User talk:Ideogram/Archive 7

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for fixing my talk page after vandalism. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inhuman

How can anyone human revert so much vandalism? --Ideogram 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Go have a look at Recent Changes, at any given moment there are dozens of vandalized pages, as fast as you fix them, more appear. Having nothing much else to do helps, too (I'll be busier tomorrow...) – Qxz 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MedCab Case

Not until 18:03 UTC, but after that time; if you desire to close it, you may. Somitho 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno's paradox mediation

Sorry for the delay in responding, but, yes, it was fine to close that case. I was never contacted by the initiating party. However, in keeping the page on my watchlist, it seems as though there are still some substantial disagreements and possibly a slow edit-war going on. I wouldn't be surprised to see a reappearance of this dispute somewhere. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHINA help

Hey, I just want to pop in and thank you for your recent help in finding and evaluating China related articles. There are quite a few of them, so it is a daunting task.

Incidentally, in my evaluations, I find it useful to rate the importance of the article at the same time that I assess it. That way, it is "finished" and fully categorized. (I'm a perfectionist, I know) I realize that rating importance is a much more subjective process than assessing the article, but give it a try. There is no harm in changing it later if need be. --Danaman5 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all of the rating of importance that you have done, I gather that you disagree with a good number of my ratings. For example, you rate provinces as being of High importance. I rate according to the guidelines on the assessment page, which state that Mid rankings are for things important in China, and things of High importance have had some impact outside of China. Things like the Ministry of Health (China) and Yunnan province are important in China, but have not had much impact outside of China, thus my ranking of "Mid".

You shouldn't take this comment to mean that I object strenuously to your rankings. I certainly won't be changing them back or anything. I'm just giving you my spin on it. Besides, going through and rerating everything that I have rated must be really tedious. I remain impressed with the work that you have done for WP:China. --Danaman5 06:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The main reason I decided to rank provinces High is because there is an imbalance between the High and Mid categories. I already see a lot of High importance articles that I think should be Mid, and I'm preparing for that by lowering the bar for what constitutes a High importance.

Also, as you know, provinces in China are the size of countries in Europe.

If other people agree that provinces should not be High, I will certainly change them back. --Ideogram 06:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Status

Ideogram, I think the phrase "Whereas the Republic of China administers themselves as an independent sovereign country with a democratically elected President and government" does have a place in the article. I think it is one point both the green and blue camps agree upon. I think it should be left in to balance the argument from the PRC. Wenzi 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss with the other editors on the talk page. --Ideogram 04:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GimmeBot on Go (board game)

GimmeBot will be through in a few days to build the articlehistory template; he's getting through them as fast as he can, and I'm just doing some of the prep work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East of Eden

I am going to close this case. Catbird222's haughty attitude and comments show that (s)he wants the Cabal to approve of actions that (s)he has taken. G e o. Talk to me 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem G e o. Talk to me 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Why I need help? Because neither side wants to give up any ground whatsoever; some want the image at the top like a normal article, others. It doesn't seem like there is going to be much consensus... · AndonicO ^Talk 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone is helping you now, but let me note that you do have the option of declaring the mediation insoluble and walking away. --Ideogram 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPTAIWAN

I'll upgrade it. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional Chinese musical instruments

Since you were so dead-set on moving this page (without any discussion), you had better now fix all the redirects. It should just be about a day's work. Badagnani 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done. --Ideogram 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not--there are at least 50 pages that link to the old name. Badagnani 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really are an idiot. I only have to fix double redirects, not single ones. --Ideogram 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt you must change the title of the article, you must fix all of the redirects (this is the way a real Wikipedian behaves). The use of insults is very poor form, and un-Wikipedian. Badagnani 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, if that was true, how did all these redirects happen in the first place? --Ideogram 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, obviously, you changed the name of the article today (without any discussion). Badagnani 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please think. If I created one redirect, where did all the double redirects come from? --Ideogram 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now implying that I am not thinking? I think, in fact, that I am the one that created most of the articles about Chinese instruments in the first place. Regarding your question, I've just gone through all the broken links and find that all of them, as I have stated twice now, are now broken because of your change, today, of the article's title. The broken links direct to Traditional Chinese musical instruments, which was the title of the article before you changed it, today. Thus, they all need to be fixed. If you want to change the title, you have to put in the work. It's part of working here. Badagnani 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You went through all of them? That was fast. Would you mind listing some of those broken links here so I can fix them? --Ideogram 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through most. To find them, simply go to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments, then look to the left. Under the search bar, there's a link that says "What links here." Click that, and all the redirects show up. One goes through, finds the link in each article, and fixes it. That's the correct way to deal with a page change. Unfortunately there is no automatic way to do this. Badagnani 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. You said the links are broken. I take that to mean that when you click on one, you don't get to the right article. Is that what you mean? --Ideogram 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the redirect from TCMI to LoTCMI, the links will work, but as redirects. They should be fixed, however, and correct WP editing practice is that the page-name-changer is the one who does this. Badagnani 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find policy that states this, I will do it. Otherwise, I have better things to do than to argue with you. --Ideogram 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kafziel now tells me that those fixes do not need to be made (although in the past they were done), for the reason that leaving the redirects saves WP bandwidth. Badagnani 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4RR

