User talk:Currentlybiscuit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mediation on the UN Map

Hi, I've made a tentative suggestion on theMediation talk page that I'd appreciate you looking at. Thanks. Adell 1150 (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The mediation on this has rather ground to a halt and we actually got delisted as an active case for a wee while. Could you have a quick look, please, and tell me how you feel about the proposed solution of keeping the map but adding a more informative caption. Be nice to reach agreement here and I felt we were close. Adell 1150 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs to the articles of the various seasons of MTV’s The Real World, so I’m contacting editors whom it appears may live in those cities. Do you live in London, and if so, would you be able to take some nice pics of the London residence, and upload themhere if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Where in London is the residence? I don't mind taking a picture of it, but it depends where it is.Laurent (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in Notting Hill. The address is 18 Powis Terrace Notting Hill Gate, London (W11 1JH). You can see what it looks like here. Since it's an apartment building, a good quality pic of the building showing the entrance to 18 would be good. Is that location okay for you? Thanks again!Nightscream (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take the picture next time I'm in the area (probably within a week or two). If someone else take the picture in the meantime, please let me know. Laurent (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will! :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go :-) Laurent(talk) 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!!! They look great! :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Shenmue reverts

Hi Laurent. There wasn't enough room in the edit summary, so I figured I'd explain in a bit more detail here. The shenmuedojo.net site is just the new location of the old shenmue.planets.gamespy.com site (as Gamespy now appears to be cutting back on hosting). As for whether it's a useful link, I'd say so, despite WP:EL usually discouraging fansites (and I say this as someone who as reverted the addition as spam myself). There is no official site (well, the official English site linked from Shenmue has as their only piece of latest news, "shenmue-online.com OPEN !"), so it's the closest thing there is to an external link for information which should not be covered in a WP article.
As for its importance as a fansite, I get 3,660 ghits for "shenmue.planets.gamespy.com", 3,280 for "shenmuedojo.net", and 11,400 for "Shenmue Dojo", so it appears to be a major Shenmue resource.
Anyway, just thought I'd explain my reasoning, as it's never good to have two established, good-faith users having an edit war or anything. If you disagree with me on the inclusion of the links, feel free to remove them and I won't revert you again until and unless you are convinced some day. :P Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and rather excellently, we seem to have similar preferences on user talk discussion, going off the templates at the top of our talk pages. Don't worry about {{talkback}} - I've added your page to my watchlist. Thanks,Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the link several times because indeed it's a fansite, and it's been spammed on Shenmue articles by User:Shenmuedojo. That being said, your reasoning makes sense and since the website used to be hosted on GameSpy, it means it probably has some useful resources, so I'm fine with leaving it there as an external link. Cheers, Laurent (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Clickable picture

For purposes of WP:ACCESSIBILITY we Wikipedia editors need to decide whether an image is purely decorative. If so, it shouldn't have a link: otherwise it messes up the screen readers used by visually impaired readers by causing them to output junk like "File Pure Decoration dot S V G link" for an image that conveys no useful information. If not, then it should have alt text like "A man walks a dog" so that the visually impaired reader knows what the picture is about. I don't care that much whether the image in Template:ElectionsCA is purely decorative, but if it's not decorative then it should have alt text, so Iadded some. If you run into a similar problem in the future, where you think an image should have a link, can you please add alt text while you're restoring the link? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know - I wasn't actually aware of these issues. Perhaps WP:ALT could be slightly rewritten to make it clear that the issue with linked images is not so much usability but accessibility. I doubt users are "confused" to see a clickable picture but the problems you mentioned are indeed worth considering.Laurent (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; it's helpful to get feedback like this. I tried to improve WP:ALT's discussion byaddinga new intro paragraph to WP:ALT #When to specify. Further comments are welcome.Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

combining article edits

Thank you for editing so many articles. I was just reviewing some of your edits, and noticed that often you perform multiple edits on the same article in a row. There's nothing wrong with that; although I am thinking how combining all planned edits as an individual edit would reduce the resources demanded by Wikipedia, since copies of each separate edit would no longer be saved. That is how I try to do my edits, and you might want to consider doing edits that way too to conserve resources. Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think combining edits would be quite difficult especially when they span several sections. For instance I can't edit the whole ROC article in one go because typing is very slow when everything is loaded, so I have to do it section by section. Laurent (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

