User talk:Skookum1/Archive 28

Sorry, but you just didn't make your point well enough!
I did read your complaint at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but it's just hard to respond to. You take a poke at twenty different issues at once, not explaining any of them well enough to be understood, though the sources you provide for a few are useful. You mix it in with sarcasm or metaphor that doesn't work well on the Internet about lizard people and Vogon fleets, which drives away the average reader. Now, few things would please me more than to watch a video feed of Harper, Cameron, etc. experiencing female genital mutilation at the hands of Boko Haram, but what do you want people on Wikipedia to do, precisely? I'm sure you have ideas but they really do get lost in there somewhere.

I would suggest...


 * Try to understand the concept of epitope and antigen presentation from immunology. The goal of a dendritic cell is to take up a virus, digest it into little pieces, and sort out small, unique pieces which in and of themselves can be recognized as antigens.  By taking unique pieces and calling attention to them in the right way, the cells of the body identify an entire invader in terms of a small piece that a cell can understand and fight against.  The same should be true of ideas.  For example, instead of going on about all the suffering of Palestinians at once, then taking blowback on everything the Palestinians ever did, it is far more effective to talk about whether it is excusable in any circumstance for Israel to target a UNRWA school with explosive shells.   Or to ask whether it is ever acceptable for Israeli soldiers to knowingly shoot at a civilian farmer simply for entering their "buffer zone" to work his land.


 * Give us basic facts. The Canadian disputes on oil and gas drilling, like our own in Alaska, are a lot like that old story where people who have never seen the Chinese emperor try to determine the length of his nose by holding a vote and taking the median of their guesses.  Most of the people arguing have no idea at all what life is like up there.  For me to understand who is in the right and who is in the wrong, I need tangible data.  Does the pipeline make noise?  Does it stink?  What are the odds it will someday leak oil in any given area?  Do they put up fences and make you walk around it?  Nobody tells us this kind of stuff - they make bland statements about "environmental impacts" and I honestly think it's because they have no idea.  Wikipedians citing tertiary sources citing secondary sources citing primary sources in a game of telephone, with nobody understanding what they're reading.  We need people on the ground, giving us the hard facts, and when they do so it doesn't matter what their POV is, because the facts will speak for themselves.


 * Be careful. Whatever happened with ANI, when I've seen people coming to Jimbo's page and making general statements about bias, they have often been further mistreated because they were accusing other editors without evidence.  I don't know if you mean to say that Harper devotees have been railroading you or not but be careful, because admins really hate it when you make such allegations with anything less than bulletproof evidence (and they may hate it more if you have it).  If you pick a hill to die on make sure it's one worth fighting for. Wnt (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Harper devotees had vandalized such articles as mentioned (Idle No More and Theresa Spence in the same terms as the rhetoric heard from trolls on news sites; identifiably Toryite (or "ReformaCon" as they're called, as with the BC Liberals being the Lieberals etc); or worse, in some cases; rabble. But in the case of the Ottawa shootings and St-Jean-sur-Richelieu articles there was overt terror-propaganda hype and ongoing "work" on the article that was blatantly POV and govt/police oriented, an attempt to remove Glenn Greewald's op-ed analysis as "fringe" (a tactic that failed as geez the guy is a Pulitzer Prize winner; and more and more and more; see 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack and my deconstruction of the fabrication of what sources were supposed to have said but did not.


 * Digging into that user's contributions I saw a pattern of topics and edit behaviour "all of a kind", same with those who were warring over the Ottawa articles twice deleted a section I'd built detailing false and misleading edit comments, some claiming to bew minor or very different than what the edit commnent said; a clear violation of guidelines, claming *I'd* violated guidelines simply by laying out the anti-guideline behaviour underway which he claimed was NPA so he had a "right" to delete it; another editor restored it after he re-deleted it the first time after I had restored it; it seems to have been redacted again after I de-watchlised that page for stress reasons as it's not in the archives and he claims it didn't happen in the ANI block-vote he launched where he also redacted and moved my comments about why the vote-call was invalid and POV-COI driven; it's in the edit history somewhere but I havean't taken/had the time....looking into his user contributions, well, I think I've said enough about all that already, it's boring to repeat it now but plain as day "who they are". They do nothing else but generate POV contents and in his case wage edit wars, so highly ironic that he should posture as a wiki-cop on a board he's shown up even more than I have.....


 * the "fringe" argument was used to purge the Vancouver Olympics article and the POV fork "concerns and controversies of all local political comment/opposition, first by saying that Canadian Dimension and various other reputable sources (there should be a difference between "reliable sources" and "reputable sources" IMO, and when a so-called reliable source has been shown to be unreliable (as with the Vancouver Sun and other media-monopoly heavyweights) they are UNreliable sources and not to be taken without a grain of salt; tons of examples about that; the other thing about the 2010 Olympics C&C article was its "keeper's" dismissal of local content/controversies as being "purely local and not of global interest".


 * similarly on Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster the IP and then the SPA that railed against the title claimed there were no cites using that term ("disaster") which they alleged was "inflammatory" and when I went and found a lot of cites that did use the term, the SPA claimed that the Vancouver Observer was "fringe" and would not recognize the cites, as I cared what they said. So along comes a guy who's all well-spoken and pretending to be NPOV but does some POV edits and wheedles to justify them; it went on, I did some digging into his edit history and talkpage and discovered he wasn't just a mining consultant, he'd used a certain link, now a 503 or 505 error or whatever, that when I went to the root domain turned out to be OSAC's site; I'll let you look at that and read what it says about an organized network of professionals, military, defence industry, students and academics and community groups organized to....well, go ahead and read what it says; same deal as the Tories having meetings to exhort the faithful to get out there on social media and "correct the message", and so on......so I challenged him about his mining industry connections as COI, he did do a disclosure saying he had no commercial/contractual connection to Imperial Metals; even  though he is a member of the mining association and a consultant for them and other mining companies; digging farther into OSAC and seeing his other info-suppressions re other mines/human rights (Eritrea, other mines in Mexico and Guatemala) and knowing people have been killed and beaten and given the security-state connection via OSAC I backed away; discretion is the better part of valour...and this is a dangerous world, to be blunt.


