User talk:Skookum1/Archive 24

Post-archival replies

Hi Skookum1, just noting that I reverted these replies you added to a thread in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840. You really shouldn't be posting substantive responses to archived threads. While I understand that clarifications or corrections might sometimes be necessary, it has long been my understanding that substantive posts in archives are inappropriate. If for some reason you disagree with this, I'd be happy to discuss this with a third party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that had been closed; it's so full of bunk that needed responding to; I didn't notice the URL. All of what I said is true, what was alleged is hokum - unnecessary moves are not RMs and technical RMs/db-moves, which is all I've done except moving to redlinks; Kwami's disigenuous and claims that he thinks I'm OK is hogwash and typical of his wheedling.... all this began with the Squamish RM from Skwxwu7mesh/diacriticalized, which was partly because the @$%@% who ramrodded that referred to other First Nations in BC article titles, which at that time were in the Kwami-ized state now reverted by RMs last year..... and when Uysvdi moved into the Squamish category issue without knowing what she was doing or even what the PRIMARYTOPIC was, and said "FOO people" was the issue, that's when I started first with the bulk RMs t hat got shot down, and I responded as instructed by filing a "frenzy", as she AGFs them, of RMs.....and when those got to be going too much my way, she then trotted out that infamous and detestable first ANI of a few months ago....... look at my contributions in the last weeks since those uncalled-for and anti-consensus blocks levelled on me; I've been creating articles far more than the moves that Maunus complains disrupt his precious watchlist; the whole thing is based in character assassination of someone trying to be constructive and actually apply guidelines and policies, instead of equivocate about them and then haul the nom to ANI instead of talk about issues....rant ended; again, I didn't know that that was archived, another editor had sent me the link in FB in reference to a discussion we were having about all this and.....I hate seeing bullshit go uncorrected.Skookum1 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And here and here, I've been doing a formal survey of all ethno titles and cats, so that there's a reference point when somebody starts shooting their mouth off about what is "normal" and "most common". The appendix (first link) is nowhere near finished; I'd proposed setting this up in IPNA last year and was shot down by Uyvsdi saying "we've got better things to do"...but got on the start of it during one of those @###% blocks....so much bullshit, so little time....Skookum1 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea where that went, or where Kwami's bogus 3RR one about his own reverts; I de-watchlisted ANI and think it's waste of time inhabited by a culture of negative and character attacks; policies concerning content and validity of titles get the back seat there in the course of the ad hoc star chamber atmosphere....Maunus complaining about discussions over titles and guidelines and then going and launchign another discussion which was all NPA from the start, is typical to me of the double-talk and not-so-hidden motives behind the ongoing fray there; similarly I de-watchlist RM and CfD unless there's a particular item I'm watching; I work on articles, which is why having to do with bad name changes is a pain in the ass....in so many ways. The culture of malcontent that is part of the discussion board environment is immature and unprofessional (but too much like institutionalized academia, granted), more energy goes in there than actual work on articles as such; and the obvious nature of the RM conclusions this last year, given all the hot air and mistaken/groundless/anti-guideline notions that get fielded in them, is a demonstration to me of why informed dicsussion/decision is needed... and also why RMs and CfDs should require notification of affected WikiProjects and also of, per each article, all those who have edited it; Squamish was changed by people who'd never worked on the articled and didn't even know anything about the poeple OR the District/town of Squamish, for example. An actual knowledge test should be required for admins so there's not so many loose cannons around, and people are actually equipped to read "walls of text" isntead of ranting and screaming and taking offense at them; I see a culture of semi-literacy entrenching itself, not any kind of encylopedic grasp of content ..... and behavioural guidelines being given more weight than issues of content; no accident that those were authored by the kind of people who like to wield them instead of address issues of content/title PROPERLY. To be told I'm "not capable of proper discussion" by people who field illogic and opinion as if it were fact is nauseating.Skookum1 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that there's a lot involved in this situation. Anyway, commenting on the wrong page happens to all of us; I didn't mean to imply you were trying to do anything improper by making the comments. I really just wanted to let you know that I had removed those comments you'd posted in the archive page rather than risk causing confusion had you later wanted to refer back to those comments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I realized that, so felt free to speak. Actually it was refreshing to get something from ANI-world that wasn't the Nurse Ratchet routine scolding met to behave "or else". My responses there I'll save the revert-link to for later use, as unfounded twaddle like so much in that ANI and elsewhere is going to be the subject of a submission to ARBCOM at some point about the problems with the kangaroo court system and the fielding of groundless hysterics as if all of Wikipedia depending on keeping contributing editors in line.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am bad translator

