User talk:Currentlybiscuit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

about editing shivam_parikh

Hi, I edited this article, because its all disappointing, its a personal info about a person who ends up being a web hosting reseller and a student, i saw this wikipedia link on his personal website and was disappointed, to see this. seems wikipedia is going hopeless in hands of editors like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.96.152 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry, I accidentally clicked rollback on my watchlist and reverted your edit. I've reverted my revert. -kotra (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope Academy of Bishkek

Hi --- given the IP's edit summary, it might not be simple vandalism—maybe we should be cautious before reinserting the content? Kyrgyzstan does have strict laws regarding religious organisations [1]. Anyway see Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Hope Academy of Bishkek. Cheers, cab (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've answered on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Hope_Academy_of_Bishkek. Laurent (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

San Jose Sharks citations

Why did you delete all my citations? You even replaced one of my citations with a "cite needed" tag!--76.200.102.245 (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I didn't even realize I reverted your changes! I guess I've hit the "undo" button on Huggle on one page, and it somehow got applied to the wrong page. Laurent (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Stuff happens. Play on.  ;) --76.200.102.245 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I show you the E-mail.You don't believe me. My references recognised by others in the Chinese wikipedia are deleted. You can't understand Chinese very well so that you don't know the meaning of the E-mail. And you don't let others who can understand Chinese see my references. What do you want? You can't take wikipedia as your possession.Huang Sir (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My Chinese is very limited but that's not the problem. The problem is that an email is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's criteria. As Wikipedia:Reliable says, "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So let me ask you a question: who published this email? You. Are you a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking? NO. On the other hand, you keep removing references to The Times and the CIA Factbook, which clearly are reliable sources. This is actually quite simple to understand, and I can only suggest you to read Wikipedia's policies, especially for an article as controversial as the Republic of China. Laurent (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't use information from CIA. Because America, UK, and most of the countries in the world don't accept the existence of R.O.C. .They just think there is a government in the territory. You don't understand why some people think me is right. It's not a question who publishes the file. It seems that I have some political problems. Then, I send an E-mail to the premier for the fact. The Premier ask a department named Ministry of the Interior to solve it. Then, they give me the answer. It is very a administerial system to respond to residents and to solve their problems. You see? A system, I ask questions. And the government solves it. However, you can refer to the Chinese wikipedia. And you will find that the capital is Nanking. Many people, even many of whom comes from Taiwan province including administrators, agree with me. Why? Do you think they are crazy? forced? No. Not only is it an E-mail, but a file from government with a number, [010-98010307]. They believe me, believe the file. If you have any question, you can call the number 02-23565281, the phone number of the department. finally, please change the article to the last edition edited by me.Huang Sir (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese and probably many other Wikipedias and encyclopedias put the capital as Taipei. The Chinese Wikipedia is an exception and we all know why. But actually it doesn't matter since neither a Wikipedia nor an email are acceptable sources. Regards, Laurent (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my God. The Wikipedias you mentioned are all translated by robot from Chinese Wikipedias. For example," (当前) (先前) 2009年4月6日 (一) 15:20 ArthurBot (对话 | 贡献) 小 (116,841字节) (機器人 新增: frp:Rèpublica de Ch·ina) (撤销)"(http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B&offset=20090417071036&action=history). And before I asked the government, the capital is Taipei. I just confirmed the information. Then, I found it wrong. Huang Sir (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Change! Huang Sir (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question. Where are you come from ？ France ? You aren't native speaker and Chinese is very limited. I can't understand who you are.Huang Sir (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm French but have some family from Taiwan, which is why I'm interested in improving the Republic of China article. By the way, I've also sent an email (in english) to the GIO and Ministry of Interior of the ROC to see if they can help us provide reliable sources for the article. Laurent (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Although we argued with each other, I thank you for your trust. You didn't say it is fake at least. I think if you send it in a right way, you will got the answer in one week.( I sent the email in 7th April and got the answer in 13th April.) To help you, give you some tips. Here is the web, http://www.gov.tw/connect.htm , then you see "想將意見反映給行政院院長" which means you will turn to the Premier for help. Then, You will see there is a link below, http://www.ey.gov.tw/sp.asp?xdURL=mail/mail.asp&ctNode=99&mp=1 . Click . You can go to the Premier's E_mail Correspondence Group via it. Let's go ahead. Okay, you can see words " Excutive Yuan ". Please pay attention to the " Yuan " here. It's not a person's first name but "院" which means department in Chinese. "行政院"(Excutive Yuan) means a place where a premier work. Then, you can see many blanks which you will fill information in. "姓名：" your name. Then I think you can distinguish male between female. And I think you understad what you should fill in "E-Mail：" ( your email ) "建言分類："(Your problem or suggestion belongs to a certain field.) I think you should choose "政治" which means " political ". Oh, we have seen the biggest blank. Now, you can write down your problem here. Then, click " 寄出 " which means to submit or to send. Good job! You will receive the Premier's E-Mail Correspondence Group Confirmation Mail in seconds or minutes. You will see "Please click the web site above to confirm your e-mail to the Premier. " and the web site mentioned, "http://eyemail.gio.gov.tw:9100/cgi-bin/show_re_mail?msgid=668125&check=hyocean1989 "<---It's mine.And what's yours? After you confirmed, just wait for the answer. And you will hear from the Premier in several days. If you have accomplished all the steps, I will say well done. If not, you didn't send the mail in a right way and will not get the answer. Do you understand? If you have any question, you can turn to me for help.Huang Sir (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and it's true I wouldn't say the email if fake. However others may say so, that's why it's better to find some official document about it. There are also all sorts of issues with using emails as mentioned in the discussion started by Readin. I've actually sent the email last Friday so I should probably receive an answer in about 3-4 days. Let's see how it goes. If I don't receive anything, I'll try again following your suggestions. Laurent (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure that after you sent the mail and confirmed it, they would give you a link and a code for you to trace the process of your inquiry. Such as, "The handling code for your letter is: 010-98010307, and you may directly select the following hyperlink to trace the process of your inquiry.http://service.moi.gov.tw/ecss/bin/ite002q3.asp?IstrMid=010%2D98010307&IstrNMCID1=hyocean1989&IstrNMCID2=aolchina.com"<-- It's mine. If you don't have these, I think you should do it again at once following my suggestions. Huang Sir (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I am sorry, but why did you consider my edit to Elisabeth Helene von Vieregg to be wrong? I simply added a category. Why was that wrong? --85.226.42.150 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was a mistake and I have reverted my changes. Laurent (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, only a mistake then, that's fine. --85.226.42.150 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop editing my edit

We have to decide whether there should be sorted after metropolitan area or city. I have edited it to city, because all cities on the list doesnt have metropolitan areas. I have used wikipedia's numbers to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.145.44 (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello, I'm the mediator of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Republic_of_China, which you requested - Please further your statement - detailing the particular problems in more detail and other parties which are involved in this case on the case's discussion page.

