User talk:Viriditas/Archive 32

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neurons to Nirvana, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stephen Ross, Chris Bennett and William Richards. 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) 11:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United States

I agree with Viriditas. Clearly Santilak is using up his usual bag of tricks. SantiLak, please discuss the article courteously and professionally. 2.177.207.221 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that you are too smart of a WP user to believe this IP who has harassed me over and over before with slander. Pay no attention to them and I do apologize for not responding in a while, it completely slipped my mind but I will soon. - SantiLak (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		For taking on the job of completing reviews begun by someone else and continuing your usual high quality contributions. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Viriditas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Alii

You have reverted the split and now begun the process of objecting to it. I will, of course, not revert you. Would you like to discuss the specific matter on my talk page more, the article talk page her or another proper venue?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what the requested move section is for on the talk page of the original article. I will be more than happy to support the existence of a new article as you propose, but there would have to be a sourced-base rationale. Since the term as it is used on Wikipedia primarily refers to Hawaiian nobility, I'm not seeing a rationale based on either sources, links, or usage. You could use the requested move section to make this argument. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I will do so but I do wish to let you know I strongly object to you requesting a move after reverting a split if you are OK with an separate article existing. Yes...the main usage on Wikipedia seems to be the Hawaiian usage...at the moment, which is why I believe there are a good enough amount of reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. However, you deleted long standing content that changes the scope of the article while making that request. Why would you do that? You claim to see no evidence that the subject is anything but about the Hawaiian language usage...after you deleted the content. If it is all useless, unverifiable hog wash I can understand its removal. Is it?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark, you need to read closer, because you are misreading what I wrote. I said I would support your split it you could provide a valid rationale. As it stands, I haven't yet seen one from you on the requested move page. I'm really frustrated by your continued, unilateral copy and paste moves. It isn't clear why you are engaging in this kind of behavior, but if I have to escalate this further to get it to stop, I will. Please keep this discussion on the requested move page where it belongs. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. The article was just moved. We could use some references on much of the existing content if you ever have some time.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Edge of Tomorrow

Hello, I just wanted to say that I never intended for Edge of Tomorrow (film) to be nominated as a Good Article candidate in its present state. I did consider nominating it with Sock after we reviewed it, but it was unilaterally nominated after some revision. (The "Visual effects" section was not added by either of us, and while I copy-edited the first half, I did not get to the second half.) I assume the nomination was in good faith, to make a final push from a pretty good article to an actual Good Article, but neither Sock or I had input to do a final preparation. (One element we discussed was covering the various commentary about the film's ending in more detail based on sources listed on the talk page, which the current article doesn't have.) I wanted to mention this because while I'm happy to make adjustments, I did not find the article ready to be the best possible candidate for the GA process. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. Could you do me a favor and take a look at the use of the fair use Mimic image for critical commentary? Does the caption need a source, and is the image used appropriately? Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not added sources to screenshot captions before because the captions are summary versions of more detailed commentary in the section itself. As long as the section covers the screenshot well and is referenced with sources, it should be fine. (That is my opinion, anyway.) However, I think the screenshot could be improved since the creature is in the background in the current shot. I looked at possibilities, and this has a few much better shots of the creature that could be used instead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: what about the genre? As far as I can tell, the lead should say military science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I researched that sub-genre a few months ago and did not find it specifically mentioned by very many reliable sources. They seemed pretty content with just calling it a science fiction film. I figured the premise that follows the opening sentence identifies the military element of the film (as well as the alien invasion, which could be part of the alien invasion sub-genre, and the time loop, which could be part of the time travel sub-genre). We could find a place for the link in the article body. (This was never used, for example.) Or it could be in the "See also" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No biggie, but I'm confident this is a good example of the military science fiction genre. Also, when a military writer like Thomas Ricks calls it "military sci-fi" and compares it to The Defence of Duffer's Drift, I think we've got a hit.[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Padresfan94 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Imsai Arasan 23am Pulikesi

I have nominated the article, Imsai Arasan 23am Pulikesi, for GA. Would you be interested in taking it up? Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the spare time at the moment, but when I finish my current review, I'll take a look at it and contact you. However, I was planning on reviewing several other articles on my list. I'll take another look in a few days. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, best of luck in your reviews. Your review on Edge of tomorrow (film) was excellent and detailed. In case you don't know which ones are reliable sources in the article, Imsai Arasan, you can take a look at Chandramukhi, one of the articles I brought to GA status. Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I will do that. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

W

You were right, I forgot about that one. I was a note that I made in the draft about your article and it made its way into the article somehow, here User:Sca/sandbox#Selected quotations re Monet. Removed now, but I credited you on the talk too. Hafspajen (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: just so you understand, my main concern isn't so much based around authorship or ownership, but around best practices. If these aren't followed, I've seen problems develop over time. Articles can get merged unnecessarily, content and sources can get copied erroneously (without the copying editor ever reading them), and editors can have difficulty tracing the chain of research. For example, when you copied over my footnote, you linked to work by Rathbone 1999 and Sweeney 1999, but you failed to also copy over their sources cited in The Magpie. There's lot of little problems like that that arise. In that case, if the page history (or talk page) reflects proper attribution, an editor could come along and copy those sources back into the article so that they link to the footnotes. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. Actually it was my coeditor put those quotations there and I was in a hurry to add and merge so I never noticed they got in. Sorry. Once you put an article in mainspace all can happen. We had merged that article from three different sandboxes, here it was User:Sca/sandbox#Selected quotations re Monet. It does say to: (Except for the material in parentheses, these are all direct quoets.)Hafspajen (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I have the 240 page exhibition book Impressionists in Winter on my desk. If you need anything from it, let me know. It's got a lot that could possibly benefit your article. If there's a specific painting from that exhibition that you want information on, just drop me a line. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you feel like adding anything into that section... I removed now the material, so it is a bit of white space now. Hafspajen (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy with other things at the moment, but I take requests. The preface and introduction are a massive 43 pages, which covers pretty much everything about the history of winter paintings by the Impressionists. So, if you have any questions about any of those painters or works, I have the exhibition book. You might even be able to access preview versions on Google books or Amazon. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I don't see a barnstar to recognize reviewers, so allow me to gift a teamwork barnstar. Thank you for spending time to conduct a thorough review of Gypsy Restaurant and Velvet Lounge. Your work improved the article, and I appreciate your assistance. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei

Would you now like to review the film? —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously, I've got a list of GAs to work on at this point. I have your request on my list. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ssven2: are there any English versions available to view? Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Posting you the links:

Link for DVD - torrent download

Link for English subtitles

There are no "English Versions", but here are the links (The DVD of the Original Tamil version with English subtitles). Hope they help. —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For several reasons, my bandwidth is somewhat limited at the moment, so I won't be able to download from those links. I would like to watch the version on YouTube, but the English subtitles are very poor. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you download the video from youtube? —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. It seems to be working now. I'll let you know how it goes in a few days. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shall we resume the review, bro? —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We shall, but keep in mind our time difference. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Addressed your comments for the "Plot" section. —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 10:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for your thorough review of the film, and as I mentioned, for the "Reception" section, shall I go as per Chandralekha (1948 film) for the box office? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. No need to push things. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mele Kalikimaka

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

David Rioch nominated for DYK!

