User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 6

We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

Welcome to my Meet-the-Pluie session - or more commonly, my talk page.

A list of talk page archives is available.

eudaimonic

Natalina,

having noticed your complex signature, it occurred to me to ask whether you know about the book, by Bass, The Eudaimonic Pie. True story and funny, some of it in that Three Men in a Boat sense. Being anachistic and donnishly inclined, you will probably appreciate it.

And speaking of anarchistic communism (as hinted at above) have you encountered Karl Popper's brief book, The Poverty of Historicism? His critique is, I think, logically definitive as to Marxian social analysis. which raises other questions about the overall structure of the approach. Between his argument and Bertrand Russell's perspective after his trip to the Soviet Union in the early 20s, I myself gave up on the whole business. Too much opportunity for the sort of totalitarian chicanery we saw rather too much of, and still are seeing some. 71.249.12.89 05:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I must say I have read neither. But I will keep these titles in mind if I come across them. Thanks for the heads-up. I am an advocate for extensive social change, but from the grassroots-up, rather than top-down. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chat Day

Hello, we have decided to notice all of you at the eleventh hour. Today its Chat Day and its where SGpedians' go to and have a casual off-topic chat. It is held at our very own Singapore IRC Channel from 2000 (SST) to late. Do come to the channel if you have the time and it is greatly appreciated that you turn up at the channel. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude closed

This arbitration case is closed.

Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Combined CPC and KMT flags

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

I would use it as the flag of the Capitalist Party of China... Hmm, maybe that should go to Uncyclopedia! Anyway, you could try making a PRC flag with the KMT's 12-ray sun replacing the central 5-ray star. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

Ta for the work on the headers on the Multilingualism page. I was not aware that questions in headers are/were/seem unprofessional. (Speaking of... more professional that way, to me, is insulting.) The problem that arose from the multilingualism article was the verbiage/verbage that had rendered the article inaccessible to non-professionals. So, the headers with questions were used resulted in a more open. I could not find anything in the wiki editing pages that suggests avoiding questions in headers. However, they do suggest that nouns be used/maintained. Fair enough. But you misunderstood some of the headings and text that followed so that several of your new headings are either inaccurate or unrelated to the issues discussed. It's late. And I have to get up early for my professional job, so, I'll ask you to go back and fix the ones that you missed. If you cannot figure them out, let me know, and I will help out in the morn. Cheers.

Forgot to sign. I often do.DDD DDD 13:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You're 15 years old? Another teenage wikipedian :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, my birthday is this month. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Mine's in October :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 19:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, you're fifteen? Jesus. Stevay (Talk) 05:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

You didn't really change the organization of the article -- you just changed the section titles -- in the wrong direction, IMHO. Your prose is not an improvement.

What is wrong with having three POVs? The academics don't accept much that devout Muslims do, and academics are deeply divided about how much of the Muslim tradition to accept. A section for each POV is the usual Wikipedia way of doing things.

The Muhammad article has been hotly fought over for years. We've achieved something like a delicate balance. Blundering into this minefield, without much knowledge of Islam and any sense of the history of the article, is inadvisable. Zora 03:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with having three POVs, but stratification of the article into separate POVs is generally inadvisable. What would be better is to document the disputed parts as an addition, not give three different accounts of his life. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only part that isn't disputed is the first part, the summary. That's the problem. Zora 03:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of athiests or scholars would probably dispute accounts at Jesus. Clearly, the way to do it is simply state that what the accounts state, who believes, and give it in a chronological order. At this point one would mention the context of the disputed material. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's possible, then you should download the article and rearrange it in chronological order rather than by POV. I think you'll find it that the material dissolves into an unwieldy jumble -- but I'll be the first to applaud if you can do it. I would suggest a preliminary course of reading in the history of early Islam, however, and a read-through of Montgomery Watts (Muhammad at Mecca, Muhammad at Medina) and a look at the Schoeler article quoted in the Sources section. Zora 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chinese military strength

Hiya, saw your message over at Mib's talk page when I replied something else there. Regarding the gigantic increase in military after the dissolution of the Qing Dynasty, this was because the need of manpower during the warlord era, the need to increase provincial military power during the nanking decade, and then the high attrition rate of the war against Japan. However, China did not possess an adequate form of conscription system and recruitment was often unfair and brutal. In fact, one of the most pressing issues following the unification of China under the KMT in 1928 was the reduction of military spending. 85% of national budget was spent on the army and the 1929 Reorganization and Disbandment Conference of 1929 was called into session to reduce the individual armies of the former warlords and factionalists and incorporate them into a true natinal army under the central government. This then of course ired the factionalists (like Li Tsung-jen, Feng Yu-hsiang...) and led to the 1930 Civil War. BlueShirts 19:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Size of Chinese militaries

Well yeah, that's just another permutation of the Million-Man-Chinese-Peasant-Army stereotype. A good deal of it is true, but a large chunk is not. Many centuries were so devastated population-wise by continuous warfare that the states had to maintain (relatively) small standing professional armies. Other times (eg Qing after population boom in the 1700s) there were no serious threats so the army became the police/constables/tax collectors/whatever and their size bulged. And then the Manchus being the ******** ******* (fill in appropriate expletive) that they are offset the already stagnant military technology by a few millenia.

Actually, by 1937 I believe there were some 2M troops, 500k from Chiang's Central Army, 400K each from Feng Yuxiang's Xibei and Zhang Xueliang's Manchuria/Dongbei, Yan Xishan's North China 200K, Bai Chongxi and Li Zongren's Guangxi + Guangdong Alliance 200K total, and other minor warlords some 300K. Forgot where I read this, unfortunately. And as for military recruitment, I'll pass it along to the MILHIST project.

And to add on to BlueShirts, KMT 憲兵隊/宪兵队 (which in Japanese would be pronounced Kempeitai, scary eh?) has the power to (a land version of) impress able-bodied men to join the army. They also could conscript convicts (such as those jailed for theft or other minor offenses) to join the army. <libertarian mode>With a state like this, who needs the Japanese?</libertarian mode> Seriously though, people were unwilling to join the army for a number of reasons besides the old conscientious objection and/or I-don't-wanna-die and/or pacifist tree-hugging:

Traditional Chinese values did not look favourably upon the work of a soldier
Conditions were often brutal
Pay was bad (at least for warlord armies)
Some angry young educated men joined to fight against Japan, (ca 1928-1932) only to be sent against the Communists. They deserted.

