User talk:Geographyinitiative/Archives/Archive 1

Don't know what I'm doing

Hello, Geographyinitiative, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Mootros (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Chinese eras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jin Dynasty. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Geographyinitiative. 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)[reply]

A page you started (Yonglong, Hubei) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Yonglong, Hubei, Geographyinitiative!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Buddhist temples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanyang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Liushuquan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hongqi, Dongfeng, Qianjin and Hongxing

Dinghai District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Shuangqiao and Jintang

Luonan Subdistrict (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liming

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dongxihu District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cedar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qiaokou District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WAM Address Collection

Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your postal mailing address via Google form or email me about that on erick@asianmonth.wiki before the end of Janauary, 2018. The Wikimedia Asian Month team only has access to this form, and we will only share your address with local affiliates to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. We apologize for the delay in sending this form to you, this year we will make sure that you will receive your postcard from WAM. If you've not received a postcard from last year's WAM, Please let us know. All ambassadors will receive an electronic certificate from the team. Be sure to fill out your email if you are enlisted Ambassadors list.

Best, Erick Guan (talk)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for those geographical articles! Timmyshin (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WAM Address Collection - 1st reminder

Hi there. This is a reminder to fill the address collection. Sorry for the inconvenience if you did submit the form before. If you still wish to receive the postcard from Wikipedia Asian Month, please submit your postal mailing address via this Google form. This form is only accessed by WAM international team. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. If you have problems in accessing the google form, you can use Email This User to send your address to my Email.

If you do not wish to share your personal information and do not want to receive the postcard, please let us know at WAM talk page so I will not keep sending reminders to you. Best, Sailesh Patnaik

Confusion in the previous message- WAM

Hello again, I believe the earlier message has created some confusion. If you have already submitted the details in the Google form, it has been accepted, you don't need to submit it again. The earlier reminder is for those who haven't yet submitted their Google form or if they any alternate way to provide their address. I apologize for creating the confusion. Thanks-Sailesh Patnaik

Sources

Can you please add your sources to List of township-level divisions of Chongqing and translate from Chinese to English. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please respond? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay! I wasn't the creator of the majority of the material for that page; it was taken from a draft. I have added a source which in all likelihood is the source for the work in that draft. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of township-level divisions of Gansu) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of township-level divisions of Gansu, Geographyinitiative!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for 2 issues.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are serious issues with the page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of township-level divisions of Hunan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of township-level divisions of Hunan, Geographyinitiative!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for several concerns. Please respond to concerns raised.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are serious issues with the page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of township-level divisions of Ningxia

This is a list with zero entries; it is not acceptable for the mainspace of an encyclopaedia. Please add entries. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same for List of township-level divisions of Sichuan. Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some township-level divisions to those two lists. Most of the lists of the township-level divisions of the provinces of China are in an extremely abysmal state-- further, the 'lists of administrative divisions' look much nicer, but they too are missing some administrative areas and have other mistakes. When they say we need to focus on the underrepresented stuff this year, I think this is definitely one corner of that. I am working on stuff in Hubei atm; with all the stuff that needs doing in central China, I may never have the time to get into Sichuan and Ningxia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wenquan, Huanggang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lotus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on image at Talk:Earth

Hi Goegraphyinitiative, would you consider adding your thoughts at a discussion about the inclusion of a phylogenetic tree image at Talk:Earth#Phylogenetic Tree image removed? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there saying "I also concur with Chiswick Chap and Double sharp, the 'PhylogeneticTree,_Woese_1990.PNG' image seems more suitable for this article than the 'Collapsed tree labels simplified.png' image." Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About village-level divisions of China

我已经开始写湖北省的List of village-level divisions of Hubei~~ 那你什么时候开始写湖南省的List of village-level divisions of Hunan呢? 加油！！Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

关于中国的行政区划单位，我觉得工程量好大。中国大陆有300多地级单位、2千多县级单位、约4万乡级单位、50万左右村级单位，其中地级单位没有实质内容的很多，县级很多实际就是一句话二句话普遍，乡镇层面多缺少条目，村级暂时没法纳入考虑。
关于乡级层面。我是目前重点只能针对湖南省内的乡镇单位进行系列梳理，适当扩充。只能是看到哪里想到哪里整理到哪里。
借鉴区划层面相似的英语国家加拿大对乡镇层面条目的处理。加拿大全国人口基数小，维基条目参与者相对少，乡镇层面特别是历史乡镇，条目短而简单。由于封锁的缘故，目前涉及到的大陆条目，维基百科参与者渺渺无几，又是英语书写，参与着更少了一个量级。涉及大陆的乡级层面条目数量巨大，真是感觉有心无力，能够保证乡镇级层面不空就是一个伟大的进步。关于乡镇层面条目，我觉得能够保证所有条目不缺，能够写个有质量的梗概就是一个莫大的理想。目前的重点就是梳理一个普通乡镇梗概，保证是通用的有质量、有实质内容的书写模式（或者书写模板）。

至于说书写方式，则借鉴加拿大、澳洲、美国及英国英语国家类似条目的书写方式。

关于村级条目，哪怕是中国全国、各省、各地方目前很著名的行政村条目难得有质量，甚至缺少此类条目，想去梳理更没头绪。即使能有头绪，凭咱们这几个人微薄之力，在当前这种形势下，没有意义。只能是看到哪里想到哪里，做到那里。关于中国的行政区划单位，我觉得目前重点是乡镇及以前行政区划单位条目的书写、充实、完善。

(Cncs (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chashan, Liling

Chashan, Liling chá-shān zhèn (茶山镇) ??

我觉得应该写为 Cháshān Zhèn (茶山镇)

The Basic Rules of the Chinese Phonetic Alphabet Orthography《汉语拼音正词法基本规则》6.2.2.1条.2012. pp.8. "汉语地名中的专名和通名,分写,每一分写部分的首字母大写。例如: Běijīng Shì (北京市)Héběi Shěnɡ（河北省）Yālù Jiānɡ（鸭绿江） Tài Shān（泰山）Dònɡtínɡ Hú（洞庭湖） Táiwān Hǎixiá（台湾海峡）"

[1]

加油！Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the pinyin on Lushui, Chaling which was Lùshuǐ Zhèn to lù-shuǐ zhèn. [[2]]. Please look at The Basic Rules of the Chinese Phonetic Alphabet Orthography《汉语拼音正词法基本规则》. I'm really sad that you are changing correct pinyin to incorrect pinyin. But I think your work is still really amazing; keep it up! Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

你做得好，很严谨。 (Cncs (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of village-level divisions of Hubei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Yangpu, Lishan, Huli and Huilong

Lou Henry Hoover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Italian and Spanish

Yongxi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Meichuan

Zouma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Meichuan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mill Lake - Yikes!

Thanks for catching my blunder on Charles Mill Lake! I'm not sure how that happened. Leschnei (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a very common joke/mistake that usually last for years before being caught! Yesterday I found one that has been on here since 2008. Keep up the good dam editing! Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been a typo on Immovable Ladder?

Here is the page in dispute:

Church of the Holy Sepulchre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I removed the following report from AIV since no vandalism has been demonstrated:

Arminden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blatant unrepentant vandalism of Church of the Holy Sepulchre (--removal of the "Immovable Ladder",--)plus many claims of vandalism with warnings on talk page (see User_talk:Arminden#Vandalism: "Immovable Ladder") Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. This is not vandalism, just a disagreement between you and User:Arminden on how to structure the article. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is link vandalism[3]: adding the faulty link "Immovable Ladder". I have no opinions about the structure of the article. I don't care if the ladder is mentioned at all in the article. The problem is intentionally adding the faulty link "Immovable Ladder" and what seems to be a history of vandalism on other pages with warnings. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no comments from you on the article talk page. If you make no effort to reach consensus, it will be hard for others to take you seriously. User:Arminden has never been blocked for vandalism, so don't throw the vandalism word around carelessly. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is link vandalism[4]. I'm not on the Church talk page because I'm not discussing that article's structure. If he wants to take away that link, that's fine. It's fine either way with me. But don't do the link vandalism. Church of the Holy Sepulchre 13:46, 26 January 2018--changed to "Immovable Ladder" quote in context after link vandalism change: ("removal of the "Immovable Ladder",")Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)the AIV discussion because the edits by Arminden are clearly not vandalism.[reply]

Are you talking about this edit by Arminden, at 13:46 on 26 January? It appears to be a typo by Arminden: he left the 'I' out of the wikilink brackets, and the result was I[[mmovable Ladder]]. You could go ahead and fix the simple mistake yourself without reporting him for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of village-level divisions of Chongqing

Hi, I'm 333-blue. Geographyinitiative, thanks for creating List of village-level divisions of Chongqing!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please make them into lists/tables.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

– 333 -blue, 02:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Content

Would it be possible for you to work on the translation of articles List of township-level divisions of Chongqing, List of village-level divisions of Chongqing and List of village-level divisions of Shandong please, before creating more. If you're not able to do so, please can you follow the instructions at WP:TRANSLATION rather than adding large amounts of untranslated content--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern, but there is no reliable source that I know of that gives the official romanization of the names of most of these towns and villages. While others and I myself could and often have tried to "make a good guess", I have come to feel that it is dangerously irresponsible to go in and make those kinds of guesses without having an authoritative source giving the official spellings and orthographies of the romanized names of these Chinese locations. Things that seem straightforward sometimes aren't: some of the characters used in the location names change between sources and the correct orthography of the romanizations and pronunciations are something that well-educated native speakers of Chinese would not know off-hand, including known ambiguities and 'unknown ambiguities'- characters having unusual romanizations that are officially sanctioned but found outside some major dictionaries (areas with situations like Lu'an, but less well-known or almost totally unknown to to outsiders). I don't want to move fast for the sake of moving fast: I could cause the spread of "guess romanizations" into English through Wikipedia, which I feel could be damaging to the culture of those locations and to the reputation of Wikipedia. Sometimes the name of one location in China has two pronunciations (with two corresponding pinyin romanizations) that are equally acceptable and it doesn't cause any problems in the daily life of the people there (Qieding District, Kaohsiung#Pronunciation and Romanization); it's only a problem to the online community telling them how things ought to be. ("How dare you have a location name with one set of Chinese characters that has multiple romanizations and hyphens or unusual capital letters!") Unexpected orthography including capitalizations and hyphenations in local names is sometimes important to the people from that location (Wuhan/WuHan), but will unquestionably be missed by anyone who is just "making a good guess". There is sometimes more than one right answer. What I'm doing is a kind of 'step one', putting in some sourced info about those locations amongst the absolute mess that these pages are at this point: something that can be built upon. If you think some of these pages need to go back into the 'draft' stage, then that's okay with me- I will keep editing the drafts. There are many pages that really need to be taken back to the draft stage; I've just not yet familiar with the protocols of how draft pages work. In essence, by doing what I'm doing, I'm trying to change the culture of throwing essentially unsourced machine translated data onto the minor location pages, which is something that is still ongoing and moving at Mach speed in other people's editing. It's already 2018 and this hasn't been done yet: no need to rush it now. I appreciate any help you'd be willing to give me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wuhan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (History of Wuhan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating History of Wuhan, Geographyinitiative!

Wikipedia editor Power~enwiki just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

When creating a page based on content from a different page, please include a wikilink in your edit summary. I've demonstrated how to do so in my latest diff.

