User talk:Henry Flower: Difference between revisions

For rants from yesteryear, see Archive1, Archive2, Archive3.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'll reply to everything on this page.

How dare you remove the links to the website of the King and government.

All other articles have links to the government!! If you do not like this, go and edit some other country article like Thailand or something.

You are mistaken. Country articles are generally extremely restrictive as to external links. Mark¹ 09:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be quiet, I am a human too, you are not above authority just because you have adminship.

Greetings Markalexander100, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Markalexander100, you are not in a position of authority. This is a wiki, everyone is equal. With that being said, you can not tell people to do something, or tell them to not do something. Even if it's with a please. I do not like people asking me to do something. You can make a person aware of a rule, you can't tell them not to break it.

With that being said I did not revert the page but exactly 3 times. Again, do not make any requests of me, ever, even if it is done politely. --MateoP 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a NPOV tag. That's a violation of policy. Until the matter is resolved you can not remove the tag. It is vandalism to remove tags while discussion is being taken place. Just because your opinion was that it was not a POV issue doesn't mean you can speak for me. I'm the one who had the issue.

Currently another user and I are resolving the issue (it is all but resolved, actually). --MateoP 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark, you removed a POV notice from the article Iowa class battleship and it is usually best not to - those notices are supposed to be left there as they enter the article in question into a category of articles that are supposed to be checked by an outside party for comment. In effect, they are a form of dispute resolution. Please avoid removing them if someone else objects. Thanks. Izehar 23:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on Mateo's talk page. A cite sources template might be appropriate, but not an NPOV one. Mark¹ 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mark,

Thanks for asking me to stop vandalising wikipedia by using a please and a thank you. I have not vandalised since and have actually created a few useful pages as well as heavily contributing to other pages.

