User talk:Ngchen

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 02:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was just checking back on all those articles I started, and saw that you created the article Yang Huimin. At least I now know that someone reads the stuff I write! Thanks, I guess.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 06:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan legal status

Responding to further detail on my peer review comments: A pros and cons section is always dangerous. If someone writes something a pro you don't like, you can come back with five cons, and they respond with two more pros, and you basically get two people on either side of what, in this case, is a tricky area, and an edit war is bound to occur. FAs need to be stable, but basically letting opinionated people list out every one of their arguments and allowing those who disagree to rant right back at them goes against the Wikipedia idea of consensus, and working out a compromise. Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, but none the less I think you're basically sticking this article in the middle of the Taiwan Strait and saying, "Let's hear all the outrageous arguments from both sides." Harro5 04:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on it. Thanks.--StrikeEagle 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up some suggetions for improvement regarding Taiwan legal status. Would you take a look? I can't edit the page, please give me some feedback and see if you want to make some improvements on the article. Thanks. Redcloud822 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from morality NPOV

It wasn't me who removed the NPOV tag. Go re-add it if you want. Infinity0 ^talk 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second-class citizen

I have no serious objections to the article as it is now. Pecher ^Talk 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Abortion!

'Nuff said. --BCSWowbagger 03:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of reminders

Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Also: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yang

Do you have a reference for Yang surviving the war and going to Taiwan? Can you add details to the article?Rlevse 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored

I'm sorry. There was no problem with your edit.TingMing 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation - Foundation for Defense of Democracies

I'm back, though I'll be quite busy for a while. But, I did sign on to the mediation. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Academia Sinica

How about changing it to mainland Chinese instead of just "mainland?"--Jerry 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Jerry 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

request for comment

Thanks for your opinion on Talk:¿Por qué no te callas?, but your comment seems to have missed the point of the question. The question is not regarding the notability of the article, or the article as a whole at all. It is about one sentence within the article. - Revolving Bugbear 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:RFPP reports

Just a courtesy note, I've semi-protected your original research warnings indefinitely, as requested. However, I noticed that you added {{pp-semi|small=yes}} to the articles. As set out at WP:Pt, you shouldn't do that - protection templates are not to be used as "bluffs". Cheers, Anthøny 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Careful at Image:Senate in session.jpg. Nobody mentioned even once in the deletion debate that it was a work by the U.S. Senate. Rather, they all claimed that it was a public domain image from C-SPAN's video coverage of the U.S. Senate. Unless someone says otherwise (and nobody has, as of yet), your tag is misleading. But I'll fix it for you.

And if you take a look at Jiang's user talk page, it's obvious that while he's a long-term contributor who has done much for the project, he has a very poor understanding of copyright and how we deal with it on Wikpedia. I wouldn't try to glean much from his contributions in that area, and I'm sure that many, many more of his images will be deleted in the coming months. And if you look in the image's history, he never asserted anything about the image; he didn't even provide a source or license. But that was a long time ago.

And per your other uncivil comment regarding my supposed paranoia: Nice cop out, but I'm very well aware that the chances of negative legal repercussions are often slim to none. But we're trying to build a free encyclopedia, and people like you clearly don't understand what that means, but would rather unabashedly steal photos from people who make their living trying to sell those same photos.

Off Wikipedia, the photographer makes money by selling his or her photo to a paper, and the paper makes that money back by advertising to those to view the image on their site. In our case, we simply stole an image to unnecessarily decorate an article, giving nothing back to the people who worked to create it or to purchase the rights to it. And there's a clear difference between the image in question and those that are actually iconic, such as Image:Kent State massacre.jpg, which I myself wrote a detailed fair use rationale for. -- RG ² 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I explained the policy, in detail, in the original nomination. But if you're that sensitive, go ahead and resent me, I suppose.