To reply, leave a comment on Power~enwiki's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Wuhan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanyang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a hand

Hello, Geographyinitiative! I'm recently creating the page Wulipu, can you help me by citing "http://www.shayang.gov.cn/syzjsy/syrkmz/201502/t20150227_620531.shtml" or simply add some text? ----Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 09:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool! Nice to meet you. I have made some edits to the page, as well as the Baidu Baike page- 五里铺镇. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since I am pretty much a newbie here, could you add a map to show the specific location? ----Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 13:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to a map in the first line^[1], but I don't know how to make a map on Wikipedia and I don't know anyone that does. Maybe you could ask User:Neo-Jay. Hold on a minute and I will add the geographic coordinates. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: You correctly added a map to Wulipu. Nice work! --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: Thanks! It's nice of you to help me.

@Nyholtredehn:@Neo-Jay: I enjoyed doing it and I learned a lot too. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay:@Geographyinitiative: Sorry for my absence, and I'm glad to know you love doing it!--Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 10:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyholtredehn: Thanks for your contributions. :) Neo-Jay (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo-Jay: Well, since Wulipu is my grandma's hometown, I'm enjoying it, too. --Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyholtredehn: That's great! --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "沙洋县行政区划图". 沙洋县人民政府门户网站 www.shayang.gov.cn (in Simplified Chinese). 湖北中大空间地理信息数据中心. November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
17	Dangyang (talk)	Add sources
90	Hainanese (talk)	Add sources
19	Leizhou Min (talk)	Add sources
4	Xiao Erya (talk)	Add sources
113	Quedlinburg (talk)	Add sources
79	Chinese character encoding (talk)	Add sources
126	Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters (talk)	Cleanup
33	Hanban (talk)	Cleanup
5	Yan Wenjing (talk)	Cleanup
14	National Languages Committee (talk)	Expand
17	Secondary contact (talk)	Expand
337	Taiwanese Mandarin (talk)	Expand
231	False friend (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,520	Simplified Chinese characters (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
79	Amdo (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6	Third Wuzhen Theatre Festival (talk)	Merge
3	Third Ring Road (Wuhan) (talk)	Merge
18	Southeast Asian Massif (talk)	Merge
5	Taishi, Guangzhou (talk)	Wikify
22	Sêrtar County (talk)	Wikify
80	Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language (talk)	Wikify
10	Puppy love in China (talk)	Orphan
2	The Tale of Huai Yin (talk)	Orphan
4	Earth forest (talk)	Orphan
32	Tehuelche language (talk)	Stub
19	Hongshan District, Wuhan (talk)	Stub
11	Laohekou (talk)	Stub
78	Khe Sanh (talk)	Stub
9	Huangpi District (talk)	Stub
14	Jiangxia District (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page.

Hello, I'm just here to tell you, whether or not you noticed, one of the userboxes on your page doesn't exist. ----Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn^Discussion! 10:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know- it's for Bopomofo. But Wiktionary has it though. I guess I'm hoping it will come into existence someday. Right now, it's a reminder to myself to figure out how to make it so it displays on wikipedia too. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 'chill out'

You are right, I should not have said what I did. I apologize for my behavior. My argument for including the new numbers is in the talk page of the article.UBER ^(talk) 10:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some guotie for you!

	Some guotie for you!
	Guotie--also known as potstickers--is a Northern Chinese style dumpling popular as a street food, appetizer, or side order in Chinese. Hopefully these gooey delicious potstickers will make you happy! – Lionel^(talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bozhong Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Li County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homer H. Dubs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jinchuan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Yongchang County into Zhelaizhai. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will start doing this. "if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication." How do I do that? Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Liqian

From <中国历史地名大辞典> Page 2262: 【骊靬县】西汉置，属张掖郡。治所在今甘肃永昌县西南二十里焦家庄乡者来坝。《汉书·地理志》颜师古注： “骊音力迟反。靬音虔是也。今其土俗人呼骊靬，疾言之曰力虔。” 西晋改属武威郡。《晋书·张祚传》：东晋永和十年 (354) 祚僭帝位，改建兴四十二年为和平元年，“遣其将和昊率众伐骊靬戎于南山，大败而还”。即此。北魏废。 "Zhelaizhai" doesn't have an entry in this book. Hope this is helpful. Timmyshin (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! It does mention "者来坝"- first time I have heard of that place. I will look into all of this more later this weekend and next week. (The only thing I know for sure is that this that there is a rock somewhere with the inscription "者来寨" on it- seen it in a bunch of clips.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of village-level divisions of Hubei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dadu, Donggang, Guangming, Lianhe and Liuji

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of township-level divisions of Chongqing

Isn't the "List of township-level divisions of Chongqing" just a duplicate article of the "List of village-level divisions of Chongqing"? StrikoWriter1234 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrikoWriter1234 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the present state, it is. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The villages page was put into draft. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of village and township-level divisions of Chongqing moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of village and township-level divisions of Chongqing, currently has large chunks which remain in a dialect of Chinese. As there is no deadline on Wikipedia, I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft) published in May 1977.pdf

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the 隔音符號

Thank you for the correction! I wonder how this all came about, I looked up the original rules and they dont give a reasoning for it, let alone mention ambiguity. Further rule books and translations that phrase it correctly, e.g. the page (you?) cited in the article mention that it prevents ambiguity, in which case it would obviously be inconsistent and abstruse. Do you know what the primary/original reasoning is/was? EnTerbury (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rule (I guess Zhou Youguang & his buddies thought it up?) 汉语拼音方案 Section 5 隔音符号

"a，o，e开头的音节连接在其它音节后面的时候，如果音节的界限发生混淆，用隔音符号（’）隔开，例如：pi’ao（皮袄）。"

You may have to read what I write here twice because I'm not sure I can express my response clearly enough---- 1) The rule IS designed to prevent ambiguity (like everyone believes) BUT 2) that doesn't mean you just add an apostrophe whenever you think there is some ambiguity. In fact, there are times when there is actually NO ambiguity in the pinyin but you MUST add the apostrophe, for instance 天鵝- writing 'tiane' is wrong- you have to write 'tian'e', but there's no character read as 'tia' which might cause confusion (a hypothetical 'tia ne' vs 'tian e'). Here's my guess of why they made it so that you always and only put an apostrophe before an a o or e: The apostrophe seems only to be used before a Chinese syllable which has no initial （声母）and therefore only has a final （韵母）, and this rule was the most concise rule they could come up with that would prevent confusion in pinyin. u and i aren't included in the list because they automatically become the dummy stand-in letters w and y. I recommend that you learn Bopomofo if you haven't and read a book called 现代汉语 (a standard for Chinese college students) if you are interested in this kind of thing. pinyin.info used to have a page about this, but I can't find it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't explain it yet again, did you? I was taught bopomofo (maybe not good enough), but I don't see it explains this anyway. It rather sounded to me that you tried to explain illogical (隔音符号) with illogical (w、y). If the former is (also) there to prevent ambiguity, why that rule, and not just "add it in case of ambiguity"?? It doesn't prevent confusion at all, it doesn't make sense, really?! I did never argue for "tian'e", the only argument I could come up with here is ease of reading/understanding, but then again, I could think of a dozen rules that would make a better job doing that. EnTerbury (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like bopomofo- to me, it seems somewhat more straightforward than any of the romanization schemes. Bopomofo was designed for Chinese whereas the Roman alphabet is being forced on Chinese in the different romanization schemes. ~~ My guess is that if they just said 'add 隔音符号 in case of ambiguity', then there would be some ambiguity about exactly when there was ambiguity. For instance, I have never seen 河南 written as He'nan, but if we said 'add it in case of ambiguity', there might be some people who would add an apostrophe in Henan. Once you know the o a e rule (which few people do), then there's no ambiguity in Hanyu Pinyin (that I have seen so far). ~~ Unrelated: I have recently added some detailed info about the usage of the hyphen in Hanyu Pinyin to the Pinyin page- check it out if you are interested. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that I confused bopomofo with Hanyu Pinyin, while I learnt Chinese based on HP and have a fair grasp on it I only know the principles of BPMF from the internet. I totally agree that using different characters rather than Latin letters is much more preferable, especially for foreign learners since the student will more likely than not already have a notion of the pronunciation of the Latin alphabet. However, if you look at the bare logic of the systems, disregarding the characters used, I reckon HP makes much more sense for modern Chinese, while BPMF still has a lot of similarities with the old "western" romanization standards (which seems laughable by today's standards). In the end, you could just replace every letter in HP with a character of BPMF and would, in my eyes, have a much more superior system. I actually hate in particular the different letter logic between HP and Jyutping, my ideal system would probably be a revised system of General Chinese (通字) with special characters (e.g. as in BPMF). And then character-building like in Korean. That would be cool. Actually, I started working on that...

I'm digressing. To say I prefer HP does not mean I think it's perfect, as my issue with the 隔音符号 proves. I actually think the term "ambiguity" can be defined perfectly clear. As in your earlier example, without the tone marks, "henan" could be "he'nan" and "hen'an". "Henan" is ambiguous. Of course one could expand that to terms like "Shanxi" and "Shaanxi" all with their own logic and rules, but I'm fairly confident this can all be done without leaving any ambiguity whatsoever. Further, there's no ambiguity in "Xian" if there are one or two tone marks. It's either or then. So my rule would perfectly apply to this example aswell. I don't know, maybe I don't see the forest for the trees here, but I just can't get my head around this rule.EnTerbury (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to know you: you are a person who is somewhat interested in the 隔音符號 but still has some confusion about it. I want to learn how to tell you what the rule is, because as far as I can tell, I'm going to be repeating this information for the rest of my life because it seems no one understands this rule. Please take a look at the page I have been working on at en.wiktionary called 隔音符號 and open up the quotations. The first quotation is my personal translation of the rule for 隔音符號; please tell me if you can accept/understand the rule that the geyin fuhao is ONLY and ALWAYS used before syllables beginning with a o and e. A Dictionary of Current Chinese and other dictionaries put the syllable-dividing mark before all syllables beginning with a, o or e which follow another syllable and do not follow a dash. (A system in which the same sounds match the same letters all the transliterations of all forms of Chinese would be nice.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of township-level divisions of Hubei

1 "The specific problem is: Need to move Chinese-language names to linked articles or create stubs." I like the idea, but not a single one of the Lists of township-level divisions of the provinces of China conforms to this requirement. If you want to add this to the top of the List of township-level divisions of Hubei page, please also add it to the top of the List of township-level divisions of Hunan page etc. etc. I will start not including the Chinese language names of the township-level divisions from all new edits on the List of township-level divisions of Hubei and see how it goes. Eventually the list should be alphabetized or something.

2 "It has been suggested that List of village-level divisions of Hubei be merged into this article." If you can or want to do that, you can do that, but I presently don't see the point of doing that.

Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and thanks for your work balancing out the English Wikipedia's coverage of places! Aha, List of township-level divisions of Hunan wasn't picked up on an automated scan for misspellings because the Chinese names were correctly tagged with {{lang}}, but I added the same cleanup tag there as you suggested. It does seem like it will be a chunk of work to move things around and create all the needed stubs; I think in the U.S. a ton of geography stubs were actually created by a bot based on census data. I proposed the merge because List of village-level divisions of Hubei I think also lists all the townships at List of township-level divisions of Hubei. It doesn't seem useful to have two lists of exactly the same thing, one of which is slightly longer because it also includes villages. We might also consider not having a per-province list of villages. For example, for U.S. locations, we only list neighborhood-level divisions on county or municipality articles, simply because otherwise the lists get too long. -- Beland (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The things you are saying sound great. I have read your replies and will try to integrate these ideas in my edits. Watch my edits tomorrow at Nanzhang County & List of township-level divisions of Hubei and revise what I do according to your thought process if you are interested (I will get a better understanding of what you mean this way). You may be interested in [5] and List of villages in China.Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published

Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited you to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. You signed up to receive the results. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.

Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English. Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page. Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks!
--EGalvez (WMF)

19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lü Banglie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhijiang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Geographyinitiative. 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)[reply]

Ways to improve Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian

Thanks for creating Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

PLease add references to all articles you create.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified Chinese in References

In particular, edits like this where you create malformed cs1|2 templates:

{{cite web |url=http://www.xzqh.org/html/show/hb/15308.html |script-title=zh:郧阳区历史沿革 |trans-title=Yunyang District Historical Development |website={{lang|zh-hans|行政区划网}} |publisher=XZQH |date=25 September 2014 |language=Simplified Chinese |accessdate=30 November 2018 |quote={{lang|zh-hans|2010年第六次人口普查，郧县常住总人口558355人，其中：{...}大柳乡11762人，{...}|}}}}

cs1|2 templates produce metadata from the values assigned to some of the template's parameters (see the list). When these parameters contain templates, all of the markup produced by the template is made part of the metadata for the cs1|2 parameter. In the above cite web is:

|website={{lang|zh-hans|行政区划网}}

{{lang}} is expanded before the resulting value is assigned to |website=. In this example, {{lang}} expands to:

<span title="Chinese-language text"><span lang="zh-Hans">行政区划网</span></span>

All of that html is not the website's name and so does not belong in the metadata.

Use of {{lang}} in |quote= is acceptable because |quote= is not made part of the template's metadata.

I discovered this while working through Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language fixing things like |language=Simplified Chinese (MediaWiki does not distinguish simplified Chinese characters from traditional Chinese characters as separate languages; they are the same language written with different scripts (you recognize this in your use of the ISO 15924 script Hans that you use in the IETF language tag in {{lang}}).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Thank you! I was not able to understand most of what you said, but I will try to use this citation method in my next edit of this type. I will send you a message at that time- if you have the time, please check the edit I will make to see if I have made the correct changes to my method of citation. I should make a similar edit sometime this or next week. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Trappist the monk:!

In December 2018, you modified all of the "language=Simplified Chinese" I had used in references- thanks for that. I have come to believe that the most appropriate label for what I wanted to express is probably "language=zh-hans". However, when we use "language=zh-hans" in a reference on English Wikipedia, it gives us "(in Chinese)." on the page. This is very different from what appears on Chinese Wikipedia when you do the exact same thing. When we add "language=zh-hans" to a reference on Chinese Wikipedia, it returns "（中文（简体）‎）." which translated means '(Chinese (Simplified)).' Big difference!

I feel that we ought to change what appears when you add "language=zh-hans" to a reference on English Wikipedia. It ought to be something like "(in Chinese (Simplified))."

What do you think about my idea? If you like it, who would I need to contact or where would I need to go to figure out how to make this change? Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. Pings don't work without you also add new text and a new signature; see Template:Ping#Usage.

|language=zh-Hans causes Module:Citation/CS1 to render 'Chinese' because that is the language (ISO 639-1 zh). The ISO 15924 Hans part is the writing system used to write the Chinese text. cs1|2 could support rendering zh-Hans as 'Simplified Chinese' but does not because, by extension, it would also have to support all of the other IETF language tag forms in their various combinations which is really way beyond the scope and purpose of a citation, that being to help readers locate a copy of the source that editors here used to support certain statements in our articles. Except for a single case (ca-valencia – the Valencian variant of Catalan), cs1|2 silently accepts IETF language tags but uses only the language code portion because, who knows, someday, a rationale for rendering all or certain parts encoded by an IETF tag will be desirable.

You are free, of course, to pursue your idea. If you do, the proper venue is Help talk:Citation Style 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month 2018 postcard - info needed!

Hello! Kevin from Wikipedia Asian Month here. Thank you very much for your contributions this year. Because you have created at least 4 eligible articles, you are qualified to receive a special WAM postcard from an Asian community. If you would like one, please fill out this form by January 10. All personal information you submit will only be visible to select organizers in charge of postcards, and will be destroyed once postcards are sent out. If you have any questions, please drop a line on my talk page or ping me. Thank you, and happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:HSK6 certificate.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janusz Chmielewski moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Janusz Chmielewski, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox settlement

Re "Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Template:Infobox_former_subdivision"

If they would be merged, you would have what you requested and any other new features of Infobox settlement too. Infobox settlement is the most used infobox for territorial entities, ~ 500 000 transclusions and growing. Maybe reconsider your vote? 78.55.9.197 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Intentional Use of Quotation Box

Dear User:Geographyinitiative, thanks for your message on my talk page. Adding a space in before the paragraph does not render a block quotation. One needs a template for that purpose. I have gone added and added one for you. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:TOCFL certificate.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday

Yes, it's as I suspected: the JWs do not follow the Good Friday date, but 14 Nisan. St Anselm (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of water on Earth

How do i report you for vandalism for the article "Origin of water on Earth"? I gave the credited source for the information I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Scott (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn about that system. To call the name of the article a misnomer in the first sentence of the article in question is just not the way to write an encyclopaedia article. Just add the info into the body of the article and not at the top of the page. I won't revert any more of your edits. Good luck! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of village and township-level divisions of Chongqing

Hello, Geographyinitiative. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of village and township-level divisions of Chongqing".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 06:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— JJMC89 (T·C) 06:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Janusz Chmielewski

Hello, Geographyinitiative. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Janusz Chmielewski".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Mjs1991 (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese language romanization in Taiwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lyndon B. Johnson into 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kinmen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dadeng Subdistrict (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New York

Kinmen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New York

Menghu Islet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dadan Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canton

List of lighthouses in Taiwan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wuqiu

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

Thank you for self-reverting - please resist the urge to edit-war for your preferred version against other editors. You are getting perilously near a topic ban. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten your message. Although I have made successful edits to the Chinese MoS in the past that are still standing, I don't actually understand how to edit MoS pages. My early successes were probably a fluke. I'm just going to stop editing on any MoS or MoS talk page. I am an editor, not a policy maker. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wish

Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. 123.31.43.63 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@123.31.43.63: Your wish is my command! haha. I will check it out. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hsiao Sa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Postal codes in Taiwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qixingyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Geographyinitiative/Archives/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by WJ94 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Geographyinitiative! You created a thread called Missing Map Sheet- Site Map at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Geographyinitiative! You created a thread called Unsourced Claims about the Voynich manuscript and Chinese at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:Ythlev (Result: ). Thank you. —Ythlev (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ythlev (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minfeng Uyghur

Thank you for contacting me. I'd be happy to help. I don't know if you and your article have a preferred romanization system for Uyghur, but all else being equal, I prefer to romanize according to the ALA-LC Romanization Tables. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna-Hypatia: In truth of fact, I really don't know much of anything about the Uyghur language. Please feel free to change things as you see fit and I will try to learn and work with you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johanna-Hypatia: The improvements you made were excellent. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qira County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GEOnet cite

Hi, I see you use GEOnet as cite. I am not an expert on this, but IMO GEOnet is basically a "glossary" of geographic data, which has limitations in cite. I would avoid it except for infobox stuff item. If possible. I would just google the name/term, find the first "good" academic paper, book, news article, reputable website (in that order) in Google results, and use that instead. --Voidvector (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: Thanks for your comment. I can understand that you could have concerns. I 100% agree with what you are saying about finding geographical terms in academic source material. Believe me, I am trying hard using Google Scholar to find the correct terms (academic papers). I am using archive.org (books & atlases) as much as possible too. I have been finding some journalism. I'm also using 20th century maps. When I do find sources with these materials, I will sometimes make new Wiktionary pages for them. But most/some of the English language terms are not googlable to a reputable book or source yet: there are like ten or fifteen junk websites that have these terms sometimes, probably all copied from GEOnet. I am open to specific requests and inquiries about my reasoning on specific edits. Please monitor my progress if you see fit. As far as I am aware, some of the geographical concepts I am adding are only described (in English) in declassified US military maps and their databases. Some are perhaps mentioned once or twice in high brow geology or archaeology materials. But I think the time has come to write these articles, so in as much as they can be written, I am trying to write them. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: I removed some GEOnet citations that I once needed (to confirm that what I was writing was factually legitimate) but looking back now are unwarranted or are unnecessary duplications. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Yea, reconciling place names in remote regions annoying. There are often multiple names with different transliterations via different languages, and historical ad hoc transcriptions. It is a pain --Voidvector (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xinjiang re-education camps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aksai Chin camp grounds noteworthiness

I don't think the camp grounds in Aksai Chin would be noteworthy without additional context. Based on my understanding, most of them are just the location where the some expeditions camped each day. See this book scan of the journal of one of those expeditions. In fact, they are all located along some "trails" (expedition path) on the map. All the trails, except one on the west side, appears to be expedition paths. There is one on the west side that says "Caravan Route".

Some of the camp ground later appears to have became Indian military positions. IMO that would be noteworthy in that context. -Voidvector (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: They are noteworthy as camping grounds in of themselves. These are some of the most significant locations in Aksai Chin from a historical perspective. This is a region with almost no population. These are the locations where the transient population would sleep during the nights. Hence, in the context of a desolate region like Aksai Chin, these are important proper nouns. For a comparison, we can't really use other populated areas- we have to compare it to areas where there isn't a human population. List of rocks on Mars and List of craters on Mars have scores of obscure proper nouns on them- they are not even redlinked. The utility of adding the names of the camping grounds is to help the readers and the people who may google these terms as they read old books to find a resource (the map that's linked) that can help them find these locations. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know the history of Aksai Chin, you have to know the names of these camping grounds and that they were camping grounds. By adding these obscure proper nouns, I will attract people who are actually interested in Aksai Chin to the page and increase the chance that the coverage of the region will be improved by people who read books. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible includes lists of obscure camping grounds [6]. This is important information when it comes to a desolate region. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it were an article about List of locations in Aksai Chin, then I would agree, but this is article on Aksai Chin itself. You don't see rocks/craters listed in the article for Mars except the absolute famous ones (like Gale crater). --Voidvector (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: The Wikipedia coverage of Aksai Chin sucks. I am doing foundational work in the region- for instance, Hotan County, larger in total administered area than Taiwan, was literally a stub before I started working on it this week. Same with Qira County, Lop County, etc. This addition of camping ground names of Aksai Chin is a step towards the eventual expansion of coverage of the entire region. If I made the page you are talking about with the paucity of information I currently have about the area, it would be deleted immediately. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the famous camping grounds. They made it onto the maps. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go forth my friend. I like your intention and spirit. While I might disagree on details, I don't want to stop you over my knitpicking of 1-2 sentences. --Voidvector (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: On second thought, I think you are right and I am wrong on this one. I was just overly defensive of my camping grounds edits. I am going to make the page List of locations in Aksai Chin based on some old Army Map Service Maps that I just added to the Aksai Chin page. They have a lot of mountain passes, mountains, camp grounds, rivers, etc shown in their maps. I will also incorporate GEOnet stuff and Hotan County government sources. It may be a little bit of a rough start, so all help is appreciated- I have studied Mandarin Chinese as a second language. I will try to incorporate Chinese characters and other alternate language forms to the best of my ability. I don't really know much about the Hindi/Urdu/Tibetan/Uyghur names, but I will try to add them. I will use List of locations in the Port of London as an example. If you can find a better template to work from or something let me know (or create the page yourself and I will add edits). Is there a mirror page like this on Baidu Baike, Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia, or any other site that you know of??? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of articles on "List of places/locations" (Category:Lists of places or Google 'site:en.wikipedia.org "List of locations"' or 'site:en.wikipedia.org "List of places"').

