User talk:Aemilius Adolphin

Welcome!
Hello, Aemilius Adolphin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me after replying off my talk page 05:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

usage of factual in comparison to speculative
Please note that in historical issues, the presence of references in texts, is not something to remove - simply because you do not think it is correct or factual - WP:RS should not be removed if WP:IDONTLIKEIT - unless you are able to ascertain that the sources you are adding are adequate WP:NPOV and adequately cover variant 'views' or 'ideas' about the past - factual is a tell tale sign that one aspect of what WP:ABOUT might be misunderstood - there may well be speculative interpretations - that is not enough to blank or remove - the alternative view with adequate and valid reliable sources is as important for the reader to be able to ascertain what arguments might be more convincing than others. JarrahTree 10:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

similarly established facts is also another point where you simply might not have editors with the required textual information to hand, or the capacity to deal with the historiographical or political context of the issues. Ascertaining arguments with 'fact' is quite a challenged position to take, you would need to bring some more recent literature - cited and situated for easy access to those who might wish to venture into the conversation, as there may be few who dare venture into the issues of the 1770s in their usual run of the mill lives. Territory that might have few who wish to engage, so take care. JarrahTree 10:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Lying for the Admiralty
The book by Cameron-Ash M. (2018) called "Lying for the Admiralty" is overall a biography of Captain Cook. It is written by a lawyer, probably one for the prosecution, and for the purposes of this book, is acting like a detective, filling in the gaps in the evidence. By its very nature, such gaps have to be filled in Speculatively. One such gap is why and how Cook surveyed the rather unprospective port of Botany Bay while overlooking the very fine port of Port Jackson later called Sydney Harbour. The book might be named more blandly as "Keeping secrets for the Admiralty", but the chosen title "Lying ..." is more intriguing and more likely to sell more books.

When Cook sailed past Port Jackson, did he already know what it was like? A walk to the top of the ridge between the two bays probably revealed the extent of this excellent harbour, stretching as far as the eye can see. Wimbledon32 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Speculations by Captain Cook
Rather than deleting so-called speculative claims made by Captain Cook, to keep secret strategic finds, such as Port Jackson, don't delete such claims, but put them into parallel articles, with a similar names, such as Captain Cook (speculations). There could therefore be an article called Wimbledon32 (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Salvador Dalí—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your reversal of my edditing of Salvador Dalí
Salvador Dalí's eccentric and ostentatious public behavior often drew more attention than his artwork.

I love Dali for his art, but it is definitely often rather than sometimes that his eccentric behavior drew more attention than his work - this is well documented by myriad of testimonies, articles and documentaries. "Daliiiiii is not crazyyyyyy!!!" - his own theatrical utterance in one such documentary film, further: filling up a car with 500kg of cauliflowers and driving it from Spain to Paris, asking assorted people to masturbate in front of him while claiming that it is 'an art', crawling as a snake on the kitchen floor in front of a man who came doing an interview with him, etc, etc, etc - the list is endless. 'Sometimes' simply does not do justice to such truly oddball behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonPuffin (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ned Kelly
While I agree parts need to be reduced and rewritten, I fear any compelling narrative drive is being lost in the process. For example, the last stand section originally read: "In the dim light of dawn, Kelly, dressed in his armour and armed with three handguns, rose out of the bush and attacked the police from their rear.[143] Several members of the scattered police line returned fire but to no effect as Kelly moved steadily through the morning mist towards the hotel, his armour repelling bullets. The size and shape of the armour made him appear inhuman to the police, and his apparent invulnerability caused onlookers to react with "superstitious awe".[144] Constable Arthur, the first policeman to encounter Kelly, recalled: "I was completely astonished, and could not understand what the object I was firing at was." One trooper exclaimed that it was a bunyip and could not be killed. A civilian volunteer cried out that it was the Devil. Journalist Tom Carrington wrote:[145]

With the steam rising from the ground, it looked for all the world like the ghost of Hamlet's father with no head, only a very long thick neck ... It was the most extraordinary sight I ever saw or read of in my life, and I felt fairly spellbound with wonder, and I could not stir or speak."

This was reduced to:

"Historians disagree over Kelly's movements after he had left the hotel. Jones speculates that he had ridden away to meet sympathisers, had returned to the hotel in time to see Byrne shot, then crossed police lines again into the bush.[143] Dawson, however, argues that Kelly's wounds were serious and he had lain in the bush for most of the time and had not returned to the hotel.[144]

At dawn (about 7 a.m.), Ned Kelly, dressed in his armour and armed with three handguns, came out of the bush and attacked the police from their rear. The police returned fire as the wounded Kelly staggered towards the hotel, his heavy armour repelling bullets. Eyewitnesses variously compared Kelly's appearance to a bunyip, the devil, and a ghost.[145]"

