User talk:Fabartus/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 29th 2005 to July 2nd 9th
Archieved 13:07 (local EDST) 6 July 2005 Merged in contents from the ill-fated archive02 (IE6 borwser edit problem) FrankB 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

refs:

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 6 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)


Click To Bottom Post (Talk) FrankB]


Todays Humor:
The Captain's Parrot

Harry the Magician was performing on a cruise ship in the Caribbean. The pay was lousy, but the audience changed weekly, so he could do the same tricks over and over.

There was just one problem: The captain's parrot saw the shows every week and began to understand the tricks. So in the middle of the show, the parrot would shout:

'Look, it's not the same hat!'

'Look, he's hiding the flowers under the table!'
'Hey, why are all the cards the Ace of Spades?'
Harry was furious but couldn't do anything since it was the captain's parrot, and the Captain thought it was hilarious.

Two weeks later, the ship sank. Harry saved himself by clinging to a piece of wood ... with the parrot perched on the other end.

Magician and parrot stared at each other with hatred for several days, but did not utter a single word.

After a week the parrot finally said: 'Okay, I give up. What did you do with the boat?'


PreviousOther Talk Page Archives:
/Archive02 - /Archive03


/Archive04 - /Archive05


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 1

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! --Flcelloguy||talk Flcelloguy 17:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Printing

Hi, I believe that the pages have a stylesheet for printing, so they should print off in a "printer-friendly" format, especially if you have a newer version of Internet Explorer or Firefox. Give it a try and see if it works for you. JYolkowski // talk 20:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

When you hit "Save Page" when editing the discussion page, you've saved your changes to the discussion page, but this would not save your changes to the article page (unless you had saved them before). So, you would need to go back to editing the article and save the changes to that page (which it sounds like you did). Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 01:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I also edit in Eastern Time... To get into the e-mail screen on purpose, if you're on a user or user talk page, there may be an "E-mail this user" link on the left hand side of the page (in the toolbox, below the search box). You'll only see the link if the user has specified an e-mail address. JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia from me too! I got your e-mail with the questions about the secrets of Wikipedia, I'll see if I can ncover some of it here.

First, Wikipedia is much more of a community than someone just reading the articles on it would realize. I only discovered the community behind the encyclopedia because my first article got listed for deletion! There are a number of users here keeping a watch of what is being done, and a lot of discussions and debates taking place "behind the scenes".

Alright: how things get picked up so quickly by the congnizati of Wiki

There are two pages which are regularly watched for.
  • Special:Recentchanges keeps a log of all the edits which are made. If you take a look at the column on the left of that page there is a "(diff)" link which will display the changes that have been made. Several users regularly keep a watch on that page to make sure that bad edits (the edits made in malice, such as replacing the picture of George W. Bush with that of a monkey, are called vandalism) are usually quickly reverted to an earlier version. Anyone can revert pages, although certain users called administrators are capable of doing this much faster.
  • Special:Newpages keeps a log over all the articles that have been created. This one is also heavily patrolled, with patrollers making sure that test pages such as "feiogohgoeopf" and profanity pages, and other "nonsense" is quickly removed (deleted). But patrollers here often check for syntax, and regularly place articles in categories, make corrections and so on. We might note that while anybody can blank a page, only administrators can delete the page. Other users who spot things which should be quickly removed add a {{delete}}-tag to the article, which brings us to the next point

How does something get nominated/placed on the VfD? {{delete}}??? Or a process involving at least one other in initial agreement?

There are three kinds of deletions of articles.
  1. Copyvios are pages whose content infringes on the copyright of another person. Usually it is a copy-paste job from :another website. These pages are tagged as copyvios and brought to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and if there is no :news, such as a confirmation that the copyright holder himself posted the content, for a week, they are deleted by an :administrator.
  2. Speedy deletions, is perhaps the most common kind of deletion, used for articles which are just nonsense. The full, :and fairly strict, criteria for speedy deletions are at WP:CSD. These deletions go without a full debate, are usually :uncontroversial, and happen speedily. To nominate an article for speedy deletion simply add a :{{delete}}-tag to the top of the article.
  3. Regular deletions are the ones which go on to VfD for a full discussion. The process here is a bit more :complicated, first a {{vfd}}-tag, or preferrably ({{subst:vfd}}) tag, is added, then an :entry is created, and finally the entry is added to the main VfD page.
Deletions of articles is usually permanent, but is infact reversible.

What are the attention and cleanup tags?

Take a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Basically, the attention tags are a bit more serious than the cleanup tags.

Hope that helped answer some of the questions! Oh, and if you want to give a message to somebody, it is more common to use the users' talkpages (mine is at User talk:Sjakkalle rather than e-mail, in part because not all users sign on with an e-mail address. Good luck!. Sjakkalle 10:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User-talkpages v. User pages

Hi again! The page which you get when you click on my signature is the so-called user page. You actually have one too, even though it has not been created yet, it is located at the top of the page, furthest to the left. (At the moment it is red since it has not been created yet). The userpage is yours to edit, and people are quite liberal and tolerant abount what you put on it. See Wikipedia:User pages.

Next to the userpage is a user-talkpage, you are reading your user-talkpage now. My talkpage is at User talk:Sjakkalle. In general, you should leave messages on the user's talkpage, and not the user page. (In general, refrain from editing other userpages than your own unless it is to correct typos or to revert vandalism, users tend to be rather touchy about their own userpage). When you edit the talkpage however, the user you are trying to contact will quickly be alerted by an orange box saying that "You have new messages", and if logged in, may give you a quick reply. Some people have customised their signatures to provide a link to their talk-page, but yours truly is truly a lazy user and hasn't.

You may have noticed that all the pages, articles, Wikipedia project pages, userpages, and so on, have a discussion tab on them. Much of the discussion "behind the scenes" takes place on them, and they are useful for posing questions or debating issues without editing the page itself. Sjakkalle 14:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity pages

It has been discussed. There was once a poll about 11 ways to expand the criteria for speedy deletion. Three of the proposals passed, eight failed, vanity being one of them although 44% of people wanted it listed as a criterion. Take a look at Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD for the entire poll.

Vanity failed primarily because it is somewhat subjective what is vanity. Sometimes the subject may be more notable than it seems, and many people prefer to see ten blatant vanity cases go through VfD and get it deleted the "long" way, in order to save the one article which actually is about a notable person.

By the way, got a new signature now, this is the first time I'm really using it! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

And another "Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you stick around and contribute." I'd just like to reinforce Sjakkalle's suggestion that Wikipedia communication between users should be conducted via "Talk pages" a.k.a. "Discussion pages" rather than via email. It's considered better wikiquette. And I realize that this is an utterly minor, niggling, nit-picking point, totally my personal opinion that you are completely welcome to ignore, but I find it kind of disconcerting when you refer to an article as an "arty." Maybe because the only other use I've seen of the word "arty" as an abbreviation refers to Artillery. In any case, welcome. Hope to see you around. Soundguy99 16:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In reply to your reply (numbered just so I can keep track of my own thoughts):

  1. disclaimer: I've only been around for a couple of months myself, so I'm hardly an infallible expert.
  2. Check out Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for ways to add your talk page to your signature, or other customization.
  3. I don't know if adding your User talk page to your signature is the "preferred" method here, necessarily. Off-the-top-of-my-head guess I'd say maybe 60% of editors do so. The rest (like me) haven't bothered. It's easy enough to get to a User talk page without a specific link in the signature.
  4. It is preferred, however, (cough, cough) that you sign contributions to Talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of comments on any talk page, including User talk pages (which, um, you forgot to do when leaving me your message). This automatically creates a wikilink to your User page, making it very easy for other editors to contact you "personally."
  5. I was a bit confused by the "your friend" reference, until I realized you meant Sjakkalle. We're not exactly "friends" in the standard sense of the word; that is to say, I certainly don't have any animosity towards him, and we are "friends" in the very general sense that we are two individuals with good intentions cooperating, however indirectly, in creating Wikipedia, but I haven't had any contact with him outside of Wikipedia, I don't think we've worked on any of the same articles and I'm pretty sure I've never had any "conversations" with him on his Talk page or on any article Talk page. I'm honestly just assuming that "he" is a "he"; I really have no idea. The point, I guess, is that you'll see a lot of that sort of thing around here; two or more users can agree (or disagree) with each other, post similar or supportive comments on pages, and yet not have ever had any interaction besides that one particular exchange. It's generally safer not to assume prior association between two editors, and it's always clearer to refer to editors by name rather than more generic terms like "he" or "she" or "your friend."
  6. When you say "I'm about to post this to the VfD discussion tabbed as indicated", you may be over-estimating the extent of the wikipedia software (I'm not sure quite how to put this - I'm not very software-knowledgeable). That is to say, I don't have anything "tabbed as indicated". Instead, for clarity, you should type [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load]] which will create a wikilink to the article.
  7. Tip: two really good ways to figure out how to do stuff are the Wikipedia:How to edit a page page and just hitting "Edit this page." That way you can "look at the code" and see what was typed in to give certain results, and then you can just cancel the edit.
  8. I haven't seen "WOT" used around here much, so you might have to explain it a few times, but I don't think anybody's gonna flip out if you use it.
  9. One suggestion for more efficient moving between pages; I tend to use my browser "history" window to jump back two or more pages.
  10. As far as other "I wish Wikipedia could do this" ideas go; as far as I know, all or almost all of the MediaWiki software developers are unpaid volunteers and hobbyists, just like us. Just something to keep in mind when or if asking for more features or software improvements. You can always post ideas at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical); I'm pretty sure developers tend to keep an eye on that page.
  11. As far as your planned posting to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load goes: I think you may be over-estimating the organizational structure of Wikipedia and the powers and responsibilities of administrators A.K.A. "admins." The "behind the scenes 'monitors'" are, for the most part, plain old user/editors just like you and me; they've just chosen to keep a close eye out for poor articles (especially new ones) and put them up for deletion. That's part of the anyone can edit philosophy of Wikipedia. Admins are regular old editors given a few very limited tools/powers that are mostly there to combat the most egregrious vandalism (like replacing the picture of the Pope with a picture of a penis, or suchlike). A common analogy is that admins are editors given a mop and bucket. Admins do have the power to delete articles, but in the spirit of community cooperation (and probably to prevent abuse of such powers) the definition of things that can be deleted without general community consensus is very limited. (And, by the way, read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense for the "speediable" definition of nonsense - vanity articles don't meet that definition, so your vanity "workaround" wouldn't actually work.) Quite a few editors are concerned about the "explosion" of vanity pages and the size of VfD, and the "Reducing VfD load" page is basically the first step in deciding what (if anything) we can or should do about it. Like a big ship, Wikipedia is often relatively slow to change direction.
  12. So you're definitely welcome to post your opinion on how clear vanity articles are a huge WOT on VfD. (Although, like I said, your "lawyerly solution" wouldn't actually work, so I wouldn't put that in.) Also, just a friendly suggestion, but I would tone down the language a little and use less bolding. Your post comes across as very upset, and it's very likely that someone will suggest that if you're that upset, maybe you should just stay away from VfD and go edit articles instead.

