User talk:Uyvsdi/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New Age Frauds and Plastic Shaman

Addressing your points on NAFPS: 1) "Panama has laws." Panama does have libel laws, the fact the newagefraud.org site was moved to an "anonymous offshore" Panamanian hosting company Cyber Cast International is that it makes it much more onerous for US citizens to file charges in Panama. 2) Your cite NAFPS that is "referenced by a secondary source" - a book - which you claim is referenced in the Plastic Shaman topic. What book specifically is referenced on this page that refers to NAFPS?

Go to the plastic shaman article. Find the mention of the website in the text. Look at the citation. Match the author's name in the note to the book in the reference section. Voila! Actually I didn't revert your recent edits. The subheading above the external links saying "Native sites denouncing plastic shamans" was totally unnecessary, so I let that deletion stand. BTW Talk:Plastic shaman is the appropriate place to have this discussion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Your edit on Michael Silka

Hello, I was just curious where you obtained this knowledge on Albert Hagen.Hoops gza (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I know it was a newspaper article but cannot find it right now, so instead of the the insanity of pawing through innumerable newspaper archives, I simply removed the Athabaskan designation. I did, however, find a published book establishing Fred Burke's Athabaskan heritage, so added that instead. What a ghastly story! -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Enabling email

Could you email me? The link is on my page. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Am on the road but will do so this evening. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hidatsa people edit

Hello there, this is a reply in response to my edit to the section I removed earlier. I do apologize for not leaving an explanation, I'm painfully new. The reasoning to my edit, and appreciation to having the edit, is the addition of the Miracle dolls to the Hidatsa page is unnecessary and is an attempt to gain publicity. This shouldn't be. Yes, the Del La Rosa twins are descendents of the Three Affiliated Tribes, but I do not see how it is appropriate to add their band information to an educational page about tribal history. If one allows it for them, then every garage band or small business with connections to the tribe should be listed and it turns into nothing more than a yellow page. The main creditable reason for the page I feel is lost then. Bubaloria (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; however, the band's mention is only one of four cited statements in the entire Hidatsa people article. The Miracle Dolls have appeared in enough secondary, published sources to establish their notability. Maybe the best approach would be to add more Hidatsa people to the "notable people" section. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics

Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa!!! - re Category:Squamish

nope nope nope, please revert all your upcats and undo this category creation; this was a hard CfD and it never did get adequately settled; the category for thte people used to be at Category:Skwxwu7mesh with certain diacriticals, I'd wanted it "anglicized" to the non-diacritical form I just got used, then someone moved the Skwxw7mesh main article to Squamish and someone else used that to speed the category to what you just made it into. but "Squamish"'s primary topic is Squamish, British Columbia; NOT the people. This is why "we" used the endonym in the first place, also to be in harmony with Sto:lo, St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux and others - until another anglo-chauvinist imposed "anglicism + people" names on those articles and there was a real ugly RM war over them - to prevent the same thing from happening to Category:St'at'imc which would not work as Category:Lillooet because of the town of the same name, likewise Category:Secwepemc vs Category:Shuswap as Shuswap is primarily the name of a region and a lake. The "indigenously correct category" for the Skwxwu7mesh would be Category:Skwxwu7mesh, not "Squamish"......I'm not sure but I think the commons cat might still be at Skwxwu7mesh. All these were created by User:OldManRivers who is himself Skwxwu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw. You have waded into very deep waters, and muddied them considerably by creating that cat and applying it to e.g. Xwelemchetsen, which is in North Vancouver and nowhere near the town of Squamish.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please examine all the subcats in Category:First Nations people. All 38 refer to individual peoples' biographies. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You don't get how half-informed you are about the FOO people problem, which was exacerbated by another editor gone rogue, as I consider you to have done here by wading into "the problem of Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh", by adding "+ people" to main article titles like Mi'kmaq where it was not needed, and in most of the cases you point to above the main article of their parent ethno category is a "FOO people" construction... I've tried to engage discussion on the problems of such names before, to have it pushed aside or the subject changed to some tangent, and yet here you are pushing it in my face like I like it this way; I don't. Your logic throughout all of this has been half-informed and also operating in isolation from the history of the naming problems in all cases; pointing at the "FOO people" individuals category was an intrinsic part of the problem with the renaming of "Skwxwu7mesh" to "Squamish people" - by people similarly poorly informed and only half aware of the realities of either Squamish the town or the Skwxwu7mesh people. It's ironic to me that you, as someone on an indigenous high horse often enough, as with how you came at me over the Nevada categories, would in this case wind up pandering to the name-changes brought on by colonialist attitudes/chauvnism towards native nomenclatures..... I've taken the category problem you've created to "other editors" already with the new CfD, but this jab of yours about the FOO people categories for "individuals who are FOO" needed to be pointed out for what a complete non sequitur it is in relation to the categories you've peremptorily altered to suit yourself, without concern for what came before. I tried to engage the FOO people problem on ipna before - you weren't interested and in fact were critical of my proposal for guidelines and shoved it away; so doubly ironic you would shove it in my face here to justify your unwarranted category-screwing-with.Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review this relatively recent (May 4 of last year) CfD about Category:Squamish and why it was changed to Category:Squamish people (which btw necessitates a further dab elsewhere via Category:People from Squamish, British Columbia); the core of the decision is that the primary topic of "Squamish" in English is not the people; the reason the endonym could be not be used wikiwise even though other endonyms are in use for parallel tribes is that media style has not gone with the endonym form, which is common now for the Tsleil-waututh, Nlaka'pamux, Kwakwaka'wakw, St'at'imc and many others. This also impacted {{Squamish}} which had been speedied from {{Skwxwu7mesh}} (with diacritical maybe, I can't remember, though the catname used diacriticals). Quite the clusterf*k and complicated at the time by RMs and pending speedy CfRs elsewhere on the same issue; though the Squamish RM had actual people from Squamish on it about using hte "english" form ("Squamish"), much of the decision making/discussion on this was often by people not familiar with either the people or the town or both. Thing is now, with you newly creating the category from scratch, is that as its creator you could ask for a speedy to the more appropriate (though de-diacriticalized) Category:Skwxwu7mesh and bring it in line with the other endonyms in Category:First Nations in British Columbia which please note are all the ethno categories; there's also Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia which is for the actual band governments, mostly of the Indian Act variety but including the new forms emerging for the Nisga'a, Sechelt, Tsawwassen and others actually signing treaties (vs the majority of bands/peoples who have stayed away from the Treaty Process as currently incarnated for a number of reasons not timely to explain here). Authentic names are very much part of the BC political and geographic reality now, though in this case "Squamish" remains the publicly used "English" form; there's no "common" form of it without diacriticals as is the case with St'at'imc, Nuxalk, Sto:lo and others (well, that colon in Sto:lo is really a diacritical; the actual character in Sto:lo fonts is a pair of inverted triangle thingies. And also, as with the Musqueam, there's only one band government for a whole people; in the case of the Skwxwu7mesh it's not one reserve, the band government lands, that is, but about seven or eight different reserves/historic communities spread over an urban/suburban region so it's a "unitary people" by government mandate rather than a collection of peoples/separately-governed communities as in how the Nlaka'pamux and St'at'imc and others of comparable size are governed. A distinction is made anyway, within community usage between the endonym Skwxwu7mesh meaning the people as a whole/group/family and the