User talk:FropFrop

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]

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]

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]

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

• {{User link}}
• {{Reply to}}

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

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]