Mitch Ames

your sparkling wit, your eagle eye

It would be interesting if you were able to review the prose of the limp lettuce that I had the misfortune to pen, all those years ago (it needs update and the rest of course), I thought I should entice your sparkling wit and eagle eye on to looking at -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_walking_tours_and_trails and cannot even bring myself to at the moment due to being drawn away by real life in a few minutes... JarrahTree 06:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that... JarrahTree 11:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing really needs re-writing from scratch (by someone familiar with the subject matter, and/or with access to all the references, which my excuse for not doing it). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

your questions at the talk page of the item are truly disturbing... JarrahTree 12:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(nah not vladivostok) - maybe betelguese via improbability drive - try https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/206460806/version/226585435?keyword=fremantle%20oddments and I have no idea what world cat has to do with anything when the trove entry repeats the month up to three times... JarrahTree 13:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what world cat has to do with anything — In the article Notes section, click on "0033-5002" in item 2. (WorldCat is not working all all now, but was when I made this edit.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

16 May

Mitch your response is so out of character. I refuse to engage in your drawn out tedious conversations about aboriginal subjects - if you have personal belief in finding answers to your questions, that is your problem. From a range of others (not mine) you are venturing into areas that elicit more queries than ever reaching resolved answers. JarrahTree 13:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Shut up and stay out of it completely - now now mitch, there are too many items at humorous essays to respond to your civility... JarrahTree 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Mitch, this is a parallel to other issues in wikipedia - it is not something that can be resolved by wishing to attaining an outcome, or specifically trying to make things fit - the whole premise of a project that started with 'ships', 'trains' and similar primary school level project titles was far from what traditional and established encyclopedias had established in the past. The constraints are such in the categories/terminologies and conceptual traps that are inherent in the construction of wikipedia as it is, is that resolved 'outcomes' are a redundancy. There are more holes than one can count in a project such as this. I can assure you that your personal quest to find 'answers' in areas of knowledge about first nation people and their history in the world is admirable, but to date, drawn out and quite time consuming as well as bewildering for those who have ventured into discourse with you. Either you have to resign yourself to your admirable improvement of grammatical and rules based reasoning in technical areas, or otherwise find that 'knowledge' in the human sciences cannot be so easily found or translated. But then there is always more than one way to parse the nuance of translation of things that are not inherently understandable within the written white anglo saxon western science oriented thinking. JarrahTree 02:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If there was a link to a diff/post/edit somewhere in your post I might have some idea what you are talking about. If there was a specific question in your post (and a link or some other definite indication of what you were talking about) I might answer it. If there was some unambiguous objective factual statement in your post that I could agree or disagree with, I might do that. But in all cases, there is not. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

exactly, that is what a significant amount of material available in print actually arrives at, there is in actual real life understanding of the world of indigenous people around the world, nothing that could be unambiguous objective factual in the sense that you search for actually exist, there are indeed things that are both paradoxical and untranslatable, in other words things that cannot be transposed, mind you such things even exist in such unexpected corners in railway history, but let us not go down that particular rabbit hole at this point. As for the idea that there is a diff/post/edit to specifically give a target to the issues - well, I would sense that [1] in WP:AGF is a good start... whereas [2] situates within a specific framework, and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth' more global context from the philosophical premise of [3]. All of this in the context of [4] and the philosophical basis of [5] against Wikipedia:HORSEMEAT and the logical connections with [6] which segues into the [7] in turn [8] and the actual issue of extracting the specific unambiguous objective factual expression into a sense of unprovable item is best understood in terms of the lack of probable [9] and the direct correlation with the issue [the section in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe which satirises the absurdity of the thought that any one species would exist on Earth merely to serve as a meal to another species, such as humans as the part of [10] which gives a very good (albeit tangential in some senses but not all) parallel as to whether english speaking persons of european origin are capable of explaining people who have very different epistemological frameworks in their mother tongue and cultural framework. Too easy to rationalise without doing so in a disparaging and demonstrably offensive manner, as has been done for the last 200 years, and wikipedia daily for the length of its existence. Take care and remember unambiguous objective factual is effectively [11] and subject to the conditions explained carefully in [12] and the understandings in [13] with the conditional understandings of the certainty of Indigenous populations anywhere on the planet are formulated by textual traditions in most cases by colonialists or outsiders, and that for internal coherency, there is always the point where [14] and a very carefully established balance between [15] and [16], in view of contemporary indigenous studies, anthropology and history and their trying to establish something in their respective fields, are way south of reaching your hope for 'unambiguous objective factual' it is neither their goal or aspiration, they do what they can and move on, in many cases well off the mark for a whole lot of reasons. During my fieldwork all those years ago, I was lucky enough to find people who effectively were able to speak for almost 45 minutes about nothing, and it was considered the height of their cultural understanding to have the capacity to do so. Enjoy the links Mitch, you asked for some... JarrahTree 07:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

