Jump to content

User talk:Wakari07/Archive 16-09-2012 full

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

having been welcomed

Hello Wakari07, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help
Thanks for fixing that spelling mistake on my userpage, I can never spell favourite right XD. Blooded Edgeawards 10:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephen

dude.

  • first of all you don't know Greek. basically it means wreath in common modern/medieval/ancient Greek and then it means crown. the main word of crown in Greek is κορώνα
  • second. we don't know whether it's ancient Greek or medieval Greek or modern Greek because they are all the same. and because in Greece it is used since ancient times but in the rest of the world since medieval times through Saint Stephen.
  • third if it was in ancient Greek it would be ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ because the cursive didn't exist.
  • fourth, the exact period is unknown and irrelevant. it could be prehistoric Greek, proto-Greek..
  • fifth,you should put the Perseus source from the Iliad inside the article, saying "an early/the earliest record of the word/name can be found in Homer's Iliad" or something.

--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
oh and about the SlavMakedonski name, it's irrelevant. firstly it's not Stephen, but Stefan. if we put that, then we should put categories for
(... all variants of the name ...)(edit by Wakari07)
which would not be a useful thing to do. the guy who put it is just a nationalist of that Yugoslavia province.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir,
1 Please read all 4 sources from reference n° 2 in article (btw κορώνα doesn't appear in my classical Greek dictionary, maybe you mean "κορώνη", seabird or crow, and then door-handle, hook or bow-tip, generally a bent or curved object which gave its meaning to Latin "corona" and then English "crown").
2 We do know that the word appears in Ancient Greek (Homer). Together with knowledge of the language, it necessarily spread over the Hellenistic world (roughly Alexander's empire) by 300 BC. Saint Stephen died +- AD 35, that's way before our Middle Ages. Can you source the fact that the name is used since ancient times ? That would be interesting for the article.
3 At school I learnt writing Ancient Greek in cursive. The common way you see classical texts edited is in cursive too.
4 Talking about the first proven, written, recorded occurrence of the word.
5 In fact it is inside the article. Feel free to improve syntax or referencing.
PS Beg your pardon but your viewpoint is a bit outdated and your argument seems "ad personam". Wakari07 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
ok it's ad personam. (you should probably check out what ad personam means btw my argument was "if we put that etc") then you who is objective should go on and put every language that the name exists in, in the category section. likewise: Category: Spanish given names, Filipino given names, Portuguese given names, Catalanese given names etc.. see how that works out. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
oh and the English, Spanish, German, Japanese, French, Arabic, Lithuanian, whatever version of the name Stephen, comes from the Greek name Στέφανος (Stefanos) and not straight from the Greek word στέφανος/στεφάνι. The Greek name comes from the Greek word stefani. order is:"greek word stefani>greek name Stefanos>english/german/korean/whatever name Stephen." CuteHappyBrute (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's continue in talk:Stephen, where it belongs. By the way I studied Latin too. And my PS point was about your view on the current status of the Republic of Macedonia. I think we should respect each other. Regards. Wakari07 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Warnings

I saw that the sign associations were wrong and I only wished to help by editing and correcting them. I would not call that vandalism, but if you think thats what it was, then I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.122.48 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neil Marchington

The article Neil Marchington has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable person - per single event WP:ONEEVENT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Neil Marchington for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neil Marchington is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Widefox (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2012 Alfa Airlines Antonov An-24 crash

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2012 Alfa Airlines Antonov An-24 crash. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - 2012 Sudan helicopter crash. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2012 Sudan helicopter crash - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ...William 02:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you for the feedback. From the 'current events', which i monitored and where a redlink had existed for some hours, i saw several sources mentioning it as a plane, specifically an Antonov 24/26, and not a helicopter. Wakari07 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited AIDS 2.0, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Environment and Factor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your request