The former can be improved (disagreement over Kelly's movements/whereabouts worth clarifying), but it is simply more engaging than the latter. The Carrington quote is spectacular. I trust a happy middle ground can be found between concision and comprehensiveness/prose. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The problem I have with your versions is 1) It is often factually wrong. (Eg the gun battle lasted almost half an hour, not ten minutes.) 2) It is based on old newspaper accounts, not modern scholarship. 3) It is full of purple prose, not factual, business like, academic writing. WP: TONE. This is an encyclopaedia, not a novel or a newspaper article, so "narrative drive" isn't relevant. It is also irrelevant whether you find the facts dry and dull. I am happy to reach a compromise so have restored the Carrington quote - even though it doesn't add much to the article. The police were confused about what they were seeing - that's all that needs to be said in an encyclodaedic article. If you wish to discuss further, please continue the discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was another user who stacked the article with old newspaper accounts, not me. A while ago I started swapping in reliable secondary sources and undoing obvious errors when found. Also it's possible to write in a manner that is both encyclopedic and entertaining/engaging. The first requirements of WP:FA?: "a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". In the last stand section, much of what was engaging, and much of the context, is lost. Eg "Eyewitnesses variously compared Kelly's appearance to a bunyip, the devil, and a ghost." Who? What? Why? Gone is the "superstitious awe" and sense of drama of it all. It's just flat. At some point I'll reintroduce lines here and there. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Your changes to the Ned Kelly article
Let's tackle this line by line. Firstly, how do we know the shots felt like "blows from a man's fist"? The line is from Kelly himself. And the fact that his face was bruised and swollen and lacerated. The current version states merely that his armour "[repelled] bullets". That's it. There's no hint of the impact or injuries sustained from shots to the armour, or of Kelly struggling to gain composure after each shot. All true and noteworthy and reliably sourced, but you dismiss it as "the stuff of a novel". I don't get it. How is the way I worded it any different to, say, the prose and use of quotations of this section of a featured article? Would you agree it's both encyclopedic and readable/engaging? - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is already long and probably should be cut rather than have further detail added to sections which are already adequately covered. (It has 76KB of readable prose, which is well above the level where an article should probably be split. – WP:LENGTH). I don’t think the article is improved by adding: ‘Constable Arthur, the first policeman to encounter Kelly, recalled: "I was completely astonished, and could not understand what the object I was firing at was."” There is already a long quote from Tom Carrington saying how astonishing the scene was. There is no need for another quote establishing the same point.


 * Another problem is that eyewitness accounts of the siege vary on almost every point. Many of the participants wrote colourful accounts to put themselves in a good light and to sell newspapers and memoirs. So the more detail you put in, the more likely it is that it can be contradicted by other testimony. That's why I tried to reduce the account to the minimum of uncontested facts. So for example you have added: "Kelly began laughing as he shot at and taunted the police, and, upon his order, Dan Kelly and Hart provided intermittent covering fire from the hotel." Your source for this is Kieza 2017 p 416. But Kieza doesn't say this on this page or anywhere in the cited book. One witness said that Kelly laughed in the middle of the gun battle when two policemen shot at him from 10 yards range. Other witnesses state that Kelly was groaning, yelling obscenities and staggering. You make it sound like he was having a jolly good time. Kieza says that Dan Kelly and Hart emerged from the Inn and provided covering fire, he doesn't say that Ned kelly ordered them out. Perhaps they just heard the commotion, saw Kelly and started firing. Eyewitnesses are divided on the point.


 * This "strange contest" continued for almost ten minutes, Kelly at times stopping to change weapons or regain his composure after taking a bullet to the armour, the sensation being "like blows from a man's fist".[148] According to Kieza the last stand lasted "less than half an hour". Morrissey says 15 minutes. Almost no witness can agree on timelines. I would be happy to add a short sentence describing Kelly's injuries when he was captured, the number of bullet marks on his armour and his description of the sensation being like "" blows from a man's fist." The quote comes from the Argus interview with Kelly as he lay seriously wounded, it needs to be attibuted to Kelly.


