User talk:Nat/Archives 6

Re: Image:101_JPG.jpg
Nat, as you requested I have entered the source and more information about the image, I hope this is the information that you required. Please let me know if you feel more information is required. Best regards, Pk-user (talk)

ROC
Nat, but by saying that ROC is a state you are also taking a side - and a marginal one. I agree that Taiwan is de facto a state, but you can not say exactly "Taiwan is a state". You should be more neutral and say, for example, that "Taiwan is de facto a state, but not recognized by other countries". That is what I call "not taking sides". Thank you for not discussing matters of privacy. Anmiol (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page history
Hi, Nat. Could you please restore the history of your talk page? Per WP:USER, talk pages are not to be deleted unless there is a good reason such as legal threats or a user acting on their right to vanish. Without the history of your talk page, it is quite difficult to determine whether or not an issue has been brought to your attention (such as your protection of China, which is currently on WP:RFPP for unprotection). Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

hey could i get your help
Please Review Seton Hall University Here thanks Rankun (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re China
''Just to clarify something...both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China maintains an official "One China" policy, even if the Chen Administration's "personal" views is that the Republic of China is not "China". In that sense, what I have written there is somewhat accurate, and I see it as place both states on an equal level instead of the usual one sided pressuring. nat.utoronto 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)''

However, the actual text that was written leaves a clear impression that it is China's "One-China Policy". There is no mention of a "One-China policy" that is not China's.

Due to the fact that most international, intergovernmental organizations observe the One-China policy of the People's Republic of China,...Due to the One-China policy, states around the world are pressured to recognize either the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China

Also, and I'm not arguing Chen's personal views, but consider what happened the last time a state tried to maintain diplomatic relations with both countries. (It's the last time I know of, are there any more recent examples?) LIBERIA: China cuts relations

China severed diplomatic relations with Liberia on Tuesday over Monrovia's decision to maintain diplomatic ties with both Beijing and Taiwan. "The mistaken decision of the Liberian government has seriously damaged China's sovereignty," China's ambassador to Liberia said. A Taiwan government official, quoted by AFP in Taipei, condemned "Beijing's mentality of hegemony" over relations with Liberia. China has reportedly cancelled all bilateral agreements with Liberia. Meanwhile, Taiwan donated 90,000 dollars to Liberia on Wednesday, the day after Beijing severed relations, said AFP. Source: Reuters & AFP.

The ROC didn't protest or demand that Liberia choose one side or the other, only China did. And China was the one to cut diplomatic ties. So without considering Chen's views, we can objectively note that the ROC no longer applies pressure to make countries adhere to a One-China policy by only recognizing one of the two countries. Readin (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello Nat, please be notified of this discussion: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic of China
I saw some of that after I edited the notation, but didn't get a chance to read through both versions properly. My main concern was that the IP's note was both not commented out and slightly inflammatory (as it was clearly pointed directly at your edits). So I commented it out and made a brief attempt to get discussion going, as I didn't want to take a side without reading further. It looks like this isn't a new issue, though. Sorry for any confusion. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I requested and receieved Semi Protection for the RoC article, and started a section on the talk page related to the drama surrounding this edit skirmish. It seems clear that consensus is for your version, as multiple other editors reverted to it, but I wanted to make sure there was no doubt. Just FYI, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A whole bunch of userpages
Whoa, dude you have a lot of user pages plus their protected. No one can vandalize your page. By the way, I like your "lest we forget" template--Angel David (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Macau
Hi? Macau is now on FAC page, if you don't mind, would you please vote and give me some advices and opinions so that the article can improve more? thanks for your attention! Coloane (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

userpage
Hello Nat, how is it going.

I was amazed by the the design of your user page. I wonder how you edit it? Ktsquare (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of account on fr.wp
Hi, I let you usurp the name "Nat" on fr.wp, but you shouldn't have tried to "ease" it by creating the page fr:User:Nat and fr:User talf:Nat, it made the whole thing much more difficult. When an account is renamed : 1) all its contributions are reattributed 2) its user and talk page are automatically deplaced to their new emplacement. Your action prevented 2), which I had to do later by hand. Think of it next time you ask for a renaming on another wiki. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

