User talk:Rigley/Archive 6

< Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)

Tibet

Regarding your comment on my additions to the page Tibet, where you state, "the source you cited for the number of Han people in Tibet was not about Tibet", I encourage you to refer to the reference cited. You will find that the book cited is indeed about Tibet, contrary to what you have claimed. In addition, I would like to state that certain words which you have used in this section, such as "politicized" in this context are not entirely unbiased. In this particular case, when referring to statements made by the Tibetan Government in Exile, the term "politicize" is chiefly and almost solely used by the People's Republic of China. I have thus changed this to display the non-biased nature of the article. Please refer to welcome page for information on contributing and editing. --Celinabluewick (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The book is "Affirmative action in China and the U.S.: a dialogue on inequality and minority education", and it discusses all minority regions; not just Tibet. The particular statistic you cited on page 35 obviously refers to Xinjiang, not Tibet. Please read more carefully. Quigley (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

About reverted edit

Reason was adequately stated. If we go on putting every line from any source than anyone can prove anything. One can just as easily cite sources who say opposite of your edit. In simple words: Generalization of people is POV insertion. Swift&silent (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right about that but only problem is that the mass generalization is a dangerous field especially of countries with massive population. This is compounded by the fact that the matter at hand only makes generic mention of that matter without being backed by any mass study. So yes, Meta analyses are sometimes necessary but they should be Analyses and be based on facts and proper study/surveys. Swift&silent (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

PR China-South African Relations

Thanks for editing down the section on the Dalai Lama's visit to SA. I have been meaning to edit it down and cut some stuff out but I was having some trouble seeing the wood from the trees. I think you did a good job. With that in mind I want to give you:

A pie for you for all of your hard work expanding and editing the South Africa - China bilateral relations article . Your attention to detail and addition of very readable prose makes Wikipedia a much better place. Thank you! --Discott (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Xixabangma

Discussion about alternative names has progressed at Talk:Xixabangma. Please feel free to rejoin the discussion, if you wish. —hike395 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did never concern "Shishapangma" itself is Anglo-American biased. Nor did I explicitly argued there's a Anglo-American problem here (actually, it's a matter of many other articles). Prior to 1983 or so, SASM/GNC transcription was not invented, and I believe both Shisha Pangma and Shishapangma was used by Chinese media. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back at the weekend to try to work out a pro/con list but today it's too late. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent Jomolhari edit

Hi!

While I fully support your recent edit on Jomolhari to merge the Dzongkha and Tibetan forms, you have at the same time removed from the lead and the infobox the most common ENGLISH spelling form: Chomolhari.

Chomolhari gets 163,000 google hits, Jomolhari 101,000 and Qomo Lhari only 606. Thanks to conform to the following WP guidelines and policies:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Naming conventions (Tibetan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I consider Chomolhari not a word properly assimilated into English, but one of many similar transliterations of the Tibetan script. Since it's obvious that "Chomolhari" has something to do with "Jomolhari", the former doesn't need reinforcement as a valid alternative name, while "Qomo Lhari"'s difference does merit that. As an compromise between both of our approaches, we can use Mike Cline's solution of only including the title name in the infobox. Quigley (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I consider Chomolhari not a word properly assimilated into English. Your or my personal opinion are not relevant. Relevant are Wikipedia Naming conventions (Tibetan) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Obvioulsy all three spellings "Chomolhari", "Jomolhari" and "Qomo Lhari" have something in common, as all three are different spelling variations, but I don't understand your point about "merit". WP is not about "merit".

My point was not about the infobox, my point was that you removed valuable information from Wikipedia, by deleting the two references to Chomolari, which is the most common English spelling for that mountain. I don't understand your insistance on removing or supporting the removal of the common English spelling on many Tibetan names. Please discuss a modification of the existing WP conventions before proceeding to unilateral edits. This is not helping to improve WP quality, and very time-consuming for concerned editors to restore original English spelling forms.--Pseudois (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove Chomolhari from the article; I took it out from two of the three places it was placed within the article for specific reasons. The first area, on the infobox, only had room for one spelling variant, and, as I explained above, I thought there was a better candidate for that position. The second area, in the lead sentence, misleadingly implied before my edit that Chomolari was pinyin, by doing "Jomolhari: Dzongkha, Qomo Lhari: Tibetan, Chomolhari: Chinese". When I added the correct pinyin, Chuòmòlārì, I thought I was replacing some corrupted romanization of Chinese. Let's be mindful of the fact that I did not remove Chomolhari from the article, just from the lead sentence; it remained in the "Alternate spellings" section. And after your restoration of Chomolhari in the prose, our discussion, and the clarification of Chomolhari as a Jomolhari variant, I did not object - so the only effective change was to the infobox, which you say is beside your point.

What is your point? You seem to think that I "remove common English spellings on many Tibetan names". I did not do that even in this case, where I moved more around in this article than I usually do. You also seem to think that I "support their removal" - probably a reference to the Xixabangma move, which changed the article's title, but did not remove any other spellings (which by the way were not English, and not the common spelling) from the article. I would accuse you of making a bad generalization based on these two articles, but since you admit to following my edits with an eye towards reversing them, you are making your judgment against me by something other than my recent edits.

