User talk:Daeron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image:800px-Colonisation3.gif 2 3 Block 4 POV 5 Reverts 6 West Papua Maps, tar 7 Ambon 8 Ambon 9 Wik 10 Prussian Renaming 11 Papua, West Papua, the province of Papua, the Indonesian province formerly known as... etc 12 Mediation 13 Papua POV 14 John Kenney 15 West Papua naming 16 Papua, 1957 17 3 Revert rule 18 redirection of Indonesian province names 19 Logs 20 Opinion on Page title 20.1 Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province, Indonesia 21 Papua 22 map sock 23 Calcutta -> Kolkata name change 24 Thanks for the offer on Ambon info 25 Papua (Indonesian province) -> Papua Province 26 Freeport-McMoRan

[edit] Image:800px-Colonisation3.gif

This animation is very interesting, I could really use it for my History class. Problem is when i try to copy and paste it into paint only the 1492 one pops up (even if i copied 2000 or any other year). Also im interested as to where u got the exact boundaries. wht website did u go too? TopGUN71691 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi, I got your email, thanks for responding. The point about Rugby League and Rugby Union's predominance in NSW and Queensland has been in the article for some time, in the third paragraph. But I would approve of something like "this distinctive football code has become the predominant winter sport in many parts of Australia." Which leaves open the possibility that other games are more popular in other other "parts". I don't think "a predominant" is strictly grammatically correct, or that different in what it conveys.

In general, I think it would be confusing for an article on Australian Rules to point people to Rugby in the first paragraph. Especially as modern Australian rules has much stronger ties to Gaelic football, with which there are strong ties, including international matches under compromise rules, and an increasing cross-flow of players.

When Tom Wills (and co) came up with Aussie rules, from 1858 onwards, they thought they were arriving at a new, compromise "foot-ball" code, which would have a broad appeal, for people used to various games, including the Rugby School game, the Cambridge University rules (also a compromise), probably the Harrow School game (also played on a large ground), various Irish games, etc. To them, "Rugby", would probably have been just one of many quite different kinds of football which were popular in the UK at the time.

By the way, I didn't write much of the page, most of which was already there before I discovered Wikipedia. And no, I haven't had that problem of being logged-out; I'm a newbie so I don't know what to suggest there. Grant65 (Talk) 14:06, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Except for the fact that you decided to defame me on another page, I would never have even known that you wrote on my Talk page since you decided to post at the top of the page under another heading than one I was expecting to be looking for. Since when do you post to the top of Talk pages?

Anyway, I have no idea what you are talking about. I blocked a vandal's sole IP address. I've never done range blocking. I stopped allowing people to send me email from Wikipedia since I got so many abusive emails for nonsense reasons (such as this). I see no ned to have to hunt down what the IP address is. If the ISP is allowing its users to vandalize Wikipedia, take it up with them. RickK 06:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason I took extra measures to get your attention was that from the appearance of your personal pages and previous problems others have had with yourself; it seemed likely you might chose to ignore a request for explanation of your personal blocking practices.

Instead you open with an attempt to belittle me. Frankly I've provided more real content to Wikipedia over the pass two & half years than yourself, so I would appreciate it if you could stick to the issue of IP blocking.

As I pointed out, you in fact block over 5 million Internet users; your effort to blame a carrier for the actions of one of its 5 million Internet customers is unrealistic, and IMHO immature.

The other Administrators spend the several seconds needed to write a few words to explain their blocking actions, why you find it beyond reasonable to do so is not my problem. That you seem to block with abandon is everybody's problem, I just happen to know enough to recognize it as a problem and raise it.

I would hope the only Administrators who would try to use IP blocking, and I would advise it be limited to, would be those with enough technical skill to spend the five seconds to do a host and verify the importance of the IP they are having problems from.Daeron 08:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Daeron. Thanks for the heads-up on the Papua problem. Well, it's now at least in the right place, over at West Papua. I made a new article to go at Papua. About the talk page, the convention is to simply leave is as-is until it gets too big to edit, and then archive it off to (e.g.) Talk:West Papua/archive1. But there is no need to do anything about that at present. It will happen all by itself as the talk page grows. (Or, rather, someone will take care of it.) Just ignore. Add new comments to the bottom, same as usual. Best -- Tannin 10:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Daeron, thank you for your thoughtful remarks on my talk page recently. I've often thought what to do about people who insist on putting their own point of views (POV) in Wikipedia articls. And I've come to realize that POV are not the problem.

