User talk:Mitch Ames

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Yarloop Workshops[edit]

Moved to Talk:Yarloop Workshops § fires – Mitch Ames (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot do anything but follow my edits, maybe you should find something else to do - wikipedia has 6,241,471 articles - go find something else mitch.

I challenge you to find a reference that actually separates yarloop workshops from the town (where it was inside) - otherwise please, will you desist, it doesnt help anyone... JarrahTree 13:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless the reference says that the entire town was threatened or affected, then the link from "some part of Yarloop" to "Workshop" is WP:SYN at best, speculation or guessing at worst.
Sensible discussion at Talk:Yarloop Workshops please. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
nope - if you dont get it mitch, I am very sorry I cannot help you. If you cannot let go of the fact that your request for details that are irrelevent, and the way the journalism worked in the past and how your lack of interest in the issue of something that goes both ways of assumptions - the workshops in the town and the town with workshops - do not meet your request for a form of reference mentioning the town - all is lost. JarrahTree 14:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
removed text. move on mitch - it is neither worth the time, your time, or others time to bother about the lack of understanding that the workshops were in the town, and that the journalistic style of the time did not require, as you do mention of things. simply not worth the time and effort. JarrahTree 00:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

fix it[edit]

My message to JarrahTree that (presumably) prompted this reply. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

yourself - you might think of it ongoing - no one comes to your talk items - but they love watching... see

I am not interested in further discussion. thats it. JarrahTree 04:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed - [1][2]. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
indeed. JarrahTree 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous Connection of People and Place[edit]

Hi Mitch

I note that you've removed the addition of the Indigenous names for Gadi Country boundaries in the article on the Gadigal people (of which I obviously am a part of, not sure if my username gives it away haha)

While the article does talk about people and not place, there is a fundamental difference in the way people and place are viewed by non-Indigenous and Indigenous peoples. The non-Indigenous way is obviously a binary "people are people, places are locations, they aren't connected in any way aside from they go there occasionally or maybe live there", but it's so much more than that for us - country is a part of us - the article is about us and that includes country & place.

A similar way of explaining it would be like publishing an article about humans but only talking about our brains, despite the heart and everything else being part of who we are.

The reason I added those names in the way I did, was solely to satisfy that stringent WP:PLACE dilemma that we are well aware of, and I did so in the spirit of Wikipedia's 'don't remove, improve' thing, but more importantly to have the actual Gadigal places mentioned too on the Gadigal wikipedia page, because that seems like a pretty obvious thing to include.

In an ideal world, I would just remove any mention of the current place names altogether because Gadigal Country is not, nor will it ever be, "South Head to Petersham to Cooks River", in a non-Indigenous viewpoint absolutely it is, but not for us, it's not correct - but WP:BIAS & WP:NPOV are a thing and so, I have to respect that and include the non-Indigenous names.

What I'd like to achieve from mentioning all this is:

Gadigal Country is only "Tarralbe to Bulanaming to Goolay'yari", that's the place my ancestors knew, the place that my grandfather told me stories of, and the place my family & I have a deep connection to. Surely if there is anywhere for those names to be included, it's on the Gadigal page.

I've done the work to provide the names and sources, in the spirit of wikipedia's intentions that I've pointed out here, is there a chance you could suggest or build upon what I provided to you, in a way to include the true Gadigal Country in the Gadigal article please? I'm exhausted from trying and being blocked at every turn so... yeah, I think I'll leave it up to you to reinstate in some form you deem appropriate. It's disheartening, this one particularly cuts the most because of my connection to it.

