User talk:Dwarf Kirlston/FAC Archive

FAC

Angolan Civil War talk with Perspicacite

Angolan Civil War FAC Thanks for correcting the typo on Angolan Civil War. Perspicacite 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for elaborating. I will try and deal with the points you made as soon as possible. Perspicacite 03:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Angolan Civil War Your criticism of the section on the 1990s was excellent - it was written quite poorly. I ended up expanding on the introduction and splitting off discussion on Savimbi's wounding in 1990. Let me know if you still think it needs work. Perspicacite 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Thankyou for the compliment. I'll comment on it again.--Keerllston 14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rob-B-Hood talk with Alasdair

Your FAC comment on Rob-B-Hood Hello, regarding your comment on the FAC, Separating topics into a "Jackie Chan" section goes against the Manual of Style of film articles. Oh, and by the way, why the heavy focus on Jackie Chan? This is because he is not just an actor in the film. I know it sounds crazy, but he's also a producer, writer and stunt director. In fact, he does them all! This is typical in his films these days. Also, Jackie Chan is extremely admired in China, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia in general. Whenever a film featuring him gets involved, he always gets most of the media spotlight. Even if other people co-stars with him, they don't get half of the attention in interviews and reviews (the reliable sources for the article), even so, they are almost always asked, "What do you think of Jackie Chan?" It's just unavoidable. I hope you understand.--Alasdair 09:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) And as a follow up, I've replaced "crude" with "special", although I think brushing one's nipple (especially a man's) with honey so the baby would suck it appears crude and unrefined.--Alasdair 09:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) But crude would be interpreted as manhandling the baby, putting it in danger due to negligence, not letting it stay near the mother and letting it keep crying, I don't know. But I don't think the crudeness would be related to the nipple incident. The baby sucking a man's nipple was unrefined - not the brushing of the nipple in particular - but then again, refinement is not the main goal of humor. In fact humor is something of the antithesis to refinement.--Keerllston 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Jackie is awesome! I praise Jackie the brilliant comedic actor and combat choreography expert and athlete! This picture is largely important only because of him. It is significantly more notable because he plays a bad guy and moves him away from being typecast. The focus on Jackie can be appropriate. I didn't mean to say that it was always inappropriate. I tried to think of a way - making a section on him and how this movie relates to him.--Keerllston 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Regarding Objection Regarding your oppose, I've done the following things so far: Lead: The lead section has been reorganized, now the first paragraph talks about who wrote and directed the film, as well as the starring actors. Then, it mentions the production budget and filming dates, as well as how the stunts are performed. The 2nd paragraph talks about the plot and setting, while the 3rd is about its release date and reception. Removals and retentions: Mentions of Chan have been greatly reduced in the Casting section. However, they are still left in the Writing section, since Jackie Chan did write the film and design the concepts of it at the beginning. In fact, the film was also Jackie Chan's idea, so it wouldn't have been made. Also retained is the fact that it's the first film in which Jackie Chan plays a bad person. It's one factor that makes it unique among his filmography. Prose: Prose changes made regarding "100 auditions" and "combat choreography". Characters section renamed to Cast. These are the changes I made for now.--Alasdair 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Nice work! It still seems to me that the lead in the other two are substancially better. Seems to me prose still needs work in general, will try to look for more examples, if can't think of things to change I will rename from objection to either neutral or support.--Keerllston 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I've made changes to the lead. I've removed the emphasis on Jackie Chan's stunts, instead talking about his character role. "Rob-B-Hood is notable as the first in which Jackie Chan, tired of being typecast as "Mr. Nice Guy", plays a negative character—A burglar and compulsive gambler.". Also changed is the first sentence in the second paragraph: "Rob-B-Hood tells the story of a kidnapping gone wrong in Hong Kong".--Alasdair 10:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) OK, here are the next round of changes. The reception section has been changed so that it mentions the identity of the reviewers or newspapers who give the specific comments. The offending phrase has been rewritten as follows: "Chan stated that he did not want to play the typical nice guy role that has been the staple of his previous films." Cast section has been renamed to characters, and the format's been changed per your request. That's all for now.--Alasdair 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Regarding Sources Regarding the sources: The reason why most of the sources are in Chinese is that it is a local film, that has not been released outside Asia with the exception of Greece. In addition, the Chinese press happened to be the ones which provide the most coverage on the subject, hence there are just so few reliable sources in English.--Alasdair 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I clarified, sorry.--Keerllston 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC) OK, let's try again. You mean you want the format to be: Language, then the title in Chinese, then translation in English?--Alasdair 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC) That would work! yes. It's the standard as I understand it to cite foreign language sources: Language Original Language Title.--Keerllston 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) I've tried doing that, but at this point, I've removed the translations of the source titles in English, this is because all the citations are made using the standard citation templates, and the position of the source language could not be changed without causing a great distortion.--Alasdair 09:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Old Trade Routes talk with Havelock the Dane
Trade routes WP:FA I have edited the article and addressed some of the concerns that you raised here. Could I trouble you to take a look at these diffs and see if you find things to your satisfaction ? Havelock the Dane Talk 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I still have some problems with it, Modern Times is still not comprehensive, and not nicely organized.--Keerllston 14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Zhang

