User talk:Skookum1/Archive 20
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Langley, British Columbia (city)
Confused by the title, but not for reasons that I've seen mentioned. With US articles, we use TOWN (type), STATE and never TOWN, STATE (type) when multiple places in the same area have the same name — for an example, see Alburgh (town), Vermont, which surrounds Alburgh (village), Vermont. Is the TOWN, PROVINCE (type) format in accordance with a convention (either written somewhere or simply normal practise), or is it applied randomly? WP:PLACE says nothing for Canada except "look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles", which doesn't address this issue at all. If there's no convention whatsoever, I'd like to propose that the US format be added to the Canada-related MOS page as the standard, but there's no way that I'm going to ask for changes if there's already a convention in place. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- That convention is firmly in place; originally, several years ago, I was among those lobbying to retain the comma-province designation on many titles, either because of historical usage/ former post offices, or because the places were well-known with comma-province attached; I have since changed my position and have begun resolving many of the unique town names via RM; some cannot be resolved such as Ruskin, British Columbia which straddles two municipalities; the two Langleys are separate municipalities and also of course Langley has many other uses; North Vancouver's two municipalities also have separate articles but that is a unique name and so a joint non-dab page for both is used; maybe the same could be done with Langley, though comma-province would still be required.Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have the link handy, but maybe the best place for this issue would be at the Communities subproject of WikiProject Canada. I'll ask User:Hwy43, who's also working in this same area; see WP:CANTALK for a listing of towns having comma-province taken off by RM, many of them already successfully closed.Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your response — either you misunderstood what I was asking, or I misunderstood your response. If I made the suggestion I was talking about, and if it got consensus, Langley would end up at Langley (city), British Columbia and Langley (district municipality), British Columbia. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's a nationwide convention, or at least provincewide, to put disambiguators after the whole name, instead of putting them in the middle like the US articles do. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have the link handy, but maybe the best place for this issue would be at the Communities subproject of WikiProject Canada. I'll ask User:Hwy43, who's also working in this same area; see WP:CANTALK for a listing of towns having comma-province taken off by RM, many of them already successfully closed.Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's already explicitly in CANSTYLE at Wikipedia:CSG#Places. Where the discussions are is a good question; all over the place in the archives of WP:CANTALK and likely at the talkpage on CANSTYLE as well.Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I've read through that section three times (including twice before my previous note), but the only things I can see about parenthetical disambiguation are (1) Halifax, and (2) neighbourhoods not using that format. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hm I don't have time to look around for it right now; I thought it might be on Talk:Langley, British Columbia but that's a TWODABS page and that needs resolving also; it might be on other municipalities' talkpage, or else it's somewhere in CANSTYLE's talkpages or at WP:CANTALK archives about how that form came into being; there are other cases other than Langley and North Vancouver, as I recall...somewhere. Suffice to say that whatever practices apply in the United States are not taken into account by WikiProject Canada, nor should they be expected to be, as most WPCANADA people would agree.Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- using their formal titles City of Langley and Township of Langley was considered but was dismissed as an aberration from norms; otherwise we'd also see Corporation of Delta instead of Delta, British Columbia and Resort Municipality of Whistler; the one exception to that being the new Regional Municipality of Northern Rockies which is an expansion of both Fort Nelson, British Columbia, formerly a village, or town maybe, and the Northern Rockies Regional District.Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note Talk:Langley,_British_Columbia_(city)#Requested move.Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- using their formal titles City of Langley and Township of Langley was considered but was dismissed as an aberration from norms; otherwise we'd also see Corporation of Delta instead of Delta, British Columbia and Resort Municipality of Whistler; the one exception to that being the new Regional Municipality of Northern Rockies which is an expansion of both Fort Nelson, British Columbia, formerly a village, or town maybe, and the Northern Rockies Regional District.Skookum1 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hm I don't have time to look around for it right now; I thought it might be on Talk:Langley, British Columbia but that's a TWODABS page and that needs resolving also; it might be on other municipalities' talkpage, or else it's somewhere in CANSTYLE's talkpages or at WP:CANTALK archives about how that form came into being; there are other cases other than Langley and North Vancouver, as I recall...somewhere. Suffice to say that whatever practices apply in the United States are not taken into account by WikiProject Canada, nor should they be expected to be, as most WPCANADA people would agree.Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