and confirmation bias can be thought through very carefully from such items as:

People also ask

Does Disney own the Australian Broadcasting Corporation?

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) produces and broadcasts television, radio and internet services. The corporation is owned and funded by the Commonwealth Government of Australia.

and

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-21/wiley-hindawi-articles-scandal-broader-crisis-trust-universities/103868662 - now there is one for your reliable source, without assistance from Meta or AI. JarrahTree 01:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

[citation needed] on Autism article

On the Autism article under "Other features ", I can't add my reference. When I try to publish it, it fails and text that says, "Unable to determine wikitext result.". What does this mean? Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 23:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I've not seen that error message before, and a quick search doesn't find anything, so I don't know what it means. It's possible that it was a transient error; I suggest trying again to add the reference. If it still fails, ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It will probable be helpful if you link to the specific page and diff (I assume it was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=1222146858) and include information about the reference you were trying to add, and exactly how you were adding it, eg whether you were using Visual Editor or the source editor, and the reference URL if it is online. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames. So sorry for the late response, I think I wasn't subbed to it for notifications.

I don't remember what the reference was, and I was using the source editor through the Wikipedia app.

Here's the revision link when I first added it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&oldid=1222146858#Other_features

Here's the revision link before I removed the lower alpha reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&oldid=1226006228#Other_features

Here's the revision link for when I removed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism&direction=next&oldid=1226006228; in the edit summary, I described why I removed the lower alpha reference. —Tonkarooson (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Links from Lydham Hall article

May I ask to please do not re-instate links to St George Historical Society and Heritage NSW. It is unfortunately that these two place did not update the historical site of their articles on the subject, which would make the reader confused. This Wiki article is the only place with historical information confirmed by original documents and is up to date on historical data. Regards, Olga Sydney (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the specific relevant edits - either addition of the link(s) or removal of the link(s), will do - so I know exactly which links we are talking about. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As a historian and the author of this article I am confirming that there is no original documents providing Chandler's birth place. My complete original research is published and also available on Trove. That is why presumption should stay. I have four years on this research. Wiki does not require original sources here. Olga Sydney (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The area where the street is used to be art of Rockdale, NSW, since then it has changed to Banksia. When you 'simplified' you changed the historical, true, line up of area name. Please leave it. Olga Olga Sydney (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, please provide links to the specific edits that you are talking about. WP:SDG has instructions on how to do this. I've have made many edits to the article, and I am not going to try to guess which one(s) you are talking about. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mitch Ames, just wanted to let you that another editor has been making unconstructive edits on Lydham Hall appears to have an undisclosed COI. I've started a discussion at User talk:LydhamHallCurator and I am AGF that now I have pointed out the polices, the unconstructive editing will stop, but maybe keep an eye on it? Cheers. Dfadden (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the update. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also link to SGHS does not provide any further knowledge. Olga Sydney (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

May I ask why the link to the St George Historical Society was again re-instated as it is against the Wiki policy as you mentioned your self and as an historian, I can assure you that the website has historically incorrect information which will confuse the audience. Olga Sydney (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, please provide links to the specific edits that you are talking about. WP:SDG has instructions on how to do this. (Eg, Here is an example of a recent edit that you made. This is only to illustrate what I mean by "link to specific edit"; it may or may not be related to the discussion.) If you have tried but not been able to create a link to an edit, then please say so explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mitch Ames, The simple comparison of the historical data will make the reader confused. Specifically, the date of the building is prooved to be 1878-1879, but the link to the St George Historical Society's website, where the building was erected in 1860. That is historically incorrect claim.

