User talk:Wshun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

[edit] Harry Potter

Though the subject of "too many Harry Potter articles" has been raised, there's no consensus that they should be deleted. "Relatives of Harry Potter" seems like a bad idea to me. Why not raise the subject on Votes for Deletion instead of blanking them and redirecting them to a tangentially related title that would never be linked to? -- Someone else 05:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I saw your most recent edit on User talk:Michael Hardy. Check this out! Cyan 05:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Remove self-links in the merges

Don't forget to remove the self-links, like this. The Reader will not be pleased to be misled. --Menchi 06:04, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

I am aware that you are copying the article content to other places before blanking them. I still think it's a bad idea. Interconnections (wiki links) are good: you're decreasing the chances of them being meaningful. -- Someone else 06:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No problem, I just think this is something that needs discussion before so many changes are made. -- Someone else 06:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

After some strenuous efforts, I've finally gotten the attention of User:12.203.10.240, who at least now recognizes there's a problem and is listening. I would think if you're still up for it a better idea than combining "characters" would be combining "things" like Harry Potter spells or Places in Harry Potter. Just a thought, though<G>. -- Someone else 23:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ah, until last night I had no idea 12.203 even read his messages<G>. I still have high hopes that Harry Potter won't become an animated series, but we'll see if I'm disillusioned... -- Someone else 01:07, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 1+1

Hi Wshun,

I think it was you, who added the joke about 1+1=Wang on the page One_plus_one. I would like to keep this joke, but some people don't find it funny, so they want to delete it. Can you comment or explain on Talk:One_plus_one#Chinese_joke why it is funny? Thanks for your help ;-) Fantasy 08:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey Wshun, incase you're wondering, the redirect commands straight to the Klingon Weapons anchor wasn't working. If you typed 'bat'leth' and pressed 'go', you be be redirected to the top of the main klingon page. I'm going through and changin all the redirects so that you'll have to click a link, but it will take you straight to the weapons...

Hi Wshun, ok I'll fetch the pages and revert to normal.... I'm using IE 6.0.26 (which is crud)... It would redirect me to the TOP of the Klingon page, not the paragraph about weps... I'm sorry!

Qaless 17:45 Sep 4 2003

Qaless 17:38 Sep 4 2003

Hi, I'm going to revert the VfD page to the list of links we had before Eloquence's big escapade. One thing that will be lost is your proposal to debate deletions on talk pages. I'm telling you that now so that you don't think I am deliberately censoring it. But from having looked at deletion history, I came to the conclusion that talk page debates on VfD are the worst possible solution. The problems are:

At best the discussion gets lost in a page that covers discussions on the page, talk about edit wars and all sorts of topics, making it difficult for sysops in deleting articles to reach a conclusion on whether a clear decision was arrived at;
at worst, as non-delete stuff is added to the page, the debate gets shoved up the page and is simply forgotten, with people finding it difficult to track down the debate and so not participating.

The end result, in every single talk page delete debate I reviewed (and I looked at over thirty going back months) was complete stalemate, with articles remaining on VfD for weeks or longer, as no-one could work out had a decision actually been taken, or had the debate died or been swamped on the page. Talk page debates were the single biggest cause of articles remaining ad infinitum on the VfD page. Even worse, people trying to protect 'their' article would deliberately move the debate onto the talk page, in the knowledge that the debate would almost certainly peter out there, and at worst the article would remain on the VfD page undeleted. At best, rather than try to wade through talk pages to find a decision, the nomination for deletion on the VfD page itself was deleted, allowing the article to remain on undeleted. Many articles avoided deletion by the 'see talk page' technique. So though I understand the intregrity of your proposal, I have to very strongly advise against it as the worst possible solution. I concluded that the best way to get a decision was to keep the debate on the VfD page, but due to size considerations that simply is no longer an option. The best alternative is to create a secondary debate page, either by date or by individual article, which operated on the principle of 'created on 1st, decision by 7th, the debate page will be closed by the 8th', so forcing a decision rather than allowing the decision to drag on. lol FearÉIREANN 05:20, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looks like Vancouverguy got it. - Hephaestos 04:38, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wshun. Re your comment left on Plantae edit — Just the opposite is true: some bacteria (cyanobacters) are regarded as algae and therefore plants, but no Bacteria are included in the eukaryote grouping Plantae. 8^) - Marshman 22:33, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We are in the process of trying to clarify those plant pages, so I'll look and make sure it is explained right. But there are some bacteria that would be included as seaweeds (called blue-green algae), but most seaweeds are not bacteria. - Marshman

