AGF to remain silent on straightforward question, or in reply to points of information on questions and issues she herself raised; instead she uses a warning template. In the days of the "old consensus", a lot of wisdom and patience were shown and a very broad collective mind were at work; now I see a campaign to drive me from Wikipedia by a certain group of editors who regard me as intruding on their turf and pointing out the flaws in their their logics, and their guidelines. I don't want to take this to ANI, I'm sick of process, and of people targeting me and my writing instead of even making an attempt to respect my input. I also don't want to spend half a day looking for the comments she made that I remember all too well as hostile and accusatory, other than the childish "get a life" deletion of my points about "FOO people" which I tried to make to her.

Others do understand I have valuable things to say; but it seems that WP:BAITing me in RM discussions with AGF and soft-or-hard pedalled criticisms is now an established tactic. Proper discussion? When will t hey start answering questions instead of launching more putdowns in the course of what should be discussing the actual points at hand? And here I am, winding up giving you another "wall of text" - I've broken this into two paragraphs to ameliorate that. In all the time this has been going on, I've been creating articles and expanding others. Harassment of this kind for my writing style, of all things given this whole encyclopedia is a writing project, is inane. Alleging personal attacks against me while saying nothing about those made much worse against me is getting way out of control.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

{{ping}} Even though you don't have any track record in taking my advice, let me try one more piece. Quit saying anything about anybody's behaviour. You are not able to do so objectively, and your every attempt simply winds people up and results in less ever-decreasing respect for you.

I was going to set up a separate sub-page of my talk page for you so that you don't swamp it. However, the way you are heading, that may no longer be necessary, because unless you reform your behaviour markedly and very soon, I can foresee that you will be blocked for a long period or indefinitely. If you can't collaborate effectively, you will have to leave.

So, Just talk about the content. Nothing else. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:jc7's comment

Ok, so I saw the word "ridiculous" on my watchlist, and I thought I'd come see what it was about. After lengthy reading of more than a little text (and this coming from me, well-known to possibly have a slight penchant for verbosity : )

So anyway, I thought I should note two things -

* 1.) From personal experience, people tend to not read the entirety of a wall of text. One of the first things they teach in writing classes is "know your audience". I won't claim to be even fairly good about this myself, but if even "I" was tempted to not read the lengthy text, it might well be worth considering working on ways to be more concise.

* 2.) User:Fayenatic london is absolutely correct. In a discussion about content, try to focus on discussing the content, not the contributor(s). If there is behaviour worth looking into, then consider posting a short note with a link at WP:AN or one of its subpages as apppropriate. Otherwise it can become what some might call "more heat than light".

And just so it's said, I don't need a recap or update of events, I've read well enough I think. I merely thought it might be helpful for you to hear it from someone else (as positive reinforcement, at the very least). ymmv, of course.

Happy editing

) - jc37 17

48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jc37:Comment at least someone here can talk politely and doesn't wield a bludgeon in the course of complaining about bludgeoning.....and isn't doing so in a threatening manner, either. Wow, that's refreshing.Skookum1 (talk)

Tonight's response

Oh so, *I* will get blocked as an attack on my "behaviour" when those attacking my intelligence and sanity based on my writing style which in fact you will not deign to read?

There are those many do know I am being cogent and on topic; you saw Themightyquill's comment on the one RM, didn't you? And he doesn't even like me; but he says if you take the time to read me I have valuable information and there are others who recognize my contributions on both talkpages and in article-creation/organization and who don't rail at me for things they do not want to take the time to read or understand. And yet I was arbitrarily blocked, and am now being threatened for a long-terms block.

Yet I am long-time prolific and valuable editor with broad knowledge, and regional expertise in a big way, as other WPCANADA and Pacific Northwest and many other areas now; yet among the bureaucracy I am becoming a pariah for writing things that they either refuse to read or openly old in contempt or simply do not want to hear or admit to, told I am not "capable of holding a proper discussion" and "no one would ever accuse you of being rational" and "idiotic" - for guideline discussion no less, for writing things they won't read that others respect and learn from.

That incorrect guideline interpretations have been made by otherwise and that insults have been regularly tossed at me in no uncertain terms is not on the table? "my ever-decreasing respect" for you is if nothing else a personal attack; you will not even read my RM arguments to see what they say, I have already been pondering an ANI or higher about the treatment I have received, but am too busy providing needed information on the various RMS, and all the while creating needed articles; while others rail at me for my output as being unreadable.