If your edits are in good faith, I would STRONGLY advise reverting to status quo ante until you are familiar with the ongoing naming dispute. Reverts such as yours could quickly result in you being blocked. Cheers.RashersTierney (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what are you talking about?? I haven't done a single revert on this article.Laurent (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the application of 'Republic of Ireland' as a name. This issue has been debated to death.RashersTierney (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added "officially called Republic of Ireland" at some point but realized my mistake andreverted myself. Now I know the issue has been debated but you can't expect every editors to be fully aware of all the edit wars on Wikipedia. A threat of block as a first warning is completely over the top. Laurent (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think I was threatening you, then you misunderstand my reason for contacting you. (I can see how the brevity of my intervention could have been seen a abruptness). It was to give a 'heads up' before things escalated, nothing more. I fully expected another editor to take a less conciliatory approach if the 'ping pong' didn't stop. If you want this discussed , don't attempt to debate with edit summaries but take to the Talk Page. Better still, check out the archived discussions where the name of the state has led to very heated disputes, and then if you think it worthwhile take it to Talk. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kiba Dock

Hello WikiLaurent, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kiba Dock has been removed. It was removed by CoolingGibbon with the following edit summary '(Use of a physics engine makes it pretty notable in my opinion.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with CoolingGibbon before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you,SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)(Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Hello, Currentlybiscuit. You have new messages at Hm2k's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CfD nomination of Category:Celtic nations

I have nominated Category:Celtic nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Laurent (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in Foxit Reader

Read this: "Foxit Reader v3.0 is the latest version which runs on Windows 95 and NT 4.0, v2.0 the latest for Windows 98." (not sourced)

According to the Foxit Reader website

"Foxit Reader supports Windows 2000/XP/2003/Vista."

Foxit Reader v3.0 is the latest version, yes, if it runs on Windows 95 and NT 4.0, it would also run on Windows 98. So this information you reverted is inaccurate. 213.89.178.77 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hm2k/@icon_sushi

I have requested that the article be moved to my user space for now. I'd appreciate your assistance improving the article. (see the talk page for further discussion) --Hm2k (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your prod

I removed your prod for Somift Data Organizer because my prod was already contested. The article is in AFD now. Joe Chill (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:435209kdfsfc

Looks like the sock-squad is back. Exact same behaviour as that occurring a week or so ago. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribsemail 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of all non de jure diplomatic Missions in List Articles

I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. You have received this notice because you have regularly contributed to either kind of article, or have had dealings with editors concerning the conduct of this dispute. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi

I have noticed thay you have made a recent color change to the file File:Emblem of the Kuomintang.svg, I thought the color is again too dark when compared to the official KMT website. Could you modify it back to the light Blue version ? Arilang ^talk 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the KMT recently put a new version of their emblem on this page, and it uses a dark color and a shape that's slightly different from the website logo. Since it's the latest version and it's highres, I think we can assume it's the preferred version. Also I think we should use only one source for the emblem - not one for the color and another one for the shape. Laurent (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Black Sky White Sun.png

Black Sky White Sun, with #082567 embedded, put here for the purpose of comparison.

Current color

Yes I have noticed too, but still the image you upload onto commons is still too "black" in my opinion, and it is unwise to start another round of argument like we had before:commons:File talk:Flag of the Republic of China.svg Arilang ^talk 20:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the version I've uploaded on 2 September has exactly the same color as yours (#13007D). In any case, I'm fine with your version as it closely matches the one of the KMT website. Laurent (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not an IP address

So, I open Wikipedia - without signing in, because I don't have a Wiki account - and I get this message from Laurent, telling me that a change I made to the entry for "Interview with a Vampire" was reverted, because it was unproductive. Apparently, this change was made last April. The problem is, I never made any such change. Someone who back then had the IP address I have today made that change. Maybe it's time for Laurent and other WikiWookies to learn about dynamic IP assignment. An IP address is not like a social security number. One does not usually keep it for very long. It is completely useless as a means of identifying an individual - short of going through the ISP logs and seeing who was assigned that IP address at some specific time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by68.219.18.36 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eeeeeewtw

Hello. Thank you for filingWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eeeeeewtw. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Games 2009. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may beblocked from editing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Obviously the anonymous user who keeps vandalizing the page is not too concerned with 3RR since his IP changes every day. Laurent(talk) 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. Just brush up on Wikipedia:VAND#What is not vandalism, but this is patently an content dispute about the whole Chinese civil war issue. The user may not even realise that what he's doing is wrong, because he misses any warnings put on his talk page by virtue of being a dynamic IP user. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you in principle, but in this case the guy has been doing the same edit for the past 10 days without leaving a single edit summary or replying to the warnings. In that case, how do you suppose we sort out the issue other than by reverting? Laurent (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A note at WP:ANI, or possibly at WP:RFPP or the like might work :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kmt