federally-mandated Squamish Nation "Indian Act government". OMR originally tried to use Skwxwu7mesh Uixwimuixw or something like that (don't have the spelling right) - which is about "all things around the Skxwu7mesh" mixed with "us" and is the nature of traditional governance; articles about which are few and far between in Wikipedia, because hard to write and cite; some pages like Nuxalk Nation and Gitxsan carry some info on the continuance of traditional governance.....as does OMR's Skwxwu7mesh article, now at Squamish people, if you read the talkpage there, and on Squamish Nation. So yeah, focus, there's a lot to focus on to make an informed decision/action on this category, which right now is misnamed and I won't be the only one telling you about it, either. This was a recent decision, I didn't like it - there's a way around it now, if you'd care to do the honours to speedy-change Category:Squamish to Category:Skwxwu7mesh; I was surprised to see Category:Squamish people be now used for another reason than the CfD mandated and a bit aghast at seeing Category:Squamish rear its head again....I've been staying out of Nevada to avoid conflict but you don't have to stay out of BC at all (you've walked directly on the home turf) but please when you do read up on the history of these titles and the complexities behind them; I know you're indigenously oriented, you should also be made aware of Dakelh being at Carrier people now, though so far Category:Dakelh remains unchanged, and that Owekeeno people was at Wuikinuxv, their preferred modern form, after someone "anglicized" it- then didn't even use the correct spelling of Owekeeno (it varies) and the real anglicization would be Rivers Inlet people, as with Sto:lo being Fraser River Salish or even Cowidgin (same language as the Cowichan is why). This Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish RM/CfD pulled a lot of stuff out of the woodwork about perceptions of native language/names and a variety of expressions of what can only be termed chauvinism and parochialism....uninformed and ignorant, but "votes" holding sway over evidence/logic..... I've stayed away from all this category-name stuff for months, it's one of the things that brought on my quasi-stroke in fact, but please if you're going to wade into it, read up and do your research before doing one seemingly simple thing in isolation again - especially without looking into the history of the category and/or the subject of its main article. Sorry for the rant, it's hot and I was on my way to the gym when I paused to comment...half an hour ago. Welcome to BC, please read up across categories/topics and tread softly, and beware of trolls.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In Canada the interlace between public geography at large and the native language landscape is very thick, and the result has been certain conventions; Tsilhqot'in for the people, Chilcotin when mentioning their region, in the case of Okanagan, that name really is only the Okanagan Indian Band, the place was oqanEqen or similar and was a small fort at the head of Okanagan Lake; but the name became adopted across their familial/linguistic group, across all bands; unlike the case of Kwakiutl, which is also really only the Kwagyulh and is a name other northern Kwakwaka'wakw don't like for themselves (and which is why Kwakwaka'wakw was coined in the '70s r so) though the Cape Mudge Band and the Campbell River Band are the Southern Kwakiutl and make no bones about the term; but then they're originally a splinter off the Kwagyulh originally and only settled around Quadra Island in the 1700s or so.... basic notion though is that there is a native name on the landscape, chances are there's a native form of it; the emerging convention is to use the "ancient" form when meaning the people or the history of their particular place, and the angicized form re the landscape; this doesn't always pan out the Nicola people use that spelling which is the same as Nicola Valley; but their true name is Scwexmxw (sp?), a subdivision and dialect or Nlaka'pamux and one of their bands is half-Okanagan in composition. And re native vs anglicized names, have a look at the history of the bname Lillooet re the original context the Lil'wat and where teh Lillooet River is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear God in heaven, that is a wall of text. I did read the CfD, which is primarily focused on Skwxwu7mesh vs. Squamish. Look at the actual categories. You created Category:Squamish, British Columbia back in July; problem there solved. The 38 subcats of Category:First Nations people all contain biographies of individual people; as do all the subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe and Category:Indigenous people of the Americas. -Uyvsdi (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh, so you did read the CfD and you decided, as one person wading into an obviously complex issue, to undo its main outcome; that the Squamish-only title was not acceptable because of the geographic confusion context and also because the Skwxwu7mesh category (with diacriticals) had been speedied in the wake of the Skxwxu7mesh-Squamish people RM just before; and a long-standing category name, with matching article titles, was wiped away by small groups of people with no knowledge or concern for the indigenous culture/name or for the realities of BC's political geography and just plain geography....overlapping wikipedia guidelines, all nicely patted on oeach other's backs, wiped away a title derived by one of the main language scholars within that particular ethnolinguistic communities. So even without knowing all that, I ask you under what authority you overturned the decision that Category:Squamish would not be used for the ethnic group and that "Squamish people" would? Are you like a super-admin who can overturn hard-fought discussions on a whim, apply them by fiat, then point at some guideline as to why. What Category:Squamish can be is a "disambiguation category" between the people and the place/geography....so then, as has already happened, a category named identical to the name of the town of Squamish, is on an article about places in the City of North Vancouver and in Vancouver itself? And re Category:Squamish people most other such categories are "people from FOO"....to me the simplest, and also most indigenous-oriented, is to respect its original name, Category:Skwxwu7mesh. All I wanted was to get rid of the complex diacriticals, to make the cat name easier to type - and when that name does show up in the English language media (and it does) it shows up without all the accents and underscores.

