User talk:Seashunt

Adoption
Hi Seashunt,

If you are looking to be adopted then I am happy to help out, especially with looking for citations. Leave a message on my talk page if you are interested. Cheers Lethaniol 12:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption Request
Hi. I see you have requested adoption and I am seeking to adopt. Please take a look at my userpage and see if I am a good fit to be your mentor. If you agree to be adopted by me, then let me know on my talk page by clicking the "+" symbol at the top of the page and letting me know. If not, I would still be glad to answer any questions you have at any time. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- MECU ≈ talk 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption Complete and Answers
Hiya Seashunt - welcome on board - as your Adopter ask any question on any topic - first things first...

Copied from User talk:Lethaniol - have tried to answer each question:

'''Yes, I would be happy to be adopted by you. My current questions are: is straightforward MLA style citation OK (with ISBN added), rather than using a template?'''

If you are going to do a lot of citations it would be worth the effort using the templates at Citation templates, give us a shout if you need help with them. But I believe that MLA is fine read up in detail at Citing sources first. I will have a look at some of the citations you add and flag up any problems

'''If my research turns up something that may be fictional or is not encyclopedia-worthy, how can I bring this to the attention of someone who can deal with it? Since my primary interest is finding citations and I am not really an experienced Wikipedian, I don't feel comfortable starting a conversation about broad edits such as deleting an article or folding it into another topic.'''

Well as you are new to all this, drop me a line and we can work it out together. It is not just experienced editors that have the right to suggest the deletion or merging of material - any one can. I does involve getting your feet a bit dirty but as long as you WP:Assume good faith there should not be a problem with any discussions. I won't go into all the various processes to deal with all the different situations - when you first find something we can work on it then, and you can see the processes first hand.

Is there a very strong preference for primary sources rather than secondary sources? Depends very much what the source is being used for. If a direct quote of a person/book/research then primary source is best, followed up by secondary/tertiary source if no primary source can be found (of course these then become more opinion than fact).

For opinion based stuff, like X is the best at Y must use secondary source, not primary source from X, unless you are using it as a quote that X thinks X is the best at Y, and not as an opinion. Hope that sort of makes sense see Verifiability as a must for what sort of sources we are expected to use.

Also we are not allowed to quote our own research see Original Research

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seashunt (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Make sure you sign ANY comment on a talk page using  ~ , which creates something like this Cheers Lethaniol 01:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC). This helps users know who has said what. Cheers

Medicinal properties of dandelion
Good work here, nice to get sources into such articles (ones that were previously lacking). Two things though - see for the changes I have made - if not self evident...


 * 1) Have removed that "as the PDR" says - not needed if referenced or so important that needs to be stated. I have also trimmed language, hopefully a little more like an encyclopedia. It still needs lots of work and wikilinks added.
 * 2) Also have condensed the footnotes - if this is the format you want to use read up here - Footnotes.

Cheers Lethaniol 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my tardy reply - yes I noticed that a lot of the poorly worded content was there before you started work on this article - but if you ever do think it can be worded better do not be shy. With respect to the citation formatting - go ahead format correctly, even if you have not seen the source in question, if by any chance you make a mistake it can always be reverted back and easily fixed - be bold. Obviously if something is likely to be controversial, do open a discussion on the relevant talk page, but for citations (something in the realm of WikiGnome) are normally not a problem.


 * You should read up at WP:V about verifying information - basically all information should be so. Generally if there is no source then the Template:fact should be used - if you can not find the source. Obviously you wouldn't this all over an unsourced article - instead use Template:Unreferenced. Don't feel you have to source everything - do what is practical, and as with everything in Wikipedia others will come along and help out. :):) Cheers Lethaniol 10:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mardijker people
Reply: Talk:Mardijker people. Nothing earth-shattering though. regards Merbabu 02:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! About the Mardijkers: the text that I put into Mardijker people was taken from other Portuguese-based creole languages pages and Net sources, probably most of them in Portuguese. Hope it helps. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many net pages on Mardijkers in Dutch or Indonesian, but unfortunately I do not read either language. Dutch Wikipedia has a long article on Mardijkers.
 * From this Slave Glossary: Mardijker a term from Sanskrit which originally was maharddhika meaning grootmagtig. It had nothing to do with a Dutch dike. In Batavia it was used for the free slaves which were full blood Asian. They were also referred to as Swarten (Black). They were also considered to be Portuguese since they were mainly from old Portuguese territories and brought to Batavia as slaves. The Dutch also referred to them as inlandse Christine. These ex-slaves received their freedom, when the Indonesians fought for their freedom from the Dutch they used the word 'Merdeka' freedom, which is derived from Mardijker
 * This site on the Portuguese Church in Jakarta says Who’s Mardijker? They are “The Black Portuguese”. They came from poorer prisoner (Malays, Bengalis, and Ceylonese) that bought as slaves by the Dutch, had Portuguese name but hardly much Portuguese blood. Granted liberty on condition that they become members of the Dutch Reformed Church. So, they were called Mardijker or liberated ones. They lived outside the city wall of Batavia.
 * This Publisher's site says Mardijkers (sometimes also referred to as 'black Portuguese') originally were liberated slaves, generally of Bengal or Ceylonese descent, who, upon their emancipation, had become members of the Dutch Reformed Church. By the end of the 18th century their descendants had been almost totally absorbed by the Eurasian community of Batavia. Most of them carried family names with a patronimic character as they had adopted the names of their custodians or one of their godparents when christened. The baptismal register often not only mentions the native person who first adopted a given family name, but also his or her place of origin. And as those persons, after the introduction of the Civil Registry in the Dutch East-Indies (October 1828), are most likely to appear as a partner in e.g. the marriage registers, the information presented in this volume might be important for genealogical research. For researchers of Batavian families such as Andries(z), Anthonijs(z), Dirks(z), Frans(z) or Jacobs(z) this volume is an absolute must.