I don't know any good source for this. I can tell you a few other places I know that currently is not mentioned on Wikipedia:

Heweitan (another border post) - OpenStreetMap Baidu there are actually some CCTV Chinese report covering this place.
温泉哨所 or 温泉前哨 (Hot Spring Border Post) - OpenStreetMap Sina News mentioning the actual hot spring can be found a little bit to the north here. This place has its own marker on the highway.
Tielongtan (铁隆滩) - there was a previous Wikipedia stub article claimed it to be populated place. I tried to expand on it, but couldn't find anything on it other than geology studies, so I had the article deleted, but I think it is worth mentioning in a list form.

How I found them usually was via sites/articles on related locations or just spot them on OpenStreetMap. Other than that, other stuff I do that might help - correlated the Chinese location using Google Earth Pro with geonames KML and narrow Google search by year (usually pre-2005 or pre-1990). Cheers! --Voidvector (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: I have made the basic set up for the page including some of the information you provided here. It seems like you have been interested in Aksai Chin for a long time- please make some changes to the new page List of locations in Aksai Chin as you see fit. I will do some more work later on. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Geographyinitiative!

Happy New Year!

Geographyinitiative,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBig Xrayᗙ 21:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

WAM 2019 Postcard

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Congratulations!

It's WAM's honor to have you all participated in Wikipedia Asian Month 2019, the fifth edition of WAM. Your achievements were fabulous, and all the articles you created make the world can know more about Asia in different languages! Here we, the WAM International team, would like to say thank you for your contribution also cheer for you that you are eligible for the postcard of Wikipedia Asian Month 2019. Please kindly fill the form, let the postcard can send to you asap!

Cheers!

Thank you and best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Judah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Kings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAM 2019 Postcard

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Kindly remind you that we only collect the information for WAM postcard 31/01/2019 UTC 23:59. If you haven't filled the google form, please fill it asap. If you already completed the form, please stay tun, wait for the postcard and tracking emails.

Cheers!

Thank you and best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.01

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme points of Tajikistan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Extreme points of Tajikistan, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice and warning

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Ukraine scandal

This article is under 1RR, per Discretionary Sanctions. You have been edit-warring there. Please undo your most recent reinsertion of the disputed content and continue to engage on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Per your notification here and for the purpose of protecting my account from what I consider to be spurious allegations which could lead to a block, I will no longer make edits on that page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just to wrap this up, you should restore the article to the text and references that were in place before your string of edits. As best I can tell, I believe that would be to undo this change. I take it from the article talk page that you now understand the reasons for this. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I will not make any more edits. I do not know what the scope of the revert is that would be required is and I am not willing to attempt to make any judgment calls in this area for fear of further entanglement. I do not know anything about this subject and MUST leave any further editing in the hands of others, no matter what. That is the most responsible decision in my view. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribe Uyghur

Hi, do you know how to transcribe Uyghur Arabic from photo? I would like to extract the Uyghur text from the signs of this photo: File:和田市艾提卡大巴扎门牌.jpg (Something like "Hotan [some words] Grand Bazaar".) Thanks! --Voidvector (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidvector: I can't actually transcribe or read it, but I can recognize just enough of it to be able to copy paste the first and last two words from other Wikipedia pages (without the "Aitika 艾提卡" part): خوتەن شەھىرى |?| چوڭ بازىرى Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting method. Let me see if I can google the rest, Thanks! --Voidvector (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hotan Prefecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PLA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question. I wouldn't know the answer. Maybe try again?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Extreme points of Tajikistan (January 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

1. Kindly remove external links in the body text. 2. We need significant coverage of independent, reliable sources that the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not merely passing mentioned.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Extreme points of Tajikistan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Extreme points of Tajikistan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geographyinitiative! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid adding any map until there is a consensus

I had reverted your edit to the Greater China article. Please follow the WP:Consensus policy: "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue." Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Smith: My edit is a map of Greater China. Wikipedia is not about blunting controversy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response in the talk page of the article. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to protect my account from spurious claims of edit warring, I must totally disengage from this discussion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Comment Your edits on this article have been reverted multiple times over the past two days, with your last edit about an hour ago. Please let the RfC on the article talk page reach consensus (i.e., wait until the discussion is closed) before removing the map. Renerpho (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Geographyinitiative! You created a thread called Mayhem caused by unsourced material on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Haidao Township in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It's difficult to know what your edit summary is when it is not in English. Thanks :) Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vernon: Okay, I will make sure that my edit comments include some English language content. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Spanish flu, did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. We know you oppose the move. You have told us multiple times, but you do not need, or get, to register a formal "Oppose" each time you post. Meters (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your duplicate !votes. Meters (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any problems I caused and I now have a more clear understanding voting procedure (I had just thought of it not as a 'one user one vote' thing, but more as a collection of comments with labels denoting support and opposition.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have additional comments to make you are allowed to make new posts, just don't reiterate your formal "oppose" or "support" Meters (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said too much nonsense! I think I will quit while I'm ahead! Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Meters for doing that. Geographyinitiative, please be aware of the general sanctions as described below:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to accept that I could potentially be wrong about the most appropriate name for the Spanish flu. I have decided not to edit over there anymore. Good luck! Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were going to leave it alone before, and you didn't. You might want to read WP:BLUDGEON.

It's not about whether you can accept that you "could potentially be wrong". It's about letting the community reach a consensus, regardless of whether that consensus is in agreement with your opinion. If you cannot do that you had better stay out of these discussions. Meters (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: It is strange to realize that one does not have the capacity to engage in thoughtful, rational discussion with people who have opposing viewpoints to one's own, but I am forced to conclude that this is undeniably true for me throughout all aspects of my life. I do try to maintain objectivity (from my subjective viewpoint) and accept my errors when they get pointed out, but the only way I can get along is by ignoring major areas in which I disagree or might disagree with others and kind of hobbling along with the belief that eventually my positions will win out (or perhaps that I myself will eventually undergo an unexpected transformation and hold more correct positions that will in effect nullify previous disputes). For instance, I am vehemently opposed to the capitalization scheme for English Wikipedia because I see it as imported from European continental languages that look down on English and not truly reflective of natural English capitalization as seen in all our books. But I keep editing using what I consider to be an inauthentic capitalization regime because I can still make important and useful contributions despite the ugly, gross flaw which I will never accept (maybe?). This situation applies throughout my real life, so if you have any advice for me in how to become more reasonable, I think I would appreciate it! Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SARS-CoV-2, I think the link to Taiwan News in your edit summary is neither here nor there; my objection to removing the quotation marks is not political, and I don't know anything about Taiwan News, but Taiwan News#Controversy is all about misreporting on the pandemic. The quotes that were in place were not scare quotes, they were demarcating phrases. Please note WP:3RR. It is really unfortunate that so much effort has been expended upon how to list "China virus" or "Wuhan virus". Note also this. Except for a few days in January, usage of any of those terms is negligible. Dekimasuよ! 14:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAM 2019 Postcard: All postcards are postponed due to the postal system shut down

Dear all participants and organizers,

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.

Best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.03

Response

Hi, I do agree with your improvement on the page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Taiwan. Thank you for improving my editing that is considered incorrect with the referenced source.
-Andrew20070223 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew20070223: Ke iû-á！ Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanggiya

Hi Geographyinitiative, Sorry for the delayed response. In reference to:

Transliteration of Minority-Language Place Names Using Hanyu Pinyin Letters (少数民族语地名汉语拼音字母音译转写法), June 1976 Revision, and
Uyghur Scripts Latinization Project (维吾尔文拉丁化方案), 2008

there should be no problem if transliterating Uyghur ھاڭگىيا as “Hanggiya”, as long as the place name written in Uyghur is officially recognized. Directly translated from Chinese 杭桂 to “Hanggui” is also acceptable in China, despite the fact that this is a Uyghur-majority town in Xinjiang. I don't have much information on the history of Hanggiya. Cybercicada (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cybercicada: Thanks! Are these resources listed/linked on the Wikipedia mainspace anywhere? Thanks for telling me, but let's make sure other people can find them! Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"ھاڭگىيا بازىرى"[7]. The reliability of the written form of ھاڭگىيا cannot be guaranteed.

Transliteration of Minority-Language Place Names Using Hanyu Pinyin Letters[8]
Uyghur Scripts Latinization Project[9]

Cybercicada (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cybercicada: Thanks- I added these links to the Uyghur language page: [10] Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"natural state"

Hi Geographyinitiative, this edit is fine, but the edit summary looks misleading to me: In late Qing, the consonant of 京 underwent palatalization from [k] to [tɕ] in Beijing dialect, thus the postal romanization of 北京, Peking, became inaccurate. (and unnatural in English too because ⟨k⟩ has never been used to represent [tɕ] in English) This happened decades before the foundation of CPC, so I think there are nothing partisan here. Let me know if I'm wrong :) -- Akira😼CA 10:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akira CA: You are describing the history of communication between people that do not speak English. We are talking about the English language. In the English language, Peking is an alternate form of Beijing. It is alternate because it is currently in use. Mumbai-Bombay. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct the edit itself is fine. "alternately" is better than "formerly". I'm confused b/c the term "the natural state of the English language" in your edit summary. Instead of being a natural English term, "Peking" is created by French missionaries with French custom applied to the Nankingese pronunciation of 北京.^[1] Which is...neither natural in English nor Beijing language, whether in terms of its origin or the convention of using ⟨k⟩. -- Akira😼CA 10:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Harris, Lane J. (2009). "A "Lasting Boon to All": A Note on the Postal Romanization of Place Names, 1896–1949". Twentieth-Century China. 34 (1): 96–109. doi:10.1353/tcc.0.0007. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Perhaps you are more right. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spanish flu; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a change, it was reverted, and the next step you should take is to start a discussion on the article talk page, *not* edit war to force your change in. I also see that, in the edit summary here, you are attempting to dictate what you personally will and will not allow in the article. You do not get to do that here, so stop it now or you will be facing a block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and likening editors' work here to a "Chinese Communist soft power campaign" as you did here is heading dangerously close to a breach of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, so knock that off too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keriya Town

Hi again! Thanks for all the work you have been doing - it is a relief to me to know someone is interested in these small but strategically important places on the ancient trade routes into Xinjiang, and adding to them. Unfortunately, I am practically totally bedridden now and not able to focus as much as I would like on my studies. However, I have had a look through most of the old books and papers I have here at home relating to the region and cannot find anything more worth adding. Other than a few references by 19th and early 20th century foreign travellers, there is very little available on Keriya Town that I know of other than official reports in Chinese.

I think the main reason there is so little information available is because there have been so few outside visitors in recent times) There was a big drop in visits to the region after the rebellions and battles between warlords leading up to the invasion of China by Japan and the battles between the Kuomintang and the Communists. After the Communist victory in 1949 the region was basically closed to foreigners - especially after China began testing atomic weapons in the region. My wife and I were extremely fortunate to be among the first foreigners allowed to travel along the old southern branch of the Silk Routes from Kashgar to Dunhuang in 2011 for 3 glorious weeks with our own vehicle guide and driver - we were SO very fortunate! I don't imagine it would be easy to repeat such a journey these days. Thanks again for all you are doing - I do hope you will keep a watch on entries from the region.

