Jump to content

User talk:STSC/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5


A welcome from SteveO

Hello, STSC/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- SteveO 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello.

London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo
Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12


Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

Request for Comment on Phoenix7777

If my memory serves, you've had issues with User:Phoenix7777 sabotaging your edits in Senkaku Islands dispute back at ~Sept 2010. I've filed a complaint about him to User:Magog_the_Ogre for his recent edit-warring. If you have anything to add, please post in that thread. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, User:Phoenix7777 has called into question of one of your edits, which he (unsurprisingly) reverted. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits on Senkaku Islands dispute

While I think (I'm not certain) that I agree with your last 3 edits, I don't think all of them should be marked as "minor". The last one, in particular, removed a whole quotation from the article. Now, that quote, especially the way it was introduced, probably doesn't belong in the article, I don't think it's removal counts as minor. The reason I mention this is that marking the removal of so much text, even if justified, makes it seem like you're trying to "hide" your changes, thus increasing tensions on the pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Inoue

Please give some thought to my responses to your edits at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Kiyoshi Inoue. I hope you construe my comments as thoughtful, practical, and forward-looking. --Tenmei (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Bobthefish2. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. this edit is not appropriate. Please edit it and remove the direct personal attack.  Chzz  ►  08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with that edit. "Evil" can have multiple interpretations. Since we don't edit the same pages, it's kind of weird that you'd stalk our talk pages and read what we write. That's considering nobody has filed any complaints on your talk pages. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle Accident

I'm not active on Wikipedia due to a recent motorcycle accident. STSC (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to learn about this -- best wishes for a speedy recovery. --Tenmei (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
STSC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

{{Blocked proxy}}

Accept reason: Done. TNXMan 16:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands

Don't start a revert war with them. Those Japanese editors are very keen at being Wiki-lawyers and slamming users with "warnings". Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like "Japan in World War II" and "Nanjing Massacre".

By the way, have you recovered from your motorcycle accident? Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 11:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Tenmei

As an editor who has interacted with User:Tenmei on the Senkaku Islands pages, I would like to inform you that I have filed a Request for comment on user conduct of Tenmei. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello STSC, From Senkaku chat

Yes, I like the way editors used a neutral Franco-English word Liancourt (Le Liancourt) to describe Dokdo (Korean) and Takeshima (Japanese), therefore since Japan is involved in an island dispute with Korea, in the same exact situation as Japan, I believe Pinnacle Island (English) can be used for Diaoyu (Chinese) and Senkaku (Japanese) using the Korea-Japan island dispute precedent. I mean, it's clearly bias towards Japan. Everything I bring up Diaoyu-Senkaku, I accidental call it by the Senkaku name because Wikipedia uses it! :-( It's tricky stuff, such a simple thing can dramatically influence the way people percieve the dispute. I thank you for your support and understanding, God bless you.Phead128 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

POV title tag on SI dispute

You're joking, right? I liked the two previous edits you had, as I have no problem with the alternate name of the dispute, and I think using a general term is better than either specific term in the article body when we can avoid it. But adding and removing that tag is exactly what caused the edit war last time. Re-adding it less than a day after the protection was removed is essentially you continuing the edit war, and could easily be considered disruptive editing. Please, you know we're going to enter mediation on this issue. Couldn't you please consider taking off the tag so that the article doesn't get fully protected again? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Followup question on NPOV tag on Senkaku Islands dispute

