User talk:Skookum1/Archive 29

Final warning

Skookum1, this battle with WhisperToMe must end. You've received advice from a number of editors on the situation, and have chosen to ignore it. You need to either disengage with the editor and the article until you are able to approach it rationally, or take a break from Wikipedia. Which is it? The Interior (Talk) 14:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to have a good long hard read of the NPOV policy and recognize bias and SYNTH when you see it. Behavioural claims when his own behaviour is glossed over and what I have to say about it regularly ignored - or come back at me with threats of punishment or blocking if I continue to talk about it - is contrary to the "NPOV is not negotiable" part of that policy. I'll ignore that POV sandbox but will continue to FIX the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia article so that it's readable and conforms to policy, which right now it doesn't do, never mind all its so incredibly stilted writing and POV cherrypicking. A comparison of the de-POVized same-sections as he's now fluffing and maniacally over-citing will be a pretty clear demonstration of biased content vs unbiased content.

This whole harassment-of-me to support someone who displayed rank obstructionism over and over and over, plus disorganized mass dumps of material to justify his lobbied-for split and pad out the POV SYNTH while at the same time launching massive board discussions and being ongoing combative against ANYTHING I said, made false claims about me and about policy, and abused sources by distorting and "trimming" them to fit his SYNTH is a travesty of the way things should be on Wikipedia. NPOV goes unpunished, those who dare to talk about it are threatened with blocks......get a grip, Tim. I've been grossly personal-attacked in no uncertain terms because of all this and treated with AGF by WTM since he first showed up in Canadian article-space.

And who's getting harassed? The Canadian editor who knows the subject matter and sources who dares to dispute the cherrypicked claims by obscure "scholars" which fly in the face of easily-findable FACTS that put the lie to them..... and highlight their distortions and bias and "deliberate omissions". The material I've been adding for balance and to counterpoise to the one-sided statements and sometimes semi-mythical claims of the Chinese POV sources he wants to keep his opus restricted to is all online, from sources I've fielded for months he hasn't used, while continuing to lobby to get me blocked.

Blocking me for continue to edit to make usable and fair the raft of biased and poorly-written content dumped on that page when nobody else (other than yourself, maybe) in the ongoing get-Skookum1 campaign knows enough about BC history and geography to do so is......really ugly and a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia nowadays, and its cult of behavioural criticism and its refusal to face up to mounting POV problems on many fronts.

His article might as well be called Chinese Vancouver or [[Chinese colonization of British Columbia) (per the British, French, Spanish colonization titles). This all the moreso now as he wants to include China's trade/transport and investments and Chinese citizens-in-British Columbia.

With content that severely veers of the main course of British Columbia history content, based on racial bias and massive generalizations about non-Chinese "Whites".

I have other articles to write, and want to be left alone from claims of behavioural irregularity when nobody has had a good long hard look at his reams of pages of obstructionism in order to dismiss or discredit - or even had a good long hard look at hte POV/SYNTH of the content he is building...without ever having been to BC and never having read any general history of the province i.e. one without racial tub-thumping and with correct geographic terms.

My defence of myself took up huge amounts of time that kept me from adding to and/or editing the article of its very badly-written English; that was by design. I note that this campaign was stepped up, even stronger, after I started work on cleaning up the dreck and "intefering with" the content; similar to how Uyvsdi's and Maunus' ANIs against me were launched when I'd made considerable progress getting consensus to revert Kwami's changes to the endonym titles.

Procedural warfare and campaigns to block someone for daring to stand up to bullshit as the way to deal with content issues is not credible.

I'll refrain from POINTy edit comments when editing the page, but will continue to comment on POV items and on points-of-information re context on the talkpage. Let him go build his over-cited nice-looking but rankly POV/SYNTH opus but stop carping at me about my behaviour and long posts when you and others have not had a good long look at his behaviour and very-long posts.

Whatever; because of all of this and the inanity of things like mindless lower-casing of titles by people who have no knowledge of the subject, and who seem to not have read all of MOS and NPOV (if they can't read what I say, it's pretty clear that they don't have the comprehension skills to read the whole of those items, or others), and seeing the morass of POV disputes that t urn into attacks on those raising the POV issue, my time here is coming to an end.

Other BC editors have gone on to be published authors (Bobanny in particular we could even say is "celebrated"); I should have stayed out of Wikipedia and let the Tory rabble vandalize native articles as they were doing, and not give a shit when a Chinese-background American sets out to rewrite British Columbia history on biased sources to the exclusion of anything else.

I have some fixups on the Mission and Lillooet articles to do, and to finish cleaning up the repetive, POV dreck and bad writing on CCinBC; and move some of the t own-content material to the town/chinatown pages/sections and also transplant the UNDUE and off-topic materia about Chinese investment and commerce off to Chinese investment and influence in British Columbia and/or the Economy of Vancouver article (which is so out of date it's pitiful).

I'll never get to Cassiar Gold Rush or Great Smallpox of 1862 or the Grouse Creek War or Salmon War and more; and see that when it comes time to write about those I would be far better off writing without the style constraints and without the endless meddling by the arrogantly uninformed than has become staple fare at Wikipedia; where biased editors can go lobby uninformed editors with no knowledge of the subject with one-sided complaints about someone around who knows a lot that points up that bias for whta it is.

Go have a long read of NPOV and note the highlights in the section Viriditas refused to read, posted above; there's more and more passages I see all the time in it that are about exactly what I've been saying about POV all along........... his disingenuous "there is no POV" is hogwash.Skookum1 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well, Skookum1. I've blocked you for three months. I've left an explanation at WP:AN: [1] If you wish to comment in that thread, post here an I will move it over for you. The Interior (Talk) 06:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the subjects are the problem

I feel that you are a good person, and I know you mean well. I also think that User:The Interior is right saying that you are in "...near-constant disputes on wiki..."I've said before that the common denominator is the manner of your edits.

But, maybe the subjects gets it all going. Are you interested in editing articles on something non-controversial, say, species or mountains or buildings?

I know, whether you are blocked for 3 months or unblocked and just not touching certain articles, it is tough. I feel that you seeing content you don't agree with really gets under your skin. But, this is a wiki. Articles find their way.

Do you think you could maybe edit away from such articles for 3 months? The benefit is that you could continue to help build Wikipedia. It would help us all find out if matching you and certain subjects is the problem. Also, it could be good practice to sit there, knowing that something in the world is not right, and have the self control to not let it upset you. After all, this world is pretty nuts. Sometimes going limp and letting insanity reign around you is good. Practice being at rest in chaos. I think it makes one more sane. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I should just mention that I'm not trying to power trip here. This is not to cage or hobble you. I'm just trying to introduce a path to an open domain where you can be free to edit without confrontations. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)