SchmuckyTheCat |
Just to let you know, I have monkeys flying out of my butt.
Hello, to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven t already found them:
If you have any questions, see the !
Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~
18:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
= Thanks =
Thanks for improving the Social networking section that I added to 16:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
=E-Mail from Hong Kong Government=
Would you mind telling which department did you write to Thank you. — 19:10 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
:The one that answered queries sent to the www.info.gov.hk web page. 19:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is it a form to fill in, or an e-mail address — 20:35 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
=List of countries that only border one other country=
Please remove Hong Kong and Macao, and all other dependent territories, from all listing of countries if you insist they are not countries. — 22:51 Mar 1 2005 (UTC) *If I come across things that are obviously wrong, I correct them. I don t intend to be a completist. 23:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=List of city listings by country=
Please remove all the the s if you consider they are not necessary, for consistence. — 22:55 Mar 1 2005 (UTC) *I strive to be correct, not complete. 23:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=RfC=
The sharing at 21:15 Mar 5 2005 (UTC) *I do hope it goes positive in all regards. I did note before anything else that I believe you want to contribute. I just got tired of the revert wars. 03:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= China and Mainland China =
I noticed you have made several edits that involve these two terms (e.g. 22:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) *yes, i looked at several and changed two where it didn t make sense. beijing, for example, listed railways to everywhere, including hong kong, so it made little sense to use your term mainland china when that term excludes hong kong. 22:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Beijing serves as a rail hub for mainland China, but not the PRC. — 23:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC) *what your definition of mainland China is the PRC - the two SAR. The article saID that Beijing was the rail hub for mainland China + the SAR. Which part of that ISN T the PRC So, um... what please discuss this in the article talk page, kthx. 03:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are removing references to 10:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Dependent Territories =
Hi SchmuckyTheCat,
I ve seen your comments on the compromise deal. The point of a compromise is for both sides to have some form of give-and-take, rather than a winner-loser mentality where winner takes all . I ll see what changes I can make accordingly. In that case I may put them under Cat:Special territories instead of Cat:Dependant territories. Disclaimers are there to seal up any ambiguous, or so-called grey-areas that is actually causing the conflict/potentially causing more conflict, and hence nessecery.
I think it ll be best to leave the subcategories as it is rather than upmerging them. At first before you all were involved, the two categories Airports of Hong Kong and Macau are then completely separated and unrelated to Airports of PRC. To upmerge them outright is a bit like annexing countries, and something Instantnood and a few others (who voted on CfD) will not agree to and would not help ressolve the dispute.
- 06:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
*this is an encyclopedia, remember. Fact trumps user compromise everytime. They aren t dependent territories. I ve previously been ok with special territories . I don t like the term much but it works.
*My problem with the categories is not with the politics. It s with the categories only containing a single real article. That isn t the point of a category. There is a major proposal to limit category creation to admins for this very reason of too many useless categories. Here are some other alternatives Airports of Hong Kong and Macau as a single category, kind of icky combining them. Upmerging them to Transportation in xx which is a fine solution. There is no problem with Transportation in xx being a sub-category of Airports in PRC . If there must be a compromise between just stickin them in Airports of the PRC then putting them in Transportation in xx is my preferred compromise. 15:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello SchmuckyTheCat. I noticed you have left the following words at , and I would like to say something about that.
I d love to see him try to convince American editors that the US belongs in some minor category like lower 48 because of Puerto Rico. :)
Puerto Rico does not form part of the United States, but a commonwealth and an Incorporated territory organized territory which sovereignty is held by the United States. It is the same way the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do not form part of the United Kingdom.
A more comparable example of the special administrative regions is the 16:56, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Words from : I think you are out fishing for support of your agenda. SchmuckyTheCat 23:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please respect other people. They have their own thinking, and if they do not agree with me, fishing for support wouldn t help. It is not my agenda, but actions that must be taken to somebody else s agenda. — 09:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
=VfD/Sar=
Hi SchmuckyTheCat - you wrote: I m referring to the pages of and vote to merge :Sorry, but I disagree with the idea that Sar and SAR should have one article just because they use the same letters in their name. There should be a disambiguation link between them (as there is) for people who have typed the wrong thing, but combining the two is like having an article on cats of which half is dedicated to Computerised Axial Tomography. It s unlikely anyone typing Sar would mean SAR or vice versa , but if they do, there s a link to it on the page anyway. 00:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) *While I m not opposed to merging (people make capitalization errors all the time, qv 09:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
( 22:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I really don t understand what you re doing here. I know why I care about SAR, but I don t understand why you care.
