User talk:Humanoid

I agree with you on censorship in Thailand
I strongly agree with you, but after I wrote up my thoughts (which took quite a bit of space), I realized that the thread is getting quite long and abstract and is right now only vaguely touching upon the practicalities of the article. Patiwat 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews
Wikinews allows anyone to report news on a wide variety of subjects. Its mission, as stated on the main page of the English version of its website, is to "create a diverse environment where citizen journalists can independently report the news on a wide variety of current events". WAS 4.250 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 Thailand coup d'état connects to this wikinews article which does not connect as far as I can tell to your "last 3 articles [which] were published there." By contrast see H5N1 which connects to the category at wikinews Avian Flu. May I suggest you alter the 2006 Thailand coup d'état connection to wikinews to be to a category? Then I and others can more easily find your contributions to wikinews. WAS 4.250 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation for your contributions to September 2006 Thailand coup
Humanoid, your contributions to the September 2006 Thailand coup article are greatly appreciated. For people in Thailand and throughout the world, the article is a critical source for up-to-date, high-quality, uncensored, and comprehensive information about the Thai nation at this most critical juncture. Your hard work is helping to protect the liberty of the people of Thailand. I therefore am giving you the following awards, which you may copy to your User page.

For the Nation and the Constitution!

-- Patiwat 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the passage in question when posting something to the Disc. page
I'm giving this message to both you and Roger jg. When you post something to the Discussion page with the intention of airing out an issue (a most praise-worthy action), could you also please quote what the controversial text in the article is? I'm reading through some of your debates, and it is very hard to figure out exactly what you two are arguing about. Even when I flip back to the article page, I still can't figure out what exactly it is you're arguing about. Thanks. Patiwat 07:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the references to my edit, and the 3 edits made by Roger_jg. Is linking to the actual edit good enough?

Image copyright problem with Image:19sep.org.Freedom2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:19sep.org.Freedom2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 03:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

19Sep.org
Thanks for checking on the block-status of 19Sep.org. Could you mail those results to a blogger covering the coup? It isn't really acceptable to reference a blogger, but it is even less acceptable to reference original research. You can try "New Mandala", "Bangkok Pundit", chuts.wordpress.com, or sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/log  I want to include this information, but we need references. Patiwat 08:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I emailed the info to Bangkok Pundit.


 * You know what. I read your request before I went to sleep.  And emailed Bangkok Pundit about this the next morning after I woke up without re-reading your request.  When I emailed him, I didn't realize that you wanted him to post the information so that we have a more acceptable reference for wikipedia.  I basically, just told him about it, cause I thought it would be good to get the information posted on his blog so that it's out there.  And I gave him the link to wikipedia for him to get more information on it.  So it's possible that he's just going to link to wikipedia, which I guess would not be acceptable as a reference anymore.  I don't think I want to email him explaining all this, and asking him to do something just so that we have a reference for wikipedia.  My paragraph about the censorship hasn't been challenged so far.  And even Roger_jg who is biased in favour of the coup, admits that it's blocked from within thailand.  It's not like the site will ever be unblocked unless there is another coup against the junta, so people will be able to verify that information themselves for quite a while into the future. Humanoid 20:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merger of articles
Humanoid and Roger jg, I'm sending this message to both of you, given that we 3 seem to be the main editors for Public disapproval and protest of the 2006 Thailand coup d'état and Public support for the 2006 Thailand coup d'état.

I believe that the two articles should be merged. I originally started both of these articles without thinking too much, but now have second thoughts
 * A reader reading through the messages and activities of both articles would get a much more balanced perspective than a reader that only read through one of the articles.
 * I don't think that the combined articles will grow so long as to warrant splitting later on. After the appointment of the civilian government, I believe that support and criticism of the coup will instead be directed towards the civilian government.

I have placed this notice on the talk pages of both the support and the protest article. Since the protest article seems much more active, I'd suggest that any debate occur in that article. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Patiwat 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Copymessage left at Patiwat:

I'd like to clarify that I did not delete the section on the "common people" in the subpage Prostest, I put and NPOV banner on it. Someone else deleted. I'd also like to point out that it is I who created a Thaksin reponse section and who made the effort to include the woman's witness in the main article because I belieev it was useful. I also like to clarify that since I am a foreigner I have little interest in taking side in Thai politic for one side or another. My interest is to make people like my friend who know nothing or little about Thailand understand what is happening without taking side. This being said, I will keep editing statement that I believe are POV or biaised or not respect fairness of tone, or that lead the reader or that give undue weight. I would like to thanks the two of you for your efforts and Patiwat is right, Humanoid you shoud not hive up, your contribution have been and will be useful. Where we disagree is not in the event but in the presentation of the events.

I would like to give you one example from the same article:

Thaksin's wife and son, initially reported as having left Thailand for Singapore ahead of the declaration of martial law, were later reported in Thailand. It was suggested they remained to look after the family's finances. On Monday 25 September Pojaman Shinawatra left Bangkok at 1:30 am (1830 GMT) to join her husband in London.

and the same with POV and biaised reporting:

Thaksin's wife and son, initially reported as having left Thailand for Singapore ahead of the declaration of martial law, were later reported in Thailand. It was suggested they remained to look after the family's finances. But on Monday 25 September Pojaman Shinawatra left Bangkok at 1:30 am (1830 GMT) to join her husband in London.

The difference is one word ( ilet you find it), but change completely the sense. POV can be very subtle and often we all do it unconscioulsy.