The problem is how to accommodate varying POV. And the limiting step always seems to be the process of self-discovery: a writer realizing that what he thought was "a fact" or common knowledge is merely a widely (or narrowly) held opinion.

As someone with extreme points of view myself, I came to this encyclopedia very much aware that my opinions disagree from most other on significant points. For example, unlike most Christians I do not believe that Jesus came to die or that he is God; and I joined a controversial church. I'm also much better at math and statistics than 99% of other people.

An even bigger problem is when people refuse to acknowledge that their POV isn't universally accepted and thus needs attribution. "But everyone knows that Palestine belongs to these people!" (Fill in the blank with your choice of Jews or Arabs, and you'll see what I mean)

I don't have all the answers. I just do my best every day... --Uncle Ed 13:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that and have tried to achieve content that satisfies everyone, but two years ago I went through this same problem with the same West_Papua article. My concern is that Wik knows all the tricks on how to screw articles up, from subtle content edits to putting Wiks political message first, to moving the article. I just want to get two or three other people who might occasionaly look it over and assist. Thanks for feedback :) --Daeron 13:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Reverts

I just wanted to let you know, that it's policy here not to revert an article more than three times in any 24-hour period. I understand that it's frustrating, but the worst thing that happens is that Papua New Guinea gets stuck on Wik's version while you two sort it out. Please cease reverting, or else someone will start a quickpoll and try to ban you for 24 hours. Just a hint, Meelar 18:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Cheers, I wasted half an hour earlier looking for places to report such a statement. Just to enforce his message, he made a petty revert of one of my pages Intimate and Live. Dmn 16:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] West Papua Maps, tar

You posted this on my talk:

I just wanted to say THANKS for the pointer for some Indonesian maps with their silly province borders show. When I have time I'll produce something I can put on Wikipedia from them :)Daeron 19:27, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While i did some editing that related to that place (or the location, somewhere adjacent, of the highest mtn described as in Oceania), and i remember trying to interpret some maps in that context,

• it must have been months ago,
• i know what .tar is , but have never had access to means of manipulating .tar files that i can recall,
• i don't recall whether the maps were in the article i edited; if not, i simply found either them elsewhere on WP or via Google, and deserve no credit, and
• if you are suggesting i expressed some opinion about political boundaries, i'm pretty sure you're mistaken.\

Are you sure you place that paragraph on the right talk page? --Jerzy(t) 03:25, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

Ah! I had gotten "ta" thru my head, and pretty much stopped confusing it with "ta-ta"; perhaps i should have considered alternatives to ".tar". [smile]
In any case, you're more than welcome to the heads-up on the map. I'm a packrat ("Oh, i can imagine that being useful in future."), and sometimes i worry that i clutter WP as much as my living space. And i'm certainly pleased it met a need for you. It think i'd have responded more directly if i weren't confused by my impression that the map you were interested in was .tar-encoded! I've picked up .tar awareness without ever using Unix & co., and have never had need to actually use a "de-tarring solvent".
Tnx for yr kind offer in that regard.
As to the right Jerzy, i'm fairly sure you realize that "hovering" over Jerzy(t) will tell you whether it is really, say, Jerzy. It's of course possible to forge a sig on a "talk:" page, but that is always detectable, via Page history (assuming password security is intact), and therefore presumably extremely rare. And i think the number of user accts that have been expunged (possibly making the name reusable), rather than blocked or left fallow, can be counted on one hand. So, no, you wouldn't have the wrong Jerzy as a result of re-use. The only reason i considered mistaken identity is that, occasionally, i've

• seen pages where the sigs became misleading bcz one was omitted or bcz editing intervened, or
• gotten confused and made a mistake in "dump-busting" the diffs from a Page history;

I think you'll see that either of those could lead to mis-attribution.
--Jerzy(t) 15:22, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)

[edit] Ambon

Hi there - great to find someone else with an interest in Indonesia, and Ambon in particular - I'm looking for someone to help (write, and motivate me to write!) more on Ambon in general, but the conflict in particular, since the current situation is woeful (both the pages and the island!). See you around, Mark Richards 17:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ambon

