User talk:Skookum1/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

About your About.com question

Questions about specific sources (such as your original question regarding About.com) should be raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This is mentioned in banners at the top of the talk page, in the FAQ, and in banners that show up when you edit the talk page. This isn't meant to be unhelpful; you'll get more uninvolved editors looking at your question at the actual noticeboard, rather than the general guideline page. The Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources page is for discussing changes to the Identifying reliable sources guideline, not for individual source questions. Thanks.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. For as long as I've been around here, the wiki-bureaucracy is a maze.Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"that merge discussion"

I pointed more than once that both of you violated wikipedia rules in the discussion about such trivial thing like Foo in BC or Foo in Vancouver. Although I agree that WhisperToMe should be sanctioned because they are admin, your comments about them are such blatant violation of WP:NPA that I see them as your kamikaze attempt to provoke them and get both of you sanctioned. I have never reported anybody at AN, at least until now, and I don't have intention to do so in future, at least for now. If there is anything I hate more than WP:NPA at wikipedia, it is WP:DIVA behavior. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

DIVA huh? More like "expert in his area(s). The separation in question was not "trivial" (though the illogics being used to justify it most certainly are), it was provocative and arrogant and I'm not the one committing SYNTH/OR with every post, never mind now WEASEL also. Legitimate frustration with someone's ongoing AGF is what it is; calling every criticism "NPA" andignoring AGF/OR/SYNTH et al.... oh well....so the merge discussion, it's derailed.....so bound for a dual RM to try and enlist some COMMONSENSE at the RM board.....wherre it's sadly in short supply.Skookum1 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That AN discussion

I've no idea why it was there, but should it be copied/linked/whatever to the two places you mention? There seems to be enough useful stuff there to make it worth while doing that. I think most people outside the US and Canada haven't a clue about any of this. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Too many. And it's made a pain in various RMs and such where votes and closes were made by misinformed/half-informed people. Also have similar going on re Indo-Canadians vs "Asian Indians" with some guy from Texas lately. The idea of a styleguide/conventions guide for IPNA related articles is "still out there", but got dissed by certain newer IPNA editors who weren't around when the "map" of the "system" was derived; I made a draft in a sandbox somewhere about what I call "the old consensus", which got swept aside by BOLD moves and retrenched by some of those "bad closes" I'm referring to, plus retrenched in certain "lone-wolf guidelines" (WP:NCL especially but nm), though I did get a lot of RMs passed and the consensus reaffirmed; it's still shoved aside in various arenas, but piecemeal decision-making by people who don't know the background, or "get" current language/name expectations, means there's still some issues out there, as I'd indicated re the Duwamish.Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In Canada, terminology is very important because of hte layers of political and constitutional meaning, and the peoples' own preferences; which get swept aside by so-called "reliable sources" invoking older usages e.g. see Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 - the follow-up comments; it should be Denesuline if the "old consensus" had been respected instead of swept aside.Skookum1 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Harper in a closet

Harper was not in the closet for the whole time of the shootings. So it is not factually correct. And the closet was in the caucus room anyway. So it is a bit of a misrepresentation, and I don't think it is in the spirit of Wikipedia. And it would be too prominent to mention that minor aspect. What could go in the caption, as it is in the reactions section, is how he labelled it a terrorist attack. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That was in a cited piece, and all reporting I've seen said that he was hid in the closet (passive voice might work better for you); your suggestion is highly POV and I would oppose it, all I did was correct the incorrect caption according to what I've read and seen cited. If you add in the reactions section how he labelled it a terrorist attack, there is more to be added about that, including criticisms of him and his agenda and some commentary about jumping the gun out there too (meaning jumping the gun in the tweet-fest and extrapolations thereof that went on; you have seen those summaries, haven't you? What's your timeline and cite to state "he was not in the closet for the whole of the shootings"....I've seen no such statement anywhere, only that he was put in when shooting broke out, and was ushered out once the shooting was over.....cite please.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to take the POV out of it. You yourself said it looks like POV. Well, I agree with you. If you say shootings, then the time period includes the shooting at the war memorial. He hid in the closet while there was shooting outside the caucus room. I doubt Harper was aware of the war memorial shooting at all. Also I noticed that someone had changed it to his security detail put him in the closet. His detail was not present, the Conservative caucus did not even let them in at first. Alaney2k (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Big difference between looking POV, but it's not POV if it's a fact. And it is; if "during the shootings" is there, that can be reworded; "once teh shooting began in the Centre Block", then. But what is a plug-photo for Harper doing on that page anyway? It's election season, he's not hte primary topic of the article or even one of teh players in the events....Kevin Vickers should be on the article, if he's not already; I can't see any reason to have any politician on the article; the way that caption read was a bit of advertising/poli-spam to me.....I say take it out entirely; I've seen /edited countless articles with "Harper plugs" over the years, about him cutting some ribbon or being there for some event, as if it were notable and not just political stumping.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If we can, I'd like pics of Zehaf-Bibeau, Cirillo and Vickers, as well as Harper. The problem you mention is prominence. If all pictures were available, then it would not be an issue. Alaney2k (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If Harper's there other political leaders have to be, then; sure he's "led the debate [branding the event as terrorism]" but for balance Mulcair, saying the opposite, should be there; the only ones that really belong on there are ZB, Cirillo and Vickers....including Harper only would not be balanced.Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikiprojects re native/indigenous talkpages

Will do. I haven't come across too many yet - maybe three or four total - but I'll add it there when I see 'em. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added it to four of those. The fifth I had already added it to. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Issues regarding a few BC provincial parks

While updating the BC provincial parks articles, I ran into a problem with Sudeten Provincial Park. It doesn't appear to have an entry in BCGNIS (see this search result; other parks may not have info, but at least they have entries). I suspect, given transfer of ownership to a municipal body, that it should no longer be listed at its current name.

