User talk:Teinesavaii/Archive 1

Wikirage

No. Wikirage is not part of Wikipedia. It's an independent site. As for other sites using your posts, unfortunately, there isn't much you can do about it. There is an entire page criticizing me at Wikitruth. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=WooHooKitty That picture was on my Wikipedia site and they basically just stole it. And because of the license here, there isn't anything I can do. *shrug* Just have to try to forget it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Samoa

Hi. Great to see somebody working on Samoan topics. Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Samoa and get it off the ground!! Also read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, I did notice that you often use words like "master"...Thanks and happy editing!! Himalayan 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice. I have 'joined' and logged myself in Samoa project, but there's no one else active there - and the wp project userbox doesn't work. I don't know how to fix it. Re. the word 'master' as in 'master tattooist' = the reason is because that is the most true interpretation of the word 'tufuga ta tatau' into the English language. This term is used in books. There are many tattooists, but the 'tufuga' level is someone who is a master and expert of the art, like 'master navigators.' They are a special elite group of people. This is like the words 'high chief' or 'paramount chief' which does not = 'king' in the English language. Or there are many cooks but not many chefs. There is a huge difference in cultural status and rank of these terms in Samoan culture. Again, like the term fa'afafine does not equal 'gay' in the English language. Wikipedia is supposed to be putting together the world's knowledge, not just a European POV - and I think that's a good thing. Losing cultural truth to fit in with the English language, doesn't have to stick, i'm sure, if it means providing information that is misleading and culturally out of context when using the English language. It is an encyclopaedia which means being correct. We don't have to duplicate the weaknesses in the 'real' world with digital knowledge. I'm sure this dialogue is a very important one. Thank you for your suggestions. Much appreciated. Teine Savaii (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope that the project will grow. You can always use the Samoa project page to list missing articles or to do lists if that will help you. perhaps you could expand some of the articles on Category:Cities, towns and villages in Samoa. We have a lot of one liners! There you go I've started a to do list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Samoa hope this will help.. I'll help list some missing articles and some potential sources like this. Himalayan 13:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. That George Turner book is one I use a lot, but that link is to a new publication in 1984 methinks by South pacific university. An older publication is better 1800s - its in public domain.[1]. Public domain at gutenberg. I'm concentrating mainly on Savai'i as I know that island better, and not many people there have access to technology unlike Upolu. I'll add a note on what i'm up to and maybe some more other users might join in.

Hello, its still me Himalayan Explorer, I'm just back using my old account again. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Samoa/District templates. Please add all the villages in each district into them, notable landmarks and people in the templates given. This will help connect them all together by district and get some organization. You can add as many missing articles as you like to them. Then once you have added all article to them you can apply them to the footer of each article. I made a start on Template:A'ana as an example. Happy editing! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I didn't know how to go about doing that.Teine Savaii (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Women of Samoa there ya go. Not sure what you intend putting in it but I've given you an idea. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed as many new articles as you have hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Talofa from Wikiproject Sammoa

Thanks for the welcome to the project, I joined because always liked Polynesian related topics, and i saw that lots of articles need some help to get'em going. --Gduwen (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fa'amatai

Great work you've done creating the fa'amatai article. I've been waiting years for someone to write that article. Nurg (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad you tidied up everything in the article and wikifying - and the Samoan language article too. Very fortunate having the NZ licence cc-by-sa 3.0 texts available to use.Teine Savaii (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, not really sure what it means. I mainly just contribute to articles rather than checking other people's work. I'm sure I'll get a note if I do something wrong. Thanks. Teine Savaii (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: hi

Hey Savai'i,

Nice to meet you, I'm sure you will be seeing me around, editing many subjects the WikiProject is concerned with. See yah around :) -Ano-User (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessments

Hi, In answer to your questions about assessments on Gadfium's talk page:

Importance is project-specific, so if you think of tagged pages as a mini-encyclopedia on Polynesia, you are assessing how important the article is within that scope. So I would expect articles like Samoa and Tonga to be top-importance. Sometimes an article is tagged for several projects, and has a different importance rating for each one.

As a rough guideline, I think there should be a pyramid of articles: Top-importance: 2-3%. High: 8 - 10%, Mid: 20-25%, Low - all the rest (around 2/3 of the articles). Most biographies would be low-importance (but past prime ministers would be mid, and current ones probably high). Endemic species would be low-importance, but unique aspects of polynesian culture should be well ranked (e.g. Tapa, tattooing). It helps to occasionally review the importance categories, e.g. Category:Top-importance Polynesia articles to see how good a balance you have achieved. (And looking at that category at present, I would suggest that while American Samoa does belong in top importance, subsidiary articles like demographics and sport belong at a lower level, possibly mid.