Hope this all helps. Any other questions, feel free to get in touch on my Talk page. Soundguy99 03:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Commander

Hi, I'm sorry, I didn't answer your question about Wing Commander. The reason is simply that I don't know how it relates to Privateer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Oh but yes, the quote is correct [1]. Radiant_* 14:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD checking

I'll have a look at it. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 02:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

  • Well, everything looks to be in working order. Sometimes AllyUnion's vfd-bot doesn't fix things right away, but gets around to it in a while. -- BD2412 talk 03:03, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

[edit] Subject help

I've always found that a good way to get advice on articles on a particular subject matter is to look in the histories for editors who have made a lot of edits to articles in that area. -- BD2412 talk 12:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi there! RFA is WP:RFA, or requests for adminship. After a recent vote, I was made an admin with a rather large amount of votes (#4 in the ranking, not that anybody would care about that). So that's why. Oh and btw I was sending people to Pie, not Pie. :) Oh, and I'll remove some old issues from my talk page some time soon. Radiant_>|< 13:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • PI? Famous mathematical constant? Try clicking both links, they end up some place differently. Then try and edit your page to see how I've done it :) Radiant_>|< 13:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Strait

Thanks for your comment. However, I would appreciate if you could give a map that specifically tells the location of the Tsushima Strait, for giving wrong maps can do more harm than good as wrong Maps can give wrong information. Feel free to add a new map that clearly tells the location of the Tsushima Strait, but I will have to remove the old map, for it seems to tell the location of the Tsushima Islands than the strait itself, I'm afraid.

Mr Tan 05:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Yes, sure, go ahead and add a map, please, but not the previous one for I'm afraid that that is misleading, and I'm a person who is very picky about maps. I apologise for any anger caused, but I'm happy if you can reconstuct a new map which specifically tells about the location of the strait. I am very grateful about your concern but anyway, I will be tell you when I really need help. I am sorry to remove the legend, however, for I believe that the legends goes with the map, which I have to remove it. Please, add a new map, in any orientation you like, se long it specifies the location of the Strait. Thanks!

Mr Tan 11:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But if I revert back, the old map will confuse readers who read the page within that time span before we put a new one! Anyway, I can make a new map for you, but that will be a bit rudimentary. Unless you have the appropriate map-making software, if the thing is not going to be permanent, or at least long-term, then a revert or putting up a rudimentary map will cause more harm than good.

Mr Tan 13:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


No, no, are you trying to talk about this map right] right?

No, some people who does not have a good anaticyal mind may get coinfused.

To me, the location of the Tsushima Strait and the islands are close, but the problem with this map is that it does not show specifically the location of the Strait. And a map that matches with my description is what I want.

Mr Tan 15:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Port Arthur

Hi Fabartus!

The merge tags on the Port Arthur articles were taken off some weeks ago. When added the merge-tags I thought they were about the same thing, but I was mistaken that time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Frank! Welcome to Wikipedia. I've received your message; I'll surely reply, but give me some time. I'll page you after a few hours time.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 15:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

One, the map is ambiguous and Mr Tan does have a point regarding its ambiguity. I too have a problem with the map and the article text. It took me a while to figure out that the green part was an island. The colour black used is misleading. Next, if the straight is between Japan and Korea (from what I glean); why does the island come into the picture? Is the straight between the island and another land body? This map is not necessary. However I am willing to make a map to sort out your debate provided you clarify the above. Secondly, ad hominem attacks are a strict no-no: See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'll reply the requested stuff by email.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love your poem!

But I guess wrong, thinking it was Kipling. Sigh! Anyway, thought I'd say "Howdy". I just had a run in with Mr Tan over something almost trivial and saw your input on the RfC page. I posted the discussion there if you care on Tsushima Strait . Here are quick links My talk (Article 11) and His Talk (Article 85). Reverting will probably escallate the situation, so I left that for another. Any advice on cutting this gordian knot, et al would be appreciated. Private comments on email are fine.

Just blot this out so it has a short shelf life: fabartus@FOO.net... Thanks, Frank. --Fabartus 15:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kipling? That's somewhat silly- Kipling would have made it rhyme. But more seriously! I've read over your links and thought a little about it: here is what I would do (BTW, I'm not e-mailing you since I think if you take my advice, people might want to see this). Tan does have somewhat of a point- the map is showing directly the location of the islands, not the strait, and thusly only indirectly the strait in question. There are two options here: A) amend the article, (specifically the caption) making it clear that the arrow is pointing to the island, and that the strait is off to one side; or better, B) fix the image. Fixing it should be trivial, since the water is a single color- you can simply paint over the arrow with the blue in question (I'm thinking copy-and-paste-over here), or move the arrow so that it is pointing to the strait rather than the island. AFAIK, this is legal given the copyright on the pic. While you are at it, you might want to re-upload it zoomed in, since right now it is fairly small and difficult to see/work with.
B) has the dual benefit that it both resolves your problem with Tan completely at a minimal expenditure, assumming you already know how to use photoshop, paint or GIMP, and also improves the article. --maru 16:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Tan

I had left a message for you, but Mr Tan removed it. It was:

I see that you've encountered Mr Tan. For further information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's also insisting on controversial edits at Tsushima islands; I'm out of reverts, so there's nothing that I can do, but if you'd care to look at them to see what you think, please do.

I'm not sure about requests for map support — I'll ask around. Wikipedia:Maps might be a good place to start, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Noo...Sorry, I didn't mean it. It must be an edit conflict that I wasn't aware, looking at the time stated.

Mr Tan 02:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I need your co-operation--you reverted first, but I counter revert to tell you to tell you to make the mark and stop reverting, so that we can settle down to discuss. But you have an attitude of forcing people to make the mark every time, yet it is your doubts that you want to inquire. That is rude.

Also, why ask for a revert if you have no questions or doubts on Talk:Tsushima Islands? You say that "Your attitude at the moment seems to be that you'll simply make the same wholesale edit repeatedly, changing parts of it once the rel;evant mistakes have been pointed out at least two or three times. That's not a productive, nor a collaborative approach.", but your attitude match the above description stated. All I want is attention, but how come simply cannot get the facts right into one's mind? If you object, say so directly. Don't blast it at other people in anyway you like.

Mr Tan 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Strait map

Very good, for your new map. Image:TsuShima Strait.png

Mr Tan 03:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New map

You'll have to get that copyright statement off the map. Try cropping the image and uploading the image under the same file name.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 05:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

The new one is good. You would have to upload over the old one; else we'll have duplicates. After you upload you will be asked to save over the old or cancel. Select the first option. Colouring the sea blue in the old map (used to locate the island) will also help. I'd prefer that you do not upload it here to the English wikipedia. Since you're off to bed I won't elaborate "till the sun rises your side"; will tell u later why. Regards, :)  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

You've really expanded the article. I don't know what's your time and how late it is your side (Its 12:10 here). Just a few minor things about the article that I would like to mention. 1) Metric equivalents should be given. 2) Bolding of the text is not reccomended. Bold only once, the title of the article when it first appears in the text. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia commons

I would like you to sign up for Wikimedia commons:, a sister concern of the the English wikipedia. The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project. Unlike images uploaded on other projects, images on Commons can be embedded on pages of all Wikimedia projects.

If you upload it here to the English wiki, it can only be used here, whereas if it is stored in the commons it can be used in the Spanish, Tamil, Italian, Japanese etc. wikipedias. There's even a Windows program written for bulk edits 387kb: http://tiredbrain.com/wikimedia/commonplace/. Make sure you add a category to your image else it will be an orphan and hard to find.

I also see you copying and pasting the absolute link to an article. There's no need for such a cumbersome procedure. Just copy the title of the page (just above the text: From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and wikify it (add the [[ ]]). If you find it interesting I'll give you a few more tips on the images. Regards,  =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The big fuss

Hey, what is the big fuss, Mr Bartus? I only made two reverts, and explained that bad maps can be misleading. Now you have corrected them, Thanks. But what is the matter? I am satisfied, you are satisfied. Why spur the big fuss? And don't be too harsh. I am at your son's age--fourteen to fifteen, approximately. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) My response

  • If you are indeed that young, that explains a very great deal as to why you have gained such a lousy reputation on Wiki. You had many of us wondering whether you were an old man slipping into early senility. It is simply this at the core: When you make careless, or arbitrary decisions, you negate other peoples time - precious, never to be recaptured time - that they voluntarily put into this project. As you grow ans mature, you will eventually come to understand that asking a person for blood is far better than taking up their time unnecessarily.
  • I'm not going to tell you not to edit here, the fact that you are trying is to be commended, but bear in mind that someone like myself with a son your age has very few spare hours to chase prob lems caused by a head-strong individual of whatever age. I will urge you to slow down your edits, and instead take some of your energy to reading more like JBell suggested to you in his Talk. The fact that I saw 'THAT' is some indicator of how much of my time I spent yesterday trying to figure out behind the scenes how to manage your high-handed edits. The fact is, if you didn't like that map, you have to learn to respect the judgement of another that some map is better than none. I couldn't have indicated more clearly when I wrote you first above that I expected that map to stay - you immediately reverted it anyway - that is the big deal.
  • I have to go now, but read more and play here less for a while at least. People like myself see the dream that this can be the best encyclopedia ever written in a couple of years more time. Do try not to slow this down! I'd like to recommend some authors to you, but time presses. I'll do so later. Fabartus 13:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And to some others involved

Lastly, Mr Tan wrote this morning and mentioned that he's only a kid - 14-15 y.o., so I wrote him back, made nice and think I'll suggest he work together on some stuff with my two boys. They both need practice writing. I'm going to offer to send him a CDROM I got a few years ago on Middle School Grammer, which of course my guys are too good to bother with. Could make for an interesting summer! Thanks fer holdin me hand! Fabartus 19:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not like people treating me as dirt. If you're going to insult at me, I will request for arbitration againts you. Really, I do not like it when people act like they own Wikipedia and try to order people to do things. And what's wrong if I'm a kid? I have straight A's in English in school. Mr Tan 12:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comforting message, but I feel a bit strange for I could not remember posting the above message, and the message isn't written by me at all when I came in here! Please check your talk page history. I suspect that something is fishy going around here. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that somebody is inpersonating me, after checking its page history. The person is User:Mr. Tan, not User:Mr Tan, if you notice that there is a extra full stop.