Hello. I noticed you reverted my redirect of Kmt with the summary "this is going to break many links". WhileKMT has close to 100 links from mainspace, and I wouldn't dream of redirecting that, Kmt has none, and only 3 from elsewhere, all relating to the journal. It doesn't appear lower case Kmt is ever used to link to Kuomintang, whereas it is the actual name of the journal. Not a big deal and I don't plan to revert - just wanted to let you know my reasoning. Station1 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Catégorie Népotisme

Bonjour,

Je trouve franchement limite de changer le périmètre d'une catégorie pourensuite affirmer qu'elle correspond à l'article.

La candidature à la présidence de l'EPAD a été qualifiée de népotisme, mais cette candidature ayant été retirée il n'y a pas lieu de considérer qu'il est là où il est par népotisme. Les observateurs, qui ont utilisé le terme népotisme à proposde Jean Sarkozy traitaient de l'EPAD, pas de toute sa carrière. Garder la catégorisation, même avec ta nouvelle définition, est donc abusif, car il n'a pas été fréquemment été associé à du népotisme.

Cordialement

--Hercule (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, effectivement, présenté comme ça, ça a l'air limite et pourtant je n'avais pas l'intention de tromper qui que ce soit en changeant la description de Category:Nepotism. Je me doute que vous l'aviez lu et que vous vous rendriez compte que je l'avais changé.

J'ai modifié la catégorie parce que son nom "Népotisme" implique qu'elle englobe en général tout ce qui touche au népotisme, et j'aurais tendance à penser que ça inclu les personnes ayant fréquement été associées avec la pratique. En outre, le fait qu'il ait résigné ne change pas le fait qu'il y a eu un acte de népotisme. Il y a 85,900 résultats sur Google lorsque l'on tape '"jean sarkozy" nepotism' y compris des articles de presse de la BBC, Times et Guardian donc à mon avis il faut garder la catégorisation. C'est un fait notable qui est maintenant fortement associé au personnage.

Cordialement,

Laurent (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Je ne pense pas que du fait qu'il ait été question de népotisme dans une tentative avortée on puisse dire qu'il a fréquemment été associé à ce concept. S'il avait été au bout de sa démarche (et il aurait surement été élu, vue la situation politique dans ce coin là :p) il y aurait eu acte de népotisme.

Je ne vais pas me battre pour le contenu de cette Wikipédia, mais la recherche google ne me paraît pas non plus pertinente. C'est de l'actualité fraiche et les loups aiment bien se déchaîner sur internet.Georges Bush idiotdonne plus de 2 millions de résultats... difficile pourtant d'en déduire qu'une catégorisation dans cette hypothétique catégorie serait pertinente :p

La mention dans l'article permet de justement préciser quand et pourquoi il a été accusé de népotisme. La catégorisation est par contre non pertinence car cela reste une élément anecdotique (2 semaines) de sa carrière.

Cordialement,

--Hercule (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ROC article

you said"all these details are already mentioned in the article". Where???? As a commonsense man can know, the subtitle "After World War II (1945–1949)" is the history of REPUBLIC OF CHINA, not Taiwan. However, a commonsense man can see clearly this subsection only tells you what happened at Taiwan. A commonsense man knows that during 1945--1949, Republic of China still resided in Mainland, China including Taiwan. Do you think it is REASONABLE to write only Taiwan in this section??????????????????????????? Amphylite (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the paragraphs you've added are over-detailed while I think the article should only provide an outline of the history of the ROC. If there's more to say (and I agree there is), it can be added to History of the Republic of China. In any case, please discuss your changes on the ROC article talk page, not here.Laurent (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can discuss there, but please do discussion before undo other's work, right????? The article should provide the history of ROC, not the history of Taiwan. During 1945-1949, the history of ROC is completely different from the history of Taiwan because at that time ROC is still the entire China. Commonsense!Amphylite (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

About XML Editors page

Hi Laurent, Thank you posting in the discussion page before removing any xml editors of the xml editors list. Last editors had been approved due to xml book references. Don't clam "spam" for anything or we could see your post as similar spam for your wiki page, you are not alone working on this page.