Thanks in advance. GadigalGuy (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that Indigenous peoples and culture have a strong connection to the land, although as a "white" Australian I don't claim to fully understand or empathise with the significance of the connection. The fundamental issue I think is that the English Wikipedia is written in English, not Dharug (apologies in advance if I get some of the language details wrong here), and generally (per WP:PLACE) should use English place names. It is common practice to mention the Indigenous name of an article's subject, and in this case seems reasonable to include the Indigenous name of the place that (presumably) defines the group of people. But a long stream of "English_name (Indigenous_name)" or "English_name, known to the locals as Indigenous_name," makes the sentence harder to read. I think the problem is that it is trying to put two sets of information into a single sentence: the location (which should be written in English, for an English-reading audience) and the fact that the local people had their own names for places. I know that Indigenous people treat the people/place/language as more tightly coupled, but I think that the target (mostly non-Indigenous) audience probably does not. Using myself as an example (with the previously mentioned "ignorant white person" disclaimer Face-smile.svg) I want primarily to know where the Gadi land is - but I want to know in English, using place names I understand. Then - having found out where the land is, in a frame of reference I understand - as a secondary goal, I might want to learn the traditional names for all of the relevant places. (Perhaps an Indigenous person might assert that true understanding or reconciliation requires both, simultaneously, but we need to "dumb down" the approach for the benefit of the typical reader.)
Perhaps the solution is to include the Indigenous names in the article, but separate them out from the description in the lead section. The article does not currently have a "traditional culture/language" (or similar) section, but maybe it should. Such a section could include a table of significant place names, with the Indigenous name, the meaning of that Indigenous name, and the English place name (or description if there's not a one-to-one correspondence). This would provide the information in an easily digested form, while still keeping the body text in "plain English", and perhaps keep everybody happy. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
"Dharug" - That's the right one for me, I appreciate your effort there
Just so you can see where I'm at with this all & hopefully understand my thoughts on it (not having a dig at anyone, just explaining my perspective)...
The thing I've found most exhausting and strongly pushing me away from wanting to contribute is, while I respect that WP:PLACE is a valid concern when putting the information in, I'm definitely (obviously) not a huge fan of the information just being erased without attempts to adapt the information into a more acceptable format... (not a dig at you or anyone, just in general, it's happened continuously on only the Indigenous stuff I've contributed to the point it feels like Indigenous contributions aren't really welcomed - and I hope that's not the case, but because it's seemed like a big/loud opposition, it's come across that way pretty strongly & broadly) - For me to go from enthusiastic to share, to not wanting to in a week, probably gives a good indication of that...
"This would provide the information in an easily digested form, while still keeping the body text in "plain English", and perhaps keep everybody happy."
Given that I'm so new to wikipedia, when I post the information, I'm doing so with the idea that others who know what they're doing can then take that information and make it fit in somewhere on the same page if it isn't in the right spot. I haven't really been able to see a reason why erasing has been necessary when alternatives have been available pretty much every time. I know that erasing shouldn't be taken to heart, but I don't think it's necessary the erasing itself that bothers me, I think its more that it indicates a lack of thought/consideration for the information because obviously we all have a bit of time to look over things prior to deleting or commenting on them, so taking an extra 10 minutes or whatever to think about the information and then rewording/moving it would fix that point of contention, and everyone would be happy, there would be no bluntness that the information being deleted has, and it would build rapport by showing that everyone wants to work together to improve the articles, because we no doubt all have that shared intention.
All that said & done... Your solution for including the names in the Gadigal article under a 'traditional culture/language" section sounds like a good solution to me, I don't know how to create tables on here so I'll leave it up to you.
GadigalGuy (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Bayswater, Western Australia[edit]

Am I OK to create new category People from Bayswater, Western Australia for Pamela Medlen, as it is where she lives? I will then add people...GrahamHardy (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea, because:
It would probably fail WP:SMALLCAT - how many notable people come from Bayswater?
It would probably fail WP:CATDEF - people are commonly defined as being from Perth, but not from a particular suburb (other than rare exceptions).
She's living in Bayswater now, but was born and raised in the Great Southern (and is categorised as being from there).
There are some "People from suburb" categories, e.g. Manly, Richmond, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule, and are well-populated.
I suggest raising the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories to see what other editors think. Feel free to move this discussion to that page. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nymphaea violacea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kimberley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


The (presumed) edit under discussion: [3]. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Direct attributed quotes are not copyright vioations Gnangarra 07:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline" would be fair use, but copying the entire story (even if that story is itself only part of a larger web page) is "likely to be a copyright violation".
In any case, I don't think it appropriate to include that much non-English text in an English-language Wikipedia article.
Possibly you could expand the story in English by paraphrasing the English translation in the source. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Polish Jews[edit]

User:MitchAmes. I have an observation to make about the Category:Polish Jews. Like his father Moshe Sopher Salz, Sam Salz was a Polish Jew allthough you removed him from that category. His first language was Yiddish. And he spoke fluent Polish. By birth, he was a Polish Jew, a Golitzianer. He studied at the art school in Cracow. As he got older he lived in Austria, France, Germany, France again, and, ultimately, the United States. After the Second World War, he searched for family members who did not leave Poland and discovered that they were murdered in the Shoah. I don't see the point of removing him from the category. The Category:Polish Jews contains subcategories as well as many specific entries for other Polish Jews. I ask you to restore Sam Salz the category. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:CAT#Articles, which says (with my emphasis here) "an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. ... articles should rarely be placed in both a given category and .. its ... parent (super-) categories."
Sam Salzt is a Polish Jew, but he's already in Category:American people of Polish-Jewish descent, so there's no need to include him the the super-category Polish Jews.
(I've updated my AWB edit summary to refer to WP:CATSPECIFIC and WP:CAT#Articles, instead of WP:SUBCAT. That MOS guideline was restructured recently so my previous references to SUBCAT are no longer correct.)
Mitch Ames (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mitch. Iss246 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Caring for Country[edit]

