This is an archive of my talk page from January through April 2014

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In regard to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Mid to late or mid-to-late? (version of 16:19, 23 December 2013), please see User:Wavelength/Miscellaneous information/Noetica#Complications with ly (part 3 of 4). (Your talk page is now on my watchlist.)
—Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Floydian/Archive/2014a,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Scott • talk 14:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On 13 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hanlon Expressway, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Hanlon Expressway is named after Felix Hanlon, who helped cut the first tree to inaugurate Guelph, Ontario? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hanlon Expressway. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You asked me last week where I got a shapefile for Lake of the Woods and I gave you an answer. This puts that answer to shame. This should be all the land/water data you'll ever need for North America. –Fredddie™ 07:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! These are crazy... I may not have to trace Highway 17 for 2000 km now! Thank you :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		I'm very happy to know that humility and knowledge are coexisting in you. You truely have a beautiful mind with a beautiful heart. Thanks for being the way you are. Seabuckthorn ♥ 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I put it on me wall!

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features 2013 in review The Moon is rising: our Lua progress so far Looking ahead to 2014 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OH, PA, UT, WA, and WV
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I added your username for your nom at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox ((User Freedom of speech)) to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using ((WikiProject Freedom of speech)).
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:George Laidlaw Heritage Plaque.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the URAA a topic you are interested in? Then you might be interested in Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) It is, but at this point I have managed to get the approval of the "crown copyright is exempt from the URAA" tangent I was going on for 2-3 years. I've left my vote / rant. However, in general, Commons itself has just pissed me off lately. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Floydian,

Thank you for doing such great work on articles relating to Canadian roads. I have nominated List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes to go up on the main page here. I noticed that you reverted my removal of hatnotes from Highways in Ontario and County highway, questioning why the hatnotes are inappropriate. Wikipedia's guidelines about hatnotes that link to articles that are related to the topic states that such hatnotes should not be used, but that such links should rather appear either in the paragraphical text or in a "See also" section. Would you object if I re-removed the hatnotes?

Neelix (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No problemo. When you do could you add them as see also links? I'll keep my eye on the nomination, it has no specific date that I could nominate it so any day will do. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ontario Highway 19 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wrestlinglover -- Wrestlinglover (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are some issues that need some attention in the review.--WillC 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the review. I saw the issues, but I've been a tad busy the past few days and haven't had a chance to address them just yet. I should be able to get to it within a day or two. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Floydian! Is it possible if you could find some images on the subject? It would be a great addition on the page. I've check Flickr for some Creative Commons license compatible images for Highway 25. I see a few, but the images seem to be from the Niagara region rather than Oakville/Burlington and up to Shelburne. ///EuroCarGT 01:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll check Flickr and my own personal pics, but it may have to wait until I can do a road trip, after the snow melts and the trees start to flower. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Occasionally I would pass Bronte Creek into Burlington using the 401, maybe during the summer time when visiting the Halton Region will take some photos. ///EuroCarGT 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On 9 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Queen Elizabeth Way, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Queen Elizabeth Way. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 18:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Ontario Highway 71 to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 10:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Ontario Highway 416 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 23, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 23, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

King's Highway 416 is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario that connects the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 417) in Ottawa with Highway 401 between Brockville and Cornwall. The 76.4-kilometre-long (47.5 mi) freeway is part of an important trade corridor between New York and Eastern Ontario. It passes through a largely rural area, except near its northern terminus where it enters the suburbs of Ottawa (approach to Ottawa pictured). It had two distinct construction phases. Highway 416 "North" was a 21-kilometre (13 mi) freeway starting from an interchange at Highway 417 and bypassing the original route of Highway 16 into Ottawa along a new right-of-way. Highway 416 "South" was the twinning of 57 kilometres (35 mi) of Highway 16 New—a two-lane expressway bypassing the original highway that was constructed throughout the 1970s and finished in 1983—and the construction of a new interchange with Highway 401. Sections of both opened throughout the late 1990s. Highway 416 was commemorated as the Veterans Memorial Highway on the 54th anniversary of D-Day in 1998. The final link was officially opened by a World War I veteran and local officials on September 23, 1999. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Floydian! Apologies for the long review duration, I haven't took time to look into the article. I have now and have added comments to the GA review. Also this applies to Highway 64. Again apologies for the long duration. Best, ///EuroCarGT 02:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Ontario Highway 64 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ontario Highway 64 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of EuroCarGT -- EuroCarGT (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

articles which have blossomed
Thank you, long standing contributor, historian and composer, for your contributions to quality articles on Canadian highways such as Ontario Highway 416, on music, such as Pink Floyd, and many more topics, for patienceand for seeing "many articles, which have since blossomed into beautiful flowers through the contributions of other editors", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw the header at first... some of my "friends" "affectionately" refer to me as Smeagle so I lol'd. Thank you :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Floydian,

The reason why I put a strike through the Highway 401 on my revision is because the coroners office is indeed not at Humber River Hospital, instead it is in the government owned property at Keele Street and Wilson Ave (please see http://www.urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/forensic-services-and-coroners-complex) where a OPP detachment building is and as well as the Ministry of Transportation Buildings. I literally drove past the new alignment 4 times within this month of March and last month of February, so nonetheless i know what I am talking about and please get your facts straight dude, ..!

