User talk:Metal.lunchbox

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - crz crztalk 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WP:3RR
You should have a read of WP:3RR and fully understand what a revert is before you file any more reports. Mtking (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks great!
Just wanted to say thanks for the work on both the Portland, OR article and the rather ridiculous Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters‎. It's been on my watchlist for cleanup for a long time, and it's nice to see someone making positive strides there. Keep up the good work! Vertigo Acid (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese puns
Thanks for your contributions to this article. I'm glad to see someone take the initiative. I actually didn't even know about the bottle smashing at Tam. Nice work, and I love the Ai Weiwei pic, he's full of surprises. Randomly, I'm from Portland and was surprised to see your contributions to this article too. I appreciate your work and thanks for helping to retain the page. Many thanks. -Devin (d.s.ronis) (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

China and PRC
This is incorrect. The ISO code "CN" clearly means mainland China, and there are separate codes for Hong Kong (HK) and Macau (MO). One example is ZH-CN, which is simplified Chinese used in the mainland, as opposed to ZH-HK (Hong Kong/Macau traditional) and ZH-TW. Please remove this and any other similar cases before presenting your findings, unless you wish to delude others into thinking that this sort of usage is nonexistent. &mdash; Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T)  和  贡献 (C)  23:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks for starting the RfC. But I'm not sure how you'd like us to respond.. I'm tempted to respond with "Yes". Perhaps you could state your response so that others follow appropriately? Thanks again, Mlm42 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The main RfC question you asked at the top was a yes/no question, as was the repeated question at the bottom.. so that's how I responded. As I understand it, this RfC is about determining fact (a yes / no question), rather than a course of action (which would require a support / oppose type of response). Mlm42 (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of general sanctions
In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Planned Parenthood, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at General sanctions/Abortion/Log. It appears you may have recently broken the 1RR restriction at Planned Parenthood, which puts you in violation of the general sanctions. If this continues, you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The disruptive editor has been blocked for a week.Mattnad (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 02:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you nommed for WP:DYK yet? Do you want me to do it, or are you going to do it? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 04:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've already done it. See Template talk:DYK. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 04:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick on the trigger
If you took a couple of seconds to look, you'd see I've been around here for a while and that if I make an edit with "see talk page" as a summary, that there is probably an edit coming to the talk page explaining what I just did. For you to assume that I wasn't going to bother explaining or that I thought "see talk page" was a all I needed to do is actually fairly insulting if you think about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll be more patient next time. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Use the right policy next time
Don't come to my user page and add material I removed. You used the wrong policy to base your actions on. The user pages are not the "talk page" in the guideline you linked to. The one you need is WP:REMOVED, which says I can remove comments from MY user page. Wikipedia prefers archiving, but I don't. I remove them. I am allowed to. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Luis Garcia
Because the previous version is just a duplicate of this: Luis García Sanz. So I restored Luis Garcia to become a redirect of the dab page Luis García, which was what it should be before. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
I hadn't seen you around until a week or so ago, but now I'm seeing you everywhere, so I guess I should say hi - hi! Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cease harassment
You honestly appear to be taunting some users: 174.24.56.54, to the point of Wikihounding User:BusyWikipedian. I don't know what's going on between you guys, but I'm recommending you please stop. 184.99.28.61 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the articles you have linked to and take a closer look at my edits. I am engaged in civil discussion with user BusyWikipedian about the deletion of a couple of articles. I disagree with the statements that he has made and I have done so civily.Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Død Beverte
Død Beverte does not qualify for speedy deletion under A7. There are numerous links to articles discussing the subject, which is enough to be a claim of significance or importance. If you think the article should be deleted, take it to WP:AfD. Also, any user may remove a speedy deletion template at any time, so long as they believe that it does not apply (as long as they did not create the article themselves). Once the tag is removed, you may not request speedy deletion again. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Character amnesia
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your DYK. ;D --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 08:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