Hi, Wshun. I would appreciate your opinion on the current Talk:Zhou Dynasty (1122 BC - 256 BC). Cheers, kt2 00:39, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't know where else to put this as you weren't listign a specific page, so therefore there was no specific page to move it to, so here it is for you to decide where it needs to go. Sorry, but VfD was 92kb and needed sorting out and this had been there over a week. Angela 01:11, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All articles on 9-11 except the main article. They should all be moved to Wiki 9-11 memorial site. -Wshun
- There are possibly a number of those that could/should indeed go (I personally think that Relief funds created in reaction to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks would be a good candidate for (re)moving), but a good number of them are worthwhile and encyclopedic articles. I propose that you, if you are serious about this, list them up, so each case could be discussed on its own. The way you are proposing it now can only get a loud 'NO' from me - and that is from someone who has gotten irritated quite a bit being on the anti-9/11 page side of the issue. Andre Engels 16:07, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- What do people have against the Porsche 911? I agree with Andre. While the sep11 pages need to be rationalised and re-organised, blanket deletion, as proposed here, will do more harm than good. Martin 23:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- This is too vague a request to agree to. Please list the articles you want deleted. To take the one example mentioned, I disagree with deletion of Relief funds created in reaction to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, because it's interesting to know what was done, although it does need rewriting. -- Oliver P. 01:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I guess that I am overreacted to those 9-11 stubs. I simply don't understand why people keep adding them to Wikipedia, providing that we already have a memorial site for that. We don't have memorial site for SARS, we don't have memorial site for ongoing wars in Middle East, but we have a memorial site for 9-11, which is very unusual for an encyclopedia and it looks like a privilege to me. Sorry for my anti-911 tone, I just can't help it. I now withdraw the deletion proposal, but do you guys think that it is fair to those who did not died in 9-11? Why don't they deserve articles themselves? About the particular site mentioned: a single disaster may have a long time effect, the funds created just for it seldoms leave a trace in history. Let's see any of the funds will still exists after ten years. -Wshun 06:01, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  - You are not over-reacting. An article about an individual who died in the 9/11 attack should be subject to a Wikipedia:Google Test test. Google results that were made BEFORE 9/11/01 should be counted toward arguing for justification of said wiki-article. Kingturtle 06:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  - Again, please be more precise in which pages you want to remove. I agree that at least most of the victim pages would do better to be (re)moved, but the way you proposed it, I had the feeling you were talking about pages like September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks Timeline for September, American Airlines Flight 77 and Perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, which I think have no reason to go, except perhaps to be merged with other pages in a major overhaul. Just select the pages you think should go, and put them on here by name. That gives a good chance to see at least some of them go. Andre Engels 22:47, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well if you just wanted to make a protest, you've done that as everyone has seen these things for the last week, but it would really better if you could find specific examples and list them, which seems to be what people are calling for above. Angela 03:24, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey wshun, in your effort to get the September 11 articles moved to the sep11 wiki, you may find this old version of "Subpages to be moved" useful. Cheers, Cyan 03:26, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Name for Chinese WP

We're having a poll on the Chinese name for "Wikipedia" at zh:Wikipedia:Wikipedia的中文名. We'd like to know what you think. --Menchi 03:43, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Li/Lee

Hi, wshun: In response to your message, I decided to go ahead and create 2 new pages entitled Lee (Korean name) and Lee (English name), making Lee a disambiguation page. Please see my User_talk page for my answer to you and my rationale. Please edit or even move the pages as you see fit. --Sewing 19:06, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Popular Lastname

Hi wshun, I moved this from the village pump in case you wanted it. Delete it if you don't. Angela

Hello! I would like to propose a new WikiProject: Popular Lastname. "Popular" in the sense that about 20 people of the lastname having an article in Wikipedia.

