User talk:SchmuckyTheCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

At least 100 years ago I archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! I'll keep doing it, over and over, as hard as I can.

I award you The Purple Star for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. I thank you for defending Wikipedia against sockpuppets and other vandals. Let's hope future Purple Hearts won't be necessary. - Jeffpw

		Defender of the Wiki
		I award SchmuckyTheCat the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for his fearless, persistent determination in upholding the light of knowledge in the face of overwhelming darkness and ignorance. —Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help in making a new page

Hi.
I found an interesting person in artificial intelligence community.
Mentifex is his name.
There are many people that want to know who is him.
Also there are some articles wrote about him some that look like a biography.
I think he should have a page on Wikipedia but I dont know how to make this page and maybe you want to help.
here are some links: [1] or [2]
I think he should have an article not because what he is doing is true but because the whole phenomenon is interesting - he is fighting for his ideas even when he becomes ridiculous.
He might very well become a reference for such individuals.
Also I dont know what are the rules about making pages about people so it might not be allowed to be done... Raffethefirst (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

When the subject becomes the subject of many reliable sources then Wikipedia will write about him. That does not currently appear to be the case. this tells me everything I need to know. If he gets an article on Wikipedia, it is not likely to be because of his ideas on artificial intelligence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] ED DRV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_6#Encyclopedia_Dramatica

can you please weigh in on this, and get people you know to as well? --Truthseeq (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians by religion

We've been through this before, but I thought I would give you a courtesy request for you to remove this category from your userpage once again before I open up a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) about the acceptability of this, as the previous discussion didn't result in any difinitive answer. VegaDark (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hyacinth/User_categories#Proposal_A:_Collaborative_statement_requirement That sure looks like a lot of opposition to the basic arguments used at UCFD. Two years worth of discussion has failed to get even a guideline for user categories, eh? And you're threatening to get more cop-like? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Hello

I think the article must adhere to its sources, none of which refers to "Republic of China". "Taiwan Province of China" is used on its sources.Please check the source: [Gross domestic product, current prices]. Thank you!

[edit] Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me

Dear Schmucky,
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected.

Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:-

STUDIES OF THE ACTIVITY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES

       constituents on enzymatic

KEY: BT = Biomedical Therapy

BM = Biologische Medizin

FKM = Forschung Komplementär Medizin

Ramaanand (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé

[edit] Schmucky, do you drink beer?

...and do you live anywhere near the U District? You really must come out and share a pitcher with me some day. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I drink, but not beer. I'm up in Greenwood. Shoot e-mail. I think you sent me one recently that ended up getting spam-canned... try again. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] "China is a country"

Hi, I'm attempting a re-write of the opening of China to resolve the definitional issue that has plagued the article. I noticed that you commented previously on the issue. I've opened a straw poll to gauge whether consensus is to define "China is a country". Could I ask you to comment/vote at Talk:China#Straw poll? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about China's map

The new maps is NPOV now, just like the old maps. I don't see any significant differences between the current version of the new one and the old ones. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No requirements?

In other words, there are no minimum requirements of each subdivision? jlog3000 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Beijing

Hey SchmuckyTheCat! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently or in several times in the past and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious fella

You might wish to help track User:Burgerist for the same old reasons, although this one may be less obvious. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood

Guys, isn't this user BANNED? Strange thing is... why is he still editing articles (Special:Contributions/Instantnood) on wikipedia? --Dave1185 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are from 2007. Is your clock right? If you suspect a current IP or user is a sock, I'll take a look. He comes back now and again with new accounts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Oh boy...I have been online for far too long that I think I need to get my eyes checked now. My bad, sorry for the blunder, going to catch some Zzz soon. Nighty night and smile! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Deletion review of User:SchmuckyTheCat/List of borderless countries

Just to inform you, User:Testaa (who didn't inform you) has opened a deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 25) concerning this page and its previous location at List of borderless countries. As the user has not clarified exactly why this should be subject to review (I made some guesses at the DRV page, which you can read there), the process would benefit from having your comments, and especially any clarification of the issue here. Thanks — Gavia immer (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong FAR

Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Joowwww (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkle

Thanks for recommending twinkle, it has been very useful in issuing warnings and such. Sam Barsoom 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Politics of the Republic of China sidebar

Template:Politics of the Republic of China sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jerrch 16:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Request - SchmuckyTheCat - re: Mighty_leaf_tea removal

Hello,

Not sure how else to reach you so I am posting my question here.

Yesterday you removed Mighty_leaf_tea - I placed a talk comment but received no feedback - our position was that the article did conform to the notability standards in that it referenced a valid (new york times) 2nd party article (we planned to add more) - and that it seemed consistent with other US tea companies found under the teas article.

To put it another way - List_of_tea_companies is a list of tea companies, and Mighty Leaf Tea is appropriately on this list - if it were to be deleted then should not all the others be removed?

Can you help us to understand specifically why it was deleted and what we can do to rewrite to make this acceptable to you?

Thank you,

Nedvansise (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)NedvanSise

Wikipedia is not an advertising service and new articles about companies need to meet high standards of "notability" (a term I dislike, fwiw, but click the link to understand it) or the new article is likely to be deleted. You will want to have several different sources (not one) to meet the requirement.

Lists of companies, like the one for tea, need to be regularly looked at to remove entries that are only there for advertising. It's nothing against you or your company.

You don't need to make anything acceptable to me. I'm not an administrator. I can put a notice on an article that it might not meet our criteria (which someone will do, almost guaranteed, for all new articles) but that criteria needs to be reviewed and the delete decision has to be made by someone else.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi Scmucky,

Thank you for this. We received a message from Stifle suggesting that the issue was criterion 7 (Author request remove) - Mighty Leaf Tea themselves direct us to add this to Wikipedia, so the only other author I could think of was the reference to the New York Times article - which does not seem likely - we will follow up with Stifle and per your suggestion create more than one reference. Thank you for your time on this.