 * After diving to the ground to avoid one of Kelly's shots, Sergeant Steele realised that the figure's legs were unprotected. He shot at them twice with his shotgun, tearing apart Kelly's hip and thigh. The outlaw staggered, then collapsed against a fallen tree and moaned, "I'm done, I'm done".[147] There's no need for the lurid detail about "tearing apart Kelly's hip and thigh." This is what I mean by tabloid writing. It is a direct quote from Kieza (a tabloid journalist), not any of the eyewitnesses. All that needs to be said is that Steele brought him down with two shots to the unprotected legs and thighs. Readers can figure out for themselves that this would damage the flesh and cause Kelly to stagger and fall. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Steele went to disarm him, but Kelly fired once more, blowing the sergeant's hat off and burning the side of his face.[149] So says Steele, who was puffing himself up to get a reward. Other witnesses say several people struggled with Kelly and his gun went off accidently. The more detail you put in, the more counter detail is required. It's best to just say Kelly was shot in the legs then captured. You seem to think that the purpose of a wikipedia article is to tell an exciting story with colourful detail, no matter how dubious the detail is. It isn't. The purpose is to provide factual information, record differences in scholarly opinion and debunk myths.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sideswipe at the end was uncalled for. It makes you come off as an insufferable know-it-all. Also if we are going to do away with every detail that is remotely "dubious" (which, according to your reply, is apparently something contradicted by other testimony), why did you include Jones' debunked claim about Kelly leaving the hotel to meet with a band of sympathisers? Even with the "speculates" caveat, which isn't a fair or accurate representation. Jones firmly believed. It was central to his fantastical "Republic of NE Victoria" worldview. Also the "under half hour" time frame is misleading. More recent and more rigorous scholarship shows that it was definitely under 20 minutes, and most likely closer to 10. That's the time frame I chose, but you reverted it to half an hour. As for Constable Kelly's quote, it's unique in that 1) he's the first to see Kelly 2) he's up close and firing, not a distant bystander like Carrington 3) he has no clue what Kelly is. Can't even define it. Merely "object". The current line, "Eyewitnesses variously compared Kelly's appearance to a bunyip, the devil, and a ghost", gives impression that said eyewitnesses knew it was Kelly, but thought he looked like a bunyip etc. It should be clear that Dowsett, for example, honestly thought the figure staggering towards him was the devil. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the tone of my last remark, which was uncalled for. I included Jones's thesis about Kelly leaving the hotel to meet with a band of sympathisers because it is still widely repeated in popular books about the Kellys (for example in Kieza's book) and is therefore likely to be the version most casual readers of this article will know. Rather than ignore it (which might further fuel conspiracy theories) I thought it would be best to confront it head on. I think the article makes it clear that the evidence for such a meeting is scanty at best. The "under half an hour" time line is the one quoted in the cited source (Kieza). It is also the one given by Jones and Macfarlane. Morrissey gives 15 minutes. I agree that Morrissey's timeline seems the most plausible as I just can't imagine Ned Kelly staggering around with serious wounds under police fire for half an hour. If you have another source for under 10 minutes please let me know and I will check it out. I thought the quote you inserted was from Constable Arthur? Arthur was the first policeman to see Kelly emerge from the bush. At first he was confused but knew what he saw was human. He thought it was "a madman with the horrors who had put some nail can on his head." I don't think any of the police thought they were actually looking at the devil or a ghost. This is just colourful tale telling. They were confused, but knew it was human. I'm thinking of changing, "Eyewitnesses variously compared Kelly's appearance to a bunyip, the devil, and a ghost." This was taken from Kieza and is a misquote of Constable Kelly. He says he yelled out, "He's bullet proof, boys" not "He's a bunyip, boys!" As I said, there were so many colourful tales in order to secure reward money or sell newspapers and books that it's probably best to just stick to the bare facts (which are interesting enough). Unfortunately most modern writers just select the accounts which support their pet theories and provide colourful reading. I wonder how any of those present could have understood anything Kelly said given that he was speaking through a steel helmet that was 1/4 inch thick and had no mouth hole. One witness said Kelly just made rumbling and growling sounds. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Like you, I was concerned about the amount of primary source material cited in the article, especially the old newspapers. It would be so easy to construct a full biography of Kelly that is complete nonsense going by contemporaneous reports. I created this section in the hopes of encouraging the use of secondary sources, and started swapping them in. Kieza's book isn't exactly cold hard scholarship, but at the time, it was all I had at hand, and thought it could at least serve as a placeholder for something else down the line. I'm not a Kelly expert, but hopefully know enough to appreciate the amount of myth surrounding him, and how it is crucial to get down to the facts, to the degree that we can know them. I think there are also times in the story where multiple points of view are worth airing, and weighed appropriately, because we can't pinpoint the facts with enough certainty. It seems clear to me though that Dawson and others have debunked the "sympathisers" thing so thoroughly, keeping it in the main body gives it the kind of validation it no longer deserves. Perhaps in the "controversy over political legacy" section? As for Kelly in his armour, I'm not sure I agree. The police used descriptions like "superstitious awe" (Royal Commission) and "unearthly being" (Sadlier) to capture their reactions. Given the dim light and the mist, the shared adrenaline of the moment, and the religiosity of the time, I'd say those eyewitnesses were being earnest (and probably embarrassed in retrospect), rather than sensantionalising it to sell a story. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bibliography is a big improvement to the article. You're probably right about the secret meeting stuff too. I might remove it altogether and just say that Kelly says he lay most of the night in the bush. It's almost certainly true. I'll add some information about Kelly's injuries, but the sources seem to vary wildly on that too. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great work on the last stand section. Likewise I'll run things by you when I get around to working on the article. Hopefully with incremental improvements and better sourcing we can at some point get it to GA or even FA level quality. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Capt. Cook edits