Hi there - great to find someone else with an interest in Indonesia, and Ambon in particular - I'm looking for someone to help (write, and motivate me to write!) more on Ambon in general, but the conflict in particular, since the current situation is woeful (both the pages and the island!). See you around, Mark Richards 17:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re NGOs in Ambon and churches - far from it, there are a number of NGOs doing excellent work both on the Muslim and Christian sides, and some even on both, look forward to working with you on this one,

Mark Richards 16:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I took a look - I've always known it as West Papua, but it's hard to tell what the right name is. Disputed areas are always difficult, what are you worried about in particular? Mark Richards 22:44, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a look at WP - re Maluku - I feel like it's important to make clear that it is de facto part of Indonesia, and mention that there are groups who dispute this. Mark Richards 21:22, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Wik

Hello, you and I have something in common. We are both on Wik's list.

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_28

Dmn 00:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Prussian Renaming

I'm sorry, but I'm really not the person to go to on these kind of things; I know nothing about either Prussia or Papua, so I couldn't say which is more valid, let alone be an effective mediator. I'd recommend you post a Wikipedia:Requests for Comment and/or take it up on the Wikipedia:Village Pump. Meelar 13:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know nothing about West Papua and reading the talk page makes it no clearer. Have you thought about starting a poll on the issue? Angela. 21:54, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Papua, West Papua, the province of Papua, the Indonesian province formerly known as... etc

Well, there's a part of the world about which I know 4/5 of 0. I'll try and find a quiet moment and read the conflicting versions (& hopefully learn smthg in the process), but I don't think it's the sort of issue I'll be able to take a stand on. I see it's already on Wikipedia:Requests for comment -- has there been no good come of that? –Hajor 15:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

User:Angela suggested it was not suitable for 'comment' and that I should try 'Peer Review' .. from which there's been nil response. I had to refer people to two different versions on-top of content and name issues; it's hard enough because all the honest people say they don't know about the area; but not Wik & John who looked up the first tiny item they could find so that they could leave their mark (like a dog to a tree); their tid-bit was that Indonesia had again changed its name for the country, this time to 'Papua' which is the name of New Guinea (indonesia does not want westerners to visit or know about West Papua, so name confusion is good) -- next he tried 'Papua Province' which I'd just replaced in accord to what I wrote at top of discussion page. That's when Wik started reverting. Now he & esp. John have re-edited the old article out of context.

I think they stick to it because they discovered there was only really one author writing it and so they could keep me off it; they have combined more 'reverting' power than I. childish, I didn't want to play that game but have no option. I now it's a pain, but please, Wikipedia could really help by publishing an honest encyclopedic article.Daeron 16:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. Maybe a general call for help on the Wikipedia:Village Pump is called for. It'd at least get the article some attention. –Hajor 16:17, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I also know rather little about Papua; I'll look, but I've got a lot of other projects I'm working on where I do know what I'm talking about, and I don't feel this would be the best use of my time. Also, Daeron, have you tried approaching the various people on the list of mediators? -- Jmabel 22:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Having skimmed the talk page, I find you saying, "Some people write about subjects they know about, but you and John seem to search for articles you can drive the authors away from; that you knew nothing about West Papua didn't matter to your desire to leave your smell in it." This is absolutely inappropriate. This goes beyond questioning someone's motives to (a) presuming you know their motives and (b) being deliberately insulting ("...leave your smell in it.") If you want other people to help take up your side in a argument, this is no way to behave. It makes me hesitant to enter (on an article where I was previously uninvolved) even if I think you ar right on the point in question about the article, because someone might identify me with your rhetoric and frankly, I will have no part of it. -- Jmabel 23:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I apologise, though it also has not been pleasent being called "lunatic" or "raving"; I found Wik's initial statement "Daeron is obviously too blinded by his POV to work on this article" to be unpleasent enough without Johns psychology skills coming into this; but, I do honestly apologise for letting them get to me.