The website claims: "When Davis died in 1889, the property was subdivided" where in fact, the owner was originally subdividing property before his death and the same was reflected in his Will.

The sentence: "Rockdale City Council purchased Lydham Hall in 1970 as a headquarters for the St George Historical Society and its collections and archives. To commemorate the Centenary of Rockdale City Council, the building opened to the public on 20 February 1971" does not match original documents. The purchase was made to create a local Museum and partial funding was provided from the funding allocated to the Centenary celebration of the Rockdale Municipal Council (not City but Municipality). The Society was to run the Museum, not to have HQ there, etc.

"When Davis died in 1889, the property was subdivided and a smaller parcel of land was sold to local oyster farmer, Frederick Gibbins, who leased the property to a succession of wealthy tenants." The property was initially subdivided by Davis himself much earlier. When he died, the Will stated "to sell everything." As you can see my knowledge of original documents proves a number of incorrections.

Moreover, the link to Tripadviser that is also provided on the Society's website, also has incorrect information. The Society was advised twice by two researchers but still delays making changes, and still confuse the audience.

The same is applicable to the Heritage NSW but in much larger volume. The number of grammatical and historical incorrections is huge, but they are very slow to make changes and the Council is providing excuses not to follow up. I would at least wait until the Society makes changes.

I hope my position here is clear and I look forward to your support.

The LH Curator is trying to bring visitors, which is commendable but has to be respectful to the audience and true to the history.

Kind Regards,

Olga Olga Sydney (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope my position here is clear... — It is not, at least in regards to Wikipedia.

• If you disagree with one or more of my edits (as implied by [17][18] for example), please provide a link to the edit (see WP:SDG for instructions) so that I know exactly which edit (of the many that I have made to the Lydham Hall article) you are talking about.
• If you can't or don't want to link to a specific edit (possibly the edit is superseded by subsequent changes), but disagree with something specific in the article, then please state explicitly what it is that you disagree with - eg by quoting the relevant text (including the contents of any <ref>...</ref> tags if applicable) and/or by stating which part of the article you are talking about if quoting is not appropriate, eg a specific field in the infobox.
• If the problem is a link, then be specific - for example, where does the link appear and what is the URL / link target.

Mitch Ames (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I am learning entering references and links. But please do not link this article with St George Historical Society as they have incorrect information. When they will change it to correct and acceptable level, then I will personally will place it there. On the other side you requested way too many links as the museum was the first and still is the only one. All links to published academic research was provided. Regards, Olga Sydney (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am learning entering references and links — Please remember to preview (see H:PREVIEW) your changes before publishing, to ensure that they look OK. Your most recent edits appear to contain some formatting errors, which I have corrected. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mitch. No, it was not my reference to Wiki. Thank you for reading my and Janette's original works and making changes. A few pointers. 1. Next to Christina Stead name you provided link to David Stead, her father. Need change. 2. Ellen Davis rented house Kensington house and died there. That needs to be changed. 3. TMHLC is based on her personal recollections. Exactly. 4. There would not be any citation re furniture from National Trust as it is a hard copy document not available online. 5. The same goes to the 'only' museum within the area. 6. It is better not to provide link to Heritage NSW as it contains incorrect information and I could not push it even if I am trying very hard. Bureaucracy is in place.

Look, I am asking you kindly to make these changes as I am acquainted with the LH curator who behaves like a high school bully towards me as a result of changing the content. I am tired of that person's ignorance. Thank you very much for looking after this page. You did help a lot so I could finish another work that possibly will make LHC unhappy again.