I was wondering if I could have your agreement in reinstating some of the edits of mine you reverted, since I believe these were justified though I neglected to explain them in their respective edit summaries. As I offered a summation of why I gave them on my talk page in response to your comment, I'll quote from there: "the quotations marks around 'decolonisation' are meant to infer the contestable nature of the term being used in this context. The word itself is common, but it's being used in an opinionated way here – to argue for the 'decolonisation' of museums, whatever that may mean in the eyes of the person advocating it. ... Regarding the quotation marks around 'enabler' (of colonialism), that was to mirror the lead, in which the same is done, and I don't believe it was an edit of mine that made it so." I have no desire to start an edit war and if you for any reason believe these edits remain unjustified please let me know and I'll refrain. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Thorpewilliam Sorry, I overlooked the explanation for the edits on your talk page. The sentence is a fair summary of Proctor's argument. Whether you like it or not, the decolonisation movement exists and there is debate over its application in regard to Cook's legacy. There is no justification for putting the word in scare quotes. MOS:SCAREQUOTES. As for the 'enabler of colonialism' quote, it is already identified as a quote and sourced in the lead. There is no need to put it in quotes twice because the reader is supposed to read the article as a whole. However, the quote marks and source should probably be in the body of the article only. I put in in the lead as a compromise following our last discussion on the issue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Aemilius Adolphin, these are not scare quotes. As I said, the issue is not with the word "decolonisation" but with its use in a subjective context. Decolonisation, literally, means the disestablishment of a colony or its conversion to another entity (namely a sovereign state). That's the common meaning. The quotation marks, in my opinion, are there to maintain objectivity by acknowledging the use of the word in this context is itself debatable. I believe having quotations both for the body and lead is ideal for this reason and to maintain clarity around this point. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing subjective about it. The context makes clear that the debate is about cultural narratives in museums and public spaces and the term decolonisation has been extended to this area. There is a link in the article to this. You might have concerns over the the extended use of this term (I certainly do) but the fact is that the term is now well established in this context and doesn't need to have quotes around it. If we start adding scarequotes to established terms then we could add them to "The Englightment" and "values" and "scientific exploration" all of which have been contested by modern academics. BTW, I think you could have found a better defender of Cook's legacy than Robert Tombs because his article totally misses the point of the critiques of Cook's legacy. They aren't denying that Cook was a leading figure in the Enlightenment and scientific exploration - they are saying that these terms are merely smokescreens for the real agenda of western explotation and destruction of non-western cultures. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aemilius Adolphin I would be for adding quotations to each of those terms as well in the interest of balance, if you think that would be a reasonable outcome. Perhaps a better outcome would be to directly quote the source in both cases.
 * The lead for decolonisation does indeed acknowledge the term's use in connection to matters seperate to the actual removal of a territory's colonial status:
 * The end-result of successful decolonization may equate to a form of Indigenous utopianism – given the widespread nature of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and cultural colonialism the goal of full decolonization may seem elusive or mythical. Indigenous scholars state that an important aspect of decolonization is the ongoing critique of Western worldviews and the uplifting of Indigenous knowledge. 
 * Though no quotation marks are used here, it is made clear that this is not strictly an 'objective' use of the term, but rather a particular strand of scholarly opinion. This, in my opinion, is appropriate.
 * Regardless, I suspect it's best to directly quote both sources and hence sidestep the issue.
 * I note your point on Tombs and may seek to find a better exemplar at some point. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you putting the Tombs information in quotes, but I oppose the use of scare quote elsewhere in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aemilius Adolphin For the reasons I outlined above, I see no justification for these to be labeled scare quotes. The point of quoting the source more broadly (i.e. not simply the word itself but the sentence it helps form) is to avoid the need to have the article adjudicate on the topic altogether. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thorpewilliam I am grateful that you are seeking a compromise rather than engaging in a pointless edit war. The reason I'm digging my heels in on this one is because there is a clear MOS guideline on exactly this point so there is not need to avoid the issue by putting everything we say in quotes. The relevant part of the guideline is: "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression." The earlier meaning of decolonisation was the process by which former colonies became independent nation states. But a second, more recent and probably now more common, meaning is the process by which narratives and cultural institutions are purged of colonialist ideology. If you do a search of "decolonization (decolonisation)" in Google or Wikipedia Library you will find that at least half of the top 100 search results use the word in this sense. So both are now common meanings of the word. It's all a matter of context, so when the article states: "Alice Proctor argues that the controversies over public representations of Cook and the display of Indigenous artefacts from his voyages are part of a broader debate over the decolonisation of museums and public spaces and resistance to colonialist narratives", it is clearly using decolonisation in the second sense. This is even more obvious because the link takes you to the article which explains the sense in which the word is being used. I can't stop you from making any edits you wish, but I think it's a waste of our time to argue about this particular point when there are dozens of more egregious instances where a handful of editors are pushing agendas rather than trying to improve articles with balanced, well sourced contributions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aemilius Adolphin My only concern with regard to that test for the word “decolonisation” is that Google will naturally prioritise recent and perhaps newsworthy sources which may seem relevant now but may also simply represent nothing more than a trend. I understand your desire not to argue over this. I acknowledge the rest of your points and have no contention with them.
 * I will certainly raise this on the article talk page first if I attempt to change it from what it currently is.Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sydney name
Hi, thanks for the clarification. I'm not suggesting you're giving input out of anything but good faith, it's only a few editors who are transparently not, but that's the context for this wider issue (which has been going on for six months or more). It started with a few IP accounts repeatedly reverting and removing indigenous names, then some regulars got in on it. I'm just peripheral to the dispute: there are a few indigenous editors who have been working valiantly to keep this important cultural information in the articles, and this just gets them called 'activists' and targeted for what is, IMO, borderline harrassment by some regular editors for focusing on an issue which is self-evidently important to them. It's pretty unedifying to see, when Wikipedia should be valuing indigenous input on indigenous matters.

