User talk:Earthlyreason

Welcome!

Hello, Earthlyreason, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -SCEhardT 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SCEhard. Thanks for the tips and the gentle reminder to keep the conventions. Yes, I’m still learning and I will check out the references, again, and try to keep in line. Earthlyreason 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Powerstation

Thanks for that power station link for North Point. I suspected it wasn't quite the first, but have been busy on many other articles since. You found a very helpful link. The page will get fixed soon along with the Electric company stuff. Benjwong 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Venue suggestion needed for a meet-up in Yuen Long

Dear: Earthlyreason ：
In the past meet-ups, we always had our meeting in the centre of Kowloon, either Kowloon Tong or Mong Kok. However, apart from these places, I am sure that alternative venues in other region would be suitable.

This is the time for your suggestion! According to some discussion on Chinese Wikipedia, from August of 2007, the Hong Kong Wikimedians’ meet-up would be held in all districts of Hong Kong in a circulation basis.

Here is the tentative information of the first meet-up：

Date：11, August, 2007 (Saturday)

Time：After 5:00pm

Proposed region：Yuen Long

The community would request for ideas of where we should hold the meet-up , in order to have a better decision. If you have any good ideas, don’t hesitate to give your opinions, million thanks!

Please don't hesitate to give your good suggestion to us Regards, Hong Kong Wikimedian Sith lord darth vader

Duplicate Image:Nesbitt centre.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Nesbitt centre.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Nesbitt centre.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Nesbitt centre.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. We only need one of them. Sorry, i'm new to image uploading, and just trying to get it to work properly. Earthlyreason 10:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

Hi Earthlyreason. I saw you made some edits to this page not too long ago and you are still active. If you are (roughly) familiar with him, you may wish to participate in the recently opened RFC. RB972 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gary Glitter

Thanks for your additions to the above. Due to the large number of changes I made to fix the refs, I overwrote your changes. Hopefully, I have put them all back now. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Nina Carlina

A tag has been placed on Nina Carlina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter Lai

Referring to the expansion to the above article, would you happen to have the references? Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for reminding me. I was working on a bunch of different articles simultaneously and forgot to leave my reference. It's there now. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivial name

Your proposal to merge this article with "common name" seems fine to me. I have put this proposal on the "trivial name" page and am happy to carry out the merger myself in 1 month if that is OK with you and there are no objections. Granitethighs (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for getting the formal discussion going. Please go ahead, if and when there is a consensus. Earthlyreason (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ASBM

While the topic is of interest to me, all I did was merge the pre-existing stub ASBM into a newly creates Anti-ship ballistic missile: I didn't add any content, and only removed and unsourced claim that the PRC already had their missile operational. So if you think its too much eithe {{fact}} it or removed it. Am glad this is being worked on! Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

sur eman if you got anythign for me let me know ;). --Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

UK Intelligence community

Hi

I've redirected your UK Intelligence Community article back to the main list of intelligence agencies article as nothing of any note had been done to it in nearly four months. If you're not happy with that then I'm not averse to taking it to Redirects for discussion as probably more appropriate than AFD.

ALR (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented.

Earthlyreason (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

About your capitalization "correction"

Officially "Lai King Station" not "Lai King station"

If you're gonna to change the capitalization of "station" in all of the MTR stations article title, you better stop right now. The "station" is the integral part of the station name thus requiring capital case for the first letter. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps you have a point there. Not so much that the MTRC displays it like that, but more that the general usage tends towards capitalising.

Please feel free to revert that change.

However, your tone is way out of line. On Wikipedia, we don't go around telling people what they'd "better" do. I note that you have fallen foul of Wikiquette before and suggest you have a read of that page.

Earthlyreason (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Chip Tsao or To Kit?

I listed this one on Wikipedia:Requested moves. See Talk:To Kit#Requested move; appreciate your input. Thanks, cab (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have done so. Earthlyreason (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

comment on Gweilo

I added a comment to Gweilos' view of 'gweilo' because I am puzzled about what name we have too. When Asked I always say I am "Hong Kong Gweilo". Also some people say we are "eggs" (white on the outside and yellow on the inside), the opposite of "bananas" (yellow on the outside white on the inside) who are people of Chinese decent who live in Western Countries and haven't a clue about anything Chinese. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian place names

Hi, just letting you know of the existence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia. This guideline states that all suburb and town names are disambiguated by state in Australia. There were efforts to have this changed on several occasions but consensus remained consistently behind disambiguation. Orderinchaos 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. I was getting to realise that there was consistency in this madness. I should have undone the half dozen or so changes I made and checked. Better still, we should re-open the debate. That convention goes against all that is good and simple in Wikipedia, with Australia the only country on the list that deviates from the obvious rule of "Only disambiguate towns where necessary", except the Americans, who at least actually use the long-fangled versions of their placenames.