—Cerabot (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Viriditas,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

DYK for David Rioch

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream

I am running into Nightscream. I think I know now why he calls himself Nightscream! Beaconboy (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei

Thanks for passing the article, bro, and for your detailed review. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 11:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your additions to User talk:Winkelvi. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you would cease what I have started to view as harassment. From what I've already written in the edit summaries removing your comments, I don't know how I can be any more clear: your postings to my talk page are uninvited and unwanted. Please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

user:winkelvi is a bully and harrases everyone view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:213.7.149.151_.28Result:_Semi.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Coretheapple_.28Result:_Protected.29 or just look at his contrib history its full of edit warring disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.43.87.152 (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frances Ames

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frances Ames 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Long ago question answered

It took awhile but a question you asked me a long time ago has finally received some answers on Quora, here. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: Dude, you're awesome. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

EEng

You have crossed his path somewhere? Would you care to share where? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity: Yes, I have. However, instead of gossiping about users, why don't you leave him a brief personal message on his talk page expressing the problem as you see it, and how the two of you can resolve it? It's best if you attempt to resolve a problem with the user with WP:AGF in mind. If that doesn't work, I can help you try to solve it in another way. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not my intention. Your comments led me to believe that there was a pattern on AFDs that you had crossed on him before. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero Serenity:I'm not aware of a pattern, but I have encountered him in many places. I still think you should contact him and express your concerns with how to resolve the problem as you see it. That is, after all, best practice in dispute resolution. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel I would blow my lid since I'm already somewhat angry about it, so I was hoping for a moderated discussion...somehow. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Maybe just let it blow over and come back to it. You might feel differently tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

item re .....

that bit about the archives...I scanned the first three for the section I'm thinking of but it wasn't there.....but during that page's edit-warring he'd tried deleting the section outlining his illicit/misleading edits more than once, maybe it got archived without it? I should, yes, have just ignored that place today...but how is it that someone can not just move someone's post but remove a vote PLUS make negative comments about it? Not that Wikipedia is ever fair or impartial, as per your comments to me about the place....."rant" should be a forbidden NPA-type word, but as you note talking about why will take more than 40 words and that will result in condemnation. This is a civilization right? Nah, hasn't been for a long time....Skookum1 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Focus, please

Viriditas, no one is ever going to block an editor over templating an admin's page. Come on--put the broad brush away. I understand you feel obligated to express solidarity with someone who appears to be in conflict with me, but I don't see a conflict between editors--I just see an article that needs some help. I have nothing against this MaranoFan, though they certainly didn't treat poor old Winkelvi to the milk of human kindness. If you want to do something helpful, support MaranoFan without casting this as the Eternal Battle Between Good And Evil, and help fix that article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

January 15

Please use arguments in discussion, not template slapping. FYI bare "no consensus" is an invalid argument for revert. You have to clearly describe what kind of consensus and where was reached. -M.Altenmann >t 08:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read for comprehension, starting at the top of the talk page. Got it? Good. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Groundless accusations of COI

If this edit summary is talking about me, you need to be more careful about slinging baseless accusations around. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tangential request

Re. the JHunterJ note on ANI, and specifically characterizing a redirect I made: This was a blatant run-around the AfD close, and an obvious attempt to enforce his lone "delete"; - This is a tangent to your main point, but I don't appreciate the editorializing/hyopthesizing. I don't remember my rationale for the edit, but probably I'd completely forgotten about the previous AfD. Many of the my edits the last 4-5 years are planting redirects atop in-universe concepts, and it's not unknown for me to lose sight of a prior AfD. Anyway, two years is a long time to forget. My motive, lost to memory, is ultimately immaterial; I'd appreciate you excising the guesswork, which I think fails to assume good faith. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you redirected the article to a video game, using the rationale outlined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? It's pretty clear to the most uninvolved, reasonable user that regardless of the Star Trek topic, it cannot be a primary topic due to other uses of the term. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It was, what, 4 years ago? I have no idea what I was thinking. My best guess is that I simply wasn't aware of a more appropriate dab item in place now. Even today, I couldn't tell you anything about appropriate dab target/naming conventions; other than removing multiple bluelinks, dab-ness is simply not something I maintain/jump into. --EEMIV (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me: I have spent the last two days trying to correct this error, only to get reverted by JHunterJ in every instance. If there is no reasonable basis for this redirect, why is JHunterJ implementing it? Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not him. I see you've tried to garner some support at ANI, and that's all swell. All I'm saying is, I take exception to your statement that I was trying to subvert consensus by my 2011 edit; it seems unnecessarily antagonistic and does not assume good-faith. Best I can guess, again, it stems from a combination of a desire to do some general in-universe cleanup coupled with ignorance of disambiguation pages and practices in place. So, again, I'm requesting you remove or strike out the unsubstantiated inference about the motivation between what was really an innocuous edit. Thank you in advance ... or, if you're disinclined to such, can you please offer an explanation? Thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what kind of changes you're looking for. The entire report is couched in my opinion. My tone could probably be piped down a bit I guess, but I'm not certain how to do that. Why don't you just edit that part of the report directly with a comment explaining how you feel. I won't mind, just indent it or offset it in some way. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, and again thanks. I agree, the tone of your post is pretty intense. I understand the frustration of reverting and counter-reverting when you're Right, Dammit! , and that's certainly infiltrated (and I worry detracts from) what might otherwise be a clear case of trying to do some good cleanup/correction. I hope it all comes together properly. --EEMIV (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good job. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oranges/Schro

Posting here instead of at ANI, in the hopes of cooling things down a bit. After SchroCat's post of 23:47, 26 January, it would have been preferable for you to take it up at his talk page, if you felt it needed to be discussed (though personally I might have left it alone). No matter what your intentions were in continuing to post at Oranges' page, it had the effect of escalating the situation into a brawl between you and he on the page of an absent third party. At the time of that post, there were no demands for apologies present, only a request to strike, a request which is permitted per policy and is fair assuming that Oranges' post was a good-faith misinterpretation.

I would also suggest that there are more parallels between your actions and SchroCat's than you might think. Just as you are defending Oranges, he is defending Cassianto. If the dispute has nothing to do with him, one could equally say that it has nothing to do with you; but really, anyone may express concern with someone's statements here, whether those statements are addressed to them or not - as you have done with SchroCat's statements towards Oranges. But for the moment, I really think the best way to deescalate here would be to stop posting on the issue. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: the difference is, I never defended the comments made by Orange. I defended her right to say them and proposed a probable explanation for her thinking and asked for the attacks to stop. I then reached out in the spirit of civility to the offended party. This was their response. Given the previous incivility from this user that Orange was responding to in the first place, compounded by the intimidation and harassment from multiple users on Orange's talk page consisting of one accusation after another, I believe my actions were sound and in good faith. The over the top, aggressive and angry response from Schro was uncalled for and unacceptable. Given the above response from Cassianto, we seem to have a larger problem with the community that needs to be addressed. Pointing these things out, requesting that editors follow the civility policy, and taking them to ANI when they don't, is not the problem, so I must disagree with your assessment. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	WikiProject: Star Trek Barnstar
	A big thank you for boldly going where no editor has gone before and really fixing up my articles! The WikiProject appreciates it. Miyagawa (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said

This [2] is by far one of the best and most honest posts I've ever seen on wikipedia. It's good to know that there are some decent editors around. Good job! Caden ^cool 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Caden. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Caden. Great comment, Viriditas. IjonTichy (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagteam harassment

Sorry, but did you say what Sitush and Eric have done today is good? [3], [4], [5]. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• [6] At 04:46 January 30: Sitush weighs in at Talk:Enid Blyton#Oxford commas, and says, among other things: "There is no need to obsess over it, although I think the comma issue may be one of Rationalobserver's pet peeves as I've seen this raised by them in a recent GA review somewhere."