Nedvansise (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)NedvanSise

Being hired to write the article on Wikipedia is a conflict of interest. Be very careful that you write neutrally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] 98110

The zip 98110 is listed in the list of Seattle zips, but it is the zip for Bainbridge Island in Kitsap County. Doesn't seem right to list it for Seattle, but maybe I'm missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Morris (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

USPS says it is a zip code for both Bainbridge and Seattle. They don't show a map. None of the internet zip code maps show it as belonging to Seattle, but it is possible the zip code belongs to water and USPS doesn't care that no postal addresses will use it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Re: Peter zhou

I just had a quick CU report done on two we were discussing about, and there aren't two sockmasters, just the one. nat.utoronto 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI`

I think you would be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Re: Peter zhou's_Socks, China, and Names of China. Cheers, nat.utoronto 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closing Merger Discussions Prematurely

Why are you so intent on closing the discussion when you are so involved with it? I believe that with your COI, you should not have done that. Re-open the discussion please, or I will. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it was to discuss the move. The move was closed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Nanjing as the ROC capital?

Thanks for your comment. But would you please let me know of a (written) source where 1931 Constituion ceased to be a source of law? You explained that laws enacted under it are still valid unless repealed earlier, but it really doesn't make sense to me why those laws would still be valid if the source isn't. It is clear though the 1946 Constitution did not repeal the 1931 section where Nanjing was set as the capital so according to basic legal principle, that section would still be valid unless otherwise repealed. It makes no legal sense to me when the 1946 Constition was silent on this issue (therefore not repealing the relevant 1931 Section), Nanjing's status as the capital would suddenly disappear. If that's the case, ROC would no longer have a capital after the 1946 Constitution? We know in practice, the ROC government still operated in Nanjing for as long as they could after the Constitution until the Communists were about to take the city during the Chinese Civil War.

Even if the 1931 Constitution ceased to be a source of law (which I am high doubtful of), presumably there would have been legislation enacted after the 1931 Constitution that gave effect to Nanjing as the capital. Right now I can think of all those laws setting out government organisations as well as Nanjing city planning (called the Plan for the Capital "首都計劃"). If you were right earlier, then these laws would still indectly make Nanjing the de jure capital, as the 1946 Constition was silent on the capital issue.

Also, as you might be aware, current textbooks in Taiwanese schools are still saying that Nanjing is the capital of the ROC, but due to administrative intervention by the Ministery of Education, either Taipei or Nanjing would be accepted as the correct answer for a ROC capitl question in school tests. But, this administrative intervention does not affect Nanjing's legal status. There has never been any announcements made by the Executive Yuan that the capital was moved from Nanjing to Taipei. Here is a Chinese article on this issue. http://www.ettoday.com/2002/03/29/304-1282810.htm

I await a written source confirming your view. --Pyl (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Constitution documents are singular founding documents. Only one exists at a time. The 1946 Constitution supercedes, in its entirety, the 1931 Constitution. The 1931 Constitution itself was entitled as "Provisional Constitution for the Period of Political Tutelage". As its core, it make the assumption that the people of China were not educated enough for self-determining decisions in government (political tutelage) thus it was designed as a temporary charter (provisional). This exactly followed the "Three Stages of Revolution" envisioned by Sun Yat-sen. It was also hoped to have a unified (with the CCP) government but the provisional constitution recognized it was not yet the case. Sun Yat-sen hoped the "political tutelage" period would end in three years, the KMT leadership hoped it would take six, but it took 15 years to finally draft the permanent constitution. The Constitution expired with the end of the period of "political tutelage" in 1947.

If you want some written sources that specifically state that the 1946/7 Constitution supercedes the 1931, try the writings of Jianfu Chen or Tay-sheng Wang. These are law professors, not tabloid journalists. The first wrote, "A permanent constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of China was only adopted after the war, on 25 December 1946, which formally terminated the period of political tutelage in China."

Article 171 of the current constitution defines "why those laws would still be valid if the source isn't." Obviously, the ROC had a large body of existing law by 1947. The source of law changed, from the 1931 constitution to the 1946/7 constitution, but unless the laws were in conflict, they still had effect. Article 171 functions as a severability clause, while article 170 functions as a weak supremacy clause.

I don't know if other statutes exist that call Nanjing the capital, or if they are still valid. I don't think planning documents would suffice, in a civil law system, new statutes often conflict or overlap with old statutes. The newer ones would be interpreted as more valid and everyone would move right along. Certainly the newest statutes and ordinances are referring to Taipei.

I don't think there is a "de jure" capital for the ROC. I don't think there will be any cite "ad jure" to state it as fact. That is my objection for writing about it on Wikipedia. The answer to the question "what is the capital of the Republic of China?" ends up being a statement of politics, not an issue of law. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] thanks for the image

Hi, thanks for thinking of the Guy Fawkes image for the template. I would have never thought of it myself :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle meetup 5

Hi SchmuckyTheCat, I see that you've attended the previous Seattle meetup. I hope that you can make it to the next one on June 19! Bestchai (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .zub deletion

Hey dude,

I was trying to get the .zub explanation on this, but I guess you already deleted it. I'll gather up evidence on it cause its a company that has the software which is revolutionizing the way people read magazines, the hard paper copy is long gone. I was going to put up the "hangon" sign but I'll get it recreated with more evidence from the news agencies here (translated from Chinese) Michaelssg (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taipei or Seattle?

Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle5. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Taipei... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)