User talk:Skookum1

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

- Socrates (attrib.)

Liberty Bell to Liberty bell

Good one (but you may have given some editors an idea...). Anyway, speaking of the Bell, want to see something cool? Awhile ago I added a template or three to the page 'United States Declaration of Independence' and, completely by accident, when I looked at the template stack I thought 'Darn if that doesn't look like the shape of the Liberty Bell'. Check it out. Randy Kryn 13:27 12 February, 2015 (UTC)

Hwlitsum

For a complete list of task forces, see Template:MILHIST.

Nomination of Lisa Ellen Niver for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Ellen Niver is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Ellen Niver until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of George Kenneth Rajna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Kenneth Rajna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Kenneth Rajna until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia

Category:Historical Chinatowns in British Columbia, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject

MaudeG3 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha sorry Maude, I'm an older editor who just went through a block perpetrated by younger editors who condemned me for, basically, being a crotchety old f**k and standing up to childish nonsense from a teenager who wanted exclusive control over a subject area he really knows nothing abuot but has a very decided POV agenda for....; I'm leaving Wikipedia once and for all; done done done; see section below. Wikipedia is being run by people who got their adminships when they were in their early teens who have no real knowledge of teh world, that's my summatino of the problem in a nutshell. I've got only so many years left, tired of arguing with the arrogantly ill-informed and those with power they don't deserve and very little common sense and even less real manners. But man, a whole lot of attitude.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice to The Interior and Moonriddengirl re illicit removal of POV/ESSAY/SYNTH tags

My block is over; who cares? I don't. The only thing that's prevented me from responding with one final condemnation of the illicitness of this peremptory block, which gave carte blance to a highly POV and persistently AGF editor, is personal circumstances including six weeks ago the smashing of my laptop screen; other than that I was going to condemn, item by item, violations of policy/guideline committed by yourselves and comebacks to some of the inane comments in the ANI. D

But here's what it is: why would I spend more time responding to people who refused to read anything I said while pandering to whining and pleading by WTM who even said, "is there a way to block him that won't be subject to consensus at ANI" - where his ally-in-enmity LegacyPac failed to get consensus. So yes, there was; harrassing me and demanding I stop 'interfering with' his sole authorship of his soapboxing about BC history on purely biased lines; I cringe at seeing some of his additions since my departure; but hell, MRG, you plunged in from the start saying you didn't want to have to research the previous months, and the lot of you - The Interior, yourself, Viriditas , Anna - refused to read anything I had to say, whether here or on the article talkpage. You have supported not just a POV fork but a blatantly OWN one, with loads of ESSAY/TRIVIA bunk and washed your hands of it and walked away.

NPOV is not negotiable, Moonriddengirl; your comment about nobody else commenting about POV being there is no consensus is completely out of line; read NPOV again and its POV fork again; using personal complaints as a way to denounce and override complaints of POV is against policy. But my own personal complaints about him were ignored, while his about me were pandered to and encouraged/mollycoddled.

The Interior's b.s. about me writing 20,000 character opuses was a laugh; at the top of my talkpage at the same t ime was a link to the NOR board discussion which, if you go find it in the archive, was called a complete was of time by the sane editor who closed it. Do a word count on the 'new' CCinGV article - it's twice that length. Have even one of you read its content and fact-checkecd it, or noted my complaints about the content he had cultivated on the CCinBC article about how much repetition there was, about obvious SYNTH, about blatant POV, about working to exclude sources while cherrypicking others? No, obviously not, if you don't have the time to research what you're pronouncing judgement on you shouldn't be pronouncing judgement on it, never mind taking sides as you have done.

So we have, other than the token British Columbian who levelled the block against me, an American-Texan-Chinese now OWNing articls about BC after successfully blocking the sole active British Columbian who works (worked) in historical areas and listed point after point after point about what was wrong all of which was ignored and not just ignored, but condemned. The Anglo-American bias issue of WP:Systemic bias is very much in evidence here, and also in WTM's behaviour and content, where the Sino-globalist bias is also very much not just in evidence but his whole agenda.

That you, MRG, claimed my saying he was "ill-informed" was an NPA while never considering the AGF against me, and his covert NPAs implicit throughout that AGF from day one - that you refused to take the time to read - is incredibly hypocritical and alos ironic - because you, too, are ill-informed and willfully so. but that you would call that an NPA while allowing "paranoid delusional" and various other very nasty and unfair direct NPAs to stand, including indulging in personal attacks yourself, is so much part of wiki-culture now that it's pointless to even explain it to you; you can never admit you're wrong and what you claim are guideline-driven actions on your part are actually policy violations.