~cooldude13233

I use what the sources say, dude. And instead of striking out text, fix it if you feel it's wrong. Again, featured article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cooldude13233: strikethrough is problematic. Screen readers don't read the formatting, so blind people using that technology to read the article to them would hear the text you struck through before the text you added. Also, as Floydian says, we need to go with what the sources say. If the source is wrong (and it happens), we need to find a new source. I'm sure you meant well, but I have no idea how trustworthy you are to make a change based on your word here. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see this list of remaining open RMs in BC. Ironically the person leading the charge to challenge PRIMARYTOPIC is the same who closed an RM last year where major town's name and the clear PRIMARYTOPIC wasn't even on the table in changing a native endonym title to its "English" form, which is the same as that of the town. Once all these others are necessarily recognized as PRIMARYTOPIC titles the cluster of articles related to Squamish needs sorting out according to the same principles; I will reserve comment on my treatment and the attitude towards me in the two RMs in question, and the two CfDs, and why they were wrongly closed. Where to take that I don't know, perhaps to RfC or Arbco or ?? but it seems best for me, due to the hostility towards my writing style and allegations about my personality, to stay away from higher levels of the adminship.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see this close as "no consensus/not moved" - the trouting by Vegaswikian is the only oppose vote, I did not have time to compile google results; this should go to Move Review or should have been relisted IMO. MoveReview is not somewhere I feel I would receive fair treatment.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the view results from grok.se has proven useful at Bella Bella and Talk:Bella_Coola,_British_Columbia#Requested_move, thank you. I think I'm emboldened enough to try Tsawwassen, British Columbia now, too, but it's a sunny day in Koh Samui and I do have a life....Talk:Atlin, British Columbia#Requested move was closed "no consensus, not moved" based on only Vegaswikian's PRIMARYTOPIC dispute there; I wish I had known how to use grok.se before that; and btw using that tool there are:

• 5707 hits for "Squamish, British Columbia"
• 583 hits for the "Squamish" disambiguation page
• 1494 hits for "Squamish people"
• 1149 hits for "Squamish language

Many of those hits will be in connection with the failed RM and CfD, no doubt, but the pattern is clear, no? How to get the cluster of Squamish articles properly reviewed and revisited I don't know; two failed RMs and a hostile audience to anything suggestive of using the native endonym despite lots of parallel examples and precedents and also towards me suggests that some other means must be used to address PRECISION and CONSISTENCY and the "Self-identification" passages of MOS and WP:NCET. And that I'm not the one to take that "upstairs". Interestingly though, and even though it's only a redirect, and these results would be significantly different if it were the article title:

• "Skwxwu7mesh" was viewed 205 times this month though
• [http://stats.grok.se/en/201403/Skwxwu7mesh%20language "Skwxwu7mesh language", like the above also a redirect, was only "viewed" 27 times.

Your wise input and this technical aide for such purposes has been greatly appreciated, thank you. I weary of all this, though, and lament all the time and energy I could have put into writing and expanding articles instead of dealing with procedure and those using it in a hostile, combative, obstructionist manner.....to think that *I* have been called "disruptive" by the editor whose unnecessary and undiscussed disambiguations is among the many brutal and time-wasting ironies of this whole affair.Skookum1 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, have I been there before (Crown Copyright, anyone?). It can be a real pain once a group of editors decide to pounce on your every move and shred it apart. It very quickly turns into ignorant stonewall. As for the move discussions that have fallen through, I'd wait a few weeks and try again with the stats. With any luck, the Lillooet RM will sway them to move along. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the partisan ANI filed against me yet; I've been too busy placing the CANENGL template on titles where Canadian English is/will be under dispute by those who maintain our lexicon is irrelevant to global usage, even though stats prove them all wrong; attacking me officially now is part of a rising pattern of hostility towards me from that admin which I will take time to document and ask "why?". It is claimed by Anna deFrosiak that "the community tires of etc." "The community" is being used self-referentially, just like the use of "we have policy" when referring to a guideline (WP:NCL) that is so blatantly flawed and created in isolation from both citable reality and a host of other guidelines that is tiresome in the extreme; I'm part of the community, so are you (and you seem to be completely able to understand my lengthy style of writing and do not regard it as a personality disorder or misconduct, which is the tub being thumped at me; I'm still going about my work (prodigious as you know it to be) despite the harrassment; ANI is incestuous and all this needs to be addressed at higher levels. As for abusing Canadian English standard usages, having Americans and Britons denounce those as "not global" when the facts and stats state and searches show otherwise. More input from Canadians on such RMs, and also from t hose who do not regard my style of writing as an indignity towards themselves re the ANI and elsewhere is needed; I see what is going on as an orchestrated attempt to drive me from Wikipedia; I will email you a draft response to Uysvdi's partisan harassment and abuse of her adminship privately; I did not post it yet, it's being held in preview and I may just link to it on the ANI - which I don't have the stomach or patience to bother reading right now.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