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Firearms were instrumental in defeating the Mongols of Yuan Dynasty and then the different warlords. Ming firearms were not that developed though. Many were basically mini-cannons with bulbous breeches. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses! :D This leaves me with some questions though, because then the majority of the National Revolutionary Army were the armies of warlords? (I suppose that's why they became unpopular...) The issue of how armies got so many troops in the first place doesn't seem to be clarified in many military articles, although it is mentioned in articles like gunpowder warfare concerning the French ability to raise troops.

Was perhaps the Qing Dynasty's military weakness its suspicion and fear of Han revolt (although the New Armies probably was an example of Han revolt in the military). Also, the conscription was enforced by other soldiers, yes? So if the enforcing officer is a conscript in itself, then the draft seems pretty weak.

I always thought much of the warlords' armies were their private armies, but I didn't know the extent they conscripted from their own provinces. I also know that Chinese culture doesn't like the military or the merchants that much but I always found that clashed with the sentiments that glorify Zhuge Liang, etc. (although not the warlord troops) - would that mean that the majority of the forces at the Battle of Shanghai were under the command of warlords that had been sent to the front?

Also, was it only Chiang's troops that received German training, or did the other warlords receive them too?

Oh would it really be called the Kempetai in Japanese? :D Or is it just a coincidental kanji translation? Thanks! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the War of Resistance China has yet to possess a centralized conscription and command system. The provincial armies belonged to the ROC and weren't "warlord" per se, but they're still distinct from Chiang Kai-Shek's central army and generally retained independence from the central government. I believe I've made this pretty clear in this section, in the second paragraph about Chinese army composition. In the Battle of Shanghai, Chiang's central troops carried the brunt of the fighting, but other provincial divisions also joined the battle one by one with rising casualties. Chiang's strength was greatly reduced after the Shanghai-Nanking campaign and his manpower was actually lower than the combined strength of the provincial armies I believe. However, throughout the entire span of the war, Chiang's central forces consistently made up of around 40% of all the combat troops active at any one time. Therefore the charge saying that Chiang refused to fight is purely smear propaganda. Before the war, other warlords relied on foreign help too, such as Chang Tso-lin's reliance on Japan, Sun Chuang-fan on the UK I think. From the late 1920s to early 1930, left wing Kuomintang members, TV Soong, and the separatist Guandong government had their own german advisors competing with Nanking, but they were nowhere as successful. I believe that's pretty much beyond the scope of the Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941) article and that's why I didn't write it in. BlueShirts 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guangxi Clique got some Frenchie help, I believe. (Due to French occupation of Indochina.) The word for "military police" is "憲兵" in both Chinese and japanese Kanji. "Kempeitai" is the romanisation of the japanese pronunciation of "憲兵隊". In Mandarin though it would be called Xian4 bing1 dui4. But they served somewhat different purposes in the two nations, I suppose. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Happy sweet sixteen! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks. :D

Anyway, there is much mention of "cliques" - were they always based on geographical area or by personal loyalties (were they sometimes broken? What formed their allegiances) - I mean, there is no article about the cliques in general, although I notice the warlord article is pretty scanty. Anyway, what was the average draft rate? I think economic data on the ROC is needed to complement all this, which appears the records exist prominently, just apparently hard to find on the internet. What was the size of the Qing force prior to its dissolution? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ;)

I have no clue why they are called cliques. But they are, so don't ask. :) They're basically alliances of warlords. (Sort of semi-feudal IMO.) I would think geographical area plays the largest part in the interplay between all these warlords, followed by political viewpoints and then personal loyalities. The pre-Northern Expedition cliques in the north and northeast included Zhili, Fengtian, Anhui (Wan) etc, and they duked it out among themselves for supremacy of the region. The KMT had its pre-Northern Expedition powerbase in the south and they had relatively good relations with southern warlords (with a few exceptions of course). Politics played a part, people didn't quite like Zhang Zuolin because he collaborated with the japanese. Wars were started because some warlords were accused of being japanese collaborationists. (Either Fengtian or Anhui, not sure which.) Then family/personal loyalties. People like those who are related to them... eg. Xibei San Ma, 3 "Ma" of the Northwest, a Muslim clique ruled by 3 brothers Ma, controlling Ningxia, Qinghai and Gansu, but consolidated their positions by allying, hence the name. Also there was rampant cronyism and nepotism everywhere, but that's a bit off-topic.

Draft rate... no idea. But since there were approx 450 million people ca 1937, and a max of, say, 3 million soldiers/military personnel (would probably go up to 5 million if you figure in rotation and all that)... probably very low.

Know nothing about Qing armies, sorry. Also don't know anything about economic statistics, I just care about the guns, not butter. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I should probably write these into articles instead of telling them to you. But I'm too lazy. XD -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Lovebythebridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lovebythebridge.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : licensing for Student's Sketchpad images

Image:Lovebythebridge.jpg, I presume? I've re-licensed it under {{cc-by-2.5}}. Enjoy. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your response to my 1 year old response on the RGS talk page. ;D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Image:Gisfor-c.jpg. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 05:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Look at the top of the blog, then Gayle's, afterwhich this, and let me know what you think. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 07:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hmm, the last link is broken? But the other two point to i-do-not-speak, which is a rather profound work in my opinion. But is there any other design in the correlation? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Optimo Reipublicae Statu deque Nova Insula Utopia

Have you read Thomas More's Utopia? If so, I'd be glad to discuss some things with you. -- WGee 01:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a book on my "important works I really should get around to reading", but no, I haven't. I am familiar with the context though. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should probably wait until you read it then. I've actually only read the introduction so far (of Paul Turner's translation), and, though it has provoked some questions, it's probably best if I read the whole book before discussing it, anyway. -- WGee 04:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee lounge

Thanks for the invite. I think the go template is a great piece of work, and really cool for illustrations of positions on pages, but for non-realtime games I prefer DGS. I doubt I'll be haning out much in the coffee lounge, because I'm a bit antisocial when it comes to WP ="."=. --Slashme 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian communism

Wanna work on it (to FA)? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, certainly. Did you get piqued when the image was transcluded? ;-) Anyhow, I would be delighted to work on it, but I don't exactly have a plan — what do you see that we can immediately work on? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be caught editing a page on communism so I'll provide critique and suggestions. :D

I don't think a page on X-tian communism would be complete without ample references to X-tian anarchism (like you I think they are complementary), and historically I think most X-tian communist groups maintained some form of X-tian anarchism.
Similarly if they decide to merge X-tian socialism into this article we should then elaborate on the social-egalitarian aspects as opposed to just economic egalitarianism.
More on historical X-tian communist groups/groups with beliefs similar to X-tian communism, eg. Coptic (and other) monks who practiced Coenobitic monasticism, Quakers (though some would probably disagree with this association), Essenes, and officially X-tian communist political parties (IIRC there was one in Civil War Spain).
Historical X-tian communists: Um, Jesus? ~~One could argue that~~ He is the ultimate commie.