NPOV is not negotiable. Period. Read WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork sometime; be warned, they're longer than seven sentences; they're "too long did not read".

"Wikipedia is not censored" is hilarious bullshit; wikilawyering is all ove the place, NPOV violations are commonplace, OWNership behaviour and DIVAism I've beeen accused of; both describe WTM to a 't'. (capital T). "I don't want to be interefered with:" as he said to someone, Viriditas I think, sums it up. No, he wants control of the sandbox and no messing around freom somebody in the way of his agenda, or his notions of content; I see bias and shabby logic not just in his content and arguments but in yours.

The block is over, but I will not be back, other than to answer Anna below;

I will now re-place the templates he removed a month after you blocked me, The Interior - did you even notice. And they belong in "his" new article, which is a travesty not just of bias and essay/synth/trivia but also of incredibly bad english composition.

Wikipedia has become a bureaucracy ruled by the uninformed with no sense of logic, and pandering to bias and empire-building and entrenched empire building by established admins and editors; it is not the collaborative environment it once was, and now is a battlefield and I'm not the one to blame for that. Ignorance is, on the one hand, and 'gaming the system' on the other. and 'gaming the system' is exactly what has gone on here, and you have either been suckered by it or were part of it.

That this anti-consensus block in direct violation of policy was done by two paid editors - paid by the WMF no less - makes it all the more noxious; you have lost yourself a once-loyal contributor by pandering to an obvious propagandist. I will place those templates; I've already said over and over what is wrong with the CCinBC article; the same applies on the CCinGV article. So why bother contributing anything more to Wikipedia AT ALL when I have been hounded and harassed to help along a prodigious but suspicious editor. Please note - he is now no. 21 up from no. 34 onthe lsit of all time contributors; that is not some kind of proof of his validity, MRG, rather it calls into question the value of those contributions and note, the very bad writing and repetitious content and bad sourcing; i still think he's not one editor but a team, and if he isn't then prove it by opening his edit summary instead of concealing it; CHECKUSER is called for but given the bureaucracy is staffed by the same kind of people who have hounded and condemned me I have better things to be doing with my life and time.

I will not be writing in Wikipedia anymore; but I definitely will be writing about wikipedia, @Jimbo Wales: take note. Not that you care, it seems that your own staffers were who hounded me out and blockerd me- you condoned their violation of the NPOV policy.

Legacypac and others from the political-activist branch of Wikipedia will no doubt be happy that I am gone; watch for the gloating; hell, WTM went out and looked for enemies to help condemn me with - he was polling, in othr words. Would a responsible admin be doing that? No - bt I don't think there are many responsible admins; hypocritical ones by the score, to be sure.

If you ban me for this 'rant' then please delete ALL my contributions and build back the thousands of articles I've contributed yourselves. Maybe WTM would care to undertake that huh?

Seeing the removal of thoe templates was the height of gall, but it's not the first time he's behaved with incredible arrogance, "Honestly" in his edit comment here is a joke; he hasn't been honest or respectful ever since he barged into Canadian wikispace. He's played you, and won. Maybe he'll be Number One someday huh?

Wikipedia should not have been gamed like this. And you should all learn to read and not say you are going to take action against someone if you don't wsant to listen to what they have to say.

Power corrupts, and you are corrupt. And in the wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back. Let me see if I get this straight: after being blocked for three months for alleged battleground behavior, disruptive editing, and personal attacks, the first thing you did when your block expired was to return to battleground behavior, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. Am I correct on this, because that's what your contribution seems to show. Also, you once again complain about how nobody reads what you write, but you've been repeatedly told to shorten your TL;DR rants and ravings into something that is brief and to the point out of consideration for those of us who have jobs and actually have to work for a living. Is any of this getting through to you? Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

coming from someone who claimed to be a moderator and demand I concede to a blatant guideline violation/instruction creep while refusing to discuss the NPOV policy you're nothing more than a hypocrite; you condoned the creation of a POV fork and shepherded a badly-written and over-sourced tract to mainspace and did nothing when he removed tags from the CCinBC article without ever even reading or doing anything about the many problems that article had, and still has. You are not a moderator you are a harassser and a scold; if you were a moderator you would have sought to understand the POV and sourcing problems instead of demand I accept his false claims about what RS says (which it doesn't) or his false claims about what that board said in response to him. He is a liar.

"Is any of this getting through to you"?? hahah repeat after me "I won't be back", other than to chronicle for Anna below the number of times controversial actions have prompted responses frm me and how many there are out there who intervene on subject and title discussions who have no clue what they're talking about. That includes YOU.