That said, sure, please keep me notified. I don't have much time to edit these days, but I'd be happy to see more input from people who are open to approaching this issue from a fair perspective. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it looks like a decent start. Possibly more time to consider it on the weekend. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 13:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Cook reversion
Hi, can you please clarify what of my recent edit requires talk page consensus? Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Left message on your talk page. Comments crossed. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Terra Nullius
Hi - I've started a discussion on the establishment of Terra Nullius here. Would appreciate your input. Tobus (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You change you discovery doctrine
Hello there, please note that you should not change the established spelling in an article simply because you prefer a different spelling. See: MOS:retain Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there, correct me if I am wrong but the wording in the article is CRITCIZED. Without a letter i between the letters T & C. Are you saying that this word is correct? Shoulld it not be CRITICIZED? Ogün Eratalay  message  08:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Discovery Doctrine
The way it's worded makes it seem like France and England rejected the Discovery Doctrine; they had a different interpretation from Portugal and Spain (basically they rejected Tordesillas) but they most definetely agreed with the general idea. In fact Francis I claimed New France precisely because France had discovered it. Also the relationship between Pope and France was more nuanced, they did find an agreement which saved the face of both (so that it basically appeared that France was not in breach of Papal decisions).Barjimoa (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Barjimoa, thanks for explaining your changes. The problem I have is that they are not supported by the cited source and seem to contain an internal contradiction. How can it be that France accepted a supposed discovery doctrine yet planned colonies in areas "discovered" by Portugal and Spain. Surely in that case France would be propounding a "settlement doctrine". The consensus of recent historians is that there probably wasn't any such thing as a "discovery doctrine" which was universally recognised among colonising European powers and held sway from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Spain, Portugal, England, France and the Netherlands simply used whatever arguments suited them best to establish colonies and exclusive trading zones wherever they could get away with it. It wasn't papal bulls and rules of international law that shaped the age of discovery, it was shifts in the balance of sea power, military technology, and the ability to establish militarised trading posts and settlements which could be defended from natives and rival European powers. See the articles by McNeil, Benton and Strauman, and many others they cite. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that the colonial powers used the argument they needed, depending on the context. In fact what I am saying is that the French also used the argument of discovery several times, certainly in the case of New France, so they did "have" the general idea of it. Just like I agree that it's wrong to say it was universally used by the French or the British, I think it's wrong to say that it was altogether rejected by them.Barjimoa (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. Britain and France definitely used the discovery argument when it suited them, but flagrantly defied it when it was in their interests to do so. The other issue is when you land on a tiny part of a vast continent, how much of the continent have you discovered? (Answer: the amount you can defend against rivals.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @BarjimoaI have slightly changed the wording in light of your comments. Let me know if you think this is better. The whole paragraph makes it clear that France and England weren't rejecting discovery per se, but were arguing it needed to be coupled with effective possession. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sydney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Coast Council. 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) 06:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Original research (Sydney)?
According to Wikipedia: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".

