User talk:Umofomia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

This archive consists of older conversations I've had with other users (including those that appear on their talk pages) from February 2005 to March 2005. Entries are ordered by the date of the last comment.


Contents

Cangjie

Posted on User talk:Stevertigo 00:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 04:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rime and final

Posted on User talk:Chamaeleon 23:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Posted on User talk:Felix Wan 05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk to Umofomia

Thanks for working on this bit with me. I highly regard anyone willing to step in and make necessary changes, rather than merely sit on the talk page and grouse. It's a big world, I don't think I know everything, and I respect your contributions. Xiong 18:55, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Thanks

Posted on User talk:CesarB 01:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pinyin

Thanks for making me aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles). Re [1]: Is there a difference between wényán and wényán? Am I really only the third person who talked to you even though you have been so prolific? Sebastian 01:41, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:SebastianHelm 07:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Replied again 08:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement! I'll do that! Sebastian 19:55, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Verb serializing

Hi, thanks for expanding Serial verb construction — the Chinese example is nice! I've always been wondering if it wouldn't be better to call the article Verb serializing or just plain Serial verb. What do you think? Regards, — mark ✎ 10:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Mark Dingemanse 10:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey I very much like your way of linking to your reply and to my question (though my own practice is to keep the conversation in one place). Haven't seen it before; might consider trying it myself.
Anyway, thanks for your quick answer. Your suggestion of 'Verb serialization' is better, I think — to my ears, it sounds more general. Shall I move it?
PS I like your contributions in the area of linguistics. It's good to have more linguists around, especially because much of our linguistic articles need serious work... — mark ✎ 10:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Replied 10:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree; and in any case, different terms are precisely what redirects are for. So I made some redirects. Incidentally, in African linguistics, 'serial verb construction' is also the most common term (which is why I created it under that title). Thanks for your thoughts! — mark ✎ 11:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Transport in Hong Kong

Post on User talk:Instantnood by 84denniswong 05:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Instantnood 05:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I guess to a certain extent British spellings are still prevalent in Hong Kong. If you take a quick glance at category:Transportation by country you can tell most countries using Commonwealth English have their categories titled "Transport in" rather than "Transportation in". The manual of style and manual of style (spelling) do not govern which spelling should be preferred, but they do according to where the content is about.
The reason why most countries are titled "Transportation in" was because nearly all of these categories were created by a bot. The article "Transport in Hong Kong" is already titled in that way, and I guess the same should be done to its corresponding category. — Instantnood 08:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your vote is needed!

Hello Umofomia. Despite the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) over the use of the terms "mainland China" and "People's Republic of China", SchmuckyTheCat and Huaiwei have listed category:Cities in mainland China, category:Companies of mainland China and category:Laws of mainland China onto Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.

Your vote is now essential and vital for the survival of these categories, and to avoid attempts to bar the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) from truly enforced. — Instantnood 20:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Update: there's also a poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 01:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Instantnood 09:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:-D — Instantnood 13:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Corrected 09:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's not my real name anyways. :-) Don't forget to cast your vote at WP:CFD by the way, and please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 16:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello Umofomia. I've got listed onto requests for arbitration by SchmuckyTheCat. Could you have a look? Thanks. — Instantnood 04:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't start a Revert War!

After our nice talk (above and on my talk page) I studied Manual of Style (China-related articles) and found it impenetrable for anybody who hasn't participated in the discussions before. As usual, when I find a page incomprehensible, I fixed the problem, which took me about an hour. You reverted it with the remark:

don't do that... this is a talk page, and topics are presented chronological order with the latest topics at the end, otherwise you will have confusion as to where the latest posts are

I am very disappointed, because you and I just proved that we can solve discrepancies with reasonable, respectful discussion. I find your reversion and the remark out of place for the following reasons:

  1. The main objective of a talk page should not be to inform about where the latest posts are, but to inform about:
    • Which decisions were made and
    • Why were they made;
    • Whic issues remain.
  2. The page was not in chronological order to begin with. It contained lots of text that was inserted into people's comments.
  3. Unchronological text is not a problem. It is in fact common standard that talk pages contain inserted text.
  4. As you probably know, there are already several ways in place to find out the sequence of contributions: History and dated signatures.

If you feel it is important to preserve the old structure for historical reasons then the sensible thing to do would have been to archive it. Revert wars are for vandals! Please therefore return the page to my last revision. Sebastian 01:23, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:SebastianHelm 01:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reply by SebastianHelm 02:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice reply! No hard feelings remaining! I replied directly under your reply, but I only now realized that you may not have been watching it. Please take a look at my reply. How about if we consolidate the thread on your or my talk page? — Sebastian 21:50, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
Replied 07:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)