Happy to be of service! Mark¹ 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of {{musicpromo-screenshot}} for Image:Banyenrakgan.jpg, didn't actually look at the page after saving, tsk tsk. Stan 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you protect the page "graffiti" as I know the vandals that have been vandalizing on it and they are using it all at once. If you could protect it until Monday it would be much appricated. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SWD316 ^{talk to me} 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected. Semi protection is not meant for an article being hit 3-4 times a day or less. Some days I see 0 edits. It's easier to just block the vandals, which is what Mark did. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes seem to have abated. (Although there are a fair few that have not been reverted). I will have a look later - I'm at work at the moment. Rich Farmbrough. 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these "baron" pages have redirects pointing to them. Every time they are moved, or moved back, or re-re-re-moved back, this creates double-redirects. The person moving the page should have the courtesy to check for and fix them. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey10 certainly hasn't been changing any of these. Is it safe to assume that if they're moved back, then there are no new problems with redirects? Mark¹ 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, who else contribute to make up the Lao Loum since that is what was meant by the 68 % figure on that page? and by the way, you think Aberdeen is the second worst city in Scotland ?, "Aberdeen rules man!" (Homer Simpson, episode where they get the Loch Ness monster) LOL Epf 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I haven't seen that episode. Fame! There are lots of little ethnic groups among the Lao loum, but the main ones (other than the Lao themselves) are the black, white and red Tai, who are all somewhat more "primitive" than the Lao. Mark¹ 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Mark. I was wondering if you could, yet again, help with a vandal situation. 195.194.79.4 continues to vandalize despite his many warnings. He has been bloked twice but has returned to edit again. I believe you blocked him once, so can you help? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you warned and then blocked user 151.188.16.56 for vandalism a few weeks ago. This user has just vandalized the Battle of Normandy page. I will revert but can you please take admin action again? Thank you. DMorpheus 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it. It may well be a different person, so I won't block it for now. Mark^{your words} 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please see the image of Shostakovich portrait by Salahov for the new tag. I hope it would be more appropriate now. If it still violates Wikipedia rules I suggest we delete it. Regards, Grandmaster 07:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I like the picture, since a lot of his works pre-date 1973 (and are therefore PD), there doesn't seem to be any fair use justification for using this one rather than an earlier one. One of the fair use criteria is that PD equivalents should not be easily obtainable. Mark¹ 09:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have no problem with removing it and replacing with something else. I just noticed that many articles about artists in Wikipedia have low resolution images of their paintings, which are tagged like "art". That’s why I did the same. But again it’s not a problem to replace the current image with one of his pre 1973 works. I’ll do it this week, if you don’t mind. Regards, Grandmaster 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I replaced the image Shostakovichportrait.jpg with another one. Could you please delete this file, as it appears to be locked for editing. Thank you. Regards, Grandmaster 12:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough that I'm wary of making mistakes in weary states. :) Vassyana 08:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link (and three paragraphs into it) and a comment made by User:Bishonen states very clearly that a block placed on User:Hollow Wilerding expired at 20:00 Jan 15/06 UTC. The block had not been extended upon. I am allowed to make my case now, so please do not block again. I understand that you most likely blocked me based on the previous text, but now that you know, I ask you to refrain from blocking until the next part of the procedure occurs. Thanks. 64.231.162.68 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was never aware of Jan. 17/06. I had always been aware of Jan. 16/06, especially with the evidence provided in the discussion at WP:AN/I. Perhaps you're referring to a different user? 64.231.162.68 21:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Mark¹ 21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say I was blocked on January 3/06? 64.231.162.68 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03:26, 3 January 2006 Bishonen blocked "User:Hollow Wilerding" with an expiry time of 2 weeks. Mark¹ 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The most I see is 20:26, 2 January 2006 Bishonen blocked "User:Hollow Wilerding" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Block evasion as noted on WP:ANI). I am not joking when I say this. 64.231.162.68 21:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're not joking, we're just working in different time zones. The block log, I think, displays times in each user's local time zone. In GMT, it's now 21:30 on the 15th. You have just under 24 hours to go until the block expires. Mark¹ 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish for me to refrain from editing until then? 64.231.162.68 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. Mark¹ 21:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not catch your message in time before I posted on WP:AN/I, so I apologize. I will refrain from editing from now. However, could I ask why, since my block has technically expired? 64.231.170.254 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By my maths, your initial block still has almost 24 hours left to run (until 20:36 on 16 January UTC). In any case, you have now been blocked for a further week, so the point is moot. Mark¹ 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have... what? By whom? Under what circumstances? 64.231.170.254 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Mark¹ 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. He has obviously not been following the conversation at WP:AN/I. Whatever the case, this block runs out tomorrow evening or something, correct? Am I allowed to return to edit anonymously at WP:AN/I once this time has passed? 64.231.170.254 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once the extra week has passed? Yes, unless you are re-blocked. Mark¹ 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean tomorrow, because no one told me about this "extra" block. In any case, all of these blocks are unacceptable as none of these administrators possess any accurate, solid resources that we are one person. Is there a way I can reverse this and open a true RfC against the users? Following the edit I am making, I will be responding once to your reply, then leaving for the evening. 64.231.170.254 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block applies whether you've been told about it or not. (Anyway, I've told you now). Mark¹ 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I understand. However, you did not answer the second bit of my question. Please answer it. Once you tell me, I'm going for the evening. 64.231.170.254 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask any administrator to review the block (but I'm not advising you to do so- I'm advising you to go away for a week). Mark¹ 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy, and I wooooonder why...' Yeah, right.

You know, if I filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia, all that my brother, roomate and myself would have to do is show up at court and we'd win the case. Well... whatever. I'll return over the course of the week to view the case as it proceeds. I will not edit. That's a promise. Goodnight. 64.231.170.254 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was just wondering why you deleted the extra info I put onto the page about the [demitasse]? Could you explain it to me.
Regards,
--Wessel01 08:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demitasse article is there to explain what a demitasse is; it's not there to tell us about specific brands of cup. The part I removed was really just an advert for two of these brands. Mark¹ 10:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Markalexander,

The sound clips in Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) are very nice. But are you sure they are legal?

Note that if you ever get as far as the Mozart bit, the Fulda orchestra has recorded that one, too; see Symphony No. 40 (Mozart).

Yours truly,
Opus33 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure they're legal. The licence says that you can modify the music as long as you don't modify the author attribution. I'm afraid I have an allergy to Mozart, but I might be able to overcome it for long enough to slice a chunk off. Mark¹ 21:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark -O33

