User talk:Jerrch/Archive 5

Deletion of Wiki Sources in Taipei 101
Why do you remove the sources in Taipei 101? I do not see anything wrong with that. Show me a rule or a guidline in Wikipedia that states that a source should not be included if its done in wiki format. Those sources are the backbone of the article. Without those, the article will not be what it is. There are also numerous sources in the article that are considered spam like and even the page cannot be found. I am going to revamp them all ASAP.

P.S, After looking at those, I find its rather a spam too. There seem to be too many of the same links. I have an openmind about this, and yes, some of these can be removed, but not entirely remove all. From what I've observed, those links have worked together in Skyscraperpage and with emporis too and it seems that no one can edit the pages as they're well protected againts unregistered IP edits. If there is a way to remove all and leave at least one or 2 of the same wiki source in the article, then by all means necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someformofhuman (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove them unless we have come to a conclusion.

Thanks.

 SomeForm OFhuman 09:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, seems to be pretty good now... BTW, who was the GA?


 *  SomeForm OFhuman 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, I can't find any discussion of him saying about the sources... Don't mind if you can link me the page? :-)


 *  SomeForm OFhuman 14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My gosh, between you and me, it's great the article is nominated for GA, but I think this guy has unclear remarks. Sorry if I say this, (LOL, I am a boy of expressive opinion) He or she should probably look out and see the other source links are also dead too (Page cannot be displayed, Page Cannot be Found and such). He should be glad that such a strong standing source exists and makes such an article come alive. I fail to see anything wrong with the link. What's even better is that those wiki sources also appeared in my school's lecture notes of TMD (Tuned Mass Damper) engineering.


 * Also, on his Advice section, he mentions about chronology and stuff like that... But in a way, somehow these are somewhat original research. Yes, I agree with him but com'n, I mean, if you're an architect or a designer, or you have been to Taipei 101 before, these are common sense to designers and myself. It's all based on common logic, if you know what I mean. But that's true, no source, no GA too.


 * Well just a toungue in cheek, I think this guy has rude and oppresive remarks. ("Ticked me off", "If I don't get any comments within one day, I will fail this article". What are you, my literal superior? Do we look like your servant? LOL.. Sorry, in Singapore if someone talks like that, we just simply ignore...


 * Anyway, we'll see what we both can do to work on the article to GA. But if can't, that's not the end of the World. There's more to life than just that. haha. :-)


 * PS, good to have a close friend like you in Wikipedia. :) Let's work on it.


 *  SomeForm OFhuman 15:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande
Hmm, I honestly advise you to get a book about the history of China or something similar written in English by history professors (Perhaps you already have one, that would be real nice. Hope is truly the last thing to die :). IMHO there is probably a proper term like 1st Chinese republic (a la France) or something similar for the time period before Nationalist China. Without it Jiang has the killer-argument in opposing any moves (i.e. renaming the articles in question).

To be truly honest the issue of the names (China, Taiwan, Chinese civilization, etc) is a very tough nut to crack. As far as I could conclude a dozen (?) of Wikipedians are simply opposed to having the PROC-article under the title "China". I really like to be honest so here it goes: IMHO they just want to hassle the Chinese communist part in any truly piteful way they can, their reasons probably being the usual ("they are an evil aggressive dictatorship").

But I grant them the following: they are really clever, educated, controlled, and cunning: 1st, they will never admit it (for if they did that one could get them with POVpushing). 2nd, they claim to be defending a "neutral NONPOV policy", something which is quite popular in some Wikipedia circles (in our increasingly political correct world such bullshit is liked by a alot of ppl). 3rd they compare this particular case with other exceptional cases (Ireland, North and South Korea) and always avoid better examples like France, Germany, etc.

I advise you to read really carefully the discussion in the policy talkpage. You probably allready did, but read it again (who knows you might want to turn to their side - I truly hope not :). I presented 9 major arguments (most of them where beyond question - China name tags, use by the media TV or magazines, etc). They solely foccused only in a couple of points (always avoiding the arguments in which they knew they had no case). For every argument and answer I gave they raised another objection, ad nauseam. In the end they simply argue the following: the use of the name "China" is controversial.