In response to your request "let's discuss this: Extradition vs. Deportation vs. Rendition", I advise you to discuss it with BBC, since the first two terms were used simultaneously in the news. Secondly, you deleted the release of one pilgrim in Syria, recommending the use of better source. It was an Associate Press news. These remarks do not seem to be very constructive. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the more neutral 'extradition' in the portal, since there is a security cooperation between Angola and China. I also reversed my edit removing the AP story for obsolescence. It's in my interest too to remain constructive. Wakari07 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection of using the term 'extradition'. However, as said before, two terms were used in the news. Thank you for your explanation about the security cooperation between these two countries that I have not known. Also, thank you very much for your good will. You may delete this story, but the significant point is that the source is not unreliable. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank for your barnstar. I had nominated the summit to be mention "in the news" section on the main page. However, somebody removed it.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 05:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I believe it should be mentioned in Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Economic and political summits. I added my suggestion in its talk page. But it seems inactive.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Wakari07 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sufi

Hello, if you know the arabic name of this Sufi please add it to the article. That´s important to find more source (in arabic). Cheer ! Yug (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't, but maybe someone knows for sure the exact Arabic spelling of Sidi Abdullah Al-Sha'ab, the Libyan scholar? Anon IP can add it directly to the article body or discuss it on the article's talk page. Wakari07 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, noticed. By the way: this demolition sucks! Yug (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

AIDS 2.0 article and stuff

I am perfectly willing to fix the content of the AIDS 2.0 article, but you are the one who created the article. A rename has already been suggested in the talk page. Take some responsibility for your actions and change the name yourself.

Regarding my edits to the past current events pages: your argument that these pages should not be changed goes beyond all reason. Stop reverting my edits (which I have now explained), and stop pretending that you speak for anybody but yourself.

Thank you.

67.189.145.86 (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you were really committed to this thing, you would have invested in a username long ago. Where did i claim to be another human specimen than i am? Wakari07 (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether I have a username or not is irrelevant. Do not bring it up. The way you are speaking, you seem to be pretending to have some sort of authority. You clearly do not, and I can find no policy which supports your actions. So stop interfering with the little work that I have chosen to put into this, or I will report you. 67.189.145.86 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
lol Wakari07 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am the user previously known as 67.189.145.86. Your actions have forced me to dig up this old account.
This is your last warning. Do not revert my edits wholesale again without explanation or I am going to file a request for arbitration. Linkminer 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I stand ready for arbitration if you feel the need; but I don't. We should closely cooperate on concepts and not fight over sectarian words. Wakari07 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It is clear to me that you can not be reasoned with. Give me specific feedback if you feel the urge to be reasonable. Linkminer 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You've surprised me. :) Thanks. I really didn't want to have to do arbitration, haha... Linkminer 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mosque of al-Tekkiyeh Ariha‎;

I've reverted your additions to the AfD, as the discussion was closed before you commented. If you have any reference material on the subject, or are willing to do some research, there's no bar to re-creation of a substantial article on the subject. As of right now, we don't know if it's the same thing as the similarly-named mosque or another place altogether, so it's hard to retain something so insubstantial: we really need to be able to state what we're talking about with confidence and reliable sourcing, rather than a passing mention in the news. I tried in my references but found nothing and don't know enough about Damascus to attempt an educated guess (which in any case isn't enough). Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the effort. Wakari07 (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping there might be something at UNESCO (who maintain the World Heritage Site listings, but haven't found anything. What we could really use is someone with a good knowledge of both Arabic and Damascus: local knowledge. Unfortunately, I think the local folks have other things on their minds right now. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WT:MED

FYI, I have mentioned your edits here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_AIDS_like_disease Biosthmors (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Biosthmors (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that speculative tagging of articles to reflect a personal hypothesis of some kind of conspiracy/military/terrorism-related something-or-other is not acceptable, and that you need to stick strictly to the sources. I've removed the terrorism wikiproject from the talkpage, and I strongly advise you to avoid re-adding any categories relating to the military unless and until reliable sources report a connection: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and such speculation is inappropriate. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i agree... i only find it hightly suspicious that only one source is published. Wakari07 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-English sources on ITN

