User talk:Nat/Archives 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Associated Gospel Churches logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Associated Gospel Churches logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Jerry has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I think LionheartX knows that there are conventions, he even modified them twice w/o discussing or leaving a note on the talkpage first. Check out his edits on Taipei 101, it's kinda annoying.--Jerry 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: AIV

Hi. Thanks for the note. If legal threats are posted, the user can certainly be blocked but, as far as I could see, they aren't. I may have missed something in the contributions, so could you please let me know exactly which statement(s) you are concerned about? Cheers TigerShark 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't personally see any statements that indicate an intention to take any legal action, so I believe it is OK and would suggest just leaving it. Cheers TigerShark 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Black Metal

I fully welcome you to observe the situation with 86.149.59.252 on the black metal page. Other users and I have tried to avoid his nonsensical blanking of sections and cause for redundancy. The timeline speaks for itself; this is a new comer I have tried to welcome and explain things to, but he proved to be (unfortunately) immature and unwilling to learn. I apologize for the constant reverts but it was necessary until I was able to contact an admin. Thanks. Logical Defense 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive talk page

Thank you for keeping on top of this. As it is a talk archive about a vandal, I prefer to keep it archived and untouched. Please let me know if there's any further required involvement. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

你好，關於中華民國條目的格言

你好，個人認為，三民主義應該是一種思想而不是格言。目前中華民國政府似乎沒有提出國家格言，所以希望能提供該格言為國家格言的出處。--討論出處122.126.51.51 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I think he's kinda right. 三民主義 is the motto of KMT, but I don't think it's the motto of the ROC.--Jerry 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I personally think that, The "Three Principles of the People" is a thought and not a motto. Right now the ROC have never declare its motto, so [I] hope [you] can provide a source which says that [Three Principles of the People] is the National motto.

I not a good translator, but I think that's close.--Jerry 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now the KMT isn't ruling Taiwan anymore. :P--Jerry 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Ma's popularity has decreased by a lot since he was indicted (He should not have participated in the Anti-Chen Campaign). Hsieh, on the other hand, is becoming more and more popular because of his rationality and ability to solve problems. Well, I hope Hsieh wins. :D--Jerry 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a viewpoint that the 2008 election is the election between the President of Taiwan (Hsieh) and the Chief Executive of Taiwan (Ma). I don't know if you know this.--Jerry 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that Ma, if elected, is likely to collaborate with China, with the hope to become a chief executive (which is the highest executive in Hong Kong now) of Taiwan, that may not be true, but it is extremely likely for KMT to collaborate with China to reach the goal of ruling Taiwan again. Hsieh is a TI supporter, he is likely to declare Taiwan's independence in his term of office if elected.--Jerry 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So I think any Taiwanese (that has the ability to think) would vote for Hsieh if they want liberty and democracy.--Jerry 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Nat.tang! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 07:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Toronto maple leafs baseball.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Toronto maple leafs baseball.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. --wpktsfs 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My grandmother's family is from Quebec, and naturally, I'm proud! Thank you for the correction, I love improving my French. --wpktsfs 03:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping me get started!Mooncrest 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: TingMing

Just wait for about a month, I think he'll be back w/ a new sock, although I don't miss him at all.--Jerry 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is more than just fighting the vandals. You can get involved in a WikiProject or something.--Jerry 10:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Back

Is it just me, or would wikipedia be a much better place if , instead of rubbish articles being "speedily deleted" and lost forever, users worked together to help make articles "wiki-worthy". I know you all think that my articles and messages are a bit of a joke, just like everything else in my stinking life, but I would still appreciate a reply to this.(Lastofthewolves 11:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Sorry about this message, I know I'm stupid(Lastofthewolves 11:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)).

Warnings

Hi.

I'll certainly do that in the future. I had been going off of Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace which defines each level by good faith assumption. When someone adds or replaces the page with lots of swear words, I would have thought to assume bad faith. However, I could be totally wrong, as you know I'm new here :) --Moonside 02:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (whoops i just read the part about not posting on here, sorry) Moonside 02:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick revert

Subject says it all, but I'll say it again anyway... Thanks for the quick revert to my userpage. --OnoremDil 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

christopher elliott article

Hello Nat. How can someone fix the article so it no longer says there are no resources etc and so that it is acceptable as a wikipedia entry. There are numerous resources now.

Also I noticed the link to my brother should be rob elliott. It is at the moment saying robert elliott but in wikipedia it is an article titled rob elliott.