I'm a good writer; what I see around me are bureaucrats abusing power and wielding menace in response and scolding me for my efforts to improve and expand Wikipedia, and told that my writing is garbage. I do focus on the content, and having to dispute the obvious in all too many cases with people who don't know about the topic, and won't listen to an editor with local expertise, and condemn and threaten him with administrative sanction if he keeps on trying to address ALL the guidelines (not just one, or single phrase plopped out of this or that one) in their full context. There should be a new line added to the wikilawyering use of legal techniques; discrediting a proponent through attacks on their credibility and ability and even sanity as a way of having to avoid talking about the issues.

I've just made a lengthy comment on the new, second Comox RM (the other was on Talk:Comox, British Columbia and closed only a few days ago; other Canadians and I are arguing that the PRIMARYTOPIC is obviously the town, and want Comox, British Columbia listed back in, both agree as will others familiar with BC (if not certain Albertans); but isn't that kinda hasty for a second RM on the same title, on the same topic (PRIMARYTOPIC), and isn't that out of order, i.e. re-RMing Comox in the wake of an immediately preceding RM on the same title?? For the benefit of the two support voters, who are familiar with (and are willing to read what I say as they know I am always informative...and even cogent), I laid out the PRIMARYTOPIC dispute which is all over many very similar RMS (might as well be identical, as are th voices of opposition) which is also core at that one and at the previous dual town RM and the overall theme of what I'm hearing across all RMs (generally from the same certain group of voices) as is also the case in guideline discussions.

Yet for that contribution to the discussion of issues and content and guidelines, you will no doubt hurl TLDR at me, or someone will; it is their choice to not learn; I know CBW and Skeezix will read it and will get absolutely everything I am saying about the issues, and also about the persistent challenges to CANSTYLE and Canadian English and our guidelines and standards at WP:CANADA = which I was enacting by starting all the town RMs, and many of the indigenous ones. I am following guidelines, acting from consensus decisions and mandates, and am moving forward with changes so mandated.

And yet I am being both insulted repeatedly elsewhere, but, threatened here with a permanent block, after an arbitrary block "as a favour"......by someone who does not read my points because he does not have the time or patience, and is apparently so irritated by full grammar and sequential argument and a lack of an open mind towards an informed, ariculate, long-term editor.

In real life, I am very large physically, and regularly get intimidation and officiousness from smaller persons, often insults and sometimes violence or threats of it. In writing, I am voluble and write "the old way", and have a lot of information to convey; and so when I'm treated as being crazy or stupid - by those who are really talking about themselves. So I recognize the attitude and the behaviour I am seeing and being treated with all too well for what it is. Wikipedia's community is getting smaller; in looking over old IPNA and WPCAN archives and others I see many names no longer with us; maybe that's because its collective mind is getting smaller, and its attitudes narrower and less accepting and open. And its adminship less open-minded and more and more abusive of powers.

I'm not alone in thinking this; Wikipedia Review was founded by it. I may go there yet. But I really do have better things to do than comment on this place if it drives me out for being articulate and thoughtful and informative. Yes I do have better things to do, profoundly so, and not just as a writer - more than you can realize; I came back to Wikipedia because articles and categories about where I am from and about my country are important to me; even other WPCANADA people who don't like me so much know that I know my subject areas inside and up and outside and down, and know where to look for this or that piece of information or reference. And have undertaken group projects like this UNDAB of unique town names wholesale; massive amounts of work have been done.

I have been a loyal and consistent editor on WikiProject Canada, and have contributed to IPNA since not long after its founding; and I am being hounded out by people who won't even read what I have to say, and interpret criticism of their past wiki-actions as NPA, while hurling NPAs at me and even threatening me with blocks or actually blocking me, and now threatening me with longterm blockage for really no very good reason at all; by people who won't hold a "proper discussion" and refuse to answer points raised by assaulting me verbally procedurally and also in concert against me (and Canadian English titles) in concert.

I am "more and more losing my respect for YOU, Fayenatic; I broke my output into paragraphs so it's easier to read; you will still rail at me for TLDR and whatever else instead of see my point of view, or take action against the overt NPAs which are through (repeatedly) numerous guideline discussion copy-paste posts or other slants against my character, sanity or intelligence. If what I have is a disability, then being derisive towards me for it is not a good comment on the collective character of Wikipedia; but it is not a disability, it is a different style of writing that some feel uncomfortable with, and others who just don't like what I have to say (especially it seems quoting other guidelines to counterpoise the supposed sole guideline) know is intelligent and informed and very often useful and thoughtful. Perhaps it is not me that has the disability....AGF used to mean patience and openness and a willingness to learn, and to indulge different approaches; now it is being used as a club to avoid addressing that very content you say I should be talking about myself.