Hi, I've replied on the article talk page. Laurent (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

!!!'s pronunciation

Hi, WikiLaurent. I was curious why you reverted my edit to !!!? The referenced audio interview pretty unequivocally pronounces the name as /tʃɪk tʃɪk tʃɪk/. Cheers! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xyzzyva, actually I didn't notice I was reverting someone as I didn't notice your edit was recent. I've put "chk chk chk" because that's what's written in the source but I don't mind either way. Maybe we could put both the pronunciation and phonetic notation? Laurent (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to work in the orthographic representation. I went ahead and put the IPA back in. If you can think of a way to put in the "chk chk chk" naturally, by all means do so! — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

American Indian Public Charter School

Can you help on American Indian Public Charter School? An IP keeps blanking/changing numbers/removing content. Richmondian (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that will help but I've reported the IP at WP:AIV. If that doesn't help you could try requesting for the page to be protected there: WP:RFPP. Laurent (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCrit

Hi - hope you're well. I replaced the following text that you removed, for it summarizes Cohen's argument. It does not reflect any editorial slant through cherry-picking quotes or otherwise. It only reports Cohen's argument through a NPOV, which can be verified by clicking through the link.

Cohen's argument, however, finds a grave conclusion in these circumstances: "To control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought." That freedom, Cohen would say, is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia: "not your sources but the "support of the community"."

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by070time070 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Go! programming language AFD

Please stop beating up other contributors to the AFD. Calling people trolls is in violation of our policy on civil collaborative editing and our no personal attacks policy. You have additionally poked a large number of people commenting with a wide variety of comments.

Let the discussion be. You do not need to respond that aggressively.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true but I was replying to someone calling me hypocrite and who has repeateadly called me a liar during this AfD. His nomination of "Go" was disruptive; he knew it and could indeed be called a troll for that.Laurent (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That is no excuse. We expect people to remain civil even in the face of provocations.

That said - I did warn him at the same time I warned you. I don't have any pretention tha tthis was one-sided. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, I saw this edit and there was no edit summary, when I looked it should be something like, removed cat, then I was wondering why you removed it, he seems to fit well in the cat? Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've actually added this category and then, later on, removed it. I'm not sure he can be called a criminal since the theft was non-violent and no weapon was involved. In French law the theft would be called a misdemeanor but not a crime. However maybe it's different in US or UK law, so if that's the case feel free to put back the category. Laurent (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike most cats, and you are working the article so i'll leave it in your hands, but I don't think we have a catagory:french misdemeanor-ists. No worries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a Category:French bank robbers - that will do it :) Laurent (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I did not revert to a very old version. The primary problem with the edits is that they've all been aimed at reducing information in the article and coloring the description of the language with Jov's particular viewpoint of the language. Aprock (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ReCaptcha Solver OCR

I just wanted to drop you a note about this article. Please do not restore speedy tags after they have been removed by another editor. According to the article history, Neo anderson matrix removed the G11 tag on the article, which you then restored. Thanks! TNXMan 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

why you keep undoing my changes?

Dear Laurent,

I don't know why you keep undoing my changes. As the only developer and the project manager behind DirSync Pro, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I post something on this page.

Thank you.

According to this page, E. Gerber was the original author and admin on Sourceforge; he then handed over the project to F. Gerbig. If that's not correct, please could you provide a source showing that you were indeed one of the original authors? Also, in case you haven't noticed, your name is listed among the developers in the infobox. The "Original author(s)" field should only list the developer(s) who started the project. Laurent (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan 2009 local elections

I've created a stub for this - any chance you could help out or organise some help for it? I think we also need something for the elections next year.John Smith's (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Style Guide

Hi,

My name is Nathan Grimm from www.GuideToOnlineSchools.com. We recently published a detailed list of style guide resources for the MLA, APA, Chicago, and CSE styles:http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/tips-and-tools/mla-apa-chicago-cse. It includes resources written by universities, general online guides, and free works cited generators. It is an excellent tool for any student because it links to over 70 of the best resources on the internet.