I am bad translator. Thanks.--Kmoksy (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This {Kmoksy is not K'omoks} is a humour. Ayeahjuthum (ʔayʔǰuθəm) is endonym for Mainland Comox (Homalco-Klahoose-Sliammon) {ɬəʔamɛn and ƛohos} --Kmoksy (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

By now you've seen my comments about that, lots of work to be done in that particular area, lately I've been doing things like List of Kwakwaka'wakw villages and its subarticles and similar lists for the Haida and others; will do one for the Tla'Amin and K'omoks at some point too. The Kwakwaka'wakw villages are well-documented by artist pages, and lots of pics available; not so for most of the others, other than Haida and some Nuxalk ones like Kimsquit. Tons of history yet to be done; name-games tire me but to me using what the people want is paramount vs. the {{systemic bias}} in many government and academic sources. And don't mind me correcting/teaching again, "This...is a humour" you meant "This....was a joke".Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Move requests

I see quite a few requests for page moves. I had processed quite a few, then I saw somewhere that there was some controversy about the requests. I left a note on my talk page indicating that i would not feel comfortable processing any more until I saw that the controversy had been resolved. You may have missed that note, so I am asking here. Can you point me to a resolution, if it has been resolved?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

TITLE has been resolved long ago, let's put it that way. There is nothing controversial about simple redirects; the TWODAB pages maybe but TWODAB pages shouldn't exist and were created by undiscussed moves of the standalone primarytopic people titles, all by the same person, citing a guideline that, after a certain point he authored himself, and before that cited MOS as if it says what he continues to contend in defiance of proven consensus that "the people are the primary topic" across 80+ recent RMs (more like 100+, especially when including five major ones last year)......for TWODAB and simple redirects to be done away with, those are all mandated by TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC and NCDAB; to me the matter is resolved, though stonewalling/filibustering to prevent bringing WP:NCL into line with policy and other guidelines (the disputed passage claims/ed that the people/language are the primarytopic; it is not resolved there because of an edit war to prevent changes he doesn't want, and it's "stuck" on his version now until the 26th. But it's a language guideline anyway; WP:NCET, which also has its issues but is more in line with what TITLE etc actually say, is the ethnic groups guideline. The controversy isn't over whether or not TITLE etc don't call for the removal of unneeded dabs, it's over the use of scripted language guideline to override, unilaterally, ethno article titles without consultation or without heed to policy; and absurdity and misrepresentation and edit warring abound...... Desist from any ones you feel controversial then, but I really don't think they are in terms of standing policy at TITLE/PRECISION/CONCISENESS and all the rest mentioned. Most undiscussed moves carried lines like "lang vs naming convention" or made allusions to the dabbed titles as being the most common form; even before he had moved thousands of them. The titles were stable for 7-9 years before that; and conformed to TITLE/etc which the moves did not; Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. I saw that there was a controversy, although I didn't memorize the location, so can't put my finger on it now. That was a couple weeks ago. When I saw them popping up again at CSD. I hoped that meant the controversy had been settled, and I wanted you to point me to the place where it was settled. Citing your view of policy wasn't responsive. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that G^ is for situations that are "non-controversial or consensual" and if you cannot point me tot he resolution of the discussion, then they are not eligible for G6.