If you look at the image's history, which I go through on the image talk page, you'll see that the assertion that the image is from C-SPAN was admitted to be shaky and unverified. And after that was carried over a few edits and a few years later, everyone went ahead and repeated it. Not much to assume good faith on -- but I'm searching through C-SPAN archives at the moment so we can actually verify it, rather than base everything off a description that read: "C-SPAN's video coverage of the floor proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is public domain, but it is unclear whether this is that footage." -- RG ² 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senate image - a logical deduction

You're very, very close, but not quite correct. If something is in the public domain, that means anyone can take it, modify it, and republish it. If the AP takes an image and cleans it up a bit, sharpens it, airbrushes it a bit, they can certainly republish it. And this was from before a few AP/Reuters reiterated their image modification rules after photographers took a bunch of heat for some really tasteless usage of the cloning stamp a year or two ago, so it's a very real possibility that work was done.

Your A Christmas Carol analogy is also close, but not quite correct, in this case. The middle-man didn't necessarily just package the text; in this case, they may have cleaned up the text, reworded some of the text, and added some extra text. Since it's public domain, and not, for example, a GFDL-licensed work, they don't need to republish the work under a free license or in the public domain.

Nice to see you so cocky with the "Thought I'd save you the trouble" and the "HTH." -- RG ² 01:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely fraudulent, though I doubt there'd be any legal repercussions, given the age of the work. But, anyway, we're getting into a bunch of what-ifs that I don't really care to think about at the moment.

C-SPAN's video archives go as far back as 2001 at the moment. I'll get in contact with them to see when they're planning to make more of their archive of Senate floor videos available. They go back to the mid-1980s, I believe, and House videos go back even further. -- RG ² 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of China

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Template:History of China. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus

Hello, this is a friendly notice that I replied to your comment, and I would like your advice. If you have any other questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I received your message. I am afraid I am a bit confused with the number of involved parties. To my understanding, they are (1) you, (2) TTN, and (3) Eusebeus. Hopefully I'm not leaving anyone out. Now, where I am confused (I haven't dug through everything carefully, since I'm after all not ArbCom) is the following. To start, who accused whom of sockpuppetry? The accused person then of course has denied it. How does a third person enter into the picture, with the rant about the 25,000+ edits? Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. I will do my best make my answer as short as possible, and please feel free to take a look at the evidence for yourself so you can get both sides of the story and make an objective decision, rather than just believe my point of view.

User:TTN and I were not able to come to a consensus on List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, however, I do not believe he should asked for cleanup at WP:VG/C only to use his sockpuppet, User:Henke37, to list the article at AfD, thereby disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is why I listed it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and that is where this situation between Eusebeus and I arose.

You may want to look at the history for User:TTN's userpage.

21:11, 4 December 2007, I add {{sockpuppeteer}}, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Tagging. My edit summary is "{{sockpuppeteer}}".

02:55, 5 December 2007 User:Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Undid revision 175783905 by Taric25 (talk)".

07:38, 5 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 175846854 by Eusebeus (talk) Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, the notice may only be removed after at least 10 days".

05:05, 6 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "Not when it's a completely bogus claim. See WP:TEMPLAR and be warned that sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. Have better evidence next time for your suspicions". Notice WP:TEMPLAR an essay, neither policy nor guideline.

15:32, 6 December 2007 User:Maniwar reverts. The edit summary is "Reverted 1 edit by Eusebeus; Wait until issue is resolved, per Taric25's last comment. using TW"

17:00, 6 December 2007 User:Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Undid. "The templates serve as a convenient shorthand only and are not part of this policy" from Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Tagging. Sorry if I've misunderstood this."

17:00, 6 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176179456 by Seraphim Whipp (talk) I am very serious by the evidence I have presented."

On Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN,(cache) at 20:31, 6 December 2007, User:JzG, an admin Eusbeus identifies as a "rogue admin"(diff), deletes the entire page without using Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The edit summary is "This is clearly fatuous and I don't believe that Taric25's best friend would look on this as his finest hour. Deleting to spare his blushes."

At TTN's userpage, at 17:16, 7 December 2007 Eusebeus reverts. The edit summary is "sockpuppet case was dismissed. This is vandalism. STOP FORTHWITH!"

On Wikipedia:Deletion review, I list Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN at 17:49, 7 December 2007, and my edit summary is "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN"

At TTN's userpage, at 17:45, 7 December 2007 I revert. My edit summary is "Undid revision 176396657 by Eusebeus (talk) The case was not dismissed, and the case's deletion is up for review."

