User talk:TJauteur

Hi TJauteur! I know we've run into each other a few times now; I think we watch a number of the same pages on Wikipedia. I just wanted to follow up about the Antarctic territories on the List of Countries and Territories by Area. I like the addition of the information (more information is always good!) but I was wondering if you would be okay if I move the territories to a separate table since under the Antarctic Treaty System claims are held in abeyance for the next several decades. Let me know what you think, and thank you for your edits! InterstellarWhale (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi InterstellarWhale, it's been a pleasure contributing to the same pages. As for the Antarctics territories, I just don't find it fair that so many islands (a handful of which are counted twice, by their associating country and under their own name) get their own spot whereas portions of land with sizes greater than 80% of the other countries are either ignored or lumped together into a continent. Besides, there is already a page with such a table (see: Territorial claims in Antarctica). I would generally not be opposed to creating a separate section for Antarctic claims, however in this case, I believe that making splitting up the continent and listing various claims actually helps identify sections of an otherwise large contiguous and undistinguishable piece of land. The territory/claim names only serve to distinguish a certain portion of land and doesn't actually represent their sovereign status, which is what my interpretation of the article is. TJauteur (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi TJauteur, thanks for replying, and sorry it took me so long to respond (I'm just finishing up my first week of classes in a new quarter). I think that this makes total sense, and I appreciate the explanation. Let me know if you want any help with collecting the EEZ data; I'd love to make it a collaborative effort! InterstellarWhale (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I quickly compiled this dataset: Exclusive economic zone#Rankings by total maritime area. Let me know if you think something like that is suitable for land areas as well.

Good luck with your classes! TJauteur (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm more keen on adding EEZ data than segregating pre-existing data. I believe once we have the full picture, separating the whole dataset into other tables would just become a trivial issue. TJauteur (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you point out specifically why you think the paragraph is plagiarised? If the content was copied/closely paraphrased from it'd be required to be removed but I don't obviously see that from the source, which was written in 2023 but the content in question existed in the article for much longer. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs:

"Within six months, Eliza had married another...

... charitable funds in light of her ordeal."

Seem to either be put through an anti-plagiarism re-worder or tediously paraphrased from the last two paragraphs of the 'Returning home' section from the Queensland Government's website, "Eliza remarried and returned...

...all over the world."

The problem is not so much that it is paraphrased, it is more so that it is paraphrased and accompanied by citations that do not match up as to what is written. Also the Queensland Govt's website seems to report a highly one-sided account of what happened without citing any sources.

I find the ngm.nationalgeographic.com citation more useful as it presents a fairer and impartial account of both sides. Unfortunately, only one half of that story is actually presented in the wiki article. TJauteur (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the content was paraphrased from there, its factually similar but ultimately far different in substance. There is no mention of the timeframe of her remarriage for example. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the same sentence structure and the wording is copied as well. Again, paraphrasing in of itself is not that big of an issue as long as it is coming from a reliable source and that citation is clearly visible. Whoever wrote that paragraph referenced neither, the original article which I only realised because I had read the Qld Gov's notice before, and the original text does not cite any sources either.

Also the six month timeline allegedly stems from her biography ([one such example]) and that source is also not cited.

If you still don't believe me, here's a list of similarities:

• 'lurid tales' -> 'ever more lurid tales'
• 'disputed by other survivors' -> 'disputed, by other survivors'
• 'returned to England/Britain' → 'She returned to England'
• 'ship ... travelling from Sydney to Singapore' → 'set sail from Sydney to Singapore'
• 'leaking lifeboat' -> 'leaking lifeboats'
• 'Moreton Bay (now Brisbane)' -> 'settlement at Moreton Bay (now Brisbane)'
• "large sum of money raised by public donations" -> "large sum of charitable funds"
• "sensationalised accounts" -> "ever more lurid tales"
• "castaways" -> "crew" / "survivors"
• "ran aground" -> "was holed on coral"
• "headed south" -> "set a course south"
• "hoping to reach" -> "attempting to reach"
• "appeared regularly at Hyde Park" -> "became a sideshow attraction in Hyde Park"
• "publish sensationalised accounts… to gain donations" -> "telling ever more lurid tales... appealing for money"
• "known to have told several versions" -> "known to have told several versions... unknown which was accurate"
• "received a large sum of money" -> "received a large sum of charitable funds... claimed to be penniless"

Also the story structure is entirely identical. Although more details are appreciated, they should come from a valid source and that source should be cited and carefully referenced in order to reflect the true nature of the original reference. TJauteur (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I see now. Thank you for pointing this out. I removed the text as close paraphrasing is not allowed. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You may wish to review this long discussion about the issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 11#Flags in mission crew boxes. The short version is that the consensus was they were inappropriate.

Furthermore, using the Space Force flag with the Artemis II mission is exceptionally inappropriate as this is a civil (not military) mission and none of the crew are Space Force guardians. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

That in no way suggests that the consensus was that it's inappropriate, quite the contrary in fact. TJauteur (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring combined with incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Please note that, due to incivility being part of the block reason, the block may be extended if your response exhibits the same behavior that already led to the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you precisely outline the reasons for the block @ToBeFree please. TJauteur (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure. You have edit warred at Artemis II and had been blocked in the past for edit warring, and you have persistently been incivil in your interactions with others, such as in edit summaries here on this talk page. It is, for example, inappropriate to tell other editors to "get a life". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more precise please? TJauteur (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, about which part in particular? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The context of 'edit warring' and examples of incivility towards others other than edit comments made on my own talk page. TJauteur (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The second half of your message seems to imply that your "own talk page" was a place where incivility was more acceptable than elsewhere, which is incorrect. You may freely remove messages (other than declined unblock requests; cf. WP:UP#CMT for the specifics) from your talk page, but that's about it. It doesn't come with the right to be unfriendly to others while doing so.

Edit warring in your specific case at Artemis II was making the following edit – that's fine so far – but then restoring it repeatedly when it was undone ( ). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

thx TJauteur (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)