Anyway, I thank you for your offer. I am willing and eager to meet Jon and develop a good wikifriendship on wikipedia, moreover with a person who has a better command of English of my age. I will try to improve my English, and have scored well in my English tests, but the attitude of Singaporeans' English has really made me "one eye among the blind" case, for my English is at most somewhat better than the rest of the Singaporeans, who has some traits of Singlish in their English. I will try, to use proper British English, if I can--I"ll try. Anyway, I extend my thanks again, Mr Bartus.

Mr Tan 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commons and more things

  1. I didn't quite get what the problem was in Commons. So if you have specific problems feel free to ask me. BTW, in commons it is best you upload an image that has the highest possible resolution, and if you're into cartography, then also consider uploading a blank map (without any English text) on it. This would be useful for others to create say, a Chinese, Russian or Hindi version of it.
  2. I like trains, its the most common transport mode here in India. We don't have railway modelling here (its there but not promoted). I've decided to focus my energies on wikipedia to India-related articles so that there is a balance out here. I check out the categories on the Featured Articles list and see if I can add an India article. I've pushed 1 city, two towns, and 2 states so far. I saw that there is no Indian topic in =transport= there and so decided to work on adding Indian Railways to the list.
  3. Your bolding of text does not follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I know it is common in the technical realm to highlight key words, it is not the case here. We only bold the term that is defined in a heading. An example of the correct use of bolding of the text is on the Geography of India page. However you are free to bold key text on Talk pages.
  4. I didn't understand what you meant by modern politically correct nomenclature. I'm not aware of naming issues, though we had a *huge* debate on Calcutta vs Kolkata earlier this year, with the latter winning the straw poll. You could request for clarification by posting it here: Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)
  5. To wikify a talk page; Talk:Indian Railways OR User Talk:Nichalp. Its that simple.
  6. I understand that Mozilla Firefox and Opera browsers have implemented a spell checker for editing. Perhaps you could switch the these browsers if you would like to have a spell checker in use while editing.
  7. References for my article: I add references (& dates) and images to the article only once I've finished editing the entire page. I do store the references offline. Its my way of working. References are mandatory for Featured Status, so I'll have to add them anyways.

 =Nichalp (Talk)= 06:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your messages

Sorry not to have replied sooner; it's the end of term, and I'm harrassed, and only just able to keep up with my editing (well, not really able, in fact). I'll reply properly tomorrow. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I cannot understand why User:Nanshu move this article back to Island--despite the description of its history that it is two seperate islands. Mr Tan 16:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I have also notified User:Mel Etitis concerning this issue. Thanks.Mr Tan 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Nile

User/fabartus/battles/Battle_of_the_Nile (in article namespace) has been moved to User:Fabartus/battles/Battle_of_the_Nile (user namespace). I deleted the resulting redirect. -- User:Docu

[edit] Books

You have given a list of books which I presume is targeting at the Tsushima Islands project. I have searched for books concerning Tsushima in libraries and bookshops in Singapore and Johor Bahru, but I would sincerely say that I cannot find any.

Also, I do not have sufficient time to do all these things because I believe that our goal on wikipedia is merely for the sake of satisfaction, not on serious work. However, meanwhile, I will try to search for more internet sources, and I will be happy to accept any sources concerning this Tsushima project.

Mr Tan 02:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Do you think I did not make an effort to conduct a search for book sources? I do, notably Kinokuniya in Orchard Road, but I what I am saying is my sincere heart. I just cannot find sources on Tsushima. The problem for me to cut down on my computer time is one reason: I need to study and work hard for my academic results.

I agree that I must have responsibility in what I do--I will finish up this matter as soon as possible, not by force, but rather through a series of explanations and source citings. My purpose to come to wikipedia has its main purpose: "To contribute for returning from what you take from people"., but the pressure really presses me down---

Think about theprinciple of giving---that is my aim on wikipedia. However, if I give and I get something bad in return--hostility, and scolding from Mel Etiits and Bell, doing nothing in the end in Zanskar, I feel that I have no reason to be on wiki.

I"ll just try my best--I cannot say further. Mr Tan 03:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iki sources

For the whale over fishing, my sources came from here: [2], [3], [4].

For the land area, please see the Japanese version of Iki Island or here [5].

Thanks. Mr Tan 04:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I"ll try, but I'm afraid that most of the sources on Iki Island are in Japanese and I have only a smattering knowledge of Japanese. If you can give some information as well, or enhance the article, I will be happy to accept your contributions. Thanks. Mr Tan 04:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Tsushima: Your comment: "Article Appearance"

Hi Fab. You can easily revert an Edit you do not like by going to the History Page, select the Version you favour, put it in Edit mode, and Save (5 seconds flat). That's called "Reverting an Edit", and you don't have to throw rude language around. PHG 09:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

Hello! I'm still not quite with it (there's a little more teaching next week, held over from term, and last night's Schools Dinner for Maths and Maths & Philosophy was extremely convivial, and went on rather late). On the plural/singular matter, though, I've left a comment at the Talk page; I'd be interested in your reactions.

Doing very long edits can be dangerous, especially when the article is prone to frequent editing; shorter bursts are safer. I've often wasted time making a long series of edits, only to save and find that someone else has either beaten me to it or edited in such a way that my edits would have to be painstakingly inserted into the text again. Things would be so much easier if we each had our own Wikipedia... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It took me a while to see what was going on. If you think you can better divide into one vote on the Island/Islands question (on which I have no opinion), and one vote on Tsushima, please do.

As for my page: A blank User Page means my links on my watchlist are red, and therefore findable. Since I'm not sure what to say about myself anyway, I leave it.Septentrionalis 18:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Strait, Part II

I would appreciate if you can reply in contrast to my requests on Talk:Tsushima Strait. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


He is clearly addicted to wikipedia; this will overturn his life, but I do not want to know or care. I"ll see to the case of Tsushima Islands, and I"ll only get myself involved when absolutely necessary. For now, I will not contribute anymore information to the article temporarily. Mr Tan 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I"ll hope that your previous message is merely a plain grammar lesson. I am saying what I mean in the previous comment--I do not want to interfere with Mel Etitis in anyway, for I have no reason and purpose by doing so! Anyway, thanks for your notes, I will read them soon, and I will be happy to accept more. I hope that it is British English, but I presume you are American---the notes seems to be a bit confusing as it uses American English grammar which I am not familiar. Mr Tan 18:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellany 050617

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you sooner; I missed your initial post in a flurry of other people posting to my talk page.

Regarding the U.S. customary units, did you find U.S. customary units? That sounds like what you might be looking for.

There isn't any hard and fast rule as to whether to reply to an existing topic or create a new one on the talk page. Generally if discussion is stale, I find that it makes sense to create a new headline. On the other hand, if discussion on a topic is still active, it doesn't make sense to split it up unnecessarily.

Regarding the railways, if they are the same thing, then I would agree that it does make sense to merge. However, if they're not, then there may be advantages and disadvantages to merging. It might be worth a query on Talk:China Far East Railway and Talk:Manchurian Railway to see whether people think that the two articles should be merged into one.

For information on naming conventions, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Generally, older names are handled by creating a redirect to the page in question and mentioning the other names in the text. See for example the lead paragraph of China Far East Railway.

I'm not entirely sure I personally agree with the indirection idea, but it might have potential. You might want to mention it on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see what others think.

Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iza replys

  1. U.S. customary units is good, but I was thinking more along the lines of a table as a quick reference - not an exposatory article. Things like 1 gal = 16 cups, Teacup = 5 Oz... The Brits have a table up off Weights and Measures that is fine — but we don't use half the units posted thereon. (See TBDL) Cancel that - I can't find it again! I'll have to remember what computer I was on and puruse the history folder. At least I can rely on the date since I stubbed the arty name when I wrote you, or the day before. The W&M Arty above has a nifty external link called Calculator or such, and that's worth the failed visit -- check it out! I was about to close and found it! See Hogshead. Something like this for quick referencing w/o all the verbage of the USCU or W&M Artys.
  2. The Talk postings on both make sense, but I should see to fixing up the MRR arty before taking that step. (Ahh what the heck -- it's only my first arty from scratch excluding redirects! I acted boldly and annotated the Talk:China Far East Railway that they should be merged. Youse knows it, Izz knows it, so why dance around. From my pov, it'll be about a month, if it isn't done by then. It does no harm in the meantime. They cite each other.
  3. Most talk pages seem unused or stale, from what I've seen, save for a few like the furrball at Talk:Tsushima Islands. Though between the time I launch this and the time you see it, it may revert to the singular!!! (One of the issues is the proper name, as well as whether the island is actually now islands -- I hope it settles down some. I'm pretty sure I convinced User_Talk:Mr Tan to walk away for a month or so, and he's been an ire rousing stimulus. I've spent more time writing him the last three days than any other three things combined easily! May have to consider a career change to diplomat! (I like to think I make a pretty good Dad, tho')
  4. Have yet to visit the village pump, I keep getting sidetracked.
  5. I've come a long way in three weeks wrt the Wiki-society and conventions - heck I even learned to imbed a talk link in my signature today! Now I just need to get up on tables tools for the naval battles of the Russo-Japanese War -- which is the horse I Rode in on, so to speak, as missing terms and references in a history I was reading got me to commit to 'logging in and doing something about instead of the occasional anom edit. Sadly, I thnk I'm hooked! ~:) I even found one of those records yesterday. Just wish I could remember all the little fixes I put in here and there along the way - I've a lot of computers here 12+, but I gave up counting over christmas when three new laptops were under the tree! It makes for a fair number of IP addys to back-track.
  6. How does the village pump differ from the Request for Comments pages? I volunteered to dig out some Nelsonian info based on the arty posted thereon for the Battle of Trafalgar — also need to puruse same to give a better critique - but there's been Tan, and now my two teens are out of school.
    The village pump is meant for general discussion and feedback, whereas RfC is for getting discussion and feedback in order to resolve a dispute. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Somebody mentioned to 'Ask at the Help Desk' the other day, where is THAT? Off the village pump?
    The Help Desk is at Wikipedia:Help desk. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. How would I best cut in an article edit saved on my local computer using wordpad (Someone altered the source while I was editing and it didn't want to save over as the edit was large) so that I could use diff to see the changes between it and others in the history? Just replace, then look, revert if necessary, then recompare to add the incremental differences, or paste it somewhere else (Say in my space) then use a command line arguement to force the compare?
    Generally, when I've needed to do this sort of thing in the past, I've manually applied any changes to my offline copy, and then replaced the article contents with my version (and then checked the diffs to ensure I didn't mess anything up). Whatever works for you should be fine though. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I'll see what I can do about formulating my concerns on the historic names lossage for a pump presentation, but I want to wait until after I EDIT or create the various RJ-W battles. There are several (6 or 7) on loan to my library from other networked branches, and I'm fairly sure they are not renewable when borrowed across the library network this way. The clock is ticking, and the weather has improved after a four day rain. The yard and garden and pool all call. Hear them? Fraaaannnnk! ttfn [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 22:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your sig seems to be broken. The software automatically inserts [[User:Yourusername| before your nickname, and ]] after your nickname, unless you select the "Raw signatures" option. So, you might want to try selecting the "Raw signatures" option to fix this, or reword your nickname. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

To which article are you referring? -- Jonel | Speak 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee harvey oswald was speedily deleted after being listed on VfD. It was then recreated as a redirect by User:Postdlf. The VfD log is typically kept as-is after such actions (as all VfD logs are kept). My comment was only to give more information to any who saw the article on VfD. -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Harrington

Hi -- Thanks for your support on the Bryce Harrington article. I actually have already given my "pro" argument on the vote for deletion page. I've tried contacting a few people who have edited the Inkscape article recently to give them a heads up on the vfd. I don't think the idea of deleting it had anything to do with its length, just that they don't consider him notable enough. --Bcrowell 03:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

I would appreciate if you can help me (and Mel Etitis) concerning an article move by some Wikipedia Japanese Users. Thanks. Mr Tan 11:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The message was concerning a page move--The Japanese users says that they want to move the article to Tsushima Island because the Japanese government recognizes it as an island, but I opposed because it was geographically two seperate islands today, so I need you to cast a vote and state your advise on the move.

I am already trying to take a retreat from wikipedia--to reduce stress and to prepare for the end of the school holidays.Tan

[edit] inuse template

I noticed that you added an inuse template. In the past, User:Mel Etitis and User:JMBell strongly protested the use of this template while was editing Wee Kim Wee/temp, and it was blocked because of this.

While they accuse me that I was doing this to prevent others from editing, I stated that this was to discourage, not stop people from editing.

If there is no harm putting this template up if a person genuinely want to work on a specific article, can you please give a statement concerning this past issue? Your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 03:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Your message

(This is an interleaved communication. Originated here with my responses ending his original content, then posted back to him.)

  1. I disagree that it doesn't matter which form is used because there are redirects. That reasoning would allow us to have an article under the name "Nachral filsfy" (because "Natural philosophy" redirects to it). That's a BROADER or skewed interpretation of whatever voluminous piece of my trying to cool down (these two juveniles) text meant to say, when or whereever you are quoting me; OF COURSE it matters SOME — but should not to the extent of the 300 plus edits, roughly half by our friend Mr Tan since May 13th which have not grown the arty appreciably (from my quick peek at the early one) — or the novelette of the talk page, of which you seem to have archieved the first talk page which may have been a full novel. SUFFICE IT TO SAY I HAVE DONE NOTHING, in four Wiki-Days EXCEPT deal with Tan and this idiocy, he is central to, by volume of edits, if not by stubborness. I trust you will agree that the use of that term is warranted as when it is all boiled down, the key difference is whether or not one adds an 'S'. No matter how you dice it, it's an unconscienable waste of human resources — there are litterally thousands of other articles to compose from scratch, and I may have made some headway in diverting Tan to That, but... I just found out I forgot my own wedding anniversary over this — icing on the symbolic &%$^&$#^% cake, that is! At least half of my pontification is an attempt to KEEP the bit in his teeth — alas, seems to be failing now. So support me where you can — at least I'm another adult TRYING to help!
  2. I'm a bit unsure about this seventy edits; there probably have been that many, but only a small fraction of them have concerned the pluralisation question. Well, how is one to find the TIME to go through the history to see when actual new material was added? It may only be 20% were reverts, but I'm sure no more than 60% were QUALITY edits — Most are Tan proofing himself as best I can see. I find it interesting that the reversions stopped for a while, then picked up speed again after I made that egregious blunder with Tans English — and no matter how fatigued I was — it was because I was pressing for output subsequent to spending many less fatigued hours trying to lead him into a better editor attitude. If he's gone on and continued to piss in this pond after the In Use was added, I just may have to reconsider my comments to the W:Rfc\Tan. I've invested a lot of time trying to divert him to more productive article creation — as he certainly does not yet have the skills to be splitting hairs over grammer! And I'm preaching to the choir, I know! If he focuses on immature articles he can make a tremendous contribution to Wikipedia with his energy and abundant spare time; but his involvement in one's which are nearing complete and polished forms is certainly contraindicated, just on the shear numbers of mini-changes polluting the history — even if maturing articles eventually double, I mean by that the article in question is sufficiently large that most any printed encyclopedia editor would be sharpening a knife to cut it by half. At this stage, precision of language use is important — so we need to guide him elsewhere so the article will settle and stabilize. It's that simple, and pretty much the case you presented it the RfC, n'est pas? In sum, Help me convince him to let this thing go and move onto something not yet written or even stubbed... I gave him half a page of links of Wikiprojects, and we need him to see the sheer scope of that challange as an attractant, pulling him off to plow new fields rather than weeding in maturing crops.
  3. I didn't, to be honest, understand the reference to VfDs; what exactly did you mean? I meant simply that if the article were couched in the singular, and then someone came along and wrote an article on one of the smaller islands, someone would, in my opinion come along and decide that the short new article should be merged into the singularly titled article, and then it's name would be changed to plural. The Vfd is frequented by a lot of 'Mergest' wiki-sub-species. <G> I was merely trying to divert the thoughts off the issue-centric and onto how the Wiki-World-At-Large would view the bickering that is evidenced the talk and history record.
  4. I'm afraid that the "inuse" template can't be used like that. As Mr Tan says above, he was prevented from using it in a similar way. Oh contrare — 'His August and Majestic Professaire-Administrator Extraordinaire' (look in a mirror, quick — did you get any taller? No? Damn — Shrug, well I tried!) 'Mel Etitis' asked me personally to copy edit the article several days ago, and it cannot be completed (I've an incomplete attempt on HDD -- yet another two wasted hours) in any logical manner until the case of plural vs singular is settled. Any way, It was a try to stop the madness. If it's ignored, then I have casus belli with the party ignoring it — of sorts, your Majesty! (I've gotten promotions like this too — a shiney new title and a better parking spot with concurrent worse hours at the same pay. Don't you love God's sense of humor?
  5. As long as everyone remains calm, and thinks about the arguments rather than who's involved in them, this should be resolvable easily. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) If this isn't calm, I can't imagine what I could do to be more helpful! Being mindful of your likely end of term demands on time and feeling fatherly towards Tan is the only reasons I'm subjecting myself to that embarrasing display of juvenile testosterone, or whatever else you call it. Something has provoked the edit war, and I'm trying to pour oil on the troubled waters. If you think I'm aggravating it, by all means, say so bluntly. After all, I'd much rather research and write rather than baby-sit!!! My only reservation is that my gaff seems to have escalated the matter to the current vote — so HONOR requires I attempt to make ammends or resolve the contention. Except for losing a nice little geo-political-military paragraph, and the copy edit time, I could care less if the island(s) were called Xyerythughafugaweruinfugiishimnuqui. Aside from the fact that when I first went to find it, the texts I used called it 'Tsu Shima' or 'TsuShima' or 'Tsu-Shima', I would have hardly stopped in to visit the arty. I'm focused/was focused on the R-JW! Now I'm trying to guide Mr (or Ms, I'm not sure either way yet.) Tan as well — while staying out of the furrball itself. Color me 'Noble', your Majesty! fab
The majority of redirects you worry about are probably those very redirects I created with said alternate spellings. Call it 15 minutes of easy changes that a member of the mergist bent wouldn't even pause to think about fixing. The article is not my project, so I'm neutral on the emotional side, a fresh face that at least writes well and cites references — in any event I went browsing Japanese-centric materials last night and have hopes my messages to half-a-dozen persons will induce at least one native Japan citizen to lend us their input on the questions of fact (are the two Isles divided, or joined by canal — and so one), and how do the native Japanese themselves consider the name. THAT should settle things once and for all.

Hope it's enough to stabilize the text for copy editting! Now, how do we get M/m Tan to go elsewhere? Any further thoughts? I'd hate to ban him totally, as I do believe that energy can be lead into making fruitful contributions — especially in new artys of immature nature. If you see User_Talk:Mr Tan, you'll see I've left several novelettes of oil on troubled waters that he seems to be ingesting slowly.