There are three examples of this format being applied to communities in Alberta - Fairview, Alberta (town), Fairview, Alberta (hamlet) and Taber, Alberta (municipal district) - which shows consistency among the two neighbouring provinces. I believe 117Avenue led the charge in determining the resting places for these three. Perhaps he recalls a location of the convention or past discussion that established this format. Hwy43 (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reflecting a bit further on this as I stall from falling asleep, I think the logic behind the "Community, Province/territory (status)" convention is that the province/territory is the primary disambiguator for community articles. In the rare case that level of disambiguation isn't enough, it makes more sense to append the second level of disambiguation to the end of the title rather than inject it in front of the first disambiguator, which would therefore not respect the first level of disambiguation. Further, FWIW, injection of it between the community name and the province makes it harder for readers to search for and find the article because the title is illogical. Hwy43 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- We have another problem at Langley, British Columbia which is a WP:TWODABS violation; North Vancouver avoids this by an article summarizing both municipalities; maybe that can be done here?Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- North Vancouver should be a dab and a dab only. I raised a similar concern with this article previously at Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities#What is plain title? (immediately after the outdent). Hwy43 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- then, like Langley BC, it would be WP:TWODABS unless in Langley's case the dab page also included Fort Langley but WP:THREEDABS isn't much better; I really can't think of anything remotely equivalent on the North Shore that could prevent North Vancouver if pruned of its content from being TWODABS.Skookum1 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have edited North Vancouver to be what it always should have been - a dab page with four entries on it. Hwy43 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, I think maybe the electoral districts didn't have articles in the way-back; I've added Vancouver (electoral districts) to the See alsos. Could the same be done for Langley, British Columbia or has it already?Skookum1 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, it hasn't, it's still TWODABS and there the hitch is that Langley (electoral district) is not Langley, British Columbia (electoral district); unlike North Van where the primary title needs no disambiguation as a unique name. As I noted maybe above, Fort Langley was "Langley" until the founding of the Township; that's a "dead usage" but would it qualify?Skookum1 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have edited North Vancouver to be what it always should have been - a dab page with four entries on it. Hwy43 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- then, like Langley BC, it would be WP:TWODABS unless in Langley's case the dab page also included Fort Langley but WP:THREEDABS isn't much better; I really can't think of anything remotely equivalent on the North Shore that could prevent North Vancouver if pruned of its content from being TWODABS.Skookum1 (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- North Vancouver should be a dab and a dab only. I raised a similar concern with this article previously at Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities#What is plain title? (immediately after the outdent). Hwy43 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- We have another problem at Langley, British Columbia which is a WP:TWODABS violation; North Vancouver avoids this by an article summarizing both municipalities; maybe that can be done here?Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The only disambiguation I knew at the time was parenthesis at the end of the existing title. And this still makes sense, just like Hwy43 said, a reader would not look for the disambuator in the middle of the title, because it is illogical. According to WP:CSG#Places ambiguous places should be disambiguated by the surrounding community, (e.g. Armstrong, Thunder Bay District, Ontario). I take concern with this, because in Alberta villages and towns are enclaves of rural municipalities, and for rural municipalities this would not work. According to CSG, and US convention, Fairview, Alberta (hamlet) should be at Fairview, Lethbridge County, Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- If that same model were applied to BC, we'd see things like Williams Lake, Cariboo Regional District, British Columbia and Spuzzum, Fraser Valley Regional District, British Columbia. On the other hand many sources for non-municipal locations might say, e.g. Garibaldi, Squamish Forest District, British Columbia or Pavilion Lake, Kamloops Forest District as forest districts are commonly used in scientific research, and after all the Ministry of Forests controls something like 90% of the landbase of the province; newer consulting reports tend to use regional districts though, and BC Names uses Land Districts e.g. Jesmond, Lillooet Land District, British Columbia - but if "Regional District" weren't included (a bad habit, as is the substitution of "District" which if anything tends to mean the Land District, or the Mining District (once upon a time the same thing). There are all kinds of ways to subdivide BC and other provinces; dabs are too complicated, would vary in form from province to province......and are just cumbersome clutter in category listings.Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are there two Williams Lake communities in BC? Two Spuzzums? If no, then that model would not apply. Hwy43 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was referring only to Nyttend's suggestion that we follow US disambiguation practices; Spuzzum is now a no-dab title, Williams Lake seems to be a candidate, like Campbell River too (those are links to dab pages so you can see what I mean). BTW see my googles on the Lillooet RM re PRIMARYTOPIC claims that the town isn't the primary topic.Skookum1 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are there two Williams Lake communities in BC? Two Spuzzums? If no, then that model would not apply. Hwy43 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Why confusing?
