hoserab (2022-12-05 04:04:19+00:00): That's not how this works, Michael. You can't just unilaterally decide that I don't have permission to "contact you" by these means, or by further messages to talk-ca, and if you decide to refuse to engage in a dialogue about your edits then you're violating some of the basic tenets of what contributing to OSM is all about. And don't blame me for your actions and behaviour. "If you'd been more diplomatic we wouldn't be in this situation"? Grow up.

I have tried repeatedly to get you to explain your changes, and I've been met with a handful of messages about "being accurate" and childish remarks about "being rude to you". Someone questioning and/or disagreeing with what you're doing does not constitute being rude to you.

On the contrary, what you were/are doing is rude. Pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one. Especially after I asked you to refrain from making any further changes pending that broader discussion on the talk-ca mailing list—which you haven't participated in whatsoever other than your opening remark—and summarily ignored by virtue of the very changeset we're commenting on here even existing.

I've tried again and again to explain to you that using a deprecated spelling and insisting on an outdated reference is considered a slap in the face. My comments may have seemed unnecessarily harsh to you, but it's only because you so clearly do not understand the ramifications of what you're doing. You think you're being "accurate"; what you're really doing is being overly reliant on outdated sources and giving deference to sources that could be construed as colonialist and ethnocentric. I can quite clearly see that you believe the changes you're making are innocent and in the name of "accuracy" and "consistency", but you're blissfully unaware that they are actually quite condescending and patronizing, just by virtue of a spelling difference.

As I wrote on the talk-ca list and comments on other changesets of yours, we should always give deference to what local people call things when using the "name" key. By this criterion your search for "accuracy" was in vain: it was already accurate. Similarly, trying to make things "consistent with other local nations and reserves" is operating from the false premise that they need to be treated the same. They don't, and shouldn't be. These are different people with different customs, different languages and different systems of governance. To treat them monolithically as a group is a longstanding grievance most First Nations have with the rest of Canada, and breeds a lot of resentment. For example, your opening message on the talk-ca mailing list innocently asked "How should First Nations reserves be named?" and one of John Whelan's very poignant responses was "Even using the term 'First Nations reserve' may be controversial." I don't think that sank in: that you even call them "reserves" can be construed as insulting. That you even think that all reserve lands need to be mapped in the same way is controversial. As I said before, deference should be given to the "boots-on-the-ground" situation, which is in keeping with the most basic and fundamental naming policy OSM has.

Think very carefully about your future actions. If you persist with continuing to make changes after having been asked to stop and discuss, without stopping and having said discussion, you may be risking your very right to participate in OpenStreetMap going forward.

Now, will you PLEASE stop making changes to the administrative boundaries of the Tsuut'ina Nation and other First Nations/Métis/Inuit lands and contribute to the discussion you yourself started on the talk-ca mailing list?

Thanks in advance...