Wamut

Welcome!

Hello, Wamut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Azra Hadzic

The article Azra Hadzic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable per NSports or project tennis. No WTA main draws, no ITF wins in $35,000+ tournament in either singles or doubles, no fed cup, no jr slam victories. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Azra Hadzic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Azra Hadzic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azra Hadzic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Darwin meet-up and public workshops

Hi,

Two public workshops will be hosted at the Northern Territory Library which will be held on 22 June 2016, 5.15pm and 26 June 2016, 2pm. There is also a meetup which will be held at 6pm on 25 June 2016. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Numbulwar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nunggubuyu. 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) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

edit summary space

Please note that edit summary space is usually just a summary of an edit.

If you have a problem with an article, content or whatever: -

Talk page of the article

Talk page of the state or territory 'project'

In most cases edit summaries get lost and are unable to be part of the conversation that ensues. JarrahTree 04:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

your revert

Please note that wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

This page is extremely problematic and based on old and outdated source material. The problems begin at the very start, where it said the Marra "were" an Indigenous people. The past tense should NOT be used. Marra people still exist! The content has been deleted so as to not offend or confuse any Marra people. I would seriously consider deleted or heavily editing all other pages by the person who created this page

Reverting or deleting removes the opportunity to have a wikipedia conversation about the issues arising from your problems.

The editor is not the problem. Please note that there are many articles where you might have a problem - that is no reason to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT - what is much more important is to find a way to negotiate a more reasonable content for the articles.

Also, if you know a wikipedia editor in real life - speak to them and explain your problems. Simply reverting content will not solve the problem.

If you do not know a wikipedia editor in real life - and concerned about material and content - there a number of excellent remedies to sort out the problematic content that you wish to challenge. It takes time and WP:AGF.

Let someone know here that you want a conversation, and someone can come along and help you.

Leaving long comments in edit summary space doesnt help anyone - it is hard to follow and not easily responded to. cheers JarrahTree 05:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks JarrahTree

Thanks JarrahTree. I wasn't aware of processes. It is true though, that the page was incredibly problematic. The use of predominantly old sources is an indicator of this. I have drasically re-edited the page, and added some uncontentious and recent information based on more recent sources. The creator of that page has created many, many other pages about Australian Indigenous people and they are ALL problematic. There will be many experts (Anthropologists and linguists, for example) who will be upset about the content. I really suggest a significant re-evaluation of all the pages that Nishidani has created about Australian Indigenous people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You gotta get to understand this place is not shooting the messenger - or what the editor utilises to get the material up - if you have put in WP:RS that are more recent - there is no good to come from focusing on the editor - what you need to do is update/improve the articles if you have access to WP:RS.

The points is about getting the articles up - he is the one editor getting stuff up = no one else is doing the volume work.

I have had a retired Native Title Judge at a christmas party last year give his version of why he would not trust the editors sources. Big deal I say, the point is - the names of the groups need to be up, and the articles improve from there. The issues of problematic could be ignored - it is the starting the articles. Nobody else is doing the job.

There are many other issues - but the thing is, keep your hat on, and find alternative WP:RS and get them in JarrahTree 10:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but these articles contain sensitive material that can (a) offend people and (b) provide incorrect information about important and contentious topics such as land boundaries and ownership and cultural/social organisation. If you know that the source material has issues already, it should not be accepted. I think it is unfair, in this circumstance, to let inferior/poorly researched and potentially offensive and problematic content go up and then simply wait for others to fix it. See the talk page on 'Marra Tribe' - there are really obvious points there on what to address and how. I woud argue that the creator of the page is shirking responsibilities if they put up bad content, get pointed to better content, and then not only wash their hands of the affair, but also undo the small effort (yet one with more integrity) I went to to address it? Sometimes it not about "how things work around here" but rather about common sense. Wamut (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hoping for common sense can be a very very trying position here in wikipedia. It is an online encyclopedia that has evolved through a range of processes ofer the last 15 years +. Originally very US -centric it has evolved to discover diversity and difference. Common sense is regularly thrown out with the bath water at all levels. Maybe there are better online facilities if you wish to campaign for better online information.