Hello, Skookum1. At Talk:Chipewyan people you wrote, 'Why "confusing"? There would be a hatnote...' etc. That may have been a rhetorical question, but in case it was an actual request for clarification, I will attempt one. I wrote, 'Either name without the word "people" would seem to risk confusion with Dënesųłiné language.' By that I meant that referring to either of the pages currently at Chipewyan people or Chipewyan language as 'Denesuline' creates a situation in which it is possible for Wikipedia readers to mistake one thing for another – that is, to find the people when they were looking for the language, or vice versa. (I don't think this situation would "confound" or "bewilder" such readers, other senses of the word confuse.) As you say, hatnotes can direct such readers to the other page they were actually looking for, but that is an extra step. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Response to Fayenatic London re his threat to unleash a longterm block on me
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Posting this here so as to not load more onto his page, given the threat he made there to curb my tongue, and also because I know I have supporters who watch my talkpage, and other interested parties. @Fayenatic london: I am copying the whole section from his talkpage I am reply to; my new comments begin after the threat of longterm blockage. This is a bit of a manifesto on what has become of Wikipedia since my joining it so very long ago; some may call it a RANT, and there are those here who condemn me for daring to defend myself at all from what are extremely unfair attacks on my writing and on myself. I know there are fully literate readers among my watchlist; please also read my recent comments on Talk:Comox people#Requested move about the assault on WP:CANADA guidelines and standards and Canadian English usage in general. I really would have rather write a few more needed articles and import-stubs tonight, but once again am forced to defend myself against both bureaucracy and overt hostility - and being told to shut up when not actually derided and insulted in so very many ways. I am a seasoned and prolific contributor who knows his topic areas very well, and am now learning more and more about guidelines and exactly how far off-course has been going as its core group gets smaller and smaller, and work on procedure and guideline are dominated by a smaller and smaller and more regulatory (though less informed or open-minded than before ) adminship. I am not alone in perceiving or feeling this, and no doubt I will be scolding for saying so, just as I will be scolded for posting my thoughts about it on my own talkpage. It may even be responded to with that long-term block I'm threatened with below, if not by Fayenatic then someone else; but at least I have dared to say it, and have said it so it is here for posterity. During the arbitrary block for 48 hours last week I was not even allowed to post to here, or use email user, or post at ANI because no ANI was filed. Arbitrary measures are not justice, but then wikipedia is no more about justice than it is about democracy, is it. Them's who hold the power makes the rules, after all. They tell me it's NOTCENSORED too. Funny about that, huh? yeah, sure.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC) A post made by another editor as what would have been an edit conflict at Fayenatic's page had I posted this there I have included in italics. I really have been trying to work on articles but I keep getting called onto the carpet to defend myself (and then get condemned for doing so). Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Earlier at User_talk:Fayenatic_london#this_is_getting_ridiculous When will the madness stop? I get patronized, my writing and efforts insulted, and I'm given an NPA warning by one of the group who refuses to have the proper discussion I always try to have; and others who do worse go unpunished and unthreatened. Once upon a time Wikipedians were an open group of minds, who weren't insecure about reading long points-of-information and who actually responded to questions. I've tried to engage the guidelines discussion on NCET with cogent, clear questions, and have been pointedly ignored - apparently as a show of contempt (and don't say I'm questioning their motives when my own motives are regularly grilled and insulted). See here which to me is a clear abuse of an admin's position and also favoritism and.....hypocritical. I can't find the hostile comments she herself made; I think montanabw may have deleted that whole section from his talkpage, or it's in his archives; or deleted from her own talkpage, as she's done before when I tried to raise with her the very issues on NCET she refuses to answer to. They're out there somewhere. Unlike some people, I don't make stuff up; or deny what I've said. Perhaps she has no answers, but to me it's anti-AGF to remain silent on straightforward question, or in reply to points of information on questions and issues she herself raised; instead she uses a warning template. In the days of the "old consensus", a lot of wisdom and patience were shown and a very broad collective mind were at work; now I see a campaign to drive