Speaking of which, it's 1 am here and I've just spent 35 minutes (only) of valuable time with somebody who is threatening me with blockage because of allegations and imputations that I am unwelcome in Wikipedia. Your last block didn't even let me post on my own talkpage or even email user. It's not like I've been obscene or abusive.....only for my writing style and insistence on TRULY addressing the full scope of guidelines and topic/title discussion......if you find thine eye offensive, pluck it out. That doesn't mean throw me out, it means your perceptions of me are inherently flawed; not surprising considering you say you do not even read what I write.

I'm kicking these block threats and Uysvdi's upstairs tomorrow - soon, anyway, I believe it or not do have a life outside Wikipedia - along with the Squamish PRIMARYTOPIC dispute to somewhere and the overall threeway juxtaposition of town/language/ethno titles that is the subtext to the relentless opposition from the usual suspects; I'd really rather write articles and fulfill the mandate given me by WPCANADA re town RMs and launch a few more imports from other-language Wikipedias which have been neglected here, but like begets like and I think it is you who are out of order, not me. Banning me from Wikipedia is not a solution, it is opening your minds that is necessary - not closing them like the slamming of a door. A late friend had a saying "a mind is like a box. If it's open, things get put into it. If it's not, then nothing does". Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I only just noticed this. Thanks for writing here rather than on my page.

My words about the long term block were not a threat, more a prediction.

I try to give you friendly advice, but you accuse me of calling you a psycho.

I am not going to block you. It's just that I see you doing things in a way that ends up hurting yourself. (On the way, it offends a load of other people, but I choose not to take action on that.) I try to be a supporter because I see you have good ideas; e.g. I set up Category:Skwxwu7mesh people as you had suggested, which—at a stretch—was permitted by the closure CfD where you shot yourself in the foot. But if you can't rein in your speed typing, especially the attacks on other people, somebody or other is going to block you, and that would be a shame.

Try going on Twitter. You might be surprised at how much you can get across in a few words. Writing concisely takes time and effort, but it shows respect, is appreciated by others, and is more effective. – Fayenatic London 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

to me that advice is from teh age of semi-literacy that is mounting in this world as more and more people find themselves constrained, or trained, by the diktats of computerdom...... 140 words is not sufficient to address complicated issues concerning guidelines and more. If people cannot read or understand material that is challenging to them and use it as a bludgeon to denounce someone whose posts they don't want to admit to or address the content of is an abuse of CIVIL and also contsitutes AGF; you saw Themightyquill's comment about the amount of effort I put into my arguments and accepting GF despite my volubility and intense attention to detailed reading of guidelines and also reading about the article contents and context; people who quote one-sided cherrypicks of a single guideline while not even knowing, or wanting to know, about the subject matter.Skookum1 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Even been here, Skookum?

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hesquiaht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clayoquot (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) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why confusing?

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

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

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

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Forks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of British Columbia 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:

• language|Sekani]], [[Shuswap language|Secwepemc]], [[Sinixt dialect|Sinixt]], [[Squamish language}Sḵwxwú7mesh]], [[Tagish language|Tagish]], [[Tahltan language|Tahltan]], [[Thompson language|Nlaka'
• signing 14 treaties between 1850-1854 to purchase land for settlement and industrial development (coal deposits were known by the HBC in the vicinities of Nanaimo and [[Fort Rupert, British

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Seton 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:

• , which is also the old name of the [[Sek'welwas First Nation]] i.e "Cayoose Creek Indian Band")<!--and by the name sign on the Hwy 99 bridge near the Bridge of the 23 Camels-->.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stawamus (village) 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:

• {{IPAc-en|ˈ|s|t|ɑː|ʔ|ə|m|ʉ|s}}, in the original Skwxwu7mesh snichim {{IPAc-en|ˈ|s|t|ɑː|ʔ|m|ʉ|s}})) is a village at the head of [[Howe Sound]], located on '''Stawamus Indian Reserve No. 24''', at
• this village as 95, 10 of whom are non-aboriginal in origin and are of British Isles ethnic origin).<ref>[http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there!

