Poketama

Thanks for your work on Tasmanian articles. Just be aware that the Government sources are not always consistent, especially with upper case or lower case. However, I think we just need to follow the Government Gazette. The TAC was correct, however: larapuna / Bay of Fires is not an official dual name. StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And using the TAC list, there's still more work to be done in putting the official names in articles, like with Cape Barren Island. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

But it's out of date, since it doesn't have the names gazetted in 2021. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

One more thing: Eaglehawk Neck is the common name, which is why we won't change the article name. But it also means we don't need the full dual name throughout the article: I think the better option is having the common name throughout, as in Tasman Peninsula. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks StAnselm for your help. Would it be appropriate to use a style like this instead for names not in the government gazette? Bay of Fires (Palawa kani: larapuna) is bla bla bla.

With appropriate formatting and crosslinks. I've seen this used for alternate language names elsewhere. Poketama (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think so, although it appears there isn't an exact 1:1 correspondence between the two. StAnselm (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have finished added the official names decided in 2021. But most of the places don't even have Wikipedia articles. StAnselm (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Great work thankyou! Very impressed. Poketama (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please stop the destructive activities on Wikipedia. The description of the changes explains what it is about. Besides, there is a recommendation in this situation: Wikipedia:CYCLE (new edit, revert by other user = musto to be discuss/consensus).

These above arguments sufficient. In addition, there are still two discussions on this subject, to enter the new changes it is necessary to hold off until the end of the discussion. Your changes have been reverted. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 07:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The things you are linking are suggestions but not binding rules of Wikipedia. I'm willing to wait until things are worked out though so won't revert for now ok? But please be civil I'm not trying to 'destroy Wikipedia'.

Poketama (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Yours manipulations and lies and your change despite the ongoing discussion on this topic, it is unacceptable. Your further destructive activities will no longer be tolerated!. This is last warning. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Aboriginal slaves Rottnest 1883.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sending several resources my way. I'm not sure if these are just making a point about use in connection to modern times, as opposed to first contact when "native" was an accurate descriptor for Aboriginal peoples, being native-borns of the land. If you believe another term remains more desirable, may I suggest "Aboriginal" instead? This is used elsewhere in the article, and I don't see "native people" mentioned on the webpages you sent. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah for sure Aboriginal people is fine. Poketama (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cheers thorpewilliam (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Poketama

I have re-written your edits to the James Cook article and the First Voyage of James Cook Article. The problem I have is that your edits contains some factual errors, are written in a way that suggests you might be promoting a particular POV, and in some cases cut across ongoing discussion on the topic. For example, there have been ongoing discussions regarding the lead of the James Cook article. I understand you were unaware of this, but it is always a good idea to check the discussion pages before you make a substantial edit. You changed the last couple of sentences of the lead to the following: "However, Cook is also a controversial figure for his key role in colonising several indigenous nations including in Hawaii and Australia, and the violence he and his crew used against indigenous peoples.[1][2]." The problem with this is that Britain never colonised Hawaii and therefore Cook could not have played any such role. It also assumes Cook was responsible for all violence. We all make mistakes, but many can be avoided if you read the entire article, all the relevant sources cited in the article, and all the discussion in the discussion pages before you make changes. It is also a good idea not to unilaterally replace the commonly used English names for places with Indigenous names without gaining consensus for this. You will find that if you give the common English name first and then provide the indigenous alternative afterwards (with an explanation and source) most editors will accept this if you explain the change in the relevant talk page. I also reverted your sub-heading "Encounters with Indigenous Australian nations" in the James Cook article. The problem is that you only described one such encounter in a very selective way and so the sub-heading didn't reflect the contents. I agree that the section on the First Voyage is very short, but there is a daughter article on the First Voyage which treats Cook's encounters with Indigenous People in the South Pacific in more detail. I have preserved some information on Cook's first encounter with Indigenous Australians but this was only one of many encounters and should not be given undue prominence.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you please tell me why I described the encounter in a 'very selective way' so that I can maintain better NPOV in the future? I'm not sure why this event needs to be condensed from something I heavily researched into just one sentence? You give the same amount of words to the encounter as to the Crew just gathering stuff afterwards.