me from Wikipedia by a certain group of editors who regard me as intruding on their turf and pointing out the flaws in their their logics, and their guidelines. I don't want to take this to ANI, I'm sick of process, and of people targeting me and my writing instead of even making an attempt to respect my input. I also don't want to spend half a day looking for the comments she made that I remember all too well as hostile and accusatory, other than the childish "get a life" deletion of my points about "FOO people" which I tried to make to her. Others do understand I have valuable things to say; but it seems that WP:BAITing me in RM discussions with AGF and soft-or-hard pedalled criticisms is now an established tactic. Proper discussion? When will t hey start answering questions instead of launching more putdowns in the course of what should be discussing the actual points at hand? And here I am, winding up giving you another "wall of text" - I've broken this into two paragraphs to ameliorate that. In all the time this has been going on, I've been creating articles and expanding others. Harassment of this kind for my writing style, of all things given this whole encyclopedia is a writing project, is inane. Alleging personal attacks against me while saying nothing about those made much worse against me is getting way out of control.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
User:jc7's comment
@Jc37:Comment at least someone here can talk politely and doesn't wield a bludgeon in the course of complaining about bludgeoning.....and isn't doing so in a threatening manner, either. Wow, that's refreshing.Skookum1 (talk) Tonight's response
There are those many do know I am being cogent and on topic; you saw Themightyquill's comment on the one RM, didn't you? And he doesn't even like me; but he says if you take the time to read me I have valuable information and there are others who recognize my contributions on both talkpages and in article-creation/organization and who don't rail at me for things they do not want to take the time to read or understand. And yet I was arbitrarily blocked, and am now being threatened for a long-terms block. Yet I am long-time prolific and valuable editor with broad knowledge, and regional expertise in a big way, as other WPCANADA and Pacific Northwest and many other areas now; yet among the bureaucracy I am becoming a pariah for writing things that they either refuse to read or openly old in contempt or simply do not want to hear or admit to, told I am not "capable of holding a proper discussion" and "no one would ever accuse you of being rational" and "idiotic" - for guideline discussion no less, for writing things they won't read that others respect and learn from. That incorrect guideline interpretations have been made by otherwise and that insults have been regularly tossed at me in no uncertain terms is not on the table? "my ever-decreasing respect" for you is if nothing else a personal attack; you will not even read my RM arguments to see what they say, I have already been pondering an ANI or higher about the treatment I have received, but am too busy providing needed information on the various RMS, and all the while creating needed articles; while others rail at me for my output as being unreadable. I'm a good writer; what I see around me are bureaucrats abusing power and wielding menace in response and scolding me for my efforts to improve and expand Wikipedia, and told that my writing is garbage. I do focus on the content, and having to dispute the obvious in all too many cases with people who don't know about the topic, and won't listen to an editor with local expertise, and condemn and threaten him with administrative sanction if he keeps on trying to address ALL the guidelines (not just one, or single phrase plopped out of this or that one) in their full context. There should be a new line added to the wikilawyering use of legal techniques; discrediting a proponent through attacks on their credibility and ability and even sanity as a way of having to avoid talking about the issues. I've just made a lengthy comment on the new, second Comox RM (the other was on Talk:Comox, British Columbia and closed only a few days ago; other Canadians and I are arguing that the PRIMARYTOPIC is obviously the town, and want Comox, British Columbia listed back in, both agree as will others familiar with BC (if not certain Albertans); but isn't that kinda hasty for a second RM on the same title, on the same topic (PRIMARYTOPIC), and isn't that out of order, i.e. re-RMing Comox in the wake of an immediately preceding RM on the same title?? For the benefit of the two support voters, who are familiar with (and are willing to read what I say as they know I am always informative...and even cogent), I laid out the PRIMARYTOPIC dispute which is all over many very similar RMS (might as well be identical, as are th voices of opposition) which is also core at that one and at the previous dual town RM and the overall theme of what I'm hearing across all RMs (generally from the same certain group of voices) as is also the case in guideline discussions. Yet for that contribution to the discussion of issues and content and guidelines, you will no doubt