Hi Mr Ames,

I reason I think the term 'caring for Country' and 'Country' should be capitalised is due to the context of the sentence. The Aboriginal group are not caring for the literal country/nation; this process is in relation to a specific spiritual concept: "Country". It's referring to their spiritual connection, and the lore, to the land. Land management and protests regarding current environmentalism issues are not a concern for the sake of the country (Australian federated nation); the Beeliar protest groups held an issue about it due to their connection and responsibility to care for Country (the region; the lore embedded in it. It's a fairly new phenomenon to capitalise this, but it has begun to be used instead to help make the distinction very clear. The Victorian govt capitalises it now, as does NAIDOC (see their bullet-points where they regard it as 'Country'). I guess the importantance to capitalise is part of Aboriginal-English; it's the most correct phrasing for the concept we have right now. If I had to describe it in another way, Country is almost like its own entity or person. When it's referred in Aboriginal contexts and lores, like it's a person or dimension that communicates back to the people, we have conversations with it, and it acts on its own eg "I feel Country wants us to make sure we look after the fish like this" or "Country warns us not to go beyond that hill" (these are superficial statements, please don't take them with substance-- just wanted to show how it can be used in a sentence).

It's been a bit easier to get people to start capitalising 'Indigenous' and 'Aboriginal' in the right contexts (though that can still be an issue), but terms like Country are typically capitalised due to the different meaning than an un-capitalised 'country'. There are different connotations for the different 'C/country'. I'm actually surprised I couldn't find a Wiki article on 'caring' or 'connection' to Country, I was hoping to insert a hyperlink in the Beeliar article when I wrote the phrase. I hope one will be made in the future! HSIEteacher (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Is "country" a proper noun? That's criteria for capitalisation, according to the Wikipedia style guide, MOS:CAPS, which is the one that we use, independently of what style guide other organisations might use. In particular MOS:EMPHCAPS says

Initial capitals ... should not be used for emphasis. ... This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context.

MOS:CAPS says (emphasis in original):

Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

but as I previously noted, the reference used in Beeliar, Western Australia does not capitalise "country" except in the title and first mention.
I think we probably should have an article on "country" (independently of how it is capitalised), because the concept is important. The best we currently have is "Welcome to Country", which includes in the lead section, second paragraph:

The term "Country" has a particular meaning and significance to Aboriginal peoples, encompassing ... The connection to land involves ...

and a section "Aboriginal history and relationship with land". That section includes

Connection to country (often spelt with a capital C) ...

but note that "often" is not "consistently ... in a substantial majority ..."
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Caring for Country is actually a redirect to Landcare Australia, which mentions in the Background section:

A related concept is "Caring For Country". This focuses on local Indigenous people working to repair Indigenous lands and to preserve the environment using cultural knowledge, and in conjunction with non-Indigenous people and organisations who are willing and able to assist.