= Re:Sovereignty =
You have a point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Perhaps a better solution is to edit out the term altogether But then the ROC s stance on HK and MO isnt really clear. The laws seem to refer to the Hong Kong Area separate from the Taiwan Area but then the ROC never claimed HK... -- 06:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I looked at removing it, but it s pretty clear in context. The article just uses the two Chinas as an example in an article that isn t about China at all. No need to muddy a simple example with the dirty details and politics. 13:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Categories=
Please let me know if there is any convention or Wikipedia law that forbids placing articles in user space into categories. Thanks. — 21:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) :Don t remove categories from my userpages unless you have found that it is prohibited on Wikipedia. — 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) ::Please revert your edit, and please don t remove them until you have got the answer at 21:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
= Moving pages =
Please use the move function to move pages. This is outlined at 01:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Chinese characters=
You re welcome. Let me know if you need my help. 
— 15:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
= User-space reverts =
If you had included the other info up front you might have gotten more of a response. I m not an admin, couldn t have done anything even if I wanted to, but this issue of the 3RR in user space is iffy at best. If he is categorising material in his user space, that s another matter, and should be brought up, but I don t think on the 3RR page. 22:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::You probably would have been better off on the /Incidents page. And you probably shouldn t admit that too widely, since some people might consider it an instance of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point . You might want to try an RfC. Regardless, it s generally most effective to lay out the whole argument clearly, and possibly contact an admin directly. I appreciate that what you are doing is important - that article should not be categorised, and probably should not have interwiki links (though AFAIK they only go one way, so they re probably not a problem). Nonetheless, even if he were blocked, it wouldn t solve the problem. I think an RfC is probably the best way to proceed. 22:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::* He s already got an RfC. RfC is supposed to be limited to a single issue. If every single issue goes to RfC it d be filled with him. If RfC goes beyond a single issue, the discussion gets too murky. And yeah, the interwiki links currently are one way, they weren t at the time, and even after being listed at incidents he said oh, I ll put them back then! geeps. in any case, thx. 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::I see your point then. I d say something needs doing. I m going have a look at the RfC and at the whole issue. Should have kept my mouth shut on the 3RR page. 23:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Image copyright tags=
Hi Schmucky, I noticed that you tagged your recently uploaded images ( 02:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Mark, I d love to have a conversation about this. I m not willing to release copyright, so I don t know that the GFDL applies. I m glad to contribute them to Wikipedia. I don t care if a kid uses them in a book report. But for instance: I do not want them to be used in a commercial publication. Also important: if the sites that clone wikipedia content honor the tags, I d rather my images DID NOT follow to those sites. I would also prefer that they not be edited and used in a derivative work. My goal is that Wikipedia has permission, and other users have (US style) fair use. 02:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Unless you explicitly release your work into the public domain, you retain the copyright. For example, if you put a tag on an image description page, you re specifying the terms under which you permit others to use that image (namley the 03:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hey SchmuckyTheCat perhaps 21:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) :That is also a non-free license for purposes of Wikipedia. We don t want to restrict the rights of third parties beyond those rights granted to (the publishers of) Wikipedia itself. -- 22:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Thanks, what I like about PermissionandFairUse over Permission is that the fair use context is specific to reusers in the template text. And MarkSweep, I do want to restrict the rights of third parties beyond Wikipedia. 13:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Well, in that case I m afraid someone might object and delete them as essentially unfree, which would be a shame. -- 18:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=Please..=
Could you please kindly do Wikipedia a favour, to stop depopulating a category currently listed on
And by the way is for the use of controversial topics, while is for factual accuracy. — 05:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) *get a category added to the controversial template and I won t care. I still think disputed is a better description, but I won t care as long as the template has a tracking category.
