"

LOL. votes in support of my position from people who know the material are ""unhelpful commentary??  LOL you people are a piece of work.  And yes ""you people"" applies.  As for the supposed ""personal attack"", I pointed out a direct falsehood in one or the nom's posts; and it is a falsehood.  Perhaps, given AGF, a mistake from not actually looking at or understanding the categories in those listings (perhaps BHG thought Alaska was part of Canada?? - a common mistake, in fact), but still *FALSE*.  Claims of OR about well known regions and completely citable mountain ranges (which have fixed boundaries and are not subject to change) are mere hand-waving without evidence; the use of NPA to ""go after"" people who point out mistakes/distortions and ""bad actions"" is not what that guideline is intended for; ""contrary to the spirit of the guidelines"".  And Ottawahitech is quite right, and I've said the same thing in the ANI myself - that NPAs and outright AGFs - including the premise of this CfD - are committed against me all the time; touting Wikiquette while flouting it openly.  Stalking me in the wake of her peremptory block is not just AGF, and as noted by someone in the ANI, shoudl be grounds for an interaction ban.

It's not me who won't collaborate; it's people who don't do their research but still want to have not just an opinion not based in facts, but wave in the direction of conventions that don't formally exist.  

BHG has waved her hand at guidelines like SOURCES (in one of ""hostile"" RM closures, which they so clearly are given they go against the grain of similar closures and both existing and emergent consensus), claiming they say things they don't actually say; her statement here that you claim is a ""personal attack"" is what it is; not researched, not acccurate, and like so much else of her nomination completely misleading and without any knowledge of the places in question.  

The adminship protects its own from examination, and does nothing when they violate the very rules they invoke; persecution of contributing editors and dicking around challenging titles and the like, by people who have no knowledge of the subject matter, THAT is what's driving them from Wikipedia.  That includes many BC Wikipedians who were around when these categories were created and took part in what debates there were; to a British Columbian, they're obvious.  But to someone from WikiLandia, armed with guidelines they don't accurately cite or, I think, even really understand, they're ""original research""......and yet they have nothing viable to replace them with, and sure as shootin' aren't the types who will undertake to apply whatever other system they come up with; and doing so would involve original research.

Another acronym got tossed out above; does anyone talk in plain English anymore??  "