User talk:Privacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Privacy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kdau 20:40, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

[edit] re: HK status

Let me see, Privacy. — Instantnood 18:54, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

I've checked with the edit histories and I guess you're referring to Huaiwei. I have leaved a message at his talk page some time ago. — Instantnood 23:45, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

Yes thanks. - Privacy, 11:27, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)
Left what message?--Huaiwei 12:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week - Culture of Hong Kong

Congratulations! Culture of Hong Kong has been chosen Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week. Please help improve it to featured article standard. — Instantnood 21:22, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:20 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I have left some comments there. - Privacy 14:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Instantnood 16:41 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:22 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Mainland China" in titles

Hello. I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) to change the title of some articles and categories. Would you be interested to join the discussion and say something? — Instantnood 20:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen FAC

Sun Yat-sen
Sun Yat-sen is now on FAC. Let's click here and vote for its success!!!!
Deryck C. 09:33:19, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

[edit] Lillian Too

Hi. I disagree with your edit of Lillian Too. The reference to a person's place of birth is not one of history. I believe it should be a reference to what the place is called today, as it is most relevant in this context. I have been to Malaysia, and I have never met any older person that says that they are born in "Malaya". They always say that they are born in "Malaysia". Please also see Jimmy Choo and Robert Kuok. If we can't agree, then maybe we can compromise and change it to "(born 1946, in Penang) is a best-selling Malaysian author...". Alternatively, if you still disagree, then I suggest that we take this discussion to the Malaysian portal to get thier opinion. -- S Masters 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, why should Lillian be listed under the Hong Kong businesspeople category? She's not from Hong Kong. She's Malaysian but once worked in Hong Kong. That's all. If we are going to list every country that people have worked in, or have had business in, then somelike like Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson and Tony Fernandes will have multiple country categories under them. -- S Masters 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would Julius Caesar be considered to be born in Italy? She is not from Hong Kong, but from the article she seems to have been an important and influential figure. - Privacy 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong

Privacy ：

The planning of the establishment of Wikipedia Hong Kong as a society has entered the final stage.

From 27th April 2006, every Hong Kong Wikimedians is welcomed to participate in the discussion on the vote on the official name of the chapter. Then a one-week nomination period and a three-week voting period will be held. At the same time, you are also welcomed to join in the discussion on the draft constitution of the chapter.

After an official name is decided, the recruitment of member will be started and the first general meeting will be held (Please refer to the schedule). If you're interested to join, please sign your name on this page so that an estimation on the number of member could be done.

WIKIMEDIA HONG KONG NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION AND SUPPORT NOW.

I am the Wikipedian who invites you:encyclopedist 09:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job on the Subway map

I was skeptical at the need for such a map, but when I looked at it and its data source, I found it illuminating. Thanks again! TransUtopian 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No thanks (lol). It was not me who created it. - Privacy 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts on {{HongKong-sport-bio-stub}}

Please refrain from attempting to unilaterally reverse the decisions of *FD debates, especially where templates feeding categories are concerned, as these cause a disproportionate load on the servers, which have to update the cached version of each page in the category. If you have an objection to such a closure, take it to deletion review. Alai 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree the SFD debate had such a decision. - Privacy 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Equipments"

In English "equipment" is plural, "equipments" is not a word. Cheers. L0b0t 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ping!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Privacy&diff=85392070&oldid=83739517

Thanks for Ping. Please sign with four tildes. - Privacy 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries

You should discuss changes like the one you made on List of countries on the talk page before making them. It might be right, but it's still always good to make sure people are in agreement with you when you make fairly significant changes. You should also always include an edit summary for a major edit like that as well. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, someone wanted consensus for such a change. Don't you think it would be prudent to discuss the issue on the talk page like I suggested instead of simply reverting? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There was no consensus to make them two categories and two lists. - Privacy 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about your revert and earlier unilateral change of the status quo on List of countries. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Exactly. Look into edit history. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries&diff=12766176&oldid=12699939 And there was no consensus to take them away from List of dependent territories and create a new list with a self invent title. Define unilateral before you call anybody. Regards. - Privacy 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me