You've just reverted 4 times in a 24-hour period. Didn't you know that isn't permitted? Please change the edit back now, or give me a reason why I should not report you for this (added to the fact that you are repeatedly removing a valid link, something I personally would consider vandalism). Thanks. Badagnani 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to the same article, idiot. Click on the damn link you are so proud of and see what you get. --Ideogram 20:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kafziel ^Talk 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of redirects. I've been going through CAT:CSD (which is how I found you in the first place) and I keep running into your work. A redirect does not need to be deleted just because nothing links to it. They are also used for when people actually search for a term. If it's a pretty reasonable variant (like Historical capital of China redirecting to Historical capitals of China, then it's fine where it is.

Furthermore, since the moves you're making are obviously causing concern with at least one other editor, the right thing to do is to use Requested Moves and let the community come to an agreement on the right location. Kafziel ^Talk 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that redirects can be useful when they correspond to something someone might type in, and I have left some redirects alone that I felt qualified. I can certainly be more careful in that regard. I have moved probably twenty pages already and this is the first time someone complained. I am trying to bring some rationality to Chinese related article names, and it will slow me down immensely if I have to ask for permission for every move. --Ideogram 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to get our users to the information they need, and I'm glad you agree that someone typing "Chinese instruments" getting to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments is a good thing. I myself do a large amount of work on Chinese musical instrument articles, and often type "Chinese instruments" in the search box in order to get to the aforementioned article, to save keystrokes. Badagnani 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, we got off on the wrong foot and that was my fault, for which I apologize. I hope you realize that up until now I have indeed been fixing all redirects, even single ones, as you recommended. But I really don't want to fix all fifty of these unless I have to. --Ideogram 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of Requested Moves is kind of to slow things down. Wikipedia works on consensus; if you see that people disagree with what you're doing, you should slow down. What seems rational to you might seem irrational to someone else; let more people weigh in to see who is right. Don't worry: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Everything will be sorted out in due time. Kafziel ^Talk 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true enough, and I will keep it in mind. For what it's worth, I'm done with the subtask of fixing List-type articles so I probably won't be making more page moves soon. --Ideogram 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Miller time!
Good talk, guys. Thanks to both of you for bearing with me and keeping up the conversation. Looks like we've all come to a good understanding, and that's all anyone can ask. Some people would give you a cup of tea for that, but this argument deserves a beer. So sit back, relax, and have a cold one on me. Kafziel ^Talk 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guqin

The removal of guqin templates was not helpful, hence my revert there. Badagnani 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does that answer my point? Are you capable of distinguishing between edits that serve different purposes? --Ideogram 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't correct to remove the guqin template from the article. CharlieHuang, a guqin specialist who edits here and created most of the guqin articles, created it for a reason. Try to first introduce and acclimate yourself to some of the Chinese music articles, and we'll be very happy to have you, working together to build our Chinese music articles into the best they can be. Badagnani 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still aren't answering my point. You can replace the template without undoing all my other work. No one owns an article. --Ideogram 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And, equally, you could have made uncontroversial copyedits without removing a template that you knew other editors objected to your removing previously, in other guqin-related articles. Badagnani 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so because I didn't split up my edits you have the right to revert me entirely? What if I removed the template first and then made my copyedits so you couldn't revert the first without reverting both? And you were the first to object. Do you ever listen to yourself? --Ideogram 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true, because in this page I did go back and replace most of those other edits of yours. Badagnani 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only after I complained. Your first instinct was to revert me entirely, and you did this to me three times. If your only issue was the template, all you had to do was copy and paste one line back in. You clearly are prejudiced against all my edits. --Ideogram 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterisation

Regarding this edit, your statement: We can't really force them to discuss. Once you get them talking to you, we can mediate. If you can't do that, I will have to close this case really isn't a fair characterisation of the situation. I find your statement offensive, given that no one bothered to inform me of the "mediation attempt". Please strike your mischaracterisation of my actions. Guettarda 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when someone points out that your false accusations are offensive, your reaction is to move up to insults? That is your idea of civil behaviour? Again, I ask you to strike your offensive mischaracterisation of my actions...and maybe, just maybe, try communicating with other people without the insults. Guettarda 07:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in continuing this conversation. --Ideogram 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then simply strike your mischaracterisation. Is that really so hard? Guettarda 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not post here again. Any further posts by you here will be removed. --Ideogram 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in RfC

Sorry, I made a mistake regarding where to put RfC posts[1]. Apologies.--Shakujo 06:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia

Please see my Talk. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry: I've only just noticed your remark at the top of the page about watchlisting! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daya Bay

I'll try to research some more about the place and will try to write something soon. However, I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, so it might take some time (especially as I'll need to read some Chinese sources; I'm not quite certain at the moment where the border between Shenzhen and Huizhou is and whether the bay belongs to both of them). Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update to say that I haven't forgotten, just didn't get around to it yet. Might be another week or two. Thanks for your patience, Kusma (討論) 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China

Thanks for your kind words. I'm still not quite sure about how the page looks, but I'll try to do more than just worry about how the lines wrap around the screen and actually do some editing. Xiner (talk, email) 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of user pages

Per this comment, it would appear that you don't understand how the Wikipedia community is supposed to function. From Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space:

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community

You do not have the right to tell other editors that they cannot post to your talk page
You do not have the right to engage in personal attacks
You do not have the right to engage in this sort of incivility.

You are accountable to the community, not just to the arbcomm. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy and the community norms. Stop treating people with this sort of contempt. And please strike your comments from the mediation page. Guettarda 07:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, you can't just decide you won't allow people to post messages to you. You've been warned about being uncivil and you've been blocked numerous times for it. I'm really trying hard not to do any more of that, but deleting valid warnings like this from your talk page is only making the situation worse. I'd like to help, but you'll need to settle down before I can do that. You can't just go around doing what you please and telling others they can't talk to you. If you continue with that, you will be blocked again. Kafziel ^Talk 13:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Thanks for asking. I'm currently working on several different ways to improve Wikipedia as a community/ecology/set of processes, none of which require admin privileges (at least in the near future). And if I had admin privileges, I think I'd feel obliged to actually use them, which would take time that I think has a higher payoff elsewhere. So the answer is "not at the moment, thanks". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beijing UFO Research Organization

Hey there, Ideogram. I was asked by nima baghaei to have a look at this AfD; she's uncomfortable with your behavior there. For what it's worth, I think you're probably right with regard to the article's notability and the ill-informed "keep" voters. I can see why nima might be put off, however: you're being pretty abrasive. Why not step away from that AfD, and trust that the process will go the right way? I won't close that AfD myself, but if I were to do so I'd certainly discount the poorly-argued votes. Regards - A Train ^{take the} 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do that. --Ideogram 04:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW can you suggest to Nima that she doesn't have to respond individually to everything everyone says? It's very irritating. --Ideogram 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea at all; if I'm asking you to back off from the AfD, I suppose it's only fair to ask Nima to do the same thing. A Train ^{take the} 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I was also asked to help with the situation. I do agree with you on the article itself, but you could tone it down just a tad, we're all friends here.Gan fon 04:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I talk to my friends that way too. The difference is they know not to take me too seriously.

--Ideogram 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Behavior

Hi Ideogram,

How's it going man? I recently ran into you over at Talk:Evanescence, and I'm happy to report that the article passed GA nomination and is now a full-fledged good article. Cheers!

But anyway, my real reason for this visit. I just thought you should know that User:Nima_Baghaei has started a canvassing campaign, and the message that he's copy/pasting mentions you. He's hit around 15 talk pages (two of them were on my watchlist ; ), and is trying to rally support against you for something, it seems.