Thank you Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for opening our case. I'm going to provide some more details and list the contributors involved. Laurent (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your insight on the merging of the Taiwan and ROC pages. I started the discussion in the first place for the very reason you stated (that is is very confusing to have both Taiwan and ROC). It seems that people who usually engage in these "conversations" are usually one sided, so it is refreshing to be able to find someone that sees it from a more logical perspective. The alliance (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I agree with your idea of a merge, and it's true it's hard to get a neutral discussion on the topic. As much as one is willing to assume good faith, there are often inevitable conflict of interests when it comes to Taiwan and the ROC. Still worth trying to discuss a merge though, and I'm actually going to detail a bit my answer on the talk page to try to get the discussion going. Laurent (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The comments made of B-Unqiue are constructive, they really don't have any talent of their label and was informing people of what they did to the most promising band they ever had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.26.134 (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

SSM2007 Any reason for undoing my changes?

Hello Sir,

I had something to correct and add to the facts that were misleading and left wanting.

The changes were not even extensive and were properly formulated - but were important enough because they corrected and completed the information which was lacking and as such, misleading. Yet, all you did was "undo" everything to the status it was before, without even challenging them. Even worse, you did that while I was still online - THAT was also RUDE behavior, Sir! You literally slammed the door in my face and kicked me in the butt! THANK YOU for that!

Why should ANYBODY want to contribute to ANY article if that is the attitude of the Wikipedia staff?

This action was NOT in the spirit of WP, and censorship of facts and blunt removal of reasonable and true corrections is not the way WP should be managed. But maybe I am wrong. Isn't Wikipedia all about making correct statements and facts about a subject? Maybe WP has changed since last I looked at it for FACTS and COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE.

Regards, Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.12.220 (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry about that! I am sure I have never reverted your changes - which are indeed legitimate and useful - however my name indeed appear in the history. I assume that I've reverted one change to a different article with Wikipedia:Huggle but it somehow got applied to your article. Apologies for my mistake, and I have of course restored your changes. Regards, Laurent (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

B-Unique

My comments regarding B-Unique were entriely factual, I only explained what they had done to the brilliant Pull Tiger Tail, and to say the bands they have on their label are devoid of any talent is definately factual, and not opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.26.134 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if what you say is true, I would suggest to rewrite your paragraph in a more neutral way and, more importantly, provide reliable sources for your claims. This is particularly important since you are making negative comments on the label (which is ok as long you provide sources). As you may now your changes are still available in the article's history: [2]. Regards, Laurent (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Replacement, not advertising

This is replacement, not advertising. I replace one university site with partial Pokorny with another university site with full Pokorny. 83.11.48.86 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous source seems much more comprehensive though. In the link you've provided, the reader would need to download an executable to view the lexicon, whereas in the utexas.edu link they have direct access to it. I'd suggest to simply add your link to the list rather than deleting the previous ones. Regards, Laurent (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I already downloaded these StarLing executables and after installing I saw that there is possiblility of printing of really full German Pokorny text to RTF from inside StarLing program, while utexas.edu contains only minimalistic excerpts from Pokorny. 83.11.48.86 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Julia havey article

Julia havey article, explain what is self-published about the sources noted,or the books?St. Martin's Press? not owned by Havey

A self published is a blog, a forum, a wiki, etc. and are usually not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please have a look at WP:SPS for more information. Laurent (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

you deleted Oprah.com references and cbn.com showing that the author has been on Oprah & Friends XM w/ Dr. Oz, and writes for CBN.com, that referenc is not to cite an article she writes but source that she is their weight loss coach. editor Rhode Island Red has for 5 years made it his purpose to negatively portray Juice Plus and any and all who edit contrary to his will. Julia Havey edited the Juice Plus article and since then, he has repeatedly edited the wiki article about her trying to discredit her, removing valid and factual references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.53.34 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you're right that the references you put in this article are valid, since the person writing the blog is notable. Did you put the ref back? If not, let me know and I'll restore your contents. Cheers, Laurent (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I did, but would you kindly put that article on your watch list and keep an eye out for the editor Rhode Island Red, he/she goes to great lengths to destroy Julia Havey article and make her look like a non-expert, even took out calling her husband "Dr." because he said it was "ambiguous" title, the man is a chiropractor, is legally and technically called "Dr." as he has a Doctor of Chiropractic--but saying that she is married to a doctor apparently doesn't sit well with Red. It's ridiculous how this editor goes unchecked at Wikipedia, it gives the site a black eye in our opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.53.34 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

please look at what Rhode Island Red did to the Julia Havey article? Completly removed all prior edits and content. Is this going to be allowed to stand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.232.236 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know anything about Julia Havey - I've only stumbled upon the article while using Huggle. You should discuss the changes directly with Rhode Island Red - most likely he made these changes for a good reason. Laurent (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Please be careful when using rollback/Huggle. These tools are for reverting obvious vandalism only. This edit, for example doesn't fall into that category. Take particular care when dealing with IP addresses used by multiple users - e.g. educational institutes. One user may be busy vandalising while another is improving Wikipedia. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In this particular edit, I thought some contents had been deleted, since I didn't notice that s/he copied back the text at the bottom of the article. However, I reckon I've done a few mistakes today so will be more careful from now on. Laurent (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for fixing up the vandalism on the tech convergence article Firechains (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Crop diversity was vandalised and reverted by an ip address you have warned. (then i reverted the revert, sorry about that, didnt read my undo carefully).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

James Hydrick - sex offender link

Unless we have incontrovertible verification from a reliable published source, we cannot confirm that's the same person. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS for why these policies are in place. Your belief that they are the same person may be true, but Wikipedia policy requires that we have carefully sourced facts to make a claim like that.

Please refrain from posting this link or you will lose your editing priviledges. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've put a clear edit summary though: "Reverted unexplained removal of content". I agree with what you say, however next time you remove a lot of sourced content, please provide an edit summary. It helps the recent change patrollers to figure out that you are contributing constructively and not merely deleting content. Regards, Laurent (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nanjing or Nanking

I don't mind either way. I like consistency, and it seems to someone insists on using the official ROC romanisation "Nanking" in the infobox, so I just changed the main text to make it consistent.

