User talk:98.190.222.170

May 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Great Lakes region, you may be blocked from editing. oknazevad (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your warning to me I dont understand where you are coming from on your 3 accusations of me regarding "Disruptive editing", Neutrality and "Personal Analsyses".

First, the edits made were done within the grammatical flow of each sentence. It would make the article significantly longer if I put new sentences just to add the preceding actions prior to settlements. This disruptive editing claim needs to be clarified as I dont see how one can contribute in the flow and seems to be based on your other latter points.

Secondly, regarding neutrality, as mentioned in the summary, I was giving a Native American/indigenous perspective that is just as accurate as the european colonial view you so desperately want to hold as exclusive truth. Yes the europeans settled and yes they did invade the local population prior to it. I can add citations of that if you dont think this is a neutral fact of what occurred. Given that you like to edit wikipedia articles on Canada colonialism, Indigenous peoples and Aboriginals, im amazed you are either unaware of this or dont think wikipedia readers should not know that there were europeans invasions. One wonders who is the neutral one if you claim that only the eurocentric perspective should be in all wikipedia articles and the historic fact of invasion is not "neutral".

Finally you state that im using my personal analyses yet you seem to be just as guilty by using your own filters to edit and censor articles made in good faith unilaterally. Is it this history you dont want to acknowledge, the driving motivator to do this kind of censorship? If so it is futile and you are just delaying the inevitable. Note my input is no more personal than any of the prior 3rd person based statements in prior edits. I listed the fact of invasion on the basis of factual events. If it makes you happier I can retain settlement if that is listed subsequently after invasion (so for example: European invasion and settlement), but you cant claim this settlement occurred magically without the precedent invasion.