Where is this debate archived, by the way?

As Exhibit 1, I present the very first item from the Naming conventions page:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity

The next several paragraphs of this seminal document all point in exactly the oppposite direction from this ridiculous convention, ie. to use the most common name. Instead, for instance, the small town of Geurie, with 70,000 hits on Google, gets lumbered with an article called "Geurie, New South Wales", a phrase which is found only 50 times on Google, mostly Wikipedia and mirrors thereof.

In terms of Wikipedia operation, it requires every placename article to have a parallel re-direct page with the real name, for users who innocently and sensibly look up 'Geurie', and every editor to be constantly piping the normal name to the cumbersome article title. Ridiculous and, as I said, against all that Wikipedia stands for.
Earthlyreason (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but the discussion has been had several times, each time with the same result. From a maintenance point of view, and also from a readability point of view, the disambiguation is actually pretty good. While your point above works with Geurie, it does not work with random suburb names throughout Australia's larger towns and cities which often have either very confusing or very generic names with regard to their location. even though many of them are unique. Having very similar articles with radically different names depending on what else happens to exist on Wikipedia at the time they are created is a recipe for trouble and does not aid navigation (in fact it was the reason why Australia went that way to begin with). There is also the issue of informal naming where an area gets an informal or development name which is actually a formal town name somewhere else, so the disambiguation reduces confusion in such instances. Ironically, about 15-20 other countries have moved significantly towards the Australian convention, even though it is not formally codified anywhere - so we're far from isolated as to where things stand. I would say being able to find the page in the first place is perfectly in line with what Wikipedia stands for. Orderinchaos 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not sure I understand why a few suburbs called 'Newtown' or whatever knock down a firm principle of 'disambiguate only where necessary'. Anyway, I'm not Australian, so clearly I'd better keep out the way. But if the debate gets started again, perhaps you'd do me the favour of pasting my above comment into it. All the best. Earthlyreason (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, one last comment, to your expanded response.
Your defence of 'easier maintenance' calls up an easy response. The principle is that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors"

I think that the 'confusion' you speak of could apply only to overhasty editors. Users who follow a correct link will arrive at the right page, and a search for a confusing name should in any case lead to some sort of disambiguation. Only editors who weigh into the wrong page could screw things up, and that could be dealt with by a prominent comment hidden within the text, leaving the many unambiguous placenames in line with the 'most common name' principle.

A further loss of the present system is the hint contained in "Warren, New South Wales" that it is not the only place of that name. Earthlyreason (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Orderinchaos is basically on the money, but the central reason we implemented this convention in the first place was because it was a nightmare to administer beforehand.

We used to have articles at, "Town", "Town, State", "Town, Australia" "Town, State, Australia", "Suburb, Town", and even more variations. Editors would create duplicate articles not realising they'd already been created, existing links pointed all over the place to all of the above variations and more, and trying to find an article if you wanted to link meant trying all of the above variations.

It was a total nuisance to work with. Since implementing this system, though, every link to a town points to the same place (whether an article exists or not), anyone who wants to go straight to a town article knows where to find it, and linking a town article is considerably easier.

I highly doubt readers are either going to care or even notice the difference if an article is at "Warren, New South Wales". The reader gets the advantage of actually being able to find the article they're looking for; the editor gets the advantage of not having to administer a right mess. This one's not gonna change anytime soon, I think. Rebecca (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, thanks for taking the time to lay it out. Personally, I still don't quite see how this exception to general practice is justified, especially for editors' convenience. But it is not my domain, and I don't intend to pursue it. If Australian editors and users like it that way, I'll just go along with it. all the best. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Blank look

No problem. I don't hold anything against you. An elite (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your User Page - a suggestion

Hi, I like your user page - a very useful list of tags for missing references, etc!

The reason why I'm leaving you a message is because on of them you used without a date=:

Also remove this template from articles that do have references.
section lacks references {{Unreferenced|section} }:

That can be dated too (at the moment, your example is not dated, so it appears on [[Category:Articles_lacking_sources]], which I have been monitoring recently!)

If you change the tag to {{Unreferenced|section|date=July 2xxx}} then your user page will not show up on the list of unreferenced articles! As it's your user page, I thought it would be rude for me to change it myself, so I thought I should contact you!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and it's done. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kowloon Peninsula

Your question is answered. Montemonte (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Grace Mugabe

Hey! Nice edits last night - that's a lot more readable. Good work! H0n0r (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rockit

You put in an infobox on the Rockit page which included '1969' as the dates. I assume you meant something sensible (you don't look like a vandal) but I've deleted this, since it doesn't make sense to me, and that info only applies to one year. Make any further changes you think necessary. Earthlyreason (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, do you mean Rockit? I don't remember editing that page, nor can I find my edits in the page history or my user contributions. You sure it's me?