Just wanted to let you know, I opened a discussion on ITN Portal Talk about the posting guideline "News stories must be in the English language; no other languages please", in response to your restoring items with non-English language source and which you commented "please consider an online translating tool". I'm fine with a discussion about changing the guideline to consider whether non-English sources can be used, but until a consensus is reached to change the current guideline, I think it needs to be adhered to. For that reason, I'm reverted the non-English language sourced item again.-- PopularMax (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for edit summary:)) You may be hungry, since you are putting the news on the page for a long time. Egeymi (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, i hope it's a veggie one ;-) Good appetite to you too! Wakari07 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is veggie:))Egeymi (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thalidomide

If you don't like where the Thalidomide article is located, I suggest you introduce a move discussion. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think i want to rename it? It has to be located somewhere. As long as we can refer to it as Softenon or Contergan (the brand name the victims' mothers used) then it's OK. I don't want to rename Dow Chemical to Union Carbide either. Wakari07 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Swaziland

It'a an annual event. If it were one time, then maybe so, but it's also not significant outside of Swaziland, and therefore has no international provenance. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(re from your talk page) It's good to mention once a year, at reed festival, that all is well in ~poor Swaziland. That spreads some hope for Africa and peace in the world. Wakari07 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, the noteworthy news today is one year of past stability in a much-deserving country. Wakari07 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. But I won't fight over it. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ministry of Defence (Rwanda)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ministry of Defence (Rwanda), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.mod.gov.rw/?-The-Ministry-.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, i will try to do some editing work. I trust the info is meant to be distributed to the public though. Wakari07 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoping you will agree now ;-) Wakari07 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's very rare for anything on the Internet to be freely distributable unless it's under a Wikipedia-like CC-by-SA copyleft (and even the attribution is needed). The single exception is material published by the US government, and even there there are exceptions requiring care. The Rwandan website says that it's copyrighted ("Copyright © 2008 - 2012 - All rights Reserved"), so it's always best rewritten using it as a source of information, not text. Best practice even with US public domain material is to rewrite. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, will further try. Thanks for the guidance and the constructive effort. Wakari07 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I appreciate your work and your attention to these issues: lots of people can't be bothered to research copyright. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I realise i'm slow and could do more work, but i do the little i can. Do you think it will pass now? Wakari07 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable for a basic stub. I didn't check for close paraphrase, but you've got it boiled down to just the facts. Don't worry about being slow: it's surprisingly hard to write an accurate, well-referenced summary that avoids close paraphrase. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Conflict Stabilization Office for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conflict Stabilization Office is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict Stabilization Office until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sesamevoila (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wakari07. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict Stabilization Office.
Message added 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sesamevoila (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kiran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oversight. Now removed non-telling link. Thanks for notifying. Wakari07 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku news

Dude... 108.93.178.27 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Yes? What do you want with these "insight after the fact" fabricated tales? Wakari07 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Its's not "fabricated". This is real news from a story where the dynamic develops far more on the Japanese side than on the Chinese. Since they are the ones that set the current flaring up of tensions, the story is developing mostly from the Japanese side. Therefore, further insight into how this decision was reached is an important part of the developing story. Whether Japan was right or not in doing this is besides the point. They did this. Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter. So shedding light into why they made the move, how they preempted Shintaro Ishihara, and how Noda initially gave serious consideration to a harder stance on the matter is of great import and interest to the dispute. It's also not "fabricated" as the news is being reported not only by trusted sources of news in Japan (whose editors tend to lean against these sort of things anyway), but also from news sources abroad. Chinese reaction is important too and I've tried including in as much I can. But since the Chinese dynamic is essentially defensive—that it to say they can't really do more than warn Japan and threaten consequences—their input can get repetitive and doesn't really add further light to the story.