 * it's not just that element but "all sides" are doing this; I've seen sino-centric POV and disruptive behaviour lots though the current battlefield article's author/keeper is among the most virulent and persistent I've seen; he now says he wants to disengage which is fine by me, he postured about 'sorry to be such a burden' to that linked editor but not to me and has never once admitted he's wrong; he postured about his life being damaged, but has assaulted me with attack-style talkpage warring since (and even more) I told him in the Xmas week I was in life-crisis (I'm hanging by a thread here and have dropped maybe 10kg; I have high blood pressure - I'm 59 - and he upped the stress level since, and jacked it through the roof this last few days) and didn't have time /energy to deal with all that he was demanding of me, and then even telling me to spend money and order teh books that he demanded I rebuy in order to be able to "contribute effectively to the discussion" which he said I couldn't do without it; he's never read any of them. So much so much so much and I've stayed up late too often and can't get to sleep because of all the garbage in my mind from deconstructing his false/synth logics and claims and evasions and misdirections and, frankly, psychological warfare as well as character assassination and ongoing AGF as if I was lying about the points I brought up about what was missing and what else there was to include.

I knwo propaganda techniques when I see them, I've been on this planet a long time (and wish I could remember where the keys to my spaceship are - joke - it's time to get out of this crazy self-immolating sphere), and the amount of edits coming all at once suggests robotic tools to post/edit with; as also noted re a certain other editor who reverted things so rapidly he must have an external bot to do it with; but I suspect a team, which is why I mentioned CHECKUSER; it's after that that he's backed off and still protesting innocence with finger-in-cheek paints me as the bad guy who's "interfering" with him .... yadayadayada could go on for pages about that; now I'm just gonna work on the article and ignore anything he says, just as he did with anything I brought forward other than when taking it to discussion boards to try and get backup, or pretend that they said things approving of his position when they did not, not even close...

There's an article in the current Epoch Times about cyberwar actions by China; I paraphrase it somewhere not sure which place, and in today's Guardian there was an item about a new "pscyhological warfare" unit of the British military whose job it is to infiltrate Twitter, FB and other social media; without mentioning Wikipedia but it's a given that any social media is the field of combat.

The 'shoot the messenger so as to not admit to the issue/message' is so rife in Wikipedia, along with the TLRD/WOT bullshit where people say they won't read what you have to say because it's too long/they don't have time and do so in an uncivil and NPA manner.....tehy're entrenched, to the point that WOT is a guideline; once I pointed out that the invocation of TLDR on talkpages was not what it was for; and while WP:Wikilawyering demonstrably exists, to say someone is wikilawyering has become grounds for an ANI - ???? So, you can't criticize someone's editing activity without being threatened with a block as if that were NPA on the same par as 'asshole' or "you're stupid". You can't get into evidence of dishonesty; that's against the "new rules" that have arisen in the culture of "the community" in recent years ... reminds me or Parliament where you can't call someone a liar even when they obviously are. Absurdity combined with imperious condemnations if you speak out.

That's only some of what's out there; China has warred on Tibet and other articles for years, Russia and Ukraine articles/editors are at each other's throats; in Thailand it's dangerous, ant not just re jailtime, to engage in any political writing of any kind; and it's not the only country that's like that either...I left there because of the deteriorating situation and increasingly dangerous political milieu and a mounting sense of anti-farang attitudes/conduct and more; and keep my nose out of Cambodian politics (even though I do a news show here) for good reason.

Between corporate, country, partisan, and defence/m-i and "security state" moles, it's a multi-front problem and the integrityy o the encylopedia "anyone can edit" is inheretnly flawed, leaving it wide open to manipualtio by ''anyone with the skills and determination/agenda funding to spend all day, every day, warring to control and maniuplted or, as The Photographer noted, to block people who stand up to it.


 * So what can Wikipedia do? Like it would happen - abolish ANI, stop giving adminships out t o people via a system that any person can pretend to be all nice and pleasant but start behaving like executioners once they get one.
 * CfD/AfD/RM etc should have, iron-clad, the MOS bit somewhere about "if you aren't familiar with a discussion do not take part or vote" in blazing red letters at the top of the templates/pages; and there should be a rationing/quota system so people don't hang on those boards fulltime especially if they display regularly contrarian and block-him-block-him-let's negativity.... all while not disussing thte issues at hand that cause an argument, but going afteer someone on their own allegations of what he's done ''or launching ANIs based in complete fabrication" as to were in the course of the last year....;
 * and rules about making unsubstantiated allegations about what cites/allegations say; and an end to impatience being of the kind of "I don't have time to read all this so am going to close this and slag the nom or whatever" etc.....if they're too busy tot take the time to respect what is said or come to terms with hte issues and whether the votes are valid or not, they shouldn't be closing; especially not when hostile-closing someone they've unilterally blocked; and though it's not provable the use of the same tactics as the "dogs of infowar" use very regularly, why they come out of the blue with rank NPA condemnations and go after someone talking sense an NPOV raises questions as to who they are; mahy have bven here from the start, and that's part of the bigger question.
 * in the cases of POV/politics etc and history and more, people who write celeb articles an movie reviews as t heir contributions who have no political acumen or knowledge of the matters at hand should butt out; rather than invoke guidelines, or lines out of guidelines, to pound down their interpretation of "whta mus be done"...which involves restrictions, personal accusations, even allegations against someonen's mental health or intelligene and more; and who are they and...if they write articles on sports or knitting or cartoons and video games, what are they doing as editorial-power mavens in teh first place.