=Double redirects=
Please be reminded you have to fix double redirects after you have moved a page to a new location. Thanks for your attention. — 08:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
=Terri Schiavo=
Your edit to the Terri Schiavo article was inappropriate. Don t try something like that again or you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. 06:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
= Disambiguation pages =
I appreciate your efforts in creating disambiguation pages for the China articles, but as a common courtesy, please fix all the links that lead to the new disambiguation page to another page after you are done. Also, given that this is being done on a mass scale, it would help if this was announced/discussed somewhere. Thanks, -- 05:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC) *I have been trying to fix some links as I do it and others will come along. I know this wasn t announced, but I decided to be bold. There is no naming convention problem if the country/territory is named the way it calls itself and if the squabbling sub-entities are removed from the nebulous China articles which tried (and failed) to be all inclusive. 16:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Please stop depopulating categories on CFD=
SchmuckyTheCat did you read Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered. on the 08:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
=Traditional Chinese law=
Regarding this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Traditional_Chinese_law&oldid=11917609&diff=next edit], would you mind telling why 15:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) *From what I have viewed previously, historical laws of a country are generally classified with other laws of the country. the articles explain it s irrelevance. It had no previous category at all, so that was the best fit. It s probably also relevant in a history cat. 15:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see. — 15:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
=Thanks=
Hello SchmuckyTheCat. Thanks a lot for the messages at the various talk pages regarding 21:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
=Your accusation=
I noticed you accused me for putting no link from any page to the 22:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
=Thank you=
Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. 10:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I too thank you for supporting my adminship (even if Mel didn t!). :) 13:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=Double Jeopardy Policy on votes=
I believe that there should be a limit on initiating similiar kind of votes for the sake of everybody s time and energy. Thus, I have posted a 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) *thank you geebus! 01:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=RfAr=
Just to let you know that, frustrated at Instantnood s new escalation of his arguments by opening 25 more votes on the same issue, I am enjoining myself to your ArbCom request on Instantnood s behaviour. I will also be approaching the AMA for someone to represent me. Kind regards, 13:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Great, well, not great, it d be better if it wasn t necessary, but that thing has been stalled and I ve been seeking ways to move it forward. 14:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) **I spoke to Grunt on IRC to see why they have not taken the case. He has since amended his comment on the Arbitration request. I think you need to express what the problem is using fewer words. IE We shouldn t be trying to throw the book at him now, but just express quickly what the problem is (illustrated by a select few, rather than all possible, diffs) and what we want done about it, 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Thanks. I will see if I can make a short concentration of one or two things later today. The weather is too nice to let wikipedia take over my day. 18:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::It must be hotter where you are than where I am. Mind you, I am half-thinking of going to 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= China / PRC vs. mainland China for page titles=
Following the long discussion at 14:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
= Taipei American School =
The unknown user has been persistenly trying to get his views back on the Taipei American School article. Every time we edit his stuff out he edits back in. And now he writes that the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump! Whether the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump sounds irrelevant. 19:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
=My limited knowledge=
SC, my only knowledge of China is occasional skimming of magazine articles or converations with Chinese or Chinese-Americans (all in English, the only language I understand well). And a couple of years of watching Carradine in Kung Fu on TV. So please bear with me if I display my shocking ignorance. I only got involved with the government articles because as a Mediator I like to promote cooperation between writers - not because I think I know even half as much as anyone else. 18:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) *No bother to me. I don t consider myself a China expert by any means. I ve said for quite awhile that I think people without pre-conceived biases need to be more involved there. It s my pleasure to try and explain if someone asks why I wrote or edited any article. 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Arbitration Committee case opening =
The Arbitration request now entitled 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
=Subpages and redirects=
Hi, redirects such as Peoples Republic of China/Economy are leftovers from the old organization of topics in Wikipedia, and current policy (which I do not favour, merely follow - I d be happy to see someone work to get it changed) is to keep them.
Also, redirects shouldn t get speedy-deletion tags, since they have separate rules for speedy deletion from articles, and the admins doing speedies don t know them, so just list them on RfD, OK Thanks. 19:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: I keep getting asked about the subpage stuff, so I replied at 14:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= thnak you =
thank you for revising 03:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
= names/surnames =
I d welcome your comment on 04:17, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
=The template=
Hello I guess you might have misunderstood. The template is not yet deleted, and you should not have proceeded to take it off from articles. For the 09:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC) *It unnecesarily uglifies the article. 13:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC) It is necessary unless it is settled. — 14:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks for your help =
I really appreciate it. I spent a good deal of time familiarizing myself with some of the rules and regs of wikipedia.
I ve just completed my first major contribution, editing the article on my favorite historian, Will Durant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant
If it s not too much to ask and you have the time, I d appreciate your opinion. As I ve said, I do suffer from dyslexia, so I ve painstakingly proofed it as thoroughly as I can. I also believe I ve adhered to the spirit of wikipedia; if I haven t I would very much appreciate being told where I ve gone wrong.
I ve learned my lesson about delving into things I m don t have the skills to tackle. (I ve done tech support for Dell--I ll avoid giving my personal opinion in such a public forum anyone who wants to know how I feel can email me--and I think I can fairly be considered an intermediate level computer user and troubleshooter; but I know my limits and, as usual when I go past them, I made an ass out of myself. It s ok, I m used to it. Like the man said, you shouldn t bring a knife to a gun fight. I got smacked and properly so. ;o)
Thanks.
= Thanks =
Thanks for the critique.
We learn by doing. I m looking for a subject no one else s written on and I m not having much luck finding one.