You have always been a waste of time. But here you are, back to the harassmwent and the scolding and still not considering t he POV issues I've raised, and still condoning the immortal prose of his contributions, which is just plain sophomorically bad English plus too many uses of "So-and-so in such-and-such said that the term is [adjective]" and building SYNTH arguments from that. but you're perhaps in teh same camp as him, and only here to protect rankly POV editors like him frmo people calling "bullshit". which is what this block was, and what all that was said by those refusing to read what the problems were without ever researching content. My anger is justified; and so is my contempt for YOU in particular. Moderator my ass; have ytou taken down that bit from the Dhammapada from your userpage yet??Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This would be incredibly funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad and depressing. Do you realize that every time you post a comment to Wikipedia, your sole intention is to lash out and attempt to harm others? Here are some words that others might use to describe your behavior: vindictive, vengeful, unforgiving, resentful, jealous and bitter. The best thing you can do for yourself is leave Wikipedia and find a good psychiatrist who will treat you. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

JEALOUS' hahahah man that's a good one; and here you are making more than one rank NPA ("find a good pyschiatrist who will treat you" is a rank violation of NPA but hey you're immune from any reproach huh?). Hghahahah man you sum up everything that is wrong with this place.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

[post-edit conflict] :::It's a complete joke that I was blamed for "battlefield behaviour" when the battlelfield behaviour was his from the very start from his first appearance on WP:CANTALK. but none of those condemning me have condescended to read the disputes and observe the escalating battlefield against me though RfCs, NOR RS and other boaards, and illogical responses and arguments against sources and so on; none of those condemning me including the scold above have read the whole of the dispute, or paid attention to my points about how he counter-attacked with demands including I should buy a book when he knew I didn't have money, or following my comments asking him to 'back off' as I was having health and life-crisi problem by posting a parody of that bout himself then launching into a massive amount of edits and also talkpage/board arguments against me. the battlefield has always been of his making; and he enlisted supporters and blatantly polled for support by those hostile to me. but who gets blamed? His victim. You're all sociopaths IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTTHEM, you should be immediately re-blocked. To come back here after three months and start right where you left off is a good rationale for an indef. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And who are you again? You are a harasser and have refused to consider any of the content issues I have raised and it is you who have furthered teh battlefield behaviour here as you have before. Be that as it may, you just made two very personal attacks and I launched an ANI against you, and it's you who need disciplining, not me.

Indefinitely blocked for standing up for myself? that's how this place works huh? and who are you again? some interloper who won't consider the subject matter and its POV violations but instead engaged in threatening and demanding behaviour; instead of moderating you took sides. The only reason I don't care about an indefinite block is I want to publicly explain to Anna below why her question is a conundrum and list off the controversies that I engaged myself in that needed engaging and gee, which for the most part, I won.

And as for being "bitter" of course I'm bitter that people from outside my province have created a blatantly biased and distorted version of its social history, while engaging in personal attacks in the course of preventing me from adding balance and/or arguing for it. @JimboWales: please take note of all this; the harrassment I have received here is a violation of behavioural guidelines in the course of retrenching a violation - a very blatant violation - of WP:NPOV. I'm not insane, and I'm not stupid either; hilarious that V. 's barntar for me had been, in part, for 'calling a spade a spade'; but when the shit was on his own shovel, he/she turned nasty. Or is he/she on your payroll too, as are Moonriddengirl and The Interior? Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Skookum1, I have indefinitely blocked you for immediately resuming battleground behavior against User:WhisperToMe upon your return from your block. Converting your block to indefinite or following with indefinite if the behavior continued was an option presented by several at the review of your prior block, where consensus was confirmed for that block. I'm sorry that it's necessary.

Content policy concerns do not trump behavioral policy concerns. (WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are all policies.) It is not necessary to engage in battleground behavior to right wrongs; what is necessary is to demonstrate to other users that your content concerns are valid. If the user with whom you are disagreeing cannot be persuaded, dispute resolution is the way to go. If dispute resolution does not garner consensus to your view, you need to let it go.

I do not believe that you should be unblocked without some indication that you are willing to work very differently here. I realize that you are angry that those who have disagreed with your behavior have not also involved themselves in content, but as I noted to you in the past WP:INVOLVED does not permit this. There are many, many editors who can help tangle out the content issue if you are unblocked and will only engage without the personal attacks, unsupported allegations of impropriety and incivility that you have continued to lodge against WhisperToMe. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)