LocationPRChina.png vs LocationPRChina.svg
Is it the colors you don't like on the svg? If that is the case I think that I can change the colors on the svg-version to be the same as on the png-version. After all a svg-picture should be better that png especially if you print the page. Lennart.larsen (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warning
Hi, you sent me a message of editing warning? I was only trying to improve the article since I figured unreferenced materials (with the "fact" tag attached) is best to be removed. While I do agree reverting contents should not be done unless necessary, but the User talk:Herunar was repeatedly adding unreferenced materials (I also tried to talk to the user in the user's other (User talk:Aranherunar) talk page). I reverted the user's edits two or three times between a long period of time, and that constitutes a warning?--TheLeopard (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine I guess. But howcome the warning message was only sent towards me, but not the other user (Herunar)?--TheLeopard (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So if I want to delete your message, I can do that?--TheLeopard (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, nat, thank you for your warning. As I have had quite a lot of experience on Wikipedia, I believe I have the sense and judgement to make the right decisions myself so I removed your reminder. No offence is intended, and it really doesn't matter that much but I explain it anyway since another user seem to disagree.
 * Second, I reverted TheLeopard's changes because he has made no attempt to respond to my discussion, and I have already made quite a detailed explanation to him. I was forced to revert his changes eventually as it constituted an important part of an important article, is agreed upon by a few users including me, and frankly, because it took a lot of effort to type it up and I hate seeing my work removed without a valid reason. The matter is resolved, anyway.
 * Third - the sockpuppets are still ravaging the China article, and it's taking up a lot of the community's time to revert and ban the sockpuppets. I don't see any major changes being made to the article, so I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be protected while major changes can be discussed in the talk page. Sure, giving protection may give the sockpuppets the attention they want, and we can't protect this article forever. But the socks' edits give me the impression that, technically and no personal attack intended, he's an idiot with an immense ego and little patience, so a medium-length protection should be okay to keep him away. Herunar (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

House names
It's how it's done at List of state leaders by date and List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence, and her personal name is Mountbatten-Windsor, not her royal house, nor her dynasty. The Mountbatten-Windsors were the precursor to the current. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Toronto [from Meta]
Well, I'll admit on that one page it looks a little bit squished... but at the same time, I think it's kind of silly for that one to stand out from the rest (I only changed one other page; the rest already had the header at the top). In looking at 2008's candidates, however, it appears that it was customary for the bid's image to appear above the header, while 2007 is a mixed bag... the problem is that there's no standardization for any of this. Bah! :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

edit warning?
Hello. You recently issued me with an edit warning for my fixing of the 'China' page. I added/edited information that is widely regarded as correct and was simply trying to improve the information given. Sorry for trying to help but I feel the warning was unreasonable.

Human rights section in PRC page
Hi. I think a country page should not have a separate section for "Human rights" in that country. The human rights situation should be dealt in more specialized page, the article on human rights of that country. I have removed the Human rights section from People's Republic of China page. I have commented on this in the article talk page. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nat/pp-sock
Do you mind if I edit this to conform to the appearance of other talk page templates (I was going to use permprot as a model, but with the brass lock icon and your text)? —Random832 21:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) i.e. (well, since that's the code, you can just do it if you want - or don't; but the ambox look is a bit incongruous on talkpages as it is) —Random832 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese party logos
Well okay, for Taiwanese party logos, I believe that they are useful and necessary because they play the same role as party colors in other countries, and that they add visual distinctness to the election tables. Taiwanese parties don't have easy party colors we can use (and these would be confused with the coalition colors in any case).

I'm kinda in a tight spot school wise, so can you hold off on deleting them? If you agree with the above rationale and could add it that would be even better. =) m goi! -- ran (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta's user page
Thank you for the warning, but I wasn't going to violated 3rr. I reverted twice, left a message on his talk page (which was ignored), and have now taken it to WP:AN/I. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that you shouldm't template the regulars, and if you feel the need to warn me about something in the future, a note you actually bothered to write would be appreciated. AniMate 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
Thanks for the unblock. I guess I must be on a shared IP or something. Diligent Terrier • talk | sign here 18:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

editor has met your requirements
I have unblocked Whoaslow because Addhoc comments seem to suggest that the blocked user has met your conditions for unblock. Archtransit (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Officeholder
About your comment on Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, I've returned the editprotected as only if the word 'Incumbent' is put in the successor field will the it be hidden. Look here for an example, in the top infobox the word 'Incumbent' has been placed in the successor field and so it does not display, in the top infobox '44th President' has been placed in the successor field and so it does display. In both examples the infobox is for a current officeholder. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Motion of Lotion
continues to be disruptive and vandalize the article on Romania. Is there a way to prevent him from editing that page since all his edits there were vandalizations? Nergaal (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey ...
Yes. Err, any reason you ask? Wily D 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're taking the 101? Wily D 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I've never been involved with the course or anything though, so I'm unsure how helpful I'll be able to be. Cheers, Wily D  22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Username blocks
You have blocked User:DoctorIsOut and left a "similar name" template. I believe this was in error. It is obvious that this user is an impostor of User talk:TheDoctorIsIn‎ (ref - userpages identical). As such the appropriate template to use was Uw-uhblock. Hope that helps! Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prominence
I have nominated PROMINENCE for deletion because it is an underhanded way to twist policy to suit one's own interpretation. Feel free to comment. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Qxz-ad-110.gif
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Qxz-ad-110.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Qxz-ad-110.gif is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Qxz-ad-110.gif, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC calling for recall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archtransit