Lastly, the language you use on my talk page is insulting and inflammatory. You accuse me of defying WP conventions. You accuse me of "unilateral edits", suggesting that I should be put on a leash and seek approval for every edit that I make. You misrepresent a broad swath of my contributions as blanking. You say that my edits don't improve Wikipedia's quality. You show no regard for the time that I put into making my edits, complaining to me about the time you take out of your precious schedule to hound me. This is not the correct way to win me over to your side in content disputes. Quigley (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't remove Chomolhari from the article; I took it out from two of the three places it was placed within the article for specific reasons."

If you read my initial comment, you will see that I wrote "you have at the same time removed from the lead and the infobox the most common ENGLISH spelling form". For better clarity in English, please replace the "the" with "these" in my sentence referring to "the(se) two references".

"The first area, on the infobox, only had room for one spelling variant, and, as I explained above, I thought there was a better candidate for that position."

Only room for one spelling variant? Apparently you are referring to Mike Cline proposal? If this is the case, I am sorry to tell you that your edit was made one and half day before Mike wrote his proposal, so there is some kind of temporal conflict. Anyway you choice was (no offense intended) a poor choice, with only 606 google hits for your choice compared to the 163,000 hits (99.6%) for the original variant.

"When I added the correct pinyin, Chuòmòlārì, I thought I was replacing some corrupted romanization of Chinese."

That's a very honourable intention, but the result is that you removed the commonly used English spelling. If you had some previous knowledge about Chomolari, this mistake wouldn't have happened. If you had carefully read the article and the attached biography, this mistake wouldn't have happened either. The author cited in the article (Dorjee Lhatoo) is using the spelling "Chomolari" and was himself a member of the Bhutanese-Indian military expedition; strange that he would have used a "corrupted romanization of Chinese", don't you think?

"What is your point?"

As I wrote clearly: my point was that you "removed from the lead and the infobox the most common ENGLISH spelling form: Chomolhari". Is that so controversial or so difficult to agree upon?

"You also seem to think that I "support their removal" - probably a reference to the Xixabangma move, which changed the article's title, but did not remove any other spellings"

If my count is correct, "Shishapangma" was mentioned 10 times and "Shisha Pangma" one time before the various edits and moves. After it, at the time of our discussion, all but one of the 11 mentions were removed (10 out of 11). So far for "did not remove any other spelling". You can check yourself here.here.

"I would accuse you of making a bad generalization based on these two articles"

You have accused me of many things recently: " conspiracy theory", "insulting and inflammatory language", "making bad generalization", "raise up a lynch mob" (the not directed only at me), etc. I am not accusing you of anything, and I would appreciate if our discussion could remain civil, polite and factual.

"you are making your judgment against me by something other than my recent edits."

Once again you are making assumptions regarding others' opinion. If I can make it clear, I don't know you else than through the edits I have seen regarding mountain pages (but it is more than two).

"Lastly, the language you use on my talk page is insulting and inflammatory."

If you could point out what was insulting and inflammatory in my language, I would sincerely apologise. Civility is a very important principle for me.

"You accuse me of defying WP conventions"

I am not "accusing" you. But yes, it seems that some of your recent edits are not in line with some WP conventions.

"You accuse me of "unilateral edits", suggesting that I should be put on a leash and seek approval for every edit that I make."

Once again, I would appreciate not to put in others people's mouths something they haven't said. WP is a collaborative project, and suggesting you to use the expertise of the WikiProject Moutains editors to discuss mountain pages is not offensive in my opinion, but part of the collaborative nature of WP.

"You misrepresent a broad swath of my contributions as blanking. You say that my edits don't improve Wikipedia's quality"

Not "your edits in general", but the ones I pointed out. i can't speak for what I haven't read or for the topics I am not trusted with.

If some of my edits do have controversial nature or do not improve WP quality, please feel free to point them out. I will be glad to revert them and learn how to become a better Wikipedian.--Pseudois (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your professed desire to be more civil at face value and give you some advice. It's nice if you, as a member of whatever WikiProject, offer your topical expertise, but WikiProject Mountains don't have ownership of those articles, especially when it comes to language issues. Also, it's rude to assume that someone that you disagree with is actively defying policy or doesn't understand it; often they just have a different interpretation.

I don't think Tibetan romanization is a zero-sum game; we can include as many romanizations as are used. I have no interest in removing any romanization from such articles, but you seem to conflate "deleting" with "moving to a less prominent position", and there will always be disagreements about which spellings should be more prominent than others. These disagreements should be handled on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket assertions that the romanization of Tibetan developed by China is "not English". Quigley (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quigley! I appreciate very much your very developed sense of humor. My hope that you would remain more civil suddenly becomes my profession of faith to become more civil.