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

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

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

map Vancouver Island Ranges

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

Good luck with the trolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked for 4 days

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested_move_2. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skookum1

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

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

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Aside from noting the support votes and other supportive comments for me ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] &endash and please note this comment from the closer "There is no consensus here for a block or ban.") at the ANI which called for no block at all, the wording of the block says "persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2" re [(persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2 this post on April 1 at 15:09. That is one day after the ANI began, and most "most recently" given the 750 or so edits from that time until my block; in the course of the last week of the ANI I was consciously minding my p's and q's on article-discussion and guideline-discussion pages, as a review of my contributions from, say, April 7-12 will clearly show; April 1 is not "most recently" considering the volume of edits I made in that period, in which I heeded advice from the ANI and others privately to say within boundaries and write more clearly and less reactively to actions, statements and claims by others.

I have also made a point of breaking up my posts into smaller paragraphs for easier readibility/comprehension. Noting again that others said there should be no block at all, because of the block I could not reply to requests made in the final hours before closure to supply the diffs re various actions and statements by others; I am in Asia, 12 time zones and a dateline away. I woke up on Songkran, which is New Years Day here in Thailand, to find myself blocked and the ANI closed so I could not respond.

As for what I will be doing if unblocked, as per what Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks says, I think my long history here and its multitude of contributions speaks for itself, as do the commendations of those who know I write quality articles and have useful things to say, if not always clearly understood and so often maligned.