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you don't want to be caught? Oh, come on. Have you encountered a plethora of Christian communist literature recently (ie. on the same level of detail from the sources that you managed to write Defense of Sihang Warehouse on...?) that we could use, by the way? I generally oppose the merger, although probably some merging with Christian anarchism could be in order. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible... And no, I do not want to get caught ;) It compromises my rabidly ultra-right wing image. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the Christian communism article cites a lot of things from the Bible already (although not exhaustively, but I think the point gets communicated). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Try any of the new apocrypha... :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:role of the private military in Chinese history

A private army (aka private defense agency) sounds terribly ancap. Anyway. Most of the warlords were governors, mayors of this-and-that province. But... they also happened to be some of the filthiest richest people. Money, influence and might were inseparable. Some would argue that certain divisions of KMT's army were little more than armed thugs put in uniforms, I don't know how much truth there is in that, but given the KMT armies' overall less-than-desirable quality and their uncanny knack for using the wrong people, I would say there is probably some truth in such accusations. Beiyang Army was funded with provincial tax money so I don't know if that could be called private. Most of the northern warlord cliques after the Revolution were backed up a factionalised Beiyang Army, and many warlords were former officials and generals. As for "personal relationships", <thoughtcrime> think LeeKY and LeeHL... :D </thoughtcrime> -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ketuanan Melayu

I just borrowed a brilliant book from the library - James Ongkili's Nation-building in Malaysia 1946–1974. I'll be expanding the article even further over the next week or so as a result, and I'm expecting a couple of new books in July when I visit my aunt in the US. (We ordered them through the mail, but they only ship to US locations, and since I'm visiting my relatives in July...) I think an FAC should proceed within a few weeks, but not until after I'm done with this latest expansion. (I just realised there are some holes that need plugging.)

What concerns me the most is the gigantic size of the article. As discussed on the peer review, there doesn't seem to be a way to address this, short of articles like Ketuanan Melayu (1963-1965) (which would be just weird). And even then, it's difficult to apply summary style to the article without either disrupting the flow (because crucial quotes and elements of the article would have to go, making it rather dry) or making it misleading/incomplete. I've been trying for weeks to come up with a way to summarise it without losing too much "life" in the article, but it's just plain difficult. The article already stands at >100kb, and I think that'll rise by about 5 to 10kb when I'm done with the new additions.

As for the subsectioning, I wouldn't be too concerned about that. Each subsection could actually stand as a section on its own if each section of the article was in reality an individual article. The article isn't oversectioned - it's just damn long. Hopefully the readability will ensure people don't get the perception of lengthiness, but I'm still concerned. Johnleemk | Talk 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constituencies template

I've done the constituencies template in your notepad sub-page. Feel free to make any changes and do check for errors. I hope you don't mind me fiddling your personal space. ;) --Ter e nc e Ong 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask for it. ;-) Thanks very much! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:169.244.143.115

Per this, it appears that you have intervened with the blocking of this IP address on many occassions. What were your intentions in making the "1 second (temporary unblock, testing something)"? I left detailed instructions in the block log regarding this address and for future reference, I ask that you check the log before taking additional action. If you check the log again, it appears that this address has once again continued to vandalise - not good stuff. --Jay(Reply) 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if I could add something on the opposite side from Mr.Jay: You recently placed an infinite-block on 169.244.143.115 and used Template:Blocked proxy as justification, i.e., that it's an open proxy or zombie computer, when in fact it's neither. It belongs to U-Maine's statewide network, which every public school uses from grade school and up. The vandalism rate is pretty bad, but I don't think you can just block it indefinitely when it's not actually an open proxy. Phoenix-forgotten 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, am I to please everyone? Feel free to override my blocks: I was correlating with an acquaintance to test/examine a feature. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking policy states that the max block time for a static IP, (which this IP is) is 1 month. It seems you were unaware of this, since you have made a few blocks on IPs for over a month. Could you please change these blocks to a month from the original block date, as per policy? Thanks, Prodego ^talk 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor and others have implemented blocks of over a year. We have blocked sockpuppets for much more than that (see hanging) ... since this is inclined to be really a widespread proxy, there is a continuing long-term problem. Personally I'd like to see shorter blocks implemented but I got more complaints for leaving it blocked than leaving it unblocked. Mind you - I only reblock becaues I have unblocked it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least confirm that you had no reason to think this was an open proxy? Because the fact that you used Template:Blocked proxy in your reason for the indefinite block is causing some slight bureacratic slowness. Phoenix-forgotten 22:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor's blocks are incorrect, and against policy. However, he is no longer editing, and I assume he just wasn't informed of the policy. Note the while open proxies can be blocked indefinitely, all proxies should not be. I hope this helps explain the policy. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 03:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a compromised proxy before. I have no reason to think it was an open proxy, but I was just basically using the original justification (with a template redirect out of convenience). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well knowing all that, can you consider shortening the block to expire Saturday? The school year should be over by then at least. Phoenix-forgotten 05:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please shorten the block to a maximum of one month as per policy. Thank you. Prodego ^talk 16:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't feel like starting a wheel war. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With whom would it be? Prodego ^talk 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people who initially imposed the blocks. You can ask them (or someone) else to lift it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea, actually - we should ask the developers to change the program so that it is simply not possible to place an indefinite block on an IP. bd2412 T 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We indefinitely block compromised proxies. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! bd2412 T 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor is the only other admin to impose an indef block, and he left Wikipedia, so you are in the clear. Either way, it would be fine to unblock if the block were against policy. Prodego ^talk 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. But if the block gets reinstated again I won't unblock (except for a few minutes here and there.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think it'll be necessary anymore. There haven't been any anonymous edits since the unblock, which might mean that X-Forwarded-For is letting the server target the right IP addresses now. Phoenix-forgotten 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

Reversions are frequently unavoidable on this article. Otherwise, the article would quickly loose focus and revert back to the mess we had last year, when lots of users were using the article as a dumping ground for their crank nonsense, such as Silverback's b.s. on "altruistic genes." [1] I'm really worried about Tazmaniac's edits not because of the content per se (the content is largely fine), but because they loosen the focus of the article. On the communism article, we have to maintain such a fragile balance editorially with respect to:

The users who think there's too much history versus the ones who think there's too little history
The users who think there's too much focus on Communist party rule versus users like Ed Poor who insist "the kind [of communism] which controlled 1/4 to 1/3 of the planet in the 20th century seems like the main kind to be described in the article"