Again being honest: I'm not a fan of Communism, single-party dictatorships, or of the current Chinese goverment in particular. But on its defense I will say that they are doing a better job at running that enormous country (with to many problems we in the "West" don't even know of) than too many de-colonized "democratic countries" (and China was truly colonized by the "foreign devils" :) and by this I mean South and Central America, Africa and some countries in Eastern Europe - we could compare the PROC with Yugoslavia or some similar country?

I also think that we here in Wikipedia simply shouldn't hassle the Chinese goverment in such a piteful way (or mess in politics at all): 1st, The Chinese goverment doesn't give a shit. 2nd, Wikipedia should only present the neutral "truth": the reality of our world as far as we know it. 3rd, Wikipedia is the true loser in this situation because it isn't as acurate as the geographic encyclopedias. 4th With the current situation Wikipedia is de facto simply a hipocrit site. It claims (preaches) to be neutral and acurate but some users are misusing it into presenting their political views (playing politics). 5, It is a simply a piteful lie (the PROC is China - and the factual recognized heir of the old Chinese empire). And 6, the Chinese goverment simply doesn't give a shit.

I truly think (know) that (in the English-speaking "world" but this apllies in most of the other languages aswell) when somebody uses the name "China" in a phrase 99% of the time (s)he is talking about and means the Peoples Republic of China. The Republic of China (the ROC - the old Nationalists of Chiang Kai Check) is named Taiwan (a de jure unrecognized, but the facto independent country). Wikipedia is one of the few places where these facts and realities don't apply. I think we could and should correct this situation but it will take time, resources (evidence and proof - current history books, geographic encyclopedias, etc) plenty of effort, and lots of pacience. Are you truly willing to participate in this? If you are sure of it give me a post. Flamarande 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 ROC Presidential Race Polling
Hi, for the added comment below the 2008 polling results about 2 newspapers being pan-Blue, you've cited 3 sources; however, the 2nd and 3rd "source" are not news articles, but, rather, editorial pieces. Is it possible for you to remove these 2 (or even better, to replace these 2). Thanks. Clygeric 21:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay.-- Jerry 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

the Clean Countryside (清鄉) movement
What was this (the Clean Countryside (清鄉) movement)? was it a government military operation to suppress those allegedly involved with the 228? nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Academia Sinica
Would you object if I changed the "Chinese counterpart" phrase back to "mainland counterpart?" I checked the naming conventions page and it suggests that for POV reasons, one should try to avoid phrasing that suggests Taiwanese stuff is/is not Chinese as well. The way it is currently phrased implies that it is not Chinese. Thanks. Ngchen 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Changing it to the "mainland Chinese" counterpart sounds OK to me, even though I initially thought it a tad clumsy. I admit that "mainland" counterpart might imply the opposite direction POV. I'll go ahead and implement your proposal.Ngchen 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shih Ming-teh
Jerry - could you take a look at Shih Ming-teh when you get a chance? There's been quite a few edits today by an IP, and while I don't think they're vandalism, I wanted to make sure that they were good edits. I think you're in a better position to make that judgment - I'm guessing you know more about Shih than I do (I know very little). Thanks! Folic_Acid 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll take a look.-- Jerry 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dan Jacobson (Taiwan)
Hi Jerrch. Would you please take a look at Dan Jacobson (Taiwan) request in WikiProject Taiwan. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help on Republic of China?
Jerry - in my quest to get Republic of China up to Good Article status, I'm trying to deal with all the tags, and I've gotten rid of all but two in the education section. I'm not sure where to find a good reference for those, so I was hoping you might be able to help. Could you take a look if/when you get a chance? Thanks! Folic_Acid 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not familiar with the topic of Taiwanese educational reforms. However, I'm sure there will be some useful information on the official website of the Ministry of Education.-- Jerry 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok - thanks! If you see anything else there that needs changing, please feel free to work on it.  Folic_Acid 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I've been looking at the "Sky Bow" articles. I thought it would make more sense if there was just one article for them, rather than three, given they're so short. Do I have your support to merge them at some point? John Smith&#39;s 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I do agree that merging them together would be a good idea. I will do it now, but a new introduction would be needed. I was also thinking about merging the Sky Sword articles, but these actually have enough information in the Chinese Wikipedia. So some translation would be enough to improve those.-- Jerry 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've asked User:Kliu1 to help out as well. John Smith&#39;s 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hsu Tain-tsair
The article Hsu Tain-tsair you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Hsu Tain-tsair for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 02:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