I think the visitors to your website will find a link to this resource useful. Also, I would be happy to improve the guide based on your feedback.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

Nathan Grimm Program Manager – Reach Network nathan@reachnetwork.com http://twitter.com/n8ngrimm (425) 605-8898 123 Lake Street S Ste B-1 Kirkland, WA 98033 —Precedingunsigned comment added by 63.118.100.98 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD nomination of article that you edited

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_10#Comparison_of_portable_platforms. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File: Execution in China [sic]

Thanks for the assist. --Dynaflowbabble 01:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights in

Thanks WikiLaurent for fixing the Human rights in China redirect. Another human rights related page that looks to me like it should lead to an actual article rather than a disambiguation page is Human rights in Iran. There seems to have been some debate on this subject on the talk page of that article...I wonder if you would be interested in looking into it? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For Iran, there has indeed been some detatehere with a consensus to move Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran to Human rights in Iran but for some reasons it didn't happen. It seems that somebody created the disambiguation page before the discussion was finished and it stayed like that since then. Perhaps you coud start a new move request in the main article and see if there is still a consensus. Personnally I would support the move as I think state articles should use the state common name whenever possible. Laurent (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I started a move requesthere Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being bold at Talk:Akmal Shaikh

Just want to thank you for being bold at Talk:Akmal Shaikh, as I know personally it can be tough to make bold moves, however the thread was indeed derailing into a debate not related to encyclopedia building. Happy editing, and I hope you have a good new year, --Taelus (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning (for good measure)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Akmal Shaikh. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I shouldn't have kept reinserting that statement in the article without consensus. I'll propose my changes in the talk page from now on. Laurent (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What do you mean? --98.207.29.214 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply - Hat note

I do understand your position. I just disagree. I think it's for the best to leave the hat note in. I'd suggest taking it to the talk page and seeing what others think. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Salut

Salut, ce passage ne concernait pas le climat ou la géographie de la Chine mais l'environnement. J'ai donc tout simplement supprimé ce passage qui se trouve en fait dans la section plus bas "public health". C'est pour éviter les répétitions ! Voilà @+ Zhonghuo (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

D'accord mais dans ce cas-là pourquoi ne pas déplacer le texte dans la bonne section ? La loi sur la protection de l'environnement par exemple n'est pas mentionnée dans la section sur la Santé Publique et a donc tout simplement disparu de l'article. Ces temps-ci, il y a énormément de texte de supprimé dans les articles sur la Chine sans qu'aucune discussion n'ait lieu, et je trouve que c'est un problème. Laurent(talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tu dois par ailleurs être d'accord avec moi pour reconnaitre que de nombreuses informations dans cet article sont non nourcées et très peu neutres. J'essaye donc de neutraliser l'article du mieux possible.Zhonghuo (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Justement, je peux me tromper mais je ne trouve pas que l'article soit particulièrement biasé. Ce qui est neutre pour toi ne l'est pas pour moi donc je pense que le mieux c'est d'en discuter dans la page de discussion pour obtenir d'autres avis. Laurent (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh

Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork*^YES! 12:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Execution in China.jpg

Hello, the picture "Execution in China.jpg" has recently been deleted. Unfortunately, I didn't have the chance to contribute to the discussion as I wasn't aware that it taking place in so many different places. There was only two replies on the deletion discussion, so I though it wouldn't have been deleted.

Personally, I think this picture is useful and meet the fair-use criteria because it depicts a mean of execution that still exists in the PRC, and because it's not possible to find equivalent pictures. I agree there are doubt about who exactly is being executed or what she did but then again there are doubts about just about everything that comes from the PRC.

So I would like to ask - do you think it would be fine to use this picture under fair-use and by using a completely neutral (and non-OR) caption? A specialist from the UCL has confirmed that the picture is recent and that the policemen are indeed from the PLA. Moreover, Amnesty recently wrote that some executions are still carried out by rifle. We know that much so the caption could be "Member of the People's Liberation Army carrying out an execution". Also it's been difficult to track the exact source of the picture, I see no reason to believe it is a fake so hopefully it can still be used for education purposes. What do you think?Laurent (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue will remain that it is unclear who is depicted, and unclear why the execution is taking place. That it is a PRC (rifle) execution of recent times does appear clear. Who owns the copyright for the image, and what are the exact details remains unknown. I think that without such details the image is going to fail onpoint 8 of the non-free content guideline: it is hard to argue that something significantly increases reader's understanding when we don't have confirmation of what it depicts. The lack of a clear source is always problematic. Also to consider is the argument in the debate "I think it fails our non-free content criteria because it doesn't convey any information beyond what the text of the articles it's used in do". An image only meet the policy text if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.....with such an image this appears difficult to demonstrate. Better to find an image that (a) is well sourced and so well described and (b) where the image itself has been commented on by reliable sources (news sources usually here) so that sourced discussion in an article can reference the image - Peripitus (Talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ROCrecognition-number

Template:ROCrecognition-number has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)