Current revision (as of 17:50, 7 December 2007) Seraphim Whipp reverts. The edit summary is "Per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Treatment_of_the_editor Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the an editor in goodstanding"

On 19:36, 7 December 2007, Eusebeus leaves the message you read at the Wikiquette noticeboard on my talk page.

Also, Seraphim Whipp's reason for reverting me is because that editor believes TTN is in good standing, because at Eusebeus points out, TTN has over 25,000 edits, however, Maniwar points out that this is contested, since TTN has three Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. For example, one user shows evidence that More than 80% of TTN's edits are an effort to remove content.

Did that make sense? Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Huimin

Sorry, I can't get what you exactly mean by schools in question. Do you mean 台北女師專 and 金甌商職? As for 台北女師專, I checked it up but can't find any official translation so far. According to the website of another similar school, National Taipei Univ. of Edu, I think you might want to translate 台北女師專, the now 臺北市立教育大學(Taipei Municipal University of Education), into either Taipei Municipal Girls' Normal College or Taipei Municipal Girls' Teahcers College. What to my concern is that the most accurate translation depends on when she taught at there. As the college was once a "Taiwan Provincial" institution and shifted to be a "Taipei Municipal" one in 1967, the translation script should be different and change to something like Taiwan Provincial Taipei Girls' Normal Collegeif, if she started teaching at 台北女師專 before 1967. I think the most diffiult part is to find the actual year she entered the school and that might be the very reason you asked me to assist. I'm really sorry that I can't help much, but I think you may try to contact the school through mail, center@tmue.edu.tw

And about 金甌商職, the now 私立金甌女子高級中學(Private Jinou Girls' High school), I can't find any confirmative term, either. BUT, it's official website says in Chinese that it was 私立金甌女子商業職業學校, which I assure is the full name of 金甌商職. At the same time there is another school, 北士商, stated their former name "臺北市立商業職業學校" as "Taipei Municipal Commercial School". Thus I think you may translate it as "Private Jinou Girls' Commercial School. I didn't make any change on the page of Yang Huimin cause I think I should let you know first. If you find any one above suitable, just add it. But if there is still anything wrong that I can help , simply let me know. Thanks ^^ Tsungyenlee (converse) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rate on quality scale

Hi, I am working on Taiwanese opera and trying to expand it.I would like to ask you to watch that article and rate on the scope of Wikiproject Taiwan or give me some opinions or comments on this article. Thanks Qwaszxfish (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Related Articles

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed you had removed WikiProject China from the talk page of several articles. Since, rightly or wrongly, large numbers of Chinese consider Taiwan to be part of it, the removal created issues with maintaining a neutral point of view. Not to worry, I will be restoring the links and such as appropriate. Thanks! Ngchen (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

BUT, even though large number of Chinese consider Taiwan to be part of it, IT IS NOT administrated by China, so logically speaking, it is NOT part of China then. Since it is NOT part of China, why will stick Taiwan related articles with China tabs? And remember, this also has to be official, and Taiwan is not OFFICIALLY part of China either. Cheers. JoshuaKuo (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo[reply]

Aren't you supposed to keep it official though? Since Taiwan is not administrated by China, it is logically not part of China. Would you say that because China claims, say, the Diaoyoutai Islands, then it's theirs? It's the same thing. NOW, I know this is a sensitive issue, but because of the logic above. Think about it. Cheers. JoshuaKuo (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo[reply]

But won't it be a bit misleading to foreigners to put Taiwan in Wikiproject Taiwan and China? Then people will just think that Taiwan is a part of China, and that Wikiproject Taiwan is just a subproject of Wikiproject China. JoshuaKuo (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo[reply]