In Australia until the last year or so there was hardly what could be called a representative selection of articles about indigenous groups.

The notion of responsibility or ethical decisions regarding information added into articles is what is covered in the general proviso about WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT should cover.

As to what you are concerned about better content - and potentially offensive - is why a large group of islamic editors got upset they couldnt put honorific abbreviations in front of names of historic figures - they left and went to do their own encyclopedia.

Many articles in wikipedia are created at WP:Stub level - in the hope that editors will over time improve and work on content to make articles get to WP:GA - in most cases it takes a lot of time and effort to get there.

It is always better to focus on how to improve material rather than delete or remove. Unless you have a very good reason, it is always better to improve an article than it is to take issue with an editor or content that exists.

The call is always to improve with good sources and added content, rather than take issue with the previous editor - regardless whether you consider them or their content wrong. JarrahTree 11:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jarrahtree. We are finding some middle ground. I'm sure you can see why I reacted the way I did - to find a page about a distinctive people and culture I am familiar with but to find it all written in the past tense, with old and poor source material and, in the case of the language section at least, lazily written (the Wiki page on Marra language was a better and completely accessible source). With the few modifications that have already been made, I am now more inclined to contribute rather than seek deletion. However, this is just one Indigenous group page out of dozens that may be similarly poorly composed, each with more knowledgeable experts who may feel obligated to address problems with those pages too. Sadly, busy people like me shouldn't be having to waste valuable time amending sloppy work. Wamut (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

well theres the rub - all stubs are sloppy, few any good.

It is the time issue - you want to fix things - do it - find the appropriate items that substantiate WP:N and give an article some substance. I never have any expectation of an article to have everything that is high quality - so often out at dinner in a conversation with my wife about music groups - and check the articles - multiple authors and done over regularly - and they have repetition, bad stye and big holes. That is what wikipedia is about.

Quality is something that requires enthusiastic people who are prepared to do something. People come and go, and thats life. It is a work in process, you want to help - please do, if you cannot - leave it alone I say. JarrahTree 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The state that the article was in when I found it, deleting *was* the most helpful thing to do. It was not listed as a stub. It was a pile of offensive garbage masquerading as information. Wamut (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

To you. So there are a whole range of very good Phds and books in Australia and other places about what colonialism and its subsequent effects does to the way things are described and how they are categorised.

Similarly in the LGBT community brilliant works show how language really can formulate or make identities.

The points that you might find offensive may well have been considered adequate in a euro-dominated community some 40 or 50 years ago where in many cases many people neither had the voice or the capacity to assert different ways of looking at things. More so, what you might consider offensive garbage is not what WP:NPOV encourages.

I have already said deleting never sorts anything out in wikipedia - either fix it or leave it. Just complaining or deleting does not resolve the issue. JarrahTree 12:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your points JarrahTree but I would welcome some sort of concession from you that the original page was unsatisfactory. It wasn't just terminology. The language section was wrong. The sources was outdated (therefore, research not good). The social organisation section was wrong and outdated. And it is really not hard to see that referring to a people who are still alive today in past tense - as though they no longer exist - was highly inappropriate. You seem reluctant to acknowledge that my criticisms were valid. The contributor has implicitly acknowledge their validity through edits and improvements. If you find yourself never admitting that less Wikipedia-savvy critics may have valid arguments you are doing the site a disservice.Wamut (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This does remind me of - even if it doesnt fit this particular context - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass - but then I didnt say your arguments were good or bad - I was simply pointing out that to have too high an expectation of a stub, can be a rabbit hole venture - and the see also section of the cited link above - a good set of oldies but goldies JarrahTree 05:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wamut. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)