This article is within the scope of WikiProject Papua New Guinea, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Papua New Guinea on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Papua New GuineaWikipedia:WikiProject Papua New GuineaTemplate:WikiProject Papua New GuineaPapua New Guinea articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re the claim in reverting Wopkaimin people to Wopkaimin as a dab page, claiming the people are not the primary topic, as usual with such claims without any evidence, there were ZERO views of the language article this month and 142 for the people article. There were 603 views for the people article in the last 90 days, vs anotherZERO for the language article. Apparently "primary topic" is construed to means its "opposite", another term used by the same revisionist to mean the opposite of what it does..... the "language as a primary topic" claim made over and over by the editor in question was heard time and again in RM after RM that closed/moved with consensus saying "the people are the primary topic". Not that what anyone else says, or what reality is, matter when obstinacy and misrepresentation will suffice. Proof of primary topic has never been provided in dozens ("hundreds" and even "five thousand") cases, except by other editors (including myself) who have used view stats, google searches and more to prove "the people are the primary topic". The game of charades is getting old; this false claim is one of hundreds that will be being sent to ARBCOM about this editor's ongoing activities to defend his preferences over policy.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