So, and to make a very loud point of it, there's a lot more to this than "Problem solved" by the Category:Squamish, British Columbia, and that CfD was affected by all this prior history, and input on the geographic confusion/primary topic aspect and from many more than me on that issue....and you wade in here and revert it unilaterally- sure, a creation is not a reversion, But then I didn't go and try and create, in response to the unpalatable outcome of Category:Squamish people, the Category:Skwxwu7mesh which I had been arguing for, in line with the trends and conventions within the BC First Nations hierarchy, and like Dakelh, Ktunaxa and other categories of this kind, were created by scholars in the field (who live in the areas). And you are where, again?

That you think what you did was simple despite its complex background and problems it's created (which you apparently aren't concerned with listening to) indicates much about why Wikipedia consensus processes are unstable in outcome; anyone can come along and re-start the problem, without really knowing the material and by pointing out some convenient guideline to justify it.

Now, if not for WP:AGF I'd say your messsing with this is some kind of way of getting back at me for the edit war on tribe/reservation categories in your own neck of the woods. But you wouldn't be so petty now, would you? It's not just me you're messing with, in other words; WPCanada, WPBC.... I can tell you it's stuff like this that made the indigenous editor who started this articles walk away with his hands up in the air..... I'll repeat. You created a category whose name was created by speedying from an indigenous name to this anglicization, and that was based on an RM containing both bad knowledge of the area but evident bias and also which was closed rapidly; again by someone not familiar with any of the topics. Then the CfD was held to straighten it out because "Squamish" as a primary topic is the town, not the people.... you've pushed over a domino of a game that was over and now has to begin all over again; to straighten something messed up by someone who doesn't even know the materials in question. This is just more work for me now, another CfD or some arbitration to intervene here has to be called; more wiki bullshit, more wiki drama.....what's obvious about these names to anyone actually in British Columbia is completely lost on you - it was a big factor in the outcome of the CfD, the dual meaning of the name has instrinsic disambiguation issues and it took a lot of discussion to arrive at an agreement - Category:Squamish was agreed as being an unworkable title for the ethno category, and we were off to the races. Until you showed up from Nevada and waded in..... you did read the CfD, and then decided to overturn it? Come again????Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dial it down and stay on topic. Over one hundred Indigenous "people" categories refer to biographies of individual biographies. Category:Squamish people was a rare exception. I didn't rename or delete this much discussed category; I added Category:Squamish. If other editors have a problem with this action, please let them speak for themselves, which we are all capable of doing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So, uh, I have to go enlist all the people who took part in the CfD that you have ignored, and all the evidence in it as to why "Category:Squamish" is not a viable name, because you have now re-created Category:Squamish by fiat and point to the "FOO people" as an excuse? the category name created by that CfD was Category:Squamish people and if you actually read the background to all this you'd know (and not stick your finger in your cheek saying "who, me?") that it is the title for the ethnic group category not for the people of that ethnic group. Why? Because "PRIMARYTOPIC" contexts say "Category:Squamish people" means 'people from Squamish' (the town). Your responses indicate you don't know the background here, and your brushing-it-off tone means you don't care about the background and that in fact you're being flippant about the problems you have brought back to the front burner. I'm not sure this should go to a CfD, considering how hard-fought that CfD was, I think your actions have to be rolled back as uninformed and contrary to previous decisions; I'd rather the ethnic category be at Category:Skwxwumesh, even in the heavily diacriticalized form that OMR created it as.....Category:Squamish is not acceptable, if anything it should be a "Category disambiguation" page.... you really have no idea of the complexities you have simplified with your bludgeon from outside. Dial it back? No, why don't you retreat from your aggresssive and ill-advised intrusion into BC category names......have you ever work on any of the Skwxwu7mesh or Squamish BC articles...have you even read them??Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Saura merge to Cheraw