I don't see how I gave this event undue prominence when it's Captain Cook's first encounter with Australian Aboriginal people and the first landing at Botany Bay - these are huge events in Australian history. Thanks for your help. Poketama (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

An example of not maintaining NPOV is the sentence, "Cook, agitated at not being allowed to land and wanting to assert his crew's authority upon the Aboriginal peoples, shot and wounded..." This is editorialising. You give Fitzsimons as the source for this but don't give a page reference. I checked and Fitzsimons doesn't say this at all in his account of the Kurnell landing (pp. 284-90.) You emphasise the one violent encounter with the Gweagal but fail to mention that, as Fitzsimmons states, Cook spent half an hour trying to make the Aboriginal men understand that they came in peace and only wanted water. Cook's party also spent a week in close contact with the local people and there was no further violence. I agree that the violent first encounter with Indigenous Australians should be recorded in the article, but the issue is the amount of space that should be devoted to it in an article of this kind. The article is a full biography of Cook and is written in a condensed way. In order to preserve the balance of the article it would be better to leave the detail to the daughter article on Cook's First Voyage. I added the information on what happened after this encounter because the previous version gave the impression that Cook's party came back for water the next day and then left. In fact, they stayed a week. (I will add that there was no further violent confrontations.) I provide more detail in the First Voyage article. They didn't "just gather stuff" - they took over 40 spears which the locals used for hunting and fishing. More importantly, they tried to establish good relations with the local inhabitants but failed. This is important information. In order to make space for it I removed tangential information about events that happened 15 years after Cook died and which is adequately covered in the article on the First Fleet. Hope this helps. Happy to discuss further. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for initiating an RfC on Indigenous place names. Let's see if we can get something useful out of it rather than having a few editors hurl rocks at each other. To that end, I've made a few formatting changes as per suggestions here. I think that the RfC could have been phrased better but then again I didn't jump up and kick one off myself and it's obviously something we need to nail down so top marks to you for getting one going. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. Poketama (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, please read WP:TALKOTHER. Most notably, adding a bolded "Support" in someone else's comment when they didn't add it themselves is not something you can do. While there is some allowance for splitting off excessive discussion into its own section, the original formatting of that RfC is the way RfCs are in general handled (see WP:RFC/All and click through a few if you're not familiar). If there is excessive discussion that needs to be split off because its gotten too long, I think the correct procedure is to copy and paste it in its own section and make a note at the original thread (e.g. "continued discussion moved to [section x]"), rather than editing in an "@ [username]" message into someone else's comment. Does that make sense?   Endwise (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks that's helpful, and yeah I can see the first part was a mistake. If you could help with that formatting if it needs to be done in the future, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Poketama (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

All good. The whole system is quite archaic and not at all friendly to people who aren't familiar with it. Endwise (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you added "Naarm" back to the infobox for Melbourne right after I removed it on the basis it is not currently standard procedure to have such names in infoboxes (though they are often included in the lead alongside the particular language they belong to) and that there is – or was at the time (I do not know how this has since progressed) – an ongoing discussion on Australian Wikipedia pertaining to the topic. Since you didn't provide a reason in the edit summary, I'm curious as to your reasoning or if you indeed knew this case. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you've done this on other city articles as well. Have you attained consensus for doing so? thorpewilliam (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi mate, the issues being discussed should be left as they are until the discussion is resolved. Some articles had these names in the infobox before the discussion, and some didn't. They've been left as is for now. If necessary the RfC will be done soon and you can redo it then. Poketama (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Poketama Very well, thanks for the explanation. Can you point me to where I can find said discussion? Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed the material on John Batman whom you falsely claim is notable for massacring Tasmanians. Not that notable and certainly not equivalent to his founding of Melbourne. This material was already in the lede and mentioned in the body. I didn't notice that it was in the body because I searched the article for the word "massacre" and didn't find it. That was my mistake, not removing duplicate material! Evidently you didn't read or understand the edit summaries left. Take another look.