Personally, I have no vested interest in either side save for the fact that it's an interesting news item with the potential for serious repercussions globally. So if Japan's decision can be further explained, I can't see why that wouldn't be important to share here. 108.93.178.27 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I try to see. Thanks for your answer. I propose to keep the current version. But some longer-reaching historical insight than a few days or weeks is definitely needed here. The story must be told from the perspective of decades and even centuries or, why not, millennia. The significant point of conflict is the fact that China had control over the islands until a war with Japan, in which they lost the islands and the surrounding fishing grounds. They always resented this hostile take-over and in 1945 they were the victors and expected the isles back, which only seems natural for a victor if you but glance at the map. The last significant fact is the repeated position of the US that it is at the same time ally (under the security treaty) and neutral (pragmatically), which is intenable diplomatically. It's the US turn to decide on actions. If they say nothing, it will be actual naval maneuvers, reportable on the portal, which will, i guess, determine the outcome. What do the international courts say about the matter? Ius belli? Any other suggestion for international law? THAT is the base of ownership - not the supposed "sale". In fact, the last significant bit was the nationalisation. All the rest is blah blah wich was totally expected and, in a sense, still futile. Wakari07 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
True, but that has no bearing on the present dispute, however regrettable that may be. Both positions are understandable. China has a legitimate claim; so does Japan. The fact of the matter is, though, that Japan has controlled the islands for over a century and that the Chinese didn't express any interest in the islands until 1968. I mean, if we were to go by who owned the land first or who held it longest, then it would be nice to see the US give the lands it took from Mexico, Spain, and First Nations people. Or for China to return land in Manchuria that was for centuries part of Korea's domain. It's also interesting to see that the Allies, though on the face claiming to fight imperialism (Japanese, in this case) during WWII, they were glad to return Viet Nam, Burma, Laos, the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc. to the control of its former colonial masters, the UK, France, Netherlands, and the US itself. So it's a fractured history then; no easy answers. My point is that whoever held it longest no longer applies—unless we're willing to apply to all cases. (Then why not return California to Mexico, for example?) But that's neither here nor there. Japan made its move; China doesn't like it. Whether the move was "valid" is something else. But it's definitely "real", not "fabricated". Doubt the Chinese would be raging over something that never happened. Peace. 108.93.178.27 (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh! One more thing. Historical context is set by hotlinking the items to Senkaku Islands dispute or by placing the stories under that banner. Otherwise, to cite news from years ago while citing developing news today would become rather too cumbersome. 108.93.178.27 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What you describe is that the United States controlled the islands directly and have in 1951 formally decided to give it "back" to the Japanese. So the US cannot be neutral, and the ownership is determined by *its* choices. It makes no sense to report on an Asiatic war of words: it's the US' time to act. Even if only with honourable, credible words. Why would *it* effectively continue to control the islands like it does? That is interesting to report, and the advantage to Japan, US' staunch and long-time ally, of the status quo (not how it helplessly tries to fabricate justifications after the fact). China won the last major war together with the US. How much farther are the Diaoyu/Senkaku/... islet from the US mainland than from the Chinese mainland or (Taiwan aka Formosa)? Any idea of a factor? Now please shut up and work. Wakari07 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
These aren't an "Asiatic war of words". It is developing news whose impact may go beyond that small corner of the East China Sea. As for the "fabrications" you'll have to explain those to me. I'm uncertain of what you mean. Whether China won WWII is irrelevant in the Senkaku case. (Consider that the UK lost most of its Empire in the immediate postwar period despite being a victor.) Otherwise why not return the Ryukyus over to China since they were largely under the influence of the Qing Dynasty and were considered "foreign" to Edo period mainlanders in Japan? The conquest of the Ryukyus themselves were, if you'd like, among Japan's initial forays into its colonialist ventures. They are also far closer to the Republic of China than to Japan (at least the southern islands). Conversely, if we're talking about reclaiming land that belonged to China for millenia, why not pester Russia for the return of Primorsky Krai and the Amur Oblast, also long a Chinese held territory. The problem here is a very complex relationship between Japan and China that is colored not only by the Japanese aggression of the 19th and 20th centuries, but also by