I'm also unsure about Simson Provincial Park, as BCGNIS does not contain an entry for it, but does have an entry for "Simson Marine Park". I've added this as the BCGNIS entry for the article, but if it's wrong, could you remove it. Ditto for Sabine Channel Provincial Park.

If you get a chance, could you check these out. Thanks. Mindmatrix 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sudeten Park I don't know the story of other than it exists per this information which I used to improve the Tomslake page. Tomslake is not a municipality, the park might be administered by the Peace River Regional District and maybe is listed on their website alongside other regional parks; or it could be maintained by a legacy from descendants of the Sudeten pioneers the monument is for.

"Simson Marine Provincial Park" would be the same as "Simson Provincial Park", likewise BC Names does have "Sabine Channel Marine Provincial Park" while BC Parks has "Sabine Channel Provincial Park" and also Simson Provincial Park. I'll take it up with BC Names next time I write her about why it's missing; she's overwhelmed with work/backlog so it may be an error of omission. Why the names don't match is a mystery of inter-ministry politics no doubt.....not the first time one arm of the government doesn't know or care what another one is doing. I've been sticking with the BC Names "FOO Marine Provincial Park" title and have moved some accordingly - and just moved both Simson and Sabine Channel to the "Marine Provincial Park" title since there was no redirect in the way. Have you tried these on CGNDB btw?

There's a few parks I came across in my own recent updating that were no longer provincial parks and now "local government"...not always clear if it's to an RD or a municipality, but when outside a municipality my guess, or the necessary conclusion, is that they are now regional parks, when not city or town parks. Sometimes RD and muni websites list their parks, often not; for Cascade Falls Regional Park, which was created under Dewdney-Alouette Regional District governance and is now run by the Fraser Valley Regional District, the cite I've found though haven't yet used (busy) is from a heritage site of the Mission Museum and Community Archives; the falls isn't in Mission District though the MCA site includes "greater Mission" (areas to the east as far as Lake Errock). Regional parks there's tons of that don't have wiki articles, though some do (Kanaka Creek Regional Park I think is already there) and many are quite major in local prominence/role. Whether a category for "regional or municipal parks that were formerly provincial parks" is warranted remains to be seen....there's quite a few of them, actually.

btw when searching BC Names be advised that the percentage symbol /%/ is the "wild card" for searches.Skookum1 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Re the Sudeten Park, I just looked at the PRRD regional parks, it's not one of theirs. I'll write the Peace River Country tourism site and see what they might know about it. I'm not aware of Tomslake being in a municipality but it might be (I don't know that part of the province well). Re regional parks and regional district-operated/affiliated community facilities, those should all ultimatley be on regional district pages and if there's not already Category:Regional parks in British Columbia could use creating; only some will be worth having subcats-by-RD for e.g. GVRD, Capital and certain others which have lots of regional parks.Skookum1 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into those. I was going to move the articles too, but thought there might be two independent but associated areas. I also figured the now-municipal park was dropped as a provincial park. As an aside, I'll be finishing off the category in the next day or two - I have about 60 articles to re-cat for years of establishment. I'll do some minor cleanup as I go, but not much more than that. Mindmatrix 00:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