I've just added a link from that text to Welcome to Country § Aboriginal history and relationship with land, but I suspect that there is a better way to cover the material. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope my indentation worked and is appropriate to use here! The issue with consistency is that we may as well refer to Indigenous people and Aboriginal people as indigenous, aboriginal, and other terms-- because these are the terms that were consistent since colonisation. There would be no need to modify it. Do you see why the modern change for capitalising Country is needed? We deem words other than pro-nouns worthy of capitalising, all of the time. Wikipedia's rules don't always seem up-to-date for Indigenous content-- it's been a blind spot for many policies (such as what constitutes as a reliable source, is very much appealing to the Windshuttle empiricism, which is not appropriate for Indigenous foci in studies). How can anything be considered consistent or in the substantial majority, when it's a widely underspoken topic and continually miswritten, in comparison to English concepts within Wikipedia? If we were to stick to it for Indigenous concepts, we should go back to saying lower-case indigenous. For the sake of Wikipedia's rules on pro-nouns. It's only because of modern changes in the values (which are still not consistent), that people have started to regard it as Indigenous etc.
Also, note that some sources such as 'Creative Spirits', non-Indigenous-owned NGOs and businesses are not the most appropriate when trying to justify the phrasing (in fact, Creative Spirits is a commonly disliked source by Indigenous people + Indigenous Studies scholars). They are usually not agreed upon or required their colleagues to have training/collaboration with Aboriginal groups; and usually the government websites uphold that now (so websites like the Vic govt and NAIDOC are more preferred when finding other sources referring to Country).
Welcomes and Acknowledgements of Country are a really good example for when we capitalise 'Country'. The Beeliar entry is referring to the exact same 'Country' concept.
Any Wikipedia entry referring to the appropriate terminology with capitalisation for its use in Indigenous content should be allowed, just like the new era of capitalising 'Indigenous' etc. English isn't compatible with translating a lot of foreign (and 'First Nations') content, but we use it as best we can. This could be marked by italicisation, those brackets that follow with a translation , like this (toodah), or grammatically incorrect terms written in English as their own concept. Wikipedia entries use this method often (for Latin, Italian, Japanese... any language, really!). Sometimes this means not following the strict conventions of English; and for Indigenous content, this should include Aboriginal-English concepts/terms/syntax. Yes, the article is written in English -- but it's discussing Aboriginal content. If we only cared about the English conventions, let's just ignore the AIATSIS protocols of how to refer to Indigenous peoples and call them 'natives'. It's a 'correct' term when using English.
It's not like in another section, for non-Indigenous matters, it would be acceptable to then capitalise Country (as in Australia).
If we went by the conventions and consistency of what's written about Aboriginal people, we won't find much that's of the current standard. English has continually been used by non-Indigenous writers to write on Indigenous matters, and it's only in recent time that the terms are starting to be 'corrected' so that the language/terms are what Indigenous groups are approving as correct or appropriate. Just like capitalising Indigenous, Welcome to Country, and concepts such as 'Country'. It's to make it clear to anyone that this is a different 'Country'.
Consistency is a bit of an issue in general terms for Indigenous matters anyways -- Indigenous groups are not homogenous; not just because of geo-language groups, but because of the generations (older Aboriginal people are more open to the older, now-inappropriate terms, whilst younger Aboriginal people are typically the more 'consistent' to modern phrases). Capitalising 'Country' is something that I can assure you is happening, in the institutions, in the more recent academic papers, in government sites. But it's going to take a while (if at all) for any Indigenous matter to be consistent, substantial, and in the majority.
Thank you for making the new addition to the WtC article, and I appreciate you linking me to specific Wiki policy guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSIEteacher (talkcontribs) 11:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to sign my signature, I apologise! The change before was was from me^^^ HSIEteacher (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
You've twice use the term "pro-nouns", but it's not clear what you mean by that term. Did you mean:
So far as I can tell "country" in "Welcome to Country" and "Acknowledgement of Country" is capitalised because "Welcome to Country" (and "Acknowledgement of ...") is a noun phrase, and the phrase collectively is a proper noun, denoting a specific ceremony, not because "country" in that context is a proper noun.
Wikipedia has its own well-defined house styleWP:MOS, and in particular MOS:CAPS – which I've already cited and/or quoted from in my edit summaries and talk page posts. If you think that capitalisation of "country" is consistent with those guidelines, then please cite/quote the relevant part of the Wikipedia guidelines, because they are the ones that apply here. If you think that the Wikipedia style guide needs to change, then raise the matter on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, or more specifically Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not up to people to change guidelines to correctly use a term Caring for Country is vey much the same as a Welcome to Country is done by some one who has been initiated by the community and given the right. This is different to an Acknowledgement of Country, which is something others do when they havent been granted under lore to speak for a community thats why the good government & corporates say we acknowledge..... . Similarly each individual has a unique function to perform and represent within Caring for Country in that not every one can perform every aspect. Gnangarra 09:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to the details[edit]

Canterbury Cathedral Tower Ceiling.jpg Cathedral Builder
Much respect for all the ways you work to get things right. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you x1000[edit]

Thank you, thank you for editing the bips and bobs on the Beeliar stub.

It really helps that you're fairly local to the area, whilst I've never even visited Perth before! If I lived closer, I'd scavenge the hard copies at the local libraries + take a walk around Beeliar Wetlands to read the council's signs about the region.

Thank you so much for helping me write for my Wiki Education course. HSIEteacher (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting[edit]

Thank you very much Mitch for assisting the editing on the stub Caroline Archer. It is really helpful as I am a University student who is aiming to change this stub into a c or b class article. I am currently trying to find some images to include on the stub if you could assist me in doing so that would be extremely helpful! Shay0608 (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your advice to merge the pre-existing lead article on the chrysocephalum semipapposum article and my lead. If you have any other advice or thoughts feel free to let me know! Spooky Mug (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi[edit]

Hello. Help copy edit. Thank you. Vnosm (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Little Athletics Good Article Reassessment[edit]

Little Athletics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)