User talk:Anacrossan
THE MISSING LINK IN THE TU'I KANOKUPOLU DYNASTY, IN TONGA:
Namoa or later known as King Siosaia Tupou, Tu'i Kanokupolu 1830- 45, in Tonga. Namoa was the youngest brother of Tuku'aho, King Siaosi Tupou 1, grandfather. Namoa was a father figure to Tupouto'a, and grandfather figure to his great nephew, Taufa'ahau who later as King Siaosi Tupou 1 in 1845 -1893. Namoa reared Taufa'ahau since the death of Taufa'ahau's father, Tupouto'a in 1812.
Namoa ( Siosaia Tupou) was the youngest son of King Mumui, Tu'i Kanokupolu, four children. King Mumui did have four sons, the oldest was, Tuku'aho, then Tupoumalohi, then Aleamotu'a and then Namoa. King Mumui oldest three oldest sons were from previous marriage. Mumui last marriage was to Fatafehi 'o Lapaha, last Tu'iTonga fefine of Tu'iTonga Dunasty and their son was, Namoa. As Namoa, was only child of last of Tu'iTonga dynasty, he will be the rightful heir to Tu'tonga dynasty. In addition, Namoa's father King Mumui, was also the head of the, Tu'i Kanokupolu dynasty. Not only that, Namoa's maternal grandmother, was also from Tu'i Hatakalaua dynasty. Therefore overall, Namoa though the youngest member of the Royal family, have bloodlines link to all ruling dynasties, in Tonga.
At this paragraph,are questions to ask:
1) Why, Namoa and the period that he was King of Tonga ( 1830 -45) been erased from history of Tonga in late 1918?
2) Why, re-write the history of Tonga, and made out that Namoa's brother Aleamotu'a was also known as Siosaia Tupou, which he was not.
3) King Aleamotu'a did die with name, Aleamotu'a in 1830, never with the name Siosaia Tupou. Why added Siosaia after he already died in 1830?
Malo a Bula
I noticed your post on Enele Ma'afu talk page and it is very interesting information if you have reference material please add the relevant information as any knowledge that can improve the quality and accuracy of an article is always welcome on Wikipedia. also please add some personal info on your user page it looks like you'll be around wikipedia for a while adding info on the Tongan related subjects, Keep up the work and have a good day.
Vinaka Maikeli MB 20:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome
|
A request to add context to your articles....
Good day, and thanks for inputting information about Tonga's history into Wikipedia!
One request.... frequently people come across articles by searching for them. They might not, upon seeing an article, realize what they're looking at - and they need an introduction that mentions (and links) the word "Tonga" in order to achieve that.
For instance, your article on Talaikaipau, before I edited it, did not make it possible to figure out that it was related to Tonga - and the article still doesn't give any hint as to the present-day location of the place (island, city, subdivision of city). I couldn't add that, since it was the first time I've heard about it, and I don't have access to your cited references.
Context helps! Thank you! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Good day to you too, Alvestrand. Thank you for your help.Anacrossan (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Your changes to Aleamotu'a
Greetings, I'm a bit perplexed as to why you're reverting my changes to Aleamotu'a. You left off an "=" in the ==References= heading (so it doesn't show up right), you removed the tag {{tonga-stub}}, which it certainly is, and you removed {{no footnotes}}, though the article does indeed lack in-line citations. Please do use the "Edit summary" to explain changes that you make, as otherwise it just appears that you're contradicting valid edits for no reason. Am I missing some good justification for those reverts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on, how on earth is your User talk page a redirect? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It's seems to me that the ongoing vandalised of ny article has been done by the same vandal whose user name changed all the time. I have noticed that this vandal did vandalised my article Aleamotu'a under a name : Faletuipapai. This recent vandalised on my same article Aleamotu'a was done by that same person but changed his/ her username from Faletuipapai to Puakatau. I hope that wikipedia will look at this violation of my article done by this VANDAL under username: Faletuipapai/ Puakatau. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacrossan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not accuse other editors of "vandalism" without cause. "Vandalism" is filling a page with nonsense like "LALALALALALALALA", or things like "Tom Baker was a British sociologist who was abducted by monkeys and taken to the moon". To the eyes of an outside observer, the edits you object to appear to be credible, and are clearly footnoted. How does this constitute vandalism? If you feel that that user is pushing a biased perspective, or adding inaccurate information, please take it up on the Discussion page of that article. Further, both you and he have repeatedly removed the [[:Category:]] markings from the bottom of the page, effectively severing the article from the rest of Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing this; I'm actually quite confused as to why both sides keep doing this. Please take up your general issues with the article in Discussion, and also refrain from referring to it as "my article", as nobody has an exclusive claim to control of a Wikipedia article. You are a major editor of the article, but it is certainly not your property. Hoping to get some clarification from both editors in the Discussion page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I am the primary editor as you pointed out, but to me the article that I have written has been vandalised. It has been totally erased and was replaced by information from outside that totally inaccurate to me. Please dont say to me that its not vandalised, when my article was totally wiped off! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacrossan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
My aricle: Aleamotu'a has been erased again and again. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacrossan (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, not "your" article, nor "vandalised". However, if you feel that an article you've been working on has been inaccurately edited, that is indeed an issue of concern. However, rather than engage in an "edit war", you need to go to the Dicussion page and clearly articulate why you feel this version is inaccurate. The other editor has done so, which certainly helps his case. In all honesty, unless you come and communicate with other editors, the default assumption will be that the other version is the correct one because it has been more clearly footnoted and formatted, and that editor has come forward to articulate his case on Discussion.