One big disarray that I can see right now, which may assist, is between Category:Wikipedians in Canada and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Members. The latter has 130 users, some active, many inactive. The former has at least 1325 of the same. Even WT:CANADA has only 293 watchers! Like voting in Canada, many unheard voices. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

all the more consterning given the attacks on Canadian English etc from wikipedians in other countries; though some of the opponents in the RMs and other matters in question are ..... in Edmonton it seems.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The ongoing theme emerging in all this is of rank linguistic and cultural colonialism by people making false claims about "global usage" and more......tiresome....but too typical of Canadians to not give a shit huh? Tugging the forelock, shrugging, submission to too much to describe.....one of the national traits I find most distasteful and disappointing, for all the flag-waving that people do during Olympic hockey adn the Stanley Cup and obsesssing about Tim's as a national symbol.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI and plse note my responses her; and here's more typical linguistic colonialism and my response to it from one of the more strident and obnoxious/persistent "linguistics colonialists" who ignore all the support votes and guideline citations and more made by others and keep on ranting about how global English trumps Canadian English; even though they can't produce the stats or search results to confirm that. That link is only the most recent part of that exchange; Chipewyan is an exonym and regarded as derisive by the Denesuline; he and his kind don't care about that despite WP:NCET#Self-identification (which this particular editor claims is invalid even though it's consistent with all other guidelines, but for some POV tweaks of two added by NCLers, while WP:NCL is full of false assertions and original research and is very much a closed club. Skookum1 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• More could be said about flouting TITLE and rampant/hypocritical indulgences of CIVIL and AGF but it's a start at preventing the ongoing WP:BAITing of me from resulting in me being driven from Wikipedia by the "NCL Cabal". Something could be said about the pattern and repetitive meaningless of the "oppose" campaign that you nail here and the persistent obstinacy about CANENGL heard from JorisV and many others. I quoted what Themightyquill had to say about me on the Squamish CfD but of course he was ignored; I haven't "polled" him about this but guess I should notify him that I quoted him? What is absurd to me is Bushranger telling me to shut up defending myself, "digging the hole deeper"...... silencing me from opposing frustrating and hostile behaviour is "playing into their hands". Kwami was called out for BAITing me as a tactic to derail last year's RMs, it's clear to me that that's the intent of the ongoing harrassment and opposition - to BAIT me. Paranoid? No, not when such behaviour follows such a clear pattern from the same crowd over and over again..... sorry to rant; your support on the RMs is appreciated; re the ANI, I don't have the inclination to tit-for-tat re Uysvdi's catalogue of items against me, but there are many things she's said that are derisive in nature and her hypocrisy in not chastising her friends is just "more of the same"..... but if I can find that passage where she openly insults and defames me, it's definitely being posted on the RM.... pot kettle black is what this is about; I'm trying to do constructive work and still do despite the ongoing procedural harrassment and posturing about wikiquette by some of its worst and most persistent violators.....SmokeyJoe sounds just like them btw; not a sock but maybe a recruit....Skookum1 (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Kwami's direct insults I know where they are, including copy-pasted across multiple RMs as well as on the NCET guideline's discussion page where he calls me "idiotic" and elsewhere that my references to mainstream guidelines are "ridiculous"; but what's the point he has been disciplined before but continues with the same kind of behaviour......JorisV's personal attacks like "not being capable of proper discussion" when all he does is obfuscate and misdirect and field copy-pasted NCL incantations is out there too; but I'd rather work on articles and title/category fixes, which you can see I've been doing throughout all this bullshit. I'm going to put a "TLDR complaints are not welcome on this talkpage, if you can't read, then learn to, if you don't want to read, they don't complain to me that you don't want to understand what you refuse to read" of some such; Bushranger and Fayenatic, Anna Frodesikak, Brown Haired Girl et al.....TLRD is used as a BLUDGEON and an excuse of the worst kind.....anti-intellectual whining by people raised on TV, movies and "graphic novels"... I was educated in my readings by historians, poets, philosophers....not popular magazines and Coles Notes, which is my opinion of the semi-literates who invoke TLDR because of their own insecurity/intimidatino at reading things longer than 250 words...again, sorry to rant; I was reading the WP:List of cabals tonight and got some chuckles; I'd gone there because JorisV changed the subject re my description of his group as a CABAL by pointing to the cabal article and indicating that because they weren't secret they weren't a cabal; more misrepresentation, more misdirection, it's one of their hallmarks.Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

