User talk:Zaddikskysong

The

Adventure

Hi Zaddikskysong!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! talk) 17:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Welcome aboard Zaddikskysong. It is good to have more Australian editors who do not live in Sydney. Meinmuk. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 09:53, Thursday, May 2, 2024 (

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

It would be great if you could pick up some trove refs if at all possible, and also the talk page bits always help... ta JarrahTree 04:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeremy Taylor (dream worker) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Taylor (dream worker) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

You seem to be embarked on a campaign to expunge the word wilderness from Wikipedia even when it is entirely appropriate, such as on the Eucalyptus regnans page. I suggest you cease and desist until and unless you gain a consensus for this unnecessary change. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's true... I find it an objectionable word in most cases, and I'd be happy to defend that perspective. Although like you say, some cases may be more necessary than others. I hope I've only changed it to appropriate and sensible things. Still I think I've done enough for now, I shall "cease and desist", as you say. Zaddikskysong (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually spend many months living in Eucalyptus Regnans forest in Tasmania, so yes, I am well aware of it. Zaddikskysong (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about what words you find objectionable, that reads as POV pushing. Nor is it a place to right wrongs, great or otherwise. In the normal course of events, the

BRD cycle would result in your change being reverted and a discussion being held regarding the change, but you have made so many changes in such a short amount of time, this is now difficult. Looking at your edit summaries, it seems you have particular problem with your idea that wilderness implies lack of culture or lack of people living in an area. This is arrant nonsense, and I suggest the problem is not with the word, but your interpretation of what it means. Wilderness is about the nature of the area, which has nothing to do with people. Indeed, often people live in wilderness areas, unless they begin to modify the landscape, plant large areas with crops etc and are present in only relatively low numbers those people do no change the wilderness character of an area. I suggest it would be best if your changes be reverted and discussed, to achieve consensus for removal, for any of the instances of the word wilderness that you feel are particularly egregious. I do not wish to raise this issue on the drama boards, but will reluctantly do so if you do not respond appropriately. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

so eloquently explained compared to my now deleted scattered messaging of last night - thanks Nick, and Zaddi... you are on notice with that... JarrahTree 01:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, firstly thank you both for commenting (really!). I can see how it would come across that I'm a zealot / trying to cancel people / pushing a fringe agenda / humorless. All of which I hope is untrue. I can see now that editing so many pages at once wasn't the right way to do it. That's a lesson for me, ~800 edits into Wikipedia. Don't edit so many pages at once, don't be so terse!

Firstly though, with rare exception, I think the literal meaning of the text has been kept through my edits, and only the nuance changed slightly. So reverting them en masse to me would be overkill. The edits represent a tiny fraction of the occurrences of 'wilderness' on Wikipedia, and there are many pages I deliberately didn't edit.

As to whether my opinions are nonsense, I would say they are opinions that are widely held, if not by everyone. Examples can be seen on ABC news, in published literature, in art historical theory, etc. In light of the fact that many sources hold my view, my general thinking was that it's more 'neutral' to use words that are not as loaded as 'wilderness', in cases where it's possible. That isn't an agenda I'm going to push any further in the same way, but I don't think it's crazy. I also accept that there is a viewpoint from which 'wilderness' is a neutral word, and I understand that position, even if I don't agree with it.

Of course the word 'wilderness' is ambiguous. It doesn't necessarily mean that a place is uninhabited, or in a pristine unchanged state, or not being utilised by anyone. Nevertheless it carries connotations in that direction (if you look up 'wilderness synonym' on Google, 'uninhabited region' and 'uncultivated region' both come up in the info box). So that is one argument for the term being worrying when applied to Aboriginal land, especially in the many cases where the landscape was actually modified in large ways (especially through the use of fire). Even if that is not the case currently, I can see the argument for people being offended when the inhabitants are dispatched in one way or another, and then the area is promptly declared 'wilderness'.

If there are places where things like this can be discussed in general / consensus reached, I'd be happy to participate (as I said, I'm not deep into the Wikipedia world as yet).

tl;dr: Mea culpa for editing so many pages at once, I'm not accusing anyone else of being a bad actor, I had my reasons, I don't think it's worth reverting en masse. Although if there are cases where you think reversion would be useful, I'm not going to war with anyone. Zaddikskysong (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fail - I dont think you have a very good grasp about wikipedia yet - or how such admissions above help you - there is an absence of understanding what wikipedia is

WP:ABOUT - it is an online encyclopedia, and not where getting caught in long and unproductive discussions about what constitutes a term is either worth your effort or not. Above is about you and your ideas understandings. Once you have that out of your system fine, please do not take it out on wikipedia. Your judgement as to your editing is redundant - others will sort out your edits - that is part of editing wikipedia. JarrahTree 03:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm here to learn the ways of this world. I always assumed that some of my changes might be contested. If you think reverting all the wilderness changes, and having me defend the ones I see as most problematic individually, is the best way forward, then so be it ~ let me know the best and most sensible way for me to do that, if it comes to it. Zaddikskysong (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, unless a substantive reason is given to do otherwise, I will revert all your wilderness changes. You have not provided any real reason why they should have been made other than

It's fine, I get the WP:NOT criticism, go for it. I don't have more reasons than I've mentioned. I might have a go at the BRD cycle some time on a couple of talk pages where I think it's especially warranted, unless you'd regard that as warring. I'll just note though that none of the changes have been reverted already, other than your Eucalyptus Regnans... Zaddikskysong (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Eucalyptus regnans change was reverted because that page is on my watchlist. The other edits have not yet been reverted because I was giving you time to respond here. That's how we do things here on Wikipedia, there is no time limit. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted these edits. Please seek consensus on the respective talk page(s) before redoing any of the changes. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good Nick, will do. Zaddikskysong (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Kelly Bulkeley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fugoppe Cave, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– Joe (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lightoil (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sairin-ji (Matsuyama), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]