Chinese aggression and inflated sense of self in the centuries before. Consider that the names of Korea, Vietnam, and Japan are derived from Chinese names that simply indicate their geographical placement in respect to the Middle Kingdom. (Though it's interesting to see that Japan seized on "日本" and subverted its original meaning as simply being the place where the Chinese sun rises, to the notion of the nation itself as the rising sun.) Anyway, there's a thicket of long-standing mutual resentment in this region that make the Balkans seem like your proverbial walk in the park. Japan, in this case, is a convenient excuse for the CCP to get its own people to not reflect on the PRC's own bloodied history against its own, and focus on a mutual "enemy". It should be noted that Japan has, since 1945, not been involved in any military aggression and has been a peaceful, even self-effacing country. The same can't be said of China who has been the belligerent with Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia, Borneo, Indonesia, and India; despite talk of its "peaceful rise", is very fond of making subdued military threats. What Japan did over 70 years ago pales is gone. What China is doing now should be monitored closely. Also, what's with the sudden nastiness at the end of your last message? Chill out.108.93.178.27 (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I say "after the fact" because it has no significance whatsoever that these tales surface after the sudden and brutal nationalisation. These are political machinations and justification mechanisms. Now stop wasting my time or at least get a username. Wakari07 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Make me! :P (Also, "sudden" maybe. But "brutal"? Seriously? Hyperbole much?) 108.93.178.27 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you smoke? The US is the final warranter of the transaction. Are you unable to understand that? Wakari07 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Brother, relax. You take this way too personally. Are you Chinese or have some kind of vested interest in this dispute? I certainly am not Japanese (or Chinese, for that matter)—not even close—and have nothing to gain from this dispute either way. All I care about is presenting the news on Wikipedia impartially and with a cleanness of form that makes it easy to read or access. Our mutual bickering, I'm sorry to say, won't have any effect on the Senkaku matter. (If only it were so easy!) All I can do is treat your concerns respectfully and cordially, hope that you would be so kind as to reciprocate, and understand that neither one of us can or should shape how the news is presented on this site. If you have an agenda or ideological axe to grind with people, Wikipedia is not the place for you to bring that. So please, let's be buddies. I'm sorry to tell you that I'll be here for awhile revising the news. Not just today, but everyday. So hopefully we don't butt heads too much. Just remember that I have no personal animosity towards you or your views and just want to collaborate with you and everyone else on this gosh danged site! From the other side of the world I send you a friendly handshake. 108.93.178.27 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
So when will you acknowledge the fact that, as defending a (probably) American interest you cannot be neutral in the dispute? For your information, i may have a personal interest in any subject of import to man. My nationality should be clear from my userpage. Or else you're an idiot. Wakari07 (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, for one thing it may surprise you to note that not everyone who speaks English is American. Secondly, though I wield English with total fluency and mastery, it is not my first language. Like you and any thinking man, I have a profound interest in a variety of things. These interests have, in fact, determined the trajectory of my life and my sense of self. But when it comes to a site where one must present the world as something objective, not peculiarly personal to my own worldview, I must put them aside. Such is the case with the Senkaku. By the way, you really don't need to be so rude. Just because you disagree with someone on the Internet doesn't mean you shouldn't treat your fellow man with the sort of respect you yourself would expect. It's just Wikipedia, man. 108.93.178.27 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, it's Wikipedia. And Wikipedia needs to serve both contents and cosmetics. But when content is essential, cosmetics can't rule. In this case of the Senkakus/Diaoyo/..., we need to present the other (two? three?) side(s) fairly. In fact, it's US/Japan against China and maybe Taiwan/Formosa. To report only China vs. Japan, and then fill these columns with post-factum political propaganda speculations to try to legitimise the control/ownership/transaction is reductionist. The US effectively enforces the status quo Japan needs. Wikipedia needs to report on the real significant facts. Not on "oh shut up and be happy because it would have been worse if a US or 'Allied' airbase had been built immediately on the islands." Wakari07 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm guessing you don't really like the US? Not that I care personally. But from what you intimate in the above statement, I wouldn't be surprised if this clouds your presentation of the Senkaku story. Again, since Japan set this whole thing into motion, the