Otherwise, we’re back to the old days, when the focus of the article was so loose that there were no discernible criteria for keeping out the fringe nonsense. So, to keep everyone happy, and to maintain an article which is consistent with the communism entries found in mainstream encyclopedias and sourcebooks, it's highly necessary to direct new editors to more relevant specialized entries whenever they seem to be interested in making edits more relevant in Marxism, history of socialism, history of communism, etc. 172 | Talk 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KI

Hey this is KI, I've been blocked for 3 months for one instance of vulgarity. Please unblock me and warn User:Sasquatch that he's not allowed to do that. freestylefrappe 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point

What point are you talking about? I don't understand. There are people attributing things to Parker Pen Co. and Richard Lederer, and I want to verify those assertions. Since the issue of false friends is so full of urban legends and popular beliefs, I think it's a reasonable thing to do. What point do you think I'm trying to make? (?) --193.86.75.124 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is to be disputed at the article about the term, not the article about fase friends. As far as I see it asking for evidence is frivolous because evidence exists at the link itself. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Tolstoy

I found you had an interest in Christian anarchism and just decided to ask if you have done any contributing to the Leo Tolstoy article. He is a very important writer and political notable, and I just thought his article would benefit from your edits. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:169.244.143.115

You sure about an indef block on a school shared IP? Sasquatch t|c 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one wanting the block on the IP. I've unblocked it before, but apparently I got complaints. I can't satisfy everyone - I unblocked it then I implemented the block. In a year's time it will start all over again anyway. What's the difference? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of capitalism

Can you help with this serious POV blog going on, or lock the page? -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the award, but I'm reluctant to lock it unless it's that ugly. I will try to rectify issues though. 172 seems to be really good at resolving these things neutrally, so perhaps you could petition him first? Anyhow, an RFC seems in order. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't open the jar. The legend reminds me of badbot lucifer (the all-questioning). Oh my first RFC..? With him?? - u looked at the page? Important article so I wonder what I have in store for the next months until take it off watchlist. -- max rspct leave a message 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tunnel war

world war I was not so recent. putting it in one box with the Romans is not ok. Your article about Kaifeng is good, but there must have been some more sieges to it. unfortunately I do not have the date. Wandalstouring 21:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise it had World War I in there in the same section - I was doing a quick fix. There's also one other issue, but let me finish merging first. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaifeng

I was sure that it was the city of Kaifeng where reinforcemets of Sung archers with blackpowder arrows broke the siege of a Mongolian force. but maybe the translation is wrong. it is called Kai-feng-fu. This is a remarkable date because this is the first time a new weapon was employed and there is discussion wheter this were rocket engines attached to arrows or the Chinese invention of acceleration powder with a directed blast.

I found one of my books here. Kai-fung-fu was under siege in 1232. Is this Kaifeng again under siege? Was it in between reoccupied by Sung military?

"Wu Ching Taung Jao" is a source describing of the classical Chinese military, mentioning arrows with blackpowder in the year 1040 and shot with crossbows. Perhaps you know how to read the original. I have had some intense discussion about the construction of these devices.

thanks Wandalstouring 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I gave a brief description at fire lance (which I believe is the weapon you're looking for). It should be Kaifeng. -- Миборовский 23:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats not exactly the weapon. The firelance shoots and is not the projectile itself. Interesting is that it is mentioned as a shooting weapon, because in European sources it is mentioned as spitting fire only for psychological warfare. So it is similar to early handguns used in Japan, where a blastproof structure (bamboo composite) directs the blast of blackpowder to accelerate several projectils over a short distance. But the spear or arrow itself is not moved and range is limited.

One example of arrows with attached blackpowder is described as a "horde of leopards" and covered a distance of 400 paces. This is most likely based upon rockets and resembles a rocket thrower, but it is not clear how long the range is. Blackpowder arrows shot with a bow or crossbow are likely to be sth. totally diffrent. There are two theories, one that the blackpowder was a rocket engine for additional total range and the other that it was an explosive with a directed blast for increased effective fighting range. I tend to the second theory after some works on this field, mostly concerning Arabian versions of early combustine engine. Many contemporary writers agree with my doubts. The problem with rockets on arrows is the reduced accuracy. It does not make much sense to mount such a system on the most accurate range weapon avaiable (crossbow), which has a very low rate of fire. Of course a rocket would increase range, but the effect would be spread over large area, thus reducing eviciency. If it is a heavy arrow or a bolt which at the maximum range possible has a decisive acceleration for hitting through the target it does make sense to use a precise system to deliver it there. The main problem is the reliable timing of the ignition system. The key point of dicussion is the appearance of first rocket engines. The sources about employment of this weapon against Mongolian forces make notion about high penetration power, but scared horses are absolutely not mentioned. Any rocket employment at this time had the great effect of scaring the enemy horses and a Mongolian army without horses sounds somehow unreal.

Wandalstouring 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the fire arrow then? We have an article for it, and here's a link teaching you to build one. And an about.com article, and Liang Jieming's Chinese siege weapons site has everything you need on early gunpowder weapons. You're obviously well-versed with Song-dynasty warfare so I'm feeling like I'm 班门弄斧ing here. -- Миборовский 02:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proficiency is even less than Miborovsky. I just have an interest, that's all. Feel free to disambiguate the "Siege of Kaifeng" page and convert it from a redirect if we get another article on it. Oh, I notice originally there was some wholesale copying and pasting from the source website you quoted...not that serious as it is normally (since it was released for any purpose according to the copyright notice on the site) but we generally like it GFDL, so that's just a heads-up. Cheers! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

horde of leopards refers to the fire arrows described in this article, but my sources state their very limited range. There should also be a version shot normally and having the last push via blackpowder, shortly before hitting the target. It has longer battle range. Ok, I was just hoping you know the sources a bit better. I am mostly concerned with technical aspects.

I was allowed to copy insert my source directly. The article was not finished, when I stopped that day. Next day was really surprising.

Wandalstouring 13:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that's why it wasn't a huge problem. However even with free sources it's generally preferred to adapt it slightly, sometimes especially because of language (ie. public domain material 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, CIA factbook, etc.). Hopefully I didn't disrupt your writing - I merged most of it into the Song Dynasty article since it seemed to refer more to the policies of the Song Dynasty following the fall of Kaifeng than the actual siege itself. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://authors.history-forum.com/liang_jieming/chinesesiegewarfare/index-english13042006.html cool site of yours, how many of these pics are avaiable for wiki? I have been working on the crossbow article. We really do have a gap concerning Chinese crossbows in the Middle Ages. It is mentioned that it apeared first in East Asia, especially China, but that was all about this place. As reports state, Chinese were most likely to be among the first employing crossbows for whale hunting. So if you know any sources about crossbow hunting it would be good.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrockethistory.htm is a bit inaccurate, the surface running torpedo is depicted wrong. (rebuilt it myself, Arabian sources avaiable, it´s Arabian name translates "self-moving combusting egg") And this article makes again the usual mistake of non-pyrotechnicans. A tube with blackpowder is by no means necessarily a real rocket(it is close to the edge and you can argue about that). We call it "cracking frogs", it jumps on the ground and changes direction with each explosion. Perhaps you can tell me more, what historic pyrotechnics were employed during Chinese celebrations at this time.