Kind regards Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherelliott (talk • contribs)

christopher elliott article

Hi Nat, I notice the article on Christopher Elliott has been tagged still as autobiography yet it is the same as actor chris elliott's article now i believe and so how do i ask someone to remove the autobiography tag that is still on it. Kind regards Chris

People's Republic of China

Hi! Regarding your revert. I see the examples using scroll include wellknown topics like Tony Blair(etc), so with almost a hundread of Ref notes, why not scroll?. Please forgive, but "no no" is not quite convincing. Care to elaborate? Thanks! - 210.0.204.29 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the warning on Template:Scroll box Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - 210.0.204.29 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

autobiographical

Hi Nat. can someone take the autobiographical tag off it. the article is no different to chris elliott's article.

christopher elliott

hi nat. i cant see why there is an autobiography tag on the article christopher elliott it is no different to the article on chris elliott

Your signature

Hi. Could you tone down your signature, please? It is extremely lengthy and confusing. Alternatively, please review WP:SIG. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Nat. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my user page

Much appreciated :) xC | ☎ 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Roitr

Where do you suggest I should file the report? On the page Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr it says under Sockpuppets that I sould report him to WP:AIV, which brings me to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. So if this is the wrong place to report Roitr, where do you suggest I shall report him? --noclador 07:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this does help :-)--noclador 08:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on the article People's Republic of China

Hello! I made an edit to the article People's Republic of China, with a short explanation in the edit summary, yet you reverted my edit. There is a section on the talk page, according to the edit summary of your revert, one should use the talk page, well when I made the edit I did use the talk page and that the subject had been brought up sometime before I made the edit, you wrote in the edit summary that one should use the talk page, yet you yourself didn't use the talk page to discuss the revert at all? How would I know why you think that my edit was incorrect. I'm not psychic afterall. Therefore I do not see any problem with my edit. I have redid my edit, and I would appreciate that if you decide to revert me again, you should give an explanation on the talk page and perhaps a separate section for the (simplified)/(traditional) labels in the infobox. The following is my explanation:

This is what I did, you can find these information in the edit summary, I removed the (simplified)/(traditional) subtexts from the infobox, redundant because they are already explained at the article's first line comp[lete with wiktionary links, not to mention it is quite uncoventional, for example, the articles Belgium and South Africa don't have languages marked at the top of their infoboxes. I removed the flag of the Republic of China from the disambiguation link. Having a flag beside the disambiguation link at the top of an article is very unconventional, I haven't really seen this done at all in other country articles, not to mention, there isn't a flag of the People's Republic of China at the disambiguation link at the top of the article Republic of China. I would even go as far as saying that it is not NPOV to place such a controversial flag at the top of the article People's Republic of China, since a flag is a simple picture, there can be no explanation given, yet if a Wikipedia user decideds to click on the "Not to be confused with the Republic of China (Taiwan)" link, then the user would have a full NPOV article to read and from which to gain knowledge, and the reader would know the controversial status of the area and the flag. Having the flag being equated to the Republic of China (Taiwan) without further explanations, in a disambiguation link, and in the article People's Republic of China no less, is very POV, since in the article itself, the topic of Taiwan is discussed with a NPOV stance. Either way, it is highly unconventional to have a picture (originally a Republic of China template is used, which is even more so) next to a disambiguation link. I do not see pictures of flags mentioned next to disambiguation links in the article Wikipedia:Disambiguation, normally one chooses a template from Template:Dablink, which does not have a selection allowing a picture nor another whole template to be embedded.

Thank you for reading and taking this into consideration! --68.239.70.72 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See Hidden Text on the article PRC for my response. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please before you revert, look at what was edited: I did indeed see the hidden text, in fact, I modified the hidden text "MACAO" to "MACAU", I did not do anything to the simplified and traditional characters at the top of the infobox, my edit was to the ([[simplified Chinese characters]])/([[traditional Chinese characters]]) labels below those characters as I have previously described in the edit summary. As you can read from my previous statement, this is unconventional and redundant. Unconventional because other country articles with infoboxes that has more than one official language or script do not have a language label in parenthesis beneath, see for example: Belgium, Luxembourg, Israel, South Africa, Serbia. It is redundant because for anyone reading the article, the first sentence of the article clearly shows, as it is the convention of country articles, the official languages along with a link to the concerned language in parenthesis and with character-by-character links to the English Wiktionary. For comparison, the Serbia article has both Cyrillic and Latin equivalents of the official name in the infobox, but there aren't the labels (Cyrillic script) and (Latin script beneath each of the official names), if this is needed, then it could be added to the first line of the article to show which belongs to which variant, not to the official names underneath each official name or script within the infobox itself. It's not a problem with having both 中华人民共和国/中華人民共和國, it's those labels below them. I hope I had made myself clear. Thanks! --68.239.70.72 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it was consensus that agree to place those labels there as people were edit warring over the issue of keeping or not keeping the TC on the infobox, as opponents of allowing TC in the infobox argued that people not well informed about the two scripts might find the infobox confusing, and so the labels were placed as a compromise between the two sides. and seriously, I looked at the all the articles you listed and none of them have three different scripts for one language. I believe that it is important to leave the labels to help people understand the difference on their first glance as people often look at the infobox first. Just to make the labels look less bothersome, i've made the labels smaller. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand now, sorry that I acted rashly, you can bring it back to the original size if it's too small at the moment. Thanks for the consideration! --68.239.70.72 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Royal anthems

