Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

UtherSRG 03:32, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

PS. You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

Hey dude, no worries about changing the spelling, I have a suspicion that it may be an Aboriginal word and as such the spelling probably varies. If you google for Quongdong you will find entries with this spelling though granted not that many. Perhaps an alternative spelling option could be a go. I did eat some flesh and the nut on a bushtucker trip but couldn't find out much about them since - maybe because of the way I was spelling it?. Cheers. SeanMack 07:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry if I came across as hostile with the Papua page. My reasoning is that while there are certainly people who consider using "Papua" in this way to be incorrect, there are also those who would think otherwise. Regardless of which side is right, Wikipedia's NPOV policy means that we shouldn't take sides — it isn't our role to be arbiters of what's "correct" or not, particularly since the large numbers of Wikipedians means that we often can't agree ourselves. If we take sides, the page will always be flipping backwards and forwards as people argue over it — much better to have a neutral statement which sticks to the agreed facts. By removing the "(incorrectly)" comment, I believe the NPOV policy is upheld — we are not commenting one way or the other on whether the usage is correct or not, and people can make up their own minds. (If you think it appropriate to discuss the disputed use in detail, that would be fine — add a note that "some people consider this incorrect, arguing that...", or suchlike. That would make sure people knew the use is disputed, without breaking the policy about taking sides.) Again, sorry if I seemed hostile — I should have explained my reasoning in the edit summary. -- Vardion 09:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. It's true that a NPOV is important, but I don't see how the names of islands are a matter to be based on opinions. It is a universally agreed fact that the large island north of Australia which is divided between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea is called 'New Guinea' and has been for several centuries. I admit that there have been a number of cases of people on Wikipedia insisting that it is also known as Papua, but no-one has been able to give a source or reference to show that this is the case (if you have one I'd be interested to know about it). From where this usage occurs I suspect that it results from a sympathy with the OPM and their preference for the western half of New Guinea to be called 'Papua Barat', or 'West Papua'. I've checked with a number of authorities both in Australia and in PNG on this and none of them had ever heard of the island being called 'Papua'. It is incorrect to call it 'Papua', just as it would be incorrect to call Australia 'New Holland'. (Oh, and no hostility felt.) Cheers, Dougg 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fellas! Sorry to burts into your Papua nomenklature chat like this, but I just couldn't help it. I agree that the main article of the island should stay put where it is, namely under New Guinea, which is it's name in the English language. Perhaps Papua is more of a patriotic/romantic/poetic name, similar to America, Britain, Aotearoa or Kanaky. These are not official nor entirely neutral names in common usage for any state or area, but are names filled with emotion and may even convey a certain ethno-political stance or affiliation. Perhaps these alternative names can be mentioned in parentheses at the beginning of the proper article, with a short explanation of the subtle difference in usage? --Big Adamsky 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I suspect that it is universally agreed that the island is called "New Guinea", there are still people who think it can also be called Papua. Examples of the use of "Papua" to refer to the island can be found in this Oxfam page, this article on the population of Indonesia, this Macromedia Flash display from the Guardian newspaper, this Diacritica article, and this (cached) article in the Taipei Times. (In addition, there are the West Papua partisans that you mention — the fact that they have an agenda doesn't mean that their views on the matter don't count). While you may well argue that all these people are incorrect, the examples show that some people see "Papua" as an acceptable and correct name. I'd consider that enough for the NPOV policy to apply — there's a difference in opinion, and Wikipedia shouldn't take sides. Wikipedia isn't the place for supporters of one view or another to thrash out arguments — we're meant to report things, not arbitrate on them. If there isn't consensus (which I believe there isn't, given the examples), it isn't our role to wade in. (For one thing, there's no real way for us to reach a conclusion. Anyone can edit Wikipedia — who gets to decide what's "correct" and what isn't? Based on prior disputes on other topics, it's entirely possible to have two factions each absolutely convinced that they've "proven" their case beyond all doubt — in Wikipedia, proof doesn't actually help your position unless everyone agrees that it's proof, since anyone who doesn't agree can just come along and change things.) As I say, there's no problem with presenting the arguments — a note that "Papua" isn't used officially, for example, or a note that atlases don't use it. If the case is solid, just presenting the undisputed facts should theoretically be sufficient — the "correct" answer will be self-evident. (I don't have any particular view on the matter, myself.) Perhaps, though, a wider view should be solicited? I'm sure there are placed this could be brought up for other people's attention. -- Vardion 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I'll accept that you're right, though I still think it's incorrect to refer to the island as 'Papua' and that it's not a matter of opinion, this being the internationally accepted name for the island for centuries. I suspect that 'Papua' might be the name used by Indonesians as most of the links you give are about that side of the island. And I would argue that the authors of those articles simply haven't checked their facts and would more than likely accept that they got the name wrong. Anyway, how about if I change the line on the disambig page to:

'Sometimes used as a name for the island of New Guinea (the official name).'

or...

'Sometimes used as to refer to the island of New Guinea (the official name).'

BTW, thanks for those links, I think I bumped into the author of the Diacritica article when he was in Vanimo so it was interesting to read it. Dougg 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — sorry for not responding sooner. The solution you propose would, as far as I can see, be fine, although it might be nice if we could attribute the "official" bit. Official according to which authority? Is there an recognised international authority which regulates these things, or does each country decide on their own official names for things? I suppose the UNCSGN would be the best bet. Or maybe that's not necessary, if the name is indeed official virtually everywhere. -- Vardion 05:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my understanding is that 'New Guinea' has been the official name for over 400 years (here's the first known map showing 'Nova Guinea'), and has been universally accepted as such by all authorities, atlases, geographical names bodies etc. Regards regulation, my understanding is that where nations share an island they work together to establish the official name which is then ratified by the UNCSGN, but in all such cases of which I'm aware (e.g. Hispaniola, Borneo, Timor, Cyprus, Ireland...can't think of any others) the island in question has had its name for centuries, so there is no such regulation happening. I really don't think there's any question that the official name of the island is 'New Guinea'. While anyone can call the island by any name they want to, I think that only if some name is being used by a fair number of commentators is it reasonable to put it in Wikipedia. I'm willing to accept that this is the case with 'Papua' used for 'New Guinea'. But I think it's also reasonable (even obligatory) in such cases to highlight the official name. Dougg 23:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All sounds fine to me. -- Vardion 06:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry for being another person picking up on this but, it seems against Wiki standards to be adding personal comment on alternate names. For example US, Australia, MSG, and no doubt tens of thousands of other 'unofficial' names are not cited as 'unofficial' or in any other way listed as a 'lesser' name.

So that's the first reason there is no need for any comment about it being 'unofficial', 'improper', 'tainted', 'lesser', or otherwise not fitting some community's preferred usage of a alternate name.

The Second reason is that IF someone started improssing their community's viewpoint on word usage, by what measure could that be limited? Would political groups be entitled to revert each other on a hourly basis, would Geological and Historical groups be battling over place names, would you have Specialist groups opposing the general community? By allowing someone to claim one word usage is politically 'correct' and the other is 'not' is to turn Wikipedia into a political propaganda box instead of being a neutral reporter. 211.30.222.139 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not that concerned about not having the qualification 'unofficial' retained (although, as you've probably noticed from the previous discussion above on this, I do feel that 'Papua' is simply incorrect as an alternative name for New Guinea). What I find strange is your description of it as 'denigratory'. And now you compound that by equating 'unofficial' with 'improper, tainted, lesser' etc. 'Unofficial' refers to accepted legal status amongst governments and international bodies; the other words you use refer to personal preference. I find this very strange. I do however agree with your third paragraph above (which contradicts your first argument) and in fact that's what I want--for it to be made clear what is and what is not the official name of New Guinea. Dougg 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dougg,

