User talk:Mitch Ames

your sparkling wit, your eagle eye

It would be interesting if you were able to review the prose of the limp lettuce that I had the misfortune to pen, all those years ago (it needs update and the rest of course), I thought I should entice your sparkling wit and eagle eye on to looking at -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_walking_tours_and_trails and cannot even bring myself to at the moment due to being drawn away by real life in a few minutes... JarrahTree 06:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that... JarrahTree 11:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing really needs re-writing from scratch (by someone familiar with the subject matter, and/or with access to all the references, which my excuse for not doing it). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

your questions at the talk page of the item are truly disturbing... JarrahTree 12:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(nah not vladivostok) - maybe betelguese via improbability drive - try https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/206460806/version/226585435?keyword=fremantle%20oddments and I have no idea what world cat has to do with anything when the trove entry repeats the month up to three times... JarrahTree 13:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what world cat has to do with anything — In the article Notes section, click on "0033-5002" in item 2. (WorldCat is not working all all now, but was when I made this edit.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

16 May

Mitch your response is so out of character. I refuse to engage in your drawn out tedious conversations about aboriginal subjects - if you have personal belief in finding answers to your questions, that is your problem. From a range of others (not mine) you are venturing into areas that elicit more queries than ever reaching resolved answers. JarrahTree 13:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Shut up and stay out of it completely - now now mitch, there are too many items at humorous essays to respond to your civility... JarrahTree 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Mitch, this is a parallel to other issues in wikipedia - it is not something that can be resolved by wishing to attaining an outcome, or specifically trying to make things fit - the whole premise of a project that started with 'ships', 'trains' and similar primary school level project titles was far from what traditional and established encyclopedias had established in the past. The constraints are such in the categories/terminologies and conceptual traps that are inherent in the construction of wikipedia as it is, is that resolved 'outcomes' are a redundancy. There are more holes than one can count in a project such as this. I can assure you that your personal quest to find 'answers' in areas of knowledge about first nation people and their history in the world is admirable, but to date, drawn out and quite time consuming as well as bewildering for those who have ventured into discourse with you. Either you have to resign yourself to your admirable improvement of grammatical and rules based reasoning in technical areas, or otherwise find that 'knowledge' in the human sciences cannot be so easily found or translated. But then there is always more than one way to parse the nuance of translation of things that are not inherently understandable within the written white anglo saxon western science oriented thinking. JarrahTree 02:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If there was a link to a diff/post/edit somewhere in your post I might have some idea what you are talking about. If there was a specific question in your post (and a link or some other definite indication of what you were talking about) I might answer it. If there was some unambiguous objective factual statement in your post that I could agree or disagree with, I might do that. But in all cases, there is not. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

exactly, that is what a significant amount of material available in print actually arrives at, there is in actual real life understanding of the world of indigenous people around the world, nothing that could be unambiguous objective factual in the sense that you search for actually exist, there are indeed things that are both paradoxical and untranslatable, in other words things that cannot be transposed, mind you such things even exist in such unexpected corners in railway history, but let us not go down that particular rabbit hole at this point. As for the idea that there is a diff/post/edit to specifically give a target to the issues - well, I would sense that [1] in WP:AGF is a good start... whereas [2] situates within a specific framework, and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth' more global context from the philosophical premise of [3]. All of this in the context of [4] and the philosophical basis of [5] against Wikipedia:HORSEMEAT and the logical connections with [6] which segues into the [7] in turn [8] and the actual issue of extracting the specific unambiguous objective factual expression into a sense of unprovable item is best understood in terms of the lack of probable [9] and the direct correlation with the issue [the section in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe which satirises the absurdity of the thought that any one species would exist on Earth merely to serve as a meal to another species, such as humans as the part of [10] which gives a very good (albeit tangential in some senses but not all) parallel as to whether english speaking persons of european origin are capable of explaining people who have very different epistemological frameworks in their mother tongue and cultural framework. Too easy to rationalise without doing so in a disparaging and demonstrably offensive manner, as has been done for the last 200 years, and wikipedia daily for the length of its existence. Take care and remember unambiguous objective factual is effectively [11] and subject to the conditions explained carefully in [12] and the understandings in [13] with the conditional understandings of the certainty of Indigenous populations anywhere on the planet are formulated by textual traditions in most cases by colonialists or outsiders, and that for internal coherency, there is always the point where [14] and a very carefully established balance between [15] and [16], in view of contemporary indigenous studies, anthropology and history and their trying to establish something in their respective fields, are way south of reaching your hope for 'unambiguous objective factual' it is neither their goal or aspiration, they do what they can and move on, in many cases well off the mark for a whole lot of reasons. During my fieldwork all those years ago, I was lucky enough to find people who effectively were able to speak for almost 45 minutes about nothing, and it was considered the height of their cultural understanding to have the capacity to do so. Enjoy the links Mitch, you asked for some... JarrahTree 07:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

[citation needed] on Autism article

On the Autism article under "Other features ", I can't add my reference. When I try to publish it, it fails and text that says, "Unable to determine wikitext result.". What does this mean? Tonkarooson (talk) *new editor* 23:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I've not seen that error message before, and a quick search doesn't find anything, so I don't know what it means. It's possible that it was a transient error; I suggest trying again to add the reference. If it still fails, ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It will probable be helpful if you link to the specific page and diff (I assume it was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autism_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=1222146858) and include information about the reference you were trying to add, and exactly how you were adding it, eg whether you were using Visual Editor or the source editor, and the reference URL if it is online. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)