Among the projects in abeyance because of all the distractions and time demands of the ANI and other discussions are a number of history articles and not-yet-extant indigenous articles and improvements and expansions to existing ones, and likewise for British Columbia and other history and geography and community articles, long delayed, and also in other wikiproject/topic areas such as WP:Bodybuilding and WP:Southeast Asia/Thailand to address stubs and citation issues there where proper sourcing is difficult and COI is common and, in the case of SE Asia/Thailand and other non-anglosphere article areas, bad grammar and wording are much in need of fixing.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Aside from noting the support votes and other supportive comments for me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603708251&oldid=603707240] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603637708&oldid=603637446] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603615174&oldid=603612328] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603550235&oldid=603550116] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603550116&oldid=603549129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603507199&oldid=603507017] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603408889&oldid=603408228] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603408228&oldid=603408115] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603467188&oldid=603467113] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603481871&oldid=603481019] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603483657&oldid=603483295] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603544852&oldid=603544276] &endash and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603544852&oldid=603544276 please note this comment from the closer "There is no consensus here for a block or ban."]) at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Ongoing_personal_attacks_by_User:Skookum1 the ANI] which called for no block at all, the wording of the block says "persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2" re [(persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChipewyan_people&diff=602274710&oldid=602272759 Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2 this post on April 1 at 15:09]. That is one day after the ANI began, and most "most recently" given the 750 or so edits from that time until my block; in the course of the last week of the ANI I was consciously minding my p's and q's on article-discussion and guideline-discussion pages, as a review of my contributions from, say, April 7-12 will clearly show; April 1 is not "most recently" considering the volume of edits I made in that period, in which I heeded advice from the ANI and others privately to say within boundaries and write more clearly and less reactively to actions, statements and claims by others. I have also made a point of breaking up my posts into smaller paragraphs for easier readibility/comprehension. Noting again that others said there should be no block at all, because of the block I could not reply to requests made in the final hours before closure to supply the diffs re various actions and statements by others; I am in Asia, 12 time zones and a dateline away. I woke up on Songkran, which is New Years Day here in Thailand, to find myself blocked and the ANI closed so I could not respond. As for what I will be doing if unblocked, as per what [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]] says, I think [https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Skookum1&project=en.wikipedia my long history here and its multitude of contributions] speaks for itself, as do the commendations of those who know I write quality articles and have useful things to say, if not always clearly understood and so often maligned. Among the projects in abeyance because of all the distractions and time demands of the ANI and other discussions are a number of history articles and not-yet-extant indigenous articles and improvements and expansions to existing ones, and likewise for British Columbia and other history and geography and community articles, long delayed, and also in other wikiproject/topic areas such as WP:Bodybuilding and WP:Southeast Asia/Thailand to address stubs and citation issues there where proper sourcing is difficult and COI is common and, in the case of SE Asia/Thailand and other non-anglosphere article areas, bad grammar and wording are much in need of fixing. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Aside from noting the support votes and other supportive comments for me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603708251&oldid=603707240] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603637708&oldid=603637446] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603615174&oldid=603612328] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603550235&oldid=603550116] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603550116&oldid=603549129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603507199&oldid=603507017] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603408889&oldid=603408228] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603408228&oldid=603408115] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603467188&oldid=603467113] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603481871&oldid=603481019] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603483657&oldid=603483295] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603544852&oldid=603544276] &endash and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603544852&oldid=603544276 please note this comment from the closer "There is no consensus here for a block or ban."]) at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Ongoing_personal_attacks_by_User:Skookum1 the ANI] which called for no block at all, the wording of the block says "persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2" re [(persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChipewyan_people&diff=602274710&oldid=602272759 Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2 this post on April 1 at 15:09]. That is one day after the ANI began, and most "most recently" given the 750 or so edits from that time until my block; in the course of the last week of the ANI I was consciously minding my p's and q's on article-discussion and guideline-discussion pages, as a review of my contributions from, say, April 7-12 will clearly show; April 1 is not "most recently" considering the volume of edits I made in that period, in which I heeded advice from the ANI and others privately to say within boundaries and write more clearly and less reactively to actions, statements and claims by others. I have also made a point of breaking up my posts into smaller paragraphs for easier readibility/comprehension. Noting again that others said there should be no block at all, because of the block I could not reply to requests made in the final hours before closure to supply the diffs re various actions and statements by others; I am in Asia, 12 time zones and a dateline away. I woke up on Songkran, which is New Years Day here in Thailand, to find myself blocked and the ANI closed so I could not respond. As for what I will be doing if unblocked, as per what [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]] says, I think [https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Skookum1&project=en.wikipedia my long history here and its multitude of contributions] speaks for itself, as do the commendations of those who know I write quality articles and have useful things to say, if not always clearly understood and so often maligned. Among the projects in abeyance because of all the distractions and time demands of the ANI and other discussions are a number of history articles and not-yet-extant indigenous articles and improvements and expansions to existing ones, and likewise for British Columbia and other history and geography and community articles, long delayed, and also in other wikiproject/topic areas such as WP:Bodybuilding and WP:Southeast Asia/Thailand to address stubs and citation issues there where proper sourcing is difficult and COI is common and, in the case of SE Asia/Thailand and other non-anglosphere article areas, bad grammar and wording are much in need of fixing. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Aside from noting the support votes and other supportive comments for me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603708251&oldid=603707240] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603637708&oldid=603637446] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603615174&oldid=603612328] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603550235&oldid=603550116] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603550116&oldid=603549129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603507199&oldid=603507017] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603408889&oldid=603408228] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603408228&oldid=603408115] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603467188&oldid=603467113] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603481871&oldid=603481019] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603483657&oldid=603483295] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603544852&oldid=603544276] &endash and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=603544852&oldid=603544276 please note this comment from the closer "There is no consensus here for a block or ban."]) at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Ongoing_personal_attacks_by_User:Skookum1 the ANI] which called for no block at all, the wording of the block says "persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2" re [(persistent disruption of consensus-forming discussions, most recently identified at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChipewyan_people&diff=602274710&oldid=602272759 Talk:Chipewyan_people#Requested_move_2 this post on April 1 at 15:09]. That is one day after the ANI began, and most "most recently" given the 750 or so edits from that time until my block; in the course of the last week of the ANI I was consciously minding my p's and q's on article-discussion and guideline-discussion pages, as a review of my contributions from, say, April 7-12 will clearly show; April 1 is not "most recently" considering the volume of edits I made in that period, in which I heeded advice from the ANI and others privately to say within boundaries and write more clearly and less reactively to actions, statements and claims by others. I have also made a point of breaking up my posts into smaller paragraphs for easier readibility/comprehension. Noting again that others said there should be no block at all, because of the block I could not reply to requests made in the final hours before closure to supply the diffs re various actions and statements by others; I am in Asia, 12 time zones and a dateline away. I woke up on Songkran, which is New Years Day here in Thailand, to find myself blocked and the ANI closed so I could not respond. As for what I will be doing if unblocked, as per what [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]] says, I think [https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Skookum1&project=en.wikipedia my long history here and its multitude of contributions] speaks for itself, as do the commendations of those who know I write quality articles and have useful things to say, if not always clearly understood and so often maligned. Among the projects in abeyance because of all the distractions and time demands of the ANI and other discussions are a number of history articles and not-yet-extant indigenous articles and improvements and expansions to existing ones, and likewise for British Columbia and other history and geography and community articles, long delayed, and also in other wikiproject/topic areas such as WP:Bodybuilding and WP:Southeast Asia/Thailand to address stubs and citation issues there where proper sourcing is difficult and COI is common and, in the case of SE Asia/Thailand and other non-anglosphere article areas, bad grammar and wording are much in need of fixing. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}