User talk:Fabartus/Scratchpad01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The contents below were causing weird errors on my browser 6 July 05, They would either bounce me badk to my default brower window

  1. If I edited and hit 'preview' (loosing the edit)
  2. or do the same thing, but wouldn't let me edit in whole page mode...
  3. These varied as I and others tacked bottom edits on the page... a byte count syndrom?
  4. I'm going to save this edit w/o preview, as that works... though is not a mode I usually use.
  5. Then I'll re-edit,and test if preview is still failing (here— the original problem was in my talk page. FrankB 6 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
  6. reediting creates a crash too.
  7. Then I came in from another browser page, via my scratchpad shortcut under my todo list, and that worked fine in that it let me start scrolling down with my mousewheel, but suddenly I heard a click and it aborted that page as well.
Got me baffled! FrankB 6 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)
>>>>>> Please click here to leave me a new message. <<<<<<


Previous Talk Pages:
/Archive01 - /Archive02


Todays Humor {Five Jewish men influenced the history of Western civilization.

  • Moses said the law is everything.
  • Jesus said love is everything.
  • Marx said capital is everything.
  • Freud said sex is everything.
  • Einstein said everything is relative
... But whose realative was he? :)}

Contents

[edit] Your questions

Well, to aclarify your doubts on the Joseon on Tsushima, you may wish to look up [1]. 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

That was a lie. Did you read the link I provided you on the above? Tsushima was colonised by Joseon[2], and Korean maps included Tsushima as part of its territory until 1860 (see maps) [3]. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

  • Reply histalk LOL, no, don't read Korean... FrankB

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] Military

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] 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:

  • 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] 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)
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] Article namespace

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

  • 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.

[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)

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] 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] 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

  • 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.

[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)

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] 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] 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, The Article(1)

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, The 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] Tan

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)

[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)

  • Roger, Thanks FrankB

[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] Port Arthur (refactored)

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 [4] and [5])

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)