There are fairly standard guidelines for article class. You will sometimes see class assessments from other projects which make no sense - e.g. stub on a well-developed article. This is usually because they assessed it several years ago and the article has developed since then - alas, assessment templates are not dated.dramatic (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dramatic! That's really helpful. I'll start assess tagging the articles I come across per your advice - but it will be tricky doing this to articles that I've created myself or made lots of edits. Teine Savaii (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

dramatic's advice is good, but I try to balance this with an overall assessment of importance not limited to the interest of the particular wikiproject. Articles that anyone would reasonably expect to find in any single-volume general encyclopedia should get top importance - country articles, major geographical regions and oceans, perhaps the major explorers and most important politicians. Articles that could reasonably be found in multi-volume encyclopedia get high importance - populated islands, animals and plants, current country leaders, history/culture/economics of countries and major historical events. Medium importance is for articles which might be found in a specialised encyclopedia of the subject eg "An Encyclopedia of Polynesia", if there is such a thing. It would include smaller unpopulated islands, more minor historical events, biographies of the more notable sportspeople. Other articles, which probably would not be included in an encyclopedia other than Wikipedia, but for which there are reliable sources and which meet our notability criteria, get low importance. See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic.-gadfium 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks gadfium! - i thought u were also user dramatic. I've read the link above and that's really helpful - i thought a special team of assessors do the assessments automatically. Are we allowed to change the wording of the templates? Because I still think words like 'Low', 'mid' and 'bottom' are loaded negatively and rather AWFUL to have anywwhere in wikipedia. I thinking changing them to Bronze, Silver and Gold stars might be better, so everything is valued rather than implying it sucks cos that's what those tags say out loud. This system, it appears, also means that tiny countries with little populations automatically go to the bottom of the bucket with lots of 'Lows' and 'Bottoms' - hence, wikipedia, after all the hoopla about sharing global knowledge, ends up reinventing the wheel from the 'real' world - the bigger countries dominating knowledge and information with automatic high points just because there are millions more of them. If articles are based on the number of hits - this doesn't reflect its real value e.g. 9,000 hits on a Samoan article = 10% of the population. Whereas an American article will need to get 30 million hits to equal that. I think wikipedia may need to re-assess its assessments (!?) and come up with a value system where 'rarity' (like diamonds and gold) and uniqueness (and endangered) - is also applied to information and knowledge. Sorry for the blah - I don't know where to go and say this stuff in wikipedia - it's all very interesting. Thank you very much for the help and advice! much appreciated. Teine Savaii (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is permitted to change the standard terms of "top"-"low", although it may be possible to adopt additional importance ratings. Certainly some projects do add extra quality ratings.

Countries get top priority on Wikipedia even when there are subnational entities which are more powerful than some of the smaller countries. For example, almost no-one suggests that Georgia should go directly to the US state, even though it has a larger population and economy than the country of the same name. Many people suggested the link go directly to the country, but a compromise was reached that the link go to a disambiguation page. You can see the talk page and its archives for the extensive debate, if you're interested. National elections are generally considered worthy of appearing on the main page's "In the News" section, so long as the article about them is of sufficient quality. Subnational elections almost never appear on the main page. So to some extent, our treatment of smaller countries is in their favour.

You might also be interested in the essay Systemic bias, which is generally accepted as a problem within Wikipedia. There are links on that page to attempts to correct the situation.-gadfium 07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks gadfium. Yes, that makes sense about Georgia. A lot of food for thought, for sure.Teine Savaii (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lemi Ponifasio

You reverted a comment from an anonymous editor with an inappropriate reply. Perhaps getting the same comment from an admin will make it the problem clear to you. Lemi Ponifasio, which you created last July, is still unreferenced. Please find some references and bring the article in line with WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As you very well know, I do not 'own' the article nor am I responsible for other editors making later changes resulting in the removal of references after the article was created. To leave an editor a note to go back and fix the article, just because they had created it, and to blame me for that article now having no references, is wrong. That should be clear to you as an admin. Apologies for inappropriate reply, but it looked like vandalism to me. teinesaVaii (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I see from the history that your initial version did have references, and that it was largely eradicated by an account with a COI. Let me go see what I can do.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And while you're at it, perhaps it would be more constructive to tag the actual article with an unref tag or the article talk page without the need to inform me. Ta. teinesaVaii (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)