I see you have opened a new front in your eccentric interpretation of Thai-Lao history. Whatever you may think about the validity of Siam's claim to what is now Laos before 1893, it is indisputable that 1893 was the year in which a formal international frontier was established along the Mekong, separating the Lao in what is now Laos from the Lao in what is now Thailand. That is therefore the date at which the divergence of "official" Lao and Isan Lao (or whatever we want to call the language now spoken in Isan) began. Adam 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ludicrous over-simplification. Thai influence over the Lao, political or linguistic, did not begin with the establishment of an international border. The distinction between Lao and Isan did not begin with the establishment of an international border (any more than the distinction between American and British English began with the declaration of independence). Mark¹ 12:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the text to the History section and made some changes. Kindly reply to my comments on MY talkpage as Wikipedia protocol requires. The position you put (above) is completely self-contradictory. You want to argue simultaneously that Isan and Lao did not diverge because of the separation of the two regions, and that they did diverge, just not because of that. Adam 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't split discussions. The Isan dialects had diverged from the Laos dialects before 1893. They continued to diverge after 1893. Mark¹ 12:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isan is not the Thai version of Laos. Isan is a dialect of Thai, with many influences from Laos. The other side of the river was actually the property of Siam, untill the french came, which made Thailand given part of its land to protect its independence. So, both influence each other in some way, but Isan is definitely not Thai Lao, Isan is Thai, with influence from Laos. Actually, both influence each other. So, Mark is mostly correct here, except that the mekong river has made the two regions diverged greatly.

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

No problem by me. (But the rules are, really, that your asking me is unnecessary - my only relation to the article is that I started it. I don't own it- but I do appreciate your asking, yes!) Schissel-nonLop! 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. --TimPope 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Mark¹ 01:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark. I felt an apology, and thanks for your clarification and support, were in order. I am sorry I misrepresented your views - I obviously read more into your objection than there was! I was beginning to think the Messiaen article was on the wrong lines altogether… particularly since I recognise your experience, your admirable contributions to Wikipedia, and your hard work on the Shostakovich featured article in particular. Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was my fault- my wording was unclear. Mark¹ 15:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent two weeks there I can assure you they do call it Lao in English, whatever the official usage might be. Adam 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. Mark¹ 14:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a new article you just created you have: "Jintara Poonlarp 7 is a luk thung and mor lam album by the Thai singer Jintara Poonlarp." Is there a reason luk thung is italics but mor lam isn't. I don't recognize either word. Rmhermen 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No very good reason- just a cock-up. I haven't quite decided whether to italicise neither or both, but I'll clear it up once I've worked it out. Thanks for pointing that out! Mark¹ 20:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Clarification_of_styles. Thanks Arniep 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be the house expert on this part of the world, perhaps you should read my forthcoming replacement for History of Laos (here and here) before I finish and install it, rather than have an edit-war afterwards. Note that this draft is currently in my namespace and thus not open to editing, but I would welcome your comments (at my Talk page, please, as is Wikipedia protocol). Adam 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take you an an expert on protocol. I'll be happy to read and edit your opus once you think it's good enough to contribute; you might however want to excise any nationalist mythologising or uncited judgments. Mark¹ 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I noticed a comma missing on your user page and have ventured to correct it. I hope you would not mind, for the name's sake. Ho ho ho, MarkBeer 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing! Thanks, Mark^{your words} 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any pet can use a it, so it doesn't belong at cat flap. Please don't be stupid and move it to cat flap when any pet can use the door. Robin Williams 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I can see why you might think the inclusion of Positive Internet as the host to the recent world record podcast might be spam, however I would argue that we have no less entitlement to be mentioned (and probably more in fact) than the Guardian Unlimited. Positive was responsible for ensuring the podcast made it into the record books in the first place. Perhaps if I re-add it next to the Guardian link and with a link to our wikipedia page Positive Internet this may be more acceptable to you?

No, I'm afraid it wouldn't. The host of the podcast is of no conceivable interest to people reading the Rick Gervais article. Mark^{your words} 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our school was blocked from wikipedia because someone was adding nonsense. We couldn't use wiki because it said that you had blocked us.

Hi, what would you like me to do? Since you're posting here, you presumably aren't blocked now? Mark^{your words} 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Vanity Fair’s 50 greatest films of all time, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! Mark^{your words} 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello! obviously we do not have the same definition for "copyright violation" and i do not get why yours would be correcter than mine!!! the points are: (1) i did not take anything from the article (9 full pages, with comments for every movie) but the movie list (which would take, like, 1/2 page)! and (2) the little statistics below are mine (even if i needed like 2 minutes to compute them)! so it was a rewrite! thanks in advance to take the copyvio flag back Kernitou 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a fairly clear copyvio to me. They put the list together, and it's a bit cheeky for us to reproduce it having done none of the work. The fact that you've added 2 minutes of your own work is neither here nor there. Mark^{your words} 23:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