Ngchen, I can understand wanting to put Taiwan articles back into a the China WikiProjects from an "inclusiveness" reasoning. That is, if we're not sure whether to include article in a WikiProject because the topics may not match, we should go ahead and include it if people in the project have expressed an interest in the article and the projects reflect interest. However, please don't say that it is an NPOV issue. If you say you are putting the Taiwan articles into the China WikiProject because of NPOV, you are saying that "Taiwan is part of China" is an NPOV, which it certainly is not.Readin (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over your conversation with JoshuaKuo and noticed you are making the argument that NPOV requires all POVs to be represented. However that does not apply here. Either Taiwan articles are in the China WikiProject, or they are not. That Taiwan articles are also in the Taiwan WikiProject is not providing other views as the articles would be in that WikiProject regardless of whether one imagines Taiwan is part of China. The question is whether Taiwan articles should also be in the China WikiProject. We cannot possibly represent both sides of this question because we cannot have the articls both included in the China WikiProject and not included in the China WikiProject. It just can't be done. This is not quantum physics; the cat cannot be both dead and alive. The decision whether to include Taiwan articles in China WikiProject therefore must be made on something other than NPOV (unless we can all agree that the true NPOV is that Taiwan is not part of China). Readin (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response over on my webpage. You say you're asking for ideas for a compromise. I'm not sure what the "Gdánsk vs Danzig" compromise is even though I looked at the Gdánsk article. I think the solution is the have rules for inclusion in WikiProjects that take precedence over NPOV. Some rules would be:

An article is part of a WikiProject if being part of that WikiProject represents a recognized POV and if the editors of that WikiProject want it to be in the WikiProject.
When there is a disagreement about whether an article should be an independent WikiProject or a sub-project of another WikiProject, it is made into an independent WikiProject. The editors who want to make it a subtopic can always provide links to it in their parent topic.

The above two rules would both fit with how Taiwan is currently handled. The Taiwan WikiProject is not a subtopic of the China WikiProject, and Taiwan related articles are included in the WikiProject.

Articles provide space for explanations of multiple POVs and compromises. Inclusion or exclusion unfortunately does not.Readin (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Danzig-Gdansk compromise is done within an article, not in a WikiProject. I don't think they are really comparable.

Perhaps a better whay to re-state what I said above is to say that articles can achieve Neutral Point of View because they have room to do so. Inclusion or exclusion of in a WikiProject cannot always achieve Neutral Point of View. The next best thing is Neutral Criteria. If we have Neutral Criteria to apply to the structure of the dispute without considering the merits, we have neutrality even if we find ourselves seeming obviously incorrect - as in your example of California being in the Mexico WikiProject. But if we can say California is in the Mexico WikiProject not because it is part of Mexico, but because the Mexico editors are interested in maintaining it, then we have solid ground for our decision without having to address the merits of the argument.

In taking this approach, it should be noted that inclusion or exclusion from a project is related to interest, not to facts.Readin (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Hey, you've been here for quite some time. Consider putting something on your userpage so you don't appear like the many sockpuppets appearing on the China talk page. A simple word will do.--Jiang (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One-China policy

The first few times I modified fixed pages by that particular editor, I did not assume vandalism. However, the user has continued to change page-after-page without explanation, without response to messages on his talk page. I sometimes even wonder if he has a bot doing a lot of the work. I'm not sure what to call it at this point, but either the editor is extremely unfamiliar with protocols and it uninterested in learning them, or simply doesn't care about NPOV or the opinions of other editors.Readin (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan article

thank you very much f or the post however i have already posted a warning on the talk page, please follow that post, do not revert thank you.

-MrJanitor1

Nanjing presidential Palace as source

some new information added in the talk-page of Dalai Lama

Raintwoto (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Gymnast Controversy

On the wikiproject China page I made a request for some comments on the Chinese gymnast controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Comments_to_Age_Controversy_of_Chinese_Gymnists . We are stuck in a gridlock and I'd like some neutral opinions, if you have an interest. Thanks.LedRush (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Taiwan is a country"

The statement that the statement that 'Taiwan is a "country"' is non-neutral is non-neutral. Taiwan is clearly a country under some definitions of the word. There are some other definitions where one could dispute whether Taiwan fits. It would be more correct then to say that "Taiwan is a country" is neutral as it clearly is for some definitions of "country", but to say that "Taiwan is not a country" is non-neutral as there is a question of whether all definitions of "country" apply to Taiwan". Readin (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure what definitions you're using for "country." But since obviously an actual dispute exists over whether Taiwan is/is not a country, it would violate neutrality to assert that it is/is not a country, at least without further qualifications. Ngchen (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three definitions from dictionary.com undeniably apply to Taiwan:

the land of one's birth or citizenship.
any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania.
a tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district.

