User talk:Skookum1

.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

Multiple article moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

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

category "Bantu people"

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

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

ROTFL re your mistake on Skookum

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

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

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

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

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

WP:DABREDIR

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

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

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

Hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yorke Island Coastal Fort Edit

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

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

Final warning

Just yesterday I warned you to dial the heat down in your conflict with Kwamikagami. Then you go off and do this [1]. Again, flooding a discussion with irrelevant complaints about unrelated cases, casting aspersions against the personality of your opponent and even against a whole branch of science, mixing everything up with bickering over irrelevant typographic details, and, while doing all that, not even bothering to get the other editor's position right.*

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

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

* For the record: Kwami wasn't asserting the existence of a "Kavango language", as you claimed, but the existence of a group of "Kavango languages", which is indeed sourced as such as a subgroup in the language article in question, and in fact he had himself made that point in an edit correcting yours [2], after you had apparently inserted the claim there was a "Kavango language" [3].

"from now on, you are on a strict no-personalizing-of-disputes parole. When you have to engage in a dispute involving Kwami, you are strictly prohibited from making any remarks regarding the other editor's past or present conduct, and any remark drawing connections to prior conflicts unless they are strictly needed in order to make your argument on the content."

• You've just granted Kwami his wish; non-interference by Skookum1 in anything he does; his past record can't be discussed, despite ongoing questionable activities on his own part, including the NCL edit war. Maybe even mentioning that on my own talkpage is fulfillment of your block-warning; Callanec advised me to summarize all the history of diffs and comments made towards me which have been consistently untowards, and submit an AE about it to ARBCOM..... but here I'm forbidden to get in kwami's way at all, or point out his past actions and comments altogether; that he is immune from guidelines, behavioural or content guidelines, when I am regularly made the butt of reprimand.....I tire of this; if you note my usercontributions I have been less and less active the last few days; his warring over the RMs last year led me to a stroke-like stress attack, I have my health and the rest of my life to think about, and I spend far too much time here already to want to either argue my case by spending a week filing an AE;

• and in finding myself muzzled and inhibited in writing article content because of the increasing instruction creep in Wikipedia, combined with people messing with title/content issues on topics they know nothing about; guidelines have become more important than enyclopedic authenticity and integrity; the butchering of a long-stable older consensus has only been made personal because I have been made the target of debates, not the issues....bureaucracy's self-importance is a waste of time, and all too often combined with complete ignorance of the matters at hand; that guidelines and policy are flouted and any attempt to deal with that is met with threats of blocks, or actual blocks, underscores for me what I've heard from many editors.... that consensus is a joke, that trolls rule the roost, and that imperious adminshipping doesn't address policy issues, rather equivocates them away and makes excuses for those who disregard actual policy; and I see guidelines thrown about in the course of stupid closures made by people who apparently don't even read the whole of the guidelines they invoke, never mind knowing the subject matter. Closes such as what happen on Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move and others were wrong and made, not on the issues, but on the basis of perverse personality hostility and a complete misreading and mis-citing of guidelines invoked; and in Talk:Haida people actual stats were ignored, and I was again made the reason to retrench a title created by the "NCL rampage" rather than return it to its original title, as was successful in 90% + of other related RMs....the consensus evident in which has been the subject of the attempts to bring NCL and NCET into conformity with policy; all editors seeking to make those reforms have been met with absurdity and distortions of their own words thrown back at them....while the adminship as a whole looks the other way....other than breathing down my neck for knowing what has transpired and saying so. "Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedians sure as hell are".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2014

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

"when a naming discussion is underway" WTF? There was no naming discussion, not that anyone told me about; I was familiar with the Twana title meaning the Skokomish (being the only remaining one and the absorpter of all the other eight) and discovered its cooptation by you-know-who for a language-article redirect; and in the course of doing that went to the tribal article to confirm that usage/story and saw the name change and did the correct thing to do.

Tribal/band articles are governed by WP:Self-identification and wheezing and wheedling about wikiguidelines and "precedents" or whatever's in whatever name discussion there is really beside the point and mis-using guidelines for....time-wasting purposes (I had no reason to look at its talkpage, if that's where that discussion is). You're a big stickler on proper names of tribal governments per the big cumbersome Nevada titles (FOO tribe of the WHATZIT Reservation), so why in heaven's name is there even any discussion about this?? "Sources" naming the old name aren't relevant if that's what the issue is; and you should know best of all that tribal governments, being sovereign, are where "official use" is determined; not in their exo-listings with state/provincial or federal governments. If those governments still have them listed differently than the tribe itself has decided it's called, and that's what some Wikipedians are arguing about, that's an example of non-indigenous sources being used to outweight indigenous sources; of one dominating "official" use overriding the sovereign official use of the peoples themselves.

