User talk:Daeron

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]