Tannin, was being honest and trying to ensure NPOV which I've welcome since the begining. Tannin raised questions and I answered those. John raised a complaint concern use of the term 'Genocide', I answered by refering him to a Yale Law School study, his response included " I don't think one study (by the Allard Lowenstein foundation, no less! That crazy student .." though he did retracted his critism of their qualifications after I listed Harvard, the Catholic Church and other bodies all with their own consistant reports; I have found through discussion that John seems less than genuine.

In any event, Wik and John have maintained a siege of reverting and renaming; perhaps I am thin-skinned myself, I found John & Wik's discussion last month of how to circumvent others .. disappointing.Daeron 04:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, I'd like to emphasize that with respect to many of your comments, I am not disagreeing with the substance - I don't know enough about the substance to confidently argue with you about that. What I'm arguing with you about seems largely to be semantics and inclusion. That is to say, when you say that Papua should not be considered an Indonesian province because of this, this, and this, I'm not saying that this, this, and this are not true, merely that I don't think this qualifies to say that we can't call it a province, which is what the Indonesian government regards it as. Certainly this, this, and this should be discussed in the article (in an NPOV manner), so that people understand the full state of affairs. At any rate, I think that at this point, it is unlikely we will be able to agree on this article. Do you think that a request for mediation is a good idea? john 19:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

• While I do not concur with Wik's stated concept that all Wikipedia articles should be limited to re-worded versions of other encyclopedia (as usefull as that was when Wikipedia was young), I do think Wikipedia should be kept to a similar style and function; by which I mean people go to an encyclopedia for a 'quick' run-down on a subject, it is not the ultimate in-depth reference or source material, though it should give you enough to be able to understand what others are talking about and enough in case you wish to further investigate it somewhere/somehow. IMHO. Say they employ a scholar who wrote about the raise & fall of the Roman Empire in a two thousand page book, in the encyclopedia he is expected to reduce that down to say twenty pages.
• After Wik started reverting the article so that he could keep his starting sentence; I went to the Wikipedia Manual of Style and raised the question of opening Introductions with others. Although it was suggested that no mention of sovereignty be in the Introduction, I think of the Intro as a mini-quip of the article, mostly one sentence, sometimes a few paragraphs, but no more; and I thought it would be wrong not to say it was part of Indonesia (be that under what-ever circumstances).
• In the main article itself, the History section just lists history facts. It does talk presume to tell readers what to think of the government or culture today; they would be in the Government and Culture sections of the article which I was trying to write back 18-24/Apr.
• Also, though Jmabel understandably thinks the name issue must be a major issue; it's not, IMO, its a distraction and does not aid one's understanding of current or past events to know which name Indonesia applied when. They changed names once taking control; maybe that they claim to have changed it 1962-1968 when they won't suppose to have that authority, but IMO that's a triva item. The name serves only two function; one is that the name is viewed as important to the Papuan population (but I'm sure not as important as life or many other issues); and its what western News media and Governments etc. refer to the country as. You hear any news report, they will say either 'In West Papua,....' or they say 'In XYZ, also known as West Papua, ...', even the US Dept. of State uses it so that their audience knows which region they are talking about.Daeron 01:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually thinking about it, changing the name in 1962 probably serverd two function for the military; 1) it humiliated the Papuans (and the TNI seems to enjoy that), and 2) it dis-associated it from the 'Dutch' and 'Papua'; soon westerners would forget about Dutch New Guinea or any old reports about Papuans manning the power, radio, and police stations and start assuming Papuans weren't that 'advanced'.Daeron 02:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Daeron, I'm not sure how much of this I disagree with. I will say that's not true that the western news media invariably refers to it was "West Papua". At the very least, in the context of news stories about Indonesia, it is referred to simply as "Papua". Beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean by In the main article itself, the History section just lists history facts. It does talk presume to tell readers what to think of the government or culture today; they would be in the Government and Culture sections of the article which I was trying to write back 18-24/Apr. What is a "history fact"? I may agree with this, and I may not. At any rate, why don't you make changes on the current version of the article, instead of reverting to the other version? john 02:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Taking CNN as a non-Australia, US media service;

• "FACTBOX: West Papua (Irian Jaya) Wednesday, February 5, 2003 Posted: 12:17 AM EST (0517 GMT) Separatist leader Theys Eluay was found dead after apparently being kidnapped in November 2001. Story Tools. (CNN) -- The western half of the island of New Guinea -- the world's largest tropical island -- constitutes the Indonesian province of West Papua, formerly known as Irian Jaya."
• "June 16, 2000 VOL. 29 NO. 23 | SEARCH ASIAWEEK