I have no basis for saying any spelling is "standard" - and don't believe there is a standard. The first sentence in the article itself states that "Noongar" is the preferred spelling in the south of the state. I was just trying to be consistent - and failing at that I see :) - at the time I had the =Culture= section open for editing to sort out a similar issue related to the spelling of "Wagyl". In hindsight I should have returned to finish the job - which I'll do now. Notwithstanding my omissions, the Noongar article is spelt as such and "Nyoongar" and "Nyungar" both redirects, so it seems reasonable to be consistent throughout. Special:Whatlinkshere/Noongar indicates that "Noongar" is the most common useage in Wikipedia. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Len Collard [1] states ... There are even variations in the spelling of the word which include Nyungar, Noongar, Nyoongar or Noongah. This variation reflects both regional dialect differences as well as an attempt by regional groups to retain in a modern Australian society a sense of independence and difference within. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I thought you were suggesting that 'Noongar' is the standard. You're correct that there is no one standard, athough I personally would prefer to see 'Nyungar' used in the article as it better reflects the speech of the best living speakers such as Len's father, Fred Collard (actually, 'Nhunga' would be a closer approximation to the speech of speakers from a couple of generations ago, but I don't think anyone would like it.) The main dialect difference was between 'nyunga' and 'nyungara', but I don't think anyone says the latter anymore. Anyway as you say, it's good to be consistent. I might just add something to the language section discussing the various spellings of the word. cheers, Dougg 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dougg, I've taken the liberty (and I hope you don't mind) of moving the discussion and my preference to talk:Noongar to hear what others think. Regards -- Ian ≡ talk 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I suspect both 'conflate' and 'distinguish' are wrong, though 'conflate' is also insulting, though I doubt you were aware of the history involved.

The term 'Austronesian' is a super-set originally referring to anything south of the equator, though in recent times referring to anything from Indonesia to Melanesia to Polynesia. Of course the original French definition and maps of Melanesia included the Australian mainland, a usage which I suspect fell out of usage by the start of the twentieth century due to Australian sensitivity about being viewed as an island and in more recent times indigenous Australian sensitivity about being different from Torres Strait Islanders.

The political manipulation & use of the term 'Austronesia' came into affect since the 1930s by which time Standard Oil executives had extensive desires to both discredit the Dutch administration and prevent the region from being divided into multiple independent States which would have made life difficult for other Rockefeller related corporations such as Exxon, ConcoPhilips, Freeport Sulphur, etc. to gain and keep their mine licenses. By the end of WW-ii the Ford Foundation joined the Rockefeller in this interest, though for different reasons, the Rockefeller group were motivated by personal profit, whereas the Ford Foundation viewed replacing the Dutch East Indies with a US corporate model was an ideal means to improve the U.S. quality of life. Both presented the corporatisation of the region as the only means to fund the Marshall plan for Europe with the resources of 'Asia' as it was stated at Ford functions in 1949.

To support the Javanese claims to Western Papua, university studies were presented to prove that Papua was ecologically, geographically, and historically part of Asia and not Melanesian. To support these claims a racial theory was proposed, based mostly upon linguistics that claimed the indigenous people of West Papua were not Melanesian but Asian Austronesians, and were the descendents of a dark skinned Malay population. Funny enough the US universities which supported these theories through the 1950s became silent once West Papua's administration had been transfered to Indonesia.

The term Melanesian is most extensively used to specifically distinguish people from the Asian and Polynesian peoples and cultures. There has also been a growing political movement for a Melanesian confederation of States. 211.30.95.182 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive reply. I'm not sure how 'conflate' is insulting. Maybe there's been some usage in the past that makes it insulting, but I'm not aware of it.

Anyway, the term 'Austronesian' is the name of a large group of related languages, which includes all of the Polynesian languages, those of Micronesa, Indonesia, Philippines and the indigenous languages of Taiwan. There are also Austronesian languages spoken in New Guinea, mainly in coastal and island areas. 'Austronesian' is a language family, and the term is also commonly used to refer to the people who speak the languages. I've never heard of it used in the way you describe '...referring to anything south of the equator'. This would be an odd usage as 'austronesia' comes from the Greek for 'south islands' and so could not be used to refer to the continents that are south of the equator. As far as I know, 'austronesian' has never been used to refer to '...anything from Indonesia to Melanesia to Polynesia' as it has always excluded the 'non-Austronesian' people, otherwise known as Papuans.