How fun, thanks for the nomination. Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
You need to read up a bit on the speedy deletion categories. This is a prime example. There is no advertising whatsoever in this article. I see you've done it a few times so far, so take this as a bit of a helpful warning. The Undead Never Die (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've declined it. You're welcome to PROD or take it to AfD. -- Σ  talk  contribs  03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see why you found it so compelling to nominate that article for G11. There was no obvious and blatant advertising anywhere throughout that article, and at the time it was written, was written between myself and another administrator for this site. In any sense, the links you are removing and quoting WP:ELNO on aren't really that good either. They are "generally avoided", not always avoided or banned links. Some bands do not have official pages anymore but resort to Myspace. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: 40 Below Summer
Hello Metal.lunchbox. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of 40 Below Summer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 05:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dethcentrik
Just a note--if a source clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, you may remove it even while the deletion discussion is ongoing. If you're not sure (like if it's some online "magazine" that you aren't completely sure is non-notable), then just tag it with Template:Verify credibility. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read my responses, and please accept my apology.
Please read my responses to your latest post on my page. And I hope you accept my apology. I assure you what I say on there is true, and I trust that you do not intend to attack me. I will be taking time off Wikipedia to cool off, and what I have told you on my page will be dealt with offline. Thank You. BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dethcentrik for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dethcentrik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome
Hi Metal lunchbox, Would you mind reviewing the recent changes to Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, and perhaps weighing in on the corresponding talk page discussion? I would like to recuse myself for now, but I have provided a summary of the edits in question. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes
I notice that you were active at the above just a few moths ago. I had various concerns, and noticed that the quotefarm concerns you had seemed to be a lingering problem. The more important problem since the spinoff from the parent is content forking. I've tried to address some of the more obvious NPOV issues, and would be interested in your views as to the current incarnation of the article. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Død Beverte for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Død Beverte is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI re Død Beverte
BusyWikipedian created this Sockpuppet investigations/Metal.lunchbox. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Term replacement in t'ai chi ch'uan
Hello Metal.lunchbox. I'm not sure if you're familiar with t'ai chi ch'uan, but there are terms associated with it that are part of the manner in which different aspects of the martial art are referred to by shifus, books, etc. For example, Yang style's taolu is known for it's low "movement", not slow "speed". There are also loanwords common to this wushu that are used over there translated counterparts. I would thus like to request that if you should want to alter terms present on the page, you please start by suggesting it on the talk page and getting feedback, to reduce the need for reverts from edits to valid terms. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. Your point is valid, topics like tai chi have some domain specific terms. Despite the attention we need to give to such language, it's also important to not forget that we are not required to repeat the exact language of the source materials. Wikipedia serves a different purpose and a different audience then many of the sources it cites. In particular we use plain English and the edit that I believe you are referring to was based on my understanding of English grammar. "At low movement" is not grammatical in English. The specifics of tai chi styles have little to do with it. It is clear from the context that "speed" is a better fit for the article lede. The lede in particular should be easily understood by anyone not already familiar with the topic. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referencing the sentence, "Some of t'ai chi ch'uan's training forms are especially known for being practised at what most people categorize as slow movement." I cannot speak definitively, as I'm not a language expert, but I do not see how "slow movement" or conversely "rapid movement" constitutes a grammatical failure, especially owing to the fact that I can mentally construct numerous contexts of various tenses of the words paired in such fashion, that satisfy English grammar. I do, however, believe that the statement is clear enough to meet your criteria of being "easily understood by anyone not already familiar with the topic." That considered, along with the fact that it is the sort of jargon common to taijiquan, I don't think editing "movement" to "speed" adds more value to the statement than is already present. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again I'm not really worried about jargon in that edit, just grammar. both "slow movement" and "rapid movement" are fine, as you correctly suggest. The problem has to do with the way the sentence is structured. "slow movement" was the object of a prepositional phrase intended to describe the practice of some forms. "...practiced at (a parenthetical phrase modifying the word "slow") slow movement." When we use 'at' to modify practice we can't use "movement" in this way. It's simply not grammatical. It's an easy mistake to miss because of the parenthetical phrase (which I have since removed) comes between the preposition ("at") and its object ("slow movement"). Furthermore, I fail to see why the word "movement" is so vital to the meaning of this sentence. Am I wrong to assume that it is the (slow) speed of the practice that you are meaning to say is well known? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delayed response, I was otherwise occupied. I think I see where you've gone at a tangent. The original sentence says, "...categorize as slow movement." If you double-check the sentence (just above), you will notice that there is no "at". If there was an "at", we would be in complete agreement. The word "movement" is important because, in taijiquan, it is used interchangeably with form (taolu) or step, e.g, 24-form/step/movement. It is difficult to convey the meaning without a long write-up, but I assure you, a further study of taijiquan will reveal this to you. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood. Read my explaination directly above again. The word before "slow" is indeed "as" just as you suggest, that's not the word I'm talking about. Reread the old sentence and you'll find the "at" that I am referring to. I am glad that we are in complete agreement. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! Ha ha ha, please forgive me, I didn't notice that. You're indeed right & we are in agreement on the grammar being undone by that "at". Speaking of the original sentence, perhaps using "with" in it's place and injecting a "would", would allow "movement" to remain, when in the form:
 * "Some of t'ai chi ch'uan's training forms are especially known for being practised with what most people would categorise as slow movement."
 * Furthermore, I speak of the original sentence, even after your last edit, because wushu styles are often informally categorised/addressed by the speed at which the forms are performed, similarly to how there are categories such as internal (neijia) and external (waijia), so the write-up you deleted, although is seemingly ambiguous, is actually quite valuable. Perhaps what's creating the ambiguity is the word "people" rather than something like "martial artists" or "wushu practitioners". I won't edit that sentence, but sincerely hope you do, to add back some of it's lost meaning. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "with ... slow movement." is grammatical. You certainly don't need my permission or approval to improve the article. I just wanted to provide a clear explanation of a grammar point that is easy to misunderstand. If you come up with a wording you think is better than go for it. I don't really see the value of the "what most people would categorize as" phrase, hence why I removed it. If you've got some similar words you think improve the sentence, then I have no intention of wasting your time having you discuss it. Add it. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright.
 * I'm sorry if it appears as though I've tried to own the article. I assure you, it is not so, I just had concern than some of the simplifications you made may have had an unintentionally damaging effect, so I chose to discuss it with you, rather than rudely reverting in favour of my own possibly misguided opinion. I would like to think that we've both reached an understanding of what the other's points are. Have a Happy New Year! ~ InferKNOX (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No reason to apologize. My characterization of such edits and comments as "ownership" is a bit exaggerated. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to modify the edits. The use of the word "speed" pretty much can only lead to an incorrect impression of taijiquan, regardless of how it's modified. Done in proper pace someone practicing the taijiquan forms will appear like a living mannequin, only there is excruciatingly slow continuous motion of head, fingers, hands, arms, shoulders, waist, hips, legs, and feet, rather than complete stillness. Any slower would be stillness in that part; no part is still. If the observer is not paying attention, they may think the practitioner is not moving at all. "All in motion, swimming in honey" is one of the poetic expressions. Most teaching (and video) is done at a much faster pace, so the student is exposed to more forms in a given time period. Explaining this pace in a paragraph may be possible (well, I hope it has been) but in a couple of words in a lead paragraph ... probably not. Performed in combat or high-contact sparring, the speed that can be deployed in the forms with the strength previously developed to so nearly hold the forms can be advantageous. htom (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. High, medium, and low movement in taijiquan almost always refers to how deeply the practitioner is squatting while doing the forms. To my teachers, "low movement" means doing the forms while squatting with the upper legs parallel to the floor, or lower. htom (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance on terminology. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Chinese character(s)
I hope you have a legitimate point to make and aren't just playing semantic games. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a point. You say that the move isn't disputed. I want to make sure we're on the same page about that, because it's a key detail in the process. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're on the same page. You refuse to give up on semantic games. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you hope to achieve by making this kind of comment? - Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My exact question. What do you hope to accomplish by derailing the discussion by picking and choosing whose move we'll call the one under dispute?  There are three moves.  Mine was the second.  Why single out the second one, and not the first or last?  How does that help to develop a consensus? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this discussion on the relevant talk page so that other users can participate, since this isn't really about me or you. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Beauty scholar novels
Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had also written articles on late Qing Dynasty novels such as Jiu wei gui. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Yeah, it kinda hurt my feelings when I saw that there was hardly anything more than the most basic biographical details copied verbatim from the New York Times and the names of a couple books in the article. Imagine if William Faulkner was just such a poorly sourced stub. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can totally relate to your feeling. Unfortunately way too many articles on Chinese and other non-Western topics are like that, and hundreds or thousands of important topics don't even have a basic stub. -Zanhe (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyways the article's been expanded enough to be usable, but it needs a ton of work. I just rewrote most of the article and added a bunch of stuff and I've probably made a ton of mistakes along the way, so while you are paying attention to Shen Congwen maybe you could pick some of that low-hanging fruit. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Taipei
There was a bit of more nationalist editing after you showed up. Could you stop by the talk page to discuss it because it got fully protected and wrong version and such?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