VW's oppositionism

I just found this as it came up on my watchlist when someone put closed discussion templates on a page move discussion from 2008 due to the new RM here check out. The absurdity of VW's line here about the Waterdome being a potential primarytopic, and the very typical plaint that the town's population (nearly all of whom work for or at or with the Marine Sciences Centre) is only 231 people is like a formula that he repeats endlessly...and apparently has been doing so for SEVEN YEARS. The new RM is over 7 days old, it should be closed before he or another oppositionist shows up with non sequiturs, red herrings, and their usual irrelevance and, as you put it, buzzwords.Skookum1 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

indigenous "FOO people" titles but one

BDD has been closing/moving nearly all of those proposed so far, but Haida people he did not move, saying "no consensus"; it's full of the same kind of oppose votes we've seen elsewhere including one's he's closed/moved. I don't get why he would decide against that one, which is so obvious it's painful that it is being made an exception, despite his own setting of precedents elsewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Try and point out some that are underway right now and I'll take a look and see if any sense can be brought to them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there are some here but I hadn't moved across all the Prairies yet nor done Ontario, other than Ojibwe I think, which is also on the table if not on that short list, which was for items in BC/YT/NT/AB..... I thought I'd filed for [[Gwich'in] but I hadn't...... can it be moved without the hassle of an RM which will draw the usual naysaying from the usual suspects?Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Heiltsuk people please note the RM with the same kind of primarytopic disputatiousness at Talk:Bella Bella, British Columbia or maybe it's on Talk:Bella Bella. Similarly re Nuxalk there is another RM at Talk:Bella Coola, British Columbia or maybe it's on Talk:Bella Bella. Note also re Talk:Saanich/Talk:Saanich, British Columbia where the longstanding indigenous people's title was at WSANEC. There are in fact, as in many other cases, arguments that this is a group of peoples, not just one. Talk:Comox people has another one though that move seems to have support now despite the failure just a few days before that of the one at Talk:Comox, British Columbia which included Talk:Comox.....seems very irregular to re-RM that title only just after it was closed, without including Talk:Comox, British Columbia which is clearly related (and is on the table per all the support votes even though the RM nomination itself hasn't been formally changed). Also re Halkomelem language which has had that dab since 2005, though it seems that there was some confusion as to that being a people name also, which it is not; that confusion has turned up elsewhere also. Many of the FOO language ones were similarly moved without discussion from their long-standing titles per NCLism - Lillooet language, which had been at St'at'imcets, Thompson language, which had been at either Nlaka'pamux language or Nlakamuctsin or t he like, Kutenai language, Chilcotin language, Shuswap language which had been at Secwepemct'sn or the like, Carrier language vs the people titles St'at'imc, Nlaka'pamux, Ktunaxa, Secwepemc, Tsilhqot'in, Dakelh, all moved back to their proper titles by RMs; the language titles had moved at the same time; Tsimshian language or maybe Coast Tsimshian language had been at Sm'algyax or however it's spelled; Kwak'wala is a more well-known name but those others are current in English especially when older citations are excluded; Heiltsuk-Oowekayala language and Oowekyala language are also at variance with the new orthographic standard per Wuikinuxv, which had been unilaterally moved to Owikeno people, an old spelling, which I changed to Oowekeeno people as the spelling then used by the tribal council they belong to; that has since changed to the Wuikinuxv form; CONSISTENCY indicates that Oowekyala dialect and the Heiltsuk-Oowekyala titles should be changed to Wuikyala; neither spelling needs the "language" dab; the use of "dialect" has also been observed in many discussions I've seen to be considered offensive by speakers of said languages but this change across many, many articles was also done without discussion by you-know-who.Skookum1 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sts'Ailes people is a complicated one; LBB's proposal to merge people and band articles is very much against IPNA conventions (he's not part of IPNA to my knowledge). The band uses the Sts'Ailes name for both the people and the culture; a dab is needed on teh band page, which is no longer suitably titled Chehalis Indian Band (INAC uses Sts'Ailes now). maybe Sts'Ailes band government? My intention is to flesh out the people article, though I don't have Sleigh's People of the Harrison handy to do all that much; but core to the Sts'Ailes self-identity and oral tradition there's lots about the sasquatch; it's their word originally and something like 95% of all Sasquatch stories come from that region, between there and Yale....interestingly they say the Sasquatch speak the "Douglas language" referring to {[Port Douglas, British Columbia]]/Xa'xtsa, who speak Ucwalmicwts as St'at'imcets is known there, and I know a story about a cave near Seton Portage that has a huge skull in it which the elders told the native who told me not to tell the white man as they'll screw around with it. They also said it was an "ancestor". The skull was big enough to put on over the head of a man wearing a hardhat; about Sts'Ailes stories see here and here which I found on this page. Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