I and John Smith have asked for some clarification from you regarding the tag, and would like you to comment there. If you are saying that the tag must always remain so long as the title is "Senkaku Islands" (/dispute), then you have added the tag in bad faith. If consensus determines (as I believe it will, but who knows) that Senkaku Islands is the neutral English term (or determines that neutrality isn't the only thing we consider in naming things), then the tag must at that point. In my opinion, though, it's fine for the tag to stay on during mediation. Please clarify if you accept those terms on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello STSC, I have resumed the NPOV-Title tag on "Senkaku Islands dispute" page. In the talk page I left my reason including agreed on and supported what your interpretation about WP:NPOV for such a tag. Once the tag stays there, I'd like to join you for prepare more evidence to say the current name/title is POV one. Qwyrxian now has understood that the NPOV-Title tag should stay there. I understand what Xe worries regarding the tag. If a resolving result can come out of the mediation, the tag can be removed. The resolving result should have several possibilities including changing the current name, that depend on how strong will our evidence be. Thank you. --Lvhis (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note the concern of John Smith and myself--we believe that, once mediation is finished, we will be able to show that the current title is neutral and is the correct title. We may not, I don't know; there's always more evidence and more arguments to be made. But, if we do, please accept that this will be the necessary "resolving result" needed to remove the tag. As others have said before, the tag may not be kept simply because you think it's POV; it can only be kept because there isn't a clear consensus that it is NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands

My personal feeling is that this name will not work (I also do not like it). Don't you think a dual name's better and a much more reasonable case to argue for? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you have an e-mail set up for Wikipedia? There are a few things I'd like to ask you. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi STSC, I am still working on that. I understand you feel some frustration there, but the objective facts and reliable sources exist, so don't give up easily please. Thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, about that poll I have not yet decided if I should choose one and which one I should choose if I ought to choose. I feel this long stand dispute has been with "penny-wise and pound-foolish" tricks which we need to avoid. I may agree more on Bob's vote and comment but also learned very helpful info from your comment in your vote about the Google Book and Google Scholar and agree with you on this point. A key point that that side argues for using the Japanese name is that name mostly used in English. To refute this point I have used Google Search not only for this Diaoyu Islands (Table3 there), but also let it be compared with the cases of Florence (Table2) and Liancourt Rocks (Table4). I think my argument has been quite strong. What's your thoughts and suggestions? Thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei

You should be careful about tinkering with his posts and edit-warring with John Smith's, Tenmei, and Phoenix7777 over it. Technically, it violates a common etiquette and can get you into trouble. It's much better to leave Tenmei's pointless posts lying around for authority figures to clean up. Personally, I opted to skip his posts unless it attracted an angry response from someone. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You should really refrain from openly targeting Tenmei. As you can see, the rest (especially Qwyrxian) had a history of launching WP:CIVIL crusades over much less pointed instances. I sometimes find that constructive opinions can be a better option. My personal preference is to offer wonderful praises and some occasional light-hearted jolly parodies. It is simply a more positive and socially agreeable alternative. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems like he decided to collapse a bunch of posts. Do you think these subtle jabs against Lvhis should be considered as WP:POKE and thus be collapsed? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually think he can't write English normally? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He does seem to be very open to friendly suggestions. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands[1] "Your data are all wrong." is unproductive. If you have any reason to say so, it should be mentioned there. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Diaoyu vs. Diaoyutai