If you wish to insult me, please do so in public in the appropriate Wiikipedia forums. Please stay off my talkpage. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I did not insult you, I used a warning template to ask you not to wipe placenames while there is an ongoing discussion on the inclusion of placenames. Poketama (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Poketama I have edited you recent edit to remove some incorrect information and some detail which is very dubious and unnecessary. Based on the article by Keith Vincent Smith you name one of the Gweagal men as Cooman. However, if you read the article you will see that this identification is very dubious at best: based on what a white person said in 1905 that another white person told him that an aboriginal woman told him in 1840; ie. that her grandfather was one of the men in 1770 who confronted Cook. This is hearsay about hearsay about an unprovable claim by one person. (The article also indicates that Cooman might simply be a corruption of Go-mang or "grandfather."). In any event, the article doesn't specify that "Cooman" played the role in the landing you ascribe to him. Some of the things you wrote are flatly contradicted by the primary sources. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the names of the Gweagal men were so there's really no need to add information that it not supported by the vast majority of primary and secondary sources. It's best to stick to information that is.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Can you please refer me to what things I wrote are flatly contradicted so I can fix them up?

I think the article is a good source given it is by a prominent Sydney historian Keith Vincent Smith and he does recount how the name and event has been passed down through the Aboriginal families and Biddy attributes the 'spearman' as Cooman. I am unsure of whether the two people you mention are white people or not. There are also many secondary sources, both journal articles and news articles, that mention Cooman and mostly center on Rodney Kelly and the Gweagal shield. (Kelly being a prominent local Aboriginal family in Sydney.) Whether the name is a corruption or not, its one that has been used for a long time to refer to this person and was in fact used by his son which is well documented.

I disagree that the names of the Aboriginal men don't matter, they were people just the same as Cook and his crew. Their experiences and involvement in the events are just as important, and if there is evidence of names of these men they shouldn't be anonymous. Poketama (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The problem I have is that the article you quote makes clear that the identification of the "spearman" as "Cooman" is not well documented, but rests on a statement written in 1905 based on hearsay that an Aboriginal woman named Colman once told someone else that her husband's grandfather ("Goomung") was one of the men who confronted Cook. But the article states that "Go-mang" means grandfather. So even if the story is true it isn't the person's name - it's a statement that it was someone's grandfather. Nor does the article identify which of the two Aboriginal spearmen is being referred to (Banks identified an older and a younger man, both of whom threw spears.) I have restored the article to its previous version with slight amendments to concentrate on the well attested facts. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Aemilius Adolphin I have added extensive sourcing to the Cooman article. If you think it is still inaccurate I recommend that you nominate it for deletion. For now it's an orphan article that is well cited and so I'm restoring the crosslinks that I made. I am dubious of your assertion that Cooman is just a name for grandfather, as there have been several men named Cooman in the Sydney area. Even if it does mean grandfather, it's the name that this person is most commonly referred to by. Cooman is also a recorded Aboriginal surname. Poketama (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Butcher Joe Nangan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broome. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Taíno, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 00:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I think the page is quite confusing at the moment as it refers to several existing Taino communities eg. In Cuba, so I thought this was a grammar error. Ill look into sources later. Poketama (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are various groups that claim to be Taino, and it is unquestioned that many people in the West Indies are descended from Tainos, but reliable sources do not support the claim that the Taino people still exist as an ethnic group or intact culture. There discussions of the issue at Talk:Taino. - Donald Albury 01:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Poketama,

when citing sources, please make sure they actually support the statement that you are citing them for. That was not the case in your edit here, and the information you added is quite clearly false (it contradicts [1], which was already cited elsewhere in the article). It's important that Wikipedia readers and fellow editors can rely on the relation between text and source. Edits that mislead them about this, whether by sloppiness or deliberately, are highly problematic. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'm going to add this back with an edit. I looked into this before I wrote that edit, Scihub hasn't published new content in ages - but yes they did do a dump of content on her birthday, but they dont have everything or ongoing updates. When there is an ambiguity like this its easier for everyone to edit instead of reverting. Poketama (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Poketama

