User talk:38.74.24.37

September 2022

Hello, I'm Riverbend21. I noticed that you recently removed content from Oil lamp without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Riverbend21 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Thuja plicata. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
How to write a great article
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (38.74.24.37) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inuit and Infobox ethnonym

You been adding {{Infobox ethnonym}} to multiple articles which is good but you are making some errors in the Inuit ones.

For example in the Inuit article you added Inuktut as the language. However, that is a groping of Inuinnaqtun and Inuktitut and is used only in Nunavut. It does not include any other Inuit languages spoken in the rest of Canada or Greenland and Alaska.

You gave the country as Inuit Nunangat but that is only for Inuit lands in Canada. It does not include Alaska or Greenland.

There were similar articles. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you updating these! I first stumbled upon the ethnonym infobox in some African pages (like Buganda or the Basotho) and, seeing it pop up elsewhere but not on every page, I ended up expanding its usage. But as a single person, there are gaps, so in short: Thank you for being on top of it and clearing things up, 38.74.24.37 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You are currently pasting infoboxes all over articles. It is not clear what this adds, and in some cases it appears to contain original research. Please use talk pages to gain consensus before continuing. Jeppiz (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really stop this strange infoboxes you're pasting over articles. Many users have reverted you, so it should be clear there's no consensus to add these. It might be seen as disruptive to continue. Jeppiz (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And still making errors. Inuit sign language is already included in Inuit languages and Inuit Nunangat should not be linked to itself. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oceti Sakowin

The Oceti Sakowin (7 council fires of the Sioux) does not include the Nakoda/Assiniboine people. They left the bands 500 years ago to side with enemy tribes at that time. The 7 council fires are: Thítȟuŋwaŋ, Bdewákaŋthuŋwaŋ, Waȟpéthuŋwaŋ, Waȟpékhute, Sisíthuŋwaŋ, Iháŋkthuŋwaŋ and Iháŋkthuŋwaŋna. Lakota and Dakota bands. Be careful with information being adding to the info boxes. oncamera _{(talk page)} 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You are very right! Thank you for fixing my oversight and reminding me to stay alert in my editing 38.74.24.37 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Inuktitut—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did it to clean up the Infobox and ensure it is equivalent: Note that as "Inu- ᐃᓄ-," I also have "nuna" but without the same equivalent in Syllabics: "ᓄᓇ." Therefore, I am going to revert your last reversion in good faith. 38.74.24.37 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Nova Scotia

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nova Scotia, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed infobox on "O'odham language"

The people was wrong, it's both the Tohono O'odham and Akimel O'odham who speak the language, as mentioned in the article. Also the other O'odham groups who's names escape me right now. Limiting to just the Tohono O'odham is incorrect.
"O'odham Jewed" means O'odham Land, it's not a country in the sense. I'm not sure it belongs in that section. I'm all for advocating that it's stolen (un-ceded!) land that is O'odham, but using that term as the country doesn't really work. At least, living here I haven't heard it used that way. Maybe someone who's more familiar would know better.

150.135.165.74 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I used that infobox because it appears on numerous pages related to cultures, languages, and national territories. It originated amongst articles on Bantu nations like the OmuGanda (see Buganda for a prime example, but others include: Sotho people and Zulu people).

The box, I believe, is useful, especially when it comes to linking articles. Passamaquoddy is a great example of this: In this little box, not only does it link the ethnic community's page with its language, it connects it to their homeland, both the Passamaquoddy country and the shared / confederated Dawnland territories. As I discuss below, I believe it important to overtly link ethnic communities and their languages with their homelands in explicit ways for reasons I hope you understand