I'd like to add a short story. Last night (friday) i was at democracy monument, having a drink with Thai and farang friends at Cafe Democ. The traffic was very busy and we enjoyed our whisky on the Drum and bass tunes of teh DJ whilst 2 young soldiers where watching us with big smiles. Now, I don't know how many coupd d'etat the two of you know where such thing is possible. I sincerely hope the stituation will saty like that and not worsen. I am available for chat on MSN, just mail me Roger jg 04:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sonthi Boonyaratglin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sonthi Boonyaratglin.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Free Software
Hi Humanoid, I notice that you're interested in open-source/free software, and I wonder if you would like to join WikiProject Free Software. We're just starting out, and we could really use some members. Thanks! Geekman314(contact me) 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a coup study
I am conducting a study on information seeking and sharing during the 2006 coup in Thailand. I would like to invite you to participate in my study. If you are interested or want to learn more about it, feel free to contact me. Thanks! Songphan (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi Humanoid. You have edited here for a long time so by now you should know the difference between a reliable source and sources that invent facts like WorldNetDaily and primary sources like Wikileaks. When an editor removes content cited to sources like these, you should not restore that content as you did at Podesta emails. If much better sources can't be found, then the material needs to stay out of the article. Since claims are make about living people, the sourcing must be impeccable per WP:BLPSOURCES. Also, you should respect WP:BRD and WP:ONUS.- MrX 13:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with cryptographically signed emails? That's far more more reliable than anything else you consider reliable. Humanoid (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR and WP:V and let me know if you see anything in those policies that suggests that we can verify cryptographic signatures and put our conclusions in an article.- MrX 14:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at those links and don't see anything there that says quoting cryptographically signed emails are not allowed on wikipedia. If you have a reason for saying that we can't, you will need to specify it directly instead of just linking to something. WP:OR isn't even relevant. Are you implying that quoting somebody is "original research"? Does that mean that any time somebody quotes CNN or Fox News on wikipedia, they are conducting original research? Humanoid (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to quote an email? We use published sources like newspapers, magazines, journals and books. We don't use emails for sources. If you don't believe me, inquire at WP:RSN. You can't read an email and then add your analysis, interpretations, or conclusions to an article. If you don't believe me, inquire at WP:ORN. - MrX 00:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You really don't know why anybody would want to quote what somebody has said in an email? Your newspapers quote what other people say all the time, your CNN and Fox News play the audio and video recordings of what people said all the time. What is it about a cryptographically signed email that makes it blasphemous to quote, as opposed to secret audio recordings that your royal media has blessed and repeatedly play on air? Humanoid (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Heads up
One admin has been indiscriminately blocking respected editors who have edited Talk:Mark Dice. Please make sure to follow our policies accurately, especially WP:TALK, because he might block you for a minor violation. Other admins may agree with his behavior according to the thread at WP:AN, but we'll see where this goes. Cheers, w umbolo   ^^^  18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Guy (help!) 19:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. Your statements at talk:Wikipedia suggest that you tried to add the name multiple times, and triggered the edit filter that is there to prevent this addition. Is that true? You then acknowledge that you chose to use the initials instead, which is not cool. I am pleased that you appear to understand the nature of your error and I do not oppose an unblock, but please be aware that there is a difference between censorship and a conscious decision to stand aside from a politically motivated attack on a Federally protected individual. We will include the name once reliable independent secondary sources do - and not a moment before. It's not censorship, it's maintaining our long-standing editorial standards. Wikipedia is not censored (we include content regardless of how offensive some people may find it, e.g. the Jyllands-Posten cartoons) but we do so in a way that is consistent with the oldest rule of Wikipedia: don't be a dick. It does seem to me that you probably get this now. Guy (help!) 11:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * When I originally heard the name was being censored from Wikipedia, I assumed it was through edit wars. I believed some editors were adding the name into articles, and other editors were reverting those changes to delete the name.  And I thought this only happened in articles, not in talk pages.  I had no idea there was a site wide ban, filter, or policy against the writing of the name.  I wrote the name once in a talk page as an example of something being censored, and that's when I got a warning from the filter.  I only wrote the name this one time, not multiple times.  When I got the message from the filter not to do it, I stayed away from the full name, and did not try to add it again.  I did not try to get around the filter in anyway by misspelling or obfuscating it, which is what somebody who wants to violate the filter would try to do.  That's why I only used initials, because I did not want to upset anybody or violate the purpose of filter.  I seriously thought 2 letters would be acceptable to everybody.  The filter did it job well in warning me, and I never tried to violate this filter again.  So in summary, yes, I triggered the filter, but only one time Humanoid (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK. I think you know why we are not including this name, and I think you will be more cautious in future. Guy (help!) 17:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Testing template terminology
Regarding these edits, my view is that using the term "China" is inconsistent with other relative templates & articles on the pandemic. For example, 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China incorperates the term "mainland China" in the title. Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data uses "China (mainland)" too. There was also a dispute resolution regarding the terminology, and the concerns and problems for using "China" straightforward has been addressed comprehensively there. The consensus was to use "China (mainland)" though. -- Akira 😼 CA  06:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The two countries are called China and Taiwan. It has been the standard in the English speaking world for decades.  It has been the standard on Wikipedia from the beginning.  Stop pushing your local politics onto the rest of the world.


 * The above unsigned comment is extremely uncivil and ignorant in terms of the established consensus on dispute resolution noticeboard. It has been the standard on Wikipedia from the beginning no it's not. The article of Taiwan is titled "Republic of China" before this move (not even one decade ago) predominantly due to WP:COMMONNAME, which applies to article titles only. Stop pushing your local politics onto the rest of the world. this a serious accusation, so you are told to assume good faith and provide serious evidence. Otherwise you are personal attacking which might result in you being blocked again. -- Akira 😼 CA  07:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You come to my talk page, make 14 edits to my talk page, insult me, and threaten me! Stay away from my talk page.  Don't reply to this, and GO AWAY!  Humanoid (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Responds on Talk Page
See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Quebec --Gau Choob (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)