Wandalstouring 14:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)14:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, but no, it's not my site :D Ask the webmaster about it, or I could do it since I know him (online). -- Миборовский 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being sluggish. but asking would be a nice service. Wandalstouring 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what terms? I was just being BOLD, that's all, I saw two articles on the same subject and one happened to be more on topic than the other, so I redirected one to other because I think that belonged to the Song Dynasty article anyhow. I hope I didn't disrupt anything and you might try working on Jingkang Incident or Song Dynasty? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets split it, I refered to this:

It's cool, but no, it's not my site :D Ask the webmaster about it, or I could do it since I know him (online). -- Миборовский 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School

You're a TCHS alumni, I presume? I just wanted to confirm.
(As for me, still in FMSS.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!)
03:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

yes.

Deletion.

It can't qualify as a parody. A parody would only apply if the user were parodying Winnie the Pooh. In this case, the picture parodied nothing- it used Winnie the Pooh, but it did not parody the character- it simply used the character in a way that might not be expected. The way that Milne drew it is irrelevant, because it is a near-copy of the character as drawn by others for Disney movies, etc. It was a "blatant copyright violation", because any image of Winnie the Pooh is derivative of the character, whose image is copyrighted. In any event, I've moved it to IFD. Ral315 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did not copy verbatim anything from the Disney movies. It's trademarked, but I don't think the way mailer_diablo did it was copyrighted. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image was clearly an unauthorized impermissible derivation. Your misunderstandings of copyright law are no longer an excuse. The image has been deleted. If you attempt to upload it again, you will be blocked and I will initiate desysoping proceedings against you, assuming that Brad doesn't just order you desysoped on sight. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hohoho... is that an in thing nowadays, to "initiate desysoping proceedings against so-and-so"? That sounds very vicious, especially directed at a volunteer who has made great contributions. --Vsion 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to sit around and do nothing when admins run rampant over our obligation to respect copyright laws. If you want to be an admin, you will refrain from creation copyright infringements on Wikipedia. End of discussion. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I thought it wasn't a blatant copyright violation because it's in this case it's mailer diablo who drew it. I was already upset over mailer_diablo and NSLE leaving, so I'm quite sorry. I thought the appropriate method would have been to list it for IFD, not speedy it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venez-vous pour la réunion ?

J'espère vous voir lors de la réunion sur le 23ème juin...Voir vous bientôt, la bonne chance et ne nous laissez pas !-- 陈鼎翔贡献和 CCD Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strange edit

I am intrigued by this edit of yours, as the Liberal Socialist Party article clearly states: The Liberal Socialist Party is a defunct political party which was formerly active within the politics of Singapore.

D'UH!! Nevermind. that has to be the stupidest note I ever left on a talk page... Circeus 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :D, I was just about to go "eh?" We have our moments. ;-)Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article, Singapore general election, 1959, was selected for DYK!

On June 16, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Singapore general election, 1959, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

The users User:笨笨的小B and User:小 were blocked under the "Names with non-Latin characters" rationale on WP:U. Editors that do not have Asian fonts installed see gibberish instead of the intended username, making it extremely hard to communicate with them. Naconkantari 05:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but they are already quite dominant in the articles. I suppose I was upset with the entire "decided not to devote any time to this project" thing, because other Wikipedias accept non-latin characters, so I think this is an outdated policy...of course since it's still policy I suppose I resign myself to the fact they might have to be reblocked. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the person change his user name, before indef blocking him and creating a bitter critic of Wikipedia. -- Миборовский 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He already did. pschemp | talk 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:小's talkpage does not even exist. -- Миборовский 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:No Chinese allowed pschemp | talk 05:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm delirious, User:No Chinese allowed was created after User:小 was indef blocked. -- Миборовский 05:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. because the person user:小, changed his username to User:No Chinese allowed right after the initial usernameblock. The 小 account was blocked when it had no edits. That its the same person is obvious from the identical rants on the userpages. What don't you understand?pschemp | talk 05:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why was User:小 indef blocked without anyone even telling him that non-ASCII user names are not recommended on en.wikipedia? The signup page is ambiguous on this, "don't create usernames that contain unreadable texts or characters." He can read it, I can read it and most people with Windoze XP or Mac OS X should be able to read it. So instead of just blocking him with a flick of the admin-finger, why not at least tell him that non-Latin characters are not supposed to be in user names on en.wikipedia? I'm not even saying that you shouldn't have blocked him. All I'm asking is that you inform people of what's going on, cite a specific policy, rather than slapping down a rather ambiguous (and I would consider rude) {{usernameblock}}... -- Миборовский 06:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but unlike your average American/Brit/whatever, every Chinese Wikipedian on en.wikipedia is valuable. People don't go through the hassle of surfing via an open proxy or whatever to evade the Great Firewall just to vandalise or create accounts with funny squiggles in place of names. So all I'm asking is that you be more considerate when blocking. -- Миборовский 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Usually we put a note in about non-standard characters its standard practice, but I forgot in that one instance. Sorry I'm not perfect, it was one of the first blocks I ever did. Again, nothing nefarious or biased, just an honest newbie admin mistake. However, since the user never tried to communicate with me, although clearly he could have rather than posting rants and personal attacks, I didn't have a clue about the situation until today. He could easily have made an attempt to discuss this with me, but did not, therefore I have little sympathy. pschemp | talk 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just come across this conversation. Never tried to communicate with you? You blocked me so that I could not communicate with anyone! When I used another computer to create this username, I feared that if I went straight to you to complain, you would instantly block me again. You have power; I do not. You will probably block me for writing this. Oh well, at least I have managed to make a few good edits around here. You have destroyed my enthusiasm for Wikipedia though. 小? Sorry, no Chinese allowed. 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you got a cold reception. Non-ASCII characters are not supposed to be used for user names since this is the English Wikipedia and not everyone has installed Chinese fonts or know what Chinese characters mean/are. I hope that clears up any mistrust. If you need anything, feel free to talk to any administrator (that includes Pschemp, Natalinasmpf and myself). You can also familiarise yourself at WP:WELCOME. -- Миборовский 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Chuck Norris

May I counter-ask, what the? :D -- Миборовский 07:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy!!! Thou shalt burn in Chuck Norris Hell for thy iniquities!!! Defile thee not Chuck Norris' holy name! :D -- Миборовский 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you going to the wikimeetup next Fri SGT? And I need to talk to you on MSN regarding ~~someone we know~~ an SGpedian. -- Миборовский 07:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going overseas tomorrow, in actuality, so I won't be able to make it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anggun

http://www.indonesiamatters.com/400/anggun-c-sasmi/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ackoz (talk • contribs) .