Anyone back me up? wshun 21:33, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we have simply a project about lastnames like where do they come from, what do they orignally mean and so forth. I don't think each lastname deserves to its own article but there should be some way to orginize such information? -- Taku

We already have list of people by name. But some popular lastnames will soon dominate the list, so I guess single them out should be a good idea. I personally prefer a separate wiki on lastnames but I don't think anyone will support it. -- wshun 22:14, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just set them up as disambiguation pages... 1/2 :-) They'll probably sniff out some links needing fixing. I've done a bit of that with Roman names, Valerius for instance. Stan 22:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, WS,
I was pleased to see your recent contribs to LoPbN-tree pages. I've reformatted Li & Liu, and will get to your others later. I'd be glad to discuss why if it's not obvious.

As to your project proposal, you may want to also give some thot about how it fits in with the Category system. While i'm not clear that all the functions of LoPbN can be taken over by that, it is clear many of them will; IMO LoPbN has a significant role in getting all the descendants of Category:People populated. And you'll surely want to look at both Category:People by surname (a desc., i think a child, of it) and Category:Surnames (a former desc. of it, in a mistake i participated in, since a surname article is not a instance of the class of bio articles). (I don't know how many bios are descendants of Category:People has; LoPbN apparently has something like 25K names, i guess including red links, but i think there are many bios not on LoPbN, and i just wonder if 70% are on or say 7%!

Oh, as to the title of the project: in similar contexts, i use "frequent". (In the past, LoPbN has, haphazardly, had "Especially frequent names" within-page links near the top; i intend to eventually revive them, and perhaps extend their scope.) "Frequent" is pure math, while "popular" (and "common" to a lesser extent today than before) has nuances that may be worth avoiding. In case that input helps.

Thanks again. --Jerzy (t) 22:50, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

[edit] Various msgs

Thank you for your concerning. In fact, I am waiting for the English article History of Homosexuality to be completed too. :D Even though I have started that page, but it seems no one is interested in adding something to it. Maybe I can find some info online, but I am not sure if Chinese are interested in that issue to be added.(even people in English version are not interested in that!) :D (maybe you're just upset about my deleting your content? Forgive me! :O) --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 08:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message about the Farce article. I usually don't revert other people's edits, and this time I explained why I did so in the "summary": because everything else does not seem to make sense to me. Thanks for "warning" me, but compared to the edit wars going on right now this subheadings business is such a minor issue that I'm prepared and willing to try and persuade anyone that what I've done is the best thing to do. Of course if someone wants to add a new introductory paragraph they should just go ahead and do so.

I think there are far more important things to do here at Wikipedia. Thank you again, and all the best, KF 07:10, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, i am gonna write about the article you mentioned last time, but i don't know how to start! Any suggestion? Leave message in my talk page, Thanks! --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 07:39, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Could you check this out: Homosexuality in China and improve this? Thanks! --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:00, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The page Homosexuality in China is done, can u help improve that? Thanks! --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 12:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Mendelism

Please read who wrote pages before blaming me for them. Thanks. Morwen 22:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Morwen 22:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If we use the continued fraction as definition, [of π] the proof is even simplier!!!wshun 21:49, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How can the continued fraction be used as a definition? Somehow, you would have to say which continued fraction you're talking about without relying on some prior characterization of π. Michael Hardy 21:56, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Many people never learn calculus, but I guess most of them learn fraction. So the "proof that &pi<22/7" is easier for them using continued fraction. wshun 23:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What you propose is not a proof; it's just an assertion. So it is claimed that π = 3.1415926535... and obviously that implies π < 22/7. But where did the assertion that π = 3.1415926535... come from?? I think the calculus-based proof that 22/7 > π that I put on Wikipedia is far easier for most people to grasp than for them to understand how it is known that π = 3.1415926535..., or that π = a certain continued fraction. So I cannot agree. Michael Hardy 01:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I still wonder, the ancient way to calculate π, either the least upper bound of the area of inscribed polygons or the greatest lower bound of the area of exscribed polygons, is conceptually easier to understand then the integration. BTW, the value 22/7 has been known for more than a thousand years. I suppose it is a good example showing the difference between the simplicity of calculation and the easiness of a concept. Maybe we can add a remark to the article. wshun 20:37, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The idea involving inscribed and circumscribed polygons is easier to understand than the integration, but the actual numerical computations are longer and more onerous, and, I think, harder to understand than this integral is, at least for anyone who's learned first-year calculus. "More than 1000 years" is an understatement, since Archimedes showed well over 2000 years ago that 3 + 10/71 < π < 3 + 1/7. Michael Hardy 20:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice Spectral Radius. Thanks. Pfortuny 21:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 道