That's all for now. I'm going to get some yard work done. The grass is getting awfully high as it's been chill and rained most all week. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like my 'Signature' needs further adjustment! Don't understand where the bold is comming from. fab:13:27 local

  • I'm not sure what you're aiming at with your signature, but is it this: FrankB || TalktoMe? The bold comes from the fact that it's on your Talk page — a Wikilink on the page linked to always comes out as bold. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

I understand your vote to be a conditional Yes on the compromise move to Tsushima and am moving it to consolidate the vote on the compromise in one place. If I have misunderstood you, please correct. Septentrionalis 16:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am actually very busy as well--honestly, this is the last week of my one-month Singaporean school holidays, and I have became a wikiholic over the months and years. Honestly, I had tremendous anxiety concerning Tsushima, and I couldn't control myself, for I want to put down this matter as fast as possible in order to settle myself down for school. Anyway, I"ll try to cut them down unless absolutely necessary--Thanks, and good luck. Mr Tan 11:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Hi Frank, just a short note - your signature is somewhat broken; my guess is that you should just enter the following into the signature box in Preferences:

FrankB]] || [[User talk:Fabartus|TalktoMe

The "[[User:Fabartus|" prefix and the two brackets at the end are added automatically.

That's all. I've written some things on the Tsushima Islands talk page; otherwise, I'm still remaining neutral. Cheers - JMBell° 13:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC? No.

Hi. The purpose of the edit [6] was not to criticize Mel Etitis, of course! I clarified that at the start. I eplained the background of the current situation for newcomers but that was not the point. The focus of my message was in the last two paragraphs. Actually I made a proposal for the future. I'm not interested in what Mel Etitis does in the articles I don't edit, and I'd like to minimize my involvement in wikipolitics. --Nanshu 14:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Tsushima Islands

To whom it may concern, this is a Cart in Front of the Horse - My reply to the very helpful message which immediately follows, both to be posted in a moment into the discussion MOVE Tsushima Islands --> Tsushima Island (fab)

Thankyou very very much for your posting on my talk. That clarifys matters greatly, especially the pics. The matter was much muddled, as you will see if you choose to visit the LONG LONG talk page, but your cogent comments are a breath of fresh air, and I'm going to take the liberty of taking them 'AS IS' and posting them (way down) into the MOVE DISCUSSION.

  • I'm merely trying to mediate this, and historical readings are as bad as the encyclopedias and acedemic resources (One of whom stated plainly the Island was "permanently divided" 100+ years ago, but He was really trashing some (theory of a) Korean Claim to the Islands (with a bit of wry tounge-in-cheek humor as I read it) in the full context it was given — The sentence he used is poorly constructed and that got put in verbatuum without quotes, so yours truly bent folded, spindled and mutilated it while wincing at the awkward English. THAT product (paragraph) seems to have ignited this most recent furball — so I'm mediating as penance for being foolish enough to edit at 04:00 local (Boston Time). As you say, one author uses an 'S' and another doesn't, so Wikipedia redirects it, done... it's a lot of wasted energy and time over a split hair. The article also discusses the two half-islands, so english grammer gets sticky with the plural, which is kind of where I came in for ACT II, as I was asked as a neutral party to copyedit — which I had to stop doing as the plural-singular is germane to THAT TASK.
  • When you finish rumenating on the matter, by all means stop in and VOTE. It's part of your country! Thanks ever so much for the input, and especially your time! Thanks as well for the info on the Japanes BB, I'll post an notice there very soon. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Frank - sorry I'm late replying. I haven't read all the arguments yet -this is just a quick note. I just noticed your message on my talk page and it's almost one o'clock in the night over here. Ignore this message if it's too late.

It's not surprising that people don't agree on this issue - a quick google search revealed that the Columbia Encyclopedia and the Britannica don't agree on whether Tsushima is two islands or one island (although the Britannica seems outdated). The minor surrounding islands shouldn't be a problem - for example, most people would consider Guam an island, when it actually has at least one minor island nearby.

The way I see it, both opinions have their strong points. You can't deny that Tsushima is composed of many different islands, even without the north/south island thing. On the other hand, Japanese people usually treat and call Tsushima one island, which seems to be reflected in the various references people have been showing.

I'm speculating here, but I think there are two reasons the Japanese call Tsushima an island:

  • Tradition
  • It may not feel like two islands when you live there - the canal may feel like a river for locals

If I had to choose between Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Island right now, I would probably give very weak support to Tsushima Island, because it's less surprising to someone who has general knowledge of Tsushima (who would probably either be Japanese, or have lived in Japan). For example, the author of a book I recently translated calls Tsushima an island (the author is an American missionary to Japan). Both titles are correct in their own way, so the principle of least surprise should apply - which is unfortunately, very difficult to determine.

That said, the article title really shouldn't matter, because the article will be talking about the same group of islands regardless of the title. The best compromise may be to name the article Tsushima. I'd rather have an article with a title that's the result of a compromise than an endless, unconstructive edit war.

You might want to call for help on the Japanese Wikipedians' Notice Board. The following are pictures of the canal, to give you an idea of what people are talking about.

I'll sleep for now and give this issue some thought. Atsi Otani 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Upon doublechecking,Tsushima Maru is a stub; Tsushima Yuko is not marked as a stub, but they are both quite short. {{seealso}} is a convenient form for unconnected uses of a word, but in this case, something of the form Tsushima lies in the Straits of Tsushima, in which the Battle of Tsushima was fought seems more appropriate. Septentrionalis 14:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will reply to the details of your latest suggestion on my own page. Septentrionalis 01:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
More generally, appeals to a wider forum don't actually seem to be working very well at the moment. For example I have an 1-on-1 deadlock in Democratic peace theory which I have asked for help and received none. (I am about to make a statement of dispute on the talk page; this may take a little while.) Septentrionalis 01:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
quite so, and a Request for mediation. Is there some other bureaucracy I am overlooking, or what? Septentrionalis 01:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message, Mr Bartus. Meanwhile I need to sort out my thoughts about Tsushima. Mr Tan 07:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I contrast to your message, I would like to say that my English has its own loopholes, and I apologise for my mistakes. I will be happy if you can help me correct them gramatically, but I will find time time do my part as well.

Concerning this voting issue, I won't say that voting "support" is wrong, because the point of view of one person can differ, and voting is where the person's freedom of speech is permitted---I bear no hatred of you just because you voted "support", so long if there are no cases of outright criticisms on the person himself. I respect your decision to vote.

However, I would be happy if you do allow me to put in a word concerning your vote – your vote for the support has a devastating effect on your contributions in respect to the fact that your mention of how Tsushima is seperated between 1895 and 1905. Your mention of Tsushima as "two islands" in that paragraph certainly contradicts with your "support" vote for moving the page to Tsushima Island", and this will make people wonder what are you talking about, describing how Tsushima is seperated on one hand, and supporting the move on the other hand!

Also, I would appreciate if you can have a look at Mr Otani's comment--He stated that there are several other islands around the two islands--even the island is joined, it would be ridiculous to say "Tsushima Island". And from my viewpoint, I would certainly advise you to vote oppose. However, your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 13:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have RfM on my watchlist, and was intrigued by the listing; Tsushima just seems a reasonable compromise to avoid what looked like a deadlock. I am not ideologically committed to it; I largely hoped to make sure it was considered.
Without checking the page, I recall Bell's argument as one I oppose: I do mean the island(s) when I say simply "Tsushima" and I believe he is over-reading the nomenclature guidelines - but my final opinion will be expressed there. Septentrionalis 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am deliberately red-linking to make my watchlist readable. I would have more throughly aliased if I'd known how it would work, but short of making a new account, which would be condemned as sock-puppetry, I see no way to fix things that's worth the trouble. Septentrionalis 17:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic peace theory

Both of us have made a statement on the Talk page: the article stands as Ultramarine left it. Feel free to advise (and if you find his arguments justified, please explain them to me). Septentrionalis 16:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel looked briefly, and counseled Ultramarine to read the policy on POV. Septentrionalis 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] What?

Customs rules communications? Absolutely wrong. How about Jurong Island, which was a man-made reclaimed island, with its origins from seven natural, seperate islands and part of the Straits of Singapore? Why isn't it called Jurong Islands, or the original name of the original seven islands? Mr Tan 06:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot make out what sort of fairy tale you are talking about. Though I may be young, but wikipedia is a place that does not encourage such story-telling. Please get to the point on my statement: WHAT WE ARE TALKING IS THE PRESENT STATE OF TSUSHIMA. BE IT DIVIDED BY AN INCH, OR HUNDREDS OF KILOMETRES, SO LONG THAT THERE IS NO POINT OF PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE TWO REGIONS OF LAND THEY ARE CONSIDERED TWO SEPERATE ISLANDS. AND I HAVE ALREADY ADVISED YOU TO LOOK UP Jurong Island to compare with Tsushima! Mr Tan 15:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Thanks for your message. I was a in a bad mood, so I apologise if I maybe rude, but I honestly I do not like you to call me "Tan emperor", for I would prefered to be addressed as Mr Tan, or Tan. I have no objections to your teachings, but I do not like to be given funny names.

For now, I am in a grave problem. I have quarantined the Korean infobox temporarily, and offered to discuss with Ypacarai (I have my comments in Talk:Tsushima Islands, but he seems to take a hard stance on this matter. What I need is he himself to discuss the matter with me, but he is not willing to give me sufficient explanations, and when I answered back to his rebuttals, he simply ignored me. But his discussions and explanations are simply not sufficient for his actions, and he chose to become a bull on this matter.

I would greatly appreciate if you could stop his relentless reverts, for I find it extremely difficult to bring him to his attention to discuss on his objections. Cheers, Mr Bartus! Mr Tan 10:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am ready for discussion if you learn and respect Wikipedia's general rules and etiquettes, Mr Tan.
  1. Most of wikipedians are not a school kid, many of them have their jobs out of Wikipedia.
  2. So If you represent a new comment or arguement, you must wait till they respond a few days or at least 24 hour.
  3. You must have enough time to develop your comment before you post. Use Wikipedia's preview function or use any suitable text editor. Your storm of re-post is really annoying for all those concerned to the article.
  4. Use indenting when you add your comment. Refer to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines.