Hi, I just addressed the problems you raised regarding the FA nomination on [Zhang]. Please take a look and reply. Cheers, σмgнgσмg 10:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, readressed another concern you raised. I'm just finding it hard to gather more information. σмgнgσмg 09:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk with Ruhrfisch on Presque Isle State Park FAC

Presque Isle State Park FAC Thanks for your comments on the Presque Isle State Park FAC. Some of us are working to address your concerns - would you mind looking at just the History section now (in comparison to how it was when you first commented (diff)? Basically we would appreciate your feedback on the updates there - this has been expanded as much as possible. Assuming we can do this for the other sections, is the article moving in the right direction? Habitat will be expanded and updated next. Thanks in advance for your attention to this and again for your helpful comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I imagine you are watching the FAC page, but just in case you hadn't seen, the article has been expanded, reorganized, and revised. We hope this addresses all your objections and will work to resolve any issues that remain. Thanks again for your useful comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support - Presque Isle State Park made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brown Dog

It would be helpful if you, too, would talk about the changes and not engage in a revert war. I note that one of your changes is from The brown dog to Vivisection of "the brown dog (note the stray opening quote). Even with that quote mark removed, I think the original title was better - it introduces the brown dog; for me the work vivisection in the title is not required. Memorial Built I find no more useful than The memorial but note that WP:MOS would point you towards Memorial built (note case of second word). Same applies to Memorial Removed ... although I'm happy with "exit the brown dog" I can see why some people would have a problem with it.

I agree that Riots and strange relationships is an off heading. Frankly, though, I cannot understand much of what you;re trying to say in the FA comments you;ve left. Would you mind seeking to edit them to make your points more clearly. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know what you think of the current organisation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The parenthesis issue is sorted; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re : FAC/Odex's actions against file-sharing

Hi, I've responded to your concerns/comments, kindly have a look through it. Thanks! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus

Re: PAs

To answer your off-topic question from the FAC discussion. Accusing another editor of violating WP:NPAs is wrong - unless they are guilty of it. In that case, an editor who refused to comment on the article (specifically stating that "Discussing is a waste of time", instead bringing grievances against another article, Kraków, of little relevance here - other than the fact that some of editors of JP article were involved in editing K article), accuses its authors of vanity and of editors supporting it of boosting each other's egos, is quite guilty of violating WP:NPA. I'd suggest warning him, not encouraging his behavior - unless we want this project to turn into a flaming hell like Usenet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding JP article, you are more than welcome to read through it and let us know if you think it may be biased one way or another. PS. I see you've read it - thanks! I have replied, addressing part of your concerns - I hope you will withdraw your objections over those minor copyediting issues soon (I addressed those that I could).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

China

Re: China

Hey Dwarf Kirlston, What do think of this image?

 Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Talk:China post

Who is the president of Korea? Mongolia? Is the Dalai lama the leader of Tibet? The term "China on both sides of the strait" is not the only definition of China.

I think this is the best. Obviously this will have information on the PRC, as well as information on Tibet, Mongolia, Siberia, Hong Kong, etcetera and how they fit or do not fit into the idea/civilization/geographical area/empire/nation/multinatinal state/etc.

It's not clear to me what you are saying. What is it that you think is best? And where did you get the term "China on both sides of the strait"; it wasn't listed in any of the proposals. Can you please clarify your post before I respond to it directly? Readin (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hello

I'm not sure of your implication here. I don't pretend to own the article because I've barely edited it at all myself -- check the page history.

In addition to my "insulting comments", I also listed a number of elementary and quite serious mistakes that you made in your discussions of China. That is, while my tone may have been insulting, there was substance to what I said. A person who continues to make such factual errors should, I would have thought, be chastened by this and become doubly cautious in making bold changes to the body of the article.

Instead, you went ahead and posted a sensitive viewpoint on the page without any prior discussion. Quite frankly, I couldn't believe you did that. I believe you should have posted that paragraph in the talk section to see other people's reactions first. After all, this was a controversial issue and the discussions on the talk page were still going on.

I know that Wikipedia encourages you to be bold, which sounds like a licence for anyone to post anything they want, as long as it's in "good faith". But personally I would be extremely cautious about wading into an article on Mayan history/civilisation, Inca history/civilisation, Persian history/civilisation, ancient Greek history/civilisation, sub-Saharan history/civilisation, or any other area I had only a superficial knowledge of and making sweeping statements in the lead of those articles about the nature of those civilisations. You obviously don't feel the same way, which is where our views diverge.

As well as criticising your hasty addition to the article, I also posted a long passage suggesting how I felt the issue would be better approached. I put that on the record because I thought it might be helpful in editing the page. Several Chinese editors felt that my passage was a fair representation of the situation, even though it didn't fully support the Chinese government's position. And again, I haven't edited the page myself.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have decided to go "public", I think it is better for me to withdraw from making any suggestions as to how the article should be edited. I believe that you have more confidence in your own knowledge of "China" than is warranted by a glance at some of your statements, but I don't feel like arguing. When someone comes on to Wikipedia citing the consumption of pork in southern Japan as a reason for including "Japan" in the "China" article, I can only stand by speechless. I don't know of anything that I could say that would seem reasonable to you, so it's best to say nothing. I hope you enjoy editing the article.

I've withdrawn my passages on the legacy of the Qing as I feel that my contributions haven't made one iota of difference to your rather interesting views as to what should or shouldn't be encompassed by "China".

Bathrobe (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)