Privacy, you seem to be having some difficulty understanding the situation. Yesterday you made a major edit to List of countries, an edit which changed something on the page that had stood for MONTHS before, and which seemed to have been agreed upon. You did not discuss this change on the talk page. You did not even provide an edit summary for this change. I noted this to you as seen above. Someone else reverted this change asking for consensus. You reverted that. I reverted you and asked for at least discussion of the issue. In response, you are now claiming vandalism. I am going to revert the page once again and I ask you to discuss your proposed change on the talk page before trying to change it back. Do you understand? I hope so. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Show it if what stood for months has ever been agreed upon. "Seemed to" is no qualifier. It was actually never discussed.
Check the differences carefully. Huaiwei and you really vandalized. Regards. - Privacy 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop undoing useful edits. It is vandalism unless you were unaware and was innocent. Regards. - Privacy 20:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
How about this edit from June: [1]? Clearly, if the page has been that way for months there has been agreement that that is the way it should be. If you want to make a drastic change to the page, you need to at least discuss it. How can you possibly consider what we are doing vandalism? You're the one who made the drastic change and didn't even leave an edit summary or discuss it on the talk page, let alone gather consensus. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not drastic change or major edit. There has never been any agreement. It is not an agreement though it was not challenged. (The new list Wilfried Derksen created with self invented title was challenged, however.)
Huaiwei and you keep reverting entirely and in effect undoing other useful edits. It is vandalism. You may be unware and innocent, and therefore should not be blamed, yet such behaviour is still disturbing and nuisance. - Privacy 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Privacy, we do not agree that your edit is "useful", and so we are entirely within our rights to revert it. You are being awfully stubborn in not responding to our requests to discuss the reasoning behind your edit. If the section stayed the way it was for months, then there is an implied consensus. You should always discuss major changes (and it is a major change, even if you don't think so) before making them. Claiming that we are vandalizing is also a violation of assuming good faith. I suggest you discuss your change on the talk page immediately--you will only find others revert it and ask for consensus or at least your reasoning if you don't. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I did assume good faith. I also look at result. Huaiwei's and your edit reverted everything, contentious or not, therefore the result was vandalism. And you did it once again.
Consensus is difficult to be determined to be implied. It became clearer that it is not agreed since it was challenged, although elsewhere. It is not a major edit or drastic change or major changes, even if you claim to be. You can bring it to the talk page when you revert, if you believe it is a major edit, and notify me here to respond there. But you didn't. - Privacy 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There was only one thing to revert, so of course we reverted everything. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are not innocent, please stop pretending you don't know what you have done. - Privacy 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Khoikhoi 22:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please look at what Osgoodelawyer was doing. - Privacy 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see my username being quoted three times, all of which were basically saying the same thing. This repeatitive conversation style hints of an acute stubborn personality, a characteristic which arguably contributes the greatest to User:Instantnood's downfall. Quite sadly, you appear to take him as your role model.--Huaiwei 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole thread was clearly repetitive. But I don't think Instantnood has left any message to the thread, has he? - Privacy 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
And why should he?--Huaiwei 17:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries

Your original edit on this page was, indeed, a major edit. I did not catch that your subsequent edits were not as drastic, the reason being that your edit summary described them as reverts. I apologize for not recognizing this, but it is important in the future that you not label something a revert if it is not. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are an administrator and I suppose you know you have the duty to read what each edit is. I have seriously thought of bringing your disruptions to the notice board. It was obviously a revert of your nuisance and therefore summarise as such. You don't have to apologize as long as you are innocent. Regards. (And thank you, Electionworld.) - Privacy 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I do indeed have a "duty" to read each edit, but generally, if someone marks their edit as a revert when it is not (and it was not, apparently), it is likely going to cause some confusion. I apologized for my mistake (and I assure you that it was a mistake). I'm not sure what else you could want. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You have the duty to single out what should be undone, and what do not have to be undone in the first place. You should not have reverted the whole of my edit in the very beginning. - Privacy 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it very unlikely that one would be expected to pick out a possible improvement in a drastic edit which was not discussed and re-insert that part of the edit. Generally, one is expected to re-add uncontested edits which come after the edit being reverted, but I can't be held responsible for noting a minor wording change along with your major edit, decide that it is "worthy" of inclusion, and re-add it. Your edit was a wholesale change to the structure of the outline—that you also made a couple wording changes along with it is really not my job to fix. All that had to happen was for you to do what you, in fact, did do, and that is add them back yourself. The only reason I ended up reverting again was because you called this edit a revert, and of course, it wasn't. Again, I apologize for not noticing that your revert was not actually a revert, but it might be helpful if you also simply acknowledged that you made a mistake in calling it a revert as well. Then maybe we could get on with actually improving the list. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are reverting everything, including improvements, that is already a disturbance. Not to mention your reverting that followed. That is clearly not my mistake. I do not agree my edit was a wholesale change to the struture of the outline, by the way. - Privacy 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, first, you called something a revert that was not a revert. Is that not a mistake? I think (actually, I know) that is a mistake. Why not accept some responsibility? I accepted mine.
Second, you changed the classification of four entities that were considered first and foremost, "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement" and re-classed them as primarily dependent territories. I think that, in fact, is a major change to the structure of the outline. I think most would likely not agree with that reclassification. Aland, for instance, could not be considered a dependent territory—according to its article, it is "an autonomous, demilitarised, monolingually Swedish-speaking administrative province." An administrative province could never be considered a dependent territory. The other entities are in similar situations. I would certainly call such a change major. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It was a revert to your nuisance. Why is it not a revert? I made that change but I don't agree it was a major change. Greenland, Aruba, Faroe Islands, Dutch Antilles were neither dependencies if Aland were not. - Privacy 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Issue 1: A revert is when you take an old version and make it the current version. That is, when I revert your edit, I make the edit prior to yours the new current one. You did not revert my edit, you made a new edit which had some of what was in the original edit, but not nearly enough to be considered a revert.
Issue 2: The other entities you mentioned above are territories. Territories are generally considered something different from provinces, states, autonomous entities, etc. They are less integral to the countries they belong to. This is why, for instance, the Falkland Islands are considered to be suitable for List of countries while the Azores are not. The Azores are an integral part of Portugal (they are considered Portugal proper even while having a sort of autonomous status), while the Falkland Islands are not considered part of the United Kingdom proper, just something owned or controlled by the United Kingdom. Those entities in the "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement" category would, if not recognized by treaty or agreement, be considered more like the Azores than the Falkland Islands, and wouldn't be on the list at all. It is by virtue of being recognized by the agreements/treaties that they are considered to be something that is fitting for the list.└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read the differences again carefully. I made no new edit and you did have reverted what I have done to improve the list. That's nuisance if not disruptive. Falklands is not part of the U.K. But the Faroes and Greenland are part of Denmark. Are they recognized by any treaty? Why are they on the list of countries? What about Australian and U.S. external territories? Do they form part of Australia and the U.S.? - Privacy 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hainanese a click language?