 * I'd like to recruit and encourage more peopel who do know their history but being confronted with/meddled with by people who don't know that history and start tossing guidelines around as if content itself didn't matter, that's just not viable the way thintgs are now; and IMO things have gotten more and more rule-oriented an "consensus-drigven" and code 'requirement' eg web cite hae gotten unwiedly an dtime onsuming and 'picky'' as to be very unwelcoming to people we should be creatin a welcoming engvironent ror; see my maxims section on my userpage to see what I t hink of consensus....


 * That's all for now and yes, it's long ; but it's not like any of t his can be discussed in Coles Notes type "precise" terms; that oft-heard excuse for AGF and "I don't hear you" is just yet another "rule" that justifies looking away, not readin what is said, and condemning someone yhou want silenced for daring to speak in another fashoin; "behavioural problems" it's called - another case of alleging someone is crazy by way of dissmissing them and justifying blocking/punshing them... who are these peopel anyway and who are they to judge others when their own behaviour is to hypocritcally negative and AGF;/NPA right off the bat. My eyes are getting tired as is my brain; I've been gorund under the wiki-millstone for weeks now...really the whole last two years since coming back after the "Harper government" AFD/block has een one harassment of me after another;


 * Wikipedia needs reform and it does need a higher tier of "content editors" whose job it is to think, not judge based on guidelines, and empowered to take action and expose those abusing the open platform in the ways above; ending anonymity an requiring full disclosure of corporate/political/government/org connections should be considered seriously too...but "consensus" means tha those currently abusing and gaming it will be in the discussions to try to end it; they will never let it happen; too many vested interests are present to ever let go......and it's clear to me that many here are pros, or funded in some way without admitting t o it and are disingenous when claiming they are doing it in their 'spare time', 12 hours a day 7 days a week.......and consider that most poorer people dn't have net access of time or money to do that; but wealthy and funded and employed-to-the-task people do.


 * Gnite; if you want to write me privately to respond that's probably better than in this accursed goldfish bowl with its watching piranhas.... I need sleep. thank god someone bought me a pancake this eevening so I don't go to bed on any empty stomach and wind up thinking about the assaults and barrages coming at me here again.Skookum1 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The pipeline questions I'll come back to later and theyh answers you'll hear involve differnt quetions than you've asked. lots is out there, but because MSM wont' cover it and necessary facts are not found in their reportage, and th e oil sector have a powerful lobby here it's going to have to be explained later... I'm tired.Skookum1 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your idea of having a quota for how many AfDs someone can vote in is certainly appealing, though unfortunately not easy to make happen. It would be interesting to hear more about the pipeline.  I should add that I didn't find anything for Sasquatch Five in a naive web search - are there any other names I might try?  Admittedly the coverage online for things from the 80s is awful, but shouldn't be this awful.  If you have a book or other offline references about it you could do some welcome work there. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hahaha at first I thought that was a brain-fart of mine, but no, it's the only instance of Sasquatch Five on the page... not a bad band name, thanks (I'm a musician)......Squamish Five is what you're looking for. And about Squamish....therein lies a tale and half or two, about which I'll go into later; and a lot of the blood and gore around me has to do with a bad move, a bad vote, a hostile and impatient close, and my attempts to set things right ...... and how much energy has it taken to try and stop me from getting a few hundred undiscussed moves back to where they had stood for long?  Too much, all messed with by people who don't know anything about the topic and shouldn't have taken part in teh discussions and who misused guidelines and and and....so in a way that's an ironic example but I'll explain it later; in fact I was going to write an essay re "The Squamish Affair" or "the Skwxwu7mesh affair" though it's not just about that pair of names..... man, that's a story and a half.....and my efforts to "get things fixed" because people from afar who knew nothing about either name weighed in....with a rain of hammers.


 * your inability to find much on the "Sasquatch Five" brings to mind the names Jack Cram, Grant Bristow and Erwin Singh Braich. try searching for them..... Canadian court bans (i.e. publication) and in-web suppression have hid their stories from view, or muddled them bewyond all recognition of what happened.... as also with the Oka Crisis and other events in the '80s and up to '93.  the Oka Crisis article is a good example of wallpapering and postfacto revisionism in the sources.  GTG but just had to chuckle/guffaw at the "Sasquatch Five" thing.Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Manifest destiny
Shouldn't this be uppercase? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, and there's been discussions about it on that talkpage before. But guideline-mongers and statistics-driven thinking are what's in the way of common sense.  It doesn't make any sense in sentence case i.e. "effects of manifest destiny were...." and should be upper-cased IMO.  But I'm not a MOSite and they see everything differently; through the lens of their mechanistic thinking processes, rather than grappling with actual grammar and conceptual realities of such a phrase; there's lots of examples out there. Lower-caseing winds up with some earnest MOS-following editor doing things like "FOO river" instead of "Foo River" and such, too.  English is being warped by Wikipedia's/MOS' influence but they're quite happy about having that influence.Skookum1 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Phil Gaglardi and BC-highways development
Hi. I noticed you have a keen interest in numerous aspects of BC history, and that you have a specific interest in the Phil Gaglardi article, to which you've contributed quite a few times.