You are right that Nanjing is the more common name. I doubt any English speaking person nowadays can point out where "Nanking" is.--pyl (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that if listing the de jure capital, it should be Nanking, because even though the ROC has officially adopted Hanyu Pinyin, it has kept the old romanisation of cities (e.g. Taipei, Kaohsiung, Hsinchu, etc.) The alliance (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam for PHP_Debug

Hi,

I wanted to know why my PHP_Debug page is consideredas SPAM, PHP_Debug is free non commercial library. It's included in the official PHP repository (PEAR)

To create by page i have started from the exemple of TCPDF.

Moreover i have added external links to the page of TCPDF and Lightbox to add links to their symfony plugins and there were deleted. I have been in touch with Nicolas Asuni and Lokesh Dhakar (who are the author of these 2 libraries) by email, and i am sure there is no problem to add these links. The plugins are free and non commercial too.

See you. COil —Preceding unsigned comment added by COil007 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, currently the article is not useful because it is only meant to promote your plugin. You've simply copied and pasted the text from somewhere else and appended a bunch of random links. This is not what Wikipedia is about - it is not meant to advertise yourself or your work. Also, in general it's recommended not to write about your own work because you cannot be completely neutral. If your plugin is that good then somebody else will eventually write about it (See WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI). Regards, Laurent (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Subservientchicken

I fail to see how it is deconstructive(The proper way to spell it.). There are even worse edits on there than my own, I am just documenting what is unknown.

Republic of China (demonyms)

Yeah, what you are saying is true, the info box is about the current info, not historic info. I am not sure what demonnym really means nowadays.

Using passports as an example, in the Australian passport, the nationality (is it the same as demonym?) column says "Australian". In the ROC passport, the same column says "Republic of China", and I believe before the 90's, the ROC passport would say "Chinese". There is really no clear cut answer to the issue.--pyl (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

this is not your wikipedia

this is not your wikipedia, you don not have any qualifications to Reverting other edit, stop your laughable Taiwan independence viewpoint.

User:Liu Tao entry on WP:LONG

Cross-posted here and on User talk:SchmuckyTheCat

Hello Laurent! I have removed the entry on WP:LONG about User:Liu Tao you created. As the title of the page indicates, it is meant for persistent and long-term abusers only. The user in question doesn't seem to be this: he/she hasn't been indef-blocked yet, and has, as far as I can see, no sockpuppets. Certainly not (in)famous enough, I wouldd say. Perhaps you should try to reason with him/her instead? Cheers, theFace 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China

I note that you added "commonly known as Taiwan" in the introduction for the ROC. It has been proven to be an unacceptable practice throughout the history of Wikipedia. The article is about the ROC throughout its history, not just the period when it is commonly known as "Taiwan". By adding that qualification in the introduction has the potential of misleading the readers. By that, it could be interpreted that Taiwan was part of the Chinese Civil War with the Chinese Communist Party (this was done in the Chinese Civil War article).

It was a compromise to say "The ROC has been commonly known as 'Taiwan' since the 1970s" as a hatnote at the very top to avoid reader confusion. This practice was found to be acceptable by most editors, and the hatnote remained for a long time. It was removed recently, and I don't know the reason why since I didn't follow Wikipedia for a while.--pyl (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If Republic of China is about its history, then what's the point of having History of the Republic of China? Why don't we delete the duplicate article then? No, the Republic of China article is about the state as of today, and not just about its history. It is commonly known as Taiwan by most people and in most countries, so this fact has to appear as the first things readers see. I've added "since the 1970s" per your suggestion.

Nobody reads the hatnotes when there are too many of them and they don't appear when you print the document, so we shouldn't add important information in there. Laurent (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I am finding you argumentative. The Republic of China article has a brief history section right after introduction. It has reasons why it is there. Are you suggesting that we should remove it because the article is about the ROC at the present day only?--pyl (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative, I was mainly answering to your comment "the article is about the ROC throughout its history", whereas I think it's mainly about the ROC today - it's economy, demography, politics, etc. The history section is just one part of it. I agree that it needs to be there, however it shouldn't be the focus of the article, since there's already a complete article about the history of the ROC. The point of the article is mainly to inform about the ROC as of today, not in the past. Laurent (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Laurent that people don't read the hat notes. If someone is confused about an article (say they look up "China" and it says nothing about the dinnerware they were looking for) they will likely start scanning around and notice the hat note, but otherwise they'll just dig into the main text.

Unlike many disambigs, the fact that the ROC is commonly known as "Taiwan" is not an issue unrelated to the topic. It is important to understanding the Republic of China and being able to use the information contained in the article about the Republic of China. It is certainly information that should be included in the first paragraph - in addition to being included as disambig information in a hat-note. If a newbie reads the introduction to the article, then picks up a newspaper and reads that "Taiwan attempted to enter the WHA" but doesn't recognize that "Taiwan" is the ROC he just read about, then we've done a pretty poor job of introducing the topic.

I agree with Pyl that for this article, where the topic is the entire ROC - including the years before it occupied Taiwan - the introductory paragraph should indeed say when the ROC started to be known as "Taiwan". For other articles where the ROC is mentioned in non-historical contexts it is not as important to say when the practice started, adding the time information may be too wordy and awkward - we can leave that argument for another article's talk page. For this article, providing the time information is important. Readin (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ROC

Nanking ALSO IS ROC Capital too, do not arbitrarily revert i edit. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.96 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

notability

"There's no question of its notability". Well, of course there is, or I wouldn't have listed at deletion, silly. :-P Seriously though, the source only cites one small fact on the song, and the rest of it is still uncited WP:OR and an example-farm. I think the best solution would be to merge the cited info to the album's article, then move the Miranda Lambert song to just Dead Flowers with a hatnote for the Rolling Stones album, since I don't think the Rolling Stones song has sufficient individual notability. Not all songs by notable artists are by themselves notable, no matter how well received the album was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do this edit

I do this edit of ROC, this is have Reliable sources, do not arbitrarily revert i edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.96 (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

List of personal information managers

Hi, You have canceled my changes in List of personal information managers. How you evaluate service notability? I have found it in very popular site [3]. Nikolay Molchanov (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "ROC citizen"

Hello. I have come across your usage of the term "ROC citizen", and I find it ambigous and I would like to clarify that with you. I hope you don't mind.

It may not be common knowledge to most people but most Chinese citizens living on the mainland are still considered by the ROC nationality law as ROC citizens. When the ROC government relocated its capital to Taipei in 1949, nothing changed the citizenship status of the people on the mainland.

