User talk:Simulaun

Welcome

G'day Simulaun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email help@wikimedia.org.au.

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your user page.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Article titles

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! JarrahTree 11:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO, which version should be maintained while the Etymology section is being discussed. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Perth".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Mitch Ames (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hi Simulaun! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Perth that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Most of your edits are tagged as minor but are not minor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Melbourne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Gain consensus for the removal of sourced content; stop edit warring. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rottnest

Hey, it is great that you are keen on Rottnest history, but the content you've been adding about Terra Nullius go against Wikipedia policy of no original research as none of those sources make any claim about Rottnest being 'bona fide Terra Nullius'. The source provided that claims it was 'officially discovered' by Vlamingh is just a blurb about a pamphlet and is really insufficient for making the claim that a place that had already been inhabited, as well as visited by other explorers. I'd suggest using the Rottnest talk page if you want to make the case for either of those matters further, rather than making the same edits repeatedly.The Logical Positivist (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Geelong. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There is ongoing discussion on this issue on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Making any more edits of this kind while the dispute is active is against Wikipedia policies. Poketama (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong=Djilang/Djalang (just different spellings), so there is not really a need to state it three times. My previous edit briefly explained the origin/etymology of the name, which is in keeping with the core mission of Wikipedia (NPOV information). Simulaun (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that and your prior work, we'll have to fix things up after the RfC is done. Poketama (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sydney, you may be blocked from editing. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to provide informative and unbiased content, which I presume is one of Wikipedia's key missions. Adding physical evidence (in this case a map by an unrelated third party) seems fully in line with this objective as well as "progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia", so please provide more details why you nonetheless consider this to be disruptive editing. Also, the map in question is the first item in 'Images' when 'Eora map of Sydney' is searched in Google, so please also provide more details why you consider the number 1 Google Images search result to be unsourced or poorly sourced content. Simulaun (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

consensus?

Hi! Before edit warring ensues, can you please point to where on Talk:Melbourne there is consensus for this edit, which you claim was "per WP:Talk"? because I don't see it. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern 1: The initial edit was considered on WP:Talk to 'probably be a good addition to the article, but it needs a source'. As stated in WP:Talk, the source is 3AW. Additional sources pertaining to the issue more generally, and the quoted individual, have now also been provided.

Concern 2: By quoting someone, it was alleged on WP:talk that the initial entry amounted to a single point of view. As pointed out on WP:Talk, this is not a particularly valid criticism. Moreover, this has now been addressed by presenting the topic more broadly ("The introduction of indigenous names...", as stated in reference by lonelyplanet.com)

Concern 3; It was claimed that the quoted individual (Ian Hunter) is non-notable. Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals), this concern has now been addressed by the addition of four additional references documenting significant exposure of this individual's views and activities on public news outlets.

Concern 4: It was claimed that the quoted individual cannot have been an 'elder' for 30 years. Although this criticism also appear to lack validity or relevance (e.g., there can be a degree of variation in how one interprets 'being an elder for 30 years'), this concern has also been addressed as the four additional references attest to broad-based recognition of the quoted individual's involvement in Aboriginal culture and their apparent credentials as an Aboriginal 'elder'. Simulaun (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not consensus. Your opinion, only your views or mostly yours is not consensus. You are simply edit warring, and I'd encourage you to either continue the discussion on talk - or cease adding disputed content. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The introduction of Indigenous names for places to honour Aboriginal culture is not straightforward, however. Naming entire cities, such as Sydney or Melbourne, which did not exist as a single entity prior to British colonization, means a name has to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint" is not disputed content. Please explain your reasoning for deleting it. Simulaun (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the way you have used that passage qualifies as original research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material Poketama (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at Hobart