Why there would even be a dispute about respecting a tribal government's official style is quite beyond me, but also typical of the inanity that besets authenticity and integrity of titles and content far too often. Typically made by those uninformed and unacquainted with indigenous political/cultural realities; and "colonialist" sources with names different from the ones used by the peoples/tribes themselves. It's not for non-native sitting in chairs armed with books and online sources to decide what native peoples/governments are called; that's {{systemic bias}} of the very first order. Numerical counting of sources is a bugbear I've seen too much of; which is why Sta7mes is at the "anglicism" "Stawamus (village)" which has various dab style problems and is out of step with other Skwxwu7mesh village article titles, and why many language articles that were changed by you-know-who at the same time as the corresponding people articles since reverted by RM (Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move and others) are still at archaic/obsolete "academic" titles; CONSISTENCY has been ignored, as has MOSIDENTITY; any mumbling about sources from the past, or by external governments to the one being named, should not even be a factor. Taht the "SOURCES" argument has wound up seeing a derisive-origin exonym still being the title at Chipewyan people or Sarcee language is noxious but a further example of {{systemic bias}} and the use of questionable sources to outweight self-identification. Skookum1 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

ANI thread about Kwami

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

Someone who knows me outside of Wikipedia sent me that link; I haven't been logging in (rare for me) and there's lots I could say but I'm a bete noire at ANI and don't like the pack mentality that can happen there....the edit warring and tactics accounted by you and others are a persistent pattern stretching back those years of this I told you about; from a hyphen-dash RM that shouldn't have been dragged out, but was, also challenging the validity of sources and picayune IDONTLIKEIT b.s., on Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District#Requested move, and the same on the "First Five" RMs last year (I won't link them all) and on many since; and on NCL and NCET; there was another move war over Wuikinuxv and their language which is still at Oowekyala dialect instead of Wuikyala, same as other language articles which were moved at the same time as people articles he was adding the people dab too, and changing to sources he claims mandate the term he prefers, which he never produces vs denouncing any sources he doesn't like; or as in the ethno RMs will fight a self-identification title claiming nobody knows how to pronounce it and/or it's "not English".

I followed Cuch's link to the item on his talkpage, as usual he claims I'm doing what he does = "pushing POV" and "straw-man arguments".... citing policy and guidelines is what he calls "POV"....the edit-warring over Bantu and the Kavango and other items is all part of the persistent pattern. He's learned to game the system and maybe this is all just a twisted video game for him; it's not responsible editing and his attitude is anything but collegial; consensus for him means a veto of anything he wants to filibuster as at the NCL page, where you will find a list of those misleading edit comments that are noted in the ANI to do with that guideline and related ones..... personality attacks are par for the course, alongside his disputatiousness on sources; he used them in the regional district RM and throughout the St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Tsilhqot'in, Ktunaxa and Secwepemc and more since; as I noted, I could come up with maybe hundreds of diffs but it's an energy sink/timehole.....wasting other people's time seems to bring him pleasure...which is why he makes BAITing comments and non sequitur edit wars like the template-war over db-move and only-two-dabs that brought you to me/us....

And just to note, on a related matter but concerning a different editor, please see the previous section. Uyvsdi's claims about me, or about discussions, are very often just not true; and she never answers my rebuttals; I haven't started the RM now needed there for reasons of exhaustion and aversion to procedure; it should be an open and shut case, as with other things she's reverted; but when I see claims that I've done something wrong because a discussion is underway and there is no such discussion, all I can do is shake my head and wonder how it is she's a university professor.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I stood off from Maunus' harassment ANI, but replied to an archive of it later without realizing it was archived; comments about similar ubsubstantiated claims against me are still available in this diff; it seems allegation is taken for the same thing as guilt around here. Yet in trying to address the conclusions of very evident consensus across dozens of RMs, my attempt to change WP:NCET to address those were reverted by her "no consensus"... but she raises questions in her comments on the talkpage I ask for particulars on; she never replies. How can you form consensus with a brick?Skookum1 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kootenay Land District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kettle River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bering Sea Arbitration

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

Notes

• Noble (1990), Dennis L. "Historical Register U.S. Revenue Cutter Service Officers, 1790–1914" (pdf). Coast Guard Personnel. U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office. Retrieved 16 June 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "Record of Movements, Vessels of the United States Coast Guard, 1790–December 31, 1933" (pdf). U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation. Retrieved 16 June 2014.