RAND

It's best if we discuss your revert here before anything gets out of hand. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I included information on who backs RAND, what RAND is, because on an article already struggling with government agenda/propaganda vs media/public opinion/sentiment, RAND's nature is highly relevant to the quality of the comment being made..... that paper in fact is teh genesis of applying those terms to the "perps" at Ottawa and SJsR. It's also from a blog (Daily Beast not being a newspaper) so that opens the field for "declarations" of who's behind it. This is a Candaian article, RAND is a foreign body, that opinions circulated and supproted by people associated with them have a particular military-derived POV/context can not be omitted without deception/misdirection = POV.Skookum1 (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And I did NOT "revert", I resinserted a more condensed version of what you elided (wrongfully IMO).Skookum1 (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to have a proper discussion about this, then stop reinstating your edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yessir, nossir, FU sir. I'm not your boy, but you clearly are from the crowd that likes giving orders. If you want to be a proper Wikipedian, stop your POV deletions/censorship. I see you as an "information manager" out to sanitize the complete truth and replace it with neutered (not neutral) hobble gobble, and you're not the first "terror advocate" out to protect the "official line". Changing "said" to "suggested" was rank OR /editorializing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sanitizing anything, but I understand why you would write that because you are obsessed with pushing the "mental illness" line when it comes to the shootings. There's way more things I could have done if I completely believed in the official line, like citing more sources that supports that narrative or inserting a criticism of what your idol, Glenn Greenwald, wrote. Inthefastlane (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not that your criticisms matter s**t to me, but "pushing the mental illness line" (38% of Canadians think these were mental health incidents, 36% say "terror") and presuming to say that Greenwald is my "idol" (that's one of the first articles I've ever read by him) shows me what a low-life you are and out to attack the messenger. That article was a rank war-on-terror-Tory screed until balance was brought in by rendering other views than the government, the police, and that of he US "terror establishment". Removing the POV context of the nature of the RAND Corporation WAS "sanitizing the article of associations that apparently you don't want your pet propaganda think thank/organ to have to admit to. Your agenda is clear; mine is the complete and whole truth; yours is the edited and controlled not-really-truth.Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you getting wet for? Nearly all of your edits on the page have been pushing the mental illness narrative and you've made multiple edits giving Greenwald the royal treatment by insisting that he be described as a putlizer-prize winning so don't give me this horseshit about how I am attack you. Like I said, there's way more things I could have done if i actually believed in the "official line." Also, you need to drop the nauseating, broken record sermonizing about how you know the complete and whole truth and I don't; there is no "truth" when it comes to complicated events like this, there are only interpretations of facts, and if what you said about what narrative Canadians believe about the shootings is true, then it stands to reason that your version of what happened is not a complete and truthful interpretation of the facts of the events. You keep throwing the accusation that removing the nature of RAND is POV like an infant; how about you argue, first, how the USG (with which RAND is affiliated) is even connected to this shooting? Inthefastlane (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Go shove it and stop posting your bitching on my page, you're boring. The propaganda machine of the War on Terror is very much connected to how the shooting has been portrayed in US media and blogs; and calling me an "infant" for insisting that your POV removal of the military connection is not just NPA it's asinine, and your bitch about Greenwald "being given the royal treatment" endorses my view/interpretation that you are part of that propaganda machine, such derision is too-common fare and overblown rightist hype. The mental health theme is a main current in Canadian sources, if not in the US (excepting Greenwald and others like him) so don't bitch about me "pushing" it, it was absent from the article and all I did was add balance. Not cut things out, other than conflated abuses of sources like a certain other "terror fanatic" has been doing repeatedly.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one who thinks the RAND Corporation's nature should be in the article. And as for calling that paragraph "OR" in your one "revision" of it, that whole passage was put into the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu article by another "terror propagandist" who tried deleting the Glenn Greenwald comments as being "fringe", which Greenwald is anything but; I only copied it over to this article, the wording was his not mine.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Inthefastlane (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "revert", I restored the information YOU are edit-warring about, but with different wordings so as to not be faced with the 3RR brinksmanship your friend LP engaged in and presumed to take to the edit-warring noticeboard, to no great effect. I have not reverted anything, I have restored context that YOU are edit warring over and seeking to censor. @Callanec: sorry to drag you into this but given this nonsensical block-warning from someone actively reverting and edit warring on a highly POV matter, I'm tired of the game, which is all too reminiscent of the gamesmanship of a certain K-named editor (I think you will remember, if not email me) and what is going on here is WP:Gaming the encyclopedia according to a recognizable pattern. This is harassment from a troll. The dispute here is entirely "manufactured" and groundless; the post from ITFL is a threat to take action against me to silence me so I'm not in the way of the "lie machine" that has sought to purge the Ottawa shootings article of content not favourable to the "official line"; the technical dispute matter this troll is edit-warring over is whether or not the Rand Corporation should be identified as to its highly political/military and nature/origins; he says no, other editors say yes, and he keeps reverting it whenever added and now presumes to warn ME for edit-warring and threaten me with a block. The larger issue of "war on terror" articles on Wikipedia being subjected to disruptive edits, procedural gambits, mis-use of cites to forge SYNTH and OR content goes beyond this individual but it is very noticeable in relation to the two articles on recent events in Canada. I'm under no illusions as to the "agenda" of those doing it; one thing is certain, they all engage in teh kind of procedural threat and imperious/pompous warnings as you will see above in this section. Note two ANIs involving User:Legacypac currently underway, one of which was launched against me by him, the other launched against him by others for ongoing misconduct and gamesmanship. My "assailant" above is cut from the same cloth and not incidentally from the same "faction" whose agenda is simple; neutralize information they don't like, claiming NPOV or some obtuse mis-use of guidelines/policies to justify their activities, or go for the throat and seek to have people in their way blocked, as is being done here. I'm a valuable editor here as you know, prolific on a host of subjects, and don't deserve the imperious bullshit above or threats from someone who has cast himself in the role of censor. @Floydian:, @Carrite: @Bearcat:; threats from someone wanting to purge an article of information very relevant to the context of an important article are more than questionable. Wikipedia needs a purge, already, in my very honest opinion....of "information managers" and "terror pushers" who deride and degrade all who stand in their way. This whole affair, the "terror faction" pushing their agenda on various pages and harassing editors who are trying to maintain balance and honest coverage, is almost becoming media-worthy in its own right, to be quite blunt....NPOV means "neutrality", but it is being used to mean "neutering" and "neutralizing" by those seeking to "information manage" content on Wikipedia and attack those who dare to differ with them, ad nauseam. This should really go up to ARBCOM - whether or not Wikipedia should allow itself to be used by propaganda agendas instead of fairly covering and representing sourced material properly; what's going on here is censorship pure and simple, now hiding itself behind threats of DR and threatening me with a block. 'It's not me who should be blocked. Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually Inthefastlane 's count is quite correct. Please knock of the combative behavior and edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You and your buddy are the ones edit-warring on that article, and seeking to use procedural harassment to intimidate and bully your way to control that article's wording. Complete horseshit, and more hypocritical pot-kettle-black posturing from you, but I'll take Viriditas' advice.....there's other ways to deal with this, but arguing with information-mole bullshit is pointless; you'll just escalate your campaign, just as you had on the article and its talkpage where you have edit-warred endlessly. Not surprising to encounter hypocrisy on that side of the political equation, not surprising at all......standard fare, really. How's the property business in Vancouver by the way? How is it you have so much time in your busy business day to "work on" articles about MidEast affairs......"things that you actually know about" you say on your userpage? How is it that you're a "terrorism expert" and know so much about US politics but claim not to know what American Legacy PAC is?Skookum1 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, a revert is the addition or removal of material removed or added by another user, in part or in whole. They are correct in this regard and your defence is little more than wikilaywering. You have made four reverts to the article in a 24-hour span. And, as you assuredly know, it is impossible for one side of a dispute to edit war without the other.