dynamic is focused on Japan. What they did, how they did it, and why is of keen importance. China at this point can only react. And how much can one add beyond the same vague threats and warnings? After awhile they don't really add perspective—they don't do anything. Were China to take a sudden action—dispatch military forces or activists to the islands, say—then that would be something else and the dynamic would turn to them. One could include the Japanese reaction then, but like with China in this case, only the "juiciest" or choice or important reactions would be relevant. I mean, how much can you add to "we don't like this" and "you're going to pay"? Also, like I said earlier, some stories simply develop in a largely one-sided way. For example, you added that story about Karzai earlier. I think it was the very first story added for 9/12 (I recall seeing it shortly after the box was created). What I read there was single-sided: Karzai wants to reexamine the War on Terror. Well, where was the US's reaction? Where was India's? Or Pakistan's? Or Israel? Etc., etc.? In that case, though, it made sense to only point to Karzai's comment and to invite the reader to click the link attached for more detail. Though it also would have made sense to include other reactions. But I let that go. It seemed OK enough to me. Now, going back to Senkaku, I'm guessing that you have a big anti-American bias and that you may be biased against Japan as you see it within the context of that anti-Americanism. I've watched your history not only on today's events, but for several days as evidence of this bias. It is, in fact, the only reason I'm on this site participating now—to counteract what I see as pushing an agenda in favor of a balanced perspective. (Not that I'm here to defend American honor or whatever—it has no connection to me. But the skewed perspective really bothers me.) You talk about propaganda, but I can't really understand about what you mean. The stories are real. The people involved are real. The news agencies disseminating the information are trusted, reputable sources. Yet you cite Xinhua for certain things which is interesting as that is bona-fide propaganda; the real thing. Sometimes it is a trustworthy enough source. At others—and very often—it's only a shrieking megaphone for the CCP, totally oblivious to any objective reality outside of what the PRC instructs its people to believe. Talk about being one-sided. They refuse to see any other perspective outside their own! Anyway, I'm sure you're busy revising the current events page. Which means I get to get back there! ;D 108.93.178.27 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
We seem to agree on the balance thing. See you then. Wakari07 (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Nuclear stonewalling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nuclear stonewalling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied, expanded a bit. Thanks for giving this at least one week's chance. Wakari07 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you do not have "3 jokers". That comment shows you know about edit wars. Quiddit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I got carried away. Wakari07 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Just hold on a little; everybody is basically in favor of making the scope broader. It's just tied up in "the rules"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Where can we discuss the abuse of social media in what are apparently acts of war? Wakari07 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks and U.S. politics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks and U.S. politics. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2012 diplomatic missions attacks. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2012 diplomatic missions attacks – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JC · Talk · Contributions 16:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No, no, i didn't create such a page willingly. I happend to stumble on it but I had no idea i created that page myself. I (suspect some type of technical error and) have no interest in creating this page and you may (mod) merge/redirect (endmod) it. Wakari07 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Wakari07 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Now that you mention it... there was some warring over the title. I (successfully) tried to restore it to the title 2012 Diplomatic missions attacks, to revert vandalism.Wakari07 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuclear stonewalling, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nuclear and Stonewall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried to fix "Stonewalling". Any suggestions for Nuclear? Wakari07 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Consider the same issue if we tried to link the concept of "core values" - it would need context link with Axiology, Democracy, Family values and some fourth, military context. But i can provide only one link? And if i provide the link that directs to all these four, the bot will complain. Help doctor? Wakari07 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JOJ Hutton 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to what content exactly you claim i have removed? I certainly did a few edits lately... Wakari07 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wakari07/Archive_16-09-2012_full&oldid=1146321538"