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

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

Hi Skookum1

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

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

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

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

BNA Access

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

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

Edit warring on Blackbeard

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

Oh, gimme a break, being told to "fuck off" and "fuck you" is not part of the normal "edit war" experience; fixing overblown and vague English is what is supposed to be done, not insulting someone for making the necessary correction. And it's not a "difference of opinion", it's right in MOS and very blatantly as second paragraph, first sentence. "In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult to understand terminology and symbols.". I'm getting tired of seeing "wikipedia English" built out of wanton use of thesaurus type equations supplanting normal words, it's noisome and wikipedia's influence on language at large does set precedents; all other links to cognomen are for Romans, as should be the case; Blackbeard is a nickname and nothing more, no f%$#$ng wikipedian-ite equivocation about using an obscure and unfamiliar term to most readers should never be part of "calming" an edit war where the apparent OWNer of the page is hostile to all comers to the point of being vulgar about it. Pretentious and puerile like all too many wikipedians; and hearing someone dress me down for it when it's in the guidelines - and saying it's a "difference of opinion" is why wikipedia is being bogged down by neurotic policing of behaviour over content disputes where the guidelines about content and style get equivocated away while a*******s prevail and are given "due courtesy" when none is deserved.Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And duh, I was going to take this turkey's behaviour in defense of this ridiculous imposition of an arcane old word in place of normal English to the edit war board; but someone already showed up to wiki-cop me instead of dealing with the core issue. PLAIN ENGLISH.Skookum1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that "cognomen" is a ridiculous word to be using, and will chip in on the talk page to that effect - it just seemed past time to remind you (and Parrot) that 3RR still applies, after you were both batting it back and forth multiple times a day. MOS disputes and sweary edit summaries are not the "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" that 3RR has an exception for. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Question for you ...

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

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

The category has morphed to: List of endangered languages with mobile apps. :) (a note from your friendly talk page stalker ...) Djembayz (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost

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

English is a DAB page

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

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

Split of Category:Bantu people

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

Was this edit summary really necessary, considering I have asked people to bear with me not so long ago and I have a talk page you could post to? I have been very busy with other Wiki projects, so cut me some slack. If you had not sabotaged the CFD I could have done it before things got crazy for me. HelenOnline 07:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"no one user owns naming rights"

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

Point taken. I'll look for a consensus for such stuff in future. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Mkdw moved it back already; he's also Canadian and familiar with the park and its rep. Thanks for not arguing or trying to rationalize/equivocate, which is too common around here.Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuxalk vs. Nuxalk Nation

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

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

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

Cacik

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

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

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stikine River may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

Music by place [Cfd]

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

ENGVAR on Norway

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

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

NDP

Why would it be a COI at all? Just because I've admittedly voted NDP a few times doesn't mean I wouldn't be allowed to comment on a deliberation between two completely neutral variations on the title — I didn't comment on it because I didn't know it was happening, that's all. But, to be honest, I don't really have a strong opinion either way. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression you were a member and maybe organizer, that's why I asked.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

List of artists

hi Skookum, please include Lionel Samuels to your list of artists. He has been recognized by Greg Sharf of the Smithsonian as being a master artist in argillite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice williamsen (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 July 2014

Do you have a link to that listing? And any links to a bio?Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Curious

Hey Skookum1, this is just curiosity, in what circumstances would you write a definite article before someone's name as you did in "the Marcocapelle" yesterday? Btw you're right, I'm not a native speaker, so I don't feel embarrassed checking this out. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

secondary edit, I'd at first written "the nom" then realized I was already addressing him; substituted your name without removing the definite article; that's a typo, not a grammatical error.Skookum1 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

but also, yes, sometimes in a sort of ironic way someone night refer to someone else as "the [personal name]" or "the [family name]" e.g. the Robert, the Johnson; though the latter case also means "the penis". Heads of Scottish clans are also generally referred to with "the", as in "the Donald" or "the Bruce"; the most common use for "the Donald" nowadays, though, is in reference to Donald Trump.Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to know :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian English

I refactored two of your edits to Talk:Canadian English#Fix this Article in an attempt to keep the threading and indenting clear. Please undo them if that's not what you want. Meters (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

WP:OUP access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

Thank you @Sadads:. I just figured out yesterday I can get past the google login problem I'd told you about by using Opera instead of Chrome to get at my gmail so will try and get at that today; as you can see from my wikibreak notice I'm a....little out of sorts right now, but will try and get on it. There was a notice about BNA you mentioned too, wasn't there?Skookum1 (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Accidental thanks

Just to avoid confusion ... I didn't intend that recent thanks, a touchscreen accident. PamD 05:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

didn't even notice it....Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Kauxuma Nupika

For the record, surgery and hormones are irrelevant to the matter of gender identity — if a person who was born "male" identifies as female or vice versa, then they're whatever they identify as being regardless of whether they've had the surgery or begun hormone treatment or not; medical intervention is not a precondition of the process. (For instance, a transgender person who lived and died before surgery and hormone treatment were actually options at all, but did whatever they could to live as their internal gender identity within whatever resources existed in their time to do so, is still transgender.) The moment they say that's what they are, then that's what they are, period.