• [7] At 15:51, Eric Corbett comes to my talk page, despite having banned me from his three days ago, [8], and proceded to edit war berating comments onto my page. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rationalobserver. Take a deep breath and step back for a moment. Remember what I wrote yesterday? (link is above) Read it again. I said that your articles would probably be targeted, that you shouldn't revert, and that you should reply with kindness. So, I'm assuming you've taken a deep breath before reading this. :) Let's review: Eric Corbett left you a message on your talk page about a recent GAN. I realize the two of you have been at each other for the last week or so. But think about this for a minute. This was an incredible opportunity for you guys to patch things up and move on. He was only commenting about the article, not about you or any conflicts you've had. I realize you reverted him because of past problems on his talk page and your interaction, but remember to stay above the fray, to look for opportunities to move beyond conflict, and to avoid reverting. I know, our egos get in the way, there's a little voice saying "fight, fight, fight". That's why it's important to take a deep breath and step back. See the conflict from outside yourself. I told you yesterday that people would be targeting you and focusing on your articles. That's not against any policy. Knowing that, you have to be extra careful in your response and reaction. That's what I was talking about yesterday. So today, two editors made comments on the talk page about your GAN. I saw this coming yesterday and tried to warn you. All you have to do is briefly address their points, and stick to improving the article. AFAICT, Sitush and Corbett are trying to improve the article, and that's good, we want to focus on content, not interpersonal conflict. You might feel harassed, and you might feel like they are picking on you, but at the end of the day, they are allowed to improve articles just as much as you are. That's why I think it's to your benefit to try and patch things up. I know, I know, that little voice is telling you to fight, to hold a grudge, to be angry about what just went down. I am sorry to say that that little voice will also abandon you when you are in hot water. Don't listen to it this time. It's helpful when you're in a tight spot, such as a survival situation, where you need a fight or flight response. But you see how it interferes when it tries to speak to you in an altogether different context? Take a deep breath, take a step back, and respond when you are feeling safe, comfortable, and relaxed. There's nothing to fight about here. Just set it all aside and let it go. You'll be very surprised at what happens when you do. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Three days ago he banned me from his talk page, but now you think he should follow my GA reviews and force mentor me? 30 minutes ago he told you he wasn't willing to talk to me. I'm not hysterical, but I am confused. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know all that! :) I know you're upset about it. But think about it for a moment. Of course, you don't have to let him post on your talk page, and frankly, he should have used the talk page. And he most definitely shouldn't have been edit warring on your talk page. But think about what's happening here. They are pushing your buttons in every way possible. And as a result, you are responding like a puppet. Look at what's happened: you've been edit warring on your own talk page, ignoring comments about an article, and you've become more aggressive, hostile, and even defensive. Isn't that what they want? The entire point of my comments yesterday was to give you a way to avoid this current situation. So he banned you from his talk page. There are other ways to deal with it. You could have addressed his comments with kindness and then asked, "Btw, if you banned me from your talk page, why are you posting on mine?" Remember, infinite diversity in infinite combinations. You don't have to respond in one way; you're not an actor using a script. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Re you know what

I'm gonna write you privately also, but had made this post before realzing it was his talkpage, not The Interior's, so moving my comments here as they were there, and undid my reply to his typically misdirected and blatantly hyprocritical comments per DISENGAGE.Skookum1 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disengaging is good. Whisper's going on break, so try to leave him be for a while. I am interested, however, in whether you can find anything here where you two can see eye to eye. I would like to find neutral territory between the both of you. I think we need to nip this thing in the bud and put an end to it. Think about all the useful things you can do with your energy. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In points 1 and 2 there, he repeats his claims that the OR and RS boards agreed with his position on page-cites. They did NOT. As for condescending to investigate other sources than his selected range of POV ones, and POV "clips" from more general histories, he could have done that a long time ago instead of launching barrage/red-herring objections and writing OR manifestos about what guidelines mean, when they do not say anything like what he claims. Styling my responses to TheMightyquill on the article talkpage as to missing sources/issues that have been derailed/opposed by him, "continuing my behaviour", is typical of the misrepresentation and mis-statement of things I have said or done as being a "problem" and that I "interfered with" his choices re titles/geographic range and more. That on other side-pages he's since stated that he will pursue further action against me when he returns isn't exactly the most collaborative/cooperative thing, now, is it?

The use of procedural warfare = bureaucratic deflection/sanction - to "win" when facts and cites and points-of-correction about his guideline claims persist (as on what you have linked) isn't how good content is built; it's how knowledgeable contributors are silenced/persecuted/harassed for being in the way of what is clearly a POV thesis built on obscure sources and selective clippings from them built up as SYNTH, and not in a style amenable to the general readership. Procedural warfare and red herrings such as contesting long-held Canadian norms on terms and usages are not proper discussion; they are deflections, and because of the POV agenda I see so very clearly, constitute an information-war tactic: shoot the messenger.

I offered tons of sources that he spent incredible amounts of energy rationalizing into the dustbin, and maintaining the even talkpage mentions of what's in them MUST have page-cites or he will delete them is beyond the pale of instruction creep. What I see also is WP:BAITing me so I respond to his inane arguments in my inimicable style, prolix as it is, as he's found out there are others reading to condemn my style of writing (and who rarely if ever read what I actually have to say). See the quote from TheMightquill about me on my userpage about me voicing facts and perspectives that others do agree with vs those who trot out NPA/AGF-ish badgerings like WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DIVA and WP:OWN so as to derail discussion, as made regularly by people uninformed on the subject at hand.

If he really wants to collaborate and not stonewall me, that would be refreshing. But it's HIS tone and attitude that must change; lecturing me as if I was a junior student to him, and demanding I buy books (when he knows I'm broke and barely making it day to day) was more than patronizing, it was demeaning. Dictating that I should follow his commands "ASAP" and his attitude that he will decide what's allowed in the article and on its talkpage is more than questionable, and makes the OWN allegation against me by a certain party all the more ludicrous....and completely misplaced/misdirected...and made by someone with no knowledge of the subject area, who has an axe to grind and has challenged geographic-region names well-known in BC and Canada as "original research".Skookum1 (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Skookum1. You've given me a lot to work with in your response. Would it be OK if we deal with one thing at a time, making sure to stick to discussing only that thing? I would like to talk about the use of page numbers, so can we move that to the top of the list for the moment? What's the status on this dispute? Is it still a point of contention? Here's where I stand: page numbers help us verify material. Now, some editors may not be aware that there are alternatives to page numbers. For example, you can back engineer a range of numbers simply by knowing the name of the chapter and then using any number of sources to verify the associated page numbers. This is one helpful tip of many, there are quite a number of them. Can you give me just one example of when this came up in the past? I'm asking so that I can understand what led to such a simple idea exploding into a dispute. That should never have happened, so obviously, something went wrong somewhere. I'm hoping we can solve this point first (because it is one of the easiest for me to address) and then move on to your other ones. Again, thanks for such a great response, Skookum1. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It (the page-cite demand) comes up constantly, and has been asserted by him in his assertions since the DISENGAGE, as if he was right, and as if the RS board had endorsed him (GB Fan said outright and flatly "no they're not needed") and his lengthy SYNTH argument about WP:V you will find on the OR board, if it's not archived yet; I'll dig out links for both of those, and will link all the diffs on the talkpage where he continued to assert it, even after I pointed out on the OR board that his construct about it was purely SYNTH and WP:CREEP. The implication all over the talkpage, also, is that things can't be mentioned there without page-cites; I had simply mentioned events/issues and directed him to sources they can be found in;

....that started a series of denigrations of those sources, including his creation of a review-article on one of them In the Sea of Sterile Mountains which seemed to have been created simply to assemble all the pejorative reviews on it; the page-cite thing in particular is about the Chief Hunter Jack story, which is in four or five sources (but not in any "scholarly" source); I had had two of those books in digital form on a hard drive that crashed on Xmas Eve but I know people who own them; asking them to take time to find page-cites for me (not for me, for him) will happen, but not on his demanding schedule ("ASAP"). That I could tell of such things and be challenged (he's indicating anything will be challenged by him, indicating he has no good faith in me whatsoever). He now has access, sounds like personal photocopies, to Morton's book (Sea of Sterile Mountains) but though I indicated specific things I know to be in there, because I haven't seen them anywhere before until I read that book, he hasn't posted finding any of the things I said he'd find; I'll not list them so as to keep this short, and will come back with quotes and links. WP:OVERKILL issues abound with his style of article-writing and his selectivism on often-obscure sources and quotes and a penchant for using critiques rather than general narratives or actual real data, vs assertions in those "scholarly" critiques which have so many errors and gaffes it's worth a book all on its own. Also re OVERKILL, the WP:Specialist style fallacy is ever-present. Skookum1 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's that discussion on RS; note the responses more than my lengthy "ahem" (this being another in a long series of very lengthy side-boards where he sought recourse for his position, I'll link WP:V next; connectivity problems tonight, and getting to be dinnertime and had a lot of non-wiki computer work to do (music conversions) so will get back with WP:V and WP:OR (x2) and other boards; though their content is not my concern, just the lengths he went to try to counter me per my ongoing comment about AGF; not accepting good faith in another (experienced and informed-on-the-subject) editor and seeking a ruling to argue against me with; which he didn't get, but says he did. Is this engaging? No, I'm just explaining to someone who asked me for the specific details, and providing same. At least someone is listening to me....