I also appreciate your extraordinary interpretation skills of the existing WP conventions, where a 0.4% occurrence can become the conventional spelling most familiar to English-language readers while 99.6% is definitely a corrupted unusual alternative.

I also appreciate the fact that you have remained so factual in our discussion, answering objectively with scientific references all arguments and objections I have raised.

I finally appreciate your willingness to conform to the existing policies: "I have no interest in removing any romanization from such articles".

Have a good week!--Pseudois (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent move: list of Ultras East Asia

I agree with you that the previous title was probably not the best naming for this list, but your recent title change to List of Ultras of East Asia makes it even worse. Your are now including mountains located in Burma/Myanmar and India (Ladakh) as being part of East Asia. Whatever definition of East-South-Central-Southeast Asia you take (geographical, ethno-cultural or political), your new naming doesn't match.

Please revert to the previous name and use the talk page to propose a better naming. It would be nice also if you would use the expertise of the Wikiproject mountains members before doing such moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC) --Pseudois (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly geographical, ethno-cultural, and political definitions of East Asia that include Southeast Asia (including Myanmar), and Ladakh (as a Tibetan-related area). The titles don't seem to be that strict, because List of Ultras of Southeast Asia includes mountains purely in India or in China. The key is that most of the mountains in that list are in Southeast Asia, and the ones that aren't in Southeast Asia proper border them; same with East Asia and this list. The problem with the previous title was that it implied that Tibet was not a part of East Asia (and by extension, that Tibet is not a part of China) and implied that parts of Myanmar and India were "Tibet". So that title was worse. If you have a better idea for the title than the current one, then suggest it. Quigley (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"There are certainly geographical, ethno-cultural, and political definitions of East Asia that include Southeast Asia (including Myanmar), and Ladakh (as a Tibetan-related area)." Hum, I would be very interested if you could provide a reliable source under which Ladakh is included as part of East Asia. Thank you.--Pseudois (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Cold Season (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

False warnings

Please do not place false warnings on other user's talk pages as you did here. The user has made only two edits to the article in the last 24 hours, and they are nearly 23.5 hours apart. This warning is not intended to be placed until the editor has made three reverts in 24 hours. Yworo (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the template is not a warning that someone has broken the 3 revert rule, but a warning against edit-warring in general. Quote: "Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts." {{uw-ew}} was created quite recently because the traditionally-used {{uw-3rr}} emphasized 3rr too much. I would have been correct to use {{uw-3rr}} anyway, since all that template does is warn someone that they are coming close to breaking 3rr. Once they've broken it, they would be reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, which expects that the edit-warring user was warned before breaking 3rr. Quigley (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It takes four reverts to break the three revert rule, not three. You warn them after the third, report them after the fourth. Any other usage appears to be an attempt to intimidate the other editor. Your warning for an established editor was inappropriate. See also Don't template the regulars. Yworo (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no rules or conventions like you say about using the warning on the third rather than the second revert. Also, "Don't template the regulars" is an essay; not a policy. From his reverts alone, I have good reason to doubt that the editor concerned has a solid grasp of policy. The point of the warning was to tell him to use the talk page rather than to continue reverting without rationale. If that kind of discourse is intimidating, then maybe collaborative editing is not for that user? Quigley (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than using a warning, it would have been better to invite him to discuss. Yworo (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't mutually exclusive: both a warning and an invitation to discuss was present in my message. I could have written a more friendly personal message, but I have a feeling that wouldn't change much, since that user uses uncivil edit summaries against me, and appears to be hounding and chain-reverting my edits. Quigley (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are making personal attacks against the other editor. Please discuss only content, not other editors. Yworo (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine if you want to end this conversation you started. Quigley (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Me, too. See you around. Yworo (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the content issue, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. There should certainly be a link to Greater Mongolia in the lead, though the lead does currently seem to be overly repetitive. Rather than fighting over the sentence, the lead should be rewritten to make all the points desired and include a link to Greater Mongolia. Yworo (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So you have a content disagreement with me. Let's civilly discuss that on the article's talk page, rather than play these games. Quigley (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll to determine support for move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma

You have been involved in the recent naming discussion at Talk:Xixabangma. There is a new poll to determine support for the move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma. If you are interested, please provide your opinion here.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for your comment there, which is 100% correct and true, and in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The RfC I started but now unfairly closed was simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue, and this is why they dare not face it, and dare not debate/answer it. With all my best regards! --Lvhis (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued dedication to reason and argument. Technical and bureaucratic tools can only stifle discussion in the short run. Quigley (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

you changed your username to something so utterly, er, outrageous! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly sure but he may be expecting or trying to protest something. But please don't be depressed, as the other people are actually quite friendly but somehow just playing around. Don't take it too seriously, and have a good day and fresh new start. --207.112.78.41 (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations for coming back! --64.56.252.163 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, anons. Shrigley (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia or Anti-Islamism?

Hello, there is a discussion you may be interested in going on at Talk:Islamophobia#Requested move. MsBatfish (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)