User talk:FropFrop

Hello, FropFrop, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


impressive

you were welcomed by a canadian editor who has since retired in disgust of issues he encountered trying to cope with editing in general. it would be very good if we could have a conversation here or whereever to understand the background of the sorry state of western australian aboriginal material. it is up to you, I dont mind where... JarrahTree 09:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what would you like to discuss? FropFrop (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you a background as to why and how it is (like links back to the earlier possible, to be visited again things), or a more elaborate explanation as to why I have other ideas with the proposed merge. Either is fine, and meant all in WP:AGF and not meant to be a nuisance. If it is - I am fine to leave it alone JarrahTree 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also - the problem with language in the oz project is we have a range of misuse (that has been discussed many times over the last fifteen years) - and whenever the term Aborigine is found - the usual revert is to aboriginal, although there have been other remedies. The usage of native is usually removed when found as well. There are heaps of similar word issues and things, but hey not too much at first. JarrahTree 10:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JarrahTree Could a script be made that to notifies folks when an anachronistic term has been used and that also edits it to an acceptable term? I'm not familiar enough with coding to do it but that sounds like something that could be done. FropFrop (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge revert please

Your self appointed merge work has no other editors involved, and as a consequence the merge is not valid - at least the input by others is reasonable to expect, as to why I might have continued or not discussion doe snot give you carte blanche to change articles - some further investigation would show that notice boards are far more suitable. I consider your merge is invalid on the grounds that substantive changes to the two articles without further consultation lacks any sense of understanding as to how wikipedia works. Before you instigated the merge, the least you could have done would be to communicate - I have a very complicated watchlist situation and would assume that if you had such a compelling desire to merge the pages some form of communication with others JarrahTree 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I tried my best to follow the merge norms.
According to Wikipedia:Merging:
  • Notifying users who are involved in the articles is optional; "You may optionally notify involved users (e.g. contributors to the source and destination pages), who might not be watchlisting them." The articles haven't been seriously worked on in years and are in serious need of updating so I didn't think that there was anyone involved.
  • I didn't think it would be problematic to merge it myself considering that the merge proposal has been up since October last year and no one has chimed in; "Any user, including the user who first proposed the merge, may close the discussion and move forward with the merge if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge."
Additionally, I think it silly to have to ask permission to try and improve articles which no one else cares about when I'm advised to be bold.
I'm going to go ahead with the merge as I think this is fairly silly. Happy to notify folks if you know who would like to have input.
FropFrop (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boldness went out a long time ago, WP:AGF still is a strong item, fairly silly seems to be missing the point that one editor does not do a move - courtesy always helps.
The actual range of 'watchers' at the articles was -
Aboriginal cultures main page = https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Aboriginal_cultures_of_Western_Australia
Aboriginal cultures talk page = https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Talk:Aboriginal_cultures_of_Western_Australia
Aboriginal groupings main page = https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Aboriginal_cultures_of_Western_Australia
Aboriginal groupings of Western Australia talk page =https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Talk:Aboriginal_groupings_of_Western_Australia
So a close examination of the actual watchers at those pages means that the notion of being 'bold' against the relative indifference is a false presumption - and nothing to to do with

being silly - the actual numbers of watchers at either page or talk page over the last 90 days shows a sample that is simply not a viable sample.

The actual folks are more likely to be at: -
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia

but even then hardly a great sample at 3 a day average

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board

is a better chance, but then many times various editors have taken issues about subjects, and the silence is deafening at times... It requires patience Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline - expecting instant responses is not where the longer term accumulation of editing success happens.

Of course if you wish to dismiss this all as silliness.... JarrahTree 11:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Organised crime in Australia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Organised crime in Australia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for mentioning people

Based on a recent post, these templates might be of interest to you:

Mitch Ames (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page threading

When making and/or addressing multiple points at Talk:Whadjuk § RfC: Inclusion of Noongar words (or any other complex discussion), please consider:

  • Using a separate post for each point - this makes it easier for others to reply to each point independently, with correct indentation, without splitting your post (see WP:INTERPOLATE). ( {{Interrupted}} exists, but it's not ideal, because it implies violating WP:TPOC.)
  • Putting your reply (correctly indented) under the post to which you are replying

That helps avoid scenarios like this, I felt the need to include timestamps in my reference to other posts because the posts for that single conversation/thread (search for "pure speculation") do not appear on the page chronologically or correctly threaded.

See also WP:TPG#Indentation and screen readers, Help:Talk_pages#Indentation.

Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oregon Equal Suffrage Amendment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kathryn Clarke. 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) 05:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cymenshore

Hi. I have removed your request for a more recent 'reliable' reference instead of the Jolliffe. There is some other research that build on his hypothesis, for example "Continuity and colonization : the evolution of Kentish settlement – Allan Everitt" or "The Jutish forest : a study of the Weald of Kent from 450 to 1380 A.D. – Witney, K. P", there are others. But they do not resolve the hypothesis one way or another. The reference from Martin Welch, in the article, suggests that Jolliffe 'strained the available evidence', Welch goes on to say, 'that the problems thus created [by Jolliffe's hypothesis] may be resolved one day'. As far as I know it still hasn't. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfridselsey Amazing stuff, thank you. FropFrop (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

western desert

your material is very thorough, but as it is conversational non article, is it possible to get a handle on the process of what next? JarrahTree 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following the edits very well - are you trying to delete your own work, or save it to a space that is to work from? JarrahTree 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft space is usually intruded upon, whereas a sub page of yours is slightly better in protection, have you considered that? JarrahTree 03:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the content in the draft article[[1]] to a subpage[[2]] as I know that draft pages are deleted after a period of time.
I thought it best to keep in case folks are wondering why a particular language/dialect or people were or were not included. It's in effect just supplementary material. FropFrop (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But of value and substance, IMHO. You can create your own user sub page, which would be much more secure than draft mode. JarrahTree 03:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just create a red link User:FropFrop/xxxxx - you can see mine at - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:JarrahTree/ - I would suggest you give it a go. If you do - it is always worth adding the templates - userpage/nobots/noindex. JarrahTree 03:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly advise against having Draft in the title of your sandbox (the sandbox header is good) but all you need is a challenged person to not understand you have a sandbox with the word in the title... JarrahTree 03:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kukatja (Western Australia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balgo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yasuke on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daisy Bates (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cannington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

of interest

perhaps, the two archival items, showing up on trove - https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/33922952?keyword=madoitja

allude to Bates - one with Ngaiawonga, Pini, Nana, Madoitja and Wardal,

the other with - Wadjari, Madoitja and Ngaiawonga - the common item leads to Bates again - "AN ABORIGINAL VENDETTA". Western Mail. Vol. XXVIII, , no. 1, 419. Western Australia. 7 March 1913. p. 53. Retrieved 4 October 2024 – via National Library of Australia.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - interesting as it seems they are names of groups... Maybe a rabbit hole. JarrahTree 07:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Landmark Worldwide on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Modern Hebrew on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened footnotes

Hi FropFrop, if you use shortened footnotes a lot I recommend to install this script, which will highlight any cases where your long-form bibliographic and {{sfn}}s don't match up. I just fixed a couple of those in Daisy Bates (author). Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001 Thank you for the tip and for correcting some of my mistakes! I'll check the script out as that'll be quite handy.
FropFrop (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Decline in insect populations on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elders and elders

Hi FropFrop! I understand your wish to comply with contemporary terminological sensitivities, but Wikipedia has its own style, one of which being use of titles when not attached to a particular person, so "President Johnson", but "Carter and Nixon were American presidents", and "Trump has been elected president of the United States" (q.v.). Doug butler (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler Hi Doug! I agree that having a consistent style is a good idea, however human language is rarely perfectly consistent. In any case, according to MOS:CAPS, "...only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" and so 'Elders' should be capitalised as that is the norm. Happy to provide sources if need be. FropFrop (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Wangkajunga

Information icon Hello, FropFrop. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wangkajunga, 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) 07:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mantjintjarra dialect

Information icon Hello, FropFrop. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mantjintjarra dialect, 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) 15:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Socialist Network on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Daisy Bates (author), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. If you want changes, you need to provide a reliable source. Self-published sources are inadmissible, you know that already. Gawaon (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gawao. I'm afraid you'll need to proceed with the dispute resolution procedure as I see your edits as nonconstructive.
To reiterate what I've said before; if you have issues with specific sections of the article, please let me know which as I am happy to discuss the issue and work on a solution.
Lomas has been shown to be a valuable source. I cite (and have cited) WP:IAR and WP:ADHERENCE and have given various examples as to why de Vries and Reece are not sufficient as sources.
FropFrop (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming at it from another angle

I would look at every single use of the offensive word and challenge whether it needs to be there at all or can be removed without hurting the article. Actually, that is true for anything: if it doesn't need to be there, why is it?

So does the government position need to be named in full in the Bates article, or could it be paraphrased in terms today's readers can understand: a government position that charged her with … explain it in your own words. "Protector of …" doesn't tell me much, especially since the meaning of one of the words has changed since the title was devised. Similarly, do the subtitles of books need to be cited, or would the main title suffice? Elrondil (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elrondil, while I sympathise with the sentiment, I do think it important to not shy away from the facts of history (as well as treating them with due sensitivity). I'm afraid that at least on this point I agree with the other editors that the full title should be included (even if just once, and with an explanation for it being shortened in the rest of the article).
It seems that we've more or less reached a compromise; the full title will be used when it is first mentioned in a section, a note will be given explaining that it will be shortened for the rest of the section due to its problematic nature and from then on in the article it will be shortened. It you have objections to this I advise you to let it known in the thread, but I hope that you find this a fair compromise.
FropFrop (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FropFrop: I respect your position, and course. My goal behind this thread here was to give you options 😀. You're free to choose which you take. Have fun! Elrondil (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ralston College on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]