You will find that the legal distinction made by ROC law to tell apart the ROC citizens on the mainland and Taiwan is the household registration status. In other words, the reason why those ROC citizens living on the mainland cannot be in Taiwan and cannot participate in ROC elections is because they don't have a household registration in the Taiwan Area. You will note that, subject to certain conditions, the ROC citizens on the mainland are eligible for a ROC passport. And when those citizens enter the Taiwan Area, they will be holding ROC papers identifying them as residents of the Mainland Area of the ROC.

I personally find using the term "Taiwanese resident" sufficient in describing the people on Taiwan to avoid the difficulties associated with the ROC nationality law.

Hope that clarified some matters.--pyl (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this subtility. It's true that, put that way, "ROC citizen" is quite ambiguous and that Taiwanese resident would be more appropriate. Thanks for letting me know. By the way, do you have a Pan-Blue source (in English preferably) to describe the position of the KMT regarding unification? Laurent (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Taiwanese citizen" might be a better term. I was a legal resident of Taiwan but didn't have citizenship and wasn't eligible for a passport. Saying "Taiwanese citizen" would connote both that they are citizens and that they are from the Taiwan Area. The amount of explanation to go along with that would depend on context. 17:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is "Taiwanese citizen" is legally incorrect, as there is no such thing. All legal texts say "ROC citizen with household registration in Taiwan". In Taiwan, the term "Taiwanese citizen" is not even a common term. But I think it has a lot to do with difference in mentality that I have expressed in Liu Tao's discussion page. In any event, I think in order to avoid contention, the term "Taiwanese resident" is the most suitable term, as it is legally correct and it doesn't go against any ideology. Neither a pro-Taiwan independence supporter nor a pro Chinese-reunification supporter should find the term "Taiwanese resident" offensive.--pyl (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and your former status of "resident of Taiwan" is different from a person with household registration in Taiwan. Only ROC citizens can have household regierations. I think your previous status would be a foreign citizen on a temporary resident visa. I don't think they are considered as "Taiwanese resident" for the purpose of the ROC law.--pyl (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Taiwanese ROC citizen". The use of "resident" is confusing both because it suggests not a full citizen and because even a temporary resident is still a resident. Readin (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"ROC citizen in Taiwan"? (sorry Laurent for doing this on your talk page)--pyl (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They're not just spacially located in Taiwan. They don't lose their status when they go on vacation to Los Angeles. Nor do PRC people automatically gain the status when visiting Taiwan. How about "ROC citizen of Taiwan" (though admittedly this could lead to confusion about "citizen of Taiwan". It depends on how you group the words.)? Readin (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"ROC citizen in/of Taiwan" is quite confusing in my opinion, it sounds like these "ROC citizens" arrived in Taiwan from somewhere else. It also means that there are ROC citizens outside of Taiwan - which technically is true but most people don't know that and will get confused by the term. "Taiwanese citizen" seems fine to me. By using these terms, we are not claiming it's legal or not - we are just saying "they are citizens" and "they are located in Taiwan". Laurent (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only the term "Taiwanese citizen" is legally incorrect, as I mentioned above. It is like saying "New York citizen" or "Paris citizen". "Citizen" in this case no longer mean in the way US citizen or French citizen means. The term is considered to be offensive for some POVs, and can be contentious (ie edit wars). What about "ROC citizen residing in Taiwan"? This would probably be the most correct term, although I think "Taiwan resident" would serve the same purpose. As I said above, a temporary resident is not a "Taiwanese resident" for the purpose of the ROC law, as they are not Taiwanese at first place.--pyl (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"ROC citizen residing in Taiwan" is not practicable since it's something we'll have to use several times in the article. I guess "Taiwanese resident" as a compromise is acceptable. Laurent (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Currentlybiscuit. You have new messages at IRP's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tomonobu Itagaki's Page

Hey, Sorry for what you thought was "messing up with Wikipedia". But the information I supplied with my last edit are true and unbiased views. Those statements are rightful and true evaluation of what the subject really is. Tomonobu Itagaki is an unprofessional man and evaluating his actions will prove that. If those are true, then those statements deserve to be posted in his page here if Wikipedia really holds to be unbiased. Because if only good statements are what you post here and not what is true, then I get the hint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.109.75 (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, we have a policy regarding the biographies of living persons. In particular, we cannot leave unsourced negative comments about people because of the harm it could cause (see WP:GRAPEVINE). Also one of the core policy of Wikipedia, WP:V, states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". In other words, if you want to write something about somebody, whether positive or negative, true or not, you need to prove it by providing third-party reliable sources. Regards, Laurent (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

--121.97.109.75 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well. Sorry about the fuss. I understand your policies about statements referring to people. I guess I can never really change what's written there so, whatever. Anyway, I wish I won't blocked here. I have edited a lot of wiki pages over wikipedia's time, and this is the first time that is happened. I just figured I know well about the aforementioned subject and I figured I won't let it get away just like that.

Sorry about the mess.--121.97.109.75 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:DirSynchPro 1.0 in Linux.png

Thanks for uploading File:DirSynchPro 1.0 in Linux.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Link

Because of a digital verson, you need type words such as,"臺北市" or "南京市" in it. The previous links will not be memoried for a long time.Huang Sir (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'll take a look at it. Laurent (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup

Merci beaucoup for your maintenance of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet .
Wikipedia would be much better if we had more people like you! Thanks again. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Don't know if I'll manage to go through the whole backlog, but I'm going to give it a try ;) Laurent (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:OnLive Service GUI.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:OnLive Service GUI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Don Quichotte/misdirection to Don Quixote

I see you've changed the title of the opera page to Don Quichotte (opera) and then made Don Quichotte into a redirect to Don Quixote. I doubt this was really necessary, but anyway the problem is that this has left broken and misdirected links, see for example Template:Massenet operas. Can you please fix the links? Next time you change article names I'd suggest telling the relevant project in order to avoid this problem. --Kleinzach 22:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more consitent to have "opera" at the end, but it's true that it's not really necessary, and also I didn't realize that it would create so many issues with the templates and links. I'm going to restore everything as it was - I've asked Don Quichotte to be deleted so that I can move back Don Quichotte (opera) there. Hopefully, it will be done by tomorrow. Sorry about the trouble! Laurent (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Kleinzach 23:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Laurent: it's not primarily about consistency, but about ambiguity. If there is none, no qualifier is required and none should not be used. It's always a good idea to discuss these things first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera — they're a helpful bunch. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ROC edit

We already have "Taiwan was surrendered to the Allies, with ROC troops accepting the surrender of the Japanese garrison". The fact is that the ROC proclaimed itself the sovereign of Taiwan and remained in charge, but the the legalities surrounding that proclamation are debated. I'm not sure what the problem is with just saying that?