BTW because I wasn't notified of those other board discussions, and happened to find them looking at his UC's, I'm having difficulty finding them; I'll have to search for them later, this may take a while (looking back in my UCs quite a ways re those OR board items; the WPV thing was more recent; I mention it on the talkpage more than once. SYNTH and CREEP and claiming you got an endorsement you actually didn't; that may simply be a comprehension or a lack of logic, but it's a core issue of the goings-on - and often in those "screeds" and "rants" I get condemned for, but nobody reads and won't. I'd thought there was a WPV board, don't see it on the board template maybe it was also RS board and now is archived? OR board I've found and will dig into the archives and link them later.... hopefully tomorrow ;-) but maybe later on; going out now.Skookum1 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Skookum1: because I work full time, my time on Wikipedia for the last decade has generally been limited to breaks, after hours, days off, holidays, and mobile device editing. Because my time is short, it is difficult to get the meat of the matter from your comments. We can safely assume that other people have the same problem. Right now, we are discussing page numbers. I reviewed the linked discussion you gave me, but your comments were so incredibly long that I have had not yet had time to finish them. Please make an effort in the future to shorten your comments. I get the feeling you are trying, so for that I want to thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had mentioned to disregard my response and just note the responses from other editors e.g. GB Fan, vs what was claimed was affirmed there on the talkpage and in other posts on other users' pages. Re other users having similar problems with such claims and conflations of guidelines I will return with a link to a discussion about this widespread and mounting problem on the EXR talkpage, and also with a link to the two OR board "orations"/SYNTH essays and the WP:V board discussion where conflation of what it says into something very much more, and rigid as a supposed rule, was made (and refuted by me) and links to where the claim has been re-made since.

I am only temporarily logged in at an office for now and should have time for this later today at some point. That nobody else has taken part in the many articles at issue (not just CCinBC) means that others have not encountered this problem, and of course rather than reading my reports/side of it, I am being condemned for speaking at all. Where the collaborative mood of earlier years within Wikipedia has gone isn't so much a mystery, and where the huge amount of WP:CREEP about guidelines being touted as "policy" has come from remains an open question that I am not alone in observing per this example, where yes I added some not-so-lengthy comments....on an even lengthier discussion that, miracle of miracles, nobody has thrown a WoT objection to or condemned for the usual reasons.

That being said, my intent here, given that you have an open mind on the problems I have been encountering for months (on a scale and intensity I have never seen in all my years on Wikipedia), is to try to keep to specific issues, though the page-cite matter is interwoven with WP:OVERKILL and WP:Specialist style fallacy and what, to me, is clearly a POV agenda on content intended to exclude events, issues and sources that conflict with that agenda and keep a certain pejorative flavour to the assembled and over-cited content and is at wide variance with the tone and content of other related articles; the claim heard I think here that there is no POV fork, and no POV, is not, to me, valid in the slightest. The page-cite issue is a red herring and not called for by ANY guideline and is clearly SYNTH in origin/argument.Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re that last paragraph, a summation might be "censure vs discussion" which is what we used to call un-wikipedian is all too much "typically wikipedian".Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers

Issue

@Skookum1: I'm going to try one more time to reboot this discussion. I'm still interested in seeing how the page number dispute occurred based on one specific example. In this particular discussion, I don't want to discuss the behavior or conduct of editors. I just want to see an example of where at least one page number dispute occurred. Can you show me 1) the name of the article 2) the problem where it was discussed, and 3) a diff or link. Once I can see that, then we can move on to other issues. Please be very brief in your reply, 50 words or less would help. I'm going to get this party started by using Chinese Canadians in British Columbia as an example of the page number dispute.[9] Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Result

Having looked at the issues raised regarding page numbers in just the article "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia" and the current status of the article. I cannot find any flaws in the position taken by WhisperToMe. While each editor may interpret citation guidelines differently, and each editor may have a different approach, during a discussion about verification and sources, page numbers are important for each editor to review the material. That doesn't mean they are required, but it does mean that when a content dispute arises, they may become necessary. This appears to be one of those times. Please note, as this is very important: the discussion about the use of page numbers exists independently of other issues, such as NPOV, civility, etc. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Recommendation

My recommendation is for Skookum1 as follows: to get up to speed on how to best use sources on Wikipedia, please pick a topic that you find interesting and write about it. It might help to create a new article in your userspace, for example. Then, plan on taking that article through the article improvement process, from creation to DYK, from GA to FA. Along the way, make special note of how the sourcing requirements get tighter, and how more is demanded from editors. Of course, the quality of sources will vary by topic, so a lot depends on what you are writing about. I think you'll find that if you are writing about Canadian history, the expectation is that the sources will be of the highest quality and that page numbers will be de rigueur. Obviously, this isn't written in stone, since guidelines only make recommendations, but the best way to learn about this is by participating in the process. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

See my comments about academic POV on the CCinBC talkpage in response to TheMightyquill. And yes per WP:IAR nothing is written in stone, and most Canadian history articles do NOT have tons of cites per paragraph and their tone is not as blatantly POV as what I am seeing unfold in the growth of the article since its foundation, likewise other ethno-political articles by the same author. Selecting negative/pejorative comments, whether from academic-ideological critiques (not narrative sources e.g.) and seeking to exclude local histories and the much better-quality general sources for BC history is not viable; nor is allowing one author with little knowledge of BC to OWN the article and mounting the WP:Specialist style fallacy to construct an article that is not readable or in the interests of the general readership vs that of specialists, per TITLE, which is a policy.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I see those as separate issues. You, however, see them as directly connected to the page number issue, is that correct? Just trying to find out if we are on the same page or not. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

the claim that page-cites should be used on topics of importance in Canadian history is not in any guideline and a review of major Canadian history articles will NOT show WP:OVERKILL with cite-usages; when well-known and "obvious" items like the cite-demand for Metrotown and Golden Village that's "trivial opposition" given the citations already on those articles. Canadian history should not be written up as ethno-POV diatribes, and challenges to obstruct content that disputes the claims made by academic POV (in all its glorious obscurity and irrelevance and tendency to generalize) and the SYNTH that piles selected bits of those to construct what constitutes anti-"White" invective, and said editor fights off any attempts to moderate it with actual facts and other points of view.