That being said, Legacypac and Inthefastlane - you two have tag-teamed your way to at least three or four reverts in the same period yourselves. Were this to continue and I came in as an uninvolved admin (I'm not due to my history with Skookum, so will take no admin actions at all), I would end up blocking the both of you as well. All three of you need to stop warring on the article over this and keep it to the talk page. And if you three feel inclined to continue yelling over top of each other on the talk page, I suggest asking for a third opinion or something. Resolute 01:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not quite Reso there is no tag team here and we have not communicated or had any interaction anywhere (as far as I remember) outside this article. A tenacious or disruptive editor can't sustain changes in the face of two or three other editors, which is what is happening naturally here. This editor clearly does not understand the 5 Pillars or the idea of no personal attacks. Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

since you dish them out so regularly, that's like so much else you say beyond disingenuous. And you seem to have forgotten this little pat-on-the-back from yesterday. "Striving for the world we all still hope is possible". Waht a sorry world that would be if your lot has their way. You seem to have no problem at all with ITFL's nasty derisions above; but again, your criticisms of others are entirely one-dimensional and hypocritical and while you claim there's no tag-team WP:DUCK applies. That you opined on the talkpage that some qualification of the nature of sources was valid,in response to Alaney2k's reversion of ITFL's censor-reverts, almost no sooner had you said that that you removed my restoration/rewording of the reference in question; that you have regularly fabricated/conflated sources to build SYNTH or outright make things up is not limited to the Ottawa article and it's clear that YOU have no respect for the Five Pillars or proper wiki-conduct. But telling a hypocrite what he is is inevitably pointless; it won't stop him being hypocritical, rather he'll notch it up in response, just as you are doing here. Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I was actually contemplating calling in a mediator during the night, rather than launching a POV/OR ANI to confront the "terror specialists" on a number of counts re various articles and their own long history of misleading edits and abuse of sources, but as you know I dislike procedure and with a group of apparently "coordinated" editors having to be notified, it would simply be another slag/denial fest and I'd be "outnumbered" in the resulting dogpile from the "terror lobby". The broader subject of manipulation of Wikipedia by propagandists, whether they be Ukrainian, Chinese, Russian or "war on terror" agendists is something that is not easily solved or dealt with; even when it is blatant. "Gaming the encyclopedia" by edit warring combined with threats of ANI-ification we've seen before, and actual "harassment ANIs" also; the behaviour is all too recognizable. I'm heeding Viriditas' advice below but the notion that the military origin of terms being used to hype/distort an event being used by government/police/military to push new security laws is "irrelevant" as claimed is utter twaddle.Skookum1 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Audible grumbling.

I added that bit about May's audience. The intended effect wasn't to discredit her, but to show that her sentiment was booed by The Globe and Mail. Of course, intentions aren't effects, and I see how noting the way someone noted something can sound like noting the same thing someone noted. By now, there's been plenty of audible (and mostly legible) grumbling about the political bullshit, and the article does a decent job (largely thanks to you) of covering it far more explicitly than before. So it's fine to remove the hint, just figured I'd explain myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Well, no secret about where the G&M's political allegiances lie.....but how often in any article do we hear about a Commons speech or exchange with the "noise from the peanut gallery", and it's not like Ms May has any allies outside her own caucus in the House....her statement is one thing, giving the "crowd's [negative] reaction" to her is another; the PM and Mulcair and Trudeau get hissed and booed and heckled all day long - do we include mention of that?Skookum1 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw that bit about the Beltran Tower and "GG" in the discussion I pinged you in I've never heard squat about before. Have you?Skookum1 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I didn't even hear the ping. Which discussion is this? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:10, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Because of the stress of the "procedural gambit" just hurled at me, which I survived, my intent is to stay out of directly editing either article for a while....but if the bullshit continues....as it probably will..... may get around to a POV/ANI about info-suppression and misrepresenting sources by the "terror faction"....but I need a break and do have other thing to do in Wikipedia and in the real world.....and so e.g. 2014 Burnaby Mountain protests for example I won't be creating myself...or an article about the plan to bomb the Beltran Tower (which since it's in court and under publication ban is likely very hard to source).Skookum1 (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The St-Jean-sur-Richelieu one's talkpage. I've always wondered if ping worked or what; there's also {{yo}} I've seen but maybe it doesn't work either; or it hits up wiki IRC or something like that who knows... haha. I won't re-explain here, you'll get the idea.Skookum1 (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me. I can't see anything about "Beltran" or "InedibleHulk" there. Sure you're not thinking of someone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, had just corrected that name = Bantrel Tower, part of +15, this is the discussion. "pinged you for sure; last section on that page, other than the "References" I just added because others had used ref tags in their posts (which doesn't explain to me at all why that works without {{reflist}}. and oh, DUH, I had your username wrong; I had IndelibleHulk instead of InedibleHulk ;-)Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see the indelible guy now. Your problems with the "Canada Under Attack" POV are duly noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Scandal (Canada)