As for the word "retrocession", that is the ROC's word (at least as I've always seen it - I don't know who did the translation), not mine. Whether or not it makes sense for the ROC to proclaim it, that is what they did. Readin (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be picky, but I just can't find any source which says or even implies that "The ROC retroceded Taiwan to itself" (as is currently written in the article). Japan, not the ROC, retroceded Taiwan. To be more acurate, I think we should write something similar to the Retrocession Day article. For instance: "The Republic of China considers that day to be one of the most important in its history, and proclaimed it to be "Retrocession Day of Taiwan". Source - [4] Laurent (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the ROC retroceded Taiwan to the ROC. The article says the ROC proclaimed that Taiwan had been retroceded to the ROC. That's exactly what happened. Japan ordered the troops in Taiwan to surrender to ROC troops. Without any formal document giving Taiwan to the ROC, the ROC general in Taiwan simply proclaimed "retrocession day". There are different views on whether this proclamation proclaimed a truth or whether it proclaimed a fiction. But their is no argument as to whether the proclamation occurred. Readin (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I misunderstood the meaning of the sentence because of the way it was written. I agree that we need to mention this event, although I'd probably write it in a different way (but that's probably just a matter of opinion). Laurent (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

== For the ROC

THE ROC ARTICLE MUST Balanced viewpoint, I ADD THIS EDIT : The Republic of China was commonly known as "China" or "Nationalist China" until the 1970s when it has since been commonly known as "Taiwan". Irvmorevs (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this edit

I add this for ROC article : but it was commonly known as "China" before then. It is Historical fact, please pay attention : You donnot need use your Taiwan independence viewpoint to abolish again, or you will Violation the Neutral point of view of Wikipedia Irvmorevs (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the Republic of China, as of today, so adding how it was called more than 50 years ago in the first sentence is undue weight. It's already mentioned in the "history" section and at the end of the introduction how it used to be called. Laurent (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The ROC article is about the whole ROC in both space and time. More emphasis is of course put on today as today is more interesting to most readers. But the ROC article isn't temporally limited to only one portion of the ROC.

I'm neither endorsing nor opposing Irvmorevs's edit, since I haven't seen the article. I'm not sure there is a need to note that the "Republic of China" was once called "China" since that would not likely be a point of confusion for most people, unlike the fact that the "Republic of China" is commonly known as "Taiwan". But I don't agree with the statement that the article is only about the ROC as of today. It is about the ROC both past and present. Readin (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have written it's "mainly" about the ROC as of today. Mentioning how the ROC used to be called in the "History" section for example is absolutely fine, but we can't be as exhaustive in the introduction (especially in the first sentence) without confusing the reader. Laurent (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Kappa Pi Beta information............... plagiarism and copyright laws

Hi there WikiLaurent,

I apologize if this comes in the wrong format. I am new to Wikipedia and to this type of format. Hopefully this message gets to you in the right manner.

I am writing to you in respect to the fraternity Kappa Pi Beta that I co-founded back in March of 2000. I was trying to write a brief description about us and was given a copyright infringement message back....

A quick and brief history of us....... I, Renmar Salceda, am one of the Founding Fathers of Kappa Pi Beta and I PERSONALLY wrote out THE history and mission statement of the Fraternity.

In the past, one of my fellow brothers asked me if it was ok if he wrote about us in Wikipedia. I was unsure of Wikipedia back in it's beginnings but later on found it very beneficial to anyone just wanting brief descriptions of certain things.

I then saw us in here and was very pleased on how the outcome was. So I further told others about us in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, recently, people were not able to find us on here and I did the search myself and found the same.

So I took initiative and started writing out our history and mission statement. And the rest, you know.

As far as the plagiarism, I am the SOLE member, let alone, Founder, that wrote that out FOR the Fraternity. Everything the fraternity wrote came from my doing.

If there is conflict as far as from one website to another, I will understand.

I will just have to write a somewhat similar description of us.

Otherwise, I assure you, nothing that I place on here about my Fraternity is stolen.

Thank you for your time, Renmar Salceda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphafox24 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the main concern is not the copyright issue, but the fact that your association doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. In order for an article to stay on WP you need to prove, using third party reliable sources, that it is notable. See in particular WP:V and WP:R. Regards, Laurent (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just went to parts of the Taiwan article and realised that you were involved in the streamlining of the article. You did quite well and the article is now much easier to read. As a fellow Wikipedian, I thank you for your contribution.--pyl (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair I don't think I've contributed that much to the Taiwan article. I've mostly been involved with the ROC one in the past few weeks. But you're welcome anyway ;) Laurent (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

removing the NPOV tag

I am not sure why you removed the tag, as the rule doesn't say the tag:-

1. can only be placed when there is more than 1 person disputing the neutrality; or

2. A NPOV tag cannot be placed for high traffic articles.

There is actually a line in the tag saying "please do not remove the message until the issues are resolved".

You might want to read the Wikipedia article about this tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Handling_NPOV_disputes

--pyl (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a high traffic article, and the only points you disagree on are relatively minor, so in my opinion there's no need to tag the entire article. Laurent (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan

I don't think 3O is the way to go, as this NPOV dispute involves more than 2 people (you and me). I think it can go to the neuality board.--pyl (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know about the neutrality board, I'm fine with bringing the issue there. Laurent (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started the discussion on the neutrality board: [5] Laurent (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder regarding vandalism

I just saw your revert of another editor's edit as vandalism, which IMO it was not. Vandalism refers only to stuff that is clearly vandalism, rather than any sort of good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, however misguided it may be. As such, bolding "Republic of China" I do not believe constitutes vandalism. Ngchen (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

JVENK is most likely yet another sockpuppet of Eeeeeetw ([6][7]) still pushing the same POV. How about this edit where s/he removed a link to the Taiwan article [8], or this one where he removed an image he didn't like [9]. Sorry but I wouldn't say his edits contribute to improve Wikipedia, quite the opposite actually. Laurent (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat seems to have a nose for sockpuppets and some experience with fighting them. You might ask him for advice on both how to prove sockpuppetry and how to handle it. Readin (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Readin, I'll ask him for some advices if JVENK continue making the same kind of edits. Laurent (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. After examining the editor's edits more carefully, I'm thinking it may well be the indef'ed Eeeeeewtw. But then, it's a case of sockpuppetry by a banned (since apparently no one will unblock him) user rather than vandalism. Ngchen (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China and your personal comments

Please don't revert my edits and make a personal comment against me at the same time. I am not the only editor who have issues with your edits. Your comments are becoming increasingly personal against me and I do not appreciate them.