If I come across any articles which may be of use to you I will let you know and then send them on to you if you would give me your email address. All my very best wishes.John Hill (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Hill: I just think it is sad that even Wikipedia doesn't have good coverage of this area. It's an incredible challenge to make these edits because of the paucity of information, but I'm enjoying doing it. Please make sure to add as many of those precious 2011 photographs you have to Wikimedia Commons (if you are willing!). Thanks to you for your work! Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo collection

Hi again (sorry, I don't know your name): Thanks for your supportive comments which I have just read a second time and noticed you had asked me to upload more photos from my 2011 trip to China. I would like to ask your advice: I have quite a number of photos from that trip which might be of interest to people. However, I am not really up to serious editing and trying to match photos to articles and individually upload them. I could, though, relatively easily upload as many as possible to the page of my photos (Category:Photographs by John Hill which is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_John_Hill) or somewhere else on WP?) which would make them available to other editors. I could pick out all the photos I think may be of interest to other editors and upload them - preferably as a batch. Do you think this would be a good idea? Please let me know your thoughts. All my very best wishesJohn Hill (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Hill: My name is Will. ~ That's what I did and have been doing with my pictures- I uploaded a bunch of my pictures from Wuhan to Wikimedia Commons, and even though a lot of them are not yet being used, no one has had a problem with me uploading the pictures. There are still many, many more pictures that I could upload that I took in China and Taiwan. If you just upload a few here and there, I think it would probably be helpful eventually- maybe not even this year, but maybe in ten years someone will be making a new article and they will find your pictures useful. I will try to look through stuff you upload and see if I can find anything that I can use on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. For instance, if you have even one picture of anything in Qira County or Jiya Township or Sampul as you passed through, then that would at least give the readers something to look at. Also, if you have pictures of road signs, especially any that have Chinese characters + Uyghur or another language, I would love to see those too. I think the PRC government would probably consider some of your and my pictures marginally sensitive, but I don't think they would really give us an opportunity to photograph something they really didn't want you to look at it. In my opinion, the need for some kind of visual identifiers for these unsung areas is great. You can write words all day, but a picture will really be helpful to people.Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Xinjiang Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geographyinitiative/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey- I have been blocked on English Wiktionary by an administrator that made personal attacks against me, calling me 'sick' in a personal attack on me for pointing out that a strange definition for a word given by mainland China sources was contradicted by or at least different from Taiwan sources. China's authoritative dictionary has a strange definition for a word that I wanted to see verified. It's not wrong to point out the possibility that China is a communist dictatorship [11] that may want to influence word definitions in ways that are not a natural part of the language or that may not be accepted in Taiwan. All I was asking for was verification of a definition, and I got called a sicko and was permabanned. Terrible for Wikipedia and Wiktionary in my opinion. [12] I can't appeal there because the administrator has blocked all my editing rights there. I've got nothing against that editor personally and have learned from that user's edits, but sometimes I say things that that administrator doesn't like. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked on the English Wikipedia, and there's nothing we can do here about Wiktionary. You will need to follow whatever unblock procedures they have over there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it looks like you are already unblocked on Wiktionary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xayar County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lambskin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi again! Thanks for your interesting and very helpful posts. Sorry I have been out of touch for a few days. Unfortunately, we have had a string of disasters here the past couple of weeks, including the death of my step-daughter's husband (from cancer - not COVID-19), the "death" of my wife's computer (a new one is on its way - but package deliveries are held up in Australia at the moment due to the rush to buy online now people are stuck at home, and my own computer is not working properly - though I am managing with an external mouse - but it is slow and "hanging" at times. So, please excuse me for not contacting you recently. I do hope you and yours are having a better time of it (and are all well). I will start searching out photos from our 2011 trip on the southern route around the Taklamakan when I get our computers running properly again. All my very best wishes, John Hill (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Hill: Terrible news! Don't let me and my crazy requests keep you from your personal business in any way. Make sure to keep yourself and your family safe during any funeral you all hold. I do look forward to those photos if you get the chance one day (not even this month or this year if you don't have the ability/time). Thanks so much for your time and efforts. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop giving barnstars randomly

Geographyinitiative, you have just given a barnstar to the user (Kami2018) who is known for his unnecessary vandalism and despicable nationalistic views and as we speak, is simply engaged in edit wars with me and other users. He reverts my every edit and that of any user who thankfully removed his hazardous contribution to Wikipedia (he obviously did not revert my edit in Zhetisu because of the reason you provided in your barnstar). You could see all the complaints and file reporting on him in his "Talk page", where he keeps constanly deleting them. I would strongly suggest you stop presenting barnstars randomly (thoroughly choose the editors whom you would like to give a barnstar), as it may encourage users like him to continue their illiterate actions. Thanks --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kami2018: If the content you deleted from that page was not legitimate material, then you should argue your case. I gave the barnstar to the user who undid your as of yet unjustified and dangerous removal of seemingly useful material. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I requested before and I'm doing it now, please refrain from using strong words such as dangerous removal and etc. We talked about that removal over and over and I thought that we had fixed the issue, what's up now? --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 09:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: Just leave any historical or alternate names on those pages. Dangerous is the correct word as far as I am aware. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't care an inch about that article so I am not interested in contributing alternate names of the area or undo the latest revert or something. At that moment, I simply thought of those poor readers who would come after me to that article and find out a dozen of bizarre spellings of the same toponym, plus in numerous unrelated languages. That's it. But this post was about giving a barnstar to the person who would get encouraged by your act and continue making his mischievous contributions. --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 09:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: I have added a source to that page [13]- check it out and see if it makes any sense to you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kami2018 and Visioncurve: I have recently added nine new references to that page confirming that the other spellings do in fact exist. Therefore, giving the barnstar to Kami2018 was fully justified. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you just moments ago, Geographyinitiative, I don't bear any interest towards that article anymore, however, if you wrongfully think that the sources you added can alter the whole article, then you are most probably a utopian optimist. That article is clearly - original research; it lacks citation, needs to be updated and thoroughly copy-edited. The sources were added by you, and not by Kami, so it doesn't justify anything and should count for nothing. Secondly, he reverted that edit not because of the point you are trying to unsuccessfully promote here for over an hour now. By the way, have you read "vandalism by Kami2018" post in User:Kansas Bear's talk page? Take your time... --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 10:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: What do you want me to do? Revert my recent edits? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geographyinitiative, it has nothing to do with your recent edits, the original subject of the post was about not giving barnstars randomly, especially to those who have malevolent intent and may get encouraged by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visioncurve (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: The point of all this is: please be respectful of alternate spellings for names of locations and don't do wholesale deletions of them. Probably all of those spellings that you deleted were / are justified for use in some contexts. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:臺南 TAINAN 臺南市六甲區公所 Lioujia District Office, Tainan City.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:臺南 TAINAN 臺南市六甲區公所 Lioujia District Office, Tainan City.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hi, @Geographyinitiative:. I'm aware that you have recently worked on Xinjiang article. I'm starting a new article which seems to have a direct relation to Xinjiang, called "Yettishar" (kingdom of seven cities). It was a short-lived Turkic state centered in Xinjiang in the second half of the 19th century and founded by Yaqub beg. If that makes you interested, I offer you to team up and do yet another good contribution to Wikipedia. Tell me your thoughts on this, please. Thanks --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 07:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: I have just created a stub for Yettishar. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative:, a pretty good job, I'd say - almost eerie, really.) Cool - --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 09:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of work remaining to be done on Xinjiang and Central Asia as a whole. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least, let us begin)) Check this out --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 12:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: As you can see from recent events on my own talk page, I make mistakes and am not really a good editor that can give lectures to others. I think we just have to try to keep the bad influences and habits from the rest of the internet and world out of Wikipedia and try to make this a fun project where we concentrate on making an ever more expansive and reliable non-fiction reference work for others. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS violation

You violated the editing restrictions on Joe Biden. I strongly suggest that you self revert, or you may be sanctioned. - MrX 🖋 00:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden 1RR heads up

Heads up that there's 1RR/BRD rules on the page. You reverted (manually) material that had already gone back and forth, then reverted again when it was restored. Not trying to give you a hard time here, but given how contentious the subject is, if you don't self-revert, someone's likely to report that (not me FWIW). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Sorry, didn't realize this was already happening -- not intending to exacerbate anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction enforced

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 00:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you cannot give yourself an extra revert for any reason except the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO. We assume you to be competent with respect to identifying pertinent alerts about editing requirements, so there was really no excuse. I realize things get heated, but that's what the article talk page —or better yet, a short break— is for. El_C 00:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are trying to enforce the rules of the website. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, this is definitely correct. I just need to respect the rules of the website more. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I withdraw my request for unblock here; this was probably warranted on some level. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Geographyinitiative, you've been introspective above, so I unblocked you. But please note that the record logged at WP:AEL will count toward any future infractions. Happy editing! El_C 01:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UAA as a source

I have removed your addition at Hotan of the UAA's report of claimed door-to-door searches of a particular neighborhood in the city, per WP:NOTNEWS (Item 2. "News reports") and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, as the neighborhood population of 25,663 would represent just under 8% of the city's 2010 Census population. On the latter point, UAA's own IRS Form 990-EZ filings admit to the organization working closely with the U.S. State Department, Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), and the U.S. congressional Human Rights Commission, and to receiving grants from the National Endowment for "Democracy". The UAA President Nury Turkel has himself publicly admitted that the NED has been exceptionally supportive of UAA. In the same address, we have

“tulip revolution and the toppling of the former government of Kyrgyzstan, our hopes were again reinforced. This latest example of a “colored revolution in a post-Soviet state, and one of the most important centers of the Uyghur diaspora, undoubtedly sent a strong message to the oppressive regimes in the region that lack tolerance for political dissent, including China.
— President Turkel remarks at 5th Biannual Congress of the UAA

Simply put, this is an insinuation of sympathy for regime change as a legitimate means of politics. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: I have tweaked it a little bit- let me know what you think now. Please do not contact me on my talk page per my request. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point, I think that is a mis-understanding; I was trying to defend you here (by stating simply "whining" / asking "Please be considerate to us" isn't disruption), but you apparently did not take it well. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: Oh whoops, I think at the time I only read the word 'contemptuous' and didn't like it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More

I've remove a YouTube link. To get a review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and save, but it's not ready yet. You need independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines.

You tell us nothing about the organisation. How many members? How is it organised (structure, not names). What is its funding and expenditure? Even its location isn't mentioned in the main text. Without this info, there is no way of showing notability.

Too much of the article is telling what the organisation claims, sourced to its own or affiliated web sites. Wikipedia isn't a platform for the UAA to tell us its views, what we want is real facts linked to independent third-party sources. One of several examples is Uyghur American Association strongly condemns Thai government decision to forcibly return Uyghur refugees, sourced to the Uyghur American Association. That's just using us to parrot their opinions, as you do elsewhere too

A minor point is that ref 5 is written in all-caps, use sentence case even if the original was capped.

