User talk:Ngchen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:05, 29 November 2007

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 02:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was just checking back on all those articles I started, and saw that you created the article Yang Huimin. At least I now know that someone reads the stuff I write! Thanks, I guess.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 06:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan legal status

Responding to further detail on my peer review comments: A pros and cons section is always dangerous. If someone writes something a pro you don't like, you can come back with five cons, and they respond with two more pros, and you basically get two people on either side of what, in this case, is a tricky area, and an edit war is bound to occur. FAs need to be stable, but basically letting opinionated people list out every one of their arguments and allowing those who disagree to rant right back at them goes against the Wikipedia idea of consensus, and working out a compromise. Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, but none the less I think you're basically sticking this article in the middle of the Taiwan Strait and saying, "Let's hear all the outrageous arguments from both sides." Harro5 04:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on it. Thanks.--StrikeEagle 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up some suggetions for improvement regarding Taiwan legal status. Would you take a look? I can't edit the page, please give me some feedback and see if you want to make some improvements on the article. Thanks. Redcloud822 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from morality NPOV

It wasn't me who removed the NPOV tag. Go re-add it if you want. Infinity0 ^talk 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second-class citizen

I have no serious objections to the article as it is now. Pecher ^Talk 07:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Abortion!

'Nuff said. --BCSWowbagger 03:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of reminders

Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Also: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yang

Do you have a reference for Yang surviving the war and going to Taiwan? Can you add details to the article?Rlevse 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored

I'm sorry. There was no problem with your edit.TingMing 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation - Foundation for Defense of Democracies

I'm back, though I'll be quite busy for a while. But, I did sign on to the mediation. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Academia Sinica

How about changing it to mainland Chinese instead of just "mainland?"--Jerry 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Jerry 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

request for comment

Thanks for your opinion on Talk:¿Por qué no te callas?, but your comment seems to have missed the point of the question. The question is not regarding the notability of the article, or the article as a whole at all. It is about one sentence within the article. - Revolving Bugbear 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:RFPP reports

Just a courtesy note, I've semi-protected your original research warnings indefinitely, as requested. However, I noticed that you added {{pp-semi|small=yes}} to the articles. As set out at WP:Pt, you shouldn't do that - protection templates are not to be used as "bluffs". Cheers, Anthøny 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Careful at Image:Senate in session.jpg. Nobody mentioned even once in the deletion debate that it was a work by the U.S. Senate. Rather, they all claimed that it was a public domain image from C-SPAN's video coverage of the U.S. Senate. Unless someone says otherwise (and nobody has, as of yet), your tag is misleading. But I'll fix it for you.

And if you take a look at Jiang's user talk page, it's obvious that while he's a long-term contributor who has done much for the project, he has a very poor understanding of copyright and how we deal with it on Wikpedia. I wouldn't try to glean much from his contributions in that area, and I'm sure that many, many more of his images will be deleted in the coming months. And if you look in the image's history, he never asserted anything about the image; he didn't even provide a source or license. But that was a long time ago.

And per your other uncivil comment regarding my supposed paranoia: Nice cop out, but I'm very well aware that the chances of negative legal repercussions are often slim to none. But we're trying to build a free encyclopedia, and people like you clearly don't understand what that means, but would rather unabashedly steal photos from people who make their living trying to sell those same photos.

Off Wikipedia, the photographer makes money by selling his or her photo to a paper, and the paper makes that money back by advertising to those to view the image on their site. In our case, we simply stole an image to unnecessarily decorate an article, giving nothing back to the people who worked to create it or to purchase the rights to it. And there's a clear difference between the image in question and those that are actually iconic, such as Image:Kent State massacre.jpg, which I myself wrote a detailed fair use rationale for. -- RG² 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I explained the policy, in detail, in the original nomination. But if you're that sensitive, go ahead and resent me, I suppose.

If you look at the image's history, which I go through on the image talk page, you'll see that the assertion that the image is from C-SPAN was admitted to be shaky and unverified. And after that was carried over a few edits and a few years later, everyone went ahead and repeated it. Not much to assume good faith on -- but I'm searching through C-SPAN archives at the moment so we can actually verify it, rather than base everything off a description that read: "C-SPAN's video coverage of the floor proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is public domain, but it is unclear whether this is that footage." -- RG² 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senate image - a logical deduction

You're very, very close, but not quite correct. If something is in the public domain, that means anyone can take it, modify it, and republish it. If the AP takes an image and cleans it up a bit, sharpens it, airbrushes it a bit, they can certainly republish it. And this was from before a few AP/Reuters reiterated their image modification rules after photographers took a bunch of heat for some really tasteless usage of the cloning stamp a year or two ago, so it's a very real possibility that work was done.

Your A Christmas Carol analogy is also close, but not quite correct, in this case. The middle-man didn't necessarily just package the text; in this case, they may have cleaned up the text, reworded some of the text, and added some extra text. Since it's public domain, and not, for example, a GFDL-licensed work, they don't need to republish the work under a free license or in the public domain.

Nice to see you so cocky with the "Thought I'd save you the trouble" and the "HTH." -- RG² 01:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely fraudulent, though I doubt there'd be any legal repercussions, given the age of the work. But, anyway, we're getting into a bunch of what-ifs that I don't really care to think about at the moment.

C-SPAN's video archives go as far back as 2001 at the moment. I'll get in contact with them to see when they're planning to make more of their archive of Senate floor videos available. They go back to the mid-1980s, I believe, and House videos go back even further. -- RG² 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of China

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Template:History of China. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 :C-SPAN's video archives go as far back as 2001 at the moment. I'll get in contact with them to see when they're planning to make more of their archive of Senate floor videos available. They go back to the mid-1980s, I believe, and House videos go back even further. -- [[User:RG2|RG]]<sup><font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:RG2|2]]</font></sup> 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
+==Template:History of China==
+{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Template:History of China|, as you did to [[:Template:History of China]]}}.  Your edits appear to be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]].  If you believe the information you added was correct, please [[WP:CITE|cite references or sources]] or discuss the changes on the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] before making them again.  If you would like to experiment, use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-error2 -->