D'accord. At the risk of admitting to copyright violation, I found out the song was more innocent than I thought, too. Of course, what is the version en francais, anyway (for the one covered in the link.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is that supposed to be a question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ackoz (talk • contribs) .

The "In Your Mind" piece that was quoted, what is the title of the French version? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even speak french so why are you asking me? :) ackoz

23:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Etre un femme. For these 15 minutes of googling, you owe me a piece of your communism. I don't want it, I just want to destroy it. Although it's romantic and you'll lose your persuasion yourself sometime soon. At least I hope. ackoz

23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh chey, je sais, then. I don't think I'll ever stop being libertarian socialist though, Workers' Party looks promising. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian socialist is the best thing you can be .. you claimed you were a crypto-christian quasi-anarchistic communist. Thats quite different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackoz (talk • contribs)

Anarchist communism is the most extreme branch of libertarian socialism. It is a something that I think is an ideal - a direction to work towards. In terms of say, real life implementation, it would be a libertarian socialist society, rather than pure anarchist communism, for pragmatic reasons although I think it would be more possible in the future. I don't see how I claimed I was a "quasi-anarchistic communist", though. I am a Christian communist, and I believe in inalienable egalitarianism, of the most extreme kind. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) You know about any songs that have similar sound like that Etre une femme? You could be an expert on this right? ackoz 00:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I just happened to already listen to it and didn't know "In Your Mind" was the English version. C'est possible something local, I think, with the same message but pas necessaire the same style. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On June 17, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merdeka, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd oddity

Not sure what you did here. I am just bringing it to your attention in case it was a mistake.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, formatting error. I meant to close the OS2 debate early. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check this plz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Narcissism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackoz (talk • contribs)

Anarchistic communism is a nonsense - people are not good and it would never work - not a good thing to look up to. Don't be proud to be an extremist it might be "cool" if you live in a state with relatively tough regime, plus because you are exactly the age (secondary three?) when you need to participate in some rebellion, but I suppose you are smart enough to recognize the limits and that you also have your own head and won't be influenced by someone who looks like the smartest, most intelligent, nicest person in the world.

As you claimed that you are an extremist, my name calling rule applies to you. So take care :) _{the preceeding comment is a joke} ackoz 16:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but see I am a Christian and I do believe that perhaps in its purest form will never work on Earth, but remains an ideal to be worked towards. For example, we (or Christians) are supposed to take after Christ, ie. aim to be righteous as him, pure. Though that it be impossible to achieve alone in this current age, that does not mean it should not be worked towards. That is my philosophy. Rather than being defeatist, we should work towards the closest form possible, like good compasionate citizens and members of our faith. I'm about to take my GCE 'O' Level in a few months, by the way. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG hell of a smart girl. ackoz

19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby award you

		The Original Barnstar
		For being the smartest kid on wikipedia. ackoz 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that would be me. But maybe I'm not a kid anymore. :p -- Миборовский 19:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if you prove to me that you are smarter than Natalinasmpf, I will too give you a barnstar. However, this one stays as she was able to answer my most complicated statements with great mental superiority. And don't ruin the section with comments. The barnstar deserves distance. ackoz

21:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Give me a date and a year from 1911 to 1945 and I'll tell you what happened in the Republic of China on that day. :D -- Миборовский 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14th January, 1921. And don't cheat. You are not allowed to look into the book. ackoz

08:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What book?

1st Temporary Division formed at Henan;
Representatives of Dalai Lama arrived at Gansu;
Russian-backed rebels attacked Mongolia
Hunan representatives discussed provincial constitution

Eh? -- Миборовский 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thanks. :-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, is it really for 365 days times 34 years...? What if I offered a time of day? :p Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just the days. 366 days for some years ;) -- Миборовский 00:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting!
Hello La goutte de pluie/archive 6, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for RUF/NEKS was successful

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article RUF/NEKS, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for helping refine the nom and your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (Chinese)

Thanks for putting so much effort into saving this article. I have faith that the closing Admin will recognize its value and Keep it. You worked hard trying to educate people who may not have read the article thoroughly before commenting; you deserve a lot of credit for that :) Doc Tropics 04:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:amazing

Nah, I was just re-going through Jung Chang (very infuriating, not good for health) and associated articles and chanced on Luding Bridge... coincidence? Anyway, thanks for tagging... -- Миборовский 04:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's Maine, BTW? -- Миборовский 04:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite warm. Revisiting early childhood is quite the works (of course when I first came back to Singapore I was revisiting early early childhood). I guess I'm so much of a wikiholic that I have to check my watchlist the moment I get access to the internet anywhere I go in the world.

Anyway, it was quite the coincidence. I was led to Luding Bridge because it rung a bell in my head, from the People's Republic of China talk page. I guess we must have been viewing our usual watchlist material and got led to the same thing, heh. Jung Chang is infuriating for being anticommunist? :p I actually didn't know it was *that* much of a controversy, I didn't pick up enough hints from the revert war over the Mao Zedong article. I thought it was the standard polemics. Where's our Singaporean writers? :-( Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warm huh. It's near record high temperature here (33degC tomorrow!!!). Jung Chang is infuriating... for being a traitor to China? Sellout? Lackey of the Euro-Amerikans? Crying Chinese Lady (R)(tm)? (Hope you don't become one.) Anyway, very difficult to explain fully. Suffice to say I don't like her. A bit. -- Миборовский 05:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Communism

Hi! I've noticed your interest in Communism-related articles. Since I don't know much more contributors with the same interests, I decided to ask you for help with the newly-created Portal:Communism. Do you know other editors with similar interests? Perhaps you could indicate me some names and I would contact them. If you just don't have the time, don't bother. Thanks! Afonso Silva 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen and Internationale

Regarding this edit: It should be a CNN or NBC or some mainstream TV outlet. The book by this guy isn't mainstream media. -- Миборовский 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your ref and reinserted {{cite needed}}. -- Миборовский 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but shouldn't it just verify the fact of the singing, for it would be assumed that the Western media would cover the whole thing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assumption. Which does not work as far as sources go. The singing is already verified (and I used an Amnesty International report for that, which definitely is considered more reliable than this guy's book). You gotta find something that tells us CNN and NBC et al reported that, sista. -- Миборовский 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello La goutte de pluie/archive 6, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflection

Hi, In Hindi, it isn't just the inflection on one word: several words in the sentence change in order to indicate gender, even of objects inanimate. Buses are male while cars are female, and so forth. What exactly was wrong with my wording? Besides, if "by heart" is making too big a dela of it, what is the relevence / sanctity of making special mention of French etc? Are the French affected? Regards, ImpuMozhi 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it kind of makes an emphasis as though this is unique to Hindi, which it is not. French is an example because it used to be a lingua franca and retains some of that influence so it is a prominent example. For example, in French cars are also female (heh, Indo-European influence or merely a coincidence?), so la voiture allumée est petite (the car on fire is small). Bus is also male in French - coincidence again? For the equivalent for bus in French it would be le autobus allumé est petit (the bus on fire is small)....note the gender inflection in the entire sentence.