There's a discussion about this [2]. It's pretty much the same stuff we talked about in the past, but I thought you might want to know about it in case you have something to add. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand his A B X Y argument? I don't. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, most certainly. It does appear to be an "act of desperation". --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
ABF much? This isn't desperation, it's not wikilawyering. It's a legitimate concern arising out of fine details that appeared during mediation. I mean, look at it this way, assuming you knew nothing about the language--we're comparing one Japanese-origin name to four Chinese-origin names, and somehow that seems fair? When Phoenix7777 first raised the issue, it shocked me, and it suddenly seemed legitimately unfair. I get, upon thinking about it more, that it's a complex issue dealing with what exactly counts as a "name" and what counts as a spelling variation, further complicated by the fact that "spelling" means something radically different for an ideographic language from a syllabic language from an alphabetic language. Really, just try to assume that maybe when I raise issues I'm doing so for good faith reasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Damn, you guys are all talk-page stalkers. But rest assured, I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about. You are also barking up the wrong tree because we weren't talking about you. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course I stalk all of your talk pages; that's why I assumed you do all of your serious collusion off wiki ;). While I know you were complaining about Phoenix, I figured I was lumped in because I was the one who raised it NCGN. Sometimes, the whole issue just makes me so tired; apologies if I sounded snippy. How about we take a hint from ex-Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, and, like he suggested for Sea of Japan, rename it to something totally different and new--see Sea of Japan naming dispute#Compromise names. How about "Islands of Eternal Peace"? Or "Let's All Stop Fighting Amongst Ourselves and Go After America, the Real Bad Guys Islands". That would be awesome. And then Japan and China could share the mineral/petrochemical/fishing rights together, and use the proceeds to hold Anti-American rallies every year. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The general idea is understood. It's just things can get fuzzy when some non-standard arguments are introduced.
You are right about the tiresomeness of this topic. I stuck around mostly because I don't like leaving things unfinished. In the end, the islands' sovereignty is not determined by WP's article name (but by how aggressive the PRC wants to be). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You two were using my talk page as a chatroom!
Maybe one day the PLAN (PLA Navy) would just send in the warships to settle the dispute once and for all. STSC (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like xe is still at it. I don't think xe'd ever give up. Think you can come up with an RS that can short-cut us out of this? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are getting very off-topic. My impression is that the main argument is about whether or not Diaoyu is the same as Tiaoyu and whether or not Diaoyu is a distinctively different name as Diaoyutai. As native speakers of the Chinese language, we both know it is rather ludicrous for foreigners (who possess scant knowledge of our language) to argue for the contrary. Since proving them wrong on this is easy, I believe we should simply restrict the boundary of the debate to simply that and nothing further.

Since the target audience is third parties, dwelling on additional matters will only distract and confuse them in an unnecessary manner. While I do understand the sovereignty dispute is largely 2-sided and there are reliable sources to support it, I ultimately feel it is an irrelevant topic with respect to the main focus of the thread, which is about language rather than sovereignty.

I am planning to mirror this thread to Project China and will do so once I find out how to. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we can just point out it is irrelevant to the topic and leave it outside of that discussion. Since Lvhis' all about sovereignty stuff, they can raise that issue over at his threads if they want to make a fuss about it. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Xe initiated the sovereignty issue for his/er ground of 3-way argument. Xe need to provide the very official and direct RS proving there is naming dispute between the two sides across the Strait. All the sources Xe used cannot be treated as RS at this point. --Lvhis (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes s/he does seem to be trying to game the system... like attacking the mediator and threatening to close down mediation when wind is not blowing the right way. In the end, his house of cards is meant to be blown over anyway. Popcorn? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They set fire on my shore as well, so guess I can't 隔岸觀火. I do get a closer view though. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Daoud Bokhary

Please don't change your comments in an AfD debate after someone else has responded. If you must do so, strike out the part you are withdrawing and make clear what is new. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to your point of view, I think that an editor's expressed opinions about a given article are very relevant when that editor argues in favor of deleting that article. That being said, I concede that the article may have been improved since you made those comments, and if your comments do not apply to the article in its current state, I apologize to you for my comments about them in the AfD debate. I bid you peace. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Amina Bokhary controversy

I nominated this article for Good Article status. I think it's up to standard, so why not. Deryck C. 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's time for me to go

While this mediation has been fun and semi-productive, it has expectantly and inevitably been derailed by our opponents. Since I have spent too much time on Wikipedia for the past few weeks, I'd say it's a good time for me to go back to inactivity until my production cycle ends or when next dispute resolution comes up. Let me know if the latter ever happens.