In the latest vote on Talk:Cat flap, you added a 'sock' tag [3] to the vote by User:Police officer. Last night anon User:64.194.44.220 removed the notice, which I reverted. However on looking at the various user contributions more carefully, I can see that User:Police officer and User:Robin Williams both look rather like socks, but perhaps not of each other. They don't seem to overlap much on any other subjects or styles of comment. On the other hand User:Robin Williams does appear to be associated with User:64.194.44.220, who had edited Cat flap a while back and also The Sun where there has been a similar page move problem. -- Solipsist 09:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did submit a Checkuser request, but Police officer was banned for vandalism before it could be done. ;) I was influenced particularly by this and this edit summary; interestingly their paths first crossed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody's barbecue, which Robin created and Police put up for VfD. I suppose it could be two socks stalking each other (a lovely thought!), but it looks very much like trolling to me. Mark^{your words} 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I didn't notice that one. In which case I concur and it is like likely that User:64.194.44.220 is the IP behind both of them. -- Solipsist 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One is a request for help in translating the German word "geliebkost"...any idea?

And the second I thought I'd bring up because I noticed the little NPOV tag dispute thingy further up, and although I'm not quite clear on exactly what went on or what each party's position was, it appears that you have some knowledge as to proper conduct regarding use of the NPOV tag. So, if I notice some things in an article that cause me POV concerns, and I go to the talk page to comment and see that someone else has already commented on it, and so leave my comment then add the NPOV tag to the article...is it ok for one of the article's "watchdogs" to delete the NPOV tag just because they disagree that there is a POV issue? Without discussing it...just saying "I don't agree" then removing the tag? Thanks for your help bcatt 13:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Geliebkost' is I think the past tense of 'liebkosen'- meaning cuddle, or caress. I'm intrigued as to where this came up! On the NPOV tag, one shouldn't remove the tag just because one thinks the article is neutral, but it may be that the watchdog thought that it wasn't a valid use of the tag (i.e. that there wasn't a real, ongoing debate). I can't really judge without seeing the article though. Mark^{your words} 13:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...that makes perfect sense. I am working on an article on Hedwig Dohm, the only sources I can find are German, and I thought it pertinent to include her experiences with her parents...apparently her father did not cuddle or "caress" her...fits perfectly into the context of the rest of the sentence. The article in question is Joseph Smith, Jr., which, I am sorry to say has turned me quite sour due to the authoritarian attitudes held by those who "watch over" it. Please note, I am not trying to drag you into a sordid debate, I just wanted to find out if they can repeatedly remove the tag even though I've given valid reasons for putting it there. Thanks again. bcatt 13:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any objections to me requesting translation for German words here and there when I can't figure them out by their context? bcatt 17:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd be happy to help. :) Mark^{your words} 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. I was planning to go to the German-English translation requests page, but then I discovered it was for translating articles directly from German wiki to English wiki :P. bcatt 17:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Me again! How about: Benachteilung, and heirathsfaehige Maedlchen? Thanks! bcatt 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantaging or discrimination; and a marriageable young woman. Mark^{your words} 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! bcatt 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...I can't make these letters out well enough to put it into the translator, I'm hoping that you might be able to figure it out since you are familiar with the language. I'm sorry it's so small, probably best to save it so you can zoom in a bit. It's really low res though, so not sure if you'll be able to make it out either. Crossing my fingers! File:Temp.JPG Thanks. bcatt 08:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry...also wondering if Sigenschaften is a name. Thanks :)[reply]

I think that's 'zwei Abhandlungen'- 'two essays'. Sigenschaften isn't a name, it means 'characteristics'. :) Mark^{your words} 11:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

awesome...thanks bcatt 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :). Does: "feuilletons" = "comedies"? Thanks! bcatt 03:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, feuilletons are tricky. In modern German, feuilleton means any feature article in a newspaper, but originally (late 19th and early 20th centuries, I think) it was a kind of facetious newspaper article, often in instalments. Mark^{your words} 10:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my...is there any close English word for that? Would "critical (or satirical) newspaper column" be accurate? Thanks bcatt 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satirical would be closer than critical, although it still implies a seriousness of purpose that wasn't usually there. Maybe just 'humorous' column? Mark^{your words} 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out the context for that...I'm going to look up some English references at the library, so hopefully I'll be able to find something that describes what kind of columns they were. It doesn't seem that she really wrote anything without some kind of purpose, so that's why I am confused about it. I have another question though, if I were to create a link to an article describing a book, would the name of the article on the book be in it's original language (just the title, not the article itself), or as translated to English? Thanks. bcatt 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'd use the English translation, but it would also be wise to create a redirect from the original language title (and from any likely variant English translations). Mark^{your words} 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) bcatt 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi....