About that capital-W "White" usage, see WP:NCET's "self-identification" section and note the official Canadian government usage of "European Canadian" and NOT "White", capitalized or otherwise. It's a long-standing wiki convention to use the former, though some demographics sections have seen it imposed; most have been corrected to the wiki-norm but some remain. The further point about that is the gross generalizations made by academics and Chinese-origin authors like Paul Yee about "Whites" actually also apply to non-European Canadian groups, and obscure the very sharp distinctions between British, American, and "Canadian" groups in the early colony/province. And t hat they're every bit as rank and negative as the oft-heard complaints about generalizations made against them...which Paul Yee and others complain about, while making the same or worse themselves. Using guideline-games and SYNTH logics to justify challenging the wiki-norms is an ongoing game and has a very clear POV intent.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, but please remember, I am only discussing page numbers in this thread. When we reach the end of that discussion, we can discuss these other issues. It's really important for us to focus only on the page number issue, discuss it to completion and resolution, and then move on to these other topics. I can't do it any other way. So, with that said, can you focus only on page numbers and address my question up above? I'll repeat it here. Do you think the page number issue is directly related to these other issues? Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very much so, throughout. Page-cites are only needed when quotes are used, or when somebody challenges a statement/source......and guess who will challenge anything that disputes the SYNTH/POV construct he's been building? That's already on other wiki pages, and NOT challenged by people who are familiar with Canada, such as the Metrotown/Golden Village citation-demand. Conflating an intersection in a suburb into a "community" when all of Greater Vancouver has Chinese populations is spurious nonsense and completely SYNTH; taht item is just geo-trivia but quite pointless and constitutes dross/UNDUE as well as SYNTH.Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. Page numbers are also needed when editors try to verify material and collaborate. This is not something you should be fighting, it's something you should embrace. I understand that part of your frustration stems from not having access to sources, but please understand, there are ways to access them, and editors like myself and Whisper are happy to work with you to help. I use the reference desk, the resource exchange board, and other Wikipedia resources for this very purpose. Google books and Amazon also help. There are alternatives to continuing this dispute, and they involve getting what you want. I think your anger is misplaced here. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think his opposition to anything I have to say is what's misplaced. As others have observed he could learn a lot from me but doesn't want to. As for page-cites on some sources mentioned, because of the time/ energy/goodwill exhaustion and the reality that other people's lives don't march to WTM's demanding beat means I haven't yet gotten around to writing people I know who do have those books and can provide page-cites. Once I do, watch for him to try further attempts to claim the source is not valid, just watch.Skookum1 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I've been involved in many different kinds of disputes, so I have a lot of experience. And, since I'm seeing this dispute as an outsider, I can give you a much needed perspective. Don't be stubborn like a tree branch in a storm. Be flexible and bend with the wind. I don't want to see you snap. And right now, you're focusing far too much on interpersonal conflict instead of conflict resolution. Try to separate all of these issues into their constitutent parts. From page numbers to content, from NPOV to RS, stop mixing them all together. The only way we can solve this problem is to keep them separate and deal with them one by one. At the end of this discussion, we can put them all back together again and make them work. If you are willing to give this a try, if you are interested in getting what you want in some areas and compromising in others, if you are willing to admit that you have something to learn as well as to teach, then lay your preconceptions aside and approach this with beginner's mind. Only then will we make progress. You have put so much time and energy into this dispute. Please redirect it now into ending it. It's important for us to finish up the discussion about page numbers and not any other topic. I don't want to talk about the other issues until you acknowledge that Whisper's approach to page numbers is reasonable and based on policies and guidelines, regardless of your differences in opinion and approach. Don't bring up content, because we aren't discussing that yet. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The validity and NPOV of content should be the central issue, and his invocation of his claims about page-cites and RS has always been a red herring to avoid addressing the very real issues of content that he has AGF-warred against me for months; yet it's my "conduct" that's under the microscope, and his tactic (and yes it's a tactic) of raising red herring issues about guidelines (and my "conduct") rather than being opened to informed discussion and any GF at all towards the events and sources I raise. "attack/discredit the opponent and never address the issues" is an old game and very recognizable, as is the use of technical red-herring issues to defray and delay any work on the actual content or any genuinely two-way discussion; he's never wanted one, he claims I 'interfered with' what he clearly sees as his articles. But who gets accused of WP:OWN? Never mind, we already know...07:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to address whatever the central issues might be—after we finish discussing page numbers. Imagine, if you will, if you brought your car to your mechanic with a host of problems. After describing the noise in your front end, the problem with the brakes, the warm AC, and the door lock that doesn't work, your mechanic gets to work. As he's fixing the problem with the door, you ask him, what about the AC? He patiently explains to you that he will get to it when he's done with the door. But, you tell him, you don't want to be hot, the AC must be fixed. He notes that it's easy to fix, but if he doesn't fix your lock, someone will steal your car. Is any of this making sense? Viriditas (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

no it's not, he's not a mechanic and BC history is not a car; he's an information mechanic to be sure, but there's a lot of corrupt mechanics out there who will tell you something is wrong with you car when it isn't so as to get you to engage their services; point blank he doesn't want the information about BC history I know of, and know in which books, admitted to "his" personal thesis on BC history and making up rules for me to follow is just a game; he has the one book now himself and wants me to spend my time on his demands. And as far as I'm concerned, he's already stolen the car (BC history) and waving at with me with a smile as he drives away.Skookum1 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good answer. I like your style. Listen, I forgot to ask you something: what kind of outcome would you like to see? Do you want to continue this dispute for the rest of your life or would you like to help end it? If you want to end it, what kind of outcome would you like? Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've begun addressing POV/fairness issues on the article today, now that I have web access at home, and also removed some of his typical "so-and-so-says-this in his/her such-and-so book/article" yada yada which is all over his articles and more than a bit obnoxious; there are many sources (including all the ones he hasn't looked at, and those he doesn't want to make easy to reference) that say the same things; we can't name them all in the article. He also misrepresents Digital Collections as "Government of Canada" as if the federal government authored those pages instead (I'd explained this to him but he asserted his opinion that it was a government statement and appears to not care about facts and Canadian realities, but that's par for the course), likewise the Royal British Columbia Museum in one case (which is, um, outsourced to a Disney subsidiary for management/administration and also display design).

As yet I've only added bits from one of the many sources I provided and which have been ignored, but find it difficult to integrate them into the SYNTH-flow and the many biased statements from Chinese authors and others that he has chosen to build content; there's much on the article that's complete dross e.g. "Victoria Chinatown is in Victoria" or something along those lines and extraneous commonalities about a particular Chinatown being mostly male (all were) and "Ashcroft had no Chinese in 2006", as if Ashcroft mattered and there weren't another hundred communities like that and is if there weren't more than 15 in various other towns his chosen source doesn't mention at all.

If I'd been left alone instead of dragged to ANImal Farm (best name for that place, IMHO) and faced with "go get me this and do it now" orders and all that's come of that, adn I hadn't been struggling for survival and/or web access, there's much that could be added and FIXED both in terms of facts and fairness of coverage,and removing a lot of "junk content". Some sections could almost warrant separate articles now, e.g. Demographics, where he obsesses on detail, and his [deliberate] over-building of Vancouver content sections is likewise full of junk content as padding to justify his desire to split a "Chinese in Vancouver" title off (NB if that does take place then that title implies also all the stuff do with China's influence on the BC/Canadian economy and investment, not just Canadian Chinese (i.e. citizens). Re any split, the split should be not Vancouver/rest-of-BC so much as pre- and post-influx of the new era Chinese, or at least from the onset of Trudeau's multiculturalism policy and the opening of the door to PRC immigrants; and that latter part is heavily about Greater Vancouver and not really anywhere else, while earlier provincial history cannot be so neatly separated.

Anyways to reply to your question: "what kind of outcome would you like to see? Do you want to continue this dispute for the rest of your life or would you like to help end it? If you want to end it, what kind of outcome would you like?" I'll reply one by one and try to be brief

"what kind of outcome would you like to see?"

A fair article with less one-sided invective and better writing than the very clunky quasi-formal style has built; an admission that he has much to learn yet and a display of respect for my knowledge of my home province and its history, and an end to his campaign to find those hostile to me, and what I see is ongoing WP:BAITing by talking about another ANI or an RFC/U or ARBCOM; I haven't had the time to take this to ARBCOM myself, which I should have done long ago btw, and given some comments I've seen about me I see little point in taking anything to a bureaucracy more focussed on building and enforcing behavioural "rules" than on quality/fairness of content.

"Do you want to continue this dispute for the rest of your life or would you like to help end it?

The rest of my life may not be all that long, but I will never stop caring about my province's history and will never kowtow to cultural imperialism bent on rewriting it through a one-sided ethno-focussed agenda - one with intense political issues attached, which are even more heightened now due to a new treaty with China China-FIPA should have an article by now, otherwise google that).

This should never have been a dispute, if not for his hostility towards any correction of his many gaffes and his warring with anything I say, and the red herrings tossed around to redirect discussion on his terms, and that includes directing criticism at me and not on the article and his content/OWNership there. He could have learned a lot from me, but never wanted to; and now wants me to do his work for his claims about page-cites rather than read up himself and get acquainted with the full scope of the material; whether he will ever have a fair view of what he likes to capitalize as "Whites" I don't know; I doubt it, it's not in his field of vision.

"If you want to end it, what kind of outcome would you like?"

I'm going to continue trying to fix the POV/SYNTH he's concocted and see no reason not to; his writing style is very clumsy and stilted. As far as end "it" meaning the dispute, that is not possible until he acknowledges that he can learn from me, apologizes for putting me through the wringer and retracts his claims that my long knowledge of my home province is 'original research' as if I was concocting SYNTH = which is what he's been doing throughout his composition of the article. If the dispute continues to focus on me rather than on content, and the page-cite b.s. is still asserted as a way to combat information and fair content he doesn't want to see (or hear about), then don't look to me for an end to the dispute; I'm standing up for NPOV and fairness and Canadian English/contexts and integration with the content and tone of other Wikipedia articles; he has wanted control, and styled my correction of his bad "choice" for a title as being "interfered with". To me, it's BC history that's being interfered with by someone who knows little of the place, but has an ethnopolitical agenda and axe-to-grind.