I reverted your edit on Hobart. The use of dual naming on the Hobart page and other Australian pages has been the subject of massive debate both on Talk:Hobart, other city talkpages, and wp:WikiProject Australia. Presently there is no consensus to remove Indigenous naming, and in the case of Hobart, it is used official by state and local authorities as I have outlined on the talk page previously. If you have further evidence to counter this, I would be happy to hear it on the talk page, but given that there has been consistent vandalism on this topic from multiple editors, please refrain from editing out "nipaluna" without discussion. JT_dale^Talk~ 14:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As "The city lies on country which (sic) was known by (sic) the local Mouheneener people as nipaluna, a name which (sic) includes surrounding features such as kunanyi/Mt. Wellington and timtumili minanya (River Derwent)" appears to be plausible information, I see no pressing need to edit/correct this sentence. But as Nuennonne/Palawa kani: nipaluna 'includes surrounding features such as kunanyi/Mt. Wellington and timtumili minanya (River Derwent)', it clearly is not the same as the city Hobart (which does not include these features) and should hence not be presented as such on WP:Hobart, even if others are prone to making this error. Simulaun (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, but this isn't a debate between us. Make this argument on the talk page and get other editors input. But you're repeating exactly the same argument that was rejected by WikiProject Australia not that long ago. JTdale 🗩 07:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Melbourne. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Bypassing the need for consensus and adding original research -- as multiple editors have now told you (myself, and see above by Poketama) your content qualifies as such -- is not going to happen. There is a talk page, please use it in good faith, otherwise your edits are disruptive and will be treated as such. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Melbourne, you may be blocked from editing. Firstly, per WP:OR: Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Your content does precisely that, as pointed out multiple times to you. Secondly, it is considered bad faith to keep implying in the edit summary that you have gained consensus for the changes to the said article. You have clearly not, given multiple editors disagree with your changes. Finally, stop edit warring. Discuss the content changes you wish to make; the onus is on you to convince other editors on the merits of your content changes. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The contested text (a quote, so not WP:OR) was removed to comply with the WP:Talk comments. The remaining material from LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia has gone through numerous iterations to avoid being construed as WP:OR. I have also stated multiple times that anyone should feel free to alter the wording if they are not comfortable with it. Ultimately, it is relevant information from a valid source and hence warrants being included in WP:Melbourne. Simulaun (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Melbourne. Same as above. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can a near cut-and-past from a specified source be construed as 'unsourced'? Are you claiming that LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia constitute poor sources? Simulaun (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text in a foreign language is not legitimate on WP:English. It has since been suggested that this was part of someone's signature. I am awaiting a response from said individual to confirm the nature/content of their text in one or more foreign languages. Simulaun (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing to the Melbourne page. You have been repeatedly adding poorly sourced additions and removing long-standing well-sourced content, multiple editors have raised this with you. The wording of this section can be changed, but changes must be discussed on the talk page and carefully considered as it is a contested topic. It is unacceptable to just remove factual information simply because you disagree with it. Continued disruptive editing and removal of content without any good-faith attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page will result in me having to escalate this to a disciplinary forum. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The material from the single LonelyPlanet source is not poorly sourced or WP:Synthesis (“combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source”).

The material from the single 3AW source is also not poorly sourced or WP:Synthesis.

I have engaged extensive in WP:Talk regarding this 3AW material, resulting in only the LonelyPlanet material being reposted with changes so that it cannot be reasonably construed as original research.

The other sentences that I deleted from the WP:Melbourne paragraph in question are clearly not in keeping with WP (original research, contradictory sources, not in English). Deleting these, with an explanation why, is not disruptive editing. Rather, it is maintaining the standards specified by WP. Simulaun (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of SYNTH is inconsistent with your recent claim of 'unsourced or poorly sourced'.

It would be useful if you would provide a clear and consistent argument for why you oppose a near cut-and-paste from LonelyPlanet. Simulaun (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"near cut and paste" - that was partially the problem, given your addition was initially a violation of copyright.

SYNTH comes under the umbrella of unsourced/poorly sourced/original research. Read WP:SYNTH. The content you were adding you could not have possibly added without putting your own spin on it (ie. claiming a specific passage in the LonelyPlanet article was referring to Melbourne, when in fact, it was specifically referring to Sydney). Because the LonelyPlanet article didn't specifically refer to Melbourne in that passage, you've had to either combine sources (SYNTH) or word it in a way that matches your research (original research). We go by what reliable sources state, not what we want them to say. Hence, my arguments, which I feel have been repeated to you in many different ways over weeks, have been consistent. It's up to you if you listen. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The specific passage refers to "...capital cities and other major locations". So the LonelyPlanet article is not specifically about Sydney, which is only inserted in the passage as an example of a capital city. Thus, the statement of choosing names applies to Melbourne as much as it does to Sydney. Simulaun (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is with the passage that serves as a link between the content you want to add and Melbourne. LP: "Naming entire cities, such as Sydney, which did not exist as a single entity prior to British colonization, means a name had to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint." (emphasis mine). LP does not specify Melbourne in this passage (though you do) and instead, LP have used "doesn't always" suggesting = not every time or in every instance. Hence, you've relied upon SYNTH/OR to draw a connection not founded in that particular source. At this rate, given so many editors disagree with your changes, and you risk just repeating yourself over and over, it's probably best you drop the stick. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP Original Research (synthesis): "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented". The sentences that you object to/deleted are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. You also appear to be confusing SYNTH with summary. WP what SYNTH is not: "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length". Simulaun (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you've been doing is synthesising multiple sources to draw out a particular claim (that doesn't exist in a single source). If each source you used said the same thing, then yes, you would be summarising. But you are not summarising, and instead, have been rather disruptive, as has been repeatedly explained to you (here is a refresher if you need). You should probably consider this my final response (that I've repeated about a dozen times); however, should you still refuse to get the point, I'll open up another discussion at WP:ANI. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/australia-adopts-dual-names-for-cities-to-celebrate-aboriginal-heritage' is a single source. Simulaun (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. It is obvious that your secondary account Violstoken was repeating edits disputed by editors raising the same issue as main one as evident when comparing contributions from secondary account with the main one. 2001:448A:3047:3CFD:80A8:EBDC:12A:D468 (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban enacted

Per consensus at the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink), the following topic ban has been enacted:

Simulaun (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all geographical articles, broadly construed. Any further disruptive editing outside of this ban is also likely to be viewed very dimly by the community, based on the general commentary at this discussion.

Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement.

Details regarding appealing a community-imposed topic ban are contained at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. This topic ban will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Regards
Daniel (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal this Topic ban. Would you please advise whether this should, in the first instance, be appealed on the Administrators' Notice Board or whether this should be appealed by filing and Arbitration Request (or other means, such as an Amendment Request)?

Thanks. Simulaun (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]