hurl TLDR at me, or someone will; it is their choice to not learn; I know CBW and Skeezix will read it and will get absolutely everything I am saying about the issues, and also about the persistent challenges to CANSTYLE and Canadian English and our guidelines and standards at WP:CANADA = which I was enacting by starting all the town RMs, and many of the indigenous ones. I am following guidelines, acting from consensus decisions and mandates, and am moving forward with changes so mandated. And yet I am being both insulted repeatedly elsewhere, but, threatened here with a permanent block, after an arbitrary block "as a favour"......by someone who does not read my points because he does not have the time or patience, and is apparently so irritated by full grammar and sequential argument and a lack of an open mind towards an informed, ariculate, long-term editor. In real life, I am very large physically, and regularly get intimidation and officiousness from smaller persons, often insults and sometimes violence or threats of it. In writing, I am voluble and write "the old way", and have a lot of information to convey; and so when I'm treated as being crazy or stupid - by those who are really talking about themselves. So I recognize the attitude and the behaviour I am seeing and being treated with all too well for what it is. Wikipedia's community is getting smaller; in looking over old IPNA and WPCAN archives and others I see many names no longer with us; maybe that's because its collective mind is getting smaller, and its attitudes narrower and less accepting and open. And its adminship less open-minded and more and more abusive of powers. I'm not alone in thinking this; Wikipedia Review was founded by it. I may go there yet. But I really do have better things to do than comment on this place if it drives me out for being articulate and thoughtful and informative. Yes I do have better things to do, profoundly so, and not just as a writer - more than you can realize; I came back to Wikipedia because articles and categories about where I am from and about my country are important to me; even other WPCANADA people who don't like me so much know that I know my subject areas inside and up and outside and down, and know where to look for this or that piece of information or reference. And have undertaken group projects like this UNDAB of unique town names wholesale; massive amounts of work have been done. I have been a loyal and consistent editor on WikiProject Canada, and have contributed to IPNA since not long after its founding; and I am being hounded out by people who won't even read what I have to say, and interpret criticism of their past wiki-actions as NPA, while hurling NPAs at me and even threatening me with blocks or actually blocking me, and now threatening me with longterm blockage for really no very good reason at all; by people who won't hold a "proper discussion" and refuse to answer points raised by assaulting me verbally procedurally and also in concert against me (and Canadian English titles) in concert. I am "more and more losing my respect for YOU, Fayenatic; I broke my output into paragraphs so it's easier to read; you will still rail at me for TLDR and whatever else instead of see my point of view, or take action against the overt NPAs which are through (repeatedly) numerous guideline discussion copy-paste posts or other slants against my character, sanity or intelligence. If what I have is a disability, then being derisive towards me for it is not a good comment on the collective character of Wikipedia; but it is not a disability, it is a different style of writing that some feel uncomfortable with, and others who just don't like what I have to say (especially it seems quoting other guidelines to counterpoise the supposed sole guideline) know is intelligent and informed and very often useful and thoughtful. Perhaps it is not me that has the disability....AGF used to mean patience and openness and a willingness to learn, and to indulge different approaches; now it is being used as a club to avoid addressing that very content you say I should be talking about myself. Speaking of which, it's 1 am here and I've just spent 35 minutes (only) of valuable time with somebody who is threatening me with blockage because of allegations and imputations that I am unwelcome in Wikipedia. Your last block didn't even let me post on my own talkpage or even email user. It's not like I've been obscene or abusive.....only for my writing style and insistence on TRULY addressing the full scope of guidelines and topic/title discussion......if you find thine eye offensive, pluck it out. That doesn't mean throw me out, it means your perceptions of me are inherently flawed; not surprising considering you say you do not even read what I write. I'm kicking these block threats and Uysvdi's upstairs tomorrow - soon, anyway, I believe it or not do have a life outside Wikipedia - along with the Squamish PRIMARYTOPIC dispute to somewhere and the overall threeway juxtaposition of town/language/ethno titles that is the subtext to the relentless opposition from the usual suspects; I'd really rather write articles and fulfill the mandate given me by WPCANADA re town RMs and launch a few more imports from other-language Wikipedias which have been neglected here, but like begets like and I think it is you who are out of order, not me. Banning me from Wikipedia is not a solution, it is opening your minds that is necessary - not closing them like the slamming of a door. A late friend had a saying "a mind is like a box. If it's open, things get put into it. If it's not, then nothing does". Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