One of my colleagues from a BC history course at SFU in 2003 still has our textbook which has a mass of academic articles and chapters from book in photocopy form that he's agreed to scan and send to me (lots of work on his part btw); he may join in editing this and the Indo-Canadian articles (he's Indo-Canadian); here's what he said in response to my request: "I'll get right on that. I actually have all those texts in my office. There's nothing I enjoy more than sticking it to a misinformed, ill informed, obtuse and ignorant American."

Added that because exactly the same problem occurred in countless situations here on Wikipedia (and not just about Americans but also Albertans and Ontarians who know little of BC unless they've lived there a while), whether to do with the round of native endonym RMs this last several months or cross-border articles e.g. Oregon boundary dispute; and note the collaborative work, with no page-cite demands, on that talkpage since Voltaire's Vaquero started working on it- it was his encouragement that got me back onto Wikipedia again after walking away because of the Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster matter and my wariness of who it was I was in dispute with there...). Again, too often people who don't know much about BC weigh in on AFD/RM et al who don't know the subject matter and even say they don't care, all they care about is guidelines. That line of thinking is not encyclopedic, it is building a rule-set, not good content.

Most other BC history editors have "walked" a long time ago; User:Franamax, who I was able to meet up with in 2011, is dead; the others are aware ofthis problem but don't want to get tangled up in Wikipedia again as they are writing their own books and have real lives etc....and don't like the way the place has gone of late, more difficult to edit and more bureaucratic meddling taking up too much energy and goodwill. Point is though is that I intend on writing an article for a zine or blog in BC that echoes the appeal I've vbeen putting out for actual British Columbians to take part in making sure Wikipedia has fair and complete content, instead of being full of academicist diatribes and bias; and they have the sources I don't, or used to; but at this point Wikipedia isn't all that welcoming to newcomers because of the procedural maze and more, including hostile putdowns like I get for speaking my mind about untruth and bias; problem is that not only can edit the encyclopedia, anyone can become an admin too, and many let it go to their heads/egos.

So do I want to spend the rest of my life in this dispute? No, of course not; but I get asked all the time to write about BC and perhaps put too much weight on Wikipedia's importance in terms of what people find when they look something up; so it's not like I'm not respected for my knowledge of the province, rather than disrespected as I have been constantly since this began, but rather regarded as a valuable resource person with a discerning eye and ear. I will spend the rest of my life caring about BC history and writing about it; if I walk away from Wikipedia again, which I may because it takes time away from me struggling to find food/rent in a foreign country, and because of the dangers of taking on the multi-polar "disinformation state" that I so obviously a presence here (including and especially on WP:ANImal Farm), it will be Wikipedia's loss......and BC content will be overrun by people who don't know squat about the place (unless my community outreach works) and who think more in terms of guideline-mongering rather than learning and knowledge and good content.Skookum1 (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Summation: I want a fair, readable article without junk content that is accessible and useful for the general readership and an end to oppositional warfare against my person and the information I bear. And yes, an apology for "the burden" his psychological warfare and procedural rabble-rousing has caused me; and when he cites Morton, to not do so in a very selective way as it's clear he has been using (note the "murderer" edit), and junking of a lot of the biased race-baiting commentary from Chinese authors against "Whites". Re that term, he doesn't "get" that Governor Douglas was mulatto (quadroon actually) and that many government officials were Metis, or that there were different kidns of "Whites"; but Chinese historians generalize "Whites" negatively every bit as much as they complain that 19th Century politicians do. We're no strangers to double standards in BC, and I'm no stranger to them here in Wikipedia, either.

By the way that last comment about driving away with a smile is a Vancouver-traffic allusion; any Vancouverite would "get" that; getting cut off and then slowed down even though there were two other lanes to choose is par for the course, and pretty much is like what has happened here in Wikipedia; Vancouver has 40 different driving cultures all jamming its disorganized street network at once; see the driver's license scandal on the CCinBC talkpage in the issues list I added for TheMightyquill.Skookum1 (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Postcript; I'm not sure I used the {{quote}} template right on two edits, maybe the ref shows up in the references, I don't see it. Could you have a look?Skookum1 (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Re your comments on telling me how to best use sources

I saw this on your comment on his talkpage just now:

"After reading the talk page comments, I'm convinced that Skookum1 can benefit from your guidance on how to best use sources. Part of the problem comes from him not having access to these sources. I realize that you've offered to share some sources, and I'm hoping I can help him use online sources like Google books to solve part of the problem."

You seem unaware of the masses of useful online sources that he continues to ignore and not read, and they have page-cites too. As for you not telling him that *I* could benefit from his patronizing lecturing on "how to best use sources" you should have also told him that he could and should benefit from listening to me about what other sources and events/people/issues there are that need to be in the article. I've been reading BC media and books on its history for over 40 years; I'm not the one who needs to know more about the subject, and it's only his insistence on page cites re his SYNTH/CREEP claims about what WP:V says that stand in the way of me adding material to the article that is already on other articles and has NEVER been subjected to page-cite demands.Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are mixing separate issues together. What would you say to a fish who complained about water? Page number requests in the context of verification in the article example provided above are acceptable, justifiable, and reasonable. In this regard, Whisper has the policies and guidelines on his side. Now, that's not to say you don't have a point about academic POV, but as they say, you don't have a choice. You paid for this ticket and you have to ride the ride, and you have to play the game. I get that you object to it, and I understand its limitations, but you don't have a choice. The fact that Whisper can help you with citing sources has no bearing on content. Keep the issues separate. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The "choice" is that the WP:Specialist style fallacy is much in evidence, and that TITLE's statement about the interests of the general readership should be put before those of specialists is not my "choice" but policy and I have that on my side, also per "Whites" see WP:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification which is a guideline he doesn't seem to care about...among many. Selective and conflated/SYNTH claims about what guidelines supposedly say and make mandatory is abuse of guidelines; what he has on his side is a host of people who won't read what I write about such problems but condemn me for saying anything at all. The article is at wide variance from NPOV norms on other Canadian history articles, and also at variance with content, tone and NPOV established in many more BC history/geography articles long before he began writing the article as he researched the article, having no knowledge of the province before that, as evinced by his repeated gaffes on geography/ terminology. He claimed on The Interior's talkage that "there is no POV fork...there is no POV". Fine for him to say, but race politics is like that....deny deny deny, and accuse and generalize ...and race politics is what his constructs on the article serve i.e. one-sided condemnations and generalizations. Teh article is not fair in its treatment of non-Chinese and that's not just academia's fault, he's being selective in his sourcing from e.g. Pierre Berton (who, by the way, is not a reliable source and doesn't use page-cites). And exclusionist about what he will allow in teh way of sources and contents. Challenging sourcing for the sake of challenging is not collaborative, completely AGF and obviously been disruptive and not constructive. Rather than rejecting the input of an informed local editor, he has systematically attempted to claim that as original research; when he's really conducting his own.Skookum1 (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And re not having access to those sources, many of them I owned and read for 30 years or more, and had two on that crashed hard drive that went down on Xmas Eve. He says if I can't quote them verbatim my memory is not reliable - more AGF and NPA - and that belies the fact that he hasn't read them at ALL. I learn what I read, and while I remember where it was and who said it, I don't have the capacity to memorize page numbers; but I do have t he ability to read something and read all of it, not just the negative tidbits to construct SYNTH/POV essays full of too-many cites from obscure sources and naming obscure academics in the course of the article, likewise the names of journals that are not relevant to the general readership or plain English writing. He now has access to Morton's In the Sea of Sterile Mountains and should read it cover-to-cover himself, instead of suggesting that I wait for the photocopy he's made of it by mail (and I don't want him having my mailing address...not that mail to here takes any less than 3 or 4 months if not Fedex'd). I know what's in it and have said so, and he disputed those talkpage mentions demanding page-cites "ASAP" for them or he would delete them [from the talkpage, i.e. redact my comments/input].Skookum1 (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Verification entails the need for page numbers. While I respect and appreciate your expert knowledge, Whisper is well within his right to ask for page numbers for verification. As a collaborative project, editors should provide the best sources possible, including page numbers if they are able, so that others can check their work. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And I'm in my rights for pointing out that they're NOT. He didn't get the endorsement for his position that he claims he did on the WP:V discussion, which I have yet to find in my edit histories for lack of web access; working again now but sheeeeesh you're endorsing instruction creep which disappoints me greatly even endorsing his proposal for stricter rules to suit his SYNTH claims about what WPV and WPRS say when they do not. I can see I'm wasting my time here, as you accept his SYNTH arguments about those guidelines and basically have told me to go away from "his" article and write others instead. You ignore the POV issues I have pointed to which underlie his agenda in challenging cites and facts he doesn't like; "speaking truth to power" doesn't seem to work in Wikipedia, where power is being abused by those who have coopted it for themselves in the pursuit of not-innocent agendas re content. Very disappointing. I will vote against any further hardening of guidelines, of course, which I view as contrary to the openness and inclusiveness of Wikipedia' original concept, and of the Fifth Pillar "there are no rules". but there sure are for those who like rules and like writing and enforcing them, and like using them against people who dispute that rule-writing agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, you're talking about other topics again. Please remember, I'm only focused on the page numbers in this discussion. I would be happy to discuss other topics, many of which you may be entirely right and correct about, but I'm not addressing them here, I'm addressing page numbers only. I've provided constructive criticism regarding your use of page numbers only. Today, Whisper wrote up a wonderful, informal guideline for how to best access sources. Can you comment on it? Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not. his presumptiveness and SYNTH about "how to best access sources" has already been patronizing enough. Those who enjoy using and enforcing rules also have a penchant for re-writing them when it's pointed out that what they claim they say is shown to be wrong; I've seen it before, e.g. re WP:NCL and all that transpired when that "rogue guideline" was used by its author to go on a disruptive BOLD rampage that took months of arduous RMs, and a few other attempts to blackball me resulting from that, as it is.