Hi! On the article click consonants you keep writing that Hainanese is a click language. This is of course not true, as the only languages that contain clicks in their phoneme inventory are the languages of the various "Khoisan" families plus some Bantu languages, all being spoken in Africa. Hainanese is a Chinese language and of course doesn't contain any click sounds. I wonder where you got this information from... got any sources? — N-true 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All good sources I have found are written in Chinese. Here is an article on Xinhuanet.com, the online version of China's state-run news agency [2]. Another source from Academia Sinica from across the strait also discusses on this subject [3]. I originally found the information on Chinese Wikipedia, and have verified by searching on Google [4]. Regards. - Privacy 21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Something so linguistically earth-shattering (since it makes absolutely no sense) would likely be discussed in depth in the English literature. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're confused with the possibility of clicks showing up in some trivial way. click consonant says "English and many other languages may use clicks in interjections, such as the dental "tsk-tsk" sound used to express disapproval, or the lateral click used with horses. In Ningdu Chinese, flapped nasal clicks are used in nursery rhymes." └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, all of you. I guess either of this also applies for Hainanese. In many languages click sounds are sometimes used to mean something like "no" or "tsk tsk tsk" in English. I know a Hainanese speaker, I might ask her, maybe she can explain it... — N-true 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What did she say? - Privacy 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Does English contain all human knowledge? - Privacy 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course English does not contain all human knowledge. However, the absolute absurdity of the statement that one Chinese language is a click language while none of its relatives are would make it a very hot topic if it were true. It would certainly have reached the international linguistics community, and would have been discussed in the leading international English-language journals. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's speculative. Things do not always happen as what they ought to be. - Privacy 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If Santa Claus crashed his sleigh into Hainan this morning, I assure you it would be on the English news by tonight. It does work that way, especially when English is the language of international academics. Anyway, Hainanese is clearly not a click language--it goes against all linguistic principles. One dialect of a language that doesn't know clicks doesn't just magically gain them amongst all its non-click relatives. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Your deduction sounds logical. But it provides no evidence to prove Hainanese is not click. Let us await for the good news from N-true. Regards. - Privacy 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Countries of Europe

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Aldux 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Being an administrator is not a king. Show the consensus to legitimise your exercise. - Privacy 22:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Being a commoner isnt king either. You are equally under the onus to show concensus to legitimise your reverting exercise.--Huaiwei 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The status quo before the edit wars back a few weeks was to include these entities. So I'd say that the consensus-building process should start with an attempt to get consensus to remove the territories, not to get them re-added. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Plurilingualism Promotion Plan

Your recent edit to Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There's no need to redirect from this page as users will find the content via searching Wikipedia anyway. Plus, the content on bilingual education and Plurilingualism Promotion Plan is the same. I have recommended the two plurilingualism pages be deleted. Jsteph 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam at State, Country, etc

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Country. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Paul111 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/User_talk%7EPrivacy_fa71.html"