Re: your post on Roundwell's talk. Whether or not we Canadians love the Queen should not be a factor in whether the Royal Anthem is mentioned in the Canada article. ;) Carson 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Supreme Court of Canada Courtroom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Supreme Court of Canada Courtroom.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

You must be joking. Please consider the circumstances more carefully before cluttering up my (or anyone's) talk-page with "warnings". I'd ceased reverting over an hour beforehand and, as you should know, had been much involved in the very extensive discussions leading to the fresh consensus I was defending, so there's much irony in your slapping a tag on my talk-page admonishing one to discuss and seek consensus. I already know about 3RR. "Warnings" such as this are just a nuisance -- well meant, I assume, and perhaps only given so as to be even-handed, but nevertheless a nuisance. -- Lonewolf BC 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that...I just did it out of habit, and plus I felt that the other guy would see it as unfair if I did place a warning on your page. Again, I'm sorry for an offence I may have cause. Nat Tang ta | co | em 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, just a bit of an annoyance, is all. Forget about it -- other than the part about being more careful.
You might have noticed that Gbambino has opened a Mediation Cabal case over the issue. Having helped make the consensus upon which I think I was acting, you might wish to take part in that, if if ever gets airborne. Bambino has cast it as being just myself and Thark again him, and otherwise described the whole business in ways I do not think are at all accurate. -- Lonewolf BC 04:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On WP:LEGAL

Thank you very much for reminding me on this important rule on Wikipedia. I was blinded by anger during that time, and seeing that there is a necessity to take action, I had to say something. Anyhow, the incident is over now, and no more legal threats will come from me. I do apologise.Arbiteroftruth 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning on Republic of China?

I haven't made any edits to Republic of China... Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:British monarchy#Ireland

Yes! See the discussion at Talk:British monarchy#Ireland. DrKiernan 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl

Nat, I'm curious to know how it is you feel that what User:TharkunColl is doing at British monarchy, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Charles, Prince of Wales, British royal family, etc., cannot be construed as vandalism? Unless I'm reading something completely wrong, the unjustified removal of relevant, reliably cited material as well as constructive copyediting, not just once, but repeatedly, can be seen as anything other than totally disruptive and therefore essentially vandalism. If I'm going down the wrong track here, please explain why. Cheers. --G2bambino 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now I feel that both you and TharkunColl are bordering the distruptive edit line, which is really getting on my nerves. However, I see TharkunColl as an editor who argues for the sake of arguing. The think is I believe that he sees himself as the, lets say, "keeper" of the consensus, and to some degree, he's right. Now, my view of you has constantly changed. You're a good editor, however, my concern is always how you act. Sometimes (and this is my opinion) you try to a little hard to push your ideas of how the article should be. Back to TharkunColl, I see him as a person who needs to be dealt with cafefully and with compassion. If you feel that TharkunColl is a major problem, you should try WP:RfArb. Although it should be used as a last resort and that it is a long process, most issues are often solved. I must warn you though, an Arbcomm request could come and bite you back in the arse. Anyhoo...there are my thoughts. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:3RR

Thanks for the reminder Nat. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:3rr Warning

Thank you for making me aware of this. Though we had started off in the wrong foot I think you actions here speaks volumes about your character. I am sorry if I had offended you earlier. Anyway, thanks for reminding me :) Watchdogb 23:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Re:Warnings

I actually didn't know where to find them, so thanks for the link! Therequiembellishere 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:ROC

An identical template already exists here for ages. Please kindly note that in the very first place the name Tawian was added without ANY discussion/consensus. MainBody 08:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Haven't you seen the {disputed} template? This naming convention is no longer authoritative as you think.

Or just take a look at the Constitution of Taiwan and see whether the name "Rep. of China (Taiwan)" is officially used.

Have a nice day. MainBody 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The {{disputed}} template is there and it is far enough. Obviously it is not one person raising question (at least including me and many other editors) disputing the naming convention. By the way, please discuss on the template's own talk page. Use {{ROC-TW}} which has long existed as you guys seem sidestepping the issue.

In this case, undiscussed edits should be reverted. MainBody 17:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOOT

Thank you for your concern. Do you not consider 6 postings to the talk page in the last 24 "us[ing] the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors."? Why not express you opinion on the issue on the talk page of WP:FOOT? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re

I'm so sorry. It was my silly mistake. The IP user did vandalism on other articles a lot. With different IPs too. So I jumped to the conclusion. So sorry, please forgive me. Now I undo my mistake. Oda Mari 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clipe

Clipe means moments. It is the plural of clipă (moment, instant) and originally derives from a clipi (to blink). The verses "Sînt clipe în viaţa mea / Cînd ţi-aş spune tot ce simt" would then translate approximately to "There are moments in my life / When I'd tell you what I feel". — AdiJapan ☎ 06:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.