One of the complaints mentioned involve you. You declined unblock but came up with some kind suggestions (which also help Wikipedia, if followed! Very wise!). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whoaslow You wrote: Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits. If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

Later, another administrator reviewed the work and wrote "Nice article. I've moved it into the main space."

I then unblocked based on the editor following the conditions that you made and based on another administrator certification of good work.

Is this wrong? Some say it is. What's your opinion? If the RFC said "here are some recent admin actions and these are the ones we dispute and these are the ones that are ok" then the RFC might be concluded right away.

Archtransit (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Logo_VRAKTV.png
As you seen, I don't understand why I can't use Image:Logo_VRAKTV.png, that I uploaded, on my userpage. There are no "fair of use" mentionned on the owner company of VRAK.TV which offers the logos to download: http://astralmedia.com/fr/medias/logosphotos/logos/television/default.idigit (switch to VRAK.TV). If you can tell me more, thank you. Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template: Communism
Before making complete redesign of the template you should have discussed it on talk. Template is by default in collapsed state so I don't see how the length can be an issue. -- Vision Thing -- 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Protected page revert
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. I'll be sure to remember that in the future. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PM infoboxes content
Hello Nat. I've given up hope of having an 'across the board' consistancy on all Head of Government infoboxes (see recent discussion at Kevin Rudd). If the Canadian PM infoboxes go to mediation, would you consider being the mediator? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Would you revert the changes Lonewolf BC & myself made on the Canadian PM bio articles? Seeing as we both erroneously thought it was backed by a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I'll revert mine & Lonewolf BCs changes. I'll wait and see how the rest feel about going to mediation, before taking that route. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rick Boychuk
Hey there, Nat. I noticedt that you've recently closed the above referenced AfD. For future closings, please remember to go to the "Kept" article, in this case Rick Boychuk, and removed the afd tag. Also, please visit the talkpage of the article to add the oldafdfull tag to the talkpage for historical record of past AfDs in case the article is ever considered for a future nomination. And finally, please add 4 tildes to your closing decision on the AfD page so others know who closed the debate if they have a further question or issue with the closing. All that to say, you probably know all of this already, just a friendly reminder! Thanks for your contributions,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA
  .: Thank you! :.

hi nat
thanks for redoing that image on Latin Europe. It looks a lot better now. However, you missed out Gibraltar, was that on purpose? ;p Crystalclearchanges (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * also, San Marino and Vatican City, Monaco, and Andorra should be blue. Gibraltar should be red.Crystalclearchanges (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection Request
Thanks Nat, for putting Requests in proper section. I must've been real upset concerning those articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall
I borrowed your recall page and use it as a template for my recall page (though, changing some points because I don't know "What offices are located next Convocation". My guess would be the admission office, but I could be wrong... The course code questions are easy, just go into any campus' search engine and type it in. Even a non-UofT person could answer those questions correctly, lol.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:LatinEuropeCountries.png
Hello. You created this map for the article Latin Europe. There are some factuall errors on it, I left a comment on the talkpage. I hope you can hae a look and fixt it. Greetings. --Tone 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for referring me to that page for me to comment. Pieuvre (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

hi
did i warn/block this editor incorrectly?Icamepica (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * oh ok, i didn't know, i thought since the list of block tag didn't say that and that it worked, made it ok. How can I get him blocked? He moved my complains at the noticeboard to an older unrelated section, to try and obscure it. Help?Icamepica (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't put them there and I don't want them there. Don't I have a say where I make a complain to an administrator? Does this mean I can start moving his comments which I consider to be misplaced?Icamepica (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased my complain to the following:

I would like to bring to the attention of an administrator that I am being warned on my talk page in bad faith. This is unrelated to other topics posted on this page.These edits, this is by user user:wikidemo.

This is not related to his BoomGayLoveII topic. I am not that editor.!!Icamepica (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)