User talk:Terra Borealis

Welcome!
Hello, Terra Borealis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Uluru Statement from the Heart did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Hello, I'm Laterthanyouthink. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fanny Balbuk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, MOS:EDITORIAL, etc. Stick to the sources, don't cherry-pick to support your own bias, and don't overquote from relatively insignificant opinions. This is an encyclopedia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It strikes me, however, that the present/original sentence isn't really supported by the reference either (no mention of language or lives lost). I will see if I can find a more suitable or relevant reference and may change the sentence accordingly. Upon closer inspection, most of the sentences in the article are not referenced at all (?!). This seems at odds with the link that you provided, which states 'One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that reliable sources must be able to support the material.'
 * Also, based on the description in the reference to the sentence in question (the reference states that 'she raged and stormed'), isn't 'zealous' (as in 'filled with or showing a strong and energetic desire to get something done or see something succeed') actually more accurate than 'unwavering'. Terra Borealis (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you will have to remind me which specific source and content you are referencing, as I have forgotten. Also, it's a good idea to discuss content changes on the talk page of the article, so that other interested editors can contribute as well, so feel free to add your comments above there too. With regard to sourcing, it all looks sourced to me, apart from the lead, and per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead is ideally just a summary of the important points in the article, which are sourced in the body. (It is not necessary to add a source after each sentence; it is assumed that whatever comes after the previous citation and before the next one is sourced by the latter.) However if you spot anything that is not cited, especially if contentious, you can always tag it with a cn template. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Uluru Statement from the Heart. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Just trying to provide a less subjective and more accurate word/description than "improve". Terra Borealis (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edits to Australia article
Hello Terra Borealis

Please note that your repeated attempts to introduce information about the San of Southern Africa into this article have been objected to by three or four different editors who have all explained that it is irrelevant to the statement in the article that Aboriginal Australian culture is one of the oldest in the world. It is also not expressly stated in the article you cite, but is your interpretation based on information in several articles. This amounts to original research WP:original which is not permitted. Your repeated attempts to include the information despite objections and without seeking consensus also constitutes disruptive editing: WP:disruptive editing and is likely to result in sanctions against you sooner rather than later. The information you are seeking to introduce might be relevant to an article discussing the oldest continuous human cultures on Earth (and the very concept of a "continuous culture") and I think it would be a productive contribution to wikipedia if you drafted such an article and submitted it. However, you would need to ensure that you wrote such an article from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Some of your other edits, particularly here where you repeatedly attempt to equate traditional Aboriginal belief systems with Nazi ideology, indicate that you are pushing a political agenda rather than attempting to introduce relevant information in a neutral way. This is not permitted on wikipedia and, once again, is likely to result in sanctions against you sooner rather than later. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. It is, however, relevant to readers of WP:Australia to be informed of the age of Australia's Aboriginal culture(s) relative to the oldest culture on Earth, instead of 'one of the oldest', which -as indicated by citation 59 in the article- readily morphs into the non-truth of "the oldest culture on Earth". Such disinformation by stealth should not be promoted by WP.
 * Secondly, it is a gross misrepresentation that I equated traditional Aboriginal beliefs with Nazi ideology. 'Connection to Country' and 'Blut und Boden' do, however, have significant similarities. This is relevant to the article in question as it falsely claims that there is "no equivalent in the English language".
 * Incorrect information and falsehoods warrant correction (sanctions or not) with what are sometimes inconvenient truths. Terra Borealis (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)