I'd be perfectly justified in deleting this as spam again, but since you have engaged, I'll give you more time. Put in real facts about the organisation, and chop stuff where you are just telling us the organisation's opinions, sourced to UAA or UHRP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I think I'm getting closer to fulfilling some of the requirements stated here. I sincerely welcome further input or assistance. Delete stuff from the page until you feel good about it; I just added whatever I thought seemed useful to the page. I think the UAA and UHRP are important parts of the Uyghur dissident movement that ought to be documented if it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

Please don't link to YouTube, I've also removed refs to UAA and UHRP if they are just platforming rather than telling us about the organisation. Your eight links at the end of the lead are clearly not all there to confirm the text, and a reviewer will see that overkill as an attempt to use the refs for promotion rather than verification. I think then you will have to see what a reviewer thinks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I think some other user added some of those links; thanks for your work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I have decided that if the draft page for UAA doesn't pass muster, I will make it into a 'redirect' page that redirects to the Uyghur Americans page. In that event, I will add the new information I have written on the UAA page to the Uyghur Americans page. My reasoning is that even if the organization is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it is notable enough for a redirect- western media and academia makes reference to the UAA, and the readers need to be able to put in that name on Wikipedia and get to some useful information. That is my opinion- let me know what you think of it. See my comments on the talk page of the draft as well. Thanks. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that moving drafts to user space isn't reserved for admins, and reviewers can be anyone with sufficient experience to evaluate and promote, or make comments on what else needs to be done. I think your alternative is a good one. If a reviewer doesn't think this can make the grade as a stand-alone, sourced additions to an existing article are likely to give you less grief Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Tianshannet

Hello, Geographyinitiative

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username North8000 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Tianshannet, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tianshannet.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aksu Prefecture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aksu

Uqturpan County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aksu

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me...

...but I know nothing about the UAA. I've suggested a couple of minor edits for clarity.

I think you could probably expand the last sentence ("The UAA renounces the use of violence to achieve political ends"). This is pretty fundamental for an organisation of this type, but you've just directly quoted a single sentence in an obscure academic journal. Can you add something? The UAA presumably has a charter? What does it say?

Dock3230 (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion you participated in

How, may I ask, did you come to notice the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncollaborative attitude of Liamdaniel981? Thanks. — Bilorv (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I believe that helping weak editors is important to the creation of a more objective and useful Wikipedia. Removing editors is needed only where they are definitely destroying the encyclopaedia. Adding more 'citation needed' tags is critical to the creation of a more objective and useful Wikipedia- even if some or many of the person's tags were unwarranted, the user was under the misapprehension that those tags were needed or could be justified some how. That user represents the perspective of thousands, maybe millions of other people who do not edit or even read Wikipedia, who might have similar types of questions or feelings. Wikipedia is not just for me and you, but is for those who have no voice, to the purpose of the greater enlightenment and ennoblement of humanity. Helping the weak grow is the key to creating an unstoppable and flourishing community, both in Wikipedia and the real world. That is the perspective from which I came to see the discussion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more an explanation of what you thought about the discussion, but I was trying to ask how and where did you see it? You've not commented at ANI before, correct? As for your other comments, AGF is of course important but in this case I made three attempts to engage the user in discussion and explain how the content is already sourced. In two occasions I received no response and in the third I received the response: I think that statement doesn’t even dignify a response. Get lost. Only then did I raise the issue at ANI. It seems the user was a long-term abuser of the website who has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: A marginally rude but otherwise benign quotation and a totally benign set of behaviors (non-response to talk page comments) only show that an editor may be a little weak. But most humans are weak and frail. If the user broke the rules, then that's of course a different matter. But I would say that permanent banning of mostly constructive but potentially annoying users on Wikipedia is a crime against Wikipedia's future. I personally want to find a way to bring back some of those who have been permanently banned and see if any of them are doing better now. They may have had deeper realizations about themselves and the website and could become some of the most useful members of the community, having seen it from the wrong side. We can learn so much from others, even those who stoop to sockpuppeting. Wikipedia is built on optimism about the human race and it is that feeling and spirit that I want to convey to you. Wikipedia will not be built on the backs of the banned but in the fraternity of editors. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: When we see someone say, "I think that statement doesn’t even dignify a response. Get lost." it may hurt a little bit. But that is not the time to have thoughts of banning a person from participating in a for-fun volunteer website. That's the time to see the situation from their perspective and address concerns that you yourself may not consider legitimate, but may represent a significant or widespread understanding/misunderstanding. They may have been very put off by your statements that they didn't respond to. They were probably scared- and after all, they were right: they got banned! Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banned (technically indef-blocked, the two are different concepts) due to sockpuppetry. What part of this isn't getting through? Wikipedia has zero tolerance for sockpuppetry. This is not a negotiable principle.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip: I'm not saying the principle is negotiable. I am trying to help a human being reach their full potential in life, which apparently includes some Wikipedia editing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see he didn't feel open to this idea, basically reverting your post and replacing it with a comment telling you not to waste your time any further.--WaltCip (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Liamdaniel981

Please respect Liamdaniel981's clear statement that messages are not wanted, and stop posting there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Let me know if I am breaking any of the rules of Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking the rules of Wikipedia. It's documented somewhere, but I have better things to do than search for it now. But it's widely accepted common practice that when an editor makes it clear they don't want messages on their talk page (and it was made clear to you specifically that your comments were not wanted here) then you do not post there except for messages mandated by Wikipedia's notification rules. To ingore such requests and continue posting is usually considered harrassment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN both touch on the consensus that posting to an editor's talk page after they have requested you not can be considered a form of harassment.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative, there is an additional reason that posting such messages is disruptive. A blocked editor's talk page is meant to be used to make block appeals to be reviewed by admins, and to post questions regarding their block. In this case, Liamdaniel981 can't post an appeal to their talk page as they will need to make any appeal from their master account for it to be considered. You trying to draw them into conversation, especially after they blanked the first attempt and clearly stated they did not want messages on their talk, was not helpful even if that was your intent.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Thanks for the links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: To say that sentence is helpful in that I understand you see my behavior as wrong, but I would appreciate any specificity or clarification you can bring to the statement so that I can more clearly understand what you see as the problematic behavior on my part. That editor is a poor, injured soul who got kicked out of here in 2015 but is still coming back in 2020, and making detail-level edits about facts that could be useful to the improvement of the encylopedia if they were true. I believed that with a dose of kindness from us today, this person can be moved from pariah to a useful editor. The person may be too far gone, but I wanted to make the attempt. I do not know the rule against reaching out a helping hand to one's fellow user. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That account belongs to a serially abusive sockmaster, sanctioned in part for repeated serious personal attacks, which they were continuing with this latest account. And they made it clear they don't want your "kindness". I'm off to bed now, and someone will review your unblock request in due course. (There's no need to ping me here, as I have this page on my watchlist.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Geographyinitiative/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I harassed no one.

Accept reason:

I've protected that user talk page, as there's no good reason for anyone to be starting discussions at the talk page of a grossly abusive sock account. I have, therefore, unblocked this account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the user sees Wikipedia as a war zone or minefield and my goal is to change the person's view of Wikipedia. Banning people is for people that are making serious problems for the encylopedia, but this person, although marginally rude, was making edits related to the facts of times and dates. That shows me an interest in facts in a way that would be useful if that person could change their ways a little bit. I think they could be a useful part of the community. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe what you want, but your basing your actions on guesswork of someone's intent as opposed to the actual evidence. This editor has repeatedly thumbed their nose at Wikipedia's policies, terms of use, and the pillars upon which this encyclopedia was built. You arguing in their favour is a slap in the face to all of the editors who have been on the receiving end of this sockmaster's incivility and those who have had to clean up each time they evade your block. There must be something more worth your time than this? -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: The person has an active interest in dates and ages. I thought that if that energy could be channelled into a more sourced, productive mode, then the person wouldn't have to be a perennial pariah anymore. The user feels attacked or in danger (back against the wall) so they feel the need to fight. They may have been uncivil at times, but if we can try a little friendliness, their multi-year habits might be able to be shifted into a more productive mode. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interesting in continuing this discussion as you continue to attribute intent based on assumptions and conjecture (e.g. "The user feels attacked or in danger (back against the wall) so they feel the need to fight", "That editor is a poor, injured soul" "The person is locked into a me-against-the-world mindset") as opposed to the actual evidence. You also continue to dismiss the personal attacks on others as mild, almost an afterthought, when they've been horrible and persistent. I don't doubt you initially approached this with good intent, but you're clearly not going to be swayed by reality.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "marginally rude". Anyway, goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Imagine the perspective a person who was permanently blocked since 2015 but still wants to edit in 2020. The person is locked into a me-against-the-world mindset. If we can meet the minor rudeness of this editor with openness, tolerance and kindness and help them improve their outlook on Wikipedia and the world, this person could easily become a useful editor who could point out problems that many readers in that person's mindset may have, and thereby help Wikipedia grow. That was my goal. Of course, I don't want to be rude to the person. But my guess is is that this person will continue their pattern of self-destructive behavior and create a new sockpuppet. If we can turn that person from their wrong ways now, we not only get a better editor and encylopedia, we also don't have as many administrative problems. I just wanted to try to help this person. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was not "marginally" rude: it was transphobic, sexist and harassing. The user had posted dozens of similarly rude comments before. Geographyinitiative, you seem to think that the user should be given a second chance—but they have, time and time again, and it's never gone well. For a user who shows no remorse, when do second chances end? I am very sorry that you've been blocked over this, and I would support you being immediately unblocked if you acknowledge that you violated Wikipedia conventions by posting on a user's talk page after they asked you not to. I would prefer it also if you acknowledged that AGF has a limit, but I don't support you being blocked over that belief. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Please read WP:BRD. When someone challenges your changes you should discuss them on the articles' talk pages before restoring them. Meters (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Refrain from making redundant tagging like you did here. Content is sourced and not every single sentence needs to be sourced especially when that paragraph already has it. The paragraph clearly includes the citation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: From my perspective, it is not clear what citation you are referring to. I ask that you please let me know what citation you are referring to. The statement in question is an amazing statement that needs full and clear confirmation. I have reverted the revert you made on my 'citation needed span' tag because the statement in question is a fascinating and amazing statement that should be well-documented and not sourced to a dead link (seemingly). Thanks for your efforts. Facts and information that may seem obvious to one person are not necessarily so clear to others. I ask that you try to be more respectful of editors that are after all just trying to get a clearer source on an amazing statement about Nixon's behavior. Thanks Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel, Boing! said Zebedee, and Tibet Nation: The threat of the spurious use of a discretionary sanction can not be leveraged in the defense of seemingly unsubstantiated (no source given) claims found on Wikipedia mainspace. Once a source is given, then and only then can the 'citation needed span' tag be removed. I was able to get a look at the TIMES article cited in the paragraph in question here, and I really couldn't find Nixon asking China to put troops on the Tibet border with India. This is not something that needs the threat of discretionary sanction: it's something that needs a clear source. If I get some kind of sanction for restoring the citation needed tag, what is going to be written in the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? I feel that giving sanctions for tagging an unsourced statement will not hold up in the long run. I would like to suggest that Aman.kumar.goel add a source for the statement that I feel Tibet Nation quite appropriately tagged in January 2020. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: @Voidvector: (don't know if you would be interested in this) Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above was nothing more than a notice about the existence of "discretionary sanctions" in this subject. Happy editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel and Tibet Nation: Tibet Nation's 'citation needed' tag was completely justified. At no time could discretionary sanctions have been legitimately used against either myself or Tibet Nation. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kinmen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I've already asked to discuss this material on the article's talk page. I've already pointed you to WP:BRD. Stop restoring. Either discuss it on the article's tlak page so we can see if there is consensus to include it, or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lieyu, you may be blocked from editing. Again, this was challenged. It's simply not historically important. There is no consensus as yet on the talk page, so it stays out for now. Stop restoring it. Meters (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: I didn't realize you were still against adding this info. The core of the content you removed can still be found on the African swine fever virus page itself, so let me know what you think about it in the context of that page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please. We discussed this yesterday. I don't think this is is something that should be mentioned as a historically important event in every article about an island or locale where a pig carcass has washed ashore. Stop restoring it. It's under discussion and we'll see what consensus is reached. Meters (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: I think I understand the literal meaning of the words you are writing here, but the rationale and especially the passion behind it escapes me completely, especially coming to my talk page and informing me that I'm making unconstructive edits. What? At least five news articles from 2019-2020 are documenting an ongoing dangerous situation in the islands. The Taiwan government's response in shutting down pork exports on multiple occassions and mass testing of pigs is definitely significant. I really do not understand what you could be thinking or how you could call these edits unconstructive. I understand you are asserting that these are unconstructive edits, but I can't see how they could be. All I'm seeing is hand-waving- especially the 'please' used in the first sentence. I know it is hard for you to imagine because you are thinking that this is just some random pig carcasses, but I really do believe that I am clearly in the right and that you really are clearly in the wrong here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were unconstructive because you knew that they had been opposed, I had already pointed you to WP:BRD, I had already asked you to discuss the edits on the articles' talk pages, and yet you continued to restore them. The "please" was because, quite frankly, I do not believe you didn't think I was still against this material being included. Meters (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: In the spirit of friendless and cooperation, I think I'm just going to have to let this one slide! I won't try to add this info to the island pages anymore. Sorry for the trouble. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties on Kashmir

Would you like to work on the treaties on Kashmir pages.