Hi, when I moved "Pacific Scandal" to "Pacific Scandal (Canada)" I was not aware of any disambiguation problems. However, because the article deals with a specifically Canadian event I wanted to indicate that in the general heading. So, if you solved a problem that I caused unaware, I appreciate your help. If you simply went back to the old heading, I do not feel that my effort to improve our encyclopedia has not been given proper consideration. Khnassmacher (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISION and other parts of WP:TITLE and also WP:Disambiguation. Unnecessary disambiguation is contrary to guideines/policy. Note Pacific Squadron vs Pacific Station; the one term is American, the other British; no "(United States)" or "(United Kingdom)" necessary. There is nothing else named Pacific Scandal; if there was there might be some debate about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as to which one does or doesn't need disambiguation. But there isn't. No disambiguation is ever necessary for unique names.Skookum1 (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, ( am not familiar with wiki-nese. However, I have some knowledge about a subject ("political finance") and I would like to improve an encyclopedia in my areay of expertise. Any kind of help is appreciated, any form of holier-than-you-are attitude is not (see wikiquette!!) Cheers, Khnassmacher (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Citing wikipedia guidelines on this or that is not a "holier-than-thou-attitude". You'll find plenty of that in various discussions about guidelines, but explaining to you why your name-change was not needed, and not in guidelines, was not done in a "holier than thou" fashion, it was straightforward and "the way it is". Undiscussed name changes can be and are reverted regularly....particularly when the changed name created unnecessary disambiguation (that's a very wiki-nese word you'll find yourself becoming familiar with).Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For speaking truth to power, for calling a spade a spade, and for pointing out the failure of the "information managers", who aren't here to build an encyclopedia but to whitewash it. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gee thanks, aw shucks. And here, seeing the yellow 'you have new messages' alert, I was going to delete the section above with "delete harassment by troll" but you've encouraged me to leave it, to bear witness. I'll transfer your nice shiny new barnstar to my userpage now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You've earned it. Your little friend has responded to this award by attacking me as a "political zealot" on another talk page. Keep in mind the kind of petty, vindictive personality you're dealing with here. Lay low for a bit, I don't want to see you blocked or sanctioned; don't forget, the "information managers" run this site, whether we like it or not. (See The Secret Team) It's important for you to take the higher ground. That means no edit warring and no personal attacks. Your little friend is manipulating you and counting on backing you into a corner. He can play the "new user" schtick all he wants, but it's more important for you to focus on the problem at hand and the solution you want to see implemented. Don't get distracted by the sideshows. If you're interested in exploring the deep state connections between perpetual war and RAND, you may want to let off some steam by doing it in another article. Coincidentally, I'm trying to touch upon it in Chain Reaction (sculpture), but I haven't made any real progress just yet. When I saw you struggling with the same problem, I though I would try and contact you. There's some evidence that Paul Conrad placed the sculpture directly in front of the RAND building on purpose, to protest their history of involvement in MAD and other war-related issues. See the "location and installation" section of the sculpture article for more information. The work sits exactly in front of the RAND building, which evidently took some planning on Conrad's part, since the building wasn't there when the sculpture was installed. I've found some evidence that Conrad was aware of the older RAND building down the street, and may have seen blueprints (or become aware of the plans) for the new site. Considering that the council members were aware of the future site and several were good friends with Conrad, a larger picture begins to emerge of foresight on the part of the artist. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been WP:BAITed before more than once, including by political operatives and corporate monkeys/consultants (and also by a "rogue linguist" who shall remain nameless), and know what you're saying; I've been around since 2006, ITFL only since June of this year; that he mimicked your barnstar for me with one for LP is comical, as is what it says. It's fairly obvious that Wikipedia's UGC "anyone can edit" platform would have been moled by p.r. and partisan and security establishment/Ministry of Truth types from its very start; including rigging guidelines such as RS to block out non-mainstream media reporting as much as possible, and more. As for the involvement of the US disinformation machine in Canadian media/politics, this is a worthy read; note the second paragraph.Skookum1 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Was it you or another editor who picked up on ye olde talking point switcheroo that led to media outlets changing the narrative of the shooter from one of mental health in the first few days to one of dyed in the wool terrorist out of the blue, simply to justify the new national security initiatives aimed at curtailing what we used to call democracy and freedom? It's an old tactic, and many writers have picked up on this from the start, predicting that when the "enemy" of communism disappeared, we would quickly find a new enemy to justify the budget of the national security state apparatus, and of course, the terrorist groups the west once funded as "freedom fighters" thanks to same right-wing players, suddenly emerged to become the new "terrorists" holding the very weapons we gave them. Funny, that. And so it goes... To see what you have to look forward to, take at look at User:Viriditas/Loss of civil liberties in the United States. The conservative right keeps telling us yanks that we have more freedom under their watch, but as the evidence shows, we have less than ever before. Beware of conservatives who tell you they will protect you. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I picked up on that, and others; but worth noting that in the Canadian media since those first few days, identifying either suspect as a "terrorist" is not to be found in most coverage even in the mainstream media, and the theme of mental health vs organized terrorism is ongoing in Canadian media/blog arenas. ZB is referred to only as a "gunman", and mostly the RAND-generated terms "lone wolf terrorism" and "stray dog", with or without the invective from Jenkins' report that ITFL added (or was it LP?), are largely avoided. Other pages have similarly been edited by the "terror campaigners", as you'll see on Terrorist incidents in Canada, which I've been meaning to trim of its rank UNDUE SYNTH about the Ottawa shooting but have been....preoccupied with the assault on wiki-decency underway re the Ottawa article. Attempts to remove the comparison to Justin Bourque by an apparent Tory editor (User:Messianical not sure I spelled that right were easily thwarted by finding coverage that did make that very valid comparison/contrast between that being notcalled terrorism by the Tories and police (or US media) vs the from-the-get-go peppering of media with "terror" interpretations/allegations/imputations. There's a HuffPo article about its propagation and "where it started", also another column somewhere by the person who took the picture of ZB, which the propaganda establishment jumped on and widely publicized as being put out by ISIL, which is not the case; a caption to that effect on the Ottawa page I removed, likewise on the image page itself. You can still find RS that say that it was an ISIL photo, but that's case in point or RS being "not reliable" and/or misled/manipulated.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I closely monitored the Canadian news coverage for the first week, and I remember that the media didn't refer to them as terrorists; however, the politicians that they quoted and interviewed referred to their acts as terrorism. What caught my eye was the focus on mental health issues; in the US, the media would have tried and convicted the suspects as terrorists in the first few hours using the same, shared talking points across each news outlet, without evidence. In Canada, the focus is more on actual journalism, reporting, weighing and sifting of different POV, and news analysis. We don't get anything like that in the American mainstream media. It disappeared on September 12, 2001. The media in the US has a bad habit of disinforming its audience, not informing them. I've found Canadian news outlets to be much more information rich. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Color me surprised when I heard on the news this week that RAND had been consulting with Sony prior to the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack. Have you been following this?[1] Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You may have noticed a lack of responses from me to your posts on the talk pages lately. That was deliberate. I need to bring this up with you first, and I will do so now.