You also quoted Wikipedia:I just don't like it against me. Did you actually read the policy, or it just sounded like something good for your argument and you just used it? I was discussing and I backed up my arguments with reasons. I never said "I don't like it or I like it" or acted in such manners. In fact, I find that you have a tendency of misquoting Wikipedia policies against people, and I have raised this issue numerous times in the past. Please refrain from doing it, as it can be offensive.

In the current situation, the paragraphs you inserted in the Taiwanese identity section are of a highly biased POV. I raised it in the discussion page and I gave the reasons. I note that you have not properly responded to my reasons and you just simply insist on inserting those paragraphs. As I said above, you will note that I am not the only editor who raised objections on the grounds of neutrality.

Simply put, you cannot ignore a major POV that Taiwanese are also Chinese at the first place when you edit Wikipedia articles. Your paragraphs essentially just do that. Your paragraphs endorse a POV that Taiwanese were not Chinese at first place, and they were made Chinese by a number of governments.

If you insist on this POV being inserted in the main text, I propose that we get this sorted out in the neuality forum. I find the reasonings so stragit forward, and if you do not agree with them, then I simply do not see any value discussing any further in the Republic of China discussion page.--pyl (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyl, I was away for a week so didn't read the ROC talk page recently. I've just seen that you've removed a lot of sourced content a few days ago, so I've reverted it, but didn't have time to provide proper reasons.

The reason I've said you don't like certain statements is that you remove them rather than rewording them in a neutral way, or providing the alternative POV. I think that's what we should do, because if you remove a sourced statement, it may look you're trying to suppress one view rather than giving readers the full picture.

Also, from you edit summmaries, it seems that you have different standards depending on the POV being expressed. For example, this is how you deal with the KMT POV: "correcting the KMT POV" and this is how you deal with the alternative POV: "removing highly POV sentences" So if these sentences are "highly POV", why didn't you corrected them as you did for the KMT POV? My point is that you can't just correct certains POVs and remove others, especially when both are equally important.

If you don't mind, I'd like to go through some of the statements you've removed:

For that reason, Chiang attempted to sinicize Taiwan's inhabitants. The PRC planned to acquire Taiwan, which would have set Taiwan on a path to becoming a regional variant of Chinese culture much like that of Guangdong or Fujian.

I've read that in many sources, for example this one, and I think it's an important fact. Do you have any suggestion on how to rewrite it in a more neutral way?

KMT-ruled government, in an effort to build closer ties with Beijing,

Although it's correct, I'm fine with leaving that out since it's also mentioned in the "Politics" section.

Likewise, the PRC denies the existence of a distinct Taiwanese identity.

Please could you explain your reasons for removing that? Or could you propose an alternative for it? I think it's quite obvious that the PRC doesn't recognize the existence of a separate Taiwanese identity, so I think it should be mentioned.

If you insist on this POV being inserted in the main text

Yes, I insist on having this POV (and all the other major ones) inserted into the text. Again, you seem to be using the word "POV" as something negative, like you are opposing it to something more valuable, perhaps the law, or the official view. However, on Wikipedia, all the POVs, as long as they are sufficiently widespread, should appear in the article. The view that Taiwan is not in fact part of China, and that people of Taiwan are not Chinese is a very common one and thus should be given proper weight. At the end of the day, I just want readers to arrive on Taiwan's articles and have the big picture, and not just one side of the story.

Finally, don't get me wrong, in general I think you're a constructive editor. In particular, I've seen your recent edits on the Taiwan article and I like how you've improved the introduction - it's both more neutral and clearer. So I appreciate your efforts to improve Taiwan's articles, but it just turns out that we disagree on some topics. Laurent (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. I thik it showed sincerity in trying to form consensus and was well-written.

I corrected the sentence (re KMT) because it was an easy task to do. It took me 5 secs to correct a sentence without having to remove it.

I removed the paragraphs (re Taiwanese identity) because, to make the whole section neutral, it would require a lot of time on my behalf and I simply didn't have the time (and I still don't, unfournately). Those information you inserted were of a highly disputed POV and it can be considered to be highly offensive to a section of the Taiwanese society. I have no doubt you are aware that a sigificant section of the population in Taiwan have a POV that Taiwanese are Chinese at the first place. I hope you would understand that and the urgency for me in removing them.

The neutral way of presenting the information that you want to present, in my view, would be, 1. talk about the POV 2. talk about the other POV 3. no particular POV is endorsed and no conclusions are drawn.

You cannot always rely on sources to back up a particular POV when 1. the sources can be considered to be unneutral at the first place (eg opinion pieces, biased authors or articles on political websites etc); or 2. this disputed POV is presented in a manner as if it is an undisputed fact.

The way you presented the information only talked about a particular POV, then the way the POV was mentioned was done in a manner as if the POV is undisputed. That, in my view, violates the NPOV policy. As I said in the past this manner of presentation doesn't raise the issue, it only tells people one POV: there is no issue if the fact is not disputed.--pyl (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese identity (under the Republic of China article)

As you have noticed, I did some changes to the section you have been working on. I noticed during the editing process, some edit conflicts occurred. If that had caused you any inconvenience, I apologise for that.

The section still, in my view, is still very unneutral. The bulk of section still contains arguements for a Taiwan identity. It is important to note that arguments are, after all, arguments, even if they are made by different authors. We don't, for sure, know whether these arguments are really facts or they are just trying to support a statitistical trend.

As you have mentioned in the section, this is a sensitive issue. I would therefore expect counter arguments being made in another camp arguing against those arguments raised in the main text. Unfortunately, I don't have time to research into those arguments at this stage. If you have sometime, I would invite you to add those arguments in order to balance the POVs.--pyl (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I will see if I can find something about it later on. Also I think the section now contains a lot of weasel words, in particular we should be more specific about who argues what. Since it is within the Politics section, perhaps one way would be to have the DPP POV opposed to the KMT POV. Also maybe we could move a part of this section to the Taiwanese identity article. Laurent (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that would make the section more neutral.--pyl (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China

Thanks for your recent changes to the identity section in the Republic of China article. I don't have any neutrality issues with it at this stage. As difficult as the process was, I think you have made Republic of China a better article as a whole, after your recent rewrite. Maybe one day we can make it a feature article.