I see the advice about proposing the changes first--this would be an example of wikiquette (sp), I assume I ll mark that one down. It would help to avoid possible...tension. Though the words mercilessly edited appear frequently, some would not seem to take kindly to the practice. But that s the challenge and the discipline, isn t it
Excellent advice.
I ve been reading the Durants since I was eight, over 25 years. History is one of the areas in which I am something of an expert, though I have no degree. Nor am I likely to ever achieve one. The universities don t allow conservatives anymore, unless its a Christian school. There aren t any of those in Nevada I m aware of.
So I m self-educated. Not always well, ;0), as my feeble attempts at disputing 9x s history with you demonstrate.
Be bold--I like that. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Ironically enough, I just watched the classic Next Generation episode Tapestry. It s on that very theme: boldness and the lack of it.
As aside--I read some of the, ah, issue with instantnood, and frankly found his position untenable. Much as I detest the Butchers of Beijing, they control China and we are forced to accept their name. Mainland China is an adjective, not a name. Sort of like Kwaung-ho, The Middle Kingdom.
I don t envy the Hong Kongers. Were I suddenly forced to live under a totalitarian regime which murders people to sell their organs, I d be unhappy as well. But farcical discussions about grammar and semantics help nothing. However, I am an American, we d start shooting people who tried to enslave us. It s not in our nature to submit to tyranny (one of our best inheritances from the British) if sadly, but thankfully rarely, to impose it.
If I were allowed a vote, I would definitely side with you. Refusing to acknowledge facts helps no one--least of all ourselves.
Again, thank for your time. I shan t take up any more of it.
And I do apologize for the tenor of my earlier postings. Severe pain often makes a cheery disposition hard to maintain.
Good day.
=Image:Bowling Green Police Station.jpg=
Would you mind getting 15:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC) :Hello — 19:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
=Lists of masts, lists of words=
Hi there! I noticed your contribution to these discussions... are you aware of the fact that both were closed and concluded a couple of weeks ago Says so right at the top :) HTH. 07:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
=Re: Name policy=
I don t think it does matter whether you ve ever been involved or not. Don t be hestitant. Just get there and put up an invitation. — 19:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
=Respect=
I noticed you have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User:Uncle_G&action=history started] 20:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
= =
There are very few cases in which it is appropriate to edit another User s user page. Uncle G has stated on multiple occassions that he does not want a user page, so do not create one for him. I have gone ahead and deleted the page you created for him. -- 22:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
=Feel the hate=
How depressing. I haven t been trying hard enough. 19:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
= WP:RM =
On requested moves 10:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
= RFA concern =
Hi there! You expressed concern about how I would react to my critics on RFA. In general, I ve contacted them on their talk page to see what they find wrong about my behavior, and see what I can do to change that. In particular, some people fear I might do controversial deletes, so I have decided to stay away from CSD and VFD closure for the forseeable future.
For instance, see .
Yours, 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
=First name disambiguation pages=
I am coming to you because you voted on policy:
I believe that part of the policy should be changed. The reasons include those I ve already stated in my comments on , which states that redirects should not be deleted if:
To see how this situation is similar to that for first-name disambiguation pages, we can consider the page Noam, which serves as a perfect example. Examining the page history of Noam, we see that the article started out as a redirect to Noam Chomsky (who is not commonly known by his first name). This page was then changed to a redirect to Noam Federman, at which point an edit war began between two users with the users changing the redirect back and forth between Noam Chomsky and Noam Federman. The obvious solution to this edit war, which I implemented, was to turn the redirect page into a disambiguation page for people named Noam.
By the logic of the policy quoted above on , the disambiguation page that solves this problem should be deleted!
This is why the policy stated above on and working to change the policy so that first name disambiguation pages are acceptable Please let me know. Thanks.
— ) 13:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I have started the discussion at ) 17:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
= 100 Greatest Cartoons/Temp =
I think you put a vfd tag on this page and then forgot about it. Just letting you know so you can fix it. -- 21:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Instantnood and the MTR =
Hello, I found your name on the arbitration committee briefing on Instantnood. I found the evidence presented disturbing, as a very similar situation is developing over on the 09:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=MANY Thanks!=
So happy that you ve been so devoted to 09:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= My Rfa =
Thank you for supporting me! -- 13:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= RfA =
Thank you for your support! 07:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=Blank user pages=
If the users choose to keep their user pages blank, please respect them and please don t create such pages with a dot. Thanks. — 17:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) *Please don t follow me around commenting on my edits. If these users have a problem, they can change it or come to me. You re making up objections to my edits in order to stir the shit, not because anyone actually has a problem. 19:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Speedy Delete =
Hi - thanks for your comments about deletions - I m still relatively new to Wikipedia so keen to learn the dos & don ts from more experienced users like yourself. I was aware of the distinction between delete & speedy delete and re-read the criteria for the latter before flagging the pages I flagged yesterday. Although they clearly didn t meet the first definition of patent nonsense random characters they seemed to me to meet the second stuff that no-one could be expected to make sense of . Can you tell me if this constitutes incorrect use of speedy delete as I can t seem to find anything in the criteria that says that only the first definition applies. If this is not the case, can you expand on your reasons for suggesting I shouldn t use speedy deletes in these circumstances Thanks - 28 June 2005 07:36 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice in reply to the above. The article in question is, I think, 28 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)
= Horse Racing =
Hello SchmuckyTheCat. Thanks for your editing of the horse racing article. However, reading your edit comments, it seems that you have not read the information at http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing. I suggest that you do, it is all referenced.