And obey all other advices of prof. Mel and Fabartus, or any other respectable wikipedians. --Ypacaraí 11:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

[edit] I read your comment to me (Baru)

I am afraid that I don't understand your demand to me exaxtly, because I am new to wikipedia and I don't know datails of the wiki system. If I do it by myself, I will bring another mistakes, I think. So, I would appriciate it if you could kindly do it first. Of course I know you are busy, so rough correction is enough. I shall follow it.

My intention of putting my comments to you is just to show facts about canals to you and other wikipedians. There are no other intentions.

If you have no time to do, please contact to me. I will try by myself. Thank you. Baru 17:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the layout. And I apologize for bothering you. Baru 00:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

The article was moved to "Tsushima Island", with no agreement, and Mr Tan asked me to move it back. I could see no grounds not to, so I did, and asked for discussion. Nanshu moved it again, and I reverted, again asking for discussion (and ensuring that he couldn't just Move it again). Nanshu then asked for the article to be moved on the requests page, without mentioning this on the articles's Talk page. Since then he's insisted on chaninging the text in line with his desired title, only stoppiing when he was threatened with being blocked from editing. To be honest, his behaviour has been underhand at best.

Part of the problem is his insistence on adding comments to long-dead discussions in the middle of a long Talk page, while many people are posting to a new discussion at the bottom of the page, and then becoming abusive when (unsurprisingly) his comment isn't noticed.

I genuinely wish that I'd never become involved in these pages, and with Mr Tan, Nanshu, and one or two others, but I can't walk away from it now — the mess that they manage to make is astonishing — left to their own devices I shudder to think what would happen.

My request for arbitration against Mr Tan isn't gone and forgotten; it's just that the end of term (especially as it was a Finals term) was very hectic. Things are still winding down, in fact, with College business lingering until the end of the month, but I'll be putting the request together properly over the next week or so. My feeling is that, though he swings between being absolutely manic and appalling to being merely irritating, he's not getting any better in general. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say that the poll doesn't have a specific deadline, as it's an informal attempt to gain consensus. I must admit, though, that I find it difficult to make out what the current state of play is; I'll take your word that ther's no consensus for a move (that was my impression too), and that therefore the article shouldn't be moved. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisks, etc.

In order to use characters that have a special Wiki-mark-up significance, stick <nowiki> ... </nowiki> (round them (that was reflexive nowikying). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your objections

  • Your arguement is somewhat out of point---The Koreans have owned Tsushima, just like the Japanese and Chinese did so on Sakhalin. The Japanese and Chinese names have been lying there for so long, why is there no objections to the Japanese and Chinese names there? In fact, like Japan is to Tsushima, Sakhalin is not contested by any other country as of 2005, and is legitimate Russian territory.
  • Korean has historical links with Tsushima--just like the Japanese and Chinese on Sakhalin. Why is the Japanese and Chinese there but not the Korean name here? The conditions of the Japanese and Chinese of Sakhalin is similar to those of the Koreans to Tsushima. And that's why I'm using Sakhalin for comparative purposes.
  • Consider those reading the phrase "...Daema-do day..." people will wonder what it is if there are no original Korean names. And I would appreciate if you can proceed to [7] and reconsider your present ideas. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Port Arthur

Hi. If you mean Russian ships, that were seriously damaged during the very first Japanese night torpedo attack on 8/9 February, they were Tsesarevitch, Retvizan and Pallada only. This information comes from numerous Russian sources. Bayan and Askold were undamaged and used in a battle with on the following day (they were slightly damaged during the battle, but it was not dangerous). The three mentioned ships were repaired by June and took part in the battle of the Yellow Sea (Battle of Shantung), apart from Bayan, which was in a meantime damaged by a mine (by the way, after battle of the Yellow Sea Askold was interned in Shanghai, Diana in Saigon and Nowik was sunk near Sakhalin, so they were not sunk in Port Arthur). Generally, only after battle of the Yellow Sea, Russian ships undamaged stayed in Port Arthur and waited for sinking... Medium artillery was partially dismounted from Russian ships about June, before the battle.

Sources (in Russian):

  • S. Suliga Korabli Russko-Yaponskoy voyny 1904-1905 vol1 (Preview of Russian ships of 1904-05)
  • V. Krestyaninov, C. Molodcov Bronenosnye kreysera tipa Bayan (monographic book on Bayan)
  • V. Krestyaninov, C. Molodcov Kreyser Askold
  • S. Balakin Bronenosec Retvizan

and monographies of other ships (these books are available scanned here [8] and [9])

If you needed info on Russian on Japanese ships, I can help you (I "dug" into this subject a lot, when writing Polish wiki article). Pibwl 28 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

[edit] Your messages

With regard to my ubiquity — yes, it's getting silly, to be honest. I'm trying to cut down my watchlist. It's now dipped under 3,000, so I'm making progress, but there's a long way to go.

I'm working my way though your e-mails (and trying to catch up on Wikipedia; I'll reply as soon as I can. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 10:47 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry

I suggest you drop those chemistry articles off at User:Alteripse's place. He's better versed in organic chemistry than I am. Have you checked your "Text size" option in your browser's view menu? - Mgm|(talk) June 28, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

I only wish I were! My biochemistry degree is decades old, and my current working knowledge is more along the lines of clnically applicable enzymology, metabolism, and endocrinology. I wouldn't be doing you a favor by even promising to eventually help on these laboratory procedure topics, but there are other people with more chemistry experience around here. You might check who has been editing some of the relevant articles, or watch who answers the chemistry questions on the Reference Desk. Good luck. alteripse 28 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I have read your personal message, and I thank you for that. I had planned to transffer your message from Talk:Tsushima Islands, but you have posted a duplicate on my talk. If you allow me, I would like to have it removed from the Tsushima talk page, for such personal messages is supposed to be placed in the User's talk.

Three months of war--I have spent more than half my time fighting, but wikipedia is not a place for such things. Neither for Arbittration, etc. My purpose on wikipedia is to spend my leisure time away--not to fight. Complaining that I have wasted your time, how about mine? And saying that (Mel Etitis) silence doesn't warrant response--if a person has not respond another's message for a long time, so long what I say is not repeating what I say, I see no reason why I should be ignored, and having the misconception that I reinstate an edit, it is reverted. And I already bear hatred on Mel Etitis on his wholesale reverts, rather than picking out good edits one-by-one, and that is really heart-breaking. I have posted a message concerning this Korean name issue, so I would appreciate if you have a look at Talk:Tsushima Islands.

Anyway, I apologise that I am in no mood to say anything further properly--I am already having half a mind on leaving. Goodbye. Mr Tan 28 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)



[edit] Tsushima Islands

I've only just discovered that it was your edit that I reverted. I reverted it because the "copyedit" and "merge" templates had been removed, and because it didn't seem as though any editing was actually being done. If I'd realised that it was you, I'd have asked first... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Peculiar — you left your note on the Talk page at precisely the same time that I left the above comment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I really don't have time presently to copyedit pages that lie outside my area of expertise. Yours, Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 12:44 (UTC)
  • I've just finished copyediting. You might want to improve it a bit. JMBell° 29 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • We're staying at my cousin's house. I'm using his computer now. ;) JMBell° 29 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Shimonoseki

What are you talking about? I didn't make any changes to the page other than adding a POV check template. -- Nik42 29 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

  • Looking at the history, it looks like someone named LordAmeth did the changes you're objecting to. So, complain on his user page, not mine. -- Nik42 29 June 2005 18:55 (UTC)

[edit] Links Problem

Regarding the broken links you've seen with tht new software:

  1. When you link to an external source, you don't need to put the bar after the address anymore, just a space (example: [http://www.example.com link title]).
  2. You still need it for internal links, however: [[Example|Link title]].
  3. For subtopics as you had trouble with, you need to type out the whole heading; for example, to look up topic "Welcome, Mr Tan" on "User talk:Mr Tan", type
[[User talk:Mr Tan#Welcome, Mr Tan|Welcome message]]
and not just
[[User talk:Mr Tan#Welcome|Welcome message]] to be able to access it. These links become useless when the talk page is archived, so usually one looks at the edit itself in the page history and links to that. JMBell° 29 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)

<g> No, I'm not filling in for Mel.

It's normal for users to "eavesdrop" on other people's conversations on Wiki. ; ) They do it all the time.... If you ask me, those are the ones who lack attention (not me!) or those who just want to increase their edit count (me!). JMBell° 29 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Thanks, I"ll find time to archive it myself instead. Mr Tan 1 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Coincidences abound, but I'm not quite your twin...

Hello, User:Fabartus. I saw your suggestion to protect some pages User:Fabartus/Policy01 after I saw your request for help on Uncle Ed's talk page. User_talk:Ed_Poor#Invitations He is helping mediate a Schiavo page dispute, and doing good under the circumstances, I think.

I do agree with you on the point of protecting some pages on a limited basis, or as you call it, protection from "unsupervised edits." I think that I had thought of this in the past, and maybe even proposed it. I don't recall, but anyhow, my idea would be to let users on certain high-interest or controversial pages edit only if they register using their true name, get verified, and like post their picture, contact information (name, address, phone number, and email) and profile on their user page. Then, as editors are screened, they can be allowed to edit. If a non-accepted editor wants to contribute, he/she can submit a proposed edit, and it can get looked at, and so on.

Anyhow, the coincidences that were unusual are that, like you, I have training in Biology, Chemistry, Economics, and Electronics. However, I am not into boating or armed forces service, although I would probably enjoy my tour of duty if I were drafted. Also, I don't write science fiction, and if i did, it would not be under a pen name. (But I do like Star Trek, Voyager, The Next Generation, Star Wars, etc. and the Science Channel technology programs).

I figured I'd write, mentioning the strange coincidence, because it is hard to squeeze in that many lines of study. I don't know what your course progression was, but here is what happened to me, and you can comment:

After graduating in 1984 from High School with an academic scholarship, I went to Hillsborough Community College, because it was walking distance from my home in Plant City, Florida. The only majors offered that even remotely interested me were economics, but I was young and didn't like that. I switched to Electronics, which was an interest of mine since childhood (electronics projects and such) and commuted to the Tampa campus, but my grades went down because I was just a kid. I didn't like the commute and went to the Plant City campus again, and my grades went down, losing my scholarship; i was just a kid. Then in 1988, I went to and graduated with a 2-year AS degree from United Electronics Institute, now doing business as Florida Metropolitan College.