Anyway, just thought you should know. Good luck getting that mess sorted out. – Lantoka (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Link – Lantoka (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left her a note about this on her talk page. A Train ^{take the} 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't seem too happy about the note; she immediately archived her talk page after you left it. PT O 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to follow WP:BITE, but it didn't take me long to conclude she would be a problem. --Ideogram 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

wait - which revert are you talking about? I'm revert-crazy!!!! sorry if I did not explain my actions. I'll try to in the future. so why do you want me in the wikiproject china page? speaking of wikiproject china, I think I'll join it, cause I know a lot about Chinese military history...

to guess, I think you mean the level of importance dispute. the reason I did that was because I think Goguryo is an important aspect of history that plays a great part in both Chinese and Korean history, for it was Goguryo that economically strained Sui so much that It fell. wuthout sui's downfall, Tang would not have become a reality and Li Shih Min would not be known as one of the greatest emperors of China. Odst 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't seen a lot of reverts by you, but I was concerned by this and this. Obviously I think my edit was fine. I don't really care about this article, but if it had been "Anti-Chinese sentiment" you can bet we would have had a little talk.

We were discussing the level of importance dispute on the Wikiproject China page. You can still raise your points there if you wish.

I welcome you to Wikiproject China, even if you are a little revert-crazy. We can always use the help. --Ideogram 05:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons picture of the year 2006

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Ideogram. --Ideogram 08:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEN-l

Thanks for that. :) - Mark 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GR rules of thumb

Please see Talk:Gwoyeu Romatzyh‎. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanzang

Thanks for your advice - have posted the information as you suggested. Cheers, John Hill 06:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China diplomatic missions

I have reverted the title back to the original name for the sake of consistency. None of the other 88 diplomatic missions by country articles are called "List of .... diplomatic missions". It is also redundant to call each article "List of...".

Personally if I would have my way I would have a Chinese diplomatic missions and Taiwanese diplomatic missions, but boy do I want to avoid that hairy chestnut. Kransky 14:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mediation is still needed.

Thanks. Zeq 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3000

This is my three-thousandth edit this month. --Ideogram 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation War of the Pacific

I request that the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific remain active, particularly in light of recent editorial changes. Regards, User:Bdean1963 26 February 2007

I think it should remain open because if not that article will go back to being a battlefield and will have to be protected again. Both editors also seem willing to be willing to participate. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method mediation

Just so you know, User:Seeyou has re-opened the (rather pointless) mediation that you, quite rightly, closed. Could you close it again and perhaps warn Seeyou against such actions. Famousdog 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I noticed you've added this to a number of articles pertaining to the Tibet autonomous region. Regardless of the political or governmental status of Tibet, you should note that {{Tibet-geo-stub}} is a subcategory of {{China-geo-stub}} so adding the China stub is unnecessary - please don't put it on in the future. Thanks! Aelfthrytha 08:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GR feedback

User:Ravedave has made some useful comments on my Talk page. I'd appreciate your comments—in particular about:

the lead section
structure (bringing items of more general interest towards the top)

I've redone History & added a section called Words as units. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Gwoyeu Romatzyh for an update. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI/N case for Afshar experiment can be closed?

Hello Ideogram. You nominated this article as a case of conflict of interest on February 11. I see that the Talk page of the article is making some progress, with the help of someone acting as a mediator. Is it time for this to be closed as a COI? I wonder if you have thought of Wikipedia:Peer review as an option for bringing in some fresh eyes. It is good that there seem to be some regular non-single-purpose editors active on the article. Anyway, you could perhaps argue that neither Afshar nor Danko should edit due to COI (since you believe Danko has a COI as well), and you could go through some Dispute Resolution channels if they didn't cooperate. But the alternative is to go along the way it is. Feel free to post your opinion, either here or at the COI noticeboard. I think we'll probably close the issue unless you ask to keep it open. EdJohnston 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this case can be closed. --Ideogram 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subpage needed?

Hi, I've run into Talk:Programming language/merge twice while doing dab cleanups and I was wondering whether you felt it was necessary to keep around? John Vandenberg 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the main author, the easiest way to have it whisked away is if you add {{db-author}} to the top. John Vandenberg 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]