User talk:194.206.179.4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello - Many of the edits you have made today are highly biased or controversial and do not conform to Wikipedia's concept of a neutral point of view for article content. Please try to keep your opinions - about movie stars, the Japanese, etc. - out of the material you write. Thanks --Dcfleck 21:44, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Hi there, your opinion is welcomed on the Nanjing Massacre discussion page. But please keep personal attacks to the minimal and please use correct capitalisation. As keeping caplocks on for the entire length of the comment is considered rude. The article discussion is already heated as it is, we have been trying to keep the debate as civilised as possible. Also please reply to discussion under its proper heading or start a new heading. Thanks. --Kvasir 20:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't vandalize other people's user pages. -- ran (talk) 20:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Ran, don't be so anal. Don't edit other people's comments on user pages. Don't call what you don't understand Vandalism. Gosh, you guys sould like the thought control police, the self-censorship party and the Nazis.

I didn't "edit" your comment, I put it at where it's supposed to be, which is the bottom of each section. And which part of your vandalism don't I understand? You're putting your own comments into other people's user pages. Isn't that enough?
Look, before you get yourself into trouble, get a grip and calm down. We welcome constructive editors here on Wikipedia, not people who go around insulting others. -- ran (talk) 20:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Also, comments go on the talk page of each article. -- ran (talk) 20:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

What gives you the authority to talk like that? Gosh, aren't you toilet-trained?

Okay, one more inane comment like that from you and you will be blocked. -- ran (talk) 20:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you block your own vulgarity and obscenities as well as the spelling errors in Majullah Singapura and Gross Domestic Product not Products. Please, give me a break, I have better things to do in my life than editing lousy English.

You have been blocked for 24 hours for vandalising other people's user pages, and replying to suggestions and warnings with personal attacks. I suggest that, after the 24 hours expire, you start making more constructive contributions. Have a nice day. -- ran (talk) 21:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nanking / Nanjing

I blocked you because you vandalized other people's user pages. When I warned you to stop, you started hurling personal insults, despite further warnings. Your own talk page shows this rather well. And you call me offensive? Perhaps you should try to learn to work with other people?

Also, about romanization -- Take a look at this map of the Chinese provinces using old system: Image:&-20013;&-33775;&-27665;&-22283;&-20840;&-22294;.jpg. This is the same system that created "Peking" and "Nanking", by the way. You can see that it reflects a very Mandarin pronunciation, with no -m, no -p -t -k, and nearly all of the modern Mandarin vowels in place. In fact, the main difference between that and modern Mandarin pronunciation is that the tsi- series and ki- series have not yet shifted to their modern pronunciations (i.e. "Peking", "Nanking", "Kirin", "Kiangsu", etc.) It is no secret that this was one of the last sound changes to occur in Mandarin and is not reflected in this older system, called Postal System Pinyin. In fact, many areas. including central Henan, and Nanjing (until recently), as well as eastern Shandong, still keep these sounds separate. However, this does not change the fact that Postal System Pinyin is based on Mandarin pronunciation. It's just that this particular series of sounds were kept separate.

And did I say that "Canton" was part of the same system? Please go back and read what I wrote. I mentioned only "Peking" and "Nanking" in my original post. There are a small number of south coast names, like "Canton", "Toishan", "Hong Kong", "Taipak" (Taipei), "Hokchiu" (Fuzhou), "Amoy" (Xiamen), which are indeed based on southern dialect pronunciations. Note that this is not the same scheme that produced "Peking" and "Nanking". For example, Taipak and Hokchiu have the southern conservative -k; Toishan keeps the Cantonese vowel -oi-. These are southern features that are not reflected in names like "Peking", "Nanking", "Kirin", "Kiangsu", etc. Some of these, like Canton and Amoy, did indeed make it into Postal System Pinyin.