new and ongoing indigenous RMs

• I just filed Talk:Innu people#Requested move now, and Talk:Moneton people#Requested move yesterday or the day before, and am exploring for others that are only redirects or have no significant primarytopic disputes, as does perhaps Wyandot vs Wyandot people. I tried to be succinct in both, it remains to be seen if the usual naysayers show up to dispute these; all my recently filed RMs seem to be being ignored altogether; rather than the seven-day wait it may be better to ask them to be reverted as undiscussed and contrary to guidelines "other than NCL". I'm going to start compiling a listing of all standalone indigenous titles and will find a spot to put it of the same kind as WP:CANLIST for reference/precedent-citing purposes.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to be as succinct as possible in those RMs, and will try to be so here also in future. An important one that was unsatisfactorily "not moved" despite what is clearly (to me) the primarytopic of the people, is Haida people, which IMO should be taken up at MoveReview within the necessary timespan (7 days?); I asked BDD to reconsider his decision but he has not yet replied, and maybe never will.Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just gonna copy paste what I just put on Hwy43's talkpage; 'nuff said, other than this needing attention from responsible, thinking editors, Canadian or not, in face of someone who either rejects our dab standards as "not relevant" or just doesn't want to agree, as per his (usual) oppositionist wont:

• I've done the best I can here to be clear, given the lack of awareness of Canadian topics and dab standards/usages, but right now I'm a lone soldier. I posted this at the CanCommunities board yesterday but don't know who even looks at that. I explain the issues there, and in the previous RM there was an exhaustive "MOSTCOMMON" set of searches, but the reality is that the "Self-identification" guidelines and also a passage in TITLE about going for names that are not the dominant use, for various reasons, apply in addition to the reasons already given in the RM.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't had time to build similar categories/lists for other groups like Category:Haida villages.Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm getting testy so will shut up until such time as someone else who works with Canadian community titles on a regular basis weighs in. Even when I bullet-point I get the complaint of "lengthy text" which to me speaks to the rise of semi-literacy, and its negative effects on what should be an encyclopedia full of informed and thoughtful content. I will refrain from further critiques of this obnoxious line of dispute.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It was on some of the town RMs that you commented about oppose votes; the subtext of many of those opposes, or the agenda behind them, is that "global usage" for the native peoples in various cases was supposedly teh PRIMARYTOPIC, which as we have seen is a fallacy not born out by view stats or google searches. Addressing Cuchulainn's closing comments re indigenous-title RMs on a few today that "we have consensus that the peoples are the PRIMARYTOPIC" I've tried to raise that at the discussion Kwami claims he wanted to have for months now, and he twists what Cuchulainn says and in the same breath takes another snipe at me. Consensus will never be achieved so long as the architect of a failed guideline (which he has claimed, as has JorisV, is "policy") refuses to acknowledge the guidelines that he never addressed in the first place nor all the very obvious consensuses (consensi?) in now-countless RMs.......and instead makes me an issue, as he did in last year's RMs he failed to "win" and as he and his allies have done, repeatedly and avidly......and now sniping at me "Will you stop now?". What? Stop raising guidelines and pointing to precedent, or stop editing wikipedia altogether?

I'm going to list all the standalone native titles, a list which you probably know has grown considerably in the last week or two because of my RMs; that RMs he was trying to shut down, and now a guideline discussion that needs to happen but failing to stonewall change he now is pretty much demanding I leave.