The resentment you feel over having a "newcomer" editing your subject area and the newcomer wanting certain types of articles needs to stop. The resentful comments re:"Asian Indian" need to stop. The personal attacks need to stop. The long, rambling, off-target replies need to stop. Stop the personal attacks and stop the resentment. I don't need to point you to any policies or guidelines as you know them.

I will continue to edit ethnicity articles, British Columbia-related articles, Vancouver-related articles, and Indo-Canadian articles. Kindly do your best to work with me.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC) @Moonriddengirl: WhisperToMe (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your long, rambling compilations of citations you haven't even read yet and your warring over a title where consensus has now spoken are why I stayed away from even the main WPCanada talkpag, and the merge discussions you deliberately kiboshed and bludgeoned. You're not a "nwecomer" to BC, you haven't even been there and you're a complete neophyte with any aspect of BC history or geography. Your self-built articles are really just masses of trivia items strung together, your writing style bald and repetitive and trite, non sequiturs without context right and left, and the article unwieldy in scope and very much POV in many cases, and near-invariably WP:OWN also. Your animosity towards me from day one about "Asian Indians" vs the correct Indo-Canadians and then your name-screwing about that and South Asians....it's endless, and prodigious, your output, and your stubbornness. You were disrespectful to me as a British Columbian about my opwn province's history and my own considerable knowledge in it, presuming to throw me to the original research board for telling you you were wrong. I point to guideiines YOU are ignoring all the time, and your own tone towards me has been NPA/AGF over and over and over again. Now you are ignoring guidelines once again by re-fielding an effort to get a title changed even though it was only at RM a month ago, there's lots of RM calls I haven't liked but normally at least 3 months, if not six, is needed to revisit them. Posturing about me making personal attacks when you've been arrogant and dismissive towards me and here once again seeking support against me belies the fact that I put off filing ANIs on YOU for various things. I spent three hours last night fixing Chinese Canadians in British Columbia because you have added so much to it sections were repeated; history and geography (both geography sections) had been pushed down below all your "Vancouver data trivia" and you have made no efforts to research the gold rush period or all the small-town Chinese history that you didn't want to know about or address. There's so many things wrong with the way that you behave, and with the types of information you dig out of your ethno-academia history and throw up like blobs of mud, and the way you have misconducted yourself with giant talkpage rants..... I'm used to having someone point at me who cannot see your own faults. @Moonriddengirl:, the "I'm innocent, Skookum1 is picking on me" game is old, and tiresome. I have knowledge of the field, a knowledge of what sources are out there, what's wrong with many sources and claims in them, knowledge of geographic reality he's shit all over, knowledge of what else is out there in the way of parallel content that he's "re-inventing" according to his stated self-mandate of making a "global serious of ethnicity by city" articles....presuming to start them, no less, without knowing anything about the subject first, or anything about the place, and being completely hostile to someone from the place who's a long-time Wikipedian who points out that t he "by city" parameter in his campaign does not apply without the full context of the province that city is inextricably part of, and within which "Vancouver" cannot be split off as a POV fork because some guy in Texas has this "thing" about "ethnicity by city" topics. The resulting articles have been "junk data" collections with a decidedly POV agenda. Making me an issue instead of addressing the issues and information I raise I've seen before; instead of working with me, he wants to accuse me, rally people against me, and accuse me of AGF/NPA when that's what he's done himself (including this attack here, which is just more wasting time/whining). One thing he won't do is listen to me, or respect my knowledge or even the wide range of sources and where to look for them I've fielded, so he's not just working with "specialist" academic papers (and all their attendant POV and bad-facts problems). I won't stop patrolling "his" little farm of ethnicity articles, I won't stop editing and patrolling BC history articles.