=Hong Kong and Macao section of Economy of the People s Republic of China=
Hello Schmucky. I d like to know why you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=17838198&oldid=17835673 reverted] my edits to that section. Thanks. — June 29, 2005 17:07 (UTC)
= Pang uk =
Hi there! If you want a page merged, you can be June 30, 2005 09:03 (UTC)
=Edit summary=
Would you mind telling what you were trying to say in the following edit summary in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Overseas_Chinese&diff=prev&oldid=18544186 this edit] to the 07:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
=Category=
I think you needa fix the Chinese Wikipedia as well, where Hong Kong is regarded as a country. -- 07:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
= Google Earth =
Have people unlearned the significance of indentation in web forum-style discussion I was saying you cannot upload pictures or kmz files from Google Earth, not that you can t link to Google Maps. -- 16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
=Instantnood evidence=
I am looking at the evidence you present, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Taiwan_Affairs_Office&diff=prev&oldid=18027111]. You say Instantnood changes two lines renaming Taiwan and a PRC government agency - no edit summary, marked minor edit. Granted there is no edit summary, it does seem a minor edit. What policy did Instantnood violate For example, the first part of the edit, changing from as stipulated by the 16:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
=3RR=
Just to let you know, dear comrade 09:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
=Motion=
Please take note of 14:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
=ROC infobox=
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template:Republic_of_China_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=19854554] Those are not really PRC figures, but figures for the entirety of ROC s claim, which include 14:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
*I know. At this point it s just persistent vandalism. 16:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
*:Just a friendly reminder that information provided in edit summary have to be equally accurate for convenience of other readers. As a matter of fact this infobox has gone through a history that the 17:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
::Do you want to make out 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:::LOL. That made my day. 
-- 00:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template:Republic_of_China_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=20286090] Entire China ≠ the entire territories claimed by the ROC. — 20:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:*No How about 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The person who s been changing 22:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) :Agree. But at the same time we have got to provide accurate but not misleading information in edit summary. Saying those are figures and maps of the PRC or of entire China is obviously incorrect. It was meant to be a friendly reminder, but SchmuckyTheCat saw it as picking on him. — 10:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
=Yet another 3rr=
Instantnood has nominated me for 3RR for the third time in recent memory, although I dont think this nomination makes much sense at all. 12:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
=Alanmak=
I should have listened to Huaiwei s advice to report Alan s misconduct to the admin (last time he stroked away my comments with no good reasons). Alanmak has made even worse personal attack [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia_talk%3AHK_wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=20313674&oldid=20247517], which did upset me a lot. : -( You should know I m a sensible discussor all the time, and I m willing to make constructive feedback in the negotiation. Unfortunately, Alanmak has black-mouthed me, calling me master****, and my work c***. Originally I was determined to turn the other cheek (as Instandnodd (your persistent foe or what, please forget it at this moment), but now I think do something an eye for an eye. What should I do now I was very dismayed. :( -- 05:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, thanks for your lovely reply. I hope I can deal with him. I think I may need your further help if he, God forbids, continues with his black-mouth...