As a side note, I haven't mastered French (I'm in my fourth year) yet though my first year teacher told me there's a strategy that hints at gender based on construct. It's similar to the i before e except after c rule, ie. a generalisation with many exceptions, which I usually never learned for English because it intended to be instinctive. But I wonder about the similarity because they didn't have these things in the era of proto-Indo-European.

Anyhow, in Hindi there might have been an inflection as part of verb conjugation (or equivalent), perhaps, which French doesn't have any gender inflection based on conjugation. Perhaps there was for the French language's predecessors, and as French progressed it has lost some of its inflection over time, though English has lost way more than French. Old English speakers however, wouldn't find it odd - it was full of inflection. So perhaps in this respect Hindi might have even more inflectional roles than French, although I'm curious about this myself.

Another example about the prominency of gender in French (ie. "only two genders" aspect that was emphasised): La belle maison est chere, (the beautiful house is expensive) as opposed to L'apartment beau est cher (would be masculine "le apartement" except that French grammar dictates that two vowels next to each other as part of several words needs to be merged, hence "l'apartement), which means "the beautiful apartment is expensive".

Like Hindi, everything generally is memorised, except when taking a test and one forgets, or one doesn't have the convenience of looking something up, and thus one might use a few strategies. Le stylo, la fenêtre, etc. etc. Memorising genders is a pain of most Indo-European languages except for a few descendants like English, not just Hindi or Urdu. I thought I would make the comparison so as not to mislead readers through unintentional implicity. ;-) Cheers! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

An assertive definition is not a format. Now the lead sounds unnatural. We should write things in a natural way. Now the grammar is not even correct.--K.C. Tang 04:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a format, but it tends to have a logical order. I don't see how it is ungrammatical, except perhaps "are the last characters that were" would fit too. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is contrasted to new Chinese characters that are constantly being coined for dialectal usage." Maybe you want to say "These are contrasted to the new Chinese characters..." or "this is contrasted to the way that new Chinese characters are ...". This kind of "contrast" or "comparison" sentence is always tricky. But then I am not qualified to talk about these things... anyway, happy editing!--K.C. Tang 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh chey, I was thinking of them as a collective set. Is that all? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think that you was regarding that as a collective set, but then it might be better to say "this is contrasted to the way that new Chinese characters are ...", as we can't contrast "this" with "new characters"... anyway, forgive my being fussy.--K.C. Tang 06:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates & years

Hello, can you enlighten me about this wikipedia thing about linking years such as 2006. I noticed that some articles link and some do not. Recently, I created a new article Beijing Wushu Team and linked the dates and year, but the links were later delinked. Hope you can shed some light on this matter. Thanks -- mh 12:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial linking of dates used to be done, but now only full dates are linked. That's why some are linked and some are not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got an account

Hey Nat, it's me, Davide. Just thought I'd inform you I got an account and intend on contributing soon. Master Sturm 18:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were fine contributions... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Миборовский 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Singapore School

Hi, just want to point out that someone has been making changes to the JC pages. I suggest that Singapore wikipedians work together to come up with a nicer looking and more professional template. -- mh 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... then go ahead to modify and make it more professional, and set it as a standard to articles in all schools in Singapore. Not revert as you've done in HCI's article. Now IMO, it looks more uglier now. -- The Toad 02:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The standard infobox is not blue in colour. Its grey. Moreover, the font size is also smaller than the page text. Take a look at infoboxes of countries, universities, etc. The HCI article follows the format of Template:Infobox University, which has undergone rounds of debating and revision to what it is today. I might add that every school is unique in its own sense. Not all schools in Singapore have their names translated into the four official lanugages. Not all schools in Singapore have undergone mergers. -- mh 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me the new infobox looks nicer than the older one, though I must say there is a room for improvements to be made. Keep the infobox as the standard for Singapore School. BTW Mh, what do you mean by unprofessional? Thanks! -- Anomymous 10:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To solve the dispute, there has been an infobox which is six months old. See {{Singapore school infobox}} --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 10:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... so which one to use? No pt creating a new template every 6 mths. We need to set a standard. -- mh 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think we require a complement of each other's ideas and to compromise. No use arguing and debating. Let's create an infobox that is uniquely Singapore that suits everyone of us. Cool down eh. --The Toad 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

FD2/Film here, from HG. YOu may know me, you may not. New WP account. Just saying hi, knowing you're an Wikipedian. --M Clarke 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, yep I do. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caron

Survey etiquette

If you are posting on talk pages, asking experienced editors to give their opinion on an issue, make sure not to use language that may suggest bias.

Good: "Hey, Bob, could you tell me what you think about this discussion? I think your input could help"

I am using the exact copy from the survey guideline in order not to get accused/blocked for recruiting. Could you please check the discussion there, Bob?

85.70.5.66 07:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Urban warfare, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Welcome back!