And what sources say is irrelevant too, as even today you can still find sources that insist on gendering Laverne Cox as male (I just read one less than two weeks ago) on the grounds that transgender is a fundamentally illegitimate phenomenon in the first place. But that can't hold, because the phenomenon does exist and is recognized by medical science as being a real thing — so medical science takes precedence over individual people's personal disinclinations to accept the way it works. So the question when it comes to gender isn't whether external sources identified Kauxuma Nupika as being male or female, but whether Kauxuma Nupika identified themself as being male or female — and while I'm not an expert in the matter, the burden of evidence clearly seems to support "male" as Kauxuma Nupika's own gender self-identification.

That said, if you have an issue you're going to need to take it up with somebody who's been involved in in any debate about Nupika's gender, because I've literally never even touched the article in my life except for some category refinement. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It makes for awkward language and often contradictory gender statements in various sentences; and re self-identification, Sun Ra said he was from Saturn, so....was he Saturnian? (that's not meant as a flip comment but in all seriousness re his self-identification); and I won't go on about how indigenous peoples' self identification has been given short shrift in countless RMs and CfDs, but maybe only gender self-identification applies.

As far as I know there was no debate re changes to that article; if anything, it seems to have been the only thing done to "improve" that article in recent times; other than in Wikipedia I have always seen her referred to as "her". Nothing illegitimate about being transgender, but to me the use of modern language parameters on historical personages is just wrong. There was, as noted, no consistency on usage within the article; even if all non-quotations were reverted back to the male gender forms, the collision between usages would continue to read very, very odd as far as normal word agreement in grammar goes. BTW in David Lindsay's Voyage to Arcturus, the planet Tormance has a third gender throughout; he coined the pronoun "ae" (with "aer" as the possessive, can't remember the objective form).Skookum1 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no properly verifiable scientific evidence that life has ever existed on Saturn — maybe it has, but we can't prove that — so we have no basis on which we can accept somebody's self-identification as being from Saturn as actually being true. Medical science does, however, actually recognize and document the actual existence of an actual medical condition in which it's actually possible for a person's brain to be gendered differently than what's hanging between their legs. That's why gender identification is an issue of "person is whatever gender they identify as being", and planetary identification isn't — the scientific verifiability of the two claims is significantly different. And the issue of what name a First Nation does or doesn't use for itself is also not a comparable issue, as it has nothing to do with assessing the truth or falsity of the assertion — trying to determine which name for a cultural group, out of multiple possibilities, is the most readily recognizable to a general audience is not the same thing as an issue of self-identity in a biography of an individual person. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Give evidence

Skookum1, one of many distinctive patterns in your complaints is that you omit to provide links so that other people can see what you are talking about.

Category_talk:Chinook_Jargon_place_names#post-CfD_attempt_to_empty_the_category is a current example.

Another example is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_2#Category:Chinook_Jargon_place_names where you referred to a recent CfD on Category:Chinook Jargon as "peremptory and shallow as a nomination and a close". I see from the deletion log that this was deleted in 2012 under WP:G5; is that what you were talking about? Hardly recent, perhaps peremptory but it's consistently applied as policy, and there was no nomination or close. Dexdor went hunting and suggested this recent CfD, on a different category and which hardly seems to give rise to the complaints that you made. You did not have the good manners even to state whether that was the one you were complaining about.

The reason that I am raising is is to plead with you to give links for what you are talking about. Failing to do so is one of several tactics that make you consistently less persuasive than you could be.

If I have to go hunting back through your contribs or those of someone else before I have a clue what you are on about, chances are that either (i) I won't bother, or (ii) I will start but lose interest.

Make it easier on yourself, please. Give evidence. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a more recent one than that; I'm not talking about "placename"->"place name" (when I made that cat, I was following the lead of other "placename" cats, now I supposed many deleted for some reason or other); it was more recent than that, I'll have to look for it; I don't make shit up. It was fresh in my memory and not so long ago when the CJ place names one was brought to the "deletion table". And in that discussion, which I thought it was you who had closed it, so I would have thought you'd have read through it, and would remember that more than one of the participants had waved away the "French placenames [in France]" one because of the special cultural situation of "CJ geography". The notion that only articles about toponyms as toponyms should be in that cat - only two articles, in other words - is h*******t and a**l. The category was created as a common category for all places with Chinook toponyms; perhaps Category:Places with Chinook Jargon toponyms would be a better cat name, if someone's going to be that a**l about interpreting catnames on the most narrow basis possible/forceable.