East Asia
Hello, I would have to vehemently say that of course, in terms of "geography", Vietnam is in "Southeast Asia". But in terms of history, culture, political culture, religion, language, ethnic heritage and everything else about Vietnam, it IS part of East Asia! It is best not to define concepts in easy liberal and western textbook terms, in my opinion. Because, it would be misleading.

I see the people of Taiwan my brothers, whether they are southern Chinese or "Yue" people; and I'd have to suggest that I seem to know more about Taiwan than you do about Vietnam. To me, Taiwan seems only a political entity...but no really deserving to be called a unique identity in any other sense...how is Taiwan not just an extension of Fujian and Hainan?

With respect, your Yue brother to the south. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese Hip hop
Please discuss the merger on the talk page first, before removing the tag! Poeloq (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- Jerry 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

List of mayors of Chiayi
Hello. It looks like you are in the process of building this informative article. However, I noticed there are no sources listed. Please cite some reliable sources for this article. Otherwise, the article may be tagged as a candidate for deletion at some point in the future. A full list of citation templates is available here. If you are already in the process of adding sources now, please continue to do so and ignore this message. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruling state of Taiwan
Hi again, I just noticed you edited the succession box for "Ruling state of Taiwan" under the Republic of China article to indicate that the ROC's rule began in 1947. I was wondering why that date was selected, rather than the 1945 retrocession day date, or perhaps "never" as hard-core supporters of Taiwan independence would argue. Was that when the Taiwan Provincial government was formed? With all these nuances, as much as I dislike doing so, there might be a need to add small text below telling the reader about the nuances. Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad.-- Jerry 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Please modify your signature
Hello, I am sure you meant no harm, but the signature you have been using lately impersonates my user account. Please refer to Signatures, which states: In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of another existing user...

The reason I became aware of this was I was reviewing Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Will_Beback, and it looked like I voted twice.

Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. JERRY talk contribs 02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I changed it.-- Jerrch 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank-you very much. May I have your permission to modify places that you have signed (by removing the piped extension) where it is likely to be misunderstood as I voted twice?  JERRY talk contribs 03:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be fine.-- Jerrch 18:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Yes, essentially those are the points. It is way to positive about him, I find it hard to believe his record is spotless. And references covering specific facts are missing, you must have got the data from somewhere so please cite it. If it was simply that I would have put it on hold, but all in all I don't think the article is really at GA, it needs more building, more length and so on. Just seems a bit weak to me. On your references question, the sources you were citing were reliable, there just wasn't enough of it. The second point is about the quality of the references while the first is about their use.- J Logan t: 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

re:Mediation
You certainly may respond to other people's comments in the mediation. --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:THSR no text.png
Thanks for uploading Image:THSR no text.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan Defence Budget 2008
Hi there. Have you heard about the 2008 budget? Apparently there was approval for some Patriot-3 batteries and money for the new submarines. But details on it in English are sketchy. Could you do me a favour and translate the following article? I think it has a lot of info but it's not in English:

Yahoo news report

Don't worry about the non-military bits - I just need to know what the situation is regarding the arms purchases. Thanks! John Smith&#39;s (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did it say how many Patriot missiles and batteries were being ordered? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)