Our band has recorded our first single....and i am going around asking everyones opinion on it... i would really appreciate it if you can download the song and give us your opinion on it.... If you are too busy to do it please tell your friends or anyone else who could give their opinion on it.... Heres the link to download it..

[[4]]

Thanks a lot.....

Jayant, 17 Years, India|^(Talk) 16:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, Field Marshal Plaek Pibulsonggram's first name is Plaek, his surname Pibulsonggram. Phibun in Thai in no way correctly refers to him. However, Pibulsonggram would be more proper to refer to him than Plaek, since historically he prefered to call himself P. Pibulsonggram (ป. พิบูลสงคราม) and signed official documents as such. --Paul C 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His usual name in English is Phibun. What he's called in Thai is irrelevant. Mark^{your words} 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant? The english word for it is from the Thai name. Besides, we do not change the pronunciation of a name no matter it is Thai or english. The person is correct, it's Pibul instead of Phibun. Your sources must have translated incorrectly.

Which question was the troll question and why did it feel trollsome? --Shultz 13:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one, for obvious reasons. Mark^{your words} 13:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that says "Kim Il-sung City"! "Si" means a lot of things, but "City" in this context. Trolling is when an Internet user tries to hurt another's feelings (isn't it?) How would that Ref Desk entry hurt anyone and why? --Shultz 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Mark^{your words} 14:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looked through this article. Why do you think that RD entry is made (or meant) to irritate other users? (That wasn't the intention, however.) --Shultz 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a redirect and then asking what the redirect means is trolling. Mark^{your words} 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop you a line that he just announced in today news see news from CNN--Manop - TH 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark - you say or imply that the People's Republic of China objects to the Tibetan flag because it is a symbol of independence. When I keep adding the point that the flag is also a religious symbol, a further reason for the Chinese Communist objection, you keep 'correcting' my addition. What's your problem? Tibetan atheist separatist? Adherent to 'politically correct' half-truths?

What evidence do you have that the Chinese ban it because it's religious? Mark^{your words} 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist parties and the communist movement in general have a history, rightly or wrongly, of seeking to undo what is often seen as the stifling grip of traditional religious practice - not totally without the support of religious comrades. In China, additionally, religion was targeted by the modernising, iconoclastic nationalist leader, Sun Yat Sen. This makes the traditional religious symbolism in both the Taiwanese and Tibetan separatist flags a clear issue.

Yes, but you haven't answered the question. What evidence do you have that the Chinese ban the flag because it's religious? You need to show a causal connection between dislike of religion and banning the flag. Mark^{your words} 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in any real doubt in the matter, why don't you ask them? Etaonsh 10:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I see the point, it is more appropriate to only include a short sentence in the Tibet article and to expand on it in the History of Tibet article, is it neccesary to include a reference link to the other article, or will readers know that is implied since this section in the Tibet article is a summary? Just trying to improve this history section, some things are trying to remain that are not historical and historical things are being removed completely rather than being edited to improve the article. My academic acumen may not be as appropo hear on Wiki as it is in the peer reviewed citation system. The entry has been reduced to a breif summary statement to address your editorial input. Dorjegonpo 15:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a reference to the History of Tibet article at the start of the section, so people who want to know more should know to go there. By all means continue adding more info, but it should go in the history article rather than in the main Tibet article. Mark^{your words} 16:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding this article! I have taken the liberty to list in on the announcement section of the Germany portal page. If you don't want the article listed there, please remove it, and I will not list your articles there again. If you like having your new articles listed there, please add them yourself! While I'm here and advertising: If you need translation help or need to contact a German-speaking Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia, a good place to try is the talk page of the German-speaking noticeboard. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Since I've acquired some ecclesiastical architectural German, I may have a go at some of those other cathedrals. Mark^{your words} 19:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! If you are good at these: would you mind doing a quick check of Elisabeth Church (Marburg)? The translation of the "architecture" section was a bit over my head, and I would appreciate having it looked at by an expert. Kusma (討論) 20:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction! Is it always just "nave" for "Mittelschiff" and "aisle" for "Seitenschiff" or are there exceptions where churches have more than one nave? Kusma (討論) 10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the nave is only the Mittelschiff, and the Seitenshiff are always aisles. Mark^{your words} 12:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i wonder if you could comment on the debate at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 about a new template to be slapped on the *main article page* when an article is deemed "good". it would be directly equivalent to the featured article star on an article mainpage, and suddenly appeared, without prior discussion, on hundreds of articles marked as "good articles".