Re page-numbers, I completely disagree with you that he in his rights demanding them when they are not needed by existing guidelines; he's in his rights to challenge anything of course, but that's disruptive as it's clear that what he's challenging disputes the POV/SYNTH he's advancing in is attempted OWNership of a very large subject he actually knows very little about, other than the biased invective-academics whose one-sided view of history and lack of actual grounding in FACTS he so clearly shares. Compartmentalizing the discussion here on page-cites alone when the reason they're being demanded is both POV and AGF cannot be separated. A holistic understanding of what's been going on is needed, not blinkers-on narrowness of topic. I will state again that he misrepresented what the RS board folks said, @GB fan: especially said 'no they're not required'. Apparently he not only likes selective sourcing, but also selective reporting of the board discussions he claimed endorse him when they did NOT.Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about all of these other things after we reach closure on the page numbers issues. You say you disagree with my opinion. I'm not certain I understand your disagreement. If you look at what Whisper wrote on his talk page today, you'll see that he has provided information on how you can best meet the request for page numbers. It's not an unreasonable request. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so he's setting out his parameters for me to fulfill his demand (it wasn't a "request") for page cites that are only needed because he is challenging sources on a knee-jerk basis..... not because guidelines call for them (in RS's case only if they are challenged, but AGF is the nature of all the challenge-mode he's operating in and from). Similar book-cites are all over Wikipedia, I've never seen anyone so anal about demanding them and launching efforts to change/harden the "rules" while the game is in play. Yes, let's reach closure on the page number issue and get him to acknowledge that they are not required as he claims, and to drop the subject; his claims and ongoing rule-conflation about them are NOT VALID.Skookum1 (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed this particular points above, so I won't repeat them again. The community parameters for using page numbers is part of the article improvement process, which involves editors working collaboratively together to check each other's work through verification. Currently, the article in question is less than optimal, and has many maintenance tags. If you are familiar with DYK/GA/FA, then you understand what it takes to improve an article. If you aren't familiar with this process, then Whisper, myself, and other editors can help you. Above, I described one way to get up to speed on this process; the easiest is to create a new article and work on it in your user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles have sat for years with unref, refimprove and cite needed tags; whether from neglect or from lack of manpower or from a trait known as patience there are lots of them yet; I've NEVER seen anyone so demanding and impatient about deleting something even mentions of them on the talkpage. I've offered up pages and previews from online copies of major BC histories which he has ignored and not even looked at, though says somewhere that one of them has something "useful", by which I'm taking it means another negative comment about "White" people to advance his ongoing POV agenda; as for wanting to mail the selected pages to me, and he's never ONCE said via email until just now (on his talkpage); again I don't want him to have my email address; you do, and could serve as a relay; and read them yourself. I have my doubts that any of it has items I've mentioned that he is so offended by he has mounted this AGF attempt to rewrite "rules" (which are NOT "rules") will include any of the items I've mentioned:

• The massacre of a European Canadian foreman near Lytton during CPR construction at a site called Camp 23
• The abandonment of 2,000 Chinese railway workers by the Chinese labour contractors who did not pay them after the work was done, who were starving and dying in the cold, and how non-Chinese in Vancouver rallied funds to help them out of their predicament (most went back to China)
• the listing of the first tax rolls for Victoria where 18 out of 20 on the list were wealthy Chinese merchants and labour contractors; the other two were Governor Douglas and James Dunsmuir, the coal baron; the HBC itself might have been on the list, so 17 out of 20, then.
• there are passages, one very clear one, detailing the specific points as to why anti-Chinese sentiment among British Columbians was so pronounced. There are also specific arguments made by Arthur Bunster, Noah Shakespeare, and others that are also very clear and logical, not the knee-jerk "racist" generalizations so often made by academics and Chinese politicos. Why shouldn't a British colony have wanted British workers to settle and build a society in the new colony? It wasn't a colony of China, though in Barkerville the Benevolent Association museum building there, and as a cited in an academic paper called "The Colonies of T'ang" (plus a subtitle I've forgotten for now), where that name was used in Chinese to refer to British Columbia i.e. as a colony of a non-Qing China (T'ang being the name of a previous Han dynasty vs the Manchu one at the time)
• the fact that it was pressure from China, both imperial and nationalist/republican, on Britain to increase the Head Tax to deter Chinese workers from leaving China re trade relations with the Dragon Throne and its republican successor government. Like the 1/3 normal daily rate for labour on the railway, this has been blamed on BC being racist, when really British Columbians, among the many types of Britons and Americans there were in the province, had long accepted Chinese as merchants and miners and farmers/ranchers and so on, while it was others from outside BC who were the ones who perpetrated the riots of 1885 and 1907. This cant is often repeated in Chinese-written histories and political tracts but it is wrong; like a lot of other things that are more myth and conflation than anything to do with facts and actual sources.

So, I'll be curious to see what pages he has "selected" for me to do what he wants, and express my doubts again that it will be anything to do with any of the above, but rather passages that support his POV version of BC history; in the meantime I'll put to use those links/cites that he's ignored, some of which do contain information which puts the lie to various things in the article as he's compiled it e.g. the gold rush section where he claims that [all] Chinese were afraid to stake claims because they were afraid of "White" (American) violence but neither he nor his POV source says anything about government measures taken against those "Whites" nor anything about how Justice Begbie and Governor Douglas and other "white" officials made firm statements and addresses to those who had been bothering the Chinese...on several very notable occasions. That's also in Morton's book and in a good dozen more recent books on the early colony and on Governor Douglas and Justice Begbie; links to sources about that may already be on those pages.....some may even be page-cited, but nobody has ever gone to the incredible lengths that he has to demand them on his schedule.Skookum1 (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1, I made the house rules of this discussion perfectly clear several times. I will not discuss more than one topic at once, per thread. I explained why and how we would proceed. You refused this very simple request. Therefore, I cannot continue this discussion at this time. You are being stubborn and inflexible, and I get the distinct impression that you are more interested in continuing the dispute than in solving it. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As before the impression of what I am more interested in and pointing the finger at me for continuing the dispute is misdirected, as is the notion that it's me who's been stubborn and inflexible; he has been totally unyielding on his false claims about what WPV and RS allegedly require, and has also asserted that GB Fan is "learning that [page-cites] are required", just as he had claimed that WP:V said so, which is not the case at all. Telling a lie a thousand times to make it true does not make it true, as a very famous propagandist is noted for saying in not so many words; it remains untrue no matter what, as does the ongoing disabusing me for being stubborn and inflexible; gaaaaaah.