道: yes, means "the path" [1] but the character was formed as: 辶 chuo4 of 首 shou3. 首, as I understand it, derives its meaning as "leader" from warrior system of its day, ie 道=way of the warrior, or way of leadership. As I understand it, 戴&30505sv 20:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scandal

Hi Wshun, do you have any info from academia to add the scandal article? --Rj 18:35, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My nomination for adminship

Hi, Wshun:

I was on a Wikibreak for a long time, but I'm back now. David Cannon has been kind enough to nominate me for adminship. Please feel free to add your opinion one way or the other to that page. Yours, Sewing 14:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention for television articles

Hi. Seeing as you were once previously interested in a naming convention, I'd like to invite you to vote on adoption of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Voting is taking place on the Talk page and ends on Sep 13 2004. -- Netoholic 23:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Diagrams in set theory

Oh, my creations are finally get rid of by you! Nice drawings, thanks. :P -wshun 13:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'm glad you like them ;-) However I seem to be having a problem with them not "floating" properly, under some browsers (they look fine to me with Safari), unless I "thumb" or "frame" them. Does the image placement look ok to you? Framing doesn't seem quite right for diagrams see subset for an example. Any ideas? Paul August 13:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Since these images:

Image:Subset.png

was in subset

was in union (set theory)

Image:Set intersect.png

was in intersection (set theory)

Image:Set complement.png

was in complement (set theory)

Image:Set-comp2.png

was in complement (set theory)

are no longer being used should we delete them? Paul August 15:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful with links

It is very strange to link to rank and expect it to point to an article about ranks of matrices or linear operators, rather than one about military ranks and the like (as you did in s-number). Try [[rank (matrix theory)|rank]]. Michael Hardy 15:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] China-related topics notice board

Hey, you edit on China-related topics. Come and join the Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board! --Jia ng 02:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] China Collaboration of the Week

You showed interest in taking part in China-related topic development. I have just set up a China Collaboration of the Week. Please add one, or several, nomination(s) and tell others about it. You may access it via the COTW page at Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTW or through the shortcut WP:ZHCOTW. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 11:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing groups of names by surname links on LoPbN

The List of people by name is stated to be (working its way toward being) an index to every article that is the bio of one person. It is also read, and sometimes added to, by automated programs, and this requires limitation of formats.

We can work out mechanisms for cross references, e.g. between Chang & Zhang, but removing from the LoPbN tree the names of individuals who have or deserve articles is not acceptable.

Introducing new formats is not out of the question (and there has been recent work to standardize cross-reference formats); if your needs don't fit into the existing standard, something can surely be worked out, but it must be done in consultation with the many other users of the list.

If you have questions, please copy this section to Talk:List of people by name, followed by your questions, and we can take them up there.
--Jerzy (t) 08:07, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Counting Rods

I am currently working on tagging the endless numbers of un-tagged images and came across this one. The image is simple enough, that it makes me think you created it - since you uploaded it? If so could you add an appropriate copyright tag? Thanks! --MaxPower 17:58, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded Image:Complex.png but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 23:50, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Also:

Image:Crossproduct.png RedWolf 20:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

Hi hello Wshun, would you be interested to contribute to Current events in Hong Kong and Macao? best, — Instan tnood 13:40, Feb 28 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. — Insta ntnood 18:10 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lond-flag.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lond-flag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 04:34 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

– Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NotMap1.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NotMap1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/s/h/User_talk%7EWshun_b403.html"