Just one thing. I noticed that you have been expressing the pan-green POV as wanting to represent the ROC as an independent country, but you don't seem to be using that expression in describing the pan-blue's POV. Please allow me to clarify the POV differences between the two. Both camps consider the ROC as an independent country, but the difference in POVs is in the territory. The pan-greens want to represent the ROC as a distinct country, seperate from China (not just the PRC, but China). The pan-blues want to represent the ROC as a country that includes mainland China.--pyl (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand this POV but I think the way the DPP POV was initially expressed was perhaps unecessarily complicated, which is why I've reworded it.

Yes, I think that the article is getting better too (it was already pretty good actually, but needed some clean up). Hopefully, if we manage to sort out the last neutrality conflicts, we can bring it at least to Good Article status. Laurent (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I completely back this move. That's been on my to do list for quite sometime! Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your ANI, and subsequent removal of ANI

first, thank you for the "benefit of the doubt" re-edit; not many editors would submit for ANI and then withdraw it. However, I still feel like I must respond directly, as my reaction to the initial ANI is that you were rather abrupt in assuming that there was abuse. Your first act should be to direct your question to the editor in question, not to take it to ANI immediately just because you do not agree with the edit. That said, as you can see, I have reverted your edit again - this time with an edit summary explaining why your edit was deleted. I'm sure you understand, being familiar with FILM:MOS and all. Cheers.SpikeJones (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I got the feeling that you (or somebody using your account) was misusing rollback as I could see many "revert" in your contributions today but the reason wasn't immediately obvious. Looking closer at them, however, I understand that your reverts indeed are legitimate, which is why I've removed the ANI request. I still think we need to mention London at the beginning of the paragraph. We need to keep the section short, but we also need to keep it clear, and one way to do that, in this instance, is to clearly define the location from the start of the paragraph (previously, it was only done at the end). Hope you understand what I mean. Laurent (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for, at the very least, verifying my edit history (although again, doing that before the ANI notice would have been the better choice. Bygones, dead horse, etc.) as being more-or-less consistent. To me, "buckingham palace" is enough to indicate "London". If it were "The Hilton", then requiring a city location *may* be vital to add, but only if it were necessary to the plot. Saying "Eiffel Tower" could require an "in Paris" mention, if only because there are replicas in Vegas and Ohio. But since the linked buckingham palace article already indicates London as its sole location, there is no need to mention it at all. (bad other examples: "He visited Mt Fuji and Mt Rushmore" vs "He visited Mt Fuji in Japan and Mt Rushmore in North America") SpikeJones (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some people don't immediately associate Buckingham Palace with London. It may be obvious to you or me, but people who've never visited England may not know. Or perhaps they'll confuse it with Windsor Castle or another royal residence, and assume it's somewhere outside London (It's true that they could just click on it to find out but I think we shouldn't have to click on a link to make sense of the article). Also, the whole paragraph is about London and I think it's better to start with the most general information, and then add details to it (i.e. London > Buckingham Palace > Southwark Bridge, etc.). The whole film is structured by locations, and it seems "right" to me to mention that location at the start of each paragraph. Laurent (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent rephrasing in the article reads better, especially when coupled with the "heads to Paris" sentence earlier. SpikeJones (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeroo

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jeroo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unremarkable software

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

certain consensus

I don't think your version is an consensus. And I don't agree with you. And I am confused that Why I, one from China, was denied by you time by time although I have authorized materials. I think I underdstand the problem between the channel better than you. Someone thinking Taipei being the capital asked the Ministry of Education some question about the capital, advised officers to correct some illustration in the dictionary. Then，after discussion with their superiors, the officers correct the description in Nanjing to "In 16 years，Nanking was declared as the capital by the national government. At present, Taipei is the location of the centre government". You see? Could you give me some adequate evidence to prove it wrong? The Navy from mainland protect merchant ship from Taiwan from pirates in Gulf of Aden, while the sailors from Taiwan supply fresh vagetables and fruits to the marines from mainland voluntarily. Besides, you can also fly to Taipei from Nanking directly.I can also tell you that one of my friends in Wikipedia is someone having joined KMT. Why we are so close? We belong to a family. If you are someone who don't want to see a united China, tell me. And I will support you to write an article about a country called Taiwan, not R.O.C.Huang Sir (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:THES-QS Pan-Chinese

Template:THES-QS Pan-Chinese 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.

Proposed deletion of IPM (software)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article IPM (software), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Organization or product with no assertion of notability, no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, reads like an advertisement or press release

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Do you have Skype or MSN? We can talk by it.Huang Sir (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The translation is "the 16th year of Republic of China". The one "the 16th year of Republic" is wrong.Huang Sir (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm fine with that. What I tried to revert at some point was the removal of "[1927]", but doing so I've also accidentally removed the "of China". Laurent (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to add links in the citation. I thought it's a mistake before. Maybe, it's something different between different languages. And ROC was established in 1912, there are three periods in the Establishment Project. 1927 is one period of ROC, not an individual regime. Your explanation is misleading.Huang Sir (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

IPM (software)- Removal of speedy deletion request

Hi there. I recently tagged IPM (software) for speedy deletion as I considered it not to be of note, as it is only used internally by the EU and the majority of people will not have even heard of it. The software it's self is also nothing more than a management program which uses other software to create the questionnaires and collate and interpret the answers, and as such is nothing remarkable or of note. You have given three references on the articles page, two are for the EU's site, so are not secondary, and the third you added does not even mention IPM software, simply that the EU were looking for feedback from stakeholders about the way the domain names would be issued. I will be re-tagging the article for deletion, and would like to remind you that Notability requires verifiable evidence and that the article in question has no verifiable third party references. I would also like to remind you that as the creator of an article YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to remove a speedy deletion tag, you may add a "Hang On" tag after it though if you feel you can find any more verifiable references to prove note of the subject. Thanks, Trevor Marron (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflic) I don't quite understand why you and Madcoverboy are after this article. I've created it following a request, and provided sources for it (the Interactive Policy Making Initiative is mentioned in the Register source). I just can't see what harm it can do, Madcoverboy said it was written like an ad, but how can that be? This software is developed internally by the EU and is not on sale, so why would anybody want to advertise it? Then you've nominatted it saying it's a non-notable website or company, but it's none of this - it's a software. In other word, the article is not spam, not ad, there's no COI, and it was requested by another person (proof that some people want to know what it is about). So I'm sorry, but I'll keep removing the deletion tags - I suggest you bring the article to an AFD if you so badly want to see it deleted. Laurent (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of IPM (software)