I didn't get any good jobs, and then, later, in 1996, when I figured out that I really wanted to study genetics, I went to Florida State University, graduating with honors and a double major, Biological and Chemical Sciences. However, I pursued some various court cases, acting as my own lawyer, and eventually almost won my case to get Terri Schiavo basic medical help, but lost a heartbreaking close call in our state's high court. Nonetheless, I hope to get a job in my field after this case in more or less over.

Well, I sure agree with you that constant monitoring for vandalism is a MAJOR WASTE OF financial and human RESOURCE$$$!@ So, do you think my proposal to register editors and screen them is a good idea? Also, what do you think about the coincidences in courses of study here?--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

[edit] Moved in Second Archive Group

(Some duplication is likely below)

[edit] Port Arthur (refactored from Archive)

Hi. If you mean Russian ships, that were seriously damaged during the very first Japanese night torpedo attack on 8/9 February, they were Tsesarevitch, Retvizan and Pallada only. This information comes from numerous Russian sources. Bayan and Askold were undamaged and used in a battle with on the following day (they were slightly damaged during the battle, but it was not dangerous). The three mentioned ships were repaired by June and took part in the battle of the Yellow Sea (Battle of Shantung), apart from Bayan, which was in a meantime damaged by a mine (by the way, after battle of the Yellow Sea Askold was interned in Shanghai, Diana in Saigon and Nowik was sunk near Sakhalin, so they were not sunk in Port Arthur). Generally, only after battle of the Yellow Sea, Russian ships undamaged stayed in Port Arthur and waited for sinking... Medium artillery was partially dismounted from Russian ships about June, before the battle.

Sources (in Russian):

  • S. Suliga Korabli Russko-Yaponskoy voyny 1904-1905 vol1 (Preview of Russian ships of 1904-05)
  • V. Krestyaninov, C. Molodcov Bronenosnye kreysera tipa Bayan (monographic book on Bayan)
  • V. Krestyaninov, C. Molodcov Kreyser Askold
  • S. Balakin Bronenosec Retvizan

and monographies of other ships (these books are available scanned here [10] and [11])

If you needed info on Russian on Japanese ships, I can help you (I "dug" into this subject a lot, when writing Polish wiki article). Pibwl 28 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

Well, to aclarify your doubts on the Joseon on Tsushima, you may wish to look up [12]. However, from what it is written in wikipedia and the source stated, I believe that "true" Korean control of Tsushima lasted from the Oei Invasion of 1419 to Toyotomi Hideyoshi's attack of Korea in 1592. Tsushima was a dependency according to Homer Hulbert, so Tsushima was also presumed to be under Korean control as well. Got to go. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

See: User Talk:Mr Tan/English <<<--- The Disappearing Subpage Mystery... appended somehow to his talk FrankB 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

That was a lie. Did you read the link I provided you on the above? Tsushima was colonised by Joseon[13], and Korean maps included Tsushima as part of its territory until 1860 (see maps) [14]. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)


All I could say is that; just read the links in the webpages I provided, and the reasons to your "lie" can be found there.

There are a lot more webpages explaining the lie. I can't find very official sources, but I believe Korean news sources "Yonhap", "Donga", "Andongkim" should be acceptable, for the entire population of South Korea reads it daily. If you still could not fully trust me, I could try to find for more sources on the net, and that is what I did (partially) to supply information to wikipedia, somewhat indirectly. Cheers! Mr Tan 3 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

[edit] GEOGRAPHY OF CHINA THREAD

[edit] Are You the Person I Need?

Post to category:Geography of China Hi! I don't know how to add a category, but I started by copying category templates in Sydney Aus., well it's harbor. In any event, I've tagged and categorized three 'Bays of China' All off the 'Bo Hai', which article is in error, and I'll be fixing. (The Bohai Wan (Bay) is the arm of the Bo Hai, an sea. My 'good deed' has backfired in redlinks in the categories! Help! Thus it would be real nice if someone were to add 'Bays of China' for wiki world wide consitency! Thanks User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 29 June 2005 00:14 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Geography_of_China" After seeing Diff from Watchlist:

[edit] Step two or three

  • Hi! I see from watchlist you changed 'category' on BoHai Sea, to physical geology so are you a guru on categories? The Bo Hai is not really a sea, nor a Bay, though the article equates the two, misplacing the real bay, which is indeed part of the Bo Hai... itself a Gulf technically, or so I understand. To make matters even more confusing, I gather 'Hai' is indeed Chinese for 'Sea', making all clear as 'Mud'. <G>
  • So what's your actual expertise — fixing a red link, or a real life geographer? Other?
    • If you are a category guru or geography specialist, that's not the only place that 'invented at need' copycat category was posted that evening, so things should be adjusted, one way or another.
  • I wanted (meant) to get a hold of someone on that issue, and did post a talk page note, as I copied the 'category type', as it were, while trying to straighten (criss-cross) geo-political references, but got diverted in an expansion or three or four during the week.
    • In any case, there needs to be some category consistancy geo-region to geo-region, or so I would argue. Please advise. Thanks!
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

[edit] Onto the Bohai Sea

Hi, I'm no clear on what your question is. Although I added the "Physical geography" category to Bohai Sea, I'm thinking the article doesn't need it after all, because the "Geography of China" category is more precise. category:Geography of China
I am by no means a geography expert. I've just been working on subcategorizing things lately. Maurreen 3 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

reply:

  • The category you replaced: 'Bays of China', should, of course, be a sub-category of 'Geography of China'. I MODELED 'Bays of China' on another 'Bays of _______', category which I'd have to retrace to tell you what '________' was to be certain, but I think it was Australia. Perhaps the sub-category 'Bays of China' is one you should add under 'Geography of China', and revert your original change. Perhaps there is a 'Bays of the Pacific', or 'Bays of the World', but I don't know how to check. I am fairly new to Wiki. Hence, I was hoping you knew for sure which categories and subcategories were supposed to be under the project guidelines, and which were perhaps omitted or overlooked as categories by the people who were working China related things.
  • What I do know for certain, is that there is a 'Bays of _________' category or subcategory, and I happened across it, so modeled 'Bays of China' on it, which gave a red link.
  • To fix the redlink, one could fix the Bays of China by replacing it with 'Geography of China', but that might then be inconsistant with the other 'Bays of _________' I did see. So I was hoping you knew which way it was supposed to work, or at least who to ask. You would know that if someone had asked you to change my original, but not if you changed it when you saw it as a red link (on your own).

Thankyou for your time and answer. I hope that I made the small issue clear. My view is that 'Bays of China' is a proper sub-category of Geography of China, and should be added there; that of course means you should revert your change to the article as well. If not, the other two Bays on BoHai Sea need changed as well. No matter what, at least two changes are needed.

  • Please let me know what you decide and do. Thanks again.
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 3 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)

[edit] And a Nice Resolution

OK, I put the article back in "Bays of China", which I made a full blue-link category.
If you add a category to an article and it appears as a red link, you just need give the category a parent category to make it blue. Hope that's helpful.
A lot of things on Wikipedia have varying degrees of standardization. Cheers. Maurreen 3 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

[edit] China geography categories

I have no expertise about Chinese geography...I hope Maureen has solved your problem. (Yes, the act of putting a category into a parent category turns it from a red link into a blue link...) -- Beland 3 July 2005 09:49 (UTC) of Foo subcats

Ans posted on User Talk:Beland regarding disconnect of edit window with displayed category sub-cats. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

[edit] Article namespace (Ooops)

I moved User/fabartus/scratchpads/Bat of PortArthur (in article namespace) to User:Fabartus/scratchpads/Bat of PortArthur (your user namespace) and deleted the resulting redirect. -- User:Docu

[edit] Re: Lushunkou

You're welcome. Most of my edits are small things like spelling fixes, link disambiguation, etc. So that's why I mark them as minor. Sietse 3 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio image?

I suggest you post a message on WP:AN to ask people with more copyvio experience for their view. I've got no knowledge at all about the articles you suggested to merge, so I'm afraid I won't be much help in that at all. I think asking for input at the village pump or the help desk will gather more interested parties. Sorry for not being more helpful. --Mgm|(talk) July 3, 2005 09:05 (UTC)

[edit] Fabartus's rants

  • "New" names for old, such as Peking into Beijing. Those don't bother me at all. If a country wants to change a city's name, or the "official" transliteration, I have no problems with that. If the Ivory Coast wants to insist that the name Côte d'Ivoire always be used for that country, no matter what the language, I am willing to accommodate them. I'd even go further on this issue than most Wikipedians would probably go and change the main page for Mecca from that name to Makkah al-Mukarramah, and replace the text at Mecca with the text at Mecca (disambiguation).
  • re: your first rant on my Talk page: Perhaps you didn't see my reply on my Talk page—what I did was drastically edited it and added this: "The rest of the non-concise, tedious, rambling, typographically idiosyncratic rant and vote spam has been deleted and ignored. For anyone interested, they can look at the page history." That message probably did a very good job of convincing many Wikipedians to ignore any additional messages from you.
  • I don't know why you had troubles emailing me. I just checked and verified that you could send email to me from my User page.
BlankVerse ∅ 3 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
re:replies: There is no consistent method on the Wikipedia for dealing with replies, except that everybody but Wikipedia newbies bottom-post their message (which is rather interesting because I've never seen any discussion on the Wikipedia on that issue, and top-posting vs. bottom-posting has caused heated debates in a couple of mailing lists that I am subscribed to). There are a few users who have messages at the top of the Talk page that explain how they deal with replies—usually saying that like to keep the dialog all on their Talk page.
For my own method of dealing with replies:
1) There are only few discussions where I want everything in one place. For those, I have usually kept everything on my user page, and then posted a quick "I've replied on my Talk page" message on the other user's Talk page. (or I've replied on the user's Talk page and also copied my reply to my Talk page.)
2) For minor messages where I still would like to see a response, I'll add that person to my Watchlist for a few days, but after 4-5 days with no reply I'll delete them from my Watchlist.
3) For some of my replies, especially if they are very short or a little snarky, and I don't really care if I get a response, I'll be lazy and just add it to my Talk page.
4) One thing I haven't done is worked on anything that required replies from multiple people, or required some sort of coordination. If I ever did, those conversations would probably be put onto a user subpage. 4.232.105.116 3 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
re:RFC's: As far as I've been able to tell, RFC's rarely cause any change in a particular user's behavior on the Wikipedia, so if anyone files an RFC, they should consider it as just the first step in gathering evidence for a Request for arbitration. Where an RFC can occasionally be useful is bringing more eyeballs to a problem, or just in getting a better picture of the different groups of editors involved in different sides of an issue.
The next steps after an RFC, but before an RFAR, should be filing a Request for mediation or contacting someone from the Members' Advocates, but both groups seem pretty ineffectual to me. The Wikipedia is really getting big enough that it needs people who are trained in mediation, and it is probably a good idea to try to recruit students from college mediation programs to help out.
(Sign copied down during refactoring/archive process) ::BlankVerse ∅ 3 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