I endorse the above comment. Please stop quoting sources which don't support your content and often flatly contradict it. You did it again here and here, despite my polite request here not to keep doing it. You also did it in your edits to the James Cook articles which I pointed out on this talk page above. I can only conclude that this is a deliberate tactic to waste the time of other editors who actually want to improve articles. Please cease and desist.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't stop editing the Cook articles because I agreed the sourcing was poor, I stopped because I don't have time to argue about it. If you want to see usage of the name Eora, look at 'Growing up Aboriginal in Australia', the section by 'Evelyn Araluen'. As for the above, HaeB was wrong. I added more sources anyway. Poketama (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. FWIW, I wasn't overly upset about the timing of the closure. Was just used to those things lasting 30 days or until the legobot removes the tag. Maybe it's a Canadian thing ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Poketama (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

My friend, I would like to remind you that you are wrong. There is no any consensus. The fact that very many users have spoken in the discussion, and if there are a few more votes one way or the other, does not automatically mean consensus. Please stop posting that the RfC endorsed your idea or the like, because this is not true. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Not the number of votes are counted, but the strength of the arguments. Wikipedia:Consensus is clear: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. I regret to inform you that, due to the fact that you are very and very agitating in one option of dispute, are the last person who has the right to decide what is the result of the RfC. These are the rules and standards of Wikipedia. Sorry. User, as third opinion, who summarized RfC also wrote: "Now what exactly constitutes used is going to be a tough nut to crack in some circumstances, but that's for individual talk pages". So, anyone has the right to revert and start a discussion (about this topic) in any article if they see a problem, and your comments like this and like this intimidate other users. User Pete or any other user has the right to start a new discussion if he sees a problem with the article - so the user has edited correctly and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP is clear, it involves creating multiple threads on the same subject to prevent one consistent discussion, however, there was one coherent discussion on this matter, the result of which is unequivocal: no consensus. In such a situation, the new discussions after the end of the RfC are correct. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

"There is a weak consensus towards supporting the inclusion. Reading through the responses it does become clear, however, that there is a stronger consensus for inclusion when the name is used and reliably sourced." Poketama (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Result of RfC is defined in three options: consensus for X or consensus for Y or no consensus. Oficially, result of this RfC is clear: "There is not a firm consensus one way or another". Of course, the user later made an analysis in his opinion There is a weak consensus towards supporting the inclusion, however, this is only part of the opinion. The user who sums up the RfC is required to try to give the result in the first closing sentence of the RfC. The user did it: "There is not a firm consensus one way or another", the rest is just an analysis opinion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 05:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

"There is not a firm consensus one way or another, although discounting or devaluing some of the responses in the survey as clearly at odds with the MOS/Guidelines or having no policy based rationale there is a weak consensus towards supporting the inclusion. " This is all one sentence. Poketama (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

so we have a problem - there are two interpretations of result of RfC. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

A lawyer would call an argument that There is not a firm consensus one way or another as meaning the exact opposite, a precious argument. Magistrates usually treat such confected views with disdain. It is one thing to find a loophole in poorly constructed legislation, it is another to pretend that something means the opposite of its intention. Using the closer's remarks to construct a supposed blanket approvel for poorly-sourced contentious trivia in the lede is nonsense. You embarrass yourself by pushing such a specious view. --Pete (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suggest linking in the closing contributor to this discussion. Poketama (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish Heya would you be able to give some contribution on how to interpret your RFC closure? Thankyou! Poketama (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a weak consensus towards general inclusion, so that should be an acceptable default barring any objections in individual article. If there are decent sources showing the name is used contemporarily, then there is consensus to include the name. There was no real consensus on what sourcing was sufficient for automatic inclusion though. Without knowing what specific situations you're talking about, I can't really offer more detailed feedback other than if you see contemporary RS using or discussing the indigenous name there is consensus to include it in the article, and if there is no decent contemporary RS using or discussing it the default should be to use it, barring objections. The consensus to use the indigenous name without showing the use in contemporary sources is too weak to overcome local article consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback, if @Skyring and @Subtropical-man could contribute it would be helpful to have a dialogue with you SFR.