Mr. Gaglardi's contributions to the development of the highways were a bit before the awakening of my political awareness. I haven't known who to ask about this, and possibly you know:

Did Phil Gaglardi have some responsibility for the development (or marked improvement) of the southern-route Highway 3 in the Castlegar area? and also Highway 3A from Castlegar to Nelson? Thanks in advance for any reply.Joel Russ (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes he did; I seem to recall a piece in Beautiful British Columbia magazine or maybe Westworld with him doing the ribbon-cutting. DoH should be able to fill you in further. My connection is not just BC politics in general; I went to elementary school in Silverdale, where about 90% of the community are cousins of the Donatellis.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Realized you may not get that; the Gaglardis are related to the Donatellis by marriage and those are the two original families at Silverdale; there's a page on the Mission Museum or the Mission Archives site about Donatelli Road (or "Donatelli Avenue" as it's been renamed).  The Gaglardi homes, two modern-ish bungalows, are on Highway 7 just east of where Donatelli Rd meets the highway; the old Turkey Gobbler if you know what that was was on their property.Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "modern-ish" meaning post-WWII, 50s/early 60s; don't know what the pioneer homestead looked like, I think that was the same patch of property (in the angle of Donatelli, Malquist (where the hall is) and the Highway.~

Page numbers
I am offering to give you pages of the Morton book. You can use a throwaway e-mail under whatever name you choose (an e-mail address that you don't use with anyone else or for any other purpose, and one which you can abandon after using it). I will give you the table of contents, chronology, sources other than newspapers, and index. Then you can decide what pages you want. I can send you maybe one to two chapters of the book of your choosing. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a Dropbox account link ready and I would like to send it to your e-mail. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Link it here, I am not going to create a mail account simply for this; there is no reason not to put the dropbox link here unless it's a blacklisted link. Even so, "email this user" on the left of my user/talkpages will get that link to me without me having to set up a mail account; you've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that.


 * And please stop expanding the article until I can fix your writing, which is not encyclopedic in style nor in WP:Plain English, and move the dross UNDUE on off-topic matters to the corresponding articles or their talkpages for incorporation where they belong; eg the lengthy material on Cumberland belongs on the Cumberland page, not on a general article where it needs only to be briefly mentioned. Expanding the article when it is in serious need of revision and cleanup is not responsible behaviour.  Likewise creating articles like Chinatowns in Nanaimo without integration with existing wikipedia material and other sources than your preferred ones, which leave much be desired, quite frankly.  Why you continue to expand the article without looking at what's on, and what other sources have been used by other editors on e.g. History of Chinese immigration in Canada and the Head Tax article is quite beyond me, likewise History of Vancouver, Chinatown, Vancouver, the Golden Village article and many others; your articles do not exist in a bubble, nor are they a fortress either.  You are reduplicating content already elsewhere, and ignoring tons of sources that other sites have used, and many others that I have repeatedly recommended and are online, never mind the many that are not which you have raised so much fuss about.Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "until I can fix your writing, which is not encyclopedic in style " - I strongly disagree that my writing is uncyclopedic in either content or style. If it's about the information "appearing incomplete" leave it in and let the article form.
 * "Likewise creating articles like Chinatowns in Nanaimo without integration with existing wikipedia material and other sources than your preferred ones" - I've pointed out on the talk page that the existing content was poorly cited - If information is poorly cited it's unlikely that it's going to be reused. I did used the same two admissible sources that the poorly cited paragraph had anyway. It's not possible for there to be a difference in point of view as it's just basic facts.
 * I want you to consider whether the suggested improvements improve the article. Make sure additions reflect what the sources actually say. If not the reader will be puzzled when he/she doesn't see the expected information in the citation.
 * I have not seen a talk page discussion saying that "European Canadian" is preferred over White. If you think instances of "White" are inappropriate you should start an RFC on the matter.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Geez, seems you haven't looked at Census Canada tables for what they use, have you? No, of course not, and you don't care either.  Capital-W "White" is not modern Canadian English and is "out of fashion" and has a racist impact when used in POV diatribes against Caucasians such as you are so clearly focussed on assembling and SYNTHing, without respite.  If you can't see the POV that you have, go find a mirror....or start noting how other sources do not have the invective tone but are written with fairness for all concerned.


 * As for  the reader will be puzzled when he/she doesn't see the expected information in the citation." material I will remove that is UNDUE and off-topic will be moved, with your cites, either to the article space of the existing articles or to their talkpages if it needs revision and improvement for very bad grammar


 * And re I strongly disagree that my writing is uncyclopedic in either content or style. If it's about the information "appearing incomplete" leave it in and let the article form." you have no idea about how bad your compositional skills are, or how strange your convoluted grammar/syntax is, and how often you make incomplete sentences of baldly irrelevant statements like "Victoria Chinatown [sic] is in Victoria". You write five short sentences where one or two integrated ones in normal English are much simpler; you need writing lessons; you may have a degree, but that doesn't mean you can write natural English. Not even close. I have worked professionally as an editor of books and reports (government and NGO and also corporate, including being the head of  the wordprocessing pool for a World Bank conference in Vancouver where I had 100 diffrent official style guides to coordinate 15 different editors under me) and have extensive experience fixing awkwardness and bad syntax/composition of all kinds; your writing is unencyclopedic [noting your ünclcylpedic above] and in fact comes off about a Grade 8 level in quality.  Read something other than academics and your writing will improve, and pay attention to the revisions I will conduct to make your contributions more readable and coherent.  "The interests of the general readership should be put before those of specialists" is apparently a policy/guideline that you haven't read...or don't care about.


 * And be mindful that your American sources contain numerous gaffes e.g. Victoria Island for Vancouver Island, Chinese-American instead of Chinese Canadian; you should read WP:CANSTYLE also if you are going to keep on contributing to Canadian article space on Wikipedia. You have also been piping comma-province dabs on names like Nanaimo and Lillooet that are not needed per WP:CSG and should be better apprised, as commented already, on existing BC content and on Canadian English usages.