|
March 2014
Extended content
|
|---|
 Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Skookum1. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I really do not have the time to deal with any of this, but I've had it up to here with your endless personal attacks, e.g. "maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour," against myself and countless other editors, many of which are trying to help you. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I agree. Skookum, I know that Wikipedia is sometimes frustrating, but please be speak kindly to others. You already know that uncivil comments are against policy and reflect poorly on the offending editor, but please be civil because it helps your cause. Wikipedians tend to avoid siding with those who make uncivil statements. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
going so far as to try and db a standing title on an article he's never worked on in order to protect his vested interest in his self-authored guideline. The title is inaccurate anyway even in English form; it should be Comox peoples but now given your admonition I don't feel right in moving it; the Sahtloot/K'omoks (Island Comox) should have their own article and the Mainland Comox (Tla A'min, Klahoose and Homalco are really one group, or were before being "cut up" by colonization) their own also under their native names; He doesn't even read the articles whose name he changes. Get it? Criticizing me is an old tactic, as is baiting me by being snide and derisive. I repeat I'm the one being targeted for attack and it's just a tactical manoeuvre and have seen all this before. Yes, I have a sharp tongue because I do not have tolerance for fools and talk directly rather than passive-aggressively; throwing his words back in his face is somehow "not allowed" but doing the same back to me is par for the course. I'm the one who has been attacked; I don't feel like dragging out Uysvdi's nasty bits, but they're there, and she's hardly the one to post the warning to me she did above. She also waded into BC titles without having a clue what she's doing, or anything about the place, or the K'omox/Tla A'min.....and though scoldingh me, nastily and calling me, effectively an anti-indigenous racist it was her uncalled for actions on the Squamish title, which like Comox is a major name confusion,and rather than listen to my input she insulted me and threw the title into (yawn) the bearpit of unnecessary procedure.AAAAAAAARGH do you get my frustration with all this nonsense? English wikipedia is so obsessed with background - guidelines, talkpages, procedure, wikiquette - that little meaningful work gets done on the articles affected; for comparison German Wikipedia articles on the same topic are extensive as are those, when they exist, in Croatian and Turkish and others. Wikipedia has lost indigenous contributors because of all this; somewhere in TITLE it says that t he interests of readers should be put before the interests of specialists (in this case, a hobby linguist) and the realities of modern British Columbia/Canadian English regularly pushed aside as irrelevant and derided......look at the bigger context here, and realize that it's me that's being bullied and WP:BLUDGEONed as a tactic to resist change to correct usages. SO frustrating and time consuming......Skookum1 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
For another example of his regular putdowns, in this case in a misleading and accusatory edit comment, see here. Nowhere in thte changes I made did I assert that Tsuutina and Sarcee were different languages - NOWHERE. Accusing of things I didn't do is par for the course with him, as is claiming that adding "archaically" (which is true, at least in Canada if not on his own bookshelves) is "censorship" is just more typical false accusation.Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, you don't have a mirror. I suggest you re-read your derision and subtextual racism on your reply to me about me "vandalizing" the Shoshone articles. And "Get a life" you may downplay, but it's very un-adminlike commentary and an extreme put-down in my part of the world. Your hostility and blatant disdain towards me continues here with your derision about my own supposed thin skin re "get a life" and the deletion of my attempts to raise the "FOO people" problem with you, because you so formerly hot-to-trot about it; I'd called for a discussion on guidelines on indigenous nomenclature and categories and more, and you shoved it aside saying "we've got more important things to do" or something to that effect. The very discussion that Kwami is now calling to be held to protect his host of name changes, which you are still avoiding comment on re your "FOO people" = "FOO" antics re Skwxwu7mesh.Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You should point out to your buddies from NCL that they have been totally out of line with the jackbooting on the "must have people" issue, here's a guideline (or whatever the f it is) for you to cite to them. Maybe you should heed it yourself, points 2,3,4 of [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]:
There were other items on WP:Tendentious editing and others of that kind that apply; and you should note that last one above re your actions re Squamish, which ultimately are what touched off not just the "FOO people"=>"FOO" RMs (and there's a few thousand more that are up for nomination, no doubt, given Kwami's railing against me for going against procedure in the course of trying to shut them down when he never address proper procedure of broad discussion in the first place and whines about thousands or RMs being "disruptive" when 99.9% of them were created by him is way out of line. During this contretemps here tonight (it's 2:37 am where I am), I've created new articles, expanded and modified others, and you have been here denying things I know that you said. Your deletion of my attempt to engage you in the FOO people=>FOO issue was hostile and negative and despicable (as well as cowardly and hypocritical, just as you are being tonight with your denials). It is YOU who have been unCIVIL in the extreme on more than one occasion and bitterly too, and you're behaving like a wiki-bully using your admin powers to threaten me. You're an example of the kind of cultus ikta that makes people give up trying to be constructive contributors, and among those who regularly violate the wikilawyering points above BIGTIME. I'm going to bed. YOu shoudl learn what contrition and humility are about and give up on your confrontational ways and start dealing with the issues instead of using your power to attack someone who is trying to deal with those issues; something your closed club of NCL types are resisting by any means necesary, including trying to shut down the discussions and defame me in the process. I'm going to bed, I've had enough of you; if I don't see any comments repeating the invocation of your interpretation concerning "FOO people" on the RMs that proves to me you are not ready to be either consistent or willing to deal with issues/problems you had a hand in creating and are boycotting the RMs because they were launched by me. Go take a humility pill and think about what yhou have done and said - once you actually remember them, I sure do and don't patronize me by claiming I'm "irrational" or that you "can't take my word for it" like your pals have done. Damn, I could have gotten so much more done tonight if not for your assault on me here on my own talkpage. Your position and denials here are an insult to my intelligence and one of the reasons why English Wikipedia is the horrifying bearpit of weirdness and guideline-clobbering that it is. Sickening.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC) These also apply to what has been going on thanks to the small-group concoction known as NCL:
Why don't you use your admin bludgeon to go dump on Kwami instead of me; he's guilty of all of those, and you have been complicit in standing by and letting it happen when you have the power to stop it but obviously are too busy criticizing me to even think about it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your conflation of that criticism of how NCL is being abused and other guidelines derided is oversensitivity in the extreme and is very apt, considering the virulent opposition and obstructionism and regularly derision targeted towards me by those who think NCL is HOLYWRIT. It is not, and you are no saint yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hang in there!
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your brilliant line on Jimbotalk: "I've been around one hell of a long time and have contributed massive amounts to Wikipedia, and remember the days when AGF and NPA were not used to inflict AGF and NPA, but when people actually sought to talk to each other and reconcile differences..." Please do hang in there, Wikipedia needs you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thank you, it's nice to have some support instead of spite and scolding.....I'm still plugging at it despite all, and getting good things done.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, guess I'll add not just that barnstar to my userpage but also that line to my maxims....I bloopered a goodie tonight, since edited out, "Sometimes I make brain farts" i.e. missing phrases or writing incomplete sentences because "in flow" and managing multiple thoughts.....I think I'll add that too with "[when in stream of consciousness mode]" or "when firebreathing" maybe.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- hi - I was hoping to use your 2007 map on Vancouver Island Ranges to identify locations of mountains on their individual articles. I put a request into the Map Workshop group: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Vancouver_Island_Ranges to seek the geographic coordinates for the boundaries of the image. Canuckle (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)