User talk:Mlewan

Thank you for expressing the comment about adding Chinese characters. I thought I was the only one... mamgeorge 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd M. Bucher

I had to look that article up again. My main reason for reverting was anytime I see an anonymous IP remove a paragraph or a whole section, I have my suspicions about why they did it, especially when there is no edit summary. But in looking at the history this time, I noticed the paragraph was added by an anon IP. I really claim no ownership to this article, nor would I have a problem if you deleted/modified/etc the paragraph. In fact, I had taken it off my watchlist a while ago. I just saw the knee-jerk deletion by an anonymous user, so I did a knee-jerk revert.--Nobunaga24 08:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for editor participation at Relevance

Hi Mlewan,

Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. —WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments to offer about WP:REL?

Hello again. In your most recent comment on the Relevance proposal (recently moved to Wikipedia:Relevance of content) you said that the newest revision "still needs a lot of work". If you're willing, I'd like to ask for more specific feedback from you: which parts do you not agree with, or find unclear, or incomplete? Any comments you could offer would help. Much obliged.--Father Goose 06:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations

Hey, thanks for the retraction. The article's not much at the moment, but with time it can grow from a list into a comprehensive and impressive page on its depiction, differences from reality, varieties between mediums and time periods and all that, becoming a fascinating resource.

Or it might not. You never know with these things. --Kizor 02:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardign pre-language deletion

Ironically, proto-language is exactly the reason why I want Pre-language gone. The term pre-language is more conventionally used (for example pre-french, pre-norse, pre-Nahuatl) for a the reconstruct product of internal reconstruction, while it is not in fact as cohesive as proto-languages are, combining features of varying age and with large systemic gaps. I am planning to start such an article when the namespace gets freed up.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it is a case for another disambiguity page. Proto-language should have a disambiguity page instead of the current link to Proto-language (glottogony) which then redirects to Pre-language. Likewise, if pre-language has several meanings, there should be a disambiguity page. Mlewan (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spike & Co

That it is well written doesn't enter into it. That doesn't need mentioning in the Bibliography. Is there any evidence that the book was even used in the article? I usually find it very suspicious when people come out of the blue and insert sources into References/Bibliography sections without them apparently being used, as Yukka tukka indians appears to have done.--Drat (Talk) 10:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you find things suspicious is no reason to remove them without at least a minimal check of the validity. Mlewan (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dani

Wow you are polite - good luck to you - if he puts it back in again a third time - I am considering asking an admin to do something about the situation. Satu Suro 13:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lodger

May I ask how a warning about WP:FORUM can possibly breach WP:FORUM? ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The warning part is just chit-chat, that should not be needed, until someone actually breaks it. The 'I don't think it could possibly "matter for the plot"' part is of no use, as what you think or do not think is purely original research and should not stay on the page. I'm never going into edit wars, btw, so your off topic comment will now stay on the page, unless you or someone else removes it. Cheerio. --Mlewan (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly need to re-read WP:FORUM, which only outlaws "mere general discussion [...] about the subject of the article." Since my comment was not about The Lodger – the subject of the article – it was therefore not covered by the ban, and I would urge you to exercise more caution and common sense before deleting such material in future. (And incidentally, since your question was clearly inviting people to simply provide information about the episode to satisfy your own curiosity, it was a WP:FORUM warning well-justified.) ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maluma.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Maluma.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Chinese Characters

IMHO, adding Chinese characters more often would be a benefit. This is particularly helpful for web cut & paste searches, and it helps English/Chinese readers. For example: Shu Jing (書經), is to me, is much better than Shu Jing. Personnally, especially due to the difficulty of the language and the many ranges of experience for those reading it, I feel it is extremely helpful. I agree this is an English wiki, but for Chinese articles, assuming or insisting English/Chinese readers should only see English is an unnecessary demand. The addition does not harm English only readers.

Insisting on a consistant pattern of English first, characters in parenthesis next, seems fair.

Good feedback. I thought I was alone in thinking that way. There is a huge advantage with Chinese characters, and that is that it reduces ambiguity. I'd like to see Chinese characters in every article where a Chinese name is mentioned, so one doesn't confuse Shanxi (?西) with Shanxi (山西). Wikipedia writes ?西 as "Shaanxi", but that is not the correct pinyin, even though it is the standard Western way of making a difference between the provinces. Mlewan 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I searched Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles, I met above green comments, and someone informed that guidelines. I think that adding Chinese characters more often would be a benefit. However that guidlines do not like adding chinese characters. My comment is just a comment on your talk page. Seeing the guideline, I was frustrated, cause I prefer 呂布 to Lü Bu and Lu has another surname 魯 of Lu Su (魯肅).(Gauge00 (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion

Thank you for you suggestion that we should keep the article on native Esperanto speakers. You can see my own views on this at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

My edit to blend modes to include a link to another article would not be interpreted as "spam" by anyone who understands what WP:SPAM is. Maybe you don't consider it a noteworthy app (and GIMP is?) but internal wikilinks are not spam. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Feuilley

Thanks for creating the article, if you're interested, there's another 18th century explorer of the Mascarenes who is linked from many pages that needs his own article, Julien Tafforet.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I may have a look at Tafforet later on. --Mlewan (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FNDC5

Thank you for your contribution about FNDC5 new add. Actually the paper published on PNAS has been mentioned by Eurealert, which is not FOXnews but quite similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic1975 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnemonic1975: Neither FOXnews nor Eurealert is considered a reliable secondary source when it comes to biomedical information. Please carefully read WP:MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INA jubilation

Hi, please see the talk page of Mohan Singh (general) with regards to the image I deleted. Best regards.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and illustration of the Negationism (historical revisionism) entry.

Hello, MLewan,

I am the Anonymous Editor currently expanding the Negationism page, and noticed that you sought to prevent vandalism of the page, but thought better of it, rather than get into an edit war with some rightist.

Might you read over the article, and let me know your opinion? Might you keep an eye on it, as it were, whilst I fetch proper, paper sources?

Please reply, if you will, at the talk page of this IP.

Thanks, I look forward to collaborating with you.

50.9.48.58 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]