note the GA process is not currently policy, and was formerly restricted to talk pages only, putting an icon on the main article page itself is the new development). would you consider "good article" differently from "featured article" in this case, and allow the narcisisstic meta-data on the main ARTICLE page? Zzzzz 10:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "star" for the good article icon and it is not directly equivalent to the featured article icon! The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Lübeck Cathedral, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, I only was away for several hours, but it is ok now. I would judge this as simple vandalism, and as such the 3RR rule does not apply, or am I worng on that? --KimvdLinde 04:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's probably on the borderline, so I thought better safe than sorry. :) Mark^{your words} 10:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Settit is making a lot of reverts and blankings. Do you think you could help me deal with the situation so that I don't have to go over the 3RR? (some of the talk page stuff isn't explicitly vandalism, but it's messing with the format a little - just the removing comments are explicitly vandalism).

Yom 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I think you are good with the Chinese history so could you possibly look to confirm/modify/elaborate/etc on the topics of Pirooz and Narsieh? They were son & grandson of Yazdgerd III the last king of the Sassanid empire. It is generally believed that they moved to China (in the Xinjiang region) with the much of the monarch family after the Arab conquest of Persia.

Sorry if I am contacting the wrong person, please do tell me if you know anyone or anywhere else I could get help with this.

Thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markalexander100,

Thanks for your work on the Rockbox article. I have a few thoughts:

a) I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe users can assert copyright on screenshots (see Wikipedia image copyright tags). The copyrights are assumed to belong to the software authors and therefore must be tagged as fair use. Therefore the GFDL tag on Image:Mintytheme.png is probably invalid and should be changed to fair use.

b) I don't have any strong preference on where the screenshots go, but I think placing them down in the Supported Devices list breaks the flow is not aesthetically pleasing. I hoped a separate screenshot section would 'derandomize' the screenshots enough but I'm open to other ideas. Having a separate section would also allow more screenshots of each device.

Thanks, --Bk0 (Talk) 23:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a), Rockbox is released under the GPL; according to this, the output of the program is not covered by the licence and so is as free as the input (in this case, the theme and possibly the ID3 tag content). On b), I don't quite see what flow is being broken. Unless the shots are in the sections for the relevant port, they aren't really illustrating the content at all. Henry^Flower 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a little further digging, you're correct about the screenshots (the tag {{free screenshot}} should be used). I'll change the copyright info on my screenshots. I'm not sure that I understand your point regarding b). --Bk0 (Talk) 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a shot of the iPod version does a good job of illustrating the iPod version, so it makes sense to put it in the section that deals with that version. And similarly for the other versions. If we put all the screenshots in one gallery, then we just have a collection of pretty pictures. Henry^Flower 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ You reverted a comment at Talk:Dalai Lama.
_ _ I restored the content of that edit, commenting on that talk page as i did so:

[Editors who remove non-vandalistic talk, e.g, the following, w/o explanation, are candidates for being blocked, regardless of the merits of the deleted material.
--Jerzy•t 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]

_ _ You responded (on my talk):

== Spam ==

Hi, you may like to check Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Spam is vandalism.
Henry^Flower 11:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ I responded in turn (without delaying to consult that page):

Thank you for the valuable & relevant clarification of your intention. Perhaps that was spam, but it's well enuf disguised that the proper response of those who think it to be such would be to leave the URL intact but suppress it from lk-hood; i would raise not objection to such an edit. (Even when nominating an article for deletion as spam, that is all i would do to suppress the link-spam -- even tho i would rv a spammy edit on a legitimate main-namespace page. But talk pages must be much more permissively handled than main namepace.)
--Jerzy•t 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ You responded:

Well, if you want to wade through a hundred spam edits and weed out the spam part, more power to you. I'm not that fluffy.
Henry^Flower 12:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While being implicitly accused of "fluff[iness]" is a nice change from more usual abuse, it's still abusive. And by the same token, your dismissal of assuming good intent and not biting the newcomers as fluffiness is a flippant and shabby denial of your obligations.
  

More to the point, nothing requires you to revert even indisputable spam, so if you want to skip the burden of doing it right, more power to you if you don't do it at all. But WP policies do preclude your reverting talk msgs without clearer warrant than the justification you cited.
--Jerzy•t 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Now that i've read the page you recommended, i further respond to your earlier msg:

• The page you cite should have alerted you to look further,

1. by its explicating vandalism in the first sentence in terms of

   ...a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia

   bcz the quality of WP is measured by the content of the mainspace, not of talk pages, and

2. by its repeated mention of articles, and failure to mention any other page types.

