User talk:Nevwik

Welcome!

Hello, Nevwik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Australia[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've just reverted your changes to the Military history of Australia as they included a number of substantial changes to the article's content which were made without providing new references to support this. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick

Very precipitate of you. No new references were made because the changes were basically a better expression or clarification of the author's interpretation of source references, removing some prejudicial exaggerations on massacres which weren't, and getting rid of extraneous detail on someone's pet subject of firearms. In total, they clarified the material and gave better balance. If the object is maintaining Wikipedia at encyclopaedia standards, this sort of refinement is necessary. Better to have asked what it was about first.

Neville

As your changes involved significant alternations to the text which changed its meaning (for instance, the caption of the Black War poster was changed to say the exact opposite and "It may be inaccurate" became "It is inaccurate"), using the same citations was inappropriate as these don't support the new material. As a more general comment, could you please also make sure that you provide page numbers when citing references? Wikipedia articles use (or at least aspire to use!) similar standards of referencing to those which would be used in an academic context, and so referencing entire chapters of books to support a specific claim is discouraged as it makes it very difficult for readers to follow up upon this reference. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, about that bit on the references - I'd mistaken you for another editor in regards to this. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Black War poster, the National Treasures statement is simply one of the unsupported (and unreferenced) nonsenses which literate historians don't associate themselves with. Check HRA and HRNSW and there are dozens of letters to governors from London, and from governors to subordinates to protect Aborigines as British subjects under the same law. One early example of practise is HRA 1.1 p689: 'It is proper here also to signify that it is his Excellency's positive injunction to the settlers and others who have firearms that they do not wantonly fire at or take the lives of any of the natives, as such an act would be considered a deliberate murder, and subject the offender to such punishment as (if proved) the law might direct to be inflicted.' And of course, the instructions to Lieutenant Governor Collins in HRA I.4 p12: 'You are to endeavour by every means in your power to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their good will, enjoining all persons under your Government to live in amity and kindness with them; and if any person shall exercise any acts of violence against them, or shall wantonly give them any interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, you are to cause such offender to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the offence.' Instead of pages of references on the item, it is simple to just not include the silly biassed statement. For the life of me, I cannot see how coming out directly and saying 'It is innacurate' instead of the 'may be' violates a reference. References are a background to an author, and need not and should not be quoted verbatim unless in quotation marks. Anyone writing an historical account says what is so rather than following a source who is being evasive. While I can understand caution in having wanton changes in established work, I cannot believe that the changes I made did not enhance both the accuracy of the text, and give a better appreciation of the meaning which should be put before a reader. Nevwik

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cuture War History war[edit]

I have reversed you changes to Australia Frontier wars. You are perfectly welcome to your oppinion or support to Windschuttle's claim that few or no Aborigines were killed. But state them in the History war article! You cannot just begin to make changes in figures that are contrary to the statements made in the sources referred to. This behaviour from your amounts to nothing more than sabotage and I will strongly advise you not to do it again. Helsned 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)