I have nominated IPM (software), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPM (software). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Thanks

I think you got there before I did, I almost reverted your revert! Programmer13^Talk_{What I do} 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ROC

I think the GA nomination you made for Republic of China at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Geography should be moved to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Places. A minor point really:) Polargeo (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right - I've done the move. Thanks for letting me know! Laurent (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, shouldn't it be in Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Politics and government. The place article would be the Taiwan article. The ROC article is about a government that has been in different places, not about a single place. Readin (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a bit of both, as the article mainly focuses on the ROC in Taiwan. Also the infobox is a "Country infobox" and countries should normally go in "Places". "Politics and government" seems to be more about political issues, government agencies, etc. Laurent (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Refer to ROC flag issue

I am happy to let you know that finally the problem of color over Blue Sky White Sun SVG files has been resolved. Please see File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg. Arilang ^talk 04:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The KMT emblem looks right now, however are you sure that the flag and emblem of the ROC also need to be changed? The fact that the KMT changed their emblem doesn't necessarily mean that the country did? On the yearbook 2008, the flag is still using the dark blue color as can be seen here. Laurent (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

KMT emblem, ROC emblem, and theBlue Sky with a White Sun they are all identical, the prove is here:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/11/22/2003212073

Ex-ROC President Chen Shui-bian said in 2004:

Showing two placards printed with the KMT's party emblem and the national emblem of the Republic of China, Chen asked the audience whether they could distinguish from the two symbols, which are the same.

The president also wondered why Taiwan's Olympic flag, the badges of the navy, the army, the air force and the police all bear the KMT's party emblem, which he said does not conform to democratic principles.

"Now that it is so easy for people to confuse the KMT's party emblem with the national emblem, I would like to tell the KMT that I give it a deadline -- which is three months -- to change its party emblem," Chen said. "Only by doing so can we clearly distinguish between the two emblems, and the KMT won't say things like `the nation is stolen' just because it lost the election."

"If it does not change its emblem, as soon as the pan-green camp gains the legislative majority, we will revise the National Emblem Law."

Arilang ^talk 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Shade of the Flag of the Republic of China

Please go to this talkpage for further discussion.--72.45.35.93 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Kmt-logo.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Kmt-logo.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Laurent (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

IS Putin not Russian leader? Sorry I never knew. I actually thought he was. They keep saying it ont he news. 195.27.17.187 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

LV=

Can you explain your deletion of a reference that supports the PPI fine? I have just checked the reference and it continues the state the facts as set out in the article. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, NCD doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and everything on their website can usually be found somewhere else. I've also noticed that one of their articles was nearly indentical to another one on BBC News, which makes me think that they are getting their news from somewhere else. Actually, doing some more search, I've just found two better sources for the PPI fine, and I've inserted them in the article. Laurent (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

...except one of your references and insertions into the article relates to the PPI fine imposed on HFC Bank (part of HSBC and nothing to do with LV); I have therefore removed it but gone directly to the FSA website's entry for LVBS to find the source evidence for its fine.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Commons ANI post

Hey Laurent,
I know I sort of sucked when not reverting my edits to the ROC flags and am truly sorry for not responding that long; I'd like to inform you that it was not me who protected that files; it was O (talk · contribs) who protected them because what seemed to him a 'counter-productive edit warring', see here. I am not that bad to make controversial edits to images and protect them from reverts :) Cheers, Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Excuse me? Have you read my comment? It took me two hours to write this article, any you just come along destroy my work within seconds, without even taking the time or respect to argue why? Shouldn't the purpose of nomination be that other people are included in this decision? I strongly doubt this was the case here, not in such a short time. It doesn't seem right that one single person can take such decisions.

Destroying is always easier than creating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire ch (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't make this decision, nor deleted the article. I didn't see your comments either, I've simply nominated the article for deletion as the application didn't appear to be notable. There's nothing personal here; I did realize that whoever wrote the article put some efforts in it but, still, there are guidelines on Wikipedia that we must all follow. That being said, if you feel that the article should stay on Wikipedia, you can ask the admin who deleted the article to restore it. You'll then need to provide sources so as to establish notability (See WP:N for more info). Regards, Laurent (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply and sorry if I accused you wrongly. It just didn't seem right to me why there are tons of similar articles that are not deleted. If there are rules, they should be applied in a fair way. Seeing all these other articles on similar topics, I felt save to invest the time writing this one. The intention was not advertising, since I am in no connection with the developer, I just wanted to help adding to the overview of various synchronization tools. Since this was the one I use myself, I decided to write an article on this one, because I knew it best and it offers some features other tools don't. But well, as you said, it wasn't you in the end ;) Regards, spitfire

File:European Union Map Trimmed.svg

Is there a reason it's not trimmed more on the Eastern side? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought I'd leave some space there so as to make it easy to add Turkey when/if it joins in. However, on second thought, there's not really any point doing so because it's easy to make the map bigger (as all the countries outside of the map are still preserved in the SVG), so I'm going to trim it down even more to just the EU countries. Thanks for pointing that out! Laurent (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I might recommend putting the one South American territory in an inset and thus allow more cropping from the East side. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Global European Union.svg

A version with the EU flag color you will find here: File:EU27 on a globe.svg. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harry's Filters

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Harry's Filters, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non notable free plugin. No assertion of notability, Google and gnews had some hits, but no significant coverage in reliable independent sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Nice addition to WP:NOR, thank you. We've been looking for a very simple example for a while, and yours perfectly illustrates the problem. I've moved it into the section above the one you created, as an example of WP:SYN. [10] Thanks again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

{{main}}

Hi, I'm only doing a search and replace task on behalf of the leader of a project I'm in, WP:WPOOK, indeed when I was given the task I questioned it myself, see User talk:Highfields section called {{main|Outline of x}} (I would do a # link but it doesn't work for nowiki's) but was told it was OK, feel free to take it up with User:The Transhumanist. Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan vs ROC in sports

I'm hoping we all talk in one place? There is a discussion at Talk:Taiwan_Major_League#Taiwan_vs._ROC. I've never been blocked before. There is a first time for everything I guess. I was a bit surprised that there was no warning given, but it was a fair charge. Readin (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

NOR

Question for you here, Laurent, if you have time. If you don't, no worries. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bold title

There is no requirement that articles begin with the title in bold. In articles like List of states with nuclear weapons, it is not an improvement to force the phrase into the text. Rmhermen (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)