I think the most common objection is that sources are not good enough. So if someone just says that does it override the RFC? Poketama (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The RFC closure specifically stated that the sourcing issues will be a tough nut to crack and should be addressed on individual article talk pages. You really need to be seeking input from uninvolved editors at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are three main wikipolicy problems. First is that WP:PLACE does not specifically condone or rule out Indigenous place names. An extensive hunt through the talk page archives talks about common names in English usage, such as Istanbul being called Constantinople and Byzantium by those who once lived there, likewise Gdansk and Danzig. Sydney - for example - has never been known in English usage by any Indigenous name.

Second is sourcing. Many contemporary sources being offered as sufficient for us to say in Wikivoice that the Indigenous name of a place is such-and-such are woefully inadequate. A high school web page, a government report on water infrastructure. Where did these sources get their information from? Rarely mentioned. For names existing prior to European arrival we must go back to the earliest records, not some city council website. There also needs to be some context. If the river's name supposedly equates to "deep water" does that mean that specific river, or does it mean "deep water" as opposed to the "shallow water" of a nearby creek. Is it generic or specific?

Third is WP:UNDUE. I am concerned that the English Wikipedia is being used to create some sort of parallel narrative where Indigenous names have the same status as names used in common usage. Fine to have a section on history and naming in the body of the article, but does an Indigenous name from a football team website really have the same status - or anything close - as the name appearing on maps and newspapers and timetables for a couple of hundred years of European occupation?

Names in common English usage are what we use, even overriding official government directives in some cases. We describe, not prescribe, and if the people commonly use one name and not another, then we do the same, regardless of minority interests and desires. That is not to say we ignore history and naming, just that we follow WP:NPOV and give information prominence based on sourcing. The name for Sydney is found in literally millions of different sources going back centuries. The supposed Indigenous name for the city - a false equivalence as there was no pre-existing Indigenous village, town or city - not so much. Dozens of sources, often technical or academic, rather than the millions in mainstream use. --Pete (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @ScottishFinnishRadish:, there is no clear consensus, there is a consensus that tilts more to one side than the other - this is far too little to officially implement the guidelines for many articles. Besides, as shown in several discussions, finding the source is not a problem, the problem is that:

1. aboriginal names are assumed to be questionable as there are no historical Aboriginal names for modern Australian cities. Their names are the names of geographical places, e.g. bays, lowlands, etc. The fact that many geographic areas have become part of the Australian metropolis does not mean that the city is to use these names simultaneously as name of city.
2. conflict of sources - there are other sources for that Aboriginal names, depicting as city center, the area of today's CBD, the bay, so selecting only those sources that describe the entire :# city is forbidden and violates the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability
3. vast areas of modern large cities were inhabited by different clans using different names. Choosing only one name from one clan, and ignoring other clans, is against the Wikipedia:NPOV.

As you can see, the use of certain selected sources that may suggest that a given name is for the entire city breaks Wikipedia rules. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thus my tough nut to crack comment. I think seeking comment at WP:NPOVN in some of these cases may help, as you can get outside opinions, rather than rehashing the same arguments with the same editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another good option would be to go to WP:RSN and ask neutrally "Is this source reliable to demonstrate the indigenous name of X is Y." A consensus there should be sufficient for inclusion in an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I'm not making any more trips to the 'page protection board', concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips SFR that should help a lot. Poketama (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Besides, the indigenous names issue in many articles in the Wikipedia is a big issue and a very controversial one. There have been and will be many disputes about these topics, even now is edit-war in Sydney about indigenous names [2] - there was a need to block the article. In this matter, result of RfC say like "There is not a firm consensus one way or another" however option 1 maybe has a slightly bigger consensus than option 2 - it is not enough, to widely use this RfC as a guideline for the Wikipedia. To guideline for Wikipedia, on controversial issues there must be an explicit (clear) consensus, but in this RfC such consensus does not exist. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Changing "Aborigines" to "Aboriginal peoples" or similar is fine. Please don't change content such as direct quotations, or book or article titles eg. here: where you have changed an article titled