I'm afraid I know nothing of the politically manipulative use of 'austronesian' but I'd be interested if you could point me to some sources on this. I know very little about the business you mention with Ford, Standard Oil, etc. Nor do I know anything about the university studies you mention that were used to prove West New Guinea to be part of Asia and not Melanesia. My understanding was that it was the history of the Tidore and Ternate sultanates that were used as 'proof' of a historical connection between Indonesia and West New Guinea. I am however very dubious about this 'racial theory based on linguistics'. Linguists were amongst the first academics to dispute the existence of 'racial' groups, but what you say about this seems a bit confused, though I guess you're just reporting what was being claimed in the times you're talking about. I say that because it is true that there are Austronesian people in West New Guinea, and wrong to use the term 'Melanesians' as though it were an equivalent type of group to 'Austronesians'. As I said above, there are, broadly speaking, two groups of people in New Guinea, Austronesians and Papuans. Javanese and most of the people of Indonesia are also Austronesian. And it is certainly silly and wrong that this connection was used to support the idea that West New Guinea should be incorporated into Indonesia.

The term 'melanesia' refers to an area, and was originally used to refer to the darker-skinned people of the western Pacific, as distinct from the people of the 'small islands' (Micronesia) and the 'many islands' (Polynesia) as these people had lighter skins. Certainly, 'Melanesia' is also used to refer to the poeple of the area, but it should always be remembered that this is primarily a geographical reference. It is indeed used to distinguish between those people and Polynesians and Indonesians, but neveretheless many of the people of Melanesia are Austronesian and related to other Austronesian groups in Polynesia and Indonesia.

As for a political movement for a Melanesian confederation of states, well, yes, there is occasional talk about it, but I don't think it'll happen. I can't imagine Fiji being willing to join with the Solomons and/or PNG. Fiji's idea of the 'Melanesia Way' is quite different to that in PNG. And look at Bougainville, doing its best to break away and form a new nation.

Anyway, my main point is that the term 'Melanesia' does not distinguish between the two groups, Austronesians and Papuans; in fact it combines them, being used to refer to people of both those groups that live in a particular region (and of course 'Papuans' are not a single group either). Dougg 00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a linguistics expert you could insert a few sentences of discussion of the terms Austronesian versus non-Austronesian and Melanesian versus Papuan, which I understand to be parallel synonymous usages, without any political or other baggage, apart from their unfortunate ambiguity. Masalai 07:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'Melanesian vs. Papuan' is not parallel to 'Austronesian vs. non-Austronesian'. I think the first paragraph of the article covers it fairly well. If you think it's unclear let me know and I'll consider adding to it. Dougg 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently, perhaps, but in the fairly recent past, certainly. And at other times the position has been that the non-Austronesian languages of Melanesia bear some remote ancestral relationship and should be classed as Papuan -- whether as distinguished from Austronesian or -- yes, "Melanesian." (See any one of many anthropological treatises and undergraduate textbooks published from the 30s through at least the 80s: Douglas Oliver's A Solomon Island Society, on the Siwai of Southwest Bougainville, for example.) The upshot is that there has been a range of terminological conventions over time, and it would be sensible to advert to these since now they all continue to be amply represented on the linguistics and anthropology shelves of libraries the world over. To be sure, "Melanesian/Papuan" is hopelessly ambiguous and let us hope it has been jettisoned. But it was indeed the terminology corresponding to New Guinea-Austronesian and non-Austronesian at one point. It is hardly surprising in the circumstances that whose who are not well read in the literature might find it all rather confusing. Masalai 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'non-Austronesian' is synonymous with 'Papuan' (actually I prefer the latter term). My disagreement with the parallel is because 'Melanesian' does not refer to a single group, but rather originated as a cover term for the dark-skinned people of the south-western Pacific, and continues to be used to refer to that region and its people, and so includes Papuans and Austronesians. I can see however that an anthropologist might use 'melanesian' when talking about Austronesians to contrast those from that region with Polynesians and Micronesians, but I imagine it would be clear from the context? Anyway, if you have examples of that usage I agree that it would be a good idea to add mention of it to the article. Dougg 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm currently working on putting Diary of Ten Years on Wikisource; I'm 29% finished. I doubt I'll have the energy to put A Descriptive Vocabulary online too. If you're interested in taking this on, I can provide error-ridden OCR text. No pressure - source transcription is certainly not everybody's cup of tea. Snottygobble | Talk 08:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure 'A Descriptive Vocabulary...' has already been keyboarded. I'll look into it with my colleagues who have worked on Nyungar. I don't have Bindon's compilation of Nyungar wordlists to hand (another thing in the office...) but he might have it in an electronic format of some kind (though probably ugly). cheers, Dougg 09:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on my own talk page. Caesarion 11:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougg,

Would you mind double-checking my IPA rendering of the pronunciation of "Yagan". At the head of the article I have rendered it as 'jæɪ gn, and later in the article I have written:

Contemporary documents sometimes spelled Yagan's name Egan or Eagan, which suggests that the correct pronunciation may have been closer to /'iː gn/ than the now widely accepted /'jæɪ gn/.