  Militias Stalk West Papua

  The province could be the next East Timor By ALASTAIR MCLEOD Jayapura

  Andy Burdam was just sitting down to an evening meal with his family when the police and militiamen arrived. They punched the 45-year-old Papuan elementary school teacher and dragged him away to the local police cells. From outside the station in West Papua's far-western coastal town of Fak Fak, militiamen threatened the independence supporter and threw large stones at him while the Indonesian police watched. "They did nothing to stop them," Burdam says."

• "Ninety-nine arrested as West Papua mob kills two police

  December 8, 2000 - Web posted at: 6:10 AM HKT (2210 GMT)

  JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- A separatist mob attacked a police station in troubled West Papua province and killed two officers with machetes, axes and arrows, police said Thursday. A gang of indigenous Papuans killed the two and wounded four other officers near a university campus on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Jayapura, said Major Zulkifli, who like many Indonesians uses only one name.".

• US Department of State (http://www.state.gov)

  excerpt of "Background Note: Indonesia"

  A subsequent UN General Assembly resolution confirmed the transfer of sovereignty to Indonesia. Opposition to Indonesian administration of Irian Jaya, also known as Papua or West Papua, gave rise to small-scale guerrilla activity in the years following Jakarta's assumption of control.

  Note from Daeron, I suspect what they mean by 'small-scale' is that the people taking on the military were armed with a handfull of WW-II vintage rifles and traditional spears and bows; not much of resistance to a handful of people with automatic weapons, never mind any helicopter gunships.:).Daeron

[edit] Mediation

Daeron, with respect to mediation, it might help if you go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and indicate that you'd be willing to accept mediation (assuming you are). You can also request a particular mediator - I have no particular preference. john 07:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello Daeron. Just to give you some more information about mediation - the process is intended to help those concerned come to agreements in a dispute, with the mediator's help as neutral third party. This is voluntary and not a part of any arbitration process. I hope you will consider giving it a go. If you are willing to accept mediation, please could you reply at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Please also say whether you have any preference over who the mediator is. There is a list at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Regards -- sannse (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

Greetings, and I can't spare any time. Right now I'm supposed to be studying for a final which I guess I can do over some food and lots of Caffeine. I'll be back-burner thinking about general solutions to problems like what is going on with the Papua mishegoss. Lotsa luck. ;Bear 21:12, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Daeron, I'm rather deeply offended by your accusations on Jmabel's talk page. Daeron, it is not plagiarism to put back in material from the history of the article into the article, which is what I did. And I in fact said it was your material. I was putting it back in because it was mostly NPOV and I didn't want to be reverting good material simply because you had written it, and I disagreed with other parts of your changes. I did remove a few references to "West Papua", because I don't think that is the primary name by which the western half of New Guinea should be known. You'll also note that I added a mention of the name West Papua at the beginning of the article at about the same time. And once again, none of this is plagiarism, and I have no idea how any of it is in bad faith. As far as Jerusalem, I am not sure what you're trying to argue. Are you accusing me of anti-semitism? I don't think that's even worth responding to. At any rate, I have been trying to be polite to you so that we could work productively on this article, but clearly there's no talking to you. john 16:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents - Daeron, you're not helping your cause by making accusations against everybody who disagrees with you; if you keep up the personal attacks, you'll get banned, and then you'll no longer have a way to get your important factual information into Wikipedia. Nobody involved besides you has a particular ax to grind on any of this, but we are concerned that you have such a strong POV that it seems your single goal here is to represent that POV to the exclusion of all others. WP is simply not going to go that way, no matter how hard you try. Stan 17:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Papua POV