Nice working with you too, Lvhis. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Again thank STSC and Bob both of you! We have done good job proving that the current Japanese title/name is a POV one during the Mediation. All of the grounds of our opponents argument such as "SI is an English name", "SI is the name mostly used in English" have been proved wrong and groundless. Even the Mediation will mostly end up with failure, the contents of the debate have been there and can be referred later. The POV-title tag shall be on as long as the POV title still there and the dispute has not been solved. --Lvhis (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: the POV-title tag

Have you got feedback from AGK? Do we need to do {{edit protected}} in that talk page as Feezo suggested [3]? --Lvhis (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When I was about to do a request of "edit protected" I realized an admin has restored the tag. This is good and 100% in line with wiki's policies and guidelines and the definition of that tag! --Lvhis (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The mediation has been formally announced closed by AGK and Feeso. The other side removed or requested to have removed the POV-title tags along with initiating an edit-war (I prefer calling it vandalism). I made a edit request there to request the tag on. --Lvhis (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi STSC, good revert there. You must be very busy now. Take care. --Lvhis (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope you are doing okay in Britain. I heard Asian and Arabic neighbourhoods were attacked during the riots. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag bombing

If you don't want to be accused of "tag bombing", leave a message on the talk page as to what you're specifically referring to with all these tags. And if you don't want to be accused of bad faith and tendentious editing, then if you see issues with the article that are easily improved, then fix it yourself, and leave better edit summaries than "remove irrelevant details". Especially the "tense" tag and related messages you keep slapping there, I have no idea what you're on about. And yes, any reasonable person would figure that "Notability" due to alleged lack of sources, "One source", and "BLP sources" are all referring to overlapping issues. Pick one.

As for the POV tag: Wikipedia's NPOV policy specifies that views from all reliable sources should be represented with appropriate weight, not that editors get to yell "POV" at an article because they dislike the views which are present in reliable sources. Seeing as my writing has managed to provoke opposing complaints from both you and the anon on the talk page (presumably the guy who filed the OTRS ticket against the Amina Bokhary controversy article), I'd say I'm quite safely at the middle of the road. cab (call) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Paracel Islands‎

It is a fact that the PRC claims the Paracel Islands‎ and that they patrol them. "Control" is a charged word, it can mean control by force or suzerainty. As such it is better to be specific about actions taken and not wax philosophical with words like "control". --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup

Hello! I'm not exactly sure where you are, though if you're in Hong Kong I'd really appreciate it if you can attend the next Hong Kong meetup on Friday 22 July 2011! Deryck C. 17:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator. So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your participation on my RfA
Thank you for participating at my RfA. I know that you and I have great differences, but I sincerely hope we can continue to work together in ways that ultimately benefit the project. If you ever have concerns with my behavior as an admin, please let me know at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Amina controversy GAC

Hello, the review is up! Please offer some help. The review is visible on Talk:Amina Bokhary controversy. Deryck C. 21:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is now promoted to GA! Thanks for the (previous) help with writing the article. Deryck C. 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong meetup

On a separate note, you're invited to the next Hong Kong meetup on 19 August in Think Cafe, Causeway Bay. Please sign up to the meetup on the meta meetup page. Hope to see you there! Deryck C. 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

I think you can express the point in a more convincing manner by indicating that he has a tendency to "forget" or "ignore" important evidence and arguments presented by opposing parties. For example, it has been shown by our friend Lvhis that Pinnacle Islands is the canonical English name that Senkaku Islands is based on. In addition, it has been shown that the notion of Senkaku Islands being the most commonly used name is also not true given the evidence. This would help you make the case that the relentless assertion of "Senkaku Islands = English name" as both stubborn and unproductive. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi STSC, I just realized there is Signpost about ArbCom when I got this [4]. It seems a kind of usefulness by taking a look at the given links. --Lvhis (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you message and you have my reply in my talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way... I see you accused Oda Mari of reverting a lot with TW, but I don't understand how that makes her abusive in her usage of TW. To be fair, I don't know what TW is nor know what it does (a WP browsing software?). Just by looking at your claim which basically said "Oda Mari is abusing Twinkle and she must be stopped", I am not very convinced. I understand you're on vacation/conference/business trip, so take your time. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be careful about taking an overtly combative stance in the ArbCom case (i.e. stuff like "ashamed" and "backstab"), because that's just going to turn the arbitrators off. Even though what Q proposed is ridiculous, there are less direct ways of communicating his misguided methods. I sometimes run into the risk of being too belligerent too, so you are not alone on this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not as optimistic. It's still best to avoid taking an overtly hostile stance, since that's generally frowned upon. I think the way that Lvhis approach this is the most tactful amongst us all, since he's very polite in his communication but also very clear with his criticisms (while I do have a habit of sounding bitter sometimes). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You can talk more if you want! I believe a certain admin you advocated for a de-sysop is also being considered for de-sysop by a few other involved parties due to a potential mishandling of a situation that resulted in double standard being applied to Lvhis (wherein he was given a block and Tenmei walked free). If you are in a mood for dancing, then you can take a look at that too. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please immediately change your remarks

