User talk:O/Archive 14

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

City God Temple
In my experience, the temple is almost alwasy referred to as "City God Temple" in English. What is the basis for your assessment that the Chinese name is used more commonly? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, the following (official) English sources: china.org.cn andShanghai Tourism Board. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a translation of Chenghuang Miao. However, those sources are not reliable enough, as the official website (linked from the top in EL) uses Chenghuang Miao.  There is also the fact that many of its visitors is Chinese and it is located on Chinese soil.  The government cannot truly determine a perfect translation, but if a translation is known globally (Macau and Aomen for example) then it's a common name.  The thing with the City God Temple article title is that it can be confused with the city god, which is mentioned at the top; UCN states that we should be using the common name of something that does not conflict with something else.  Please understand that I am not trying to overdo the guideline; if I would, there would've been Chinese characters in the title, which is strongly discouraged by Jimbo and the rest of the community unless there is a very good reason to do so (Li (李) and Lí (黎) (surname)), and in this case, the pinyin is already fine. —O (说 • 喝) 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You doubt the reliability of the sources I have supplied. Can you supply a source of your own to contradict it?
 * The official website is in Chinese. Naturally, it would be titled by the pinyin name. It is not evidence of common usage in English.
 * Can you find a more reliable source that indicates the name more commonly used in English is "Chenghuang Miao" rather than "City God Temple"? Otherwise, it would be WP:OR to move this to Chenghuang Miao.
 * Finally, that city god is where it is, instead of chenghuang, simply goes to support the view that "City God", and by extension "City God Temple", is a more common usage in English than "Chenghuang" and "Chenghuang Miao". There is no conflict here, because 1) the two titles are different, and 2) they are about the same subject in any case. Unless and until another article is written about another notable City God Temple somewhere else, there is no naming conflict issue.
 * Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the slightest change in the title can be confusing. It is never original research to use an official name.  There is also WP:NC-ZH, which mentions place names, which this one falls under place names.  Add to the fact that Chenghuang Miao is also a shopping mall as well as part of the old Shanghai, and that makes a "temple" an inappropriate name for a combination temple and shopping center.  NC-ZH also mainly trumps UCN in dealing with this regard, as what lies there is consensus among Wikipedians. —O (说 • 喝) 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused
Why did you revert my edit here? (I know it's a different IP. My IP rotates.) Tangobot requires horizontal rules in order to parse RfAs for the table at WP:BN. 68.219.123.8 20:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You placed a horizontal rule above the RFB heading, which isn't needed. —O (说 • 喝) 20:14, 21 September 2007 (GMT)

USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, O. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
 * 1) Please update your information at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
 * 2) There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Highway 6 Reversions
Let me put this in a slightly friendlier way about Highway 6's reversion. First of all, why should I stop? I don't see I have done anything wrong. I am just summarizing Highway 6's information into that little infobox. It is NOT (and let me emphasize on "not") replacing the article. Afterall, what is the use of the infobox according to you or NE2, if you don't insert enough information, by omitting the counties, the cities, the length, the decommissioned dates, etc. And also, why did you (and other users) make so much parametres (bear my Canadian spelling) on when we are not using it? Why not just use the resource wisely, try to fill in as many blanks in the infobox as possible, or you might as well remove the "extra" parametres. I hope you don't mind me being "harsh" in here, and I don't like being treated/treat someone else harshly.

Smcafirst | Chat at 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 30 edit/note
Yeah, I usually am cautious with posting warnings like that, but the edits/deletes were 2 in a row, by nearly identical IP's (I know with my IP address, it can change around somewhat when I get on at different times). If it was two totally different people making the edits, im sorry about that. I figured the one that I had used would be ok.

I also do notice on the page for the warning templates that the level 1 is used to assume good faith, so I would figure its not like I dropped a level 2 or worse template.

I will try to watch it the next time though, thanks :) Whammies Were Here 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RfArb
I'm sorry, but your comments on the proposed arb case are completely inappropriate and irresponsible. Not only do you not have anything to back up these statements, but these are things you supposedly "heard about" and didn't even see yourself. If you have the nerve to accuse me of stalking you better damn well back it up. There has been no issue between Cat and I since the sig debate until this arbcom case was filed, and I'd be glad to back that up with facts if you wish it. It is this kind of half-hearted evaluation of the situation that fuels the drama and doesn't help anything. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not obligated to present any further sources at this time. Not only have I heard about it, I've seen the diffs, however I am not obligated to present any, as you know which are which.  As for any further conflicts, I have seen the pages where you have followed White Cat, one of which was an episode of a Japanese show (can't remember which).  As presented by the filer and subsequent comments, they bolster the fact that you two have a long history of getting into fights, and it looks like that it will not end in the near future.  As for that last remark before signing, that may be what you (yourself) may think, however others have different standpoints, as with me.  Don't get me wrong; I'm only trying to help, as with every other user who commented, provide different views of what is going on. —O (说 • 喝) 21:32, 28 September 2007 (GMT)
 * You mean the episode review process, that I helped create? Not only that, but in that situation I handled myself very well, and clearly stated that I would not force the issue, nor set any kind of deadline for review. Where do you get off by assuming that I followed him around because we crossed paths? -- Ned Scott 21:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean TV-REVIEW. You were recently blocked for trolling, which was upheld in the unblock request.  [ This] is ample evidence that you have trolled, hounded, and stalked White Cat numerous times even when you were just pretty much frustrated.  You even admitted that you were following White Cat around (not just crossing paths), however most would usually see an apology to the other side and move on.  Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.  The community is concerned about the escalating drama between you two—enough for someone to file an arbitration request.  It also doesn't look like either of you have taken a break from Wikipedia yet, and I'd strongly recommend doing so to "calm down the drama". —O (说 • 喝) 22:05, 28 September 2007 (GMT)
 * "No, I don't mean TV-REVIEW." That's about all their is, unless you are talking about the first time we had a dispute sometime last year on List of Air episodes. [ This] was already on my watchlist, sherlock. For you to come to the conclusion that my comments there equaled trolled, hounded, and stalking numerous times is complete and utter bullshit. And as I said over and over again, I took a look at the most recent fictional articles Cat had edited when he started a thread on WT:FICT to see what articles he was talking about. There is nothing wrong with that, there never will be anything wrong with that, and that most certainly is not stalking him. Your speculation is so far off from the reality of the situation that you really should just keep your comments to yourself. Do a little research next time, and actually look into the matter. Thatcher131 himself clarified this in the RfC filed on me.