If you disagree with this, please feel free to correct it.

Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your IPA looks good for the way I've heard the name said by English speakers (tho I think there should probably be a schwa in there, i.e. ['jæɪ gɘn]). I've never heard it said by speakers of Nyungar so can't say much about that. Dougg 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dougg. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might be of interest http://www.dcita.gov.au/indig/maintenance_indigenous_languages/publications

The National Indigenous Languages (NILS) Survey Report (2005) (PDF format, size 2.6 MB) -- Paul foord 11:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, you might be able to add something to the Bill Stanner stub. Paul foord 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I'm not really a Stannerologist, but I'll see what I can do. Dougg 02:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug

My source of information on the traditional owners of the site came from [2]. I have no problem with you correcting any error that I might have transferred from the Alice Springs News article to the article. Tiles 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the article pointer. I note that it does actually say, correctly, that the Devil's Marbles is on Kaytetye country. Dougg 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my mistake. Well spotted. Tiles 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougg,

There's a proposal under discussion at Talk:Dreamtime (mythology) to move the article to Tjukurpa. I'd appreciate your input in the debate in general, but specifically I'd like your response to the question whether the word "Tjukurpa" is shared by many indigenous dialects or is unique to one dialect.

Snottygobble 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for the input. Snottygobble 04:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dougg, Added the section on "Homeland" to the Austronesian languages page. Thanks kicking in your comment.

Ling.Nut 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my edit[3] to the Indigenous Australians article was improperly labeled, it was late, I ment to mark it as 'removing peacock words'. Weasel words is not POV, it as a Wikipedia Guide to actually reduce POV :) The new wikilink is fine, but the other words were not needed (see the peacock guide for more information). And sorry for the all the confusion! -Trjn 07:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about whether Australian Aborigines, practised agriculture pre white settlement on an AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aboriginal and European agricultural practices in Australia. Is there any linguistic evidence relevant to this? Paul foord 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. There is work in progress to reconstruct culture history using historical linguistics (in combination with archaeology), but it's still in the early stages. Dougg 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon who's editing these areas seems not to have adult Western thought processes. See THIS for a sixteenth-century reference to "Papua" as a name for "New Guinea" (scroll down to the table under History). PNG is a remote and mysterious place to me, but I'm interested in learning more about the geography and WWII naval history of Oro Bay. Do you happen to know where I might find something? (Google and my local library sources don't do the job. I've communicated with a very nice guy from the University of PNG, but there are some language problems.) Lou Sander 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, our Dept of Foreign Affairs looks like it's quoting WP! Have a look at the history section of New Guinea for some detail on the name 'Papua'. Re Meneses, it's not clear what he saw, it could have been the tip of New Guinea, it could have been one of the small islands nearby. Also, he didn't name the place he saw 'Papua', but rather ilhas dos Papuas or 'Island of the Papuas'. At the time the name 'Papua' was also used for the general area and especially for Halmahera. Anyway, since 1545 (when de Retez sailed a fair way along the northern coast, establishing that there was a substantial body of land there) the island has been known as 'New Guinea'. While I personally consider it simply incorrect to call the island 'Papua', I accept it being on WP as an alternative name for the place, but I liked having the 'unofficial' tag there for clarity. For reasons I can't fathom some people seem to think it's insulting (see the recent discussion higher up on this page under 'Papua name usage').