[edit] 203.26.16.66

Thanks for the idea about contacting the ISP. Right now there doesn't seem to be enough of a problem (the vandal who's using the ISP just seems to be a casual vandal, not one of the hardcore ones) to go through the effort, but it's something to think about if the problem escalated a lot. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

denada- just sensible. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lushunkou

You're welcome. Most of my edits are small things like spelling fixes, link disambiguation, etc. So that's why I mark them as minor. Sietse 3 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving talk pages

In reply to your e-mail, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for the process for archiving pages. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Cheers as well :) what can I say, edit wars are bad for your health. WP:RFC sometimes helps. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:40 (UTC)

[edit] Military Article(0)User:Neonumbers

You're right, I am from New Zealand, though I know little about the military.

A comprehensive list of militaries should be at List of militaries (or somethign of the like) if that page doesn't already exist, and looking at Category:Militaries, I wonder if the section "Specific militaries" should be on that page at all. Perhaps, make List of militaries and link to it from a see also section on Military, and remove that specific militaries section altogether? (With that, I've decided not to add New Zealand to that list at the bottom of that page; I don't mean to be a pain, but I don't think it's the best path from here.)

The military article is a bit short for its nature, don't you think? To be honest, I don't know anything about military and I'm not interested in the military either. For avenues to other countries, you could try the lists of wikipedians by country (if you haven't already). Neonumbers 2 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the input on Military, yes, it is short, and was just taken off stub status when 'I happened by', so to speak and added about a third of it. Just thought to give it some attention when I ran across someone who might add five minutes text. I concur that the content on the bottom will in the long run have to (or at least should probably be) eventually split out into it's own article space, but for the nonce, until that section grows long, I see no pressing need. Is there one? I'm still pretty new and green here.
  • If you have no problem, I'll post your comments on the talk page, with my concurrence... someone will eventually come along with time and talent to do it, once it's big enough. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

[edit] Military Article(1)User:MacGyverMagic

You've requested my input on this article a while back. I'm sorry to say I know next to nothing about the subject and my ability to research it is nearly non-existent as well. I suggest you ask someone else. Maybe User:Radiant!? - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Lists, I think (but am not sure) are generally avoided in the middle of articles. This list on this page will get really long if your goal is achieved (see Category:Militaries) so should go on its own page. To be honest, I think a list of the length it is now is too much for this page - even if it were a "See also" list, it wouldn't really be what one would expect in a "see also" list (though "List of militaries" would be).
Relevant pages are Wikipedia:List, Wikipedia:Lists (embedded lists) and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Hope this helps. Neonumbers 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
    • Thanks Neonumbers/Mgm. This isn't something I think of as my project, I was just doing a fly-by edit. Agree with the length of list issue, but one's got to be built somewhere, and the stub nature of this article gives one reason to visit, and context to add to the list. FrankB 6 July

[edit] Military Article(2)

You may wish to know that I added to this article, particularly in the See Also section AlMac 5 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

[edit] Bots and talk page

Finlay McWalter answered your question on my talk page. And just so you know. I just started using a bot myself and I'm nowhere near a wiz in that field. If you want to talk to someone about bots AllyUnion is your best bet. - Mgm|(talk) July 5, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Yuko (Hi)

The Japanese version of the Tsushima Yuko page says her first book was published when she was 24 so I have erased the date and left her age. I think that fixes it. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. I also voted on the Tsushima Island(s) Talk page. I voted 'Tsushima Island' or 'Tsushima (island)'. In either case, singular.

[edit] TanUser:Nichalp

Just noticed that you seemed to have a long conversation going on with Mr Tan. Might I suggest that you use your good books with him and convince him to remove the en-N tag he has on his user page? It might lead to some unpleasant comments towards him. Might I suggest you archive this page periodically? It takes up less Bandwidth. User:Nichalp/sg July 4, 2005 19:24 (UTC) From Nick's Talk Archives: re: Your request to persuade MT on something:

  • Yes-wearily, to some small effect, albeit less than we hoped. Sigh. Have been trying to 'get a brief' or directions (link) to how to archieve properly (preserve talk + history side by side) for 4-5 days, but the 'West' has hit summer vacation season (and a United States Big Holiday Weekend) have apparently interfered with my normal sources getting back to me, so would be delighted if your can give me the link or instruction.
  • But don't comprehend this "...remove the en-N tag he has on his user page?" Sol you need to use less shorthand. Feel free to email, instead cluttering talk pages with 'How To'. The only difference I see is the link is now red that was an email discussion of some of the more confusing English language constructs (i.e. Humor, much based in paradoxical useages on idioms.) that I'd created a page to hold on it's own for him to puruse and mull over, and comprehend 'idiomatic english' better, even if he wouldn't 'appreciate' some of the humor— I'll forward to you by email later when I go up to the office, I'm enjoying a late sunny afternoon near the pool on a lattop right now. (Cancel that- it's now somehow imbedded in and part of his main talk page. Just above the note I just closed to him.)
  • (Since I've got your attention)... Please take a look (as a railroad buff) at Manchurian Railway, Chinese Far East Railway, and South Manchurian Railway and advise me whether the merge on the first two seems advisable to you. I'm having second thoughts, as 'Historic Names' strike me as having a place of their own in article space when they don't map directly 'onto' deriviative entities. I'll be glad to elaborate on that if it's not clear. JYollkowski has me convinced I should write an RfC for the Village Pump on the general issue, so that will be forthcoming. The 'gist' (heart) can be seen on my antimerge comments in Talk:Tsushima Strait#Nomination to Merge. Bottom line, when someone is reading a history and wants to check a fact or garner more background, Wikiarticles need to maintain compatibility with long in print references. Thanks FrankB
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 4 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

[edit] New Test=

  • This has been reverted to after 13:xx hrs version BEFORE the edit (myself) problem occured |Fra||nkB
  • Ok- refactored, but is it now complete? FrankB 6 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

[edit] Testing

I don't see any probs with the test! User:Nichalp/sg July 7, 2005 07:29 (UTC) From Nick's Archive10 page:

Above link updated while updating my archive by stealing this post! <G> FrankB 18:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr.TanUser_talk:Radiant(1)

Well, there seems to be a lengthy RFC about him, which already has at least one admin (Mel Etitis) involved. I'd suggest you ask him what to do; if the RFC isn't working it's possible to take the matter to the ArbCom (WP:RFAr). Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 11:08 (UTC)


[edit] Democratic Peace TheoryUser:Neuroscientist

Hello. Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I simply do not have the time to be involved in more than the handful of projects I work on now. I looked at the Talk page to see if it was perhaps a relatively straightforward issue I could make a quick contribution to, but it's an involved dispute that will take too much time if I'm to contribute meaningfully. Thank you for asking anyway. Regards,~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 18:04 (UTC)

[edit] DPT (again)_User:Pmanderson-[aka:Septentrionalis]]

Thank you; the versions are mentioned on the Talk page under the section Which Version, and should still be current. Since the fundamental cause of difference is the order of the whole article after the section=head Criticisms, the diff is not likely to be particularly informative, I regret to say. Try reading each version separately, and see which is clear (if either, he said modestly).

My most recent version is this one which is also [http: //tinyurl.com/c6wl5 here], in tinyurl. NOTE: TINY.URL

I see WHEELER is also back, if you have encountered him

This appears to be right.

Septentrionalis 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

[edit] Tsushima Islands

Hey, thanks for the note on my talk page. :) Honestly, though, I have no opinion on the name of the article. I simply used the plural where I did because the article is currently named with "islands" rather than "island." Actually, I'm off to make sure I got all of those verbs in the same conjugation there.... XD --Jen Moakler 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

By the way, do you think I ought to leave the copyedit notice up, then, until the name of the article is decided? --Jen Moakler

[edit] Manchurian Railway "Vote"

L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!
-Frederick the Great

--Jpbrenna 8 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons flight

See: User_talk:Dragons_flight#Naming_Inspiration Dragons flight July 9, 2005 00:00 (UTC)

[edit] Mr_Tan_by_adiant

Yes, I know you asked me earlier, but I'm afraid I got confused by your lengthy wording. Okay, so there's an RFC already, sorry that I forgot about that (busy week). If this turns out to be not working, especially if the subject is being hostile (e.g. personal attacks), it would be a logical step to take the matter to the ArbCom. The question, really, is whether Mr Tan has repeatedly broken any rules after being warned; the most common violations in this case being edit warring, personal attacks, frivolous accusations, ignoring consensus, assuming bad faith, not responding to talk pages and adding inappropriate items to articles.

So what you should try is if you can explain, cleanly and concisely, and with evidence, if the user has been seriously disruptive to the project, as indicated above. Explain it to me first, if you want; pointing to a lengthy talk page and asking people to read thru it is not really going to work. If this turns out to be not possible, the answer would be that Mr Tan is one of those users that are annoying to some people, but nevertheless good contributors - and my advice would be to bear with it, discuss, or ignore and go to some other article. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 06:30 (UTC)