I fail to see how my comparison of Greater Sydney's total area with the area of Greater São Paulo and Greater Tokyo constitutes as original research. I have provided published, reliable sources which clearly state the total area of all cities, and anyone can discern these comparisons of size. Original research is something without a reliable source, that can be easily disputed or is not a credible fact. I've used facts. Can you explain to me why you have such a contention with my contribution? If you see the Melbourne article, for example, there's a comparison between Melbourne's area with a couple of other well-known international cities.

Surely it's helpful for people reading the Sydney page, who may not be familiar with the city, to provide them an idea about the size of Sydney, particularly in relation to another location.

Ashton 29 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ashton 29 Original Research is not something without a reliable source. I sent you the link to the policy on original research and quoted you the passage about synthesising information. Here it is again: WP:SYNTH Here is the quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." None of the sources you selected draws a comparison between Sydney and the other cities mentioned. In order to include this information you would need to find a reliable source which does make this comparison.
 * Apart from the original research there are two other problems with this information.
 * 1) It isn't comparing like with like and therefore is misleading. Cities and metropolitan areas are defined different ways in different countries and by different people. For example, Paris, New York and many other cities have an official legislated definition of their boundaries, and this is usually only one part of the contiguous urban area. So if you are going to compare like with like the comparison would be with the Sydney City LGA, which is much smaller (pop only 200,000 or so.). Sydney used in this article is based on the Greater Sydney statistical area which is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for statistical purposes and includes urban areas (the Central Coast) which aren't  often considered by other organisations as part of Sydney. It also includes very large areas of national park and sparsely urbanised areas such as the Blue Mountains (which are really just a number of small villages scattered throughout the mountains). In order to provide reliable and useful information, you would need to find a source from a reliable body (such as an association of Urban Planners or the like) which does a comparative study of different cities based on a standard definition of their urban areas.
 * 2) The selection of Tokyo and Sao Paulo for comparison is arbitrary and indicative of original research and editorialising. Why these two cities? Why not Timbuktu and Beijing? And how is such a comparison helpful? How many people reading the article about Sydney will have been to Sao Paulo or even know where it is? As I said, a piece of reputable research ranking the largest contiguous urban areas in the world on a consistent definition, and giving Sydney's ranking would be useful, but an arbitrary selection of two cities from different websites isn't.
 * It doesn't matter what people have done on the Melbourne article--it's probably misleading original research as well. My interest is in the Sydney article because I know Sydney well and I think the article is very bad. It's full of unreliable information, tourist brochure bulldust, and promotional material for particular government agencies and commercial enterprises. The whole section of the Regions of Sydney needs to be rewritten because it's based on a subjective definition of regions. (There are no two government bodies which agree on what the regions of Sydney are, although the ABS statistical regions would be a better start.)
 * I would be happy to work with you to improve this article because I see you've already done a lot of good work on it. But I don't think we should be using the article on Melbourne as any sort of model. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ashton 29 This document is interesting, I can't vouch for the repute of the source, but it does include a technical introduction which explains its methodology. Note that it ranks Sydney below Tokyo, Melbourne and Brisbane-Gold Coast in terms of size. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link. This combines Yokohama and Tokyo which gives an area of 8,231km, compared to their reading of Sydney which is 2,178km. Wouldn't the inclusion of Yokohama for Tokyo be like including Gosford (or maybe even Newcastle) in the metropolitan area for Sydney, or are they already counted? The PDF says that they don't count rural land, it's a continuous built up urban area which might be the reason why Sydney's area in that PDF is different (because it doesn't include rural land). According to that list, São Paulo's area is 3,649km to Sydney's area of 2,178km, making SP's area 1,471 larger than Sydney's. I wonder if we decide to use the measurements in that PDF, then the comparison to São Paulo (and a city like Toronto with 2,344km) might be useful in illustrating the area of Sydney compared to other well-known places like those aforementioned cities. Also, did you have a hand in finally getting the other editors at Sydney to agree on a photo montage for the infobox? It's been a long battle to reach that agreement and I think it works nicely. Ashton 29 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I had nothing to do with the photomontage, I don't have the persuasive power to get people to agree on contentious issues. As for the Demographia report, I suspect that they have exluded the Central Coast, the national parks and the Blue mountains even though these are included in the ABS definition of Greater Sydney. If you look at the photo of Sydney at night, my guess is that the lit area is the area they are including (see p.4 of the report). I still think that mentioning Sydney's urban area in relation of specific cities like Toronto or Sao Paulo is too subjective because our idea of what "well known" cities are is just our opinion. It would be more neutral to simply say that in terms of urban area Sydney ranks 45th in the world and third in Australia. That's what i did in the Melbourne article. (However, I see that Demographia combines Brisbane and the Gold Coast which is debatable.) My preference would be to say nothing about relative size. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have fought the bureaucracy of Wikipedia in relation to photo montages on the Sydney page and am amazed that it has finally been approved, there was a kind of hierarchy of editors, who had been apart of Wikipedia for a formidably long time, that prevented a montage ever being used. I had given up. I suppose in the time that I'd given up and now, someone else has taken up the battle and won. I think the lack of congruency between the ABS definition of Sydney and that article (as well as other international rankings of Sydney's area) is problematic for determining a widely accepted calculation. Which one should hold sway when there are disparate factors/criteria? I guess that not counting anything rural (precluding several localities near Sydney from being counted) is fairly acceptable criteria, but how built up and "urban" is the land between New York and its commuter cities of Newark etc.? Ashton 29 (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Georges Simenon bibliography has been accepted
 Georges Simenon bibliography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Georges_Simenon_bibliography help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! asilvering (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Aemilius Adolphin. Thank you for your work on Georges Simenon bibliography. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

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

 Onel 5969  TT me 11:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback on the George Simenon bibliography article. Much appreciated! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Australia native languages
there is an editor that keeps adding wrong and outdated information about languages that don’t even belong to the info box. Can you please remove the misleading information that he keeps adding on Australias Info box? thank you Michael Reinolds (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am impressed
In light of this, that is a sign of highly commendable intellectual integrity. I respect this. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * But this was not honest: the RfC obviously was not supporting that. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There is Consensus on Marquis De Sade- You Shouldn’t Have Removed Properly Sourced Information
This discussion has been moved to Talk:Marquis de Sade

De Sade issues
Hi again. I’m going to state the more personal issues here, and will try to be much less toxic. Again, I’m sorry about saying those toxic things. Of course, these are personal- so you have no obligation to respond nor do I have an expectation for you to. And feel free to comment on my talk page also. If there are more impasses with the content issues of the wikipedia page, we can just use the methods that VQuakr stated to get assistance. So my question to you now is, which issues are you willing to discuss, and which issues aren’t you willing to discuss? I brought up many issues in the article’s talk page, but you didn’t respond to a large amount of them. This is confusing to me, and I don’t know why you didn’t respond. I don’t know whether you just didn’t want to respond to those particular issues, or just forgot about them, or didn’t understand them, etc.. I believe the primary basis for all Wikipedia content is and should be factual/empirical, which is the level at which I want to discuss the most.