In case it isn't clear, I don't have any personal interest or knowledge of Papua; I would likely never have noticed the issue did my stamp collection not include some little bits of paper purporting to be for some place called "Irian Barat". It's often said around WP that people with strong feelings on a subject ought not to edit those articles; whatever the truth of the situation, there's a powerful urge to highlight the bits that one agrees with and to omit or downplay the bits that one disagrees with. In your case, your one goal seems to be to demonstrate Indonesia's badness in Papua; but that is one point of view on the situation. For instance, when in a WWII article the Japanese sink a US ship, we don't say "unfortunate loss of 1,000 lives" because from the Japanese POV, the loss of a thousand US sailors is not at all unfortunate, in fact it's what they wanted. So we're neutral by just reporting the loss and not expressing an opinion on whether it was good or bad. If you wanted to get your points across, the crafty approach would have been to conceal your personal POV so thoroughly that no one could tell which side you were on. Having given yourself away, so to speak, now your edits are now always going to be challenged and scrutinized by everybody who's serious about maintaining NPOV. Stan 05:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stan, if you could either identify or correct any part of the article which said, or even inferred that "Indonesia is bad" or "Others good"; then please do so because that's not the case. Just as the Japanese soldiers were only doing their duty, so too do others. But IF I say they did sink a ship, or worked X-number thousands of POW's to death; that is NOT a opinion or political view -- it is a statement of fact. If you read into it that it was somehow "wrong"; that is coming from you.

Fact, there is a program of genocide that continues to be conducted ;

Fact it is similar but different to the mass murders conducted in East Timor

Fact, the US slaughters over a million cows & bulls every year

You may read moral issues into these, I do not, not while writing an Encyclopeadic style entry. I just state reasonably known facts.

[edit] John Kenney

Sorry, I'm going to need a context here. I have about 1800 articles on my watchlist, and this is probably someone I rarely intersect. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I already made my comment on the talk page of the article, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to ask other people who have edited the article and haven't commented on this to weigh in on the talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've weighed in a few more times at Talk:Papua (Indonesian province)#Naming Discussion, and John has weighed in with what he would do. I think response from you is called for. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

BTW: where he says "I'm not going to revert again just yet"

• That is quite true, because he had already done his 3rd revert of the day, and so Wik,, I mean Gzornenplatz, did the revert instead.

As to personal versus honest difference of opinion; a look at John Kenney's contribution list will show how he marks only certain reverts / edits as "minor". Call me paranoid if you want, but I suspect its his way of reminding me that it takes him only seconds to 'deal' with my edits, no matter how much time I spent on them.--Daeron 09:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Papua naming

I appreciate the invitation to contribute. Unfortunately I'm going to have to pass on this one, because real life has suddenly become complicated and I won't have as much time for Wikipedia as I used to - sorry about that :-( --Calair 01:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have my best wishes & hope that your troubled waters are short lived and that fair winds will soon aid your travels. --Daeron 03:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to contribute, but I'm not an expert on this topic, and am currently flat-out writing up a thesis :( Abstraktn 04:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's o.k. very few people are, unfortunately the person who renamed the article had never heard of the country before & insisted the Indonesian name had to be used for the area. In America I assume West Papua gets no news coverage, instead of almost none ;-)

Main problem seems to be that he keeps trying to convert the article about the West Papua country/region into one about a political state.

Good luck with your thesis, hopefully a lot more interesting than some silly web page:) --Daeron 05:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daeron, I hadn't realized that we were close to agreeing. I'm still skeptical of putting the geographical article at West Papua, given the political resonances of that name. I'm also not certain where the historical material should go. So, I'd like you to explain to me, as I asked, what you think the purpose of the proposed West Papua page should be. You say it shouldn't be an article on an administrative division of Indonesia. Fair enough. What should it be about? john k 04:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daeron, if I read your comments on my talk page correctly, are you saying that all we need to do is take a poll on renaming the one page? I just don't think that is right. At the very least, we need articles on the two now-current provinces, as we would have on any current political entity. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) I see, you were just referring me to what you'd written earlier (which I'd already read) but you also replied far more comprehensively on the article talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've made some remarks and asked some questions at Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)#Naming.2C_redux. Your response is solicited. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papua, 1957

1962 was of course not the first time a section of the US govt. had tried to effectively sell West Papua to Indonesia for its 'good will'. In 1957 the a US Ambassador to Indonesia proposed getting Holland to transfer WP to Indo. over a five year period, and to keep the Australians quiet the Indonesians be gotten to sign as members to the ANZUS treaty.