Looking further at types of vandalism in the section you cited, you would have found first a separate definition of "Talk page vandalism" about 3/4 of the way down the section, where spam goes unmentioned but your behavior is described, at least prima facie, as vandalism.

You should have gone on to look at the definition of spam and the further commentary, where 6 points explicitly, or clearly even though implicitly, describe spam in articles, and the 7th (which clearly implies non-main-namespace pages) is excruciatingly narrow, and inapplicable to this situation. IMO no reasonable editor who did so could suggest there is any established policy or guideline labeling even the clearest spam on talk pages as vandalism.
--Jerzy•t 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks; i deal with these only when they stick themselves under my nose; i've plenty to do, and i don't do bots, which IMO are called for, for reasons you cite. Tnx.
--Jerzy•t 14:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the requests to place links in articles? We don't allow link-spamming to articles, but we specifically advise people to place the links on Talk pages, so that other editors can decide whether or not to add them.

The user in question would have had my full sympathy, if he hadn't lost it by using a mock-puppet to evade the block. I don't agree with the original block, but that's now moot. I've blocked the IP address he was using. I've also raised the issue at WP:AN/I to see what other admins think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because spam on talk pages is just as effective as spam on article pages, and once other edits are made on top of those edits it's a hell of a job to weed them out. Placing a link on the talk page for discussion works fine for one proposed link, but not for tens of links each on a different page. Henry^Flower 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense.

1. External lks on talk pages find far less exposure than on talk pages. In the instance we were both involved in, the talk page is Alexa Google Page-ranked 5 out of 10, and the article 6 out of 10. That surely does not make the article 20% busier, but (since the ratings would be unworkable with a linear rather than logarithmic scale), most likely around 5 to 20 times busier. (Taking other examples, hmmm -- Molly Ringwald, Martin Sheen, & John F. Kennedy are 0s out of 10 and no help for this.) Drawing from yr reversions of IP 59..., Adam Smith is a 5 & Talk:Adam Smith a 4, similarly to the lama. Francis Bacon is 6 vs. Talk:Francis Bacon 4, and Aristotle 7 vs. Talk:Aristotle 5 -- each at least 5 to 20 times higher for the article, and conceivably as much as 125 to 8000 times).
2. If your idea of hell is weeding out edits on a talkpage, i number you in the I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell school. What do you consider an easy task?

But thank you for showing the integrity to correct "hundreds" into "tens".
--Jerzy•t 03:18 & 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert any spam from that User:Jameswatt and Mel reverts it back post it on the Incident post here[5] this way we have a clear cut action against him for allowing spam and him violating the policy about spam. --Scott Grayban 17:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You just edited out the Category:Firearm deaths from the Iris Chang Article. I had added both Categories 'Firearm deaths' and 'Firarm suicides' to it. I'm still learning here. If I add just the Firearm Suicide Category to an Article, is there a way I can call up all deaths by firearms in one master list?

Learning,

Michael David 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get them all in one list, no. But if you go to Category:Firearm suicides, you'll find that it is itself in the category Category:Firearm deaths. Henry^Flower 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry,

As I read it, 'Firearm Deaths' is not the parent category of 'Firearm Suicides'.

Rather, 'Suicides by Methods' is its Parent. 'Firearm Deaths' has only one subcategory: 'Dueling Fatalities'. What gives?

Regards,

23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Firearm suicides has two parent cats- you can see them both at the bottom of Category: Firearm suicides. The problem with Category: Firearm deaths is that it's too big, so it doesn't all fit on one page. But if you click on "(next 200)" at the top of the category, it will take you to the next page, and Firearm suicides is one of the categories there (along with Spree shootings and People shot dead by police). Henry^Flower 09:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry,

I really do not mean to dwell too heavily on this issue, but I am a huge advocate of convenience in research. I do a lot of it in my work – both in preparation for my writings – as well as in preparation for encountering a new client.

If what you say regarding the categorization system is true, I cannot call up a complete list all deaths that occurred by firearm. Instead, I must work with many individual lists and collate them myself.

For example, Iris Chang was included in both lists when both categories were listed in her article. However, once the Category Firearm Deaths was removed she appears only in one list. But the fact remains she was a Firearm Death.

This seems a great limitation of Wikipedia. Why cannot the Parent Category of Firearm Deaths contain all of the information that is included in its subcategories? If I wanted a list of all cancer deaths in Wikipedia would I have to call up each individual list by type of cancer? If this is so, perhaps some rethinking of the mechanics of Wiki is in order.