 * As far as my own credentials re BC history go, other than my close ties to the Lillooet and Mission communities and museums, I was Heritage Researcher for the Gastown Business Improvement Association in 1989 and spent months in the Vancouver Public Library and in the Vancouver Archives reading up and studying all sorts of things; I assembled an index for the BIA's use of all historic photos concerning Gastown in the VPL and also assembled detailed property history and notes on the early history of the city, including the context of Chinese present since its very start in 1867 on Water Street and lots more. I'm not some uneducated boob without a degree, and many who do have degrees admit by their own admission they don't know half as much as I do about various matters.  Other BCers like User:Bobanny who are now writing in their own right rather than putting up with the Wikipedia milieu and its strictures on style (e.g. WP:PEACOCK) also know I know what I'm talking about; as does .Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "You write five short sentences where one or two integrated ones in normal English are much simpler; you need writing lessons; you may have a degree, but that doesn't mean you can write natural English." - Oftentimes I write short sentences because I need to indicate which information is cited exactly to which source. If you try to "integrate" all the content together it may look like ABDED   which may be difficult for the reader to pick out. I put verifiability above beauty. Now, perhaps somebody can come along and make it look prettier later, or I can look at it later and go "hmmm... maybe it looks better like this" but the No. 1. concern is verifiability, and also avoiding close paraphrasing. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did say I offer one or maybe two chapters or the equivalent (in terms of #s of pages) but I'm wondering if two is too much. Use the pages to figure out which claims/information you need cited. As I said in the e-mail, it's best to pick information that only appears in Morton and nowhere else. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason for that statement/instruction by you at all. Morton has more complete and also less disjointed information than you have been whiteboarding from your choice of sources, which leave as much to be desired as does your lack of cohesive and natural English in your style of compositions; I'm not wondering if two is too much, I'm thinking that two is not enough and if you so much want me to have Morton to use, you should copy the whole fam ding; he has detailed arrival/departure data and also much more detail about all political issues that your sources boil down to, essentially, "White people were racist towards the Chinese".


 * Re that, the bit you have in the article about British and Americans seeing themselves superior to the Chinese as an inferior race should be balanced about how China and the Chinese regard, and regarded, white people as being inferior and variously lazy and more; it's not like "only white people are racists", Chinese are infamously racist including within Asia and their exclusionary behaviour in modern Vancouver is a symptom of that, as is your own treatment of me as your inferior which I am most expressly NOT.Skookum1 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is against the law for me to copy the "whole damn thing". WP:RX will not have entire books copied for people, so I will follow their line and say I can't copy the whole book for you.
 * Morton is useful, but it's not the only source that should be used. He himself stated "not a necessarily sociological history of the Chinese in the sea of sterile mountains nor, for that matter, a particularly accurate or complete one." (Morton, p. viii, which is one of the pages you have access to on Dropbox) - It is important to document how White people felt about the Chinese, and I believe that Morton's overall concept was good - but it's not the only source.
 * I am well aware that people of any race can be racist: Some Hispanic Catholics in Houston were discriminated against by Anglo Whites so they got their own church; they then discriminated against Louisiana Creole Blacks in that church, so the blacks then formed their own church. I found out about this when an IP editor added an uncited fact to the article about the Hispanic church. I Googled it just to check... and found verification... and then wrote about the black church and thanked the IP editor.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * your equivocation about Morton not being a "sociological history" is just more equivocation and downplaying his very thorough content and detail; narrative history and studies such as his are just as valid as sources and I will repeat what TITLE and various guidelines re-state: "the interests of the general readership should be put before the preferences of specialists". What part of that are you pretending not to understand?


 * As another editor watching this discussion and the one on the Nanaimo Chinatowns talkpage commented, arguing with your is like arguing with the wind; you're relentless in your imperiousness as well as your equivocations and ongoing combativeness and seem more interested in arguing as a way to keep me from working on the article than you are about being welcoming about someone who is able and ready to contribute much to the article and other related pages; that being said, it's a beautiful day where I am and I'm going to go get my guitar repaired at last (someone sent me whack of dough so I can eat like a man and get some things fixed for a while); I'll look at the Morton pages you have sent, which I just downloaded, later on, and will try to pick probably two, not one, chapter that will have some of what I know to be in there.


 * You might try actually reading the whole thing yourself, and while you're at it start reading Howay & Scholefield and other generral histories of BC that are online, and what passage of Ormsby and the Akriggs you can find in Googlebooks; and consider ordering a copy of Early Vancouver which will probably run you $250 a volume; I got $100 each when I sold mine, which were a gift from William Hoffer; MacLeod's Books in Vancouver may have a set. And start looking at all the linked cites I provided long ago...while you were trying to get me blocked.Skookum1 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

examples of bad English composition
there is another I had ready to copy-paste but I had a blue screen of death and will have to find it again - and fix it. But this short passage is a good example of very bad English composition: "Chinese are located throughout Vancouver.[86] 40% of the residents of a large portion of Southeast Vancouver are Chinese. The Granville and 49th area within South Vancouver also has a Chinese population.[87] Significant Chinese populations are located in all Greater Vancouver neighbourhoods.[88] The Vancouver Chinatown is the largest Chinatown in Canada."

Never mind that it repeats statements already in the article, and more than once in most cases; it's trite and "A is B in C"....and don't you see that the third sentence is the very same content as the first one???? You should go to your university that you graduated from and take a course in creative writing....and start reading more than academic-ese, you claim to be a native speaker of English, Level 1, it's time to start sounding like one and writing in a mannner that doesn't sound so........bald. Try reading novels - if not those online histories I've repeatedly recommended, and find a night school course to get help with your English composition skills. This is friendly advice, not NPA. You sound like a high schooler and if this were a university paper, I'd have failed you for not using good English, no matter who you are.