My other project is to try and codify "the old consensus" re IPNA-related titles, which did address all those things that the RMs are validating - TITLE, CONCISION, Self-identification, CLARITY etc.....we were very thoughtful, not blinkers-on from a particular field's perspective. All of which he ignored, just as he ignored TITLE and all the rest when writing NCL and leading the small discussion that led to it (a "unanimous vote" as he puts it of FIVE, all linguists).Skookum1 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • update on the necktie party.Skookum1 (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Take a step back man, you're tying a noose around your neck. Even if it is a farce, that farce is going to roll where it wants. I've also learned that discussion actual content issues at ANI is fruitless; it often fuels the fire since you are inflamed over that content issue, you spill your passion, and the accusers go "SEE! He's unstable!" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at Move Review and know better than to bother; its parameters are not content/logic driven by solely about wikiquette and "tone"......which are where Wikipedia's priorities more and more lay, rather than in accuracy and genuine encyclopedism and up-to-date knowledge.Skookum1 (talk) 08:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Yeah, amateur psychiatric diagnosis by people with "unaddressed issues" is all too common in the real world too.....that I've changed my bullet-less ways didn't stop someone from criticizing me for not using them. I was going to ignore the ANI today until I saw LBB weigh in, who's being a pain on Talk:Stawamus RMs and others, as also with Dicklyon, whose history he forgets goes a long ways back long before the recent RM he cites......I just went and created Category:Lillooet, Category:People from Lillooet and Category:St'at'imc people btw.Skookum1 (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"A duck floats, so if he weighs the same as a duck, that means he's a witch. Burn the witch, burn the witch" etc......

Very hard to be submissive and obesequious when you're having daggers stuck in your eyes and mouth and your words are being spit upon because you won't submit to a gag....Skookum1 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

YOu may be able to be constructive, as you were before at Lillooet and elsewhere, here and here and, well, since it's a done deal but unclosed, here. This also remains unclosed despite ample evidence of PRIMARYTOPIC.Skookum1 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

reverse onus again.

Skookum1, you asked for help. I think you are failing to understand here that I'm trying to help you build your case. As I mentioned on my talk, I don't have the interest to get involved in that RM discussion. I did however think maybe I could nudge you in a direction that would hopefully help your case and make things easier for you there and in future similar RM discussions. It is disappointing that this is how my help is received. I guess it is true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Hwy43 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And Floydian's reference to the reverse onus situation at the Lillooet RM is not similar to the helping you help yourself situation at Bella Bella. Hwy43 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy all day since my last presence here; my reply to you was almost the last of my earlier wiki-session; I was about to do them right now in fact, but since you don't seem to know much about Bella Bella and who lives there and who governs it, you would do well to read the paragraph below.Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Suffice to say that the town is 98% Heiltsuk and is governed by the Heiltsuk Nation itself, who use "Bella Bella" for the town and "Heiltsuk" for themselves; I'll be curious to see if someone raises the small population shibboleth we've seen elsewhere here also which would be comical given that that small population happens to be nearly all Heiltsuk in the area, i.e. those who are not in other population centres such as Port Hardy or Vancouver or Rupert. There really is no ambiguity whatsoever re PRIMARYTOPIC because of the titling difference and the modern usage; Canadian titles should not be unencumbered beccause the rest of the world is slow to catch up to our reality within Canada; most searches on Google news will be Canadian anyway, and they'll be for the town 101% unless someone wants to claim a citation from 1960 from an old newspaper is proof of such a dispute....as for Google books and Google scholar, even there more recent publications shoudl be using Heiltsuk...."if not why not?" and even then they will be in the minority, as seen in similar cases elsewhereSkookum1 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I almost wonder if it may be prudent, more productive, and less bloackaded to open a "discussion" at each page you propose to move, directing people to WT:CANADA, where you have a request move for the whole bunch. More Canadian participation, less stonewalling (hopefully). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah huh? BTW Talk:Saanich#Requested move and Talk:Bella Coola#Requested move have both been closed, "no consensus, not moved" by User:David Leigh Ellis, a non-admin who also prematurely closed Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move. The sole oppose vote on both was from Dicklyon, who on Bella Coola maintained the heli-skiing company was a potential PRIMARYTOPIC - ????. View stats and google searches on both of these were conclusive for the town/muni, respectively. Both of these obviously need to be relisted, or overturned- like Talk:Haida people#Requested move, but I'm obviously not the person who is going to have any luck at Move Review....Skookum1 (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Were there any supports for those RMs? No; zero. And if you think I was suggesting anything as potential primarytopic, you misread me; I shall try to be more clear in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, I wouldn't consider the oppose to be any opposition. With Saanich, there's dozens of statistics provided for the move, and an oppose of "Eh... I don't think we need to". With Bella Coola, there is a oppose that runs opposite to our title conventions. We don't have New York as a DAB because of New York City, so why would Bella Coola be a dab for Bella Coola Valley, or Bella Coola River, or the people that exist at another article title... or most importantly, for some non-notable heliskiing company that doesn't have an article? The "natural" BC disambiguator is natural for a California editor, but is contrary to the Canadian style of arranging articles in terms of primary and secondary topics. I feel like Johnny Cochrane: "It jus' doesn' make sinse!" The town has a unique name, the other titles are based upon that name and likewise, have their own unique name. But, what this reinforces is that these formalized move requests are not getting any Canadians involved but instead a group of editors who have likely never heard of the place having (or better yet, choosing) to decide purely on "Well, we have this article, this article, and this article that all begin with Bella Coola, so..." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That same refrain is heard on lots of dab/PT disputes, with "FOO whatever" being claimed to be a legit PT vs "FOO" when really according to the rules, it's not even in the running. Atlin, Taku, Bella Bella, Cassiar etc. The specious population figure issue we've seen on Lillooet etc; what these people don't realize or don't care is that places like Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Atlin, Lillooet etc are regional centres, and also including members of the FN people claimed to be the alt PT as part of their populations and agglomerations; the Bella Coola IR is not part of the "white townsite" but it's still part of "Bella Coola" and, from the outside perspective, so are Stuie and Fireside et al in the Bella Coola Valley; the Cayoose Creek/Sek'wel'was and Lillooet/T'it'q'et IRs are part of the place known as Lillooet; though not part of the District of Lillooet in municipal terms. And the DoL is also partly St'at'imc in composition, likewise the unincorporated town/townsite of Bella Coola. That the Nuxalk government calls the town/area "Bella Coola" and do not use that term to refer to themselves is somehow wiki-outweighed by Googlebooks titles, of all eras, still using "Bella Coola" for the people; but this is against "Self-identification".....that the people whose name is declared to be PT vs a town name don't themselves use the name in question themselves anyway is somehow lost on the people claiming that the old name is still more important than the town-usage.