- This article has been subject to extreme changes, and characterised by an almost total unwillingness to communicate by the various editors involved. Please come to Discussion and give clear, referenced, unemotional explanation as to why the substitute content is incorrect. There are a couple other editors, like me, who are not involved in Tongan issues at all and can be viewed as neutral in regional disputes. Further, if you and the other editor cannot reach an agreement it can be taken to an arbitration elsewhere on Wikipedia to get outside perspective. The one thing that cannot happen is to have the article bounce back and forth between two separate versions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, you cannot simply blank the entire article. If you feel that it is inaccurately edited you must take that up in Discussion and provide clear examples. Not "he's being ignorant and he's wrong", but "footnotes 1-12 actually refer to Figure X instead of Figure Y", or "footnote #13 does not actually verify the cited fact", etc. Again, it's very hard to support your concerns if you do not communicate with other editors. If you continue to blank or revert the article, an admin can block your account, so you're far better off to click the Discussion tab at the top of the article and articulate your concerns. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
You really need to communicate, and learn more about how Wikipedia works
Greetings, I understand you're upset about disagreements on a number of Tonga articles. Again, I don't really know much about Tongan history, so I can't immediately tell exactly who is in the right on any given issue. What is clear to the casual reader, however, is that you appear to have little interest in communicating with any editor, competing or neutral. Wikipedia has established proceses by which conflicts are mediated, but instead you choose to blank articles (which, ironically, is vandalism) until you get your way.
Further, looking at your history it appears you have not learned even basic Wikipedia editing in several years here (longer than I've been here). Why do you not use == Title == to create proper section headings, not bold the title of articles, not add categories, etc? Again, it's hard to favour your versions of articles over competing ones when they are visually and organisationally a mess, not clearly foonoted in many cases, and when you never come to Discussion to explain why you feel your edits are correct and others' incorrect, prefering instead to call others "vandals". Some of the only times I've ever seen you post on someone's talk page is when you posted insults recently.
Please do yourself a huge favour and a) take a few looks at established Wikipedia articles to see how articles are formatted. Just hit "Edit" and you can see how they create heading and subheadings, put a clear summary at the top of the article with the article name bolded within the text, etc. b) In articles where you have a dispute, post a clear rebuttal of at least some of the points with which you disagree. If you don't do these things, regardless of how right your facts are, you will continue to make little progress. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Great rebuttal, and couple wiki pointers on technical details
Greetings! Very glad to see your case laid out so clearly on Aleamotu'a; hopefully the two competing articles can figure out which direction to take over the course of the week. It is a ton easier to sort this disputes out when people articulate their concerns to each other; avoids a ton of misunderstandings.
Had a couple minor points on a few Wikipedia format things that would be quick fixes for you.
- On quite a few occasions you've left an extra space before starting a paragraph. When you do that it creates a huge quote box that you didn't intend to put there. The solution is to hit "Preview" to check your edits before saving, and if you see a big box that means you have an extra space before starting a line.
Here's starting a line all the way on the left.
Here's a sentence with an extra space.
- Wikipedia articles should all start with a "lede" that gives the who/what/where/when/why details all in one paragraph, before getting into any other details. A lede should be understandable by any literate adult, even without knowing much about the subject. The first time the title is mentioned in the lede, and it should be one of the first phrases, it's bolded.
- For titles and subtitles, you put 2, 3, or 4 "=" signs on each side of the title. That will automatically size, bold, and underline the title appropriately.
- .... except that in your recent reply on Talk:Aleamotu'a both spaced over (creating a huge box) and failed to sign your post with ~~~~, though a bot came in and signed it for you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
==Title==
===Subtitle===
====Sub-subtitle======
- When writing on a Talk/Discussion page, make sure to sign your posts, which is done automatically by your typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment.
When I type "MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)" at the end of a comment, it automatically becomes MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC) when I save the page.
Just a few easy pointers to make your work that much smoother.
The article Namoa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Pure genealogy with no indication of who the people were or why they were important. No reliable sources.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Auntof6 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Aleamotu'a, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Just put an explanation please! Endofskull (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)