And that last sentence about Vancouver's Chinatown being the largest is dated, isn't it? - per the content elsewhere about Toronto's being the largest, or is that in reference to Toronto's Chinese population in general. As far as area goes, Spadina Avenue's Chinatown is much larger than Vancouver's few square blocks; Chinatown-like areas are found along Kingsway and on South Victoria Drive and more, not just in Golden Village, also. But they're not called Chinatown, which in Vancouver is a name of a specific area and not a general term for areas where Chinese predominate in commercial presence and/or in population (often not the same thing at all as also with the San Gabriel Valley so-called "enclaves" where stores are Chinese, but the residents mostly aren't). Golden Village is also far larger in area than Chinatown per se; there's a new era of gentrification (by offshore Chinese capital) that threatens to destroy much heritage and atmosphere in Chinatown, by the way; you should look that up; should be something on The Tyee or The Vancouver Observer] and maybe in the West Ender or Vancouver Courier or The Georgia Straight''. The Tyee has a lot of articles relevant to the CCinBC page, and some authors who specialize in history; you should be researching that, along with all else I've suggested you undertake to educate yourself with not just about the Chinese in BC ,but about all of BC.Skookum1 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the sentences. The sentence cited to #86 and the sentence cited to #88 may be combined but honestly that's all I would do. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it's perfectly okay to submit something which looks awkward now and can be copyedited to look prettier later. That copyediting often happens at the Good Article submission stage, if not the Featured Article stage.
 * What is of immediate importance is proper citation: Ref #86 serves exactly the sentence before it, #87 serves the next two (it's talking about much of Southeast Vancouver and a portion of South Vancouver), then #88 serves its sentence. If you combine sentences you'll have to splice the references in commas ( The girl traveled to Belgium, Poland, and Russia., or if you have two references supporting the same clause you'll need to use internal comments to say which information comes from which source.
 * I think emphasis is being put in the wrong place: your response puts undue emphasis on "beautiful English" which is a luxury and can be copyedited/polished in at any time (there's plenty of Wikipedians who enjoy doing that), and insufficient emphasis on proper citation which is of immediate importance. A clunky-looking paragraph that is properly cited is far more valuable than a poorly-cited beautiful paragraph. Think of it this way: When someone writes a university paper in a non-English major subject it doesn't look beautifully formed right away. That revision comes later. As I can recall most professors in non-English major subjects put more importance on proper citations than perfect English. (It's different if somebody is unable to understand/comprehend the content - that is a problem)
 * In regards to Vancouver's Chinatown, if somebody challenges that sentence, there is:
 * "Of restaurants and renewal in Vancouver’s modern Chinatown." Vancouver Sun. October 20, 2014. "These are all indications that the revitalization project for Canada’s largest Chinatown now appears back on track after[...]" and this is from October 2014.
 * Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and it's perfectly okay for an editor to put in rough drafts in the article space as long as they pass GNG or some other form of notability and don't have BLP violations.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
HazelAB (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Temporary foreign worker program in Canada
Hey Skookum1, I noticed this recent edit you made to Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Requests. Were you looking for temporary foreign worker program in Canada by any chance? (Or the more general temporary residency.) There also seems to be information about this scattered within numerous articles about companies and other entities, among them Royal Bank of Canada, McDonald's Canada, Sears Canada, and International Union of Operating Engineers. Mind matrix  15:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * yeah OK thanks didn't know the title. BTW would you please review the goings-on above and on Talk:Chinatowns in Nanaimo and Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia (most recent edits and sections; that page needs archiving bt) and the rife OR/SYNTH and justifications for writing and sourcing in isolation from existing wikipedia content, with a narrow range of biased sources and dumping on other sources, and on me of course.  I'll let you read my responses to his rationales for totally questionable and against-guidelines attitudes and non-logics and SYNTH of guidelines; the article needs massive work to make it readable and coherent; he keeps on adding more incoherent jumbles of information without context as if this were his own whiteboard in preparation for a thesis that has a conclusion he desires.  That's not just OR, that's a neophyte on the subject drafting an article publicly instead of sandboxing it. That a formal Request for Article was not filed on such an important subject and he has been hostile to any and all input from anywhere including many sources I provided he has ignored while continuing to add bunk from the same small group of sources.....gaaaaaah.  More Canadians are needed, and more Wikipedians who recognize a stream of b.s. when they see it; and not interference from people who go after me for standing up to what is more and more a tide of biased, poorly written and repetitive rubbish and WP:SOAPBOXing and blatant OWN behaviour.  More eyes and minds needed on this; you may remember me arguing long ago re the History of Chinese immigration to Canada article that a BC-focussed article was needed; well here it is, and it's being authored by a student in Texas who doesn't have any clue even about basic Canadian terminology or political realities, and can't even get geography right, and who is hostile to an actual British Columbian wikipedian and even against Canadian sources.Skookum1 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can make some time for it, though I should state that because of "real life" matters, the amount of time I've had to devote to WP recently has been reduced significantly (mostly reverting vandalism at this point). Mind  matrix  19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wong Foon Sien
Skookum1, thanks for your edits to Wong Foon Sien. One minor issue I had was with this edit. I think you may have misinterpreted the meaning of the sentence (and I apologize if I phrased it ambiguously to cause such as misunderstanding). The sentence was saying "the CBA achieved its peak" because of:
 * influence of his connections outside Chinatown
 * his membership in the Liberal Party of Canada
 * his "wide acquaintance with mainstream journalists and leaders of other minority groups"

The source states it as "When he became one of the co-chairmen of the CBA in 1948, he brought to that position numerous outside connections, including his Canadian Liberal Party membership and wide acquaintance with mainstream journalists and leaders of other minority groups."