Please, without any hesitation, immediately change your remarks on the Evidence page. I cannot think of anything more offensive than comparing my actions to rape or the claim that rape is in any way caused by the victim. I am appalled. I am disgusted. Complain about me, call I'm a bad editor, say I should be de-sysoped, say I'm the sole and only cause of problems on the page but please do not write such obscene and hateful things. I disagree with you about your charges, but you have every right to make them. But your comparison of my comments to blaming the victims of rape makes me want to cry and scream and give up Wikipedia all together and ask for you to be banned you for life or ask for myself to be banned for life and I'm rambling because I'm trying to explain how hurtful your comments are. Please. Please change them. Comparing editing actions, or arguments on Wikipedia, to arguments advocating rape is just crushing and devastating. Please. Your words trivialize rape, they trivialize how terrible the blame-the-victim argument is....just...please...change the comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
STSC, you should scale down the anger a little. The subject of your criticism and his associates have been on a smear campaign in this ArbCom case. It'd be detrimental to your case if you allow them to bait you into authoring something they construe as UNCIVIL and BATTLEGROUND (which are attributes they pretend to be monopolized by people like us). As a friendly reminder, you should know that there are many ways to show how an admin is unfit without having to employ very fiery rhetoric. Am I correct, Q? :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
After taking a glance at your evidence, I'd advise you to add some diffs to support your claims or the arbitrators may not take your accusations seriously. As Elen of the Roads suggested, your evidence block is meant to present facts and not to write paragraphs speculating/denouncing the motives of others (this is for Workshop). In case you forgot about some of the important threads and posts in the past, reading my sections in Evidence and Workshop may help to refresh your memory. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I see. There are actually rules associated with using TW. I thought it's just some random software. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfArb/Senkaku

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."

It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.

A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. --Tenmei (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
  2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
  3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
  4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
  5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
  6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
  7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

    While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions: topic ban

Despite my warning on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) ([5]), you have continued to edit-war on the policy page [6], evidently in order to strengthen your position in the related Senkaku dispute. This is highly disruptive. Under the discretionary sanctions rule of the recent Arbcom decision (see two sections above this), I am therefore topic-banning you from all edits relating to this naming dispute, widely construed, for a period of three months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Re

Hi STSC, I don't know how to activate my wiki-email. Could you tell me step by step in my talk page? Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done it. Thanks! Please check your email. --Lvhis (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Parent categories for Category:Hong Kong Anglicans

In this discussion, which included a discussion of Category:Hong Kong Anglicans, it was discussed what the proper parent categories for the various Anglican categories should be—should they be a direct subcategory of the Christians category, a direct subcategory of the Protestants category, or a direct subcategory of both? It was decided that each Anglicans category should be a direct subcategory of both the applicable Christians category and the applicable Protestants category. Please respect this consensus decision and stop removing the parent Category:Hong Kong Christians from Category:Hong Kong Anglicans, as you've been doing repeatedly: [7], [8], [9]. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste mves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Chinese nationality a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

In this case it also resulted in a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. Cheers! -- 12:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello STSC! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:STSC/Archive_1&oldid=1079462575"