-- 05:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
::Btw, I found you re not that bad , or rather a quite amiable person , as the Buddha story mentioned in your reply told me that. But I just wonder why you re using such a strange user name, and ,furthermore, you would occassionaly use bad words when condemning Instantnood. --
:::Well, it sure would be a pretty embarrassing question to reply. Just forget it if you mind spending a penny. Anyway, love ya!~ -- 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Muahaha...as we can see, STC can be quite a lovable person, if you dont trend on his tail that is. :D Anyway, what is the outcome over the above spat, actually I am sorry I didnt do much about it since then.-- 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Well we ve become friends again. Actually you can check the discussion page, and there hides our ICQ messages of negotation with sign. --
:::::Haha....wheres the page Thats good to hear btw. :D-- 15:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
= ROC on Taiwan or is it Taiwan =
At 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
==Temporary truce==
Hi, SchmuckyTheCat (and Ji). Instantnood informed me of your edit to 12:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks for your support =
Hi Schmucky. Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I was especially touched by your vote (as well as 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
=A fourth 3RR!=
It does appear to me that instantnood is practically reaching the end of a cliff face and is now willing to do anything just to retaliate at others. He has decided to 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
=ROC / Taiwan=
I agree the ROC should be sorted under T on lists of countries as most readers will look for it by its common name. Nevertheless I suppose a pointer should be added under C, like what was done under T before the relocations. Meanwhile, if you re serious with your position, mind help fixing the East Asia section of airline destinations, e.g. 18:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC) :You may want to fix all the lists of destinations that linked to airports in the ROC, as you can check from 08:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks =
Thank you for supporting my nomination. 09:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
= DavidsCrusader =
While I was doing RC Patrol, I came across something I don t understand. It said you created the page 23:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
=Re: Barebacking dispute=
If you remove this dispute tag again I will list you for comment. 22:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
*hurry up then 23:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
23:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
::Update: I ve withdrawn the RFC against you, not because I feel it was inappropriate, but because I doubt it ll do any good and I d rather not waste everyone s time any further. However, I have a major problem with the way you ve approached this dispute, and I think you really need to reexamine how you interact with other editors. Repeatedly removing dispute tags (traditionally, it s the user who posted the tags who gets to remove them) and reverting articles to your preferred version (far better to leave them as they are during a dispute) helps nothing. 17:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
=DYK=
=Point at the wrong version=
Aside from disagreement over the choice of which version to be displayed, please be reminded to link to the updated version, after I ve made changes to it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=List_of_companies_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=22108852&oldid=22084285]. Thanks. — 17:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
=Block=
SchmuckyTheCat, you been blocked for 24 hours for a 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
:Smucky, I did look at the edits. Per your request, I ll take another look at them. You can still edit this page, and I ve blocked your IP address (either that, or it s someone impersonating you). Thanks for your understanding! 22:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC) :*Don t autoblock the IP, it s a proxy for a rather large multi-national company and other users do edit wikipedia. I could just connect to a different proxy to avoid it. Trust me in good faith I won t edit in article space as an anon while blocked. In the meantime [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Personal_attacks_which_place_users_in_danger], that s one of the only occurences when you should not only block, but inform Jimbo of the block. This isn t a race-baiting nazi to block, but the links to the employer are clear real-life harassment. 22:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
::Clear real-life harrasment I don t see why the information about previous employers should go in the article (and my view on that is besides the point), but I don t view it as threatening. I will, however, post your comments on 23:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC) ::*That isn t former employment. When your HR department asks to speak to you about what some guy says on the Internet, that is real life trouble. 23:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC) :::*So you beleive that having information about one s employer is harrassment In either case, I ve posted the matter on 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
=Re: Awards=
Lol~ Thanks so much Schmucky. You still owe me a scabbard. Where should I keep the sword 
— 15:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Sory for me butting in, but I had a good laugh. Anyway, what material would you like your scabbard to have, ms nood-- 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
=Its a high five!=