On further review, perhaps neither of us is quite right in this respect, and the sentence needs a bit of an overhaul. Mind matrix  20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All Chinese Canadian articles do....both for quality of syntax/idiom and actual meaning, when vague as above was (what I did was a quick fix and didn't look much at the rest of the article), as well as for POV/SYNTH and "false facts" and more balance from non-specialist sources e.g. media, general histories, local histories....there's too many for me to review, or to take on the grammar/idiom overhaul many so badly need, and this includes older ones that have accreted over time, though the collaborative ones seem to have a more neutral tone, I would say because they were collaborations, not primary authorships. Lots of historical bios and company profiles yet to be done, and various gold rush/mine histories to be done...really too much; instead I'm seeing diatribes put up in stead of informative material of interest and in a style accessible to the general reader; very important on town and region articles, also.


 * As noted elsewhere, what's said here should match in content if not in style/amount what's on related articles like CCinBC; much that should be here is there, and that article is becoming too bloated by minute (and over-cited) detail rather than useful context. What's on this one about the scandal aspect of the Benevolent Association's dealings doesn't use that word, though scandal is what it was; but made me wonder if the scandals in British Columbia cat might apply.


 * Wrote some further comments that went on, so will email them to you instead. GTG ready to teach some ESL in a while.Skookum1 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wakashan languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haisla. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

passages of policy for you to keep in mind i.e. NPOV which is *not* subordinate to Verifiability

 * Moved from User talk:Viriditas because Skookum refuses to be brief or to focus on one subject as previously requested

Italics below were added by me to emphasize the points highlighted in regard to your current encouragement of a very obvious POV fork and walled garden; Quality of content and NPOV should be your concern, not just whether something is well-formatted or not. I'll be cleaning up the TRIVIA/SYNTH and bad English and repetitious mention of the same events and the entire sections built on only one biased author in the next while; and will ignore the POV fork now under construction nuntil it is fielded as an article; when it will immediately deserve an NPOV template, and also a SYNTH template; I've had a look, and the same problems and POV agenda are not just much in evidence, but shamelessly re-perpetrated;

NPOV is a policy. Conflations that WP:Verifiability mandates exclusions of sources that don't fit the target POV are nonsensical and as noted before, not at all what that policy, or the RS guideline, actually say. Whatever, if the following passages of the NPOV policy don't jog your sense of wiki-responsibility I don't know what will. Condoning NPOV violations in the name of mediation is not valid; truth and untruth are not equal, nor are NPOV vs rank POV. My discoveries of further cites re the "Hongcouver" section that are contrary to the cherry-picked ones presented as a SYNTH argument are just one example of the many things wrong with the content referred to (see the history at CCinBC), and the following passages of the NPOV policy mirror exactly what I've been saying for months.... and been persecuted and even threatened with punishment/discipline over, even though it's policy that I'm seeking to have respected, rather than dismissed as unimportant vs someone else's (false) claims about what the Verifiability policy says.


 * Bias in sources

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
 * Balancing aspects


 * Impartial tone

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

See the content-fork guideline for clarification on the issues raised in this section. A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example, evolution, evolution as fact and theory, creationism, and creation-evolution controversy are separate articles. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.
 * Point-of-view forks


 * From the content-fork guideline:
 * A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided.......A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

Given the meaning of those passages, it's very clear that policy is being violated, and likely has across dozens of other articles by the same author; I despair that the NPOV board will see any action taken, and may consider this as an ARBCOM matter.... but the bureaucracy and senior adminship don't seem ready or willing to take meaningful action on scores of POV matters around Wikipedia, so I don't hold much hope that NPOV will ever actually be regarded with teh important it deserves; rather many of those senior Wikipedians don't seem to have enough knowledge of the respective subject matters, or are already compromised by COI/AUTO contexts, to be able to discern or are ready to deal with POV content the way it should be; deletion, with the perpetrator banned and all their contributinos reviewed and/or deleted.Skookum1 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for alerting me to your concerns. Feel free to take them to WP:DRN where you can present your concerns to the wider community.  Remember to be brief when you file your report.  Thanks again. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * hahahah yeah, "the community" where bear-baiting is so helpful as opposed to discussing issues that are very important. And there's ONE issue in the post you kept out of view on your talkpage by moving it here, and one only.  NPOV.  Claiming that something else is on the table still (as I haven't kowtowed by agreeing to it) when what it says about policies is not negotiable i.e. you can't put one before the other; I've been talking about NPOV from the very start of WhisperToMe's multi-pronged assault on Wiki CanCon, American spellings/usages and various gaffes aside, and incredibly sub-collegiate writing, and been dragged into the muck by "the community" - by people who don't know the subject matter, don't care about it either, and now by someone actively condoning a policy breach rather than facing up to the very very very POV nature both of the draft POV fork, and all the gunk and bad writing and missing context/facts on the CCinBC article, where "consensus", per what the POV fork policy section says.

To me there's no disputing what you are doing; it is clearly in contravention of policy, and more than one guideline; just as WTM has been; and you know even less about the subject matter, and have come up with this reason not to allow it to be discussed - page-cites. In other words, you have engaged the red-herring nature of that instruction creep/claim as must-be-dealt-with-first technicality, in order to avoid having to recognize the POV nature of the content, and the manner it has been presented.

Not the first time I've seen somebody who's done things against guidelines and/or policy and who doesn't know the material has been censor-ish in rejecting debate, and saying "here, go play with the wolves for a while" as a way to avoid respecting neutrality of content, which neither YOU nor your now-protege have been doing; or seemingly intend ever to do:

All his POVism and SYNTH is being rebuilt in that sandbox under your care and encouragement, and the pretense that the harsh POV of the resulting contents, never mind their TRIVIA and UNDUE and ESSAY and other guideline and style violations (and more American spelling/usage, no doubt). You claimed to have wanted to resolve the problem, which is NPOV violation, rather you took one side and now refuse completely to listen to someone bringing policy into your lap by saying that it's not allowed on your talkpage unless some red-herring technical issue is resolved; it has been; it's not in guidelines or policy anywhere; only by extension/SYNTH; a false technicality being used as a roadblock by you. That makes your pretense of neutrality and.....authority?.....all the more strange, and undeserved.