There's a short article here on Wikipedia: Postal System Pinyin, that you might want to read. -- ran (talk) 02:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here's some more proof for you. [1]: in Chinese. Basically, Postal System Pinyin is (except for a number of south coast names) essentially based on Beijing pronunciation, with dialectal additions. For example, the ki- tsi- distinction. However, note that this is described as the Jian-Tuan distinction, which refers to any distinction between these two sounds, not just in the south coast. 1/5 of Mandarin dialects still make this distinction, and more dialects (e.g. Nanjing) did during the 19th century. -- ran (talk) 02:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your last edit to Singapore was as follows:

Established as a trading port by the British Crown in the early 19th century, Singapore became a centre of British colonial influence in Southeast Asia. Upon achieving independence from the then Federation of Malaya, Malaysia in 1965, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, now also known as Singapore's "Minister Mentor", was pivotal in Singapore changing from an economically undeveloped to a first world nation. Singapore is known for its comparative lack of corruption compared to most other Southeast Asian governments, and for being one of the East Asian Tigers. Singapore has one of the highest per capita GDP gross domestic product in the world, and the highest GDP in South-east Asia (ASEAN).

I reverted it for the following reasons:

  • British Crown directs to British monarchy. At the time of the founding of Singapore, it was not directly under the British monarchy but established by the East India Company which had the authority to establish such posts given it by the British govenment. The statement as it stands is accurate.
  • Malaysia is also correct, as Singapore merged with the Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia and was subsequently expelled from that to become an independent republic. Hence, Singapore achieved independence from Malaysia, not the no-longest extant Federation of Malaya.
  • "comparative lack of corruption compared to" is bad syntax.
  • "gross domestic products" is grammatically correct. You can check Google to see this construction in use.
  • "Highest GDP in South-East Asia" is a statement that needs sourcing, not to mention periodisation, i.e. when this is the case.
--khaosworks 13:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not indulge in personal attacks. I explained my reversion because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and do not think you are a vandal. Whether or not I am an administrator here has nothing to do with my reverting your edits, particularly since I began doing that before I was appointed an admin.

That being said, to answer some of your queries:

  • It was the British Monarchy that controlled its colony and British Crown is the metonym for British colonial influence. East India Company was a commercial organization which sought political support from the Queen of England. Afterall, your odd stilted manner of written expression is called British Colonial English and not East Indian Company English. No one ever referred to Singapore as an East Indian Company colony.
Singapore did not become a crown colony until 1867. Before that it was a territory that was administered by the British East India Company, much like India was under EIC rule between 1757 and 1857. This is not to say that ultimately, the British Crown did not have authority over the Straits Settlements before that, but to say that it was established by the British Crown is incorrect.
  • Reiterating a senseless conclusion at the beginning and end of an illogical unfactual paragraph is not acceptable academic logic. There was never a Federation of Malaysia. It was the Federation of Malaya that became a geopolitical entity of "Malaysia". Please cite your sources.
There was a Federation of Malaysia which was formed in 1900. When Singapore joined with it, it became the Federation of Malaya and reverted when Singapore left. I do not intend to do your research for you, but a simple Google search will turn up hits on the term not related to Wikipedia. For example, see http://allmalaysia.info/msiaknow/malaysiana/symbols_coa.asp. There are other articles from other encyclopedias which bear this out.
  • Bad syntax? You abuse the English language to justify your prejudices. You are so annoying.
I am simply pointing out that the sentence is incorrect.
  • Usage does not mean it is "correct" if there is such a thing. Modern internet texts are unedited for errors are fool of errors. Why don't you try, "I speak pidgin Engrish."
We speak of the gross domestic product of a country. It follows that when we are speaking of many countries, we are talking of gross domestic products. Product is not an uncountable noun.
  • Periodisation? Please!
Yes. Being top of a list happens in a slice of time. When was this true? Is it still true? If it was always true, where does it say so?
--khaosworks 15:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

194.206.179.4, please do not delete comments from your user talk page (or any talk page) unless you are archiving it. If you are, please leave a link to the archive. -- ran (talk) 16:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize other people's user pages. Leave messages on their talk pages instead. I note that Khaoswerks has not been blocked by anyone; you should not leave such misleading or deceptive messages. -- 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism of other user pages has been noted. If this happens again, you will be blocked for a period of 1 week. --khaosworks 17:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't reinsert copyvio marked text and don't insert POV material. CryptoDerk 14:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop blanking talk pages

lots of issues | leave me a message 23:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)