Here's what has to stop:

• wars and campaigns to overturn a title change or to prevent a merge, and forumshopping to try to recruit support for your positionn
• Walls-of-cites in the course of discussions
• patronizing dismissals of me and what I have to say
• cite-farming: your pages are masses of links and cites.....as if the title were Historiography of Chinese in British Columbia; "link farm: doesn't even begin to describe this fetish of yours. Here's an idea, why don't you actually read a book before you start an article for it? And if you do make such a book article, try not to make it an effort to dismiss the book's contents by selectively quoting a negative review? In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia I'm not sure qualifies under WPBOOKS notablity guidelines, given there's only two reviews, one of them complete invective and that doesn't talk about the book's contents. You didn't even make the title of that article correctly, I had to fix it.
• complaining about me instead of listening to what I have to say.
• agressive article-spawning. How many of this series of "ethnicity by city" titles have you started in this last month or two? Too many. Work on one or two, not start multiple titles to turf-build your personal "global series on ethnicity by title". Chinatown, Toronto already existed; but you had to go make your little POV-fork Chinese in Toronto (that title, if used strictly, would mean Chinese citizens in the city of Toronto, proper. so I changed it).Skookum1 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just been asked by WhisperToMe to look at the naming and page movement for In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia and it would appear that it was correctly named initially (per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles) and has been moved to an incorrect title. If it's not too much trouble, could you revert your move ? ISBN and book cover images [2] clearly show the 'The Chinese in British Columbia' portion to be a subtitle. Thanks in advance, Nick (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, whatever else is going on, edits like this one must not happen again. Battleground behavior is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, but we do not insert personal attacks into articles, period, even in hidden comments. I don't need somebody else making a case for your incivility (although I did request evidence that it was ongoing); I noticed it myself when I first stumbled upon your dispute. Whether or not you can demonstrate that User:WhisperToMe is also exhibiting battleground behavior will not change that. I understand that working with others with whom you so fundamentally differ is challenging, but our policies explicitly exclude retaliation as an excuse for personal attacks, incivility or battleground behavior. Even if it is true that WhisperToMe is failing in behavioral standards towards you, you do not have license to do so to him. If you believe that his approach to developing these articles is wrong for any reason, you need to follow dispute resolution practices in the collegial manner required by our policies. If you can achieve consensus that his approach is wrong, then he will be required to stop it. If you can't, then he is free to contribute as he thinks best and efforts to thwart him in doing so - without such consensus - will be disruptive. I would strongly suggest that you seek mediation or some other method of resolving this disagreement collegially and within policy before we wind up at ANI. If I must make a case for an interaction ban, I will do so. Whether it is mutual or singular, it may still result in a situation where he is free to create articles that you will no longer be permitted to address. Given that you obviously care about the subject, I cannot imagine that this is an outcome you want. The best way to avoid it is to calm the discussion down and work towards a community resolution of the core question without muddying the waters around the issue of who is bullying whom and why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Decapitalization effort underway on the Civil Rights Movement pages

You may have not gotten a ping on this. There is a decapitalization vote underway on the bottom of the talk page of 'African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968)' (there was a discussion underway, and then suddenly a new section was added). This is a week many people are on vacation or won't be editing, not a good time for a full discussion but here we have it. Please have a look, and, hopefully, vote or act on this one. Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:14 28 December, 2014 (UTC)

I never seem to get a ping so don't even know whether the ones I make myself work.... the insanity of what's going on with this is typical of a certain anal and mechanistically-dealt-with approach to Wikipedia guidelines that flies in the face of reality....which is why those guidelines need changing, not the titles that they're being used to ruin. "American revolution" etc. Why "sentence case" should be used in titles when the rest of the publishing world uses title case is quite beyond me. Pullman Strike, Homestead Strike etc are the same as Winnipeg General Strike and other titles, in terms of being proper names for events; some events in Canada like the Yellowknife Mine Strike of the '80s just redirect to the parent company or location article in that case to Yellowknife, I'm not sure there's much about it on the Royal Oak Mines page; Dicklyon's campaign to change a lot of titles to use as examples to change others is as incestuous and dishonest (whether well-intended or not) much like a certain editor I'm forbidden to name doing the same with adding "people" to long-standing standalone titles for indigenous peoples; he often changed them to archaic or what are now derisive forms because his thesis was that what linguists use should prevail over actual English usage and what the peoples themselves call themselves. Before changing WP:NCL to suit himself, he'd already moved several hundred (at least) to "prove" that "FOO people" was the wiki-norm. That guideline is a mess now, relative to its lack of conformity to other guidelines and policy, because of his edit-warring over it; the same would ensue with any attempts to reform MOS, and t hat crowd is even more laager-mentality than nearly any other.Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your point about "degrading" labour/civil rights movement titles as being a POV issue. Part of the problem is that the downgrading of such events is rife in so-called RS, whether in books or in media mentions, as is distortion of facts by those so-called "reliable" sources. Trying to de-capitalize these events has a POV impact; something the MOS crowd fielding this refuse to acknowledge. Which is par for the course with Wikipedia bureaucracy and those core people who man the ramparts of their guideline-fortresses.Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that not so long ago the same cap/decap war was going on over Monroe Doctrine, with many of the same specious arguments and guideline-twaddle fielded there also.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone wanted to decapitalize Monroe Doctrine (lol, or crying out loud). On the 'African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968)' talk page I see that you were listed on the ping list that Dicklyon supposedly sent. He may have forgotten yours (good faith assumed, with great wisdom comes great forgetting...or something similar). In any case, the movement pages that are, imnho, under "attack" (assuming good faith, under "a deep massage treatment") do have some defenders, and any comment or vote that you can make in the ongoing discussion there could be very helpful. It's, if nothing else, an interesting discussion, and a dance of Wikipedia policies and selective emphasis on what to focus on in the literature and what not. Please come by, and lend a hand (or, assuming good faith and human anatomy, two hands) to those who think that capitalizing Civil Rights Movement when preceded by a name such as 'African-American' or '1960s' has worked just fine for Wikipedia since its inception and is the way to go into the future as well. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:00 29 December, 2014 (UTC)