Appreciate your help. Kind Regards and Great Appreciation, Olga Olga Sydney (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

4. There would not be any citation re furniture from National Trust as it is a hard copy document not available online. 5. The same goes to the 'only' museum within the area. — References do not need to be online. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Definition of published and Wikipedia:Citing sources § Indicating availability. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for adding the citation on the new image for Autism, here's a kitten!

~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 03:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Blak War

Hello there

I think "men, women and children" is legitimate here because the troops argued that they thought they were under attack by a war party. In which case shooting women and children was a war crime. In most of the article I think it is legitimate to note when women, children and other obvious non-combatants were killed. It also has some relevance to genocide argument.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I changed two instances of "men, women and children" in my edit.

• In the first instance "soldiers, settlers and convicts from Risdon Cove fired on a group of about 100 Aboriginal people after an encounter at a farm." According to that ref "large group of Big River/Oyster Bay men, women and children suddenly appeared on top of a hill ... 'they did not know there was a white man in the country' ".
• In the second instance the settlers "launched a reprisal attack at dawn on an undefended Aboriginal camp".

In both cases nothing suggests that the settlers were under attack. Nor is there anything saying that all and only the Aboriginal men were combatants. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the wording on the Risdon Cove massacre to address the point you raised. I have rechecked the sources and increased the number of Aboriginal people in the group to 100 - 300. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Category Genocides in Europe

I see you removed this category from certain pages with the explanation that a subcategory is already used. However would this apply to all the articles listed under this category that also have other genocide subcategories? I see you did this for only some of them so wondered what were the differences. Thanks! 108.30.246.176 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

When I removed articles from Category:Genocides in Europe there were two classes of exceptions:

• eponymous categories, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles and Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles with eponymous categories
• Articles under Category:The Holocaust, because it was taking too long to build the list of those articles. I've subsequently processed that sub-category.

It's possible that some articles directly in Category:Genocides in Europe are also in some other genocide category X, where X is not a subcategory of Category:Genocides in Europe but should be. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

very simple

it has to go. Hindrance by being a smarty about process - and then doing nothing, is disruptive editing. Do something - without lengthy discussion of process for process sake. JarrahTree 01:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Aboriginal peoples of Victoria (state)#Contested deletion. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

however dismissive

of the message above that explores the fruitless search on your part for 'truth' about anything, it is somewhat facile to ascertain that there is no mention of the lands being related to the canning stock route. The Kartudjara exist in the region - and the larger proportion of the population can be found at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parnngurr_Community if you so wish to see where they exist. No one has systematically listed the indigenous groups that have existed within the range of the stock route, although there is an implication of about 9 along the route. Also the transitions of the language group as it exists is easily understood with a bit of careful reading. It is of course helped by the fact that neither Trove or AITSIS have direct references to the name in their search engines. To ask for a reference to keep your thirst for verifiable truth - your best bet is to follow the line:

https://rotaryarg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/04Map-Tindale9.jpg is the best bet to see the location

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martu_people - are the larger family of which the Kartudjara belong

So a small allusion to the map referred to (the Tindale map), which indicates the location which in turn can be interpolated with the map alluded to in the Parnngurr article. It means that the external link https://www.wangkamaya.org.au/pilbara-languages/kartujarra is the most helpful, with the links in the article itself of dubious status or currency. If you choose, you can clarify things in the article, or you can leave it.

At least two or three of the links in my earlier message above - would simply re-assert the notion that just because you cannot find a reference to something in the form of your choice, doesn't mean that the community is not on the canning stock route.JarrahTree 12:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have rolled back three of my edits without explanation in the edit summary, when only one of those edits was about the Canning Stock Route; your post above does not appear to mention any reason for reverting the other two edits. This appears to be an abuse of the rollback privilege. You have done this to me multiple times in the past. I'm tempted to report the abuse and suggest that the privilege should be revoked - the only reason I haven't is because I haven't yet been sufficiently motivated to record (the diffs of) each instance. I have reverted your rollback. Please take more care in future. — Mitch Ames 13:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

You appear to have rolled back three of my edits without explanation in the edit summary... — And again you have undone one of my edits for no apparent reason. Please be more careful and check your changes before publishing. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the Canning Stock Route category itself:

• Per WP:CATV "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" - and that is not currently the case.
• Per WP:CATDEF "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". Are there reliable sources that describe the Kartudjara as people of the Canning Stock Route?
• ... allusion to ... the Tindale map ... interpolated with the map alluded to in the Parnngurr article — WP:SYN

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Kartudjara have been affected by the Canning Stock Route, - the language group and country have been affected by the route. The fact that you ask me are there reliable sources that describe the K as people of the Canning Stock Route? is so telling. JarrahTree 01:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you ask me are there reliable sources that describe the K as people of the Canning Stock Route? is so telling. — My question was rhetorical so, yes, I was "telling" you to find the sources and add the material to the article (citing those sources). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

you have the option top actually find some sources yourself, removing the indigenous names of peoples affected by the stock route shows your amusing capacity to show your total lack of knowledge of the subject and details, or how to find sources, for that matter. 05:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

All of my previous points continue to apply; feel free to address them specifically. If you think WP:CATV, WP:CATDEF, WP:SYN, WP:PROVEIT are wrong, take it up on the relevant policy/guideline talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to acknowledge the fact that you have no idea how to understand the context of your edits to the Canning Stock Route category. I would suggest that you re-read the articles that you have removed, and prove to the reader why you have removed the link. There are so many remedies for your apparent short coming as to understanding the groups of people who were affected by the stock route. Just because you read it the way you do, does not prove that CATDEF, SYN or PRoVEIT are in fact not the problem, but your reading of the sources given in the articles, could be the problem. JarrahTree 10:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly which of

• "there's nothing in the article to support this"
• "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"

do you disagree with?

Please quote the text in the [Kartudjara] article that clearly supports the inclusion of that article in Category:Canning Stock Route. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Mitch, WP:AGF prevents an answer at this point.JarrahTree 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Aboriginal

Hi MA. I take exception to your recent edit summary "Aboriginal" is an adjective, not a noun. My Macquarie dictionary clearly includes its use as a noun. It also appears to be the form preferred by people for whom their aboriginal heritage is a defining characteristic. Doug butler (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Example edits, for reference: [19][20][21]

My changes (and edit summary) were based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1 (admittedly an apparently abandoned draft).

Indigenous Australian terminology can be a contentious issue, and probably needs a broader discussion than my talk page. It might be worth raising at WP:AWNB and/or WT:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I had no beef with your edits, and never have. Just nit-picking your summary. Cheers! Doug butler (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

dont touch it

read the article again and you prove to me that it is not associated with the canning stock route. If you dont get it I strongly suggest you consider trying to clarify what you dont get, or understand. I am referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartudjara of course. JarrahTree 07:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal explanation - rather than expecting you to revert my edit from the addition of canning stock route, I was requesting in WP:AGF that you re-read the article so that you could explain to me why the article should not be in the canning stock route category.

It was hoping that you might re-read the article, so that we would not go through what we have done above. If you want an explanation different from above where you dismissed the issues that I raised above with the rules and laws clanking around in the air like ancient swords, (the hope was that you are able to make some connections from things in the article) we might have got somewhere. Have a good weekend anyway. JarrahTree 09:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Having read the article again, I still think Kartudjara ought not be in Category:Canning Stock Route. The reason that the article does not belong in that category is (as previously mentioned [22][23]) that:

• There is still nothing in the article to support the category, and
• WP:CATV says (with my emphasis here) "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories"

WP:EW, WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD prohibit me removing the category again without some sort of agreement, so I invite you again to quote the verifiable text in the Kartudjara article that clearly supports the inclusion of that article in the category. If we cannot reach an agreement here (which seems increasingly to be the case), I'll raise the matter in some wider forum(s) to get some other opinions. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

you have not answered the challenge - and that is to be expected:

The Kartudjara's traditional lands extended over 26,000 square kilometres (10,000 sq mi) from Madaleri, north of Kumpupintil Lake around Well 22 down southwest towards Pulpuruma (Well 12). Their western boundary lay on the southern side of the Rudall River (Karlamilyi) as far as the Robertson Range and the eastern headwaters of both the Jigalong and Savory Creeks. The country was characterized by endemic parallel sand-dune formations.