 * As for the block, I still stand that it was out of line, but I can't really complain about it since I was still rude to Cat. The RfC on myself basically asserted that Cat felt harassed, as he feels every single time someone has a dispute with him, even a minor one and where no previous dispute has been had. He screams, throws a fit, and expects people to buy into it. Tony Sidaway had to trim much of his excessive ranting from the RfC because it was completely unrelated to the dispute at hand (which was resolved). People who think that is evidence that I have harassed or stalked him need to have their heads checked.


 * I am sorry that I sound so angry, but it is very important to me that such slander be cleared up. I do not stalk editors, I do not seek out Cat, I do not troll. I, however, made the mistake of letting my emotion into my writing, and laughed about the situation on-wiki. That, plus the fact that Cat goes to complain when editors are "standing in his way" (and it can be any editor, it's hardly just me), plus evidence of a previous dispute (again, where I was not alone in my actions) unfairly leads people to the same conclusions you have made. Frankly, I'm tired of this guilty until proven innocent mentality. It is especially insulting considering the amount of restraint I have taken to avoid further disputes with Cat. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then to make it fair, shouldn't you change your ways in making sure to (1) not be so angry when it gets hot, (2) apologize, and (3) edit other stuff that White Cat hasn't thought about doing yet? This should give me and possibly some others a sanity check to possibly clear some things up. —O (说 • 喝) 23:13, 30 September 2007 (GMT)

hi
can you just filter these so known deadheads are getting the jpg's there are plenty of websights just do a google search on deadhead images, kindly if necessary...# Grateful Dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.38.112 (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Best User Page Contest
I finally have a cooler user page, but the contest is gone! Damn. On another note, I removed duplicate sections from the IP above me, hope that's okay. GlassCobra 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Live Earth Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Live Earth Logo.jpg. 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 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of baiji
Hi, you recently got your bot on commons to change some text for me (thanks) and i noticed that you can speak chinese. I have been looking for someone for a while now who might be able to make an audio recording of Baiji being pronounced. It has been on the Baiji talk page for some time now. Just wondering if you might be able to help out. Thanks again C  hris_huh talk 11:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will be done tomorrow. —O (说 • 喝) 02:42, 04 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Brilliant, thanks a lot. C  hris_huh talk 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Zh-bai2ji4tun2.ogg —O (说 • 喝) 21:58, 04 October 2007 (GMT)

i-276
You shouldn't have reverted my whole edit. While my use of parentheses in certain places may not follow the 'format' there were other important changes that I made, espeically since the destinations at certain interchanges were signed improperly. So I'm going to revert it, not out of spite, but because I don't have the time to go through and find out which destination signs were correct and which weren't. And then you can do what you want with the format cause that's not my field. Mr. Vitale 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Same goes for I-476, some of the destinations listed there were totally incorrect until my edit. So I've gotta revert to get those fixed. Then you can fix the formating and put parentheses and semicolins wherever you see fit. Mr. Vitale 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, just so you don't think I'm a smartass (I sometimes can sound like one), I just wanna make sure you know that I'm not reverting just to cause trouble. I didn't rever the i-676 one cause I don't care about the format, just that the destinations are correct. Mr. Vitale 21:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to make sure that you have correct information down along with the correct formatting agreed to by consensus. For a reference, this pdf from PennDOT has all the correct information we need. —O (说 • 喝) 22:49, 02 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Additionally, pahighways is not a reliable source. —O (说 • 喝) 22:51, 02 October 2007 (GMT)
 * If you live in PA, you know that PennDot is not a reliable source either :) But seriously, some of these destinations that are listed were incorrect. But do what you want with the formating, I'm editing future ones in manner that's been agreed upon. Just don't leave the destinations as they are cause they're incorrect.Mr. Vitale 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I live in PA also, however we must go with the policy in this case. In our case, PennDOT is the reliable source, and nothing can really be changed about that fact. —O (说 • 喝) 23:03, 02 October 2007 (GMT)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for audio!
Thank you for filling my request for the "Baiji" pronunciation audio! —Pengo 02:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)