The result of that destructive action, which not a single one of the participants in the CfD had raised as what should be in it, was two hours today through his cat deletions and reverting them to what they had been (he was "damaging the article" as Uyvsdi has styled my moving of cats to the proper redirects for their titles). I don't recall CS46 ever editing a single one of those articles; and I see too much of this; people wading in with name-games and cat-definition/restructuring games who don't know the topic and do sweeping moves that it is charitable to call "BOLD"; a useless waste of time on his part, and necessary but irritating on mine. And don't launch into me about my "tone", a lot of destructive/aggressive stuff is done around here in "soft tone" but is highly damaging and uncalled for; judge a man not by his words but by what he does; and there's one hell of a lot of destructive s**t going on lately, like the deletion of major civic features rather than any attempt to improve and expand or justify them. Delete, delete, delete, all based on guidelines not based on broad consensus but by small groups with specific agendas....NCL is needless to say a case in point, and teh anti-7 crowd with Sta7mes and Skwxwu7mesh of course. Treating guidelines as rules is contrary to THERE ARE NO RULES but I see someone's made that gussied up so it doesn't mean what was intended by it; wiki-lawyering it out of relevance and intended meaning.

I'll find the CJ CfD, I didn't make it up that that had gone down; and as for the attempt to empty the category of what it was intended for, if you can't see the destructive inanity of that for what it was, then you didn't read the CfD, even though you closed it as "keep" (as it should have been). As for people calling black white, and getting defensive about being confronted with wrong actions, the illogic of the inner workings of Wikipedia's self-contained unreality is on full display here. And the impatience of people, demanding links now, and the ridiculously short 7-day closing schedule (30 days is more realistic, since not everyone on the planet is on Wikipedia every single day...and I'm 13 hours off EDT right now, as it happens), and getting snitty because I haevne't provided them right away, is getting to be a bore, and insulting; really as on Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster it's IMO little more than a tactic I've seen before, to avoid admitting taht the "substantiation" they say doesn't exist isn't already in front of their noses.Skookum1 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll hold you to that. (finding the CfD that you had in mind which was something to do with Chinook Jargon, which neither you nor other experienced contributors can trace at all easily)

Meanwhile please note that I have not even mentioned your (*******) tone, you did. You say judge you by what you do; I'm here to point out to you that quite apart from your tone, what you do is unconvincing and therefore counter-productive.

Look, you've just posted another redlink in your argument above; that's another careless habit. Use the Preview button, and if there is a redlink, fix it before saving. Otherwise, you are just making yourself look worse.

Also, stop assuming that other people read/watch/edit the same stuff as you do. This is another recurring habit.

Please provide links, often. You say above, "NCL is needless to say a case in point". I don't know what NCL is. Sure, I could search for it if I could be bothered, but why don't you habitually make links instead of making cryptic references to such topics, discussions or policies? That's what I'm trying to help you understand. What you do makes you look worse, even for readers who are able to ignore your tone. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought you'd be aware of the blockade of reforming WP:NCL but apparently not; I'm not making "cryptic references", I'm referring to stuff I remember way too well; I do have eidetic memory and forget, true, that other people don't have the same "deep memory" that I do. the long redlink above is for the Fifth Pillar; I thought it was all caps WP:FIFTHPILLAR which is what is behind the pipe; I'll find the link for it. "Able to ignore my tone" LOLOL quite funny... actually, I know of many who don't mind it at all and understand my frustration, which e.g. TheMIghtyQuill and CambridgeBayWeather and others made in response to the blocks/ANIS and testy CfDs etc...then there are those who freak out if there's more than seven sentences in a row, or even make completely false claims about me in ANIs and closing discussions; I've been told not to name names or criticize other editors, including by you, and I never see those same people who criticize me or goad me with obstinacy and lies ever brought before the gallows as I have been; well, one has been, but I was warned never to mention him again, so did'nt weigh with 20 answers to his "when have I disrupted anything?" ..when that's all, in fact, he ever does.