Regards Oro Bay, sorry, I haven't had anything to do with that area (I spend most of my time in PNG in Sandaun Province) but you could try the Australian War Memorial, a huge museum which has a lot of info on the New Guinea campaigns: <http://www.awm.gov.au/>. I'll contact a historian I know who specialises in PNG and let you know if she can suggest other sources. Dougg 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it's hugely difficult to find much about New Guinea here in the U.S. I haven't visited a really large library yet, but so far the geographical information is very sketchy. No detailed maps, very brief descriptions of places, etc. I've gotten ten books about WWII New Guinea campaigns, but there's only mention of the ground war, which must have been very bloody. My interest in Oro Bay, etc. stems from my interest in WWII attack cargo ships. I was an officer aboard one in the early 1960s. I've created Wikipedia articles on something like 100 of those ships, basically from facts available from a U.S. Navy history site. These ships were constantly visiting Hollandia, Humboldt Bay, and other places in the area. There must have been some huge naval bases in those locations, but they're long gone, and information about them is very hard to find. I'm pretty pleased with my work on Teluk Yos Sudarso, and I'd like to do the same for Oro Bay, but it's really tough to find any info. If your friend knows anything at all about it, I'd love to hear from her. I've got some specific questions. Pretty interesting place, New Guinea. Lou Sander 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougg, I'm not too sure how to send messages, but here goes. I created a separate Pintupi people page and moved that last par there, as it wasn't about the language, but the people. Most Indigenous pages appear to have both a people and a language page. Cheers

Thanks, I thought that was probably what you'd done. You're right that the para was a bit out of place in the language article. Dougg 05:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougg, thanks for your responses at the above's talk page. I've made changes largely as suggested, including switching to calling her "Makinti" throughout the article. Since you seem to be across the linguistics a bit, here's one you might like to ponder: Rosella Namok is from Lockhart River in far north Queensland. i have a biography of her that in one place refers to her as "Rosella" and in another as "Namok", while the McCulloch Encyclopedia nicely sidesteps the issue by not using her name again after spelling it out in full in the first line! Any thoughts? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hamiltonstone, thanks for the positive feedback. I'm not at all familiar with the languages of that part of Qld but I'll try to find out what's considered most correct. I've just had a look at http://www.artgang.com.au/artist_rosella.html and it does appear that they're using surnames, but I'll check it out some more and get back to you. Dougg (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougg, I'm working on some Indigenous artist bios. Can you advise me on:

• how to correctly describe what we would call "surnames" used by desert artists (eg. Napaljarri)
• whether Napaljarri and Napaltjarri are synonyms or denote different groups
• whether you can find any online sources I can cite / read, to help in describing the names and their use when I am preparing the articles?

All help gratefully appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hamiltonstone,

• These names are usually referred to informally as 'skin names' and are known to anthropologists as 'section' or 'subsection' terms. Although in traditional usage they are not surnames as they are not passed down, in some parts of Australia they have come to be used as surnames (ie in south-west WA). Sometimes this can make it hard to know how the person uses the name.
• Yes, 'Napaljarri' and 'Napaltjarri' are almost certainly the same name but spelled according to two different orthographies, one of which uses 'tj' and the other 'j', for what is pretty much the same sound. These two spellings look to me like Warlpiri (Napaljarri) and Western Desert (Napaltjarri) as this is one of the differences between the orthographies used by those two languages. Despite this spelling difference, the words are pronounced the same in both languages.
• The WP article on Australian Aboriginal kinship has some info but it needs substantial rewriting. The section on Pintupi lists the skin names used by this language group and indicates preferred marriage relationships and offspring skin names. There's a useful .pdf fact sheet describing the Arrernte skin name system here [[4]]. Just found another really good link, with a really good overview and lots of references, here: [[5]]. If you're keen on a really detailed introduction to kinship in general and Australian Aboriginal kinship in particular you could look at [[6]], but there's a lot of it.

Hope that helps! cheers, Dougg (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested (3 Feb) I've added a reference to support my statement at Pitjantjatjara people that loss of one of two identical adjacent syllables (ie haplology) occurs within the language name 'Pitjantjatjara'. It likewise occurs in 'Yankunytjatjara' so I might add the comment there as well. Within Pitjantjatjara (and indeed all Western Desert Language varieties) this *is* pronouncing it properly. cheers Dougg (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Donama (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougg, I was just reading through the talk page at Noongar people and I noticed that you created an article on Wilfrid Douglas. After looking it over, I noticed that the references are not Wikified; it also seems to be a mix of a bibliography and a works cited sheet. Would you be interested in fixing it? I cannot as I cannot differentiate between what is being used as a reference and is listed only because it was written by him. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pretty good article, BTW. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Diana Marmion Temple".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Otto Nekitel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 12:17, 9 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dougg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Otto Nekitel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]