You-know-who just nominated me for the five time in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Huaiwei]. I bet yeah when 24 hours is past, he will start his next round of three reverts, as always. By the rules of 20:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC) *If you think his gaming is going to do that, put a notice on my talk page before it goes to 3RR. Any third editor in the mix prevents the gaming. There is a home court advantage in making the first edit in 3RR with only two people. As stupid as the first edit may be, it isn t the one that counts as a revert. If a third editor comes along, even once, the burden goes to the person making the change to justify the change, rather than the reverter. I might play the game too if it s that obvious what he s doing. 21:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry for sticking my nose in, but I just noticed this. This whole business of reverting and citing each other for 3RR violations is extremely tedious and unproductive. I mean, I don t blame you or anyone else, since by now the atmosphere is probably poisoned to such an extent that the reverts and the finger pointing have become automatic reflexes. All of this is very unfortunate, and the best way out would be for all sides to discontinue this behavior (I know, easier said than done). At this point, not knowing anything further about the specifics, all I can say is that it takes at least two to play that game, so please don t let yourselves get dragged into this. I ll have a word with Instantnood and will try to find out what s behind all of this. -- 09:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC) :::Mark, I do actually take a look, it s not reflexive. And there have been several times I noticed the other two revert warring and I declined to intervene for lack of caring or lack of an idea of who was right. But to me, at this point, it s obvious to me that Instantnood is gaming the 3RR system. In such a case, I might be willing to make an edit I disagree with JUST so that he doesn t have the upper hand in a two sided 3RR. If my edit stuck, I could revert it myself if I really disagreed. 14:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps all of you may also take a look at 10:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Btw, the latest round of revert warring is breaking out in 10:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
= NPOV dispute on Political status of Taiwan =
Hi, there s a dispute going on regarding some of the wording used in the 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
=Sun Yat-sen FAC=
09:29:19, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
= An apology... =
I just re-read 03:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
= Android79 s RfA =
Thank you for your support on my RfA. 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
=Value added tax=
Yes, another edit war is erupting in the above, again by the same fella who is practically asking for people to scrutinise his edits every day. Notice he would go back and rekindle old arguments with his prefered versions when no one has revisited them for ages He is lucky that this time round, it took me 2 whole weeks to notice it. Perhaps all of us have to go review his entire edit history now for more of these tactical moves! :D-- 10:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
=List of largest airlines=
War #XXX is brewing here in the Asia section, due to what The age-old Mainland vs PRC issue again as usual. For some reason, Between Hong Kong and Mainland China is considered better than within the PRC -- 15:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
=Pages to note=
I further list relevant pages which you may like to review as part of the arbcom process. More pages may be listed should they require your attention later. Btw, who are the other relevant admins whom I may alert besides Marksweep Who is acting on your behalf
*East Asian Tigers *List of official languages by state *Char siew rice *Char siu
You might also want to see the silly game going on in 17:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC) *It s funny because I only glance at his edit history and don t actually look at the edits. I think what do I care about a bunch of food 17:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC) **You will be greatly surprised. I found myself opening up even the dullest articles to find objectional edits being made!-- 21:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
=Re: Macau copyrights=
Since it is uncertain whether it is a government picture, what we can do is to see if we can use it for fair use in non-commercial purposes. Chapter II (specifically Article 61) of the [http://www.imprensa.macau.gov.mo/bo/i/99/33/declei43_en.asp Copyright Law – Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M] may be relevant here. — 10:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC) :Hello do you think , a fair use licence, would be appropriate The poster looks like for promotional purpose. — 16:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, I considered that after was removed. I m not quite sure it applies. I think the original poster was a promo for a gallery exhibit called Birds Eye View of Macau . A strict reading of the promo template would mean the original poster (not my picture of the airport from part of the poster) would be for an article on the exhibit, but not the airport. As they say here though, close enough for government work . Thanks for the previous link to the Macau copyright law. 17:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
=Vandalims=
I would like to report, that 11:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
=Re: Add chinese, s il-vous plait=
Pleasure. — 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:In fact there s a little trick. Go to Google and switch to the Chinese-language layout, and type the Pinyin of the characters that you re looking for in the query box. The engine will ask you if you re looking for certain characters (for example: [http://www.google.com/searchq=shenzhu&hl=zh-TW]). — 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
::I think I have an 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
=3RR nomination...this time from the other direction :D=
If you may be interested, refer to 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
=Re: Macao/Macau=
Well, frankly.. nobody wants it. But Huaiwei keeps getting around after my edits and changes Macau as Macao, like insisting it has to be standardised as Macau all over Wikipedia. :- — 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*:It s not the end of the world, but that s a very bad precedence. — 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
= =
I noticed you ve kept removing 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact in the past the convention was to keep both the article and the category of the same name in the parent category one level up, until very recently. The example given at 18:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC) :Yes, I saw the inconsistency. I say we just be bold, if the category for a country exists, remove the article. For those countries that aren t so lucky to have editors and only have the bot created articles, leave the article. As to preference, in this case, there are over 200 categories and articles which makes it unwieldy. 18:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
::If the guidelines is to be enforced, we shall put up a 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, when an article is in one category, it should not appear in the mother category. This has been specified in :
:An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example .