That's right, I'm back! - And thanks for the well-wishes, I really appreciate them. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Culture of the People's Republic of China

Please see [2]. Thanks!--Huaiwei 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interests

Hey hey, I read that you enjoy playing the erhu, maybe you can give me some tips? It's my CCA but I'm the worst at it in the entire CCA. I come from Singapore too! :D --T e rran command e r 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy listening...sorry no help on the playing part. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

You're acting as if I had single-handly gone ahead and merged, but I only follow the correct procedure: notices requesting merger are posted on both pages, then discussion takes place on the talk page, and afterwards a merger is made or not. YOU are the one who sabotages the process by unilaterally removing the notices so as the prevent any discussion. Don't make your point on my talk page, my vote is cast and won't be reconsidered unless there is serious argumentation on the content page's talk page, and I don't mean 'it was requested' but content-related facts. Anyhow the decison is likely to be made by someone else after the votes have piled up- unless you keep sabotaging the process and leave no other alternaive then actually make the merger, which I don't want to have to do. Fastifex 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not a vote. It is a discussion. In order to initiate the discussion, a proposal must be made on the talk page first, then you put the merger template on. Otherwise I don't know why you want to merge it for - ie. discussion material. You didn't even say anything on either talk page. Firstly, I want to know why you want to merge. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:overseas Chinese support of the ROC

This is the first thing that came to my mind. Too bad I didn't go visit him when I was in San Fran. And also this:

But I haven't met (IRL) a single overseas Chinese who was supportive of the ROC (as opposed to PRC). -- Миборовский 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, meant it more in a historical context. It's really really interesting how they would bring out the ROC flag in a celebration of British return. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manchuria and Manchu

Hi, Natalinasmpf! There have been a lot of vandalism going on recently in these articles (Manchuria and Manchu). I think user Breathejustice, 67.38.247.32, and 192.35.79.70 are the same person. The reason why I contacted you is because I noticed that you have been helping restoring the Manchuria article (although its no use because that user will vandalize it again right away). Could you please keep an eye on these pages he edited and on this user too. Thanks! --Godardesque 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the Jurchens article has been vandalized as well. Abstrakt 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalinism

Hi, yes, I do think Stalinism is a school. It is (in my opinion) truely anti-communist school, the first with unique concepts like "socialism in one country", "the liberation of the working class is the work of ~~the working class itself~~ the party bureaucracy", and the necessary sociobiological religion of a sacred Lenin who was born with a communist plan alrady worked out in his brain. Trotsky named it "the school of falsicfication". I would suggest to keep it in the template because many still associate communism with Stalinism. Sadly so. ActiveSelective 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3-sided template

I recall saying I would find this template ages ago.. but I forgot. Thanks, KI 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ketuanan Melayu

I'm almost done with Ketuanan Melayu, so I thought I'd let you know about its FAC, as you took interest in it not too long ago. Johnleemk | Talk 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From AOK Heaven

Hi Natalina - I used to peruse the history forum over at Heavengames and I think got into it once or twice with you. I was looking through the list of sysops and i randomly stopped in the N's, and saw your name. Thought I would say hi and am not really surprised to see someone from that forum (especially you - i remember you being quite prolific) involved over here. I just got seriously interested in Wiki at the end of July and am loving it. Anyway, just wanted to drop a line and let you know how small the internet and world really is. Cheers --Exodio 23:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Barnstar Award

Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim ^1m 03:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Fiction nominated for an Article Improvement Drive

Because you've made some edits to fan fiction, I figured you'd want to know that the article has been nominated for an Article Improvement Drive. :) Runa27 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What

I THINK THIS ARTICLE Republic of China NEED MORE AND MORE PICTURES , SEE People's Republic of China ANDSouth Korea ANDJapan ANDSingapore , THESE ARTICLE HAVE A LOT OF PICTURES ,SHOULDN SOMEBODY TO ADD MORE PICTURES FOR Republic of China?

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another HeavenGames Greeting

Just thought I'd randomly say hi; you ay have seen me under the names "Dvorak" or "Strauss der Vater", though there aren't many threads that we've both posted in.
Given the volume of greetings from HG, should you maybe try to direct them to User_talk:Natalinasmpf/hg maybe?

Also, this, in your notepad:

Nous, les citoyens de Singapore 
Nous nous nantissons comme un peuple uni
Sans regard pour le race, la langue ou la religion;
Pour bâtir une société démocratique 
Basé sur la justice et l'égalité
Afin de accomplir la félicité, la prospérité 
Et le progrès pour notre nation

should be this maybe:

Nous, les citoyens de Singapore
Nous nous nantissons comme un peuple uni
Sans regard pour le race, la langue ou la religion;
Pour bâtir une société démocratique
Basé sur la justice et l'égalité
Afin d'accomplir la félicité, la prospérité
Et le progrès pour notre nation
Quendus 12:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for the greetings and the correction. :-) Aye, it was a long time ago ... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Nitpicking is what I'm here for! Quendus 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

Hello, I'm organising a meetup in late November this year. If you're interested, you may leave your name here. Good luck with your O levels, and do tell me when your O levels end. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 08:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chat

hi.. just wondering how can i contact you personally (by chat or IM that means) Pictureuploader 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange of MRT Singapore

I find that you have linked the word interchange to cross-platform interchange in the articles of transfer station of MRT Singapore may prove inaccurate. I have canceled the redirect link from interchange station to cross-platform interchange and re-written a stub article to define the basic function of an general interchange station It is suggested to relink the word interchange to interchange station in those articles unless they actually contain the cross-platform interchange design. thx -- Sameboat 05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:British return to Singapore - fanfare.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:British return to Singapore - fanfare.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — User:ACupOfCoffee @ 06:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore passport

Hi

Need an opinion here. At the above page, a user persists in adding a prod tag to the article despite the template being meant only for uncontested nominations. I've put my point across on the talk page on multiple occasions but he persists. I'm dropping a note on your talk page (and on the other 2 Singaporean admins') to see if you can assist. If the page is not notable or should be deleted, so be it. But not this way. --Rifleman 82 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup on 24 November

Hello, please confirm yourself for the meetup on the 24th by November 18. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please list them at the meetup page yourself. Thanks. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 04:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Nalina

Admin Glen S has made a totally inapprobriate block here. Please Unblock. There are Two very good reasons. 1- The users are not the same and 2-Just as Important the reason given was evading of block! But the the previous block of 31 hours had already EXPIRED!! 3- As far as I know users do not always choose their ISP address so it wouldn't be intentional (this is moot since these two people are not sock puppets)

Please see time diff: (over 31 hours had pasted even for the sake of argument it was the same IP address user which it clearly was not) [[3]] [[4]] Please unblock User 119.60 and notify/Warn User:Glen_S of his terrible mistake. Thanks

I have reason to believe that Glen_S's block of this user therefore was a pretext and possible racially motivated for attempted contributions to the Michael Richards article, which would be a is a serious violation of WP. Thank you. 71.111.117.65

I keep getting harassed/blanked and reverted by User:NetScott also from my userpage and ANI page. Please warn or block him . see [[5]] Thanks for your help with this intimidation. Its like a cyber lynching of people who are different (ie non-whites) or something. It is very unfair. Thanks for your help

71.111.117.65 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Gone?

Hello, during your absence a lot of things have changed within the SGpedian community. Everything has changed on this project you know, I believe the O's have ended and its time to party. Hmmm, so where are you? Hope to see you on MSN or IRC soon. --Ter e nc e Ong 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a precaution I page-move protected your talkpage. If you wish to undo the action, please feel free to do so anytime. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't forget you all! It was a little more than that, but I'm back now. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]