So what *I* am most interested in, which you are not, having danced to his obstinate tune about page-cites ("the red herring tango"), is dealing directly with the POV and bad writing and UNDUE materials he avalanched during his attempt to find procedural means to 'deal with me' rather than EVER grant me good faith OR acknowledge that my informed input had any credence at all. That his over-cited tripe is often repeated to build his POV/SYNTH essay and collection of data-trivia two or three or perhaps even four times, with the same rankly POV source used, was uncovered by me in the course of cleaning up the over-use and repetition of "ethnic Chinese" 76 out of 78 instances the other night when "Chinese" was all that was needed. That the same events and data/information are already in the article but repeated by his "avalanche of edits" more than once, with their only purposes being to bolster the POV slant of his content and to pad the Vancouver sections to justify his repeated intention/desire to split the article so he can have another "ethnicity-by-city" title to add another feather to his wiki-career. Now I've seen what kind of dreck he's been putting into the article en masse it calls into question the quality and POV of all his other work in that series, and in other areas.

So while you still expect me to concede re the page-dispute issue, which is to me entirely specious and purely a hurdle in the way of admission of events and issues and sources he has said he will delete if not page-cited, according to what he claims guidelines say, I find that quite useless; and have observed that his use of the selected bits of Morton he has used so far were given out of context and in tune with the POV tone of his repetitive content; in the meantime while waiting for him to use the Dropbox method you have suggested I'm putting to use the many other sources I've provided already which do have links and page-cites to put balance into the article with the full context of what the POV sources he claims are "superior" have obscured or generalized or just not admitted to. Along the way, his execrable writing/composition and style I've either been fixing, or pointing out 'natural English versions of on the talkpage.

Quality of content, whether to do with NPOV or quality of writing or full context about a subject, should always take priority over guidelines if those guidelines are being used as weapons to protect a POV castle from all comers, most of all from one familiar with the subject enough to recognize rank POV ("race politics" as I've summed it up) when they see it. And know what's out there that can be sourced to give the balance and full context that he seems to just not want to admit to "his" magnum opus.

As far as I'm concerned, I walked away from the page-cite demands that you have now taken up the ball for him over, and just gone about fixing the article of its awkward and repetitive writing/composition and adding materials such as I have access to, while commenting on given instances where his composition and/or his sources make statements that are without context; the thing is disjointed as is the writing; there's much more to be done, and NPOV remains the paramount issue for me and always has been.... and you want me to dance to his tune and play the red herring game about something that the guidelines do not require. The far more important policy is NPOV; if you can't see that, or wish to only talk about technical format/citation "rules" that are only WP:CREEP, that's fine; the content and quality of the content, and of the encyclopedia, is the core issue......not needless page-cites that are not required - nor physical possession of major sources I formerly owned; which he should be ordering and reading, not pretending that because I don't have them I shouldn't talk about what's in them, while cherry-picking pages of his choice for me to do the page-cite work on issues in the Morton book I've already mentioned more than once; why should I have to do what he wants, if he has access to the book; is he not reading it? Maybe he only looks for things he can "use" - or distort, as he has already done re his uses of Morton I've seen so far.

I'm being very flexible; if I wasn't I would have walked away from the madness that has sought to paint me as a bad guy for caring about NPOV and being knowledgeable about my province's history and books about it; I would have walked away from Wikipedia once again, in other words, from frustration with being insulted by people who won't even read about the problems that have been created by him in the way of very bad content and a clear, very clear, POV that is completely out of whack with the actual history and society of the province. Wikipedia more and more is becoming a project about expanding and refining/re-defining and hardening of guidelines and less and less about quality content and NPOV. I'm not the only one that thinks so, either.

I had had hopes you would listen to the NPOV matters I've raised for months; instead you want me to kowtow to his demands and call that "being flexible". It's him that's not been flexible throughout this whole schlemozzle right from his disputing "Asian Indians" and trying to OR-away the normal Canadian term Indo-Canadians and his OR-board attempts to find censure for me even saying that I had more experience of BC history from my 59 years of life than he could possibly know of; in other words, to discredit me, and seek rules and rule-enforcers to wiki-cop me away from a subject he views any correction of his 'choices' as being "interfered with".

The article needs a lot of work to fix all the POV and bad-writing problems he's dumped into it in the course of his ongoing overwhelming of it with junk content at the same time as extensive procedural warfare against my input. And that's going to take people with good English composition skills that he very obviously doesn't have, and an open mind for learning about the subject if they don't already, and the political acumen to recognize POV bullshit/propaganda when they see it.

He hasn't made any compromise about page-cites or anything else and you want me to meet him at his end of the field; and what, to not work on adding balance to the article, to not fix up the many repetitive data-SYNTH/POV bits that reduce to out-of-context pejorative "data" against one side of the ethnic equation, and to spend more time talking into the wind of guideline-mongering from people who don't know or care about the subject, but who seem most interested in bringing me to heel..... to grind me beneath the heels of "the community" who have so mispresented and disabused me for so long now, while allowing someone to run amuck with bad writing to advance a clearly POV cause under the banner of the [WP:Specialist style fallacy]] about page-cites. Good content is not about format, and verifiability does not require page-cites if quotes are not used OR if someone challenges a statement. But why challenge every thing I bring up?? I mean, really, why?? "Just because?" or to make wiki-life difficult for me? And why that? Because I know a great deal about a history someone in another country who only knows from BC from one particular ethno-political set of sources? Yeah, OK, civilization is ending. Ours, anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The amount of time/energy and goodwill this ongoing attempt to get me to concede to unwarranted page-cite demands is a CFWT when the article content itself is not on the table. I'm not going to keep playing this game, which is his, and you have been sucked in by it, while ignoring the POV issues and the poor writing and lack of proper context/narrative of the article itself. My position on the page-cite issue has indeed not changed; the guidelines haven't and my position is in line with them. "Consensus" that they mean something more than they say is entirely without validity; has GB Fan come forward to retract his statement that page-cites are not required? Or has WTM only said that he is "learning that they are required? Even if GB Fan comes forward, tugs his forelock, and says "yes No. 34 is right, they are required" that's still not in guidelines and is contrary to policy. The most important issue is the quality and fairness of content.

But in an arena where discussion itself is not fair, why expect anyone involved in that game to have an understanding of fair content? I know the material; and know what's wrong and what's right. There can be no compromise on the difference between right and wrong, especially when abundant sources exist to put the lie to his disengenuous (or just blind) claim that "there is no POV". There very clearly is and that is the 'Number One Issue in this long dispute; where I have been targeted for removal so that that POV can stand as it is, rank and race-defined by someone who clearly has a taste for a certain variety of POV source....and no other.Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's crazy that you would be asserting that I'm being inflexible and stubborn. Those words belong on him, not me.Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you done? You couldn't follow a simple house rule: discuss one topic at a time, moving to resolve one before going on to the next. The reason you couldn't follow it is because you have no intention of helping resolve this dispute. Therefore, you entered into this discussion in bad faith. I'm not going to discuss 14 different issues with you in a single reply. You either conform to the house rules of this discussion page or we don't discuss the topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas D. Brock ‎

Regarding Thomas D. Brock. There were a number of broken links on the page which I either corrected or deleted. Those I deleted did no longer exist. In several cases, I replaced a link with one that did exist. Regarding the Awards section: Most of these do not have an on-line citation. However, deleting them seems harsh. I would put them back. (I'm new to this Wikipedia business.) Steepcone (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can find sources for these awards, but it will take me some time if they are to be on-line. Actually, most of those awards had already been on the page without sources. I just added one or two. I'll also fix up the Pleasant Valley Conservancy material. Steepcone (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)