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks, but I'll pass. I don't have a particular interest; I just wrote up one bio because I came across a bunch of relevant info.Earthlyreason (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Fahl

I don't doubt you bought the CD. But Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not original research (yes I do call your edit WP:OR). Her website says nothing, and Amazon.com doesn't clarify matters, and reviews on Amazon (unreliable anyway) are mostly obviously written about the Advanced promotional copies released years ago. By undoing my reversion of your edit, you just contributed unsourced material that is also now sourced incorrectly with her discography because you didn't remove the citation, which still says the disc will be released sometime in 2010. So by all means, tell me to be "realistic." But you're the one making an edit breaking Wikipedia policy, not I. Anyone can get a copy of an advance release of her disc. That proves nothing. I'm also not sure why a major editor such as yourself would even consider contributing OR material or even write it in a non-WP:NPOV manner ("finally released"). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your respect and I'll accord the same to you. I was really just trying to helpfully let people know that the CD was out. That said, I bought it while talking with Mary herself, after a concert, and the conversation was mostly about other things. So it might still be pre-release. Anyway, if you wish to revise the article, please do so. I'll leave the issue in your hands. cheers Earthlyreason (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think 'finally' is POV, it merely reflects the earlier statement that the album has been a long time coming.Earthlyreason (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "finally" is both WP:POV and a tad WP:OPINION. To say the CD was finally released makes the article sound slightly desperate or relieved, which isn't neutral. I simply wouldn't use the word at all. I did give you the benefit of good faith before reverting your edit. I mean, when you changed it to say the album was released, I immediately went hunting for it on the web, but her MySpace says nothing, there are no news articles dated 2010 (only 2008 and thereabouts), etc etc. So even though your intent is in good faith, to let readers know that it's out, the edit is misleading, because the album is not out. More specifically, it looks like the album is being sold as she tours the east coast, but the CD still isn't available nationwide or worldwide.

The fact that she's selling the CD at her concerts is a good sign, but unless it's mentioned in a second-party source, it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia, which is not a foray of original research, no matter how much we want it to be. I looked again today for news on her release, but there's still nothing. So unfortunately, I'll have to revert the edit, but thanks for understanding. If you see anywhere that the CD is for sale and it's mentioned in a reliable source, by all means, re-add it. (Actually, if she's mentioned in your local newspaper, you can check to see if it mentions the CD there.)

On another note, if you saw her in concert, did you take any pictures of her? I ask because the MF talk page was tagged with needing an image for her article. If you have any pictures and are willing to release it under CC or GNU licenses, it'd be great to have one of her on her main article. Take care – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan Shadrake - Avoid Blogs as References

Just to point out to you that TheOnlineCitizen and Temasek Review are both blogs (See their "about" pages), and the neutrality and accuracy of these 2 blogs are questionable; taking the Temasek Review link for example which claimed that the Reporters Without Borders petition asked for intercession under the grounds that the subject was under financial difficulties, that point does not appear on the actual petition itself (Only Shadrake's poor health was mentioned) and appears to have been added by the writers behind the Temasek Review article without any sourcing. Compare the Temasek Review article and the actual Reporters Without Borders petition. I revised the article to take this into account. If the content to be inserted is good, these content would be covered by other sources that are more readily acceptable under Wikipedia rules. Cheers. DanS76 (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, and yes, blogs are less than ideal references - but the Singapore press is strangely quiet on this issue! I well take your point about the Temasek source saying something the petition didn't. I missed that. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Athlete

I agree with you completely about the name of Sportsperson needing to change to "Athlete;" I also agree with your suggestions on changing related disambiguation pages. I think the fact that a Google search for "Athlete" leads one to the disambiguation page is a clear sign of failure. I also believe "An Athlete competes in Athletics;" and that athletics should not exclude American Football, Alpine Skiing, etc. I'm with you. It's an undertaking.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Have created Athletics (overview), and still believe Sportsperson should be Athlete.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup

You're invited to the next Hong Kong meetup on 19 August in Think Cafe, Causeway Bay. Please sign up to the meetup on the meta meetup page. Hope to see you there! Deryck C. 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I saw your 2008 comment and found it refreshing. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Earthlyreason. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Earthlyreason. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Jiangxu" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jiangxu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § Jiangxu until a consensus is reached. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)