• The response was quick, he was transferred to Prague.
  • I suspect Prague was *not* the top place a US diplomat wanted to be in the mid fifties. ;-)

Question: do you think readers would appreciate? --Daeron 04:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you posted this to my page or what you intend to do with it. If you are intending it to go in some article:

• "sell West Papua to Indonesia" is highly POV, as is putting "good will" in scare quotes.
• Holland is an archaic name for what is now normally called the Netherlands
• How do you know that the transfer to Prague was a consequence of this? Ambassadors rarely propose deals like this of their own intiative: he was presumably carrying out a directive, no?
• Prague would not have been a choice posting, but it wouldn't have been bottom of the barrel, either. Physically beautiful city, and even at that time plenty going on in the arts.

I really don't see your point, especially if you can't really be sure where the proposal originated or show that someone in particular was displeased by it. Without things like that, it's little more than trivia. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Daeron, this is not a topic I have any fascination with. I'm involved with it because those of you working on it seem to be at loggerheads and because people keep asking me to mediate, so I do, not because this intersects my own areas of research. Don't take that personally, but I've probably never been any closer to Papua than either Los Angeles or Athens (whichever may be closer). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert rule

You just violated 3 revert rule and will be reported. OneGuy 11:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dig a little into OneGuy's history. He knows very well about the 3RR. He has violated it about 10 times since he decided to join wikipedia and let loose with his Islamic Apoligistic POV pushing. For some reason the sysops/admins don't seem to care, however. 168.209.97.34 11:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you are blocked for 24h. dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But how many years are you going to leave me being attacked by John_Kenney ?

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't plan on familiarizing myself with the history of this. You broke the 3RR, I blocked you for 24h. My involvement ends here. Your block has expired: feel free to continue looking for a consensus. dab (ᛏ) 11:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] redirection of Indonesian province names

Hello,

You seem to be moving the names of Indonesian provinces. I don't really have an opinion on what the page title should be, but I object to the way you seem to be doing it: you seem to be deliberately doing an extra "empty" edit after the redirection to prevent anyone from moving it back. You should not do this.

If there is controversy over a page name change, it should be discussed at the talk page or at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Curps

[edit] Logs

Not sure who, if anyone, can check logs easily these days, what with the wikipedia setup being so complicated these days. Maybe ask User:JamesDay? Pcb21| Pete 19:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on Page title

Hi, did you use to have an amine page with a selection of anime graphics on the web? Just your description on your Wikipedia User page reminded me of that web page. Anyways,

I don't think I did, but I've abandoned a webpage or two in my time :) --Sketchee 18:32, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate another persons opinion on if the below propose title change sounds sensible:

[edit] Papua (Indonesian province) → Papua Province, Indonesia

Change from ambiguous title to concise English language title. 1) The whole island of Papua is not a Province of Indonesia; 2) Papua Province is the proper Indonesian title; and 3) the percise title "Papua Province, Indonesia" is already established as the English title outside of Wikipedia. To confirm established world usage outside Wikipedia: Google "Papua Province" provides 737 English all non-Wikipedia pages; Google "Papua (Indonesian province)" provides 236 English only copies of Wikipedia pages. --

--Daeron 09:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This seems reasonable enough of a proposal to me. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say for certain, but it's at least a good enough argument to propose on Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you do, let me know and I'll probably follow that discussion and vote one way or the other then. --Sketchee 18:32, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments about this topic on my talk page. older≠wiser 21:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papua

Yes, exactly, your edit comment was misleading and that is why I reverted. Actively misleading edit comments are considered vandalism, and in a controversial article I presumed it to be just that. If the misleadingness was accidental, then my apologies. When you are moving material to another article, please say so. What you put there was far worse than no comment and looked like an effort to cover something up. I had no idea what the agenda might be, I just went "illegitimate edit in controversial article". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:31, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] map sock

I answered your two questions/accusations on User talk:Jimbo Wales OneGuy 07:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the offer on Ambon info

Would love it! Thanks, Mark Richards 19:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papua (Indonesian province) -> Papua Province

new facts for page move at Talk:Papua (Indonesian province), regards Tobias Conradi 05:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freeport-McMoRan

Why did you name the article with a capital "R"?

Shouldn't it be Freeport-McMoran?

WikiDon (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)