Thanks for the invite to comment on Saura merge to Cheraw; I agree with your suggested merge, especially after finding a new source that draws from archeological studies to integrate accounts of these people under their different names (noted on the Talk page). May be useful to draw from for reconciling the articles; I intend to study it more. I'll wait for your merge before adding more.Parkwells (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of waiting a week, but I guess it is unanimous. Maybe I'll wait another day for further comment? I just added cited information directly the to the Cheraw people article. Since the bulk of it will be the 18th century history, perhaps that can be further sudivided, but perhaps that isn't necessary? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Welcome

Welcome to project QAI! You can enter your personal goals in the tables provided, and discuss on the talk or with members like me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Will do. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hello, Uyvsdi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

E.N.Stanway (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

John Lockley

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Lockley and discuss the article there. HelenOnline 08:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1 -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

Blocking of old editors

You may find it simpler to simply avoid people that you have conflict with. In general admins do noting about bad behaviour for old editors - perhaps a block for a few days that's it - a waste of time for yourself and many others. A prime example is Ginao just look at this persons history block log 1 - block log 2 and block log 3. Even when an admin thinks there is a real problem as indicated by this article we seem to be stuck with editors that lack basic communication skills if the community feels their contributions out weight the problems cause when talking to others. -- Moxy (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I have honestly tried to avoid the person in past years, but it is impossible. At 6.5 years I would sort of imagine that I would qualify as an old editor, but I guess not, and I gather that I have no rights and no standing. I've already sank the time developing the argument on the AN/I and furnishing diffs. If something isn't right, then it isn't right. But if nothing happens, it will be a boon to me, because I'll focus more on RL writing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I actually get alone with Skookum1 and like the guys gusto - but understand your frustration as I have a few editors that dislike me (like the one mentioned above). But if you keep a good reputation (as you have) you will find people will side with you simply based on your reputation. Editors with bad reputations have to prove themselves much more then those with good reputations - this leads to them getting more frustrated over time and thus lashing out more and more. I simply stay clear of them unless I am mentioned by them in some sort of defamatory -way - then I simply point out there incivility problem thus making them aware that I saw their insults - I usually link them to How to Be Mature from wikihow.-- Moxy (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you were completely correct. This is a good ol' boys' network. I'm not putting up this shit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Removal of talk page posts

Hi Uyvsdi, I was just wondering if removing content from Jimbo's talk page was a regular thing I didn't know about? If not, I'm not sure how these messages are personal attacks:

• Hi there. My name is Jonas Vinther and I've been on Wikipedia for a little more than 3 months now. I really like it here, I really like being an editor and to contribute to whatever it is I can. However, I've always wondered, why is IP-user edits allowed? Most, if not all, of the vandalism I've seen comes from IP users. Of course Wikipedia wouldn't be the same if only "specially selected" people were allowed to edit, but I don't think anyone who has the intention of vandalizing an article, would go through "all the trouble" of making a registered account. Of course, some people will go that far, but certainly not the majority. I'm sure I'm not alone in this belief or wonder and I'm sure other people have asked the same, and is curious if there is any talk or plans to remove IP-user from editing rights in the future or something new to prevent vandalism, which is so easy to spread on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• OTOH, this thread is probably read by hundreds of editors. I have just now fixed a dozen of these, and I pledge to have done 100 by the end of the business day. 25 more editors to follow, and the backlog is gone in a day. --Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Example text
• If you have evidence regarding 'actual most common usage', presumably you have raised it in the discussion. So what's the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are probably more I have queries about, but I think I have enough for a question. Thanks, Matty.007 19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matty, so sorry. That was a complete mistake on my part. I apologize! -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10