I will start cleaning out the ones not yet processed. You can either go through the normal move request process, or get a clear resolution of the bulk issue, but they should not be tagged as G6 while there is some controversy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The controversy is a one-man controversy; if not for him, the offending passage in NCL, which can't override policy anyway, would have been resolved by now, as consensus there, other than him, is very very very clear; there is no "resolution" for TITLE etc, they were resolved long ago. Reverting undiscussed moves that created redirects to themselves, or spurious two-dab pages that shouldn't exist, is clearly already mandated by policy and the consensus behind it. I was criticized for fielding RMs and in the case of the redirects told that technical requests would take the load off the discussion boards. Can't win for losing around here; standalone titles were long-standing until messed with. There is no controversy on the policies in question; one person's obstinacy and wordgaming is not worth discussing further in terms of "resolution", because he does everything he can to prevent or ignore those resolutions; and did what he could to shut down RMs (and failed), complaining that there was no centralized discussion, when he never held one himself for all the moves he's tried to fight against and lost. Of the RMs I and others filed to correct these, over 90%, maybe 95%, affirmed TITLE and "the people are the primary topic"; the only ones that should go to RM are the ones where dab pages exist (beyond two items and a few three-item ones where all derive from the people/primarytopic name); Again, you can't win for losing around here, I try to use RMs and get criticized, I am now using technical requests and getting criticized and told to use RMs. Have a look at the date of creation of the articles vs the date when they were summarily moved without discussion, or with misquotes of policy/guidelines (before he got NCL amended to his liking he was making edit comments that MOS mandated adding "people", which is one of very many false statements he's made). How many RMs do I have t o link for you to demonstrate that "the people are the primary topic" and "redirects from the original title to an unneeded dab should be reverted"? I'm actually building a global list, with move-histories; somebody has to, since there's so many claims about what is and isn't the norm. Wiki-bureaucracy's inertia tolerated the unwarranted moves; and now it's coming back in the form of coming up with excuses not to correct them, or in your case field them back into RM where the same editor habitually uses confabulation and obfuscation and derision to shut things down. That's not controversy, that's inanity.Skookum1 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• case in point, there is no reason at all for a TWODAB page to exist when a hatnote could suffice; he will war and war and war over these if sent to RM, however. and has filed a 3RR ANI against me when it was his 3RR and I was only at 2RR....lies, misrepresentations, edit warring, and illogic are his tool kit; there are, as he puts it "thousands of articles at stake" in a CANVASS he made on WP:Languages trying to recruit support for his attempts to confound consensus by other editors at NCL trying to get that guideline to conform to policy and other guidelines; he even said "five thousand" at one point; he would know, he's the one who moved them in 2010-2011 from titles that had stood since 2002-2003. Controversy and obstinacy are not the same thing; he's warred against restorations of native endonym titles that he'd moved to linguistics-scholarship-driven titles, bitterly.....and lost. I see your own removals of things that are obviously G6 i.e. that are only redirects to the "FOO people" title, all of which were undiscussed and in contravention of policy and c.100 have been corrected by RMs....the controversy should be over, but as long as simple redirects to unnecessarily disambiguated titles are not welcome at RM, and not welcome at TR, then the systemic problems of the wikipedia bureacracy are only asking for more time to be wasted, because one rogue editor went on a tear three years ago and rejigged the world to his own liking; an AE is in the offing because of all this, and the only way to resolve the problems he created may be to discipline him officially; instead of coming down on me for trying to apply policy as directed by yet other admins than yourself. Harassment ANIs have taken place, direct insults and blatant misrepresentations of what others have said are rife; the "FOO people"="FOO" matter has been resolved; the controversy is about his opposition to further fixings of the problems he's created, and the guideline he authored himself. Geez, maybe I should have authored one myself huh? Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Get a clear resolution of the bulk issue" was tried, and the bulk RMs about that shut down as procedural because of unwritten opposition to bulk discussions; so I was told to file individual RMs, and have since been criticized for that too, even seeing those being described as "undiscussed moves"; those that were simple redirects back to themselves were all closed/moved..... The Alice-in-Blunderland world of illogical unreality that abounds around here has many offshoots; one is the confusion over the meaning of "FOO people", such that after those were changed in Africa, a whole bunch of ethno articles wound up in the "people who are FOO" category for the Bantu i.e. Category:Bantu people vs the main ethno category Category:Bantu. I've been moving those ethno titles into the proper category.....something that the name-mover doesn't care to do....nor anyone else it seems. Trying to restore order from wanton disarray has brought me under fire, and making me the target of discussion instead of addressing the issues raised, or addressing policy, is the name of the game. A bulk RfC on the redirects may convince you; but that RfC would be about what TITLE, PRIMARYTOPIC, NCDAB and more already say.Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bantu people

Per WP:CFD please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Category:Bantu people. Edit warring while there is a community discussion in progress that you haven't even commented on is unconstructive and demonstrates bad faith. HelenOnline 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh gee, yet more procedure from yet another edit war.....what you have advocated, and now CfD'd is at wide variance to established norms for main ethno cats. Does anybody know how to think anymore?Skookum1 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)