• Black fellow citizens: Aborigines and the commonwealth Franchise by Pat Stretton and Christine Finnimore to
• Black Fellow Citizens: Aboriginal peoples and the Commonwealth Franchise

The authors may have chosen a title that includes a word now considered offensive but that is a matter of historical fact and changing it to a title you prefer simply means that the title is now incorrect. More significantly it introduces confusion and error if someone wants to search on the title you prefer and cannot find the source because it was never listed or indexed under that title, instead - oddly enough - using the actual title it was published with.

You see the problem? In a nutshell, making this change in Wikivoice is fine and I will support you with three cheers and a bumper for your gnomework. Changing quotes or titles is not okay because it introduces untruth.

May I ask you to go back and check your work, please? --Pete (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No worries thanks for pointing out that mistake. I hadn't intended that. Poketama (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Charlie Drake got the lyrics wrong? Oh well, times have changed. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I cringe with embarrasment at that song. It is a cultural artifact but we did many things differently in the Sixties. Push people off cliffs, for example, because we disagreed with their gender preference or expression. While we might use historical sources we write Wikipedia for the understanding of the children of the 21st Century, where we do things different. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you saw a word and changed it like all the others. In my travels around Wikipedia I will do the same thing, following your lead. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am curious about how you chose which editors to notify about Talk:Taíno#Request for Comment on Modern Taino Identity. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification states you can place notices of an RFC:

* On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

• • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed

However, I notice that most of the users you have notifed about the RFC have never edited the Taino article page, and of the few who have done so, only two have edited that page in the last several years. In fact, a number of the users you notified have not made any edit in Wikipedia in years. Can you tell me how you selected those users to receive a notice of the RFC? - Donald Albury 00:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Edited 00:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

They are people on the talk page. Poketama (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you have a look I have notified both the users who are for and against. However, there are more notifiable users against any changes as a lot of the 'for' are anonymous users. Poketama (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I must note that your method of choosing who to notify about the RfC was flawed. Please see the tables on User:Donald Albury/RFC notices. I will also note that, while you said the users you had notified were on the talk page, the last six users you have notified about the RfC have never posted on the talk page. In the meantime there are several users who have contributed massively to the article that you did not notify. There are many other users who have contributed to the article, but whose names do not currently appear on the talk page. There are 57 registered users who have edited the article within the past three years, of which you only notified nine, while notifying five who had not edited either the article or the talk page in seven years or more. Similarly, there are 31 different registered users that have edited the talk page in the past three years, but you only notified ten of them. Four or five of the users you notified appear to be single-purpose accounts, which a closer may ignore, if they do show up for the RfC. I think the way you have notified users about the RfC has tainted the RfC. I have not yet decided how I will handle that. - Donald Albury 20:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am doing this stuff on my phone on my commute to work and don't have much time for working on it. I'm doubtful that the people I notified who you identified as SPA would taint the RFC because they more than likely have abandoned Wikipedia. I don't have time to notify all the users who have edited the page, could you do this to help out please? The last six users were editors on the page, not on the talk page, from the last year or so. I notified all people who were engaged in discussion on the topic of discussion, rather than everyone who has edited the talk page ever. If this wasn't good enough I'd appreciate your help to fill in the gaps. Poketama (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have notified the people you identified in your table. Thanks for that resource. Poketama (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taungurung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bunji.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Taíno have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Donald Albury 15:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Poketama (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Poketama. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Helen Corbett, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Poketama. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:COPORWA, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Poketama. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Helen Corbett".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Poketama. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "COPORWA".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Indigenous Voice to Parliament you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks will do as I go. If there's any particular edits you'd like me to make let me know. Thanks. Poketama (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

So not sure you understand what the RFC has concluded.... can you explain what you think the outcome is and why it does not need sources ? Moxy-  19:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I jumped the gun on some reverts and have gone back and added sources. Where I couldn't find a source I've left them as reverted. Thanks for catching that.