In Bella Bella's case, the town is on the reserve, 95% Heiltsuk, and governed by the Heiltsuk Nation; there are actually three townsites at Bella Bella: Bella Bella (which for a while was Waglisla), Old Bella Bella, and Shearwater, which had been Bella Bella Airbase 1941-44 and is still where the Post Office is (the post office in "New" Bella Bella is still called, I think, Waglisla). A "solution" to this was up for a while as "The Hazeltons", now broken down into Hazelton, British Columbia, New Hazelton; Old Hazelton/Gitanmaax is not yet its own article (it's an IR community like Bella Bella though an integral part of "the Hazeltons", a "metropolitan" area that I think also includes Hagwilget and definitely 'Ksan. Moricetown is another IR-only community like Bella Bella; there's various others also, and also munis like Fort St. James which are surrounded by IRs and which also have a large contingent of natives within the municipal citizenry and/or where the "town"/community, incorporated or otherwise, is adjacent to/symbiotic with the surrounding IR communities; Dog Creek, Nazko; in the cases of municipal/IR combinations the separate incorporations mean the muni and the band governments are necessarily separate articles, though the same place for every intents and purposes if not for census info being compiled and indexed separately by StatCan and provincial data systems like RDs and Development regions of British Columbia which are combinations of RDs for economic-data purposes; Regional Municipality of Northern Rockies, into which Fort Nelson is now only a component of, no longer a Village or Town or whatever it was before; the many IRs within that RM (which is the only one so far) are not part of the data, just as those within Chilliwack and Abby and West Kelowna are separately governed and censused even though within municipal boundaries....

Re the heli-skiing company it used to have an article, which had been inserted on List of ski areas and resorts in British Columbia and accompanying category and templates; it got deleted as POV/Spam/COI though others have since emerged and I've moved to the new List of heli-skiing companies in British Columbia, where the Bella Coola company could be re-added now. But no way is it the primary topic, not just by being "FOO Whatever" but also not borne out by view stats/googles....