Unfortunately, quite a number of us didnt follow this rule to the book, sometimes allowing far too many articles to appear in too many categories almost as if they fear people wont see them. The entire hierachy system in 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Hmmm.. that section of the guidelines actually was changed over time. In this version in mid-February [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Categorization&oldid=10237230], it was: An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. Note: An exception would be an article that defines a category, and so is itself a parent article of subtopics as well as one in a series of like topics - for instance, placing Ohio in both Category:Political divisions of the United States and Category:Ohio. Another example would be cities for which there are categories: New York City belongs in both Category:Cities in New York and in Category:New York City. (wikilinks were removed). Here are the relevant discussions: 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 11:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC))
= RE:List of companies in the PRC =
I know you weren t involved in this recent edit war, but I didn t want to come up with another heading. :) I firmly agree with your view on page protection (which is harmful) and I think I made much the same response to Instantnood earlier. Truth is I ve actually preferred blocking to protection in a war, since it targets the offender, not the community. You may have noticed the notes I left for Instantnood and Huaiwei. I m not bothering to research whether you ve been involved in any edit wars, but if so, I also stronly encourage you to leave it be and try to work it out. Might want to read the note, as I think it s valuable advice I feel strongly about for anyone. I think we need some kind of dispute resolution here, and I think you need to be a part of it. This is not meant to be any sort of punishment to anyone, but a good resolution. I d appreciate any input. 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC) :Hi again. I know you expressed some pessimism about this, but if we really want it to work I think it is important that we all agree to stop reverting each other. It doesn t really get anyone anywhere if their revert is just, well, reverted. I think it would be a real step forward if all the parties made this well-intentioned gesture. So, basically I think we should just voluntarily leave all the articles (categories, templates, etc.) in contention in whatever state they are in now pending some kind of resolution. Huaiwei has just agreed, too. I d like to hear your response as well. Thanks! 18:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) ::I do respect your hesitancy, as I can see that the history behind this is not something to be easily forgotten. I guess what I m trying to do is reestablish the assumption of good faith. If everyone multilaterally makes this effort out of good will then any negotiation will be much less strained. Yes lawyering is out of the question, but I m willing to take the chance with Instantnood and you, and I have a hnch that it will work out. Sorry, but I m alreay late to dinner, perhaps I ll expand when I get back. 01:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC) :::Oh yes, I don t know if you saw that Instantnood said yes as well. Anyway, I hope to see your response, and I d also like to see what you think on my thoughts about categories, etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk%3AInstantnood&diff=25236475&oldid=25225641 here]. And I want to know what you think is the biggest/most urgent issue here. Thanks. 06:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC) ::::Sorry if this wasn t the best time for you, and I hope I m not sounding impatient or anything. So I guess I was jumping to conclusions above about Instantnood, but now I m coming here to prod you both. I think agreeing is crucial to foster good will. I also think that if you agree it would make Instantnood more likely to (imagine it vice versa, wouldn t you if he did). I think we should just try it for a bit, I mean, even if it isn t perfect, it ll be better than before, right About Huaiwei s comment: I had asked him about your role, mostly because it was pretty easy to figure out the relations between him and Instantnood, but less clear between you too. I d like to pose the same question to you: It s pretty clear where you stand on Instantnood and that s the major part of this dispute, but I also wonder about your opinion of Huaiwei s role. The reason for this is that I want to be able to see all three individuals in this rather than just two opposing sides, especially with your lates (intriguing) remark about how you don t always agree. I think I m going to go make the subpage now. 00:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC) :::::Instantnood is now on board and has even commented out a previous category edit showing good will. I ve started a new section, 08:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
= odd move for Itunes =
You moved this to a spoofed title that used Cyrillic Byelorussian-Ukrainian I instead of ASCII I. I reverted. Why did you do this -- 22:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :Mistake. Thanks for fixing it. I thought I had found a lowercase i that the mediawiki software didn t resolve back to uppercase when it was the first character in a title. That d be wrong. 23:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
= NPOV on China locator maps =
Schmucky, thanks for your comment - where can I follow up this matter I asked Instantnood s opinion this morning, so may I conclude that you don t want the maps to be changed (I can still change, because I made a few prototypes, and now I am waiting to see what happens). -- 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
= Appreciate =
Thanks. We all need some encourgement, and there s far too little appreciation until someone is gone. Yeah, I appreciate your quick response, and am a little mystified as to the silence from the other two. Can t mediate if they don t participate. In all honesty, I wouldn t mind if the arbcom remedies were passed, since they re really not restrictions on anything. Only thing they would restrict is edit warring, which no one should be doing in the first place. Do you have any suggestions on what I should do differently 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey...where is your nudge in my talkpage :D Well as I said about 5 days ago in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General_discussion&diff=25912121&oldid=25662341], I did express wonder over the lack of contributions there, especially after so much effort in getting things to settle down to a discussable environment in the first place. I hadent added my contents into my section, but will do in due cause. Most of the contents are already in the 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
=Hong Kong and Macao on lists by country=
Please kindly note I have started a new section for Hong Kong on the 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC) :Another section has been started for Macao [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=List_of_road-rail_bridges&diff=26212255&oldid=26195454] . — 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
=Golmud=
Welcome. — 06:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
=Personal experience=
Well put. 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
= Hey, you misspelled my name! =
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Windows_NT&diff=26677752&oldid=26661153 Here] -- 12:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
|
|