It is only the definitions that are tied to politics that are disputed

a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
the territory of a nation.

Readin (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of Taiwan

"I have no problem with listing the de jure capital as Nanjing, with the current capital of Taipei because well, it is technically true. I'm fairly certain that if editors dig hard enough a source can be found for listing Nanjing."

I thought so too, and was rather surprised at the difficulty we had coming up with a reliable source - even when searching Taiwan's GIO web. Readin (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of NPOV template

Hi, if there's something you don't like about the "Taiwanese identity" section, could you please propose changes? There's no point tagging the section if you don't contribute to the discussion. To quote the template documentation: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." (emphasis added) Laurent (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sino-Japanese War

Hi Ngchen, some people are vandalizing the Second Sino-Japanese War article. One tries to add all the individual foreign countries, the other tries to add a POV tag on top without providing any specific reasons. If you can please take a look, thanks. Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War#RFC: Removal of Communists from Infobox.Blueshirts (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang say Hi

If you are interested in this discussion, please leave some comments.

commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg Arilang ^talk 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Jerzeykydd

I noticed your revert of voting record edits by User:Jerzeykydd. He made dozens of such edits to multiple congressional articles, and I've reverted most of them. I agree they were too POV and were borderline in violation of WP:OR. I've posted suggestions on his talk page on how to incorporate the information in the future if appropriate.DCmacnut <> 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ngchen

Please do not attack me on my talk page by mis-characterizing my actions and threatening me with rules violations. Thank you :)Medusaseesyou (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheSmokingGun.com

Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherl left 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Taiwandc

I wonder if the user Taiwandc has any relationship with the website www.taiwandc.org. Readin (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Taiwandc's talk page, apparantly Cirt thought there was a relation. The account has been blocked indefinitely because the "username seems to exist only to promote a corporation or group" Readin (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Yes, I accidentally editing the version before you put your comments in. T-1000 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flamarande

Honestly: you can forget your proposal may seem unduly harsh and unnecessary only if someone is unable to appreciate honesty. The proposal of using the native name (Yìyǒngjūn Jìnxíngqǔ) in the English wiki instead of the name 'March of the Volunteers' was one of the strangest proposals ever and I simply explained why it wouldn't work. I will not rephrase my answer and explanation comment as "a civil criticism of the article" because the proposal was not a criticism of the article; it was just a honest but misguided proposal and it received a honest reply. If my honest reply (which included no insults at all) hurt your moral feelings you can, if you wish, file a proper complaint at the proper channels. I also wish to add that User:Calvin Lourdes is perfectly able to defend himself. I hope the issue ends here. Please do not reply in my userpage; I'm largely uninterested in having any contact with you. Flamarande (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government in Exile Cabal case

I've gone ahead and signed myself on as mediator for this case. see the note I left on the mediation page - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-17/Government in exile in the mediator's section. If you could each start by explaining what your particular perspective on the problem is (in the 'initial perspectives' section) that would help me get oriented. Please, for this first step try as much as possible to pretend that the other disputants aren't there; just explain your side without (as much as possible) commenting on other people's perspectives, or responding to what they have or do say. I really just want to get your unsullied view on the issue. --Ludwigs2 06:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Second-class citizen

The article Second-class citizen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not a dictionary

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Second-class citizen for deletion

The article Second-class citizen is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second-class citizen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the previous move

A move request has been submited here. [1] 219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China article

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.228 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half Barnstar

Six years ago you awarded me a half-barnstar. I wasn't sure I felt about it. You were giving me part of a barnstar but not the whole thing. But then today I was looking to award a barnstar to someone and started looking through the available barnstars. I see now that a half-barnstar doesn't show lack of enthusiasm but is awarded for collaboration. Now that I understand it I'm embarrassed that I didn't appreciate it earlier. THANK YOU for the half-barnstar! I've awarded you the other half. Readin (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry: An Asian Journal moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Chemistry: An Asian Journal, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]