I'm beginning to think that the one unsubstantiated oppose vote was given as much weight as the data results, which maybe were treated as TLDR; the counting of votes on a quantitative basis vs qualitative information is where Squamish and others got railroaded by non-Canadians who don't "get it" or who just won't get it, no matter how detailed the explanation or compelling the stats in question. That American and UK and other external perceptions of Canadian titles - the alleged "global usage" - are now being mandated as more relevant than Canadian English usage is entirely contra-ENGVAR, but like so many other guidelines being ignored by such closes, that one gets not just ignored by dumped on and criticized; just as the native-name for native peoples is given short shrift, so are Canadian usages/realities being shoved aside by both "voters" and "closers" who know nothing about the places or peoples in question, and who don't care about ENGVAR and make a point of saying so - or claim, without explaining why, that it is irrelevant. Indundating - vote-bombing - RMs and CFDs with oppose votes that are not grounded in data or local reality should all be discounted; instead they are counted quantitatively, just as population figures are fielded as "why nots" and the habit of counting the characters used in a post explaining the issues is used as a criticism, instead of what the posts in question actually say. Here data was produced, as mandated, and ignored by the closer......as also happened at Squamish and some others. It's a major problem of the RM/CfD system - that those who feel a compulsive need to vote on things according to their own particular field of view re guidelines and who don't know anything of substance about the topics in question are even voting, never mind closing, is a major problem, and it doesn't only apply to the town/native name situation. That RM lurkers and CfD lurkers also like to say 'no' and do it rather wantonly is, well, tiresome and winds up being disruptive, and derails needed changes way too often.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How to amend the "bad closes" winds up being yet another process tied up by people asking the same non sequiturs as heard already, and also by people not prepared to read the data or find out about the place/topic that is under discussion. Non-admin closures can be overturned without another RM, I think; that two-vote RMs with data vs an unsubstantiated oppose vote are closed "no consensus" instead of relisted, or the data being sufficient to override the from-left-field opposes, is very, very, very wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you've just pointed out what is your own disservice. You added 6,738 characters to my talk page there; I've skimmed through to pick out the points you're making, but everything just gets lost (tl;dr). There is a big benefit to being succinct, which is why it is a major part of technical writing. Shed off the excess weight and get your point across in one swift blow. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

always re-treading old ground is what I tend to do, I'm teaching right now, will break that up into paragraphs and points after my lesson is over; see here for a related set of non-sequitur oppositionism.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quantitative assessment vs qualitative meaning is a bugbear to me; that many characters is only 1500 words, not a book.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite evidence, two now close "no consensus, not moved"

I was a bit stunned to see these closed without moving this morning, Talk:Bella Coola#Requested move and Talk:Saanich#Requested move, by non-admin closure by User:DavidLeighEllis, who also similarly would not move Talk:Comox, British Columbia#Requested move, which is now revived as a result of the soon-after and rather irregular reposting of Comox as part of the RM at Talk:Comox people#Requested move. In both cases, there was only one oppose vote - from User:Dicklyon, who in the case of Bella Coola claimed that the heliskiing company was a viable competing primarytopic; even if it did have higher view stats and googleratings, it's still not a primary topic candidate for "Bella Coola" per dab rules; nor is Bella Coola Valley, his other proposed PRIMARYTOPIC and as you can see isn't even an article yet; Category:Bella Coola Valley exists will eventually exisst for inclusion of the communities of Stuie, Fireside etc once there are articles on them, and the main Nuxalk IR is not part of the town, though near it; see notes about the usage of "Bella Coola" meaning more than the town on that RM in answer to Dicklyon's claim. In both these cases, view stats and all kinds of googles were produced showing the town/municipality, respectively, as the clear and away most common use and obvious PRIMARYTOPIC. So what to do in such cases?

I'm obviously not the person who would be welcome at Move Review; and I regret not being aware of not using RMs for these but posting them here for in-Canada discussion; so what will happen with Bella Bella, where I've just provided the view stats and Google News results (Google Books next up, I didn't have time last night)? Will closers continue to listen to off-the-wall, unsubstantiated "naysayer" votes and continue to ignore compelling stats/results in the name of some undefined PRIMARYTOPIC taht is allegedly "global usage"? Or can these be reverted without being relisted, being non-admin closures??Skookum1 (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As of today, Bella Bella, Fort Fraser, and Haida people were closed by BrownHairedGirl as "NO CONSENSUS - not moved" (shouting in caps)......how does a person in Ireland feel qualified to close on titles she has no direct knowledge or experience of? That she is openly hostile to me calls into question her motive in these closures...I really wish BDD had gotten to Haida people first. Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Saanich and others deemed "no consensus" because of people interloping who are not qualified to comment on these topics is a big and mounting problem. Would you or I presume to adjudge an RM or CfD in Ireland, and/or wherever the hell DavidLeighEllis is from? The anti-ENGVAR/CANENGL tone of many of these RMs/CfDs tells me I don't have a hope in hell re Category:Power stations in Canada even though 95% of Canadian titles in that category use "generating station" ("power station" you do hear in Canada, sometimes for powerhouses...more often for substations).Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Found this quote while teaching my ESL client today, from Mark Twain:

""In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

'Nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In some cases I might have left it that way, yes. In this case, however, we don't have a two-item dab — because there's also the community in Quinte West, we have a three-item dab. And then, since not everybody in the world is a perfect speller we have to account for the high potential of reader confusion with the one-l spelling Walbridge too, which turns it into a seven item dab. (It's also, for the record, not at all clear that the one in Parry Sound, which is an unincorporated geographic township, would actually be able to claim PRIMARYTOPIC even if the one in Quinte West were the only other one.) Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)