As for the nonsense with the CJ category that just transpired, that's a clear case of someone not bothering to read, or ignoring, or just ignorant, of the just closed CfD and the points that led to it being closed as "keep"; he made the same justifications for his one-sided removals of the cat that were made by nom and his supporters calling for deletion....deletion is inherently destructive activity, not inclusive, and all too often not consensual, very often completely a**l instruction creep....Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh but this is hilarious. So this is a common tactic you employ in your "debates" is it Skookum? Spout nonsense and codswallop and then claim that these "facts" are well enough known that you don't need to provide any evidence to back you up? Wow, amazing. I'm actually quite glad that it isn't just me calling you out on this. Pyrope 16:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well, birds of a feather...etc. But Fayenatic isn't a POV-pushing troll like you are. Do what I said, either work on the article or stop denouncing sources and claiming I'm POV when it's YOU who are so blatantly "on the one side" including catch-phrases common in the right-wing media and by right-wing trolls on news sites. I'm in another time zone, on the other frigging side of the world, have things to do beyond Wikipedia, and I'm not gonna respond to bossy-troll-demands on Media concentration in Canada or "proving" campaign donations and political ties between the mining and media world and the ruling parties; if you're unaware of these things then you're naive if not just plain ignorant. That article is not about those things, it's you that's demanding them, I'm not your pet monkey. I'll get to them in my own bloody good time; your kinds of challenges and rhetoric are demonstrably POV and AGF; and this is yet another NPA on your part. Instead of working on expanding the article you have taken part in a clearly POV agenda, using POV rhetoric, and wasting my time. You have been welcome all along to add whatever you want to the article; yet you insist on consuming time by attacking me. Don't post on my talkpage again, you are not welcome here, TROLL.Skookum1 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that. Anyway, come on then Mr Eidetic memory, where is this "peremptory and shallow" CFD about Category:Chinook Jargon? – Fayenatic London 14:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you think I'm your pet monkey too, it's not like I'm at your beck and call; I've been busy in the real world and wiki-wise I've had more high-priority things to do than pandering to the demands of someone who should go back to writing film reviews and stop lecturing me on my alleged behaviour and challenging me on a CfD that you should have been aware of; like so much else that you don't seem to clue in on, while closing CfDs based on personal dislike and levelling arbitrary "friendly" blocks on me when I was being harassed and attacked. I'm not at your beck and call, Fayenatic, and your are not God; it's evening here now, I've had a long day and don't need snide bullshit coming at me and demands that I find what you're asking RIGHT AWAY. Bug off.Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're completely fine with POV and probably COI and probably paid editing on Wiki coverage of a major environmental disaster....Skookum1 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not demanding anything. You're the one making promises. I'd just like to see you deliver for a change. You clearly are talented, but by parading how brilliant you are and how everybody else is a dick, and then not fulfilling your own promises, you let yourself down. You are a prolific contributor here; I'd like to help you become a respected one as well. – Fayenatic London 20:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just looked up instances of that phrase (peremptory and shallow) and see what happened, which was a brain fart, as I'd just typed that same phrase a moment before; I'll look through recent CfDs and see which one I'd intended to say. And oh yes, see your email. And frankly, I am respected by a lot of editors, many of whom have spoken up in my defence at the various inane and a-factual ANIs launched against me, and here on my talkpage also. Many other long-regular editors who won't or don't edit anymore that I know in "real life" also have no problems with my writing style, and in cases where I haven't linked things I'm referring to are already aware of the context; unlike certain closers who don't know the context and are in fact unconcerned with it, and even go so far as to make one-sided NPAs in their closes (BHG most glaringly) who don't or can't read things that contain facts; the Uyvsdi ANI against me was launched after what must have taken her days of compiling links without the context that had provoked my comment; I could have replied to each and every one with the horsewallop that had prompted them.

Maunus' ANI was full of lies and distortions, and Kwami's were all accusing me of what he had been doing, and also full of lies; his attacks against me on other talkpages, and here, have gone ignored and un-dealt with. I'd rather write articles than have to waste yet more time dealing with ANIs launched by people who are losing an argument; and NCL, as noted, is the Naming convention on languages, which was doctored by Kwami to suit his "preferences", and he'd already "salted" titles in question by changing them to make it seem like his position was already the standing convention, which it wasn't, and even after he moved thousands of articles after diddling with the naming convention, his format for titles was STILL not the majority of articles in question; far from it; and his changes to the guidelines were not in line with policy, particularly TITLE, yet he and his compadre JorisV maintained in the sea of RMs earlier this year that NCL was policy, which it's not. I'd begun a table of which has which format, it's in a sandbox somewhere but it's a massive project and I never did complete the fields; I'd begun it during BHG's arbitrary anti-consensual block against me; the one during which she closed RMs completely out of step with the mass of them closed/moved by Xoloz, Cuchalain and someone else whose name I forget for the moment.