Thank you for your patience

Michael David 10:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd happily kill the category system altogether, but that would make things even worse for you. ;) The reason for the system is that it keeps categories relatively small, presumably on the assumption that most people prefer it that way. It also keeps down the number of categories which each article is in, which makes it easier for readers to browse them on the article page. Henry^Flower 14:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLease stop making personal comments on the administrator noticeboard. (refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jiang Thank you--Freestyle.king 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This administrator is on a roll. Etaonsh 07:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLASC. Henry^Flower 14:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An uncharacteristic note of accession, there. Etaonsh 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLASC (whatever it is suppose to mean) is NOT an appropriate response. PLease treat others with respect--Freestyle.king 22:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(TIMA,WM). Henry^Flower 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is TIMA,WM suppose to mean? Learn how to spell and treat others with respect.--Freestyle.king

Miyagi say, respect is two-way street, Daniel-san. Henry^Flower 09:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to say but you're the one who personally attacked me on the admin noticeboard in the first place..--Freestyle.king

You reverted an edit to the Mars article recently with an edit summary of "horribly written, .. ". true as this may be, it seems clear that the anon user who wrote this is new to wikipedia, and doesn't strike me as a vandal, so it's best to consider the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers guideline here and not be so harsh. all the best, Mlm42 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh would have been rollback. I don't really know a nice way of saying 'you can't write'. Having said that, if I'd known it was a newbie I might have been kinder; having said that, I doubt that anyone who writes so carelessly is going to hang around to see what I think of his work anyway.Henry^Flower 18:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits without giving any explanation. I understand and respect your desire to help wikipedia, but what's the purpose of keeping the biased information? That's sounds more like a vandalism from your side, with the result that pages show the wrong information 90% of the time because of such efforts. I would really appreciate if you help maintain the NPOV information on the article.

(There has been lots of discussions regarding this subject already, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Korean%29#Sea_of_Japan_.28East_Sea.29)

Thanks a lot. --Optimus2005 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed an established consensus, and if you continue to ignore it you are likely to be blocked. Henry^Flower 14:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are sounding like you own wikipedia. The threat of blocking is not a substitute for a discussion. One doesn't have to read a discussion to understand that East Sea is a more neutral name. Why maintain biased information? --Optimus2005 14:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is a corollary to discussion. You know the results of the discussion. If you wish to reopen the discussion then you can, but don't edit against the consensus unless and until the consensus is changed. Henry^Flower 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, starting a discussion with a threat of blocking is obviously not helpful. It's hypocritical to state the Sea of Japan is not NPOV. Because it does include the name of a particular country and for all other factors mentioned earlier. --Optimus2005 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A warning, not a threat. And I have no intention of participating in any discussion. I don't care whether we call it the Sea of Japan, the East Sea, or King Henry's Bundle of Fun. All I'm doing is maintaining the consensus already reached. Henry^Flower 14:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warning implies a threat in that context. I do respect what you are doing, it's been a great help to wikipedia. On the other hand, collecting an unbiased information should be more important than just 'doing a job'. Please help by not reverting the hard work of others. --Optimus2005 14:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes don't seem to have required a tremendous amount of effort. Your efforts, in any case, could be put to better use. Henry^Flower 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing research, looking up the references, being aware of the issue is a hard job. It's not the same as using a keyboard to type in results inside a web browser, if that's what you mean by 'hard job' --Optimus2005 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that hard work will serve you well in the future, regardless of whether I revert your changes here. As I say: there is a consensus. You are free to try to change it, but you are not free to ignore it. Henry^Flower 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of edits regarding the issue you will see that there's NO an 'accepted' a consensus here. There are some attempts to correct the information reverted by those who think they reached a consensus by blocking those who doesn't think so :-( Isn't it hypocrytical? --Optimus2005 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_.28East_Sea.29. Henry^Flower 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That 'voting', unadvertised, taken during a short snapshot of time cannot be statistically representative. 12 participants, you are kidding. Let me reiterate, both names are correct: East Sea and Sea of Japan. But the former is NPOV and should be used here. --Optimus2005 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, and for the last time, you're welcome to try to change the consensus. Henry^Flower 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a wiki user I contribute by reporting an NPOV information. The 'consensus' reached by 12 people is a joke. The history of page is just a confirmation to that fact. I woudld appreciate if you understand this. --Optimus2005 15:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]