South Yemen
Hi Metal.lunchbox. Noticed you have been dealing with User:Trust Is All You Need's recent "People's Democratic Republic" crusade over at Talk:China. Wondering if you could give me a hand dealing with him over at Talk:South Yemen? Keep up the good fight. GrahamNoyes (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pointy?
Hi Metal.lunchbox, why did you call my edit pointy? I added the sources because the proposer of the move request asked for them. -Zanhe (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appeared to be for no other reason than to make a point. The sources were so cherry-picked that it didn't seem to serve any other purpose. I mean the refs are there to provide verification for the person's common name presumably, but they aren't even articles about the person. I get that another editor asked for some verification, and as such I should say that including "WP:POINTY" in the edit summary was an exaggeration and a mistake. WP:AGF sez that regardless of my reasons stated above, I can't assume that you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, and that doing so is itself disruptive. I hope this clears something up. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. You're normally a cool-headed person, and I admire your work on Shen Congwen and other topics. I find it frustrating that now we're at loggerheads arguing about whether to fix something that ain't broke. We should really be doing something more productive. -Zanhe (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for expanding Lü Zushan. I've expanded it a bit more and nominated it for DYK. See nomination template. Cheers! -Zanhe (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

RM flack
I'm sure I am not the only one getting harassed over these RMs. In any case, keep up the good work. La crème de la crème (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) Please review the restrictions regarding community banned users. Community banned users are not allowed to have more than one account and edits by community banned users may be removed, struck through or otherwise indicated by any editor. (2) Please review the guidelines about reformatting altering and deleting other users talk page contributions. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lü Zushan
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dethcentrik for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dethcentrik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Chongqing–Wanzhou Intercity Railway
Thank you for your efforts. To be honest, I created several articles about High Speed Railways in China around the same time. Mostly translating the Chinese language version of the article to create this English version of the Chongqing–Wanzhou Intercity Railway. From time to time, I have revisited the Chinese articles to see if they have been expanded over time and I may expand the English article or add from other sources. Alas I had not followed through with this particular article, for which I see it has been expanded greatly in the Chinese article possibly since the recent opening of this line.Livewireshock (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror
Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ChinaRMarchive
Template:ChinaRMarchive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)