I just got up as I couldn't sleep, and have a lesson with my student commencing shortly. Please stop hectoring me about finding the link you want in a right-away fashion. You're not the only bee in the hive, and I find comments like "I'd like to help you become a respected one as well" patronizing and somewhat offensive. As are the various comments from others denouncing my writing style and "tone", while their own leave much to be desired. I'm already a respected editor; not to those who want every little detail to be linked, or who can't read more than seven sentences at once without freaking out. There's a lot of time-wasting inanity in Wikipedia discussions, often discussions about picayune matters by people who dn't work on teh actual articles themselves; and seem to spend all their time on discussion boards looking for things to delete or people to attack. As for the troll who has persistently harassed me here in course of this discussion, see his "rants" on teh mine disaster article, and also note my even-toned reply to the professional consultant there who is at least working on the article and not bitching about its title, despite his hasty POVish deletion of a cite needed item which was only days old.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As for DexDor, no sooner does he join Wikipedia, well within a few months, not long anyways, he launches into writing guideline proposals about categories..... why are there more people into rule-forging than actually doing something useful like expanding the encyclopedia instead of coming up with ways to regulate it? And please note the further attack on me, by someone who made baseless accusations and also 'do it now' demands on the mine disaster page, which I deleted in the course of this reply; what he's doing is harassment as are also his attempts to take part in a POV demand to match the BC government's own claims that it "is not a disaster" and throwing mud on sources, or questioning their validity without doing anything constructive on the article itself. Another case of someone wanting to war over a title without actually being there for any other reasons; the collusion and close relationship between media, governments and corporations in Canada are a wide subject of public discussion in Canada of late, particularly in BC...but he's pretending I'm making it up and making demands I play "go fine me a shrubbery" for him; I've already amassed a huge number of cites to be used on that subject, and which bolster the current title, which I did not create. I don't want to haul him to an ANI, I'm bored with procedural inanity and imperiousness, but I know a DUCK when I see one, and his use of recognizable buzzwords used by government and corporate supporters against those opposed to them and the use of personality attacks and accusations when on the losing side of an argument is also a very very very recognizable trait of the same group, whether actual p.r. people or from partisan "institutes" like teh Fraser Institute, or from the trollhorde which haunt Canadian news forums. The IP user who launched that complaint with "who calls it a disaster" left in a huff, whining about how he was being treated, after I provided a large number of citations in answer to that, including comments from the local mayor, the provincial Privacy Commissioner and more.....that IP has been traced to a commercial building in Maple Ridge and, being that the agenda of his post is the government's position, may be from a "communications" firm or consultant; I'm having someone go by there and find otu what businesses are in that building...and am starting to think CHECKUSER should be look at re my harasser; there's an army of so-called journalists in teh BC Goverment "newsroom", an organization which bloggers in BC have traced hostile posts to more than once....Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, I did not mean to that I was asking for it right away, just that I would follow up when time allows, unlike previous questions. Thanks for your Teahouse post which does confirm that you are aware to some extent of how you come across. However, you apparently missed the irony of boasting about your eidetic memory in a discussion about something you can't quite remember! OK, about the "respected editor" thing, what I meant was "more widely respected", then. You don't seem to like or intentionally choose to be disrespected, but what you do often encourages that response; so I was hoping you'd accept some advice about coming across better. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Irony nothing, eidetic memory does not mean total recall on demand...and when I wrote the above it was early morning here and I had not slept well; I went and looked and realized it had been a "brain fart" from typing the same words just beforehand, and probably was looking at them while meaning to type whatever else. As you may have gathered by now, I have been rather preoccupied even within Wikipedia, never mind beyond, and haven't gone back to look at my involvement with other CfDs to look at whatever it was that was meant there. And no, I don't really concern myself with "some advice about coming across better", what does bother me is people with short attention spans and narrow fields of view telling me to be as reductionist and simplistic on complex matters as they are, or to field TLDR and WoT at me because they are of this latter age of 10-minute attention spans and masters theses', so called, that are apparently shorter than many magazine articles. I have often laid out detailed point often have them shoved aside pompously, accompanied by personal putdowns, by people who apparently want to remain ignorant of the subject matter at hand. Or close discussions and block me based on their own personal dislike of me, despite there being lot of qualitative "votes" made in support of my position, all ignored because of being baited and bludgeoned, while accusing me of same. It seems to me that knowledge tests and logic tests should be part of becoming an admin, so that somebody without knowledge in a given area presumes to close a discussion based on will full ignorance and a refusal to read what has been said because they find someone expecting them to be able to think and read, isntead of complaining that they do not have time or compare me to one of their students, or telling me I need mentorship. The rule of the arbitrary enforcement of guidelines as "rules" iron-clad is accompanied by an apparent lack of knowledge of the full content of guidelines they have invoked in their overtly hostile closes; not surprising since many of those guidelines are longer than my own material; the bearpit of contrarianism and NPA that is the ANI sphere is notoriouis to many nonadmins, and they try to stay away from the place....which is charnel house of exiled and insulted editors, many of whom have abandoned Wikipedia, if not been banned from it altogether. The core group's names turn up in nearly all arenas, of all kinds of subject areas, all pontificating and hectoring, and violates the guidelines completely, talking about personalities and writing style instead of the content issues that provoked the situation leading to the ANI. In fact, they maintain that they don't need to examine that material, and no doubt they're often teh same people who scan discussions for numerical votes, rather than examining the quality of those votes and realizing which ones are faulty, knee-jerk hostile and/or just plain illogical and uninformed. Time and again, e.g. with that current POV matter, or with things like Adrian Dix and BC Legislature Raids, the benefit of the doubt is given to the interloper rather than to the person they are attacking; and in the case of Adrian Dix the reporter in question shows no remorse at his articles on me, and on Wikipedia and "stands by his story" and now announces he doesn't want to "engage" the matter further. Abusers like him and K-man and the current POV artist ( who I believe to me a COI/POV mole and with good reason) are handled with kid gloves and more politesse than they deserve, and I become the whipping post for people who like t o lecture and patronize just because they are admins.Skookum1 (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Depot Creek (BC-Washington), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kokanee. 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) 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

closing talk page to another user

I recently discovered that you have to leave a notice to stay off your talk page on the other user's talk page. Meters (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That was never done when BHG and Uyvsdi deleted comments of mine from their talkpages; and BHG (Brownhaired Girl) is an admin....and "there are no rules"..."have to" should not apply re the Fifth Pillar ("there are no rules"). I don't want to have any more contact with that troll, he will ignore that template anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone is free to remove comments (other than certain official notices) from their own talk page. I'm sure you know that. What I meant was that before you can take action for trolling your page you have to have notified them on their page. I was surprised to read that recently. I have to apologize in that I have not been able to find a policy that states that, or even to find the thread where it came up. Meters (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Your Teahouse post