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the pages on Jammu and Kashmir are very fragmented. Its difficult to navigate through the pages. May be have a page on the treaties that apply to Jammu and Kashmir and link these to actual history events. The reader could then click on a link, obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties, that we could use for references. There are also multiple parties to these treaties and we could link to them too. Many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. May be also create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties, The Government of China, The United Nations, The Sikh Empire and the British Government on these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but it does not show how these treaties relate to one another. We need show how they relate to one another and the events on the ground. We need to enhance the experience of the reader. Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Uyghur American Association has been accepted

Uyghur American Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States counties and county equivalents

Hi Geographyinitiative,

I've stumbled upon your edit in which you've added 2 items to the list of counties and county equivalents. By this edit, the number of items in the table grew to 3,245 instead of the 3,243 as its title says.

What do you think, should we increase the total number on the top and explain that the list includes the 2 disputed territories? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_counties_and_county_equivalents&oldid=946614664

Hope to hear from you! Battyus (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Battyus: What you are saying here sounds correct in principle. The USA has several disputed areas like Machias Seal Island etc, but only these two islands rise to the level of an entire county-level equivalent that is disputed. Let me know what I can do to help- I don't do a lot of editing in this area, but I do agree with what you are asking for here. EDIT: Oh wait, I think Wake Island and Navassa Island are claimed by other countries too, but they are in US control- don't know how to handle those in this situation. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

Left a reply on my Talk Page

Hi;

I left a reply to your question on my Talk Page. Hope to hear from you there! ch (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Thanks for the "Yettishar" article, well done. Alterego Wayne (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on! This is really a deserved one! Keep it up!) --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 06:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: I am slowly becoming more and more knowledgeable about the region, but I don't know enough to make truly bold edits yet. Here are some 20th century books on the Central Asian region that you may be interested in: [14] [15] Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative:, wait a little for my contribution to the "Kuqa" article. I will publish it in a minute or two. Thanks for the books though ;-)! --Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

y Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Geographyinitiative! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, List of oldest fathers, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Postcards and Certifications

Dear Participants and Organizers,

Because of the COVID19 pandemic, there are a lot of countries’ international postal systems not reopened yet. We would like to send all the participants digital postcards and digital certifications for organizers to your email account in the upcoming weeks. For the paper ones, we will track the latest status of the international postal systems of all the countries and hope the postcards and certifications can be delivered to your mailboxes as soon as possible.

Take good care and wish you all the best.

This message was sent by Wikipedia Asian Month International Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our talk page guidelines

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Time travel are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

restating post in edit summary

Geographyinitiative—edit summaries don't have to be a restatement of the post that you are making to the Science Reference Desk. Bus stop (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hou Yu-ih

Hi,

Since you've previously participated in this discussion in regard to romanization of Taiwanese names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taiwan

I thought I would ping you as I've submitted a requested move to change it from Hou You-yi to Hou Yu-ih: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hou_You-yi#Requested_move_21_June_2020

Could you please let me know if you would support such actions? My arguments are listed in the aforementioned link with a lengthier discussion with another user who does not support it.

Thanks Asoksevil (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musk mine

Hi, I remember us having a discussion (or argument!) on whether Musk's father's 'mine' should be included in Elon's article. Thought you may be interested in the response I got from Phillip de Wet, the author of those (admittedly) tabloid-esque articles. Here is what he said: https://i.imgur.com/0vS1KZN.png. What I would ask you is: what criteria do you think must be reached in order for this claim to be (even minimally) included in the article? A written record of the interview? I probably don't believe it myself, but if proof of Errol's words is provided, I don't see why it can't be included. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acalycine: Thanks for continuing to work on this. This could be important information, and it should be included in the article if a clear statement about the information can be written up and sourced (and the final result can be shown to be clearly relevant to Elon Musk's life). I would like to invite you to gather all the sources together and create a sentence (or two?) that you believe is justified for the Wikipedia BLP of an international celebrity billionaire (one of the most viewed Wikipedia pages on English Wikipedia). Thanks for your time. I will try to respond only once every 24 hours to maintain some attempt to prevent the "argument" feeling. I'm glad you still felt comfortable enough to reach out to me. Sorry for any bad impression I may have given you!
(PS: I would like to suggest to you that if Mr. de Wet is so easily contacted by us, then wouldn't the New York Times or any other news agency have been able to contact de Wet too? Don't they have a vested interest (advertising dollars) in exposing the "hidden secrets" of international celebrities? What is holding them back from making the big pile of money they could make by exposing Elon Musk's years as a rich teen boy?) Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--- I didn't mean for my comment above to come off like a command to write something! I mean to say that I don't know exactly what to discuss without a user providing a specific sentence (with its sources) that can be critiqued. I don't want to accidentally create a straw man and "defeat" content that you may not have even been interested in adding, etc. There may be a way to find something in all this that is specific and well-sourced, but I haven't found it yet. After working on this for a while, I have preliminarily guessed that in the mid-80's, Errol was scammed into selling an aircraft for half price and told he had a "half share" in something. The other de Wet article recounting the self-described 'tale' of teen Elon on the streets of New York selling emeralds out of his pockets to Tiffanys while Errol slept all seem to be part of a convoluted narrative Errol has developed over the years surrounding the incident. His cash-stuffed safe with bills sticking out is surely a literary device and not a description of a reality. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one sentence plucked from its context in a conversation with de Wet and screen capped to be used to support a given position is definitely useful-- but definitely not optimal. If possible, the full conversation might be interesting to see. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half an emerald mine for half the price of an airplane is not economics, it's poetry, it's literary flair. Same with the rest of the de Wet material about Elon and the de Wet described 'tale' of the great international teenage emerald heist of 1987. Half the value of an airplane is not equal to half the value of a real emerald mine. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please help me with... Hey, can I request that someone restore Nury Turkel as a draft page I can work on? Mr. Turkel is now a commissioner for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. I tried contacting the admin who deleted the page, but they are on semi wikibreak. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the page was redirected at AfD, then deleted (G8) after the redirect target was deleted. You should request that an administrator restore it to draftspace at WP:UNDEL. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:嘉義縣東石鄉公所 Dongshih Township Office.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:嘉義縣東石鄉公所 Dongshih Township Office.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map on Xinjiang camps

I've seen your continued objections to the map -- my point is, it is of constant and endless detail if we are going to track every change in standpoint made by every government, and some of the viewpoints and reports on them can be vague and not determining. This leads easily to misinterpretations and edit wars. The map's original purpose is only to serve as a visual guide. Therefore my proposal is to keep the map at one state, that is, the state of international support given at October 2019, and keep it here. If you want to, you're free to create your own dynamic map with all the changes to replace this static map, but one that you yourself makes changes to it, and with your cited/referenced reasons. Sounds fair? No News ! 11:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newfraferz87: I think I agree with keeping the map at one state. I made a similar proposal in my rant on Wikimedia Commons [16]. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on which romanization to use for the name of an ROC citizen

You might be interested in this RFC: Talk:Zhang_Xueliang#RFC_for_Pinyin_vs_WG_names WhisperToMe (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do not use {{lang}} in cs1|2 citation parameters

I was reminded of this discussion, User talk:Geographyinitiative /Archives/Archive 1 § Simplified Chinese in References, that we had some time ago when I stumbled upon Sakhalin. At this edit, you added {{lang}} templates (5×) to two {{cite web}} (they should be {{cite news}}) templates. Please do not do that because when you do, you corrupt the citation's metadata which makes life harder for those encyclopedia users who consume our citations via the metadata.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Thank you for your incredible work on Wikipedia. Are you saying that I shouldn't add "lang" into the cite web or cite news at all? Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. You may use it in |quote= but as a general rule, don't.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

For your tireless efforts and diligence directed at improving Turkic-related stuff! Keep up the good job! -- Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 05:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visioncurve: Thanks! Let me know if I am messing it up! I just try to go by the sources! Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:高雄市六龜區公所 Liouguei District Office Kaohsiung City.png

Thanks for uploading File:高雄市六龜區公所 Liouguei District Office Kaohsiung City.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Larryasou (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert rule

You are in danger of breaching the three-revert rule (3RR) on Project 211, Taiping Rebellion, and Greater China. If you persist, you will be reported. This is your first and only warning. Qiushufang (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang: You're adding unsourced material to Wikipedia on those maps. It's not a "revert" question- the material is outside the scope of Wikipedia articles. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinmen edits

I see from this talk page that this is not your first edit war. I find this edit summary to be inappropriate. I have written a detailed justification for my edits here. You could consider responding in the manner outlined in WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. 5440orSleep (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Geographyinitiative! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Capital Punishment, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Democratic Progressive Party, you may be blocked from editing. You've repeated the same arguments about local usage, UNDUE, and mainland China being different for the millionth time after being told repeatedly to stop.

What part of stop repeating yourself and Stop bludgeoning this discussion is not understandable? This is the final warning to stop bludgeoning the discussion to death. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: My response to your recent post shows very clearly that I was responding to the content from your most recent post. Your most recent post showed a difference in understanding of the wording I was using that I then went on to attempt to correct in my most recent post. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven’t been misunderstood, and you have literally said everything in the following over a dozen times on the talk page now:

It's not neutral to include something that is not shown to be used by the Taiwanese amongst themselves. Hopefully my meaning is clear now on the neutrality problem. It's too prominent to include a foreign language name that is not and was not part of Taiwanese culture on an English Wikipedia article. We don't include foreign language names not local to an area on their articles- it's undue. If you want that content, you go to that Wikipedia version or to a dictionary like Wiktionary. International usage of a non-English name not local to Taiwan is irrelevant to a Taiwanese-subject article in an English language encyclopedia article. Adding it implies that the form is equally (or secondarily) part of Taiwanese culture on some level, because ythe default conception of the reader is that all foreign language content on English Wikipedia articles is confined to the local names and usages (including historical) and doesn't go beyond that. That's why I'm saying WP:UNDUE prominence of placement. Traditional character names are clearly a secondary naming scheme in mainland China and perhaps other contexts based on historical and artistic usage, as well as the legal foundations Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Table of General Standard Characters. But in the Taiwan context, we didn't establish that the form 民进党 was secondary to 民進黨 in some way in Taiwanese culture. It's too prominent a placement to add a non-English language name that isn't demonstrated to be native Taiwanese at all in this article.