Besides that first question, how would you like to proceed regarding the article’s talk page and/or whether we should request any of the type of assistance VQuakr recommended now or later? PNople (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You’re welcome to remove the “There is Consensus on Marquis De Sade- You Shouldn’t Have Removed Properly Sourced Information” I first posted above (& the entire thread on the talk page if you like). You’re also welcome to keep them both up if you prefer. PNople (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I agree that the existing thread doesn't show us in our best light and might put off others who wish to contribute. I will ask VQuakr if it's OK to delete it.
 * I honestly thought I had responded to all your points and I got frustrated because I thought you weren't reading what I had said. Can you please let me know again exactly what your objections are to the content under "Controversy"? Also the lead should be a brief summary of the content of the article. I would prefer a summary statement such as, "There is controversy over the extent to which Sade's behavior was criminal or sadistic." Failing that, the longer content you reverted would be my second option. neverthless, I happy to discuss this to get wording we both can live with.
 * Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying all that, I appreciate it. By the way, my first post on your talk page was a bad start in threatening to report you for “TOS” violation. I started the discussion with the toxic tone, so I take blame for that.
 * So I was reading all that you said, but I might have read some of it hastily out of frustration. I believe I remember the gist of all the issues you stated, and actually copied it for my own private storage (never to post publicly, are you ok with that?) so I can refer to the issues from both our sides.
 * My issue with the Controversy section now is just wording regarding all the secondary sources you listed. I believe it’s important here to list all of them and their claims. Though I want to also state their relation, or lack of, to primary sources to the best extent possible while also being concise. How do you feel about that? Though we’d also have to get into more in-depth discussion regarding the sourcing for each source. Are you interested in that? No worries if not.
 * I’m also considering the option of listing the publishers of some if not all those secondary resources (particularly W.W. Norton for How to Read Sade). So that people have more access to that information and can better weigh the reliability of the sources. Though I can also see the downside that this sacrifices conciseness. How do you feel about that?
 * With the Lead, I’d still like to consider ultimately keeping my first sentence while modifying the second about brothels, pending our discussion. But for now, feel free to post a version that incorporates both our stances (even your previous one would work). I trust you to change the Lead this way if you like. But please keep the pending neutrality (or other issue) note while we discuss. I still want to keep versions of these two sentences in the lead as I believe they importantly clear up many misconceptions regarding Sade. I believe that in proving their factuality/truth, the neutrality is also met. We can also request the additional assistance that VQuakr mentioned if we come to more impasses.
 * By the way, I may not going to respond as frequently as I have been (though should be able to at least daily). And I don’t need you respond frequently to either. I’m interested in resolving this but I’m in no rush myself to get this fixed. Do you prefer to resolve this promptly? Though if you think you may be away for longer than a week, please let me know beforehand. And I’ll do the same for you. PNople (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive comments. Please feel free to post any of my comments on your Sandbox for future reference. Sometimes I need to be reminded of what I said before!
 * I agree there is no rush to fix this. Ultimately, all Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and the more editors involved who are knowledgable about the subject and dedicated to improving the article, the better. Ultimately we should be working towards good article status. The criteria for that are pretty strict but it really should be our goal. As for your suggested interim compromise on the lead, I will restore the version I previously had, but will retain the neutrality warning until we get final agreed wording.
 * For the controvery section, I suggest we start a new discussion under Controversy where we can discuss your suggested changes to the wording. That way, others can join in if interested. If you would like to start this when you have time, that would be great. A friendly warning though, if you start talking about primary sources people will soon jump in to complain because policy is pretty strict on using reliable secondary and tertiary sources only. (Although there are a few instances where primary sources are ok. The policy is here: WP:verify.
 * The publishers of each work cited are listed in the references section. If you want to add the separate publishers for American and British editions that would be good. But please note that under policy, the only issue that counts for the reliability of secondary sources is whether they were published by reputable publishers. Self-published stuff is normally no good, but there is no greater weight given to W. W. Norton than, say, Penguin. In most cases the issue is what the majority of recent, reliable sources say. If there is serious conflict between reliable sources, the conflicting views should be presented in rough proportion.
 * Thanks again for your compromising stance. I can't guarantee I will be able to respond every day, but I'm looking forward to working with you.
 * Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PNople Sorry, I forgot to ping you when I responded. Please see my reply above. Rather than follow VQuakr's suggestion of starting the old thread again, I thought it might be more productive to start with a discussion of the Controversy section which will probably cover the main issues. Once we get agreed wording on that we can then move on to the brothel issue then the Lead. Let me know if you agree with this approach. I would be happy to go along with any alternative approach you might suggest.
 * Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your friendly and helpful messages! That works well for me. I’m going to read the wikipedia guideline link for verifiability, as factual accuracy is my main goal. I also look forward to working with you and hope others join as well. I definitely don’t expect you to reply daily, and I likely won’t be able to do that also. I’m in no rush here so that appears fine for both us. I’ll start discussion in that controversy talk page after I take some time to review wikipedia guidelines. Feel free to start if you like.
 * By the way, you’re free to remove any of my comments in relation to you that was prior to this thread. Including explanations for my changes. I know I was toxic in those also. Do you know if it’s possible to remove explanations? PNople (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PNopleIf you mean the edit summaries that you type in when you make an edit, no I don't think there is any way to remove them. I wouldn't worry too much about it though. As far as I am concerned the past is forgotten and I think most people will be more interested in the contents of the article rather than the edit summaries. Nevertheless, it's always best to keep edit summaries short, non-personal, and stick to some policy explanation. For example, if you are reverting someone else's edit it might be because the are no citations so you could write "needs citation to reliable source". Or if you think it isn't constructive or doesn't improve the article you might say, "Needs consensus, please discuss on Talk." The basic rule is that if any editor objects to a new edit then it is up the person making the new edit to go to the Talk page and state their case. It's called the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for sharing the advice. So I was reflecting today and I feel too emotionally exhausted to be involved in Wikipedia editing and discussion right now. I may get back to it at some point, but likely not now. So feel free to revert the article to whatever you feel is best. And feel free to remove the neutrality notes after your changes. Though I do hope you try to keep in mind the information and hypotheses I shared with you while you edit on De Sade. Thanks so much, and best wishes for now. PNople (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PNopleThanks for letting me know. I will make a few minor changes and we can discuss them further when you feel up to it. All the best. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melbourne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Australian history
G'day, I have phrased the sentence as such:

"From the 1850s a number of colonists such as William Wentworth, John Dunmore Lang and Sir Henry Parkes began to articulate ideas for an association or union of the Australian colonies."

I decided on including both "association" and "union" to reflect the variety of models proposed. Feel free to change this. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Undefined harvp references in Marquis de Sade
HI, in this edit to Marquis de Sade you introduced Template:Harvp references to "Seaver 2000", but no such work is listed. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and places the article in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you cold supply the missing source that would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @DuncanHill Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry for wasting your time. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

About undoing my edit
Hello there, in my edit, I was referring to the influence of Maliki Fiqh on the Napoleonic Code. It has been highly underaddressed because of its Islamic roots. Also, I have provided proper citations for that. Napoleon did order the translation of Maliki books into French. I never claimed that the whole Napoleonic Code was based on Maliki Fiqh; I was simply pointing out the influences. Marjukur Rahib (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Marjukur Rahib Happy to discuss this on the Talk age of the Napoleonic Code so that others can have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Parliament of Australia versus Federal parliament
Hey there! Just wanted to drop you a line re the infobox in Australian Government. I originally made the change to say "Federal parliament" rather than "Parliament of Australia", as I feel the "of Australia" part is a bit obvious and unnecessary. The Australian Government isn't going to be responsible to the Parliament of Vanuatu etc. Are you happy for me to change it to "Commonwealth parliament" or something of the likes? I think just "Parliament" would be a bit too short, but the "of Australia" is superfluous. Tim (Talk) 09:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * Thanks for the explanation. You raise a good point and I would be fine with Commonwealth parliament, but would you mind raising the issue on the Talk Page? There's another editor, Safes007 who I think changed it to Parliament of Australia and might want to have a say on the issue. Also, why do we have Country: Australia in the infobox? That's even more redundant. And do we need to have Website when there isn't one? I see you changed it to the PM's website which is probably more useful than the one that was there but it still isn't the official Australian government website. Happy to disuss on the Talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ItsPugleForgot to ping you! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, this is what happens when I don't look at the talk page and just assume it's all good! I'll transpose over there. Tim (Talk) 09:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Great State of Victoria
I have no idea who you think you are but I don't need to seek any man's permission to make changes.

The only information I introduced into that article was that Melbourne is Australia's largest city. Everything else was editorial changes to existing information. I suppose it was too much for you to compare my edit to the previous edit to determine what changes I actually made.

I think it's time for you to refamiiliarise yourself with Revert only when necessary.

'' If a good-faith edit which adds correct information that readers would find useful is wrong for other reasons, fix it. You might [also] discuss an edit on the talk page before reverting. ''

ash (talk) ash (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @AshlarYou made changes which state that Melbourne is Australia's largest city which it isn't. I have opened up a disussion on the Victoria Talk page on this issue. You also stated that Victoria was "one of Australia's six states and two territories" which it isn't. Victoria isn't a territory, it is one of Australia's six states. Overall the previous version is more accurate and better worded which is why I reverted your version with an explanation. I am happy to discuss this further on the Victoria Talk page, but not here.
 * Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Melbourne is Australia's largest city
 * So you reverted all of my edits to make one change!?!
 * You also stated that Victoria was "one of Australia's six states and two territories" which it isn't. Victoria isn't a territory, it is one of Australia's six states.
 * Reading comprehension is obviously an issue for you. No wonder you think the previous version was better. ash (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Prehistory of Australia into History of Indigenous Australians. 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.,. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Diannaa Thanks for that. Actually, I copied stuff from History of Australia to History of Indigenous Australians and I did leave a reference in the edit summaries here:   I also copied the same stuff to Prehistory of Australia. I was trying to make the three articles align on the same facts.I was also fiddling with the text and references in my sandbox so I might have missed an attribution somewhere. Sorry for the confusion. I will try to be more careful. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Salvador Dalí
Please, feel free to discuss on Talk: Salvador Dalí. I explain why my edit that you revert. Panenkazo (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)