What is it that evades you mitch? Kumpupintil Lake around Well 22 down southwest towards Pulpuruma (Well 12) a very simple check will identify that the wells are on the canning stock route. The article, admittedly is a very badly written one, and needs a serious re-write. I have some good paper items, if you are interested in helping.

If something needs to spelt out, which part is is that you have a need for? Do you need https://collection.aiatsis.gov.au/austlang/language/a51 (the location section), to reinforce the text above? I am not sure why you havent actually sighted the material, considering the references that exist in the articles you have removed from the category. I dont understand why things have to be spelt out for you - the likelihood of having a very specific reference answering your problem is very low, but the evidence is there that it is actually in vicinity of the canning stock route, but ethnographically speaking, I would suggest that a careful reading of Tonkinson's materials abut western desert groups is that most of the people have ended up at communities, rather than living in the country itself. Tindale's work has been queried by quite a few writers, but then nishidani's creation of the articles was only just a start, there are good arguments that almost all community articles are inadequately linked to language groups and groups areas. There has been considerable literature since Tindales publications.

Please feel free to to your querying of any the assertions here, I am sure that others couldnt give a rats whether the crappy canning stock route article is adequately linked to the country of the language groups that are or have been adjacent to the route - at least one item (which is an unreliable source) has suggested that up to eleven (even 19 some have been suggested in very unreliable sources) language groups or more have been intersected or adjacent to the route. Another source has also suggested that the local people had been forced to identify water sources for the european travellers, and then the very nature of the wells had actually caused the local people to damage the wells and their efficacy.

There are other aspects to this. As you didnt answer the challenge for you to prove to me that the canning stock route was not connected with the specific group of people, I am assuming that you are able to maintain WP:AGF in your reply. Try using aitsis and trove a bit more, it can help doubt and uncertainty in a lot of areas, and I believe it is well worth the effort! JarrahTree 12:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

But also if you are reluctant to want to understand what I am trying to say, try reading https://www.wangkamaya.org.au/home#search/canning%20stock%20route - and maybe you want to argue with that... JarrahTree 12:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What is it that evades you mitch? — The words "Canning Stock Route" in the article ("It should be clear from verifiable information in the article ...").

If something needs to spelt out, which part is is that you have a need for? — The words "Canning Stock Route" need to be spelt out in the article (with verifiable sources, and without WP:SYN).

I dont understand why things have to be spelt out for you — because WP:CATV says "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article ..."

As you didnt answer the challenge for you to prove to me that the canning stock route was not connected — I refer you to WP:BURDEN with my emphasis here: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

I shall raise the matter in a broader forum tomorrow. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What matter? Why? JarrahTree 14:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the category link and wish to have nothing further to do with you on wiki for quite a while - JarrahTree 15:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

2024-07-18

https://www.form.net.au/about-form cf https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canning_Stock_Route&oldid=1235222468 JarrahTree 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you have a question?

Are you trying to make a statement that you want me to agree with, or refute, or just comment on?

Did you mean to link to a diff rather than a specific version of Canning Stock Route? If you intended to refer to a specific version of an entire large article, some indication of which particular part of (that version of) the article is relevant would be helpful? If you intend to refer to one or more specific edits that I made, please provide a link to the diff(s), not just a specific version.

Typing is hard on the fingers I know, but mind-reading is harder on my brain. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

FORM is a group hence the first link, and where you change it to uncapitalised version the diff. I also see now the Royal Commission title you have also removed the capitals from in a more recent edit. Both of which need to be fixed, basically it appears you jumping in with irrelevant policies just to troll rather than reading the and checking the source or considering what is actually being written about Gnangarra 10:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

jumping in with irrelevant policies — I don't think that editing the text to conform to MOS - "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" - is "trolling". If you think MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMRULES should not apply, please explain why. (I fail to see how FORM is a group justifies ignoring MOS, but feel free to quote the relevant part of MOS that says "put group names in all caps", or similar.) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)