Now, it seems you take issue with the term "country." Fair, especially with its quite impressive disappearance from North American usage (note its enduring use in Australia). A "country" does not mean a State. Examples of this include Navajo Country, Blackfoot Country, Cherokee Country, and Inuit Country as well as Basque Country, Kurdistan, Tibet, Yorubaland and others. Indeed, in my research, it seems to me majority culture in the US and Canada poopoos the (historically and contemporarily accurate) use of the word "country" because it is harder to displace a nation from its country than displacing a nation's communities from their "territories." (see 1763 Royal Proclamation and its use of "countries and islands" [which become] "dominions and territories")

With the first example of BuGanda, the still-existant kingdom of the OmuGanda, and the namesake of the State of Uganda, you can see how "country" does not mean a State like France, Canada, or Zimbabwe. A nation's relationship with their lands, waters, and ices is their country, in the same way both bear country and Basque Country exist. This is why I also like this infobox: It gives readers indication that nations do have homelands, that their homelands are important, and that their homelands have names (even if that name is simply a descriptor like O'odham Jeweḍ meaning "O'odhamland"; that is how Kurdistan, Yorubaland, and Basque Country got their names "nation + land"). I have found that often the name of a homeland helps orient and contextualize matters. I find the Passamaquoddy example salient here: It gives the reader an easy-to-understand breakdown of how "Peskotomuhkat" pluralizes (Peskotomuhkatiyik), relates to their language (Peskotomuhkatuwey), and how they call "Passamaquoddy land" (Peskotomuhkatihkuk). A similar example is that of Flanders and Flemings; again, Flanders is not a country as in Nation-State, but it is a country based on the term "country"'s actual definition and use, even if it gets pedantic

Which gets me to the last point, one that you end on: "I'm all for advocating that it's stolen (un-ceded!) land that is O'odham." With the enduring use of "Navajo Country" the aforementioned examples of Basque Country, Yoruba Country, and Flemish Country, I hope you can see why I believe using this infobox and maintaining the use of the term "country" here is important. Yeah, the vast majority of territories European invaders toppled were not Nation-States, nor are they today, I would argue (as I did here) that European invaders did indeed invade "countries" and our modern disuse of the term furthers the misconception that Indigenous nations did not have proper governance of their territories. They did and still do; though these are not European-style countries, I feel we should still use this (in my researched opinion) accurate term like Australia continues to do and like North American used to do

Final (kinda) note: For the concerns you have that the infobox is not complete enough, please, edit it! Add to it! Fix it! I am just one autistic researcher, but I am bound to miss stuff, thus I feel very grateful to those who see these infoboxes and choose to improve them rather than remove them

--

P.S. - This response is massive, I am so sorry, but also thank you for your patience if you read it all! For the post-script, I wanted to lay out where I believe Anglo-North Americans switched from calling Indigenous homelands "countries" to referring to them as "territories," implying in this case (I hope to show) that they are dominated by a higher power.

The 1763 Royal Proc starts with this: "Our loving Subjects, as well of our Kingdom as of our Colonies in America," indicated the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, (maybe Ireland?), and the various provincial colonies of North America. I believe this sets the stage to "fold in" other polities, be them kingdoms, colonies, countries, or islands. You can see this in this line: "within the Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us by the said Treaty, Four distinct and separate Governments, styled and called by the names of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada." These "countries" in Québec—the example with which I am most comfortable and best-versed—would include the Dawnland countries (including Peskotomuhkatihkuk), with which there is already a treaty, but it would most directly mean those countries caught within the land transfer dictated in the Treaty of Paris (1763), including Nitassinan, Nitaskinan, Haudenosaunee Country and others. Like the Scottish kingdom, the British Empire is folding in countries like Nitassinan and Nitaskinan: The dominion governments (note: Canada is still the Dominion of Canada) have territories which were once the "Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us."

In short: I believe US Americans and Canadians use the term "territory" in a way that directly descends from the paternalistic and colonial framing of this 1763 proclamation, and its disuse of "country" (although perhaps not initially intentional) does a great service to those who wish to delegitimize claims to Indigenous homelands' territories in order to steal them (aka the non-ceding of them because they are "simply territories" and not "full/real countries")

38.74.24.37 (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.