Hi, I saw your Teahouse post from yesterday, felt the need to respond, and wasn't entirely comfortable doing it in "public" (I know this isn't really private, but you know what I mean).

I am very sorry to hear about your friend, and I hope I never have to go through something like that.

Wikipedia conflicts are hard enough on one's sanity without the added burden you are carrying now. If I were in your place, I think I'd be spending a lot of my time at the park and none at Wikipedia. See WP:WIKIBREAK. If you're taking Wikipedia into your sleep with you, it's a sure sign you need to change something for your own well-being—and I mean something more than the situation you're having with that article.

Someone else can protect the integrity of that article, if not now, then at some point in the future. Or, if not, it wouldn't be the first article that violates NPOV for a long time. Wikipedia is full of them.

I created a userbox for my user page, that I haven't added to the public gallery. Here it is:

This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.

Best wishes,   Mandruss |talk  06:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

the article isn't really POV right now, though does need more content. A POV campaign to purge the title of an allegedly inflammatory word in the title continues to rage; please have a look. It's getting past inane. But yes, it's time to Wikibreak...and my guitar and I need to have a long talk, and I haven't been swimming in the Gulf of Thailand regularly for a while now, and need to talk to the sea....Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I have a little ADD problem and stopped reading your post about two-thirds of the way into it. Little did I know, you were already disengaging, so my little essay wasn't needed. Now I feel like a schmuck. Ah well.   Mandruss |talk  06:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have always been referring to the sources, the POV issue is the dispute that they are not valid, on very POV grounds, and that I have a POV, when really I have been trying to maintain NPOV rather than allow POV bullying and ranting to force a title change; by people who don't actually work on the article and are only their for that reason. To RM or not to RM, that is the question; I'll be curious to see what kind of shape this article is in a week or two. Signing off....thanks again.Skookum1 (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I also read your Teahouse inquiry and encourage you to calm down and take a break. You admit your inability to be concise, but the Teahouse is not a place for experienced editors to post incredibly lengthy manifestos of frustration. It is supposed to be a friendly place for new editors to ask basic beginner questions about editing Wikipedia, in a place that is warm and welcoming. I read your post all the way through, and was too weary after parsing it all to respond or do further research. Not cool, in my view. Please consider another venue, or just take some time off. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to MidniteWiki...deleted or discontinued? My main thing with coming to the Teahouse was wanting to avoid the formal procedures, which incur engaging the person I need to disengage from; se my talkpage history for the four or so times I reverted his campaign of accusation; his original one, which is highly NPA/AGF, remains; apparently he doesn't get any message at all, and is hear to beat the drums of enviro-war only. I've seen the same from the "other side(s)" i BC politics...in fact my first block ever, by User:Zoe in the way back when, came about from the admin who blocked me misreading what I'd said and though I'd been threatened, physically or legally, or whatever, instead of what she had blocked me for, i.e. "uttering legal threats"....even once I explained that, rather than apologize she unblocked me with a comment something like now that I had made a retraction etc...but there was nothing to retract...I seem to recall it had to do with Sinixt articles; another area where POV infowar was raging only last year, tiresomely so. Try and be neutral, you're everyone's enemy. See on my maxims, "Truth is not a POV, it is the truth".Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of MidniteWiki, but I know from long experience at the Teahouse that it is not the appropriate place to vent your concerns at such great, great length. Especially when you are removing other comments from your own talk page with edit summaries of TLDR. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the ONLY time I have ever invoked TLDR, Cullen, and it was meant as an ironic joke; the ranting against me by the POV artist, accusing me of POV for not surrendering to my POV, then making personal taunts on that page, and here, I had no time for; it was 6 a.m. after little sleep, and it was just as much bullshit as it was last night, only more persistent; he didn't take the "go away" 'hint' and kept on coming back trying to taunt and criticize me further. I provided cite after cite last night, that article now has a sea of links with material that could gbe used to develop that article, irrespective of its title, but he's not here to develop the article; his only interest was in washing the title to suit a certain agenda and to denounce sources not controlled by the government-media-corporate alliance that underlays misrule in the pirate fiefdom that is British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please

I don't know what's going on, but PLEASE let me not start a fourth line on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)