Stop. You've made your point crystal clear several times. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21:@MarkH21: I see that. But the last part of the quote here has never been brought up before, and the first part of the quote (that was omitted) directly connects with the end part of the quote here quoted. Yes, there was some overlap of argumentation in between the new elements found at the beginning and end of my post, but that was because I had the new perspective on your understanding of my words: you seem to have been thinking that my use of the term "prominence of placement" referred to putting simplified characters above traditional characters. That was never my meaning. I don't agree with your assessment that the content you quoted above is a repeition or bludgeoning, except for the aside "Traditional character names are clearly a secondary naming scheme in mainland China and perhaps other contexts based on historical and artistic usage, as well as the legal foundations Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Table of General Standard Characters." This element is extremely critical to my argument and may be hard for other users to realize- I am afraid they will think "well now that Taiwan doesn't want simplified characters, get the traditional characters off mainland China articles!" I have to make 100% sure that that thought is not implied anything in what I'm saying. Other users are attacking my character on that page, and it's a really rough environment. I have to make sure what I'm saying can't be misconstrued as an avenue to do damage English Wikipedia's traditional character name coverage. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

I never took your position to literally mean that others argue to place the Simplified characters over the Traditional characters, and the RfC wording clearly reflects what the question is.

You have, however, repeated the statements about local Taiwanese usage, DPP's usage, Wiktionary, secondary usage in mainland China, undue prominence, etc. dozens of times. You have already written thousands of words about your argument. You have to stop coming back to repeat your arguments when it's reached that point. It's enough. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I agree that I have written too much. How about this: I will run any future posts I want to make on that talk page by you on this page first. That way, I have a system for participating if necessary without damaging the discussion or endangering my account. I don't know how long the discussion will last, so I don't want to say "oh, I'll stop commenting" and then it turns into a years-long thing. I need to be able to keep in the discussion if absolutely necessary but also avoid any possibility of allegation of bludgeoning. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary nor efficient for me to monitor your posts there. Also, at this volume of participation, it's time to just take a step back and let other editors guide on the discussion (which I even mentioned very early on in the RfC).

Unless you're directly mentioned, you really don't need to post in the discussion any more to further explain your arguments or to respond to editors about not seeing your argument. If you do, keep it brief (e.g. <50 words). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: If someone brings up a unique new point, then I need some avenue by which to respond. I know you are just trying to prevent bludgeoning, but you are cutting me off from my ability to respond with threats of blocking me. Perhaps I will submit my future comments to a third party to ensure they believe that they are not bludgeoning. Would that mechanism work? I have to have retain the ability to respond to new points that may arise. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to respond to everyone that participates in the discussion. I don't know if you really read WP:BLUDGEON, but it says:

Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. [...] Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote".

I'm not saying that you can't say anything in that discussion ever again, I am not threatening to block you, and I also couldn't block you even if I was. But if you do respond in that discussion, keep it brief and don't repeat points that you've already made.

If you want to consult a third party, you can ask an admin (e.g. WhisperToMe from the original MOS discussions) or another experienced editor (like Levivich also from that discussion). But more than enough of our editor-time has been sunk into this and that other editors in that discussion should guide the rest of it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that I wrote a lot of material. I did read that part of that page. I will find someone to confirm that any future comments on that talk page I want make do not bludgeon and if they agree, then and only then will I post on that page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing

Hey- why did you say that my edit on Rocky Mount, North Carolina was disruptive? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to read what is on your own talk page before reverting it, take a hike. Toddst1 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be friendlier to other users than this. [17][18] [19] Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1: I respectfully request that you never interact with me again. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 红山.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Telsho (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Telsho (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal addendum regarding the Chinese infobox

Hey! As a personal addendum to Talk:Democratic Progressive Party#Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese, I honestly understand your point and I am sympathetic to that sentiment.

If I may, there is so much room for improvement in a lot of places and it seems like a waste of time to focus on this line in a side infobox. There was already an RfC over the issue, and there are plenty of other ways in which we can be benefit the encyclopedia :) — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I understand what you are saying, but I think that just like you may agree with what I'm saying, it's actually pretty clear that the position I am advocating for is probably correct. It can get complicated. There is nuance. But I think it is a disservice to the readers to not bring up this point and thereby submit to the wishes of Beijing, casting aside the actual situation on the island. I have been attacked and will be attacked. Nothing wrong with Cardhas personally. I just think there's a distinction here that must be understood. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” MLK Jr. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Democratic Progressive Party) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Salvio

08:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking romanizations

Since you're one of the few editors I'm aware of actively working on Taiwan-related articles, I thought I'd ask you for a favor. I'm currently compiling a list of national historic sites in Taiwan (國定古蹟), the highest protection level in Taiwan, compiled from here: [20]. My current progress is at User:Ganbaruby/sandbox3. For blue links, the articles already exist, so I've simply copied the article title from the corresponding page; for red links, I've put down what I think should be the English name, but a lot of them don't have official/widely used names as far as I could tell. Could you check the red links to make sure they're correct? I'd really appreciate the help! ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: Nothing in your list stuck out to me as "definitely wrong" at first glance. But what you are asking me to do is a gigantic task. When I do this kind of thing, I try to rigorously confirm what the local people translate the name of a place as (what's on the signs, brochures etc), and then confirm if there are any other translations in actual use- travel guides, scholarly sources, etc. It is a painstaking process. I went through the list and made one minor improvement to one page- Chastity Arch for Qiu Liang-gong's Mother. I will look for more later. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! I agree that this is a monumental task, and this is only the national level as well (107 as of now), and sometime in the distant future I intend on going to the municipal and county levels as well. I hope this list will provide a good starting point for future Wikipedians to find which of these places are missing and expand Wikipedia's coverage on Taiwan. Every little bit helps! ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that the page is now live at List of national monuments of Taiwan. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: Please do not be alarmed by the reverts that I recently carried out. I 100% understand what you are saying in terms of getting rid of excessive citation. The only problem is is that that the Hanyu Pinyin-only crowd thinks Wikipedia has to bow before them, and it's not true. These areas are known to use Tongyong Pinyin derived names officially and in journalism, etc., and the Hanyu Pinyin only crowd will not quit their attacks without clear, unmistakable evidence that another option has been chosen by the people in these areas. Without the citations, the pages are liable to be switched to the incorrect names again. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still overkill nonetheless. Alternatives would be to bundle the refs, or less ideally, hiding out the refs. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: How many before it's too much? Maybe one from the central government, one from the city government, one from the district/township government, and then hide the rest? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: Do let me know what you think about this. I am trying myself to pare it down, but every time I start paring it down, I get the feeling that some troll will come by and undo the correct name because five visible sources from various parts of the Taiwan government may not be enough to even slow them down. For instance, see [21]. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we want to just have 1 or 2 visible ref numbers; any more detract from the readability of the page. Bundling will let you keep your 10 while only showing one number. I personally think city/district government is the strongest support for a certain spelling, so I would put that first. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: What do you think of Cijin District? I have never bundled citations before. Let me know. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: I have made some major improvements on the Cijin District page in response to your deletion. If you want me to hide some sources, let me know. Let me know if I am making progress toward something that is legitimate for the Wikipedia article according to your understanding of the relevant policies of Wikipedia. Keep in mind the following edits: July 2009 March 2010 July 2010 2013 2017 and, on different pages without the protection of the citations from numerous sources: June 2020 August 2020 Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: I have made a long-term response to the WP:OVERCITE claim made in your deletion here: [22]. Let me know if you think I have the wrong perspective in how I am using the bundle citation you recommended to bring a conclusive end to the decade-long perennial edit war. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I turned your html tag things into nested footnotes because the way you did it isn't very intuitive to future editors as I've never seen reference tags like that. I also just want to make it clear that I don't really care about Pinyin/Tongyong as the article title, so don't take this as me supporting your view. As long as both are on the page, it works for me, and I'm just here to fix formatting. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: The Hanyu Pinyin/Tongyong Pinyin debate situation is not actually important to this specific issue about this specific page (Cijin District, Kaohsiung) except in that Hanyu Pinyin-only persons want to change everything to Hanyu Pinyin derived forms. Of course the Hanyu Pinyin name needs to appear in some capacity on the page to the extent it is demonstrated to exist and be used! But the Hanyu Pinyin supremacists feel entitled to change all things to Hanyu Pinyin, and indeed, the policy of Wikipedia is to default to Hanyu Pinyin derived forms (which is normal and natural). But the issue is: are we implementing Wikipedia policy correctly on a case by case basis when we can see a locale choosing a different form than we would expect if following 汉语拼音方案? And in this case, we can see a clear preference for a non-Hanyu Pinyin form. Daan District, Taipei [23] is another example- they use Hanyu Pinyin, but don't follow the mainland China usage that we would see with Xi'an, etc. The answer in the case of Cijin is here: [24]. The other sources are supplemental but helpful to confirming the case and preventing wild changes. I plan to rework all the pages that have evidence that a locale doesn't conform to forms derived from Hanyu Pinyin along the lines we have laid out in the Cijin page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Concerning Special Rules in Effect Surrounding the Armenia/Azerbaijan Situation (Discretionary Sanction)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: It is very rough on users to write the words "discretionary sanctions" in a title without letting me know that the sanctions aren't even being applied to me. It's like if a police officer came by and handed me a notice titled "Jaywalking Discretionary Jailtime" when I was clearly walking on a sidewalk. I advise you to revise the title of your notification immediately. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I could title the message "furry little kittens" but the fact is, it's about Discretionary Sanctions. If you don't like what they're called Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests might be the place to start.

Jaywalking isn't a thing where I live. If there are weird rules I'm unaware of, I'd certainly appreciate being given advance warning. Cabayi (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month 2020

Hi WAM organizers and participants!

Hope you are all doing well! Now is the time to sign up for Wikipedia Asian Month 2020, which will take place in this November.

For organizers:

Here are the basic guidance and regulations for organizers. Please remember to:

use Fountain tool (you can find the usage guidance easily on meta page), or else you and your participants’ will not be able to receive the prize from WAM team.
Add your language projects and organizer list to the meta page before October 29th, 2020.
Inform your community members WAM 2020 is coming soon!!!
If you want WAM team to share your event information on Facebook / twitter, or you want to share your WAM experience/ achievements on our blog, feel free to send an email to info@asianmonth.wiki or PM us via facebook.

If you want to hold a thematic event that is related to WAM, a.k.a. WAM sub-contest. The process is the same as the language one.

For participants:

Here are the event regulations and Q&A information. Just join us! Let’s edit articles and win the prizes!

Here are some updates from WAM team:

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this year we hope all the Edit-a-thons are online not physical ones.
The international postal systems are not stable enough at the moment, WAM team have decided to send all the qualified participants/ organizers extra digital postcards/ certifications. (You will still get the paper ones!)
Our team has created a meta page so that everyone tracking the progress and the delivery status.

If you have any suggestions or thoughts, feel free to reach out the WAM team via emailing info@asianmonth.wiki or discuss on the meta talk page. If it’s urgent, please contact the leader directly (jamie@asianmonth.wiki).

Hope you all have fun in Wikipedia Asian Month 2020

Sincerely yours,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.10

[1] "沙洋县行政区划图". 沙洋县人民政府门户网站 www.shayang.gov.cn (in Simplified Chinese). 湖北中大空间地理信息数据中心. November 2012. Retrieved 31 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

[2] Harris, Lane J. (2009). "A "Lasting Boon to All": A Note on the Postal Romanization of Place Names, 1896–1949". Twentieth-Century China. 34 (1): 96–109. doi:10.1353/tcc.0.0007. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

[1]

[1]