Instruction creep on Wikipedia is a major problem of the community; people who like rules and enforcing them also busy themselves with writing and maintaining them; they're also in the habit of calling guidelines and even "wikipedia essays" as "policy", and even when citing them seem to not have fully read them....so they're trying to de-capitalize Monroe Doctrine again huh? They're relentless..... and I daresay not one of them has worked on the articles that they're wanting to rename....another bad problem in Wikipedia, name-fiddling by the obliviously uninformed who think in rulesets and nothing else.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed "Potlatch Ban" but won't draw Dicklyon's attention to it; it's fine as it is....until Wikipedians obsessed with MOS say otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This was freshly made recently Keatley Creek Archaeological Site‎ and I would not like to see that very valid title downcased to Keatley Creek archaeological site, which looks odd, especially when used and/or linked in flow of text; Keatley Creek is only a modifier of the noun of the archaeological site - as with the strikes under RM right now. De-capitalizing a noun when its modifier is capped just doesn't make any sense; but then this is Wikipedia and not the real world....and comes off odd in the flow of text. But it's titles that are under discussion, why ISN'T title-case rather than sentence case used by MOS? Some long-ago "consensus" by 15 people or less??Skookum1 (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been my experience, working on prehistoric pages, that site names are often capitalized. Like you say, lower-casing on many proper names looks very strange, and on the African-American Civil Rights Movement pages I had to create several redirects with the lower-case because nobody had ever thought to do it before, showing how often people think of those pages as lower-case entities. I am now being called a zealot for attempting to protect the standard capitalized wikipedian name for those civil rights movement pages, the name that they've been called since their inception. If a zealot I be, in this case I wear the scarlet Z proudly, and with a nod towards Zorro (a favorite childhood television hero - I even had a mask and cape when I was a kid, wish I'd kept them). Until these page-name discussion (the labor pages, the civil rights movement pages) I've kept out of wikipedian politics, and didn't realize how such a small-circle of people can make major and, in these cases, seemingly detrimental, effects on many inappropriate changes here. Frightening in a way, as, in the case of the civil rights movement pages, Wikipedia has the best and most accurate CRM material on the web, and playing with the names of the pages to deemphasize them, to make them less than what they were, can be done by a handful of people, especially when the attempt is made on a week when much of the population is on holiday or has their minds on other activities. I'll take a look at the Keatley Creek page, that's one I don't remember hearing of. Oh, and the Monroe Doctrine, I didn't see a new attempt, I was just reacting to you saying that someone in the past tried to change the name! Will the next attempt focus on the 'New deal'? We can only wait and see (I must sign-off now, to continue my zealotism over on the civil rights movement page...or put the Kennedy assassination template on the Researchers pages...one of the two). Randy Kryn 12:45 30 December, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the lower-case version of the archaeo site title, partly to try to keep it from being easy-moved once it's discovered. Re Monroe Doctrine I was surprised to see no RM on the talkpage as I remember a long and thorny discussion about it. Watch out about WP:POINTy actions, I'm tempted all the time but know there's wiki-gestapo out there and my open and sharp tongue has made me the bete noir against passive-aggressive soft-spoken imperiousness; and seen my blocked arbitrarily twice without warning or any ANI consensus...by people whose own behaviour is questionable. As for in-group hassles, look at the talkpage and history for WP:NCL and WP:NCET....the laager mentality of certain groups, who deny that they're groups (I'd described them as a "linguistics cabal" which got me an NPA warning and was used as an example of my wiki-wrongdoing) is compounded by those who haven't been following the scope of an issue then wade in admonishing me to curb my tone and threatening me if I so much as mention the editor responsible for so much BOLD crap and absurdity-mongering like you'll find in the discussions on the NCL talkpage....MOS, now, that's WP:HOLYWRIT and I do wonder who intransigent it is to possible change because of the MOS-moles who "live" there to protect that turf.....and wonder about how many people took part in its creation, or if it was just the same small crew that polices that turf and wields is like the Bible at a session of the Inquisition....there's endashed titles that shouldn't be endashed, but all you hear is arguments about "typography" and how Wikipedia should set standards, not follow them....Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That was quite the write-up of the history of the decapitalization actions you posted on the CRM talk page, and I still have to re-read it a couple of times to 'wrap my head' around it. This has been going on for awhile, and I'm wondering how many page have been moved which shouldn't have been. It's good you keep watch on some and have stayed with this, thanks for your vigilance. I see you love Canada and its nature, and thanks for that too. Happiest of New Year's to you, yours, and theirs. Randy Kryn 13:08 2 January, 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Skookum1. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is not supposed to be focused on you, the individual, but on the beliefs and attitudes. Nevertheless I must notify you that this discussion has been started. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)