NPOV is what it is; rejecting it and encouraging someone clearly intent on building a walled garden POV article when there are many others covering the same topic is clearly against the NPOV and POV Fork policies.

DRV is as pointless as RM as a place to find redress and correction for top-priority policy violations; and seeing how the OR and RS boards have been so misrepresented as to what was said on them, this is not a dispute, no, it's been a "shut up and obey" game for a long time now, again to silence discussion of the NPOV issues and SYNTH and other violations of too many things to list. No, indeedy, this is not for DRV; whether ARBCOM is useful or not, this will be a formal complaint of serious policy violation, in the name of giving precedent to conflated/false claims about guidelines being used to block discussion or information highly pertinent to the NPOV policy and the POV fork sandbox....which quite honestly, should be deleted as clearly against violations, given the context of its origin and its direct violation of the POV fork policy and other passages of the NPOV policy.

Please take down that quote from the Dhammapada, given your treatment of me - and your willingness to pander to really offensive POV - it's really quite unfitting for you to play the bodhisattva role; as too often in Wikipedia, talking softly isn't always as CIVIL was it sets itself up to be, and those who talk softly often have little of value to say, and just as much disrespect for content as they do for editors.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Province of Saskatchewan Map used in infoboxes
I thought I would pop off this note as I noticed you had an interest in the Canada locator maps. I started a conversation on the help desk regarding the map of Saskatchewan under the title Error in maps and therefore in the GPS coordinates. The map titled File:Canada_Saskatchewan_location_map.svg does not look my province of Saskatchewan. There should be curvilinear lines north and south. The eastern and western borders albeit are parallel lines, however they are in no way parallel to each other. I see the map NordNordWest used as a template File:Canada_Saskatchewan_relief_location_map.jpg, but it is not a good one at all. The boundaries for Saskatchewan have never changed, I think the cartograher who made File:Canada_Saskatchewan_relief_location_map.jpg took a short cut and made it rectangular with square corners in error. This one MapSK.JPG shows the not parallel east west boundaries and the curved north south borders the best, but it should be oriented more north and south and not off on a diagonal. This also shows the borders well. Saskatchewan Municipalities.png, or this one SK-Canada-province.png. I have contacted user_talk:NordNordWest, the creator of the SVG locater map who seems to have good map making skills BTW I know they have to be rather particular to work with the GPS robot. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk  14:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it would help you to realize that the eastern and western borders are based on lines of longitude which are inherently not parallel, but converge slightly as they go northwards; and in the case of the MB-SK border, between the prairie being flatter than the surface of the earth in its southern portions, and various adjustments northwards, it's not a straight line but very jagged......I haven't looked at those maps yet but will try and understand what you are raising as a problem; I'm opposed to the use of robots over humans btw and don't really like the pushpin bot-maps, partly because of their backgrounds (e.g. in BC's case Regional Districts are used in Wikipedia maps, the more relevant map to use would be the highway grid...).Skookum1 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Critique Request
New to Wiki and saw that you had an interest in Alaska/BC Geography. Would appreciate your unofficial review of an article I have almost completed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geospatial_Summary_of_the_High_Peaks/Summits_of_the_Juneau_Icefield

Added more to explain why minor peaks were included. The article does seem like OR, but what I have done is cross reference USGS datasets between themselves so as to permit a method to report the Nunatak and HUC areas (2 dimensional) to a one dimensional location for reference purposes. The Nunatak and Glacier articles are almost done and would have been included in one article, but they exceeded the template capacity of WP.

The article started out as a compilation of peaks (unclimbed) in the Juneau area for a future expedition, but got out of control.

The question of OR is a fine line. It is reported in many scientific journals (ie. Journal of Glaciology) that the Juneau Icefield contains 53 outlet glaciers. I was not able to find what they were. By compiling the list of reported(by the USGS) glaciers, I can count them. What happens if the WP article in summarizing the USGS data finds that the scientific articles are wrong? Is that original research?

More guidance is appreciated.


 * I'll try. I had similar questions for myself when making the Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-Yukon-British Columbia border list but it's more than TRIVIA because of the treaty status of those peaks.  Note also Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which was challenged as original research by someone who didn't even know what they were and had no idea about geography categories (long story, never mind); a lot of the glaciers you're talking about feed those rivers, of course.


 * First off, the Juneau Icefield's Canadian side is where a lot of those other glaciers are; there are 76 named glaciers in BC; there'll be similar searches possible on CGDNB. Note some border peaks have different names in the US than in Canada, and some with real names are also "Boundary Peak n" i.e. they have a BP number.  There's also huge resources at Geomatics BC with scalable topos with information on them not in BC Names and also options for boundaries, hydrography and more; that will link  through that first BC Names search for glaciers if you try advanced search;


 * for such searches I'm pretty sure the whole of the Canadian side is in only one Land District which you can use as a search parameter on the maps found on Geomatics BC and also on BC Names; maybe by regional district too in which case the option is the "Stikine Region" which is in the same hierarchy as regional districts but isn't one (directly administered from Victoria and doesn't include anymore much of the Stikine itself despite its name).


 * Bivouac.com has full prominence data for all summits, including US side, that have more than 150 feet (I think the parameter was, or 100m) of prominence.


 * Overall your images are too large 300 px or less is more normal other than for panoramas. Layout with that amount of data is tricky to make visually useful; there are given parameters for MOS; and note the lower-casing "rule" (not really a rule but applies here) means your title should be


 * "Geospatial_summary of the high peaks/summits of the Juneau Icefield"


 * Though really "Geospatial summary of summits of the Juneau Icefield would fulfill WP:CONCISENESS and WP:PRECISION. A lot of your redlinked items will never have articles, particularly those without names.


 * Will be watching.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)