Do you have any issues we need to pursue further? Here is the result of the RFC, if you have further questions about ambiguities in the result we can ask the closer.

"Question:

1. Can the "native_name" parameter be used to display an alternative placename that is used by First Nations peoples?

2. If so, should this only apply to places where said First Nations people are the dominant ethnic group?

Answer: 1.) Yes; 2.) No — As a sidenote of the underlying guidelines (more an fyi) MOS:INFOBOXGEO is a good place to reference, as it sort of reflects a lot of what's been mentioned here." Poketama (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from First voyage of James Cook into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks will fix that up. Poketama (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there

Your claim that the Aboriginal man who was shot in the leg by Cook's landing party was called Cooman is an exceptional claim that is not mentioned in any of the standard works on Australian history. It therefore needs to be verified my multiple reliable soures. Please note policy that another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source for a different wikipedia article. The new source you have provided looks to be a a work published by a local Indigenous organisation. It does not contain citations for the statements about Cooman. There is no evidence that it was subject to rigorous fact checking or peer review as would be standard for a reputable academic journal. Please see WP:EXCEPTIONAL

This is not to suggest that only "coloniser's history" counts. There are thousands of articles on Indigenous oral history published in reputable academic journals; it has been a booming academic field in the past 30 years. If it is generally accepted in the academic community that Cooman was the name of the person who was shot in the leg by Cook's landing party then you should be able to find multiple high-quality academic sources to verify this.

I also remind you of the bold, revert discuss cycle. WP:BRD You made a bold edit. I reverted it and gave you my reasons. You should have then discussed the proposed change on the article's Talk page and sought consensus. Instead you tried to insert the disputed information again. So please self-revert your latest contribution and take the issue up on your Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

==

Hello,

As discussed I have submitted a request for dispute resolution on the Cooman page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Poketama. Thank you for your work on Cooman. User:Alexandermcnabb, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have marked the article as reviewed even though it is the subject of a content dispute. The subject is notable as presented, however if the content dispute resolves with him not being in fact considered notable, it can then go to AfD. For now, we're reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

Hi Poketama

It looks like none of the volunteer editors on the dispute resolution notice board wanted to get involved. So I have asked the Neutrality forum for an opinion.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sakurajima/1. Seeing as we are talking about your merger proposal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Poketama

Sorry to bother you, but I'm an IP editor who had edited seldom who needs a bit of help. I understand you are Australian from your talk page, but you seem like to the right person to ask about culture war issues on Wikipedia.

I was recently concerned to see changes made to a description of te reo Māori as a historical lingua franca on the page Lingua franca, by an editor called "Roger8Roger". He deleted the initial passage, describing it as an "offtopic agenda based rant with nothing about the topic. No evidence to show a language called classical maori [sic] ever existed." He then made a lengthy comment on the talk page about it, in which he stated "If you don't already know, as part of the Maori Renaissance in NZ, there is a widespread promotion of all things to do with Maori culture and language, a project enthusiastically adopted by certain sections of society prone to such causes. This subsection is an example... Maori were illiterate until European arrival in the late 18thC". I felt worried that he is pushing an agenda here. His tone is quite nasty. And the gratuitous description of Māori as "illiterates" is about as relevant as castigating the Victorians for not using smartphones lol.

Roger8Roger removed one source from Te Ara describing Māori spoken before English overtook it by number of speakers, claiming it wasn't good enough. He also took issue with Māori being described as a lingua franca at all, claiming it simply wasn't, and it was simply "some Europeans used Maori with varying levels of fluency to communicate with the locals, such as in barter and by Church missionaries..."

This goes against an abundance of source both in this passage about Māori and ones I later found myself. A few of which are here, here,, here, here and here.

I feel as if an experienced editor or two should be the one to deal with this? What should happen next? I'd be grateful for any advice. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply