User talk:SchmuckyTheCat/Archive 5

You DO NOT have any ''' new messages ( last change ). So, don't click either of the blue links in this box.''' Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

At least 100 years ago I archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! I'll keep doing it, over and over, as hard as I can.



help in making a new page
Hi. I found an interesting person in artificial intelligence community. Mentifex is his name. There are many people that want to know who is him. Also there are some articles wrote about him some that look like a biography. I think he should have a page on Wikipedia but I dont know how to make this page and maybe you want to help. here are some links: or I think he should have an article not because what he is doing is true but because the whole phenomenon is interesting - he is fighting for his ideas even when he becomes ridiculous. He might very well become a reference for such individuals. Also I dont know what are the rules about making pages about people so it might not be allowed to be done... Raffethefirst (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When the subject becomes the subject of many reliable sources then Wikipedia will write about him. That does not currently appear to be the case.  this tells me everything I need to know.  If he gets an article on Wikipedia, it is not likely to be because of his ideas on artificial intelligence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Mentifex is the alias of Arthur Murray, who is a notorious self-promoting kook. I have seen his work: it adds absolutely nothing to AI, and arguably detracts from serious work. (See Talk:Trust metric for discussion and links.)  There was an article about him, but it was taken down. J. Johnson (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ED DRV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_6#Encyclopedia_Dramatica

can you please weigh in on this, and get people you know to as well? --Truthseeq (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by religion
We've been through this before, but I thought I would give you a courtesy request for you to remove this category from your userpage once again before I open up a discussion at Village pump (policy) about the acceptability of this, as the previous discussion didn't result in any difinitive answer. VegaDark (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:Hyacinth/User_categories That sure looks like a lot of opposition to the basic arguments used at UCFD. Two years worth of discussion has failed to get even a guideline for user categories, eh?  And you're threatening to get more cop-like? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hello
I think the article must adhere to its sources, none of which refers to "Republic of China". "Taiwan Province of China" is used on its sources.Please check the source: [Gross domestic product, current prices]. Thank you!

Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me
Dear Schmucky, Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected. Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:- STUDIES OF THE ACTIVITY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES KEY: BT = Biomedical Therapy BM = Biologische Medizin FKM = Forschung Komplementär Medizin Ramaanand (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé

Schmucky, do you drink beer?
...and do you live anywhere near the U District? You really must come out and share a pitcher with me some day. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I drink, but not beer. I'm up in Greenwood.  Shoot e-mail.  I think you sent me one recently that ended up getting spam-canned... try again. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

"China is a country"
Hi, I'm attempting a re-write of the opening of China to resolve the definitional issue that has plagued the article. I noticed that you commented previously on the issue. I've opened a straw poll to gauge whether consensus is to define "China is a country". Could I ask you to comment/vote at Talk:China? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Statistics of the People's Republic of China, 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) 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

about China's map
The new maps is NPOV now, just like the old maps. I don't see any significant differences between the current version of the new one and the old ones. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No requirements?
In other words, there are no minimum requirements of each subdivision? jlog3000 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Beijing
Hey ! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently or in several times in the past and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious fella
You might wish to help track User:Burgerist for the same old reasons, although this one may be less obvious. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Instantnood
Guys, isn't this user BANNED? Strange thing is... why is he still editing articles (Special:Contributions/Instantnood) on wikipedia? --Dave1185 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are from 2007. Is your clock right?  If you suspect a current IP or user is a sock, I'll take a look.  He comes back now and again with new accounts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oh boy...I have been online for far too long that I think I need to get my eyes checked now. My bad, sorry for the blunder, going to catch some Zzz soon. Nighty night and smile! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)



Dave1185 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Deletion review of User:SchmuckyTheCat/List of borderless countries
Just to inform you, User:Testaa (who didn't inform you) has opened a deletion review (see Deletion review/Log/2008 April 25) concerning this page and its previous location at List of borderless countries. As the user has not clarified exactly why this should be subject to review (I made some guesses at the DRV page, which you can read there), the process would benefit from having your comments, and especially any clarification of the issue here. Thanks — Gavia immer (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong FAR
Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Joowwww (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle
Thanks for recommending twinkle, it has been very useful in issuing warnings and such. Sam Barsoom 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Politics of the Republic of China sidebar
Template:Politics of the Republic of China sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jerrch  16:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk Request - SchmuckyTheCat - re: Mighty_leaf_tea removal
Hello,

Not sure how else to reach you so I am posting my question here.

Yesterday you removed Mighty_leaf_tea - I placed a talk comment but received no feedback - our position was that the article did conform to the notability standards in that it referenced a valid (new york times) 2nd party article (we planned to add more) - and that it seemed consistent with other US tea companies found under the teas article.

To put it another way - List_of_tea_companies is a list of tea companies, and Mighty Leaf Tea is appropriately on this list - if it were to be deleted then should not all the others be removed?

Can you help us to understand specifically why it was deleted and what we can do to rewrite to make this acceptable to you?

Thank you,

Nedvansise (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)NedvanSise


 * Wikipedia is not an advertising service and new articles about companies need to meet high standards of "notability" (a term I dislike, fwiw, but click the link to understand it) or the new article is likely to be deleted. You will want to have several different sources (not one) to meet the requirement.
 * Lists of companies, like the one for tea, need to be regularly looked at to remove entries that are only there for advertising. It's nothing against you or your company.
 * You don't need to make anything acceptable to me. I'm not an administrator.  I can put a notice on an article that it might not meet our criteria (which someone will do, almost guaranteed, for all new articles) but that criteria needs to be reviewed and the delete decision has to be made by someone else.
 * SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi Scmucky,

Thank you for this. We received a message from Stifle suggesting that the issue was criterion 7 (Author request remove) - Mighty Leaf Tea themselves direct us to add this to Wikipedia, so the only other author I could think of was the reference to the New York Times article - which does not seem likely - we will follow up with Stifle and per your suggestion create more than one reference. Thank you for your time on this.

Nedvansise (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)NedvanSise


 * Being hired to write the article on Wikipedia is a conflict of interest. Be very careful that you write neutrally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

98110
The zip 98110 is listed in the list of Seattle zips, but it is the zip for Bainbridge Island in Kitsap County. Doesn't seem right to list it for Seattle, but maybe I'm missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Morris (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * USPS says it is a zip code for both Bainbridge and Seattle. They don't show a map.  None of the internet zip code maps show it as belonging to Seattle, but it is possible the zip code belongs to water and USPS doesn't care that no postal addresses will use it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Re: Peter zhou
I just had a quick CU report done on two we were discussing about, and there aren't two sockmasters, just the one. nat.utoronto 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI`
I think you would be interested in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers, nat.utoronto 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Closing Merger Discussions Prematurely
Why are you so intent on closing the discussion when you are so involved with it? I believe that with your COI, you should not have done that. Re-open the discussion please, or I will. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was to discuss the move. The move was closed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nanjing as the ROC capital?
Thanks for your comment. But would you please let me know of a (written) source where 1931 Constituion ceased to be a source of law? You explained that laws enacted under it are still valid unless repealed earlier, but it really doesn't make sense to me why those laws would still be valid if the source isn't. It is clear though the 1946 Constitution did not repeal the 1931 section where Nanjing was set as the capital so according to basic legal principle, that section would still be valid unless otherwise repealed. It makes no legal sense to me when the 1946 Constition was silent on this issue (therefore not repealing the relevant 1931 Section), Nanjing's status as the capital would suddenly disappear. If that's the case, ROC would no longer have a capital after the 1946 Constitution? We know in practice, the ROC government still operated in Nanjing for as long as they could after the Constitution until the Communists were about to take the city during the Chinese Civil War.

Even if the 1931 Constitution ceased to be a source of law (which I am high doubtful of), presumably there would have been legislation enacted after the 1931 Constitution that gave effect to Nanjing as the capital. Right now I can think of all those laws setting out government organisations as well as Nanjing city planning (called the Plan for the Capital "首都計劃"). If you were right earlier, then these laws would still indectly make Nanjing the de jure capital, as the 1946 Constition was silent on the capital issue.

Also, as you might be aware, current textbooks in Taiwanese schools are still saying that Nanjing is the capital of the ROC, but due to administrative intervention by the Ministery of Education, either Taipei or Nanjing would be accepted as the correct answer for a ROC capitl question in school tests. But, this administrative intervention does not affect Nanjing's legal status. There has never been any announcements made by the Executive Yuan that the capital was moved from Nanjing to Taipei. Here is a Chinese article on this issue. http://www.ettoday.com/2002/03/29/304-1282810.htm

I await a written source confirming your view. --Pyl (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Constitution documents are singular founding documents. Only one exists at a time.  The 1946 Constitution supercedes, in its entirety, the 1931 Constitution.  The 1931 Constitution itself was entitled as "Provisional Constitution for the Period of Political Tutelage".  As its core, it make the assumption that the people of China were not educated enough for self-determining decisions in government (political tutelage) thus it was designed as a temporary charter (provisional).  This exactly followed the "Three Stages of Revolution" envisioned by Sun Yat-sen.  It was also hoped to have a unified (with the CCP) government but the provisional constitution recognized it was not yet the case.  Sun Yat-sen hoped the "political tutelage" period would end in three years, the KMT leadership hoped it would take six, but it took 15 years to finally draft the permanent constitution.  The Constitution expired with the end of the period of "political tutelage" in 1947.
 * If you want some written sources that specifically state that the 1946/7 Constitution supercedes the 1931, try the writings of Jianfu Chen or Tay-sheng Wang. These are law professors, not tabloid journalists.  The first wrote, "A permanent constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of China was only adopted after the war, on 25 December 1946, which formally terminated the period of political tutelage in China."
 * Article 171 of the current constitution defines "why those laws would still be valid if the source isn't." Obviously, the ROC had a large body of existing law by 1947. The source of law changed, from the 1931 constitution to the 1946/7 constitution, but unless the laws were in conflict, they still had effect.  Article 171 functions as a severability clause, while article 170 functions as a weak supremacy clause.
 * I don't know if other statutes exist that call Nanjing the capital, or if they are still valid. I don't think planning documents would suffice, in a civil law system, new statutes often conflict or overlap with old statutes.  The newer ones would be interpreted as more valid and everyone would move right along.  Certainly the newest statutes and ordinances are referring to Taipei.
 * I don't think there is a "de jure" capital for the ROC. I don't think there will be any cite "ad jure" to state it as fact.  That is my objection for writing about it on Wikipedia.  The answer to the question "what is the capital of the Republic of China?" ends up being a statement of politics, not an issue of law. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Out of courtesy, I am writing on your talk page to let you know that you are right. I went to Taiwan twice since our discussion and researched on this issue. My conclusion is that the ROC doesn't currently have a "de jure" capital. All the school textbooks and government representations saying Nanjing is the official capital of the ROC is just stating a long-established government policy. No law in the ROC currently defines the location of its capital.
 * So yep you are right. It is not an issue of law.--pyl (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the image
Hi, thanks for thinking of the Guy Fawkes image for the template. I would have never thought of it myself :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seattle meetup 5
Hi SchmuckyTheCat, I see that you've attended the previous Seattle meetup. I hope that you can make it to the next one on June 19! Bestchai (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

.zub deletion
Hey dude,

I was trying to get the .zub explanation on this, but I guess you already deleted it. I'll gather up evidence on it cause its a company that has the software which is revolutionizing the way people read magazines, the hard paper copy is long gone. I was going to put up the "hangon" sign but I'll get it recreated with more evidence from the news agencies here (translated from Chinese) Michaelssg (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Taipei or Seattle?
Meetup/Seattle5. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Taipei... --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

263.net
Hi there, I have removed the speedy from 263.net as it at first glance seems to have some notability, and I have instead listed it at AfD, which you can find here. Cheers, --Россавиа Диалог 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy
For avoidance of doubt, please be aware of the following. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archive size
I saw that you changed the archive size of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation back to 250K. I initially changed it to a more reasonable number after looking at the sizes of the previous archives, all of which were around 60-70K, and then seeing that Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 26 is already quite large, both in size (137K) and in relative length to all of the other talk page archives. For good measure, I took a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, also archvied by MiszaBotII, and the max size is set for 64K. However, I also do know that I'm not super familiar with the ins and outs of MiszaBot's auto archiving. Is there a reason to keep the max size so large? Thanks, -- Nataly a 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I guess I can't really argue with that. I wonder why the previous archives have been so much smaller, then.  Not a particular big deal, though.  Thanks -- Nataly a  21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Flea article
I am pretty unhappy that you have reverted my changes to the flea pages. I have written or contributed to over 30 articles. The information I am putting in this page was learned after at least 10 treatments of my pet akita in the early 1990's. I would like to know if you represent a business interest in flea insecticides, or some other group that promotes chemical treatments to kill fleas. To the best of my knowledge there will never be a flea that can develop a resistance to breathing. The treatment is safe and effective, and deserves to appear in wikipedia. SystemBuilder (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Sceptre (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Under no circumstances should you remove yourself if reported at WP:AIV. Let a third party review the situation. Pedro : Chat  14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MBisanz  talk 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by religion
Hey there. It seems you've put yourself inside a parent category, which really isn't the best thing to do. The reason for parent categories is to put the individual entries into more specific categories. There seem to be 29 options that are available rather than the parent category, so I thought I'd leave it up to you to decide which you would like to be a member of. And surely there's a joke to be made here about you being a cat and categories, but, alas, I'm too tired to formulate one. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bumvertising
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bumvertising, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pip (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested...
I began to redo the Pike Place Market article with User:Jmabel in my user space at User:Rootology/Pike Place Market. My thinking was to tear it apart there first (thats underway) and then rebuild it for a Featured Article run. Doing it there lets us leave the live page alone and intact meanwhile. If you'd be interested, feel free to dive in. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I10
Hey, I noticed your taggings of Image:BIOS Setup Screen.jpg and Image:A red Ford truck.JPG as I10. I'm not sure they qualify as such, because WP:CSD says that they only apply to "files uploaded that are neither image, sound, nor video files." I deleted the Windows 98 image because that is a copyright violation, but I'm not sure of the other two.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

category suspected sockpuppets of jesus
greetings: i borrowed your idea by categorizing my user page as a suspected sockpuppet of jesus. badmachine (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing
Hey there...

I am going through a number of images that have some minor licensing issues. I came across Image:Yung Shue Ha from Tung O ferry pier.jpg and also Image:Yung Shue Wan from the ferry pier.jpgwhich you uploaded. The licensing on this image is not complete as it was uploaded many years ago. I wonder if you could follow the link to the image page and correct the licensing with a GFDL license (or other free license). If you have any questions or issues, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I updated. But, I find it rather incredible that Wikipedia processes have migrated via slow changes to templates a non-free copyright tag to a presumed-free image.  That's a legal problem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What are you doing?
Why have you placed a tag on deletion of a picture on my user page? It does not make any sense. Answer on my talk page, please.Marshall T. Williams (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pike Place Market
I've summed up the state of the article as I see it at Talk:Pike Place Market/Archive 1. Seems to me that the one big undone task is the history. I may still putter around the article (I indicate several small things I plan to do), but I think I've basically done my part of the substantive work. - Jmabel | Talk 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Dear SchmuckyTheCat,

I am a bit new to wikipedia and also a bit confused. From what I gather, my contributions to wikipedia have been deleted by you. I can not understand the reason for this. The message I received was that my contributions were characterized as spam. How is that possible? I added Official website links to pages of specific cities or provinces. There is no way that my intentions were commercial, and the websites I linked are not either. They are information sources offered by the government of these cities. There is no gain for any party.

I hope that we can solve this misunderstanding. BT.pcr —Preceding unsigned comment added by BT.pcr (talk • contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science. BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

what helps
rather, what doesn't. One thing that doesn't is to attack someone's character for wanting articles deleted. Another is to try to keep absolutely everything. DGG (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek article
This article Chiang Kai-shek is under Vandalism by IP 122.121.xx.xxx, please to protect the article, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.192 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not an admin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

please
This is a personal attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Puppetry.2C_Protection_.26_POV_tags

Please apologize. You have no excuse. I asked you 2 specific questions (using reliable sources) and instead of trying to give a rational answer you are attacking me personally. This is disruptive; If you don’t apologize I will have to follow the right venue - AVI or whatever seems appropriate.--JeanandJane (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Schmucky, just FYI, this editor has placed the same combative message on my talk page and I have replied there. You may wish to take a look. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * meh. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

edit summary
In an effort to be more productive in editing the articles and collaboration, could I ask you to be more elaborate with your edit summaries? I ask for a quote of consensus or convention. You just did a "rv" without actually saying anything. You did something similar in the Nanjing article recently. I am not into edit wars, and I would appreciate respect being shown to your fellow editors. When people ask you for reasons, please give them.

I am certain that you do not wish to repeat all the nasty fights that you went through in the past, as I seem to recall comments being made by administrators about your editing behaviour.--pyl (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * rv is a perfectly fine explanation when someone inserts "mainland China" repeatedly into an article. And if you are so aware of my editing history, you'd be aware that making a change on one article when it was denied on a different article (ie, Nanjing), and placing "mainland China" into articles (ie, the pandas) is what got the other people in my edit history banned, permanently, from Wikipedia.  You, not me, are setting yourself up as a POV warrior with POV edits and subterfuge like these.
 * I'll say though, that compared to POV warriors of the past, you make many more constructive edits than POV edits and are generally more reasonable on talk pages. I do hope that continues. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I don't believe that "rv" is perfectly fine for not providing a proper edit summary when being asked to. I wouldn't do that personally, as I believe that everyone is entitled to a reasonable reply.
 * Also, I didn't insert "mainland China" into the articles that you reverted. You probably need to read the edit history of the articles before making such assumptions. I simply reverted the changes that Readin made and asked for a quote of the convention which he or she cited. I don't think that's being unreasonable.
 * SchmuckyTheCat said:-
 * a change on one article when it was denied on a different article (ie, Nanjing), and placing "mainland China" into articles (ie, the pandas) is what got the other people in my edit history banned
 * I am not sure what you are referring to. I didn't insert "mainland China" in either Nanjing nor the panda articles. Again, you probably should read the history better before making accusations. And what was denied? Was there consensus that Nanjing should never be mentioned as capital of the ROC? "Mainland China" was never denied by any consensus or conventions. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
 * In the panda article, I changed some incidences of "PRC" to "mainland China" to unify the terminology throughout the article, as "mainland China" was already used at the opening amongest other places.
 * In any event, I do intend on pursuing the Nanjing issue. I don't have the time to find references yet, but when I do, I will look into it. As I said previously, I am not a person who insists on stuff for POV reasons. After extensive research, I found Nanjing not a de jure capital of the ROC and I got back to you in your talk page. I am interested in the truth, not ideology.
 * SchmuckyTheCat said:-
 * I'll say though, that compared to POV warriors of the past, you make many more constructive edits than POV edits and are generally more reasonable on talk pages. I do hope that continues.
 * I am not sure if that's a compliment or a criticism. But I do find the term "POV warriors" offensive. You have your own POV which I see that you prosecute religiously. I don't think it is cool to give someone a label like this when you are essentially doing the same things, just from an opposite angle. And I find it rather interesting that you never call people who agree with your POV "POV warriors". I don't think you would appreciate it if I call you a "POV warrior" when you do your Nanjings or Taiwans. I don't find giving people labels like this in such patronising manner is helpful in gathering consensus and colaboration.--pyl (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RSVP'd, thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Question
Hi. On Feb. 18, you reported Sko1221 to WP:AIV as a "return of POV warring sock" who was "using the foie gras article to insert PETA propaganda." At the time, Od Mishehu pointed you to WP:SPI. Now, I'm there getting ready to file a report, but I need more information. Can you point me to the other accounts? Obviously, the editor created the account out of the blue on that same day, and seemed very familiar with how Wikipedia works, with very little, if any learning curve, although problems do persist. The reason I ask is because there have been a number of new accounts popping up on Talk:Medical cannabis, and Sko1221 is right there besides them, cheering them on. Any help you can offer pointing me to the other accounts would help. I've started a preliminary discussion, here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you at this moment who I thought Sko1221 was a sock of at the time I made it. (I forgot, I'm spending not very much time on Wikipedia lately.)  I think it's obvious, even without sockpuppetry that the account is used for advocacy of outside causes and is using Wikipedia as viewpoint platform.  That kind of disruption should be dealt with even without proof of puppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Agreed, but if you suddenly remember or think of something, let me know. I'm probably not going to open up an official sockpuppet case unless one of two things happens, and this is one of them. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some POV vandals trying to suppress info about the separate evolution of Han Chinese
Hi! I just to wanted to let you know that I tried many times to post the information pertaining to the separate evolutionary lineage of the Han Chinese on the Han Chinese article page as was recommended to me. But unfortunately I have encountered a few users and who are trying to suppress this information from being posted on the page. Violating user Multivariable continually reverts my edits and Jayron32 has "protected" the page in an attempt to keep others from posting the peer reviewed scientifically proven information. Please advise on how to deal with these people.

Thanks! --72.215.69.43 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To 72.215.69.43: You're still at it, I see. You don't even use the talk page and just keep adding all this poorly-sourced material back in again and again (5 times in the past day), including on MY talk page. Everything I've brought up about original research and problems with your sources (e.g. Youtube) go unaddressed on the talk page.
 * SchmuckyTheCat, I apologize for doing this on your talk page but this person won't even engage in a discussion. -Multivariable (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For your information, I have already posted on discussion. It is you who is trying to suppress this information with your lame excuse that the scientific journals posted are so-called "original research." When they are all peer reviewed scientific studies published in recognized and reputable sources such as Genetics (Journal), BMC Biology and Oxford Journals. Go read about them so you will understand that they are ALL reputable sources and NOT so-called "original research" as you allege. And anyone can see your lame attempt at threatening me on my talk page with blocking as your way of trying to suppress this information from going public.--72.215.69.43 (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image Attribution
Thanks for letting me know. I can see it's sort of a douchey thing to do. I'm working for said Kris Krug and was under the impression that image attribution on the pages would be alright. BUT my lesson has been learned. I'll head through and take all that down on the articles I've added photographs to.

Thanks :)

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing
Hi. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi.

I've just taken a job as a Webmaster at an animal health pharmaceutical. I edited a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin) to add a link to our product (in the External Links section) that includes that active ingredient. You reverted that page to remove the link. Is there a resource to help me better understand what is the appropriate way in which I can edit Wikipedia entries related to our products? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.83.16 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * External links, SPAM, Conflict of interest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

List of pharmacy associations
I cleaned up List of pharmacy associations the best I could. Whaddya think? Regards &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China
I believe your edits in the article today may give rise to issues relating to the 3 RR rule. Maybe you wish to look into that.--pyl (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China
I've opened an issue at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that touches heavily on Liu Tao's edits. Laurent and I both agreed to allow Nanking if Liu Tao could find a reliable source, so I think we're pretty much bound by that even though I think you have some good points. You may want to take a look. Readin (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Liu Tao entry on WP:LONG

 * Cross-posted here and on User talk:Laurent1979

Hello Laurent! I have removed the entry on WP:LONG about User:Liu Tao. As the title of the page indicates, it is meant for persistent and long-term abusers only. The user in question doesn't seem to be this: he/she hasn't been indef-blocked yet, and has, as far as I can see, no sockpuppets. Certainly not (in)famous enough, I wouldd say. Perhaps you should try to reason with him/her instead? Cheers, theFace  18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ROC
Nanking ALSO IS ROC Capital too, do not arbitrarily revert i edit. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.96 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty = China?
Just seeing you have been so keen on editing China-related topic, I would like to ask your view about whether Qing Dynasty is considered as China (for pre-1911 topics). I have been trying to correct the Mongolia article and state that was part of China before 1911, but it has been repeatedly reverted by editors there who claim "Mongolia was not part of China", "Qing=China is a POV", etc. What do you make of that?--Da Vynci (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Laurent (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2009 (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.

List of largest cable-stayed bridges
Hello. You are right that reverting edits by banned users is an exception to the 3RR thing. Can you provide anything simple that would convince someone not already familiar with the case that Baksando is Instantnood? Gimmetrow 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sending private mail. I don't want to give away too many gimme's on ID'ing his sock or he'll change them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The user has taken it to ANI so I thought I would let you know. Law type!  snype? 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I find the info fully persuasive, but it's plausible enough. So, I am declining a 3RR block. Anyone who does want to block Schmucky over an alleged 3RR does not have my permission to reverse my action as first-reviewer. I don't necessarily find it wise to always revert every edit by a banned users, but it is currently allowed. Gimmetrow 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting up with users who've been through Arbcom three times and innumerous and progressive community bans leading to a permanent one is not wise. The only way to make them go away is to remove their contributions and stop giving them attention. As long as he thinks he can stir the pot, he'll do it again. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * When I first saw the AIV report, I thought it had some indications of being a setup. However, you somewhat fell into it by reverting to the redlink rather than fixing it in some way. That's what I'm saying. Gimmetrow 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Template revisions
Gday Schmucky. I thought it only polite to let you know I partially reverted your edits to Template:HongKong-film-director-stub‎ and Template:Macau-museum-stub. I kept your categorizations under People's Republic of China, but also re-added the seemingly-disputed categorizations under Asia. One is a political fact, the other is a geographic fact; keeping both categorizations is good for users and will hopefully cause the least offence to the most parties. Happy editing... • Lainagier • talk • 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Krusty-o's.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Krusty-o's.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —Bkell (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the generic template… —Bkell (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the image back where it was supposed to be. Thanks for the notice. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

User Baksando and Mainland China
Why are you deleting the talk page edits by User:Baksando? He seems to be asking a perfectly legitimate question. Readin (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Short answer. Because it is a sockpuppet of User:Instantnood and the banning policy allows it, because any contribution is unwanted, including talk pages.
 * Long answer: an innocent question will devolve into badgering. He'll ask a question, as if he doesn't already know the answer.  When someone responds he'll keep beating on every shortcoming in the answer all the while promoting his right answer, which he didn't propose in the initial question.
 * I used to leave talk pages when reverting him. I stopped because it just became an outlet for belligerence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

NowCommons: File:Virginia City, Montana.jpg
File:Virginia City, Montana.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Virginia City, Montana.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you attended
Hello again! As we mentioned when you attended our focus group back in April, our goal was to use your feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what you thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.

To take the survey, click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Even if you are unable or unwilling to take this survey, we want to thank you for attending our focus group. Your generous contribution of your time and ideas was greatly appreciated! Commprac01 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Which kind am I?
Do I count as an "accuser", or as a "harpy"? :) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Salvo (magazine)
Hello. I created the article Salvo (magazine) and you tagged it for CSD but I did not receive a notice. This can be enabled by checking that radio button looking thing that will: "Notify user (if possible)." This can be very irritating sometimes if a notice is not received, so for the future please notify the user through that button. I don't see why not. And by the way, could you tell me how to italicize a article title like in Salvo (magazine)? Because I've never had to itaiclze an article title before. Thank you. -- How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2  00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Name Conflict
I was reading old pages of Naming conflict and saw you had been involved in earlier discussions in 2005 when the previous wording on self-identifying terms was first put in. There's a discussion going on right now the clarify that section. If you're interested the discussion is here. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please help reserve Hong Kong public housing estate articles
Please help reserve Hong Kong public housing estate articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shek Yam East Estate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shek Mun Estate and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Tsz Estate. If this continues, I think most of the Hong Kong housing articles will be deleted. I suggested ways to improve the articles, rather than deleting them. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Thanks for all youre help on Morakot and for catching that sockpuppet before i could respond to this comments. :)Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese
Mind voicing your two cents there? The discussion has gone on for much too long. Need some sensible outsiders. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci
User:Da Vynci went around in the past week and changed numerous Hong Kong related articles again to fit his POV. He must be watched very closely. He is even uncomfortable saying Jackie Chan is "Chinese". Colipon+ (Talk) 08:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I were to leave a message to SchmuckyTheCat regard him keep reverting others edits, and then I saw this. Colipon, you sneak behind my back and asked people to watched me? I edit with respect to reference and NPOV. You seems have strong POV whenever u see facts regarding Hong Kong's long existing presence on international community with identity on its own right being included in wikipedia articles. You even have problem when people mentioned Hong Kong is autonomous. You have already misrepresented me and personally attracked me in more than one occasions. I would like to remind you that Stalking is an offensive behaviour and not accepted in wikipedia. Da Vynci (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Da Vynci, you are a disruptive editor. is a misleading edit summary, designed to cover up that you simply reverted several days backwards in the article history.  You clobbered other editors contributions in your zeal to restore what you liked.  I will "stalk" you, and I have looked at your edits skeptically for months before Colipon asked me to, as you have proven that you cannot edit without soapboxing and without disrupting the collaborative process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * My view is that Da Vynci's edits on all Hong Kong-related articles very clearly reflect a political POV, and as such must cease. I agree with you that his use of misleading edit summaries have been quite prevalent. On the Jackie Chan article, for example, he changes "Chinese" to "Hong Kong" using a summary that said "He released Mandarin and Japanese albums". Colipon+ (Talk) 21:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered in Colipon's page.Da Vynci (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

List of sovereign states
That's what I wanted to talk to you about here, as you can't or didn't want to provide any explaination when u revert other's edit. So here I ask u again, since both Mainland & Taiwan was parts of ROC since years b4 1949, the country ROC didn't "relocate", it just moved the capital & the gov HQ from a place in China to the another place in China. Why u keep deleting the word "capital" in that sentence?

I am trying to work things out with you, reverting other's edits repeatedly without explaination and accusing people, who simply have different opinion with you, describing them as "disrupting", isn't going to help the whole collobrative process. Da Vynci (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When you make a revert with a misleading edit summary, that is disruptive.


 * When you delete third party contributions while making your revert, that is disruptive.
 * When you purposefully choose poor sources because they back up your POV, that is disruptive.
 * When you filibuster talk pages defending your bad sources, that is disruptive.
 * I'm not going on. You are disruptive and you do not respect the collaborative process. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I see, so basically whenever you see people who include facts and information that you doesn't suit your political taste, you simply fail to reason and resort to just call them disruptive or other inflammatory names u could think of. BTW, didn't they blocked Wikipedia in China, how could you edit here so frequently everyday? Da Vynci (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting general issues aside, thanks for eventually landing on a consensus in the List of sovereign states. Da Vynci (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for that. btw, the answer is a private VPN to a hosted Remote Desktop in the United States. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Computer in PRC can actually access to wikipeida, why take all the trouble to connect to remote desktop?Da Vynci (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfiltered, unlogged. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Barnum Bailey Circus
Respect the collaborative process--why did you remove my circus edit? My edit accurately reflects the significant animal abuse controversy surrounding the circus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.237.52 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it to the article talk page. This doesn't belong in the lead of the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How will the results of any consensus obtained from the article talk page determine the standing of my revised edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.237.52 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, why are you failing to make the reasonable assumption that my editing efforts are good faith efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.237.52 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not tolerate your revising my reasonable edits in your efforts to slant wikipedia pages towards your own biased agenda. What administrative steps may I take to complain regarding the above?
 * Dispute resolution. You should probably start complaining about me on either the vandalism reporting board at WP:AIV, the adminstrator's noticeboard for intolerable incidents at WP:ANI or you can complain about my suppression of your beliefs because of edit warring at WP:AN3. It is your choice. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oh, I forgot one that you might find relevant. If my behavior towards you has just been plain rude, you can complain at WP:WQA. You might want to try to report at all four of these places.  SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Thank you for the reply, and the links. I do sense, though, that your reply is a bit smug and disingenuous. You could not seriously believe that I would wish to report you to all four places, as you suggested. But I appreciate your reply in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.237.52 (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yay!
I got one vote! Yay for fisting! I guess some people are born without souls! Happy editing! -- A3RO (mailbox)  03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

%7E%7E%7E%7E
What is this redirect, anyway? Out of curiosity, I pasted it into the navbar, and it comes up with four tildes, and the wikipedia page says "Bad title". Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ROCK linux
Thanks for backing me up in deleting that turdy article. Foie Gras, oo la la! The Zwinky (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Well done.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lucid Desktop, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''I'm getting sick and tired of your unclear excuses for article deletion. What the hell is "self-sourced," and who are you to determine what is unimportant?'' GSK (talk ● evidence) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Template:Television in the People's Republic of China
Hi, why do you revert my revision of Template:Television in the People's Republic of China? Is there anything wrong with it? I dont think so from my point of view at the moment. The group1 of that template do embraces those stuff with regard to the information for mainland China. And there are some regional based television stations, of provinces or cities. Forgive my impolite manner, but could you please provide me the reason for that reversion? Thank you-Wo.luren (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainland China in this usage is regional (HK/MO/TW) usage of the term. Wikipedia is written from a global perspective. From the global perspective, there is plain old China and the special case areas around it. It is inappropriate to use the regional term in this template. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am a little bit confused. What do you mean by the term "regional"? Is it the word that only people in China uses or that "mainland China" is an sub-district with in China? If you meant the latter, there are actually other terms, "Hong Kong" and "Macau", written in the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo.luren (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The country name is China. The country television stations are located in China. That HK and MO have special status doesn't change the name of the country. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Wow, it's great to see you back doing the vandal-slaying thing. Don't stay away that long again, capeesh? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vr-zone
Hello SchmuckyTheCat, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Vr-zone - a page you tagged - because: claims importance, claims coverage in reliable sources, has survived one AFD in 2006 and speedy was declined already before. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICK
Please find a better way of asserting your opinion, instead of being a dick about it. Your argument of "refs suck, so nn" shows how much you understand of wikipedia procedures. I am only trying to fight for an area of music that has no recognition which is hindered off wikipedia by all encompassing criteria that obviously can't be all encompassing. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope of A7
Hey Schmucky, I've seen you on AfD quite a lot recently. Just to let you know, WP:CSD applies only to "a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content," not products. :-) King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 01:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
You're on ANI. Here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Windows Neptune and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Windows Neptune, Windows Odyssey. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/Windows Neptune for Windows Neptune, Articles for deletion/Windows Odyssey (2nd nomination) for Windows Odyssey. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not steal photos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maurice_Clemmons.jpeg

Stealing photos is theft. Goldamania (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has opened a discussion regarding this photo at the administrators' incident board. He must have forgotten to mention it to you somehow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of East Asian and Southeast Asian countries by population, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yoz!
It's been a long time since we last spoke, but unfortunately I have to speak here thanks to our old friend. I think edits made by this are just getting too suspicious.

Happy Chinese new year!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * gun hei fat choy, my friend.
 * I'll look at those contribs. I have been very idle on the site because a lot is happening in real life, so it might take a bit. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Template:Macau-museum-stub
The user who you had previous reverted has re-edited the page. I don't know anything about the context, but because you have indicated there's a ban, would you please take a look. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re recent edits
Regarding this and this—if you want to allege that this IP is a banned user, then you need to demonstrate that this is the case and not just revert comments which are otherwise productive. Take the issue up at the appropriate forum if you think someone is evading a block, but don't just revert his comments unless/until the IP is blocked as a sock. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this as well. I am having some problems with this user so I would be interested in whatever information you might have. Would you care to open an SPI, or to detail the behavioral evidence for me? There looks to be a large overlap in topics of interest, at least; I haven't yet been able to look at the editing times to see if there's overlap there as well. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)
Hi, SchmuckyTheCat. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Caphillmassacre-weapons.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Caphillmassacre-weapons.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm disruptive?
You reverted me here; why do you say that I'm banned and disruptive? Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not you, the one you were responding to. I was closing the whole discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

112.118.163.236
In regards to this user, how are you reporting your suspicion of a sockpuppet? Are you opening a CheckUser or another investigation at Sockpuppet investigations ? I reverted his removal of the "sockpuppet" template and told him to keep it up until the investigation is finished. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * His IP changes a few times a week. It isn't necessary to open a new SSI every time a banned user gets a new IP or Wikipedia would die of process overload. One or two of the latest run of IP addresses was already blocked by a CU. The string of IP addresses just continues conversations started by the last IP. If you follow the IP history, you'll see the already blocked addresses. If you want the "omg, this is so obvious I don't even need a CU to understand" evidence, use the emailuser function and I'll show you. I don't want to make it public, because he'll change his tactics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * So I can get a better understanding of the disruptive user, please user the emailuser function to show the evidence. Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for e-mailing that. I can't believe he had been doing that stuff since 2004.
 * Has anyone tried to contact his ISP? Or does he keep switching ISPs?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the primary ISP is always Netvigator, a large (largest?) ISP in HK. He also uses other IPs though, some very strange ones in fact, so there may be some proxying or other stuff going on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

He has re-added a deleted comment via another IP at this link, which I had reverted afterwards. He must really be desperate if he resorts to different ISPs/IPs/Proxies/etc each time he edits. Sb617 (Talk) 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Move question
Please assist Re:Talk:The_in_Sound_from_Way_Out!. First off, I apologize for moving this page without looking at the talk. Furthermore, why do you think "in" should be capitalized? It's only two letters and it seems to me like WP:CAPS and WP:MUSTARD would advise against it being capitalized; is it because it's an adjective? Anyway, please post to that discussion and preferably my talk (although I understand if you don't want to bounce back and forth between all of these pages.) Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There's a thread over at ANI regarding an issue with which you were involved.  N419 BH  13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! Double notified. My bad.  N419 BH  14:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Instantnood
Hi there. Is this IP,, Instantnood? Just wondering since it seems that you've had some previous experiences with him or her.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some questionable edits, but there are a few that make me think it is not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Okay, thanks.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, he is currently attempting to proxy on a /24 at 61.18.170.0. That doesn't preclude using other IPs, but that one looks like one person on a single IP for a few days. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I was actually contemplating blocking that range earlier today when some IPs on that range was editing and/or reinstating some of the same edits as . But it seemed so busy that I wasn't too sure if it was just Instantnood or if there were other users online. Hopefully the 3 hour block will be enough.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Three hours will cover it, unless he figures he can go for it again when the block is over because he has found a safe spot... I'm looking at IPs there and close to a third have some sort of long term block history.  I know it's hard to get the right balance between allowing anons from that ISP and blocking disruption but it sure looks like a popular spot for other disruptors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Confused
Could you explain this? Is there something I'm missing? – xeno talk 03:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Banned users don't get to participate in discussions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Ah, didn't realize it was a known user. Thanks, – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts
Can you explain why you have reverted a number of edits that I have made? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they were unreferenced, incorrect, inaccurate, non-neutral or otherwise problematic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Could you explain in further details? In what way are they incorrect, inaccurate, non-neutral or problematic? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

HK-film-director-stub
I am afraid I have reverted your edit on SFD. Cinema of China and cinema of HK are separate threads of Chinese language cinema, at least until very recently. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A week ago I was asked if you were the same as banned User:Instantnood who was currently causing trouble on a different IP range . I was fairly certain you were not because of differences in editing style working with tables  and that you approached, but did not really go over the line  of making disruptive edits of the type that Instantnood does.  In the last few days however; your edits and the other IP addresses which are confirmed to be Instantnood have overlapped,   to the point that you are reverting people who reverted the other IP range.  It is awfully convenient for you to take up the other IP addresses issues a few hours after the other address was banned.  I do not believe this is simple common interest.  You are either sharing a computer/IP address so some of his edits come from your IP, and/or you are in direct communication and acting as puppets for each other, and/or you have decided to follow other editors (myself  and others) and re-engage in his revert wars   over POV issues in the same manner that he does.  These are all behaviors that will get you banned on Wikipedia.  I highly suggest, if you are not Instantnood, you create a username and make a decision to use your time on Wikipedia constructively instead of engaging in combative behaviors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I thought users are free to decide to register for accounts or not, and this is indeed a funny reason to invite someone to register for an account. I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm interesting to know which articles you are referring to. In the meantime I have reverted your edit. By common sense I believe it is more natural for you to put forward your suggestion, rather than modifying someone else's edits. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you make changes to your original posts after I have replied? Do you know what etiquette is? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding evidence does not change meaning. Do you like ice cream? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * My reply was made based on your original post. That post contained no link by then. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So your reply would have been different when faced with obvious malfeasance? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * For obvious reason. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Ύ

"Subnational", " 🇭🇰 [[hong kong|Hong Kong]], China "
Could you please elaborate why you said Hong Kong is "subnational", and why it should be presented as 🇭🇰 Hong Kong, China ? Is there any precedance on Wikipedia to present other non-independent countries with the same format? If yes, could you show them to me? And in the meantime could you halt your drive? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop now. Is it your habit not to cooperate with anybody? I thought Wikipedia is a place for consensus. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you actually got any intention to stop? It appears that you're the one who's so keen to revert warring. Your behavioural patten is nothing different from the IP address that you complained. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. The repeated POV re-organization of lists that place Hong Kong outside China has subjected previous editors to blocks and bans for disruption. I'm convinced you know this already. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Can you elaborate? From what I observed almost all articles and lists with sections sort by country are placing Hong Kong outside of China. All, basically, except for those you have edited. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That might be an interesting observation if
 * I was the only one reverting your edits. I am not.
 * This type of POV re-org moving Hong Kong outside China wasn't exactly what previous banned users were doing that caused years of disruption resulting in Arbitration rulings.
 * So, I assumed good faith you didn't know any better a week ago. A weeks worth of your editing has shown otherwise. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Alright. Please demonstrate why Hong Kong i) is subnational, ii) should not be presented in the same manner as other non-independent countries (i.e. separate sections and use common names). Please explain also why the majority of lists and articles on Wikipedia have separate sections or listings for Hong Kong and other non-independent countries. Don't simply refer to what banned users had done, which I don't know. What arbitration rulings by the way? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any argument that HK is not subnational? lol. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * What is subnational according to your very own understanding? And don't ignore the second part of my question. Why is it different from other non-independent countries? 112.118.149.119 (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sedition
The Crime Ordinance have existed long before the Basic Law was drafted. Please refrain from creating funny materials on Wikipedia if you don't actually know the subject matter. Thanks. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Spellings
Please don't change the spellings used in an article for no reason. 112.118.149.119 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Could you do me a favor, and don't revert the edit please. Atleast put the picture of the vivisection on the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.143.128 (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Double AFD
Doh. We AFD'd Paul Zimmerman (politician) at the very same minute. :-) Well, I'll undo mine then. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a banned user sock that I keep a close eye on. Sorry for stomping on each other. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Rollback?
I'm not following why you rolled back this edit. It doesn't look to me like vandalism or any other bad faith edit. Is this some banned user I'm not recognizing? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The same one that's been going on with my talk page for weeks. I'm not asking anyone to ban the IP, because last time a single IP was banned he ended up using a caching proxy spread across 250 IPs and it was harder to track.
 * Also, as to what is "wrong" with that edit - do you notice how it subtly moves China? Instead of this border station being between two divisions within China - between a province and SAR, it becomes a China-Macau border, it looks international instead of internal. A reader who is not knowledgeable about China's internal divisions may think Macau is somehow separate from the PRC. Some of the IPs other edits on other border stations was much more flagrant about this appearance. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Ah, if it's a banned user, then no problem. That's where my confusion was. As for the content, you're probably right. I wasn't concerned so much with the revert as perplexed about the use of rollback on what I took as a good-faith, if misguided, edit. But if it's a banned user, different story completely. Carry on. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He's on a new IP already, yay. Also, on the spelling, I was just making it consistent with some other edits but I don't care to change it again. This user insists Macau uses the Queen's spellings of words. Macau doesn't use English officially and everything I've experienced there is an amalgam of English. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Hmm, I've noticed a lot more UK English there than US. I'd always assumed they tended to go along with HK. Anyway, the only reason I changed was per the rule of going with the original edits, which were in UK English (admittedly, I was the one who wrote that).
 * If indeed this is a banned editor, would semi-protection be something to consider here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: Semi-protect. Maybe, probably not. He goes off on a different tangent every week. I guarantee you there is another IP address already making innocent looking edits now that will bust out with controversial ones next weekend on a different subject matter but same POV issues. We can't semi-protect everything about China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists)
Is this the banned user you have been reverting? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned User
Due to the recent initiation of some DRVs I started to explore your contributions to try to see if you had indeed emptied a category and then asked for it to be speedy deleted. In your contributions I see a large amount of unexplained reversions of an IP. By digging around a bit it would seem that this is because you think they are a banned user. Could you tell me what user they are, and what sock puppet investigations exist linking these IPs to a banned user. At the moment a quick glance at your contributions make it appear that you're edit warring and point of view pushing. If of course the user is banned this is understandable although I still think you could use more informative edit summaries to help explain what you are dong. Dpmuk (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read the last few months of my talk page. That this user has been confirmed as Instantnood has been confirmed by administrators by behavior analysis, and that the IPs used by the socks I am reverting are using multiple IPs and multiple usernames have been confirmed by CheckUser. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Also, yes, I do wish the rollback function could have some defined edit summaries. The speed at which this banned user will re-instate their edits (hundreds a day if not cut off) necessitates using the MediaWiki rollback for performance. I try to use the Twinkle revert when going back more than one revert because it allows this, and sometimes use it on purpose in the middle of other rollback actions so their are sporadic explanatory edit summaries in my contribs. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Have you seen Rollback feature. It offers a couple of options to allow useful edit summaries to be used with rollback.  Personally I use the one by Gracenotes that adds an extra link next to rollback called "sum" that pops up an edit box allowing you to input a summary.  Do you know if there is a reason the IPs can't be ranged blocked?  Seems to me an SPI may be needed to try blocking this user off. Dpmuk (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is 66,000 addresses, range blocking that would be almost unheard of. Those rollback with summaries provide the same function as Twinkle, but have low performance when doing a mass change. SPI is done and over - it's just a matter of spotting and cleaning up. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * We need to break this circle. At the moment you are just feeding the troll. Please stop for a while and just ignore it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because then it becomes more difficult to find the edits and remove them. Right now I am confining his little snit to a handful of pages. Left unchecked it will extend to a few hundred. It also risks talk page discussions that suddenly start becoming disruptive and nasty - which is what sent the whole thing to Arbcom ages ago - and that is what he REALLY wants. I'm sure the /16 could be range blocked for an hour or so to anon editors. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I'm asking you to back off for a day and let other editors deal with it. I promise you the wiki will not break. And I'm also asking that you stop using rollback in the way that you are. I appreciate that you are trying to help but your current approach is not working. Please stop now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, I back off and the banned user edits uncontrolled - and untracked because he has 66,000 proxy IP addresses which makes it impossible to hunt down his edits. Yeah, that works.  SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I've range-blocked for a short time to give you a break. And I've asked a checkuser to come and advise as well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I quietly asked a CU to check earlier this morning as well, with additional usernames. Part of the sock behavior is to use IP addresses to establish a few usernames to use in move and revert wars - either after the semi-protect period, or to build up a series of edits. The CU can email me and I can give them the suspicious users I already know about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I see what you mean - that would be a significant range block with what appears to be large amounts of collateral damage. I'm wondering whether an edit filter is a way to go as they seem to favour certain types of articles.  Still be some collateral damage but hopefully less.  Do you think their is enough similarity between their edits that this could work?  I suspect at the very least this could deal with the quick reverts.  Dpmuk (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a particular edit, but it wouldn't match a filter. And the talk page stuff, like restoring deletion discussions that are over a month old, etc, that wouldn't get caught either. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Zimmerman (politician)
Careful: you accidentally deleted Hairhorn's comments. Please don't delete or strikethru other editor's comments, even editors that are making a pest of themselves. There are better ways of dealing with problem editors. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sign your posts correctly
Hi! Please sign your posts correctly with four tildes ( ~ ). That way, your comments will also be time-stamped. / Hey Mid  (contributions) 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

XRL
Could you please double check (it'd be more helpful if you can read Chinese). As far as I know, the section between Guangzhou South and New Shenzhen is scheduled to be open by the end of 2010. 112.118.131.102 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to start in June, according to planning from a few years ago. I changed it to late 2010. (It'd be better if we used references, but..) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please stop
Stop deleting constructive edits in the name of combating banned users. It is vandalism. 116.49.136.191 (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really want to know why you still bother trying to edit Wikipedia, and why you robotically re-insert the same edits when you know it is all for nothing. Why? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * So why are you reverting constructive edits? If you stop, there will be no trouble at all. 116.49.136.191 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are banned. Banned users don't get to make any edits, constructive or not. There have been (rare) occasions I've looked at your additions and kept them, and there are occasions when I notice you editing and just ignore it (like stub sorting BLP entries from HK people). But you ARE BANNED. You can't distinguish for yourself, proven over and over, which of your edits are constructive and which are disruptive because of your severe POV.  So I ask again - knowing your edits will be reverted, why do you waste your time here? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Three hares
I happened upon your user page, and was duly impressed. For some inexplicable reason, I grok that you might be able to help with the foregoing page. Keep up the good work. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Stan
 * Thanks. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Stan

'sup?!
Hey, I saw your name here before, somewhere, and thought I would say hi. HAHA! -- A3RO (mailbox)  04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK! Hi! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

File source problem with File:Satsop Nuclear Plant.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Satsop Nuclear Plant.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Saibo ( Δ ) 21:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clarification. If someone uses only the template it is not perfectly clear. He could also downloaded the image somewhere from the web and put the GFDL template there because images need it to be uploaded in Wikipedia. Cheers --Saibo ( Δ ) 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well met
Good morning. I just wanted to let you know that my account is at the least dual purpose rather than the SPA account that you label me as on Articles for deletion/E. Matthew Buckley (2nd nomination). I'm just getting started here, but I am an experienced editor on milWiki (article coming soon). I hope to have the opportunity to collaborate with you in the future. Be well. Christieag (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability
A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hkcolonyprocess-EN.png
Thanks for uploading File:Hkcolonyprocess-EN.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GNAA sources.
StC,

As you may know, the Gay Nigger Association of America article was deleted many times before as it really was lacking a single notable source. It now has a number of notable sources, ranging from academic papers to Gawker to Boingboing to The Atlantic magazine. My current list of sources is here and I would like to elicit your help to get the article unlocked. What is the best way to go about this? I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. --weevtalk 2 me<span style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">G <span style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">N <span style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">A <span style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">A ™ 17:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Late to this but I'll look. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

sovereign states sorting criteria
Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Windows 95 rollback 20/11/2009
Hi,

I'm a bit late to the party on noticing this.

You rolled back an edit I made to the Windows 95 article last year, citing that "We don't document workarounds and hacks".

I can support that statement and perhaps I wasn't clear however, yet the article as it stands is factually inaccurate. The information contained in the edit is nether a work around or a hack. Microsoft only release the WDU binary in IE4 for retail customers i.e. direct download from Microsoft.com/ie/, however OEM's, ISP's and Corporate users could ship WDU with IE up to version 6.0 SP1 (5.5 SP2 being the last supported version on Windows 95). All they needed to do this was was obtain the necessary free license from microsoft.com/ie/ieak/

Consequently the statement "Only the 4.x series of the browser contained the Windows Desktop Update features, so anyone wanting the new shell had to install IE4 with the desktop update before installing a newer version of Internet Explorer" is not true.

So I stand by my edit and respectfully request reconsideration. C:Amie (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rewrite it in a documentary style instead of how-to. Then cite the background material to a good source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Gay Nigger Association of America up for Deletion Review
Hello! Since you participated in The MfD, you might be interested in participating in the Deletion Review, as well.

LiteralKa (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jiang Zemin
But he was not born in the People's Republic of China, mainland China was then under the control of the Republic of China. For him to have been born in the PRC, he would've had to be born after 1 October 1949, since the PRC was technically a new state.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is WHERE, not WHEN. Call it China. The point of the birthplace field is to allow a reader to locate the geographic location on a modern map TODAY not what the location was called in 1949. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I'm sorry I bothered you.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 19:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NP, bothering people is how we start discussions covering relevant issues. Since there is some contention about the "nationality" of the place at the time of birth I removed the "state" entirely, the city and province geographically place the location accurately. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Ah, fair enough. Thanks, -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 20:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lixus

 * I have put plain Lixus back to being the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Standard Mandarin
As you were a former participant of the late August and early September discussions to rename Standard Mandarin to "Modern Standard Chinese", you may be interested in participating in the proposed move at Talk:Standard Mandarin. And do archive your talk page. Eighty sections is far too long to most. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

China/PRC
Help me understand the issue with China and the People's Republic of China. It's my understanding that PRC is the preferred term for the country commonly called "China," but that "China" is less specific than desired. Is that not the case?--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Video gaming in China
I know the article itself is not about politics, but I still think that since it's the about video gaming in the PRC, then the formal title should be used. Besides, the common name is used subsequently throughout the article, so I don't see how any harm could arise from using the PRC's official name. Feel free to disagree, it's not too much of a big deal. It's just my opinion.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 11:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dacian Draco
Hello from WP:DAC! What clarification are you looking for regarding the Dacian Draco standard? Thanks and regards! --Codrin.B (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rearranging names
Hong Kong is a territory of the People's Republic of China. But the status of Hong Kong is a 'special administrative region' which, in effect, is a dependent territory; so Hong Kong is a Chinese territory but not part of China.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not new here, and neither are you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Yes, I am not new to here. What I meant was that Hong Kong was a dependency of China. It is a convention that we regard a dependency as a seperate polity from the sovereign state and call it by its name (e.g. St Helena is called St Helena, not the UK; and it's not regardedas part of the UK even though it is a British territory.) Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My talk page is not the place for this conversation. You hold a non-mainstream view. Your edits were not even in line with the idea you expressed above. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

NOR
Why would you object to manual archiving (including my own thread) at NOR? The page is getting hard to read, and the threads I removed are resolved. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You also reverted other changes, including at least one recent post. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to. Why not use those collapsed templates that they use on ANI/DRV etc? I've seen a bunch of manual archiving munge the way the archive bot works so I recoil when I see it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I agree that would be a good idea, but the problem with collapsing is it means the posts don't show up in a search. The headers do, so if people remember the thread title, it's okay, but if all they remember is a few words, and the thread is collapsed, those words won't show up when they search for them. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg
I got on my soapbox for File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg's trial. Then read your comments at its DRV That would be great if you could establish this image as free. If you have it, please post at the PuF 2nd discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Something fishy
I think they are using recaptchas. Cheers. <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong edits
Please refrain from making wrong edits (e.g. Template:PRC courts ) if you are ignorant of the subject matter. 119.236.250.80 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You take up half my talk page. Go away. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Talkback
testing tb....this first tb had a broken link Veriss (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow up on category issue
Hello SchmuckyTheCat. This is Eric from Microsoft following up on the categorization request for the article Microsoft. Specifically, while the category merge request is under consideration, could you update the article to include Category:Cloud computing providers?

Thanks for your work! Ebattalio (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating the topic! Ebattalio (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Very Secret Diaries
Back in 2005, you participated in an AFD discussion this article. It was kept, but I have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Direct-controlled municipality
Greetings! Direct-controlled municipality is not proper subject for a disambiguation page, because the various entities listed on the page are all the same kind of thing (a governmental subdivision), and therefore are not ambiguous in the sense that a link to this page would be incorrect. Disambiguation here is no more correct than disambiguation of Soft drink to a list of soft drinks. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not quite an actual disambiguation page even though I put the dab template on it. Everything that was "in common" for all the countries was left intact in the article. Everything that was unique was moved. The real growth potential of the article was not "in common". In the case of the Korea's, there already was a split article which meant the Direct controlled municipality article was a WP:FORK. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Soft drink and List of soft drinks both exist. Note that the list article doesn't have large tables and unique info to the products and the topic article doesn't contain a list. The DCM article had prose, tables, and lists in a jumbled mess. Splitting this was an editorial move. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oh, I see by your edits the objection isn't about the split, it was about calling it a dab page. Fair enough, and no objection from me. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Yes, it is just the dab tag. Putting that on the page lights up every link to the page as an error requiring repair, even if it isn't. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Douglas the Comeback Kid
Hopefully you are keeping a good watch on his edits, which often change "mainland China" to "China" when HK/Macau or TW are involved, such as here. This user clearly seems intent on pushing an anti-PRC POV, as within that edit, he, without justification, removed a simplified term. By the way, I chose not to revert the gov't type at the HK page, because: 1) it feels I am talking to a deaf user, who does not employ edit summaries. 2) need to keep my WikiStress down anyway -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is easier to track his edits as a logged in user than as an IP address. I suspect he is one of the IP editors who are also problematic. Good on you for keeping stress low! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Talkback
Hello, I invite you to participate in the discussion on Diego's talk page about locating either a free version of that file or proof that it should be free. I also agree that it should be free but cannot locate the proof. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Veriss (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China
Hi. Please take a look at the Dragonair destinations. All destinations within mainland China in that table are labelled as pertaining to the People's Republic of China, not to simply China. If you think this is a mere coincidence, please let me know.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

China was just taken as an example. Other could be the Democratic Republic of the Congo.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I get mail
Unsure what else to do with this vaguely threatening email: <email removed per EMAIL>
 * Schmucky, you're really not supposed to post someone's email without permission per this. As for what to do, I would really consider contacting ArbCom about this, especially since the user you mentioned was previously the subject of a case. And I would also redact the email above. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the email per the quoted guidelines, and will remove it from this page's history.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 04:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, my bad. I forwarded the mail as an attachment (headers intact). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Leave me alone
For the last time, leave me alone. I've previously banned you from contacting me outside of Wikipedia as I want nothing to do with you, your antics, or attempts to create drama for the lulz. Move on. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The massive cross wiki war going on right now
Who's the banned user you're reverting on all of those different China/border articles? I'm seeing a lot of changes from that user pop up on Huggle, but without knowing who the banned user is, I'm uncomfortable just reverting without knowledge of the topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Instantnood - trademarks of presenting Hong Kong as not part of China, and stalking my edits. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I'm done Huggling for the night...you may want to try to get some admin eyes looking at these edits to see if this is, indeed, a banned user that needs blocking. I was doubtful, then your explanation seemed to make sense, but now I'm not sure again.  Hopefully, another user with experience with the banned user can make the clear cut call.  Qwyrxian (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

HK / Macao renaming
Thank you for your message. I understand that the border crossings between Macao (or HK) and "the rest of China" is somewhat unique in that they are, technically, within the same nation state, rather than between 2 sovereign states. (This is of course very uncommon internationally; other examples I can think of is the special border crossing regime for air passengers flying between the mainland Australia and Norfolk Island, or between the mainland (western) and insular (eastern) Malaysia). However, as far as the actual crossing process is concerned, this is treated virtually the same as an international border on both sides, and is the border between the "mainland" zone of customs/immigration control and that of HK and Macao. I think we ought to discuss this issue thoroughly, with input from HK/Macau/PRC editors before any wide-scale change. I started the discussion at Template talk:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings. Best regards, -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed! This needs discussion. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

WP:3RR
I'd suggest you stop reverting the edits over at Sha Tau Kok Control Point and similar articles, as the edits aren't vandalism and you're violating the three-revert rule. Mato (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverting sock puppets of banned users isn't a violation of 3rr. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Which banned user is the IP a sock puppet of? Perhaps it might be a good idea to mention this in the edit summaries. Have you reported the IP as a suspected sock puppet? Mato (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. This sock puppet goes back five years. Enough of the reverts have an edit summary that if you looked at my contribs you'd figure it out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * You're right I've been stupid here on numerous levels - my apologies. I've reported the user at WP:AIV to hopefully stop them for the time being. Mato (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not stupid, I'm assuming you see an edit war by recent changes or something. We are all busy people efficiently trying to accomplish tasks to keep this project going. Thanks for your work. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * User is blocked (for now) so might make it easier to clean up the mess! Mato (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have contested the speedy deletion as being a POV fork isn't a valid ground for speedy deletion. For what it's worth though continually removing CSD tags really isn't appropriate. Let the admin figure it out. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please respect Hong Kong own identity and culture
Please stop your vandalism. Hong Kong has its own identity and value. Here is not Chinese wikipedia. Martinoei (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the second warning. stubbornness is not allowed in the wikipedia. I hope you can stop your vandalism. No one wants to waste the time on editing war. Martinoei (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Go away troll. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * This is the final written warning from me. You can ignore this, but our friend and I well prepare to complain your vandalism. Please respect yourself. Martinoei (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Martinoei, please read WP:VANDAL. You may disagrees with SchmuckyTheCat, and, for all I know, you're right and Schmucky is wrong. But, as you were already told at WP:AIV in this diff, Schmucky's edits are not vandalism. That term specifically refers only to actions by users intended to make the encyclopedia worse. It sounds more like you're claiming that Schmucky is violating WP:NPOV or WP:OR (I'm not sure on the details); the places to discuss those are The Neutral Point of View noticeboard and The Original Research noticeboard, respectively. Please, though, don't continue to use the term vandalism for this case, as doing so can sometimes be considered a personal attack. Again, though, I have no opinion on which of you is right in this content dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank a lot for your kindly remind. Martinoei (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin, why was there a three year absence between your last edits and suddenly joining an edit war that was already proven to be full of sockpuppets? Either you are a latent account of a known sock puppet abuser, or you have been canvassed to come join the fight. Either way that is not a good faith method of editing Wikipedia. By simple blind reverting, your edits are reloading templates and categories which are obsolete. You are not helping anything and aren't trying to discuss anything. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * My focus is on Chinese version of wikipedia, not the English version. I revert your editing because so many my blog readers from Hong Kong seek my help to revert your groundless work. Could you mind to tell me why do you think you are right ? What theory or evidence can support your insulting edits? Your edits are insulting Hong Kong people seriously. Martinoei (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin, are you saying you're here because you were canvassed off-site? If so, that's really not much worse than being a sockpuppet; you're basically acting as a meatpuppet. As for your comment about "insulting Hong Kong people", Wikipedia policy is that content is based on reliable sources, not what is insulting to any group of people (for example, we refer to that landlocked country north of Greece as the Republic of Macedonia, even though that term seems to be offensive to many Greeks). So you'll need to base your arguments in fact, not feelings. (Like Qwyrxian, I'm really not taking sides between you and Schmucky here; just telling you how things work here.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia editor or user is brainless and can be other user puppet easily. Someone tells me Schmuckycat groundless editing work in some pages. I examine the work of Schmucky carefully and finally conclude I have to take promote action to defend the related article. On the other hand, Schmucky proxy accusation itself does not assume the good faith. At this moment, I do not have solid evidence shows the Schmuckycat has any political intention behind its action. I want to listen his reasoning on his edit. I am still waiting hear any good news from him. Martinoei (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A user who has been idle for three years who suddenly shows up blindly reverting back to versions of articles with obsolete templates and categories with edit summaries of "vandalism" and "groundless" is not going to be treated in good faith as an independent editor different from the last puppet who did the same thing less than 24 hours before.
 * My "reasoning", in this current line of articles where you are focusing, is that the previous text inferred there was a Chinese side and a Hong Kong side. Hong Kong is part of China, politically, geographically, and culturally. I am fully aware of its special status. I love it there. But the reality is that Wikipedia is not going to present Hong Kong as separate or independent from China. I know that offends some of the freedom-loving (and having) HK people that do not want to be associated with the draconian PRC. As long as the reality is that HK is part of China, Wikipedia is going to reflect that. Even if it offends zealous HK patriots. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * All naming in Wikipedia is not based someone political view, this is only based on official document and common practice. Unfortunately, your reasoning without any official document to support. I read User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mainland_China before I take action against your editing. Please do not impose your political point of view on other ones. You have no intention to talk to other uses, I do not waste my time in this talk page. I file the complain against you official. Someone told me that you usually threat to ban other users against your groundless editing in Wikipedia English. This is useless to me. Wikipedia English is not your personal playground. Martinoei (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

☆猶太陰莖貓！★ on your userpage
What exactly does this mean? Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it and another racial slur from your user page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SchmuckyTheCat, have you offered an explanation for 猶太陰莖貓 yet? I was going to so do (starting with * 猶 - literally "furthermore", pinyin "yóu" * 太 - literally "wide, expansive", pinyin "tài"...) but I think it would be better if you did. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in explaining how a Yiddish slang term, translated to Chinese characters, and then literally translated to English, is not going to have any useful meaning. It means Schmucky the Cat. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * If that's your choice, well, so be it. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It means Schmucky the Cat. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hong Kong listing in airline destinations
On Lufthansa and British Airways destinations lists, smoeone continues to move Hong Kong under to Southeast Asia still as a seperate country. Shouldn't it be listed under East Asia with PRC? Snoozlepet (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd think so. I'm trying not to look at HK articles right now because Chinese blogs are advocating blind reverts of any of my edits. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Border categories
What do you make of this? I have asked the closing admin, and it seems the solution may be to nominate Category:China – Hong Kong border crossings for deletion or renaming to Category:Guangdong – Hong Kong border crossings. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, I quoted a comment by you, at ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ProvincialGDPofPRC.png
Hi, Schmucky. Would you pls help me deleting the File:ProvincialGDPofPRC.png on English WIKI? There exists another copy on commons, Thank you. copy on English WIKI copy on commons Cncs (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Douglas the Comeback Kid
I'd like to request some extra eyes on Special:Contributions/Douglas_the_Comeback_Kid if possible. This user has been making edits here and there implying that Hong Kong is not China/PRC, and removing every mention of Hong Kong being a sovereign territory of the PRC. I've already informed him that if he continues to engage in POV-pushing, that I would take him to whatever administrative avenues available (RFC, ANI, etc).

In addition, just to let you know that there is a WP:ATTACK against you on User:Douglas_the_Comeback_Kid. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aware of both. More on your own talk page. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

MfD nomination of Talk:The Powerpuff Girls/to do
Talk:The Powerpuff Girls/to do, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The Powerpuff Girls/to do (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:The Powerpuff Girls/to do during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  05:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No me gusta...
Whenever you sign your posts, why on earth do you not add a date to your signature? It makes it hard for some people to know when you post. So please, stop misleading others by omitting a date. -- 92.4.75.77 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Because I don't want to.
 * 2) Because my keyboard layout makes it a PITA. It enables a macro mode. I take care to override this on pages where time is extremely important or where it disrupts bots. Humans can deal. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

China naming
Do you have links to the previous discussions (other than PRC vs ROC to hand? It'd be nice to take a look at them before seeing if its worth escalating it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai vs. Chongqing
There is a RfC thread at Talk:Shanghai regarding the question whether Shanghai or Chongqing can claim to be the largest city in the PR China. However, this thread has not seen participation from anyone in more than 5 days, and there really needs to be more input. You may wish to give your opinion on this matter. Thanks much&mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  01:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Macau International Airport.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Macau International Airport.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WQA alert
Hello! I've lodged a request for your actions on Talk:China to be reviewed. Please see Wikiquette alerts. Thanks, and best regards,  Night w   13:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please instead see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743.  Night w   07:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

China naming
I've been bold and removed your RfC, can you get the move discussion closed first please? Possibly make a request on ANI for it to be closed? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would one go to ANI for closing RfC's? Do you mean AN?  Night w   07:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

218.250.156.233
No he's not, he's a meatpuppet with a mind on his own ;) I've been in touch with Instantnood off-wiki for a while and I'm pretty sure about this. Deryck C. 09:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. The IP is clearly following my edits and making the same edits Instantnood would. I talked with Instantnood off-wiki for awhile and tried to work with him even while he was banned. Then there was a checkuser report that showed he had a whole lot of extra accounts that he was manipulating discussions with even when he was not banned. That pretty much sealed it for me that he was not trustable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Can you help me out a bit more?
Hey, I'm not trying to be difficult. I've read thousands of words, but I don't remember which names go with which opinions so easily. I'm learning this dispute, and you're familiar with in inside and out. Can you help me get informed more quickly, so I don't take so much time while you get irritated that I don't already know your position in detail? I'm only there to help. Is that cool? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * gtb, you know I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I'm not irritated. :) I haven't had enough time lately to spell this stuff out, but I am following the discussion. Pop me an email, we can talk n the go. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It's too bad I'm not still in Seattle. We could get a lot done over a pitcher, I have no doubt. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that you're not trying to give me a hard time. I know your posts are really getting under my skin. You seem to be telling me to stop investigating and understanding the issues. I'll thank you to stop, please. I want to hear T-1000 make his points as clearly as possible, and you don't have to worry that my doing so is a threat to you. Please either get with the spirit of mutual learning and understanding, or get out of the way of those who are doing so. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm mistaking your tone, please do show me how, so I can better understand you. Right now, it looks like you're discouraging healthy discussion, so if you're not, please explain. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

please help
HI, I found some Anonymous IP adress are Break this article : Kuomintang, please take ACTION to stop it, thanks.219.85.252.161 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

how do i get shit unprotected
weev is protected and outdated. charges have been filed. ive made a couple notes on the talk page. i'd like to be able to keep the article current. is it okay to edit your own wikipedia article? is that allowed? nobody else is doing it some of the information is months and months old. i have a vested interest in the article staying current with the citations. anyways. word 2 u STC. STC is not just u its also SPAMTEC CREW you should listen to YTCracker and find out more about STC. --Weev 4real (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey weev. I just unprotected the page, so you should be okay to edit it yourself now. You can actually edit your own article, though Wikipedia has rules about that stuff. However, if you stay within the guidelines, you should be fine. Unlike some, you stated who you are up-front. Check out Conflict of interest and Autobiography for the details - A l is o n  ❤ 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Listen to ^this^ woman. She knows what's up. In general editing your own bio - bound to be haters. Don't engage the enemy, so maybe reach out on the talk page and say what needs to be updated. I'll check out YTCRACKER. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

"Banned troll"
Would you please explain this edit summary? I don't see any block log. Calling an random IP user a "banned troll" without any substantial evidence is a personal attack, which is not appreciated. Deryck C. 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Using a large range of IPs to make the same point over and over makes it pretty obvious... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not. It's wrong to assume that "using a large range of IPs to make the same point over and over" means the same person is abusing multiple IPs, and therefore is the same "banned troll". Rather, the fact that the IP users have somewhat different editing patterns but make the same general point simply confirms that this is a contentious issue disputed by many. Taking one IP and assuming it's used by the same person as another simply because they have the same editorial viewpoint, without providing any technical evidence, is simply a personal attack. Deryck C. 13:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When an IP: from a specific geographical area, with the same language syntax, has the same editing other behavioral patterns - as a blocked and banned troll it is safe to assume it is the blocked and banned troll. And if it isn't, they might as well be. This IP is not making a general point. This IP is repeatedly inserting text, including signature blocks by previous IPs. Sockpuppet unmasking is based on both behavior as much as technical evidence. The technical evidence Wikipedia provides, even to Checkusers, is very crude data. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * "Specific geographical area" isn't a piece of evidence. The disputed texts concern mainly Hong Kong, so you'd expect the disruptions to come from Hong Kong. I'm afraid I can't see "the same language syntax" between this user and others, and I can't see any coincidence in editing and behavioral patterns except that they push the significant minority view that Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan should all be listed separately from China. Deryck C. 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen people blocked/comments removed as being a sock for far less than the evidence here. People's IP's don't generally constantly change. By all means get a second opinion on WP:ANI if you really object. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to spell it out for you, Deryck, but when you aggregate this IPs actions across all of the IPs they have recently used it is quite obvious a sock or troll - and which one at that. You've told me before that there is more than one person matching this behavior, but if that's the case they are as unwelcome as the original.
 * Eraserhead, it is not uncommon for HK users to switch IPs constantly. The ISPs there are very shorthanded on addresses and time out DHCP leases aggressively. Many accounts are also behind caching proxies. To Wikipedia, those accounts are editing from entire subnets simultaneously and which IP gets recorded is essentially random. I believe this user also edits from convenience locations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once, when it was really disruptive, this user got 32,000+ IPs blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I think I need to get my point across more clearly. These users understandably push a common agenda, but there are clearly multiple real people behind them. However unwelcome as their behaviour may be, it is unacceptable to brandish them as the same "troll" simply because they push the same agenda which you fervently disagree with. Deryck C. 23:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not clear that "there are clearly multiple real people behind them."     There are four IP addresses here. There are not four users here. Each IP inserted that same material more than once. Add to that, those IPs made other edits as well which identify who it is.
 * Even if there were more than one user, I am uninterested in giving multiple similar POV pushers an individual opportunity to push a common agenda that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Users do not have a right to be treated as an individual when they act as a hive. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I agree that these 4 IPs are used by the same person. But exactly which "banned troll" ("ban" is an official sanction, either handed out by ArbCom, AN or through an actual block) are you arguing this person is? Deryck C. 15:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of feeding a pointless talk-page revert-war, here I raise my question: How disruptive can this removed comment be? Deryck C. 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One molehill or the mountain it is trying to create?
 * If no one feeds the troll, it'll always stop at one molehill. Deryck C. 14:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be on quite a roll pandering to POV trolls. Take a step back, maybe, and separate your politics from the disputes at hand. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * That one was a genuine technical error, as I've already explained at User_talk:HkCaGu.
 * Take a step back, and stop assuming every IP editor who pushes a POV you don't like is a sockpuppet of some banned user. Deryck C. 14:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists
I think you're the only person who actually feels strongly about the status of this editor/troll/sock/whatever. Blanking out their comments as "banned editor" isn't really justified unless you also request a sockpuppet investigation and rangeblock. Deryck C. 21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I let it go for a long time but at some point it crossed a line. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I don't think it crossed anybody's line but yours. Both User:Ravendrop and User:Eraserhead1 were happy to answer their queries. Deryck C. 08:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think at least for now whoever that IP is is acting fairly reasonably. He could be significantly more annoying and still be staying well within policy - other than holding a position I disagree with I don't think he's being unreasonable. As far as I can tell primarily he seems to want an explanation. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"hong kong is part of china"
I'm not sure if I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome, but I'm beginning to feel a sense of accomplishment every time you revert an edit of mine with the content-free edit summary hong kong is part of china. Deryck C. 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are smarter than pushing the extremely POV position that HK shouldn't be listed as part of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Douglas and HK-related edits
Be alert for changes such as this.  The Tartanator   22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the yogurt/yoghurt spelling history account
Thank you for reviewing Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory and fixing this typo. My hope is that it helps resolve this eight-year-long dispute one way or another. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Yog, looks like another RM is in progress.

This concerns you
Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of universities and colleges by country shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.I have undone all edits to the article since the edit war between you and 119.237.249.129 began. Deryck C. 13:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Deryck, as an admin you need to do a better job investigating before warning people. Since the IP wants to edit war, I took the time out to make it explicit that the IP is a sock. . You, as an admin, are acting in favor as a proxy to the banned user. Shame on you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I tried to show impartiality in handling these revert wars. As you can see, the IP user has been warned to the same extent as you have, and in my reversion of List of universities and colleges by country I undid all edits done by you and the IP. If you think I have been acting inappropriately as an admin, I am an administrator open to recall; and should you feel you have no recourse, you are always free to raise the issue at WP:AN/I or file a user conduct WP:RfC about me. Deryck C. 15:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No Deryck, its not about recall or any big thing. You are a reasonable person and will always talk about it. I just think you have a blind spot for HK trolls. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I think that's because I myself used to live in Hong Kong and just know the situation too well. Before 2007, an IP block affects every user behind the IP, registered or not, except those with sysop powers. Therefore, I know too well the troubles on Wikipedia with editing from a rotating IP range, and since my assumption of admin powers was vigilant in reducing blocks that may need to collateral damage due to rotating IPs, particularly with IPs from Hong Kong. Knowing that there is much split in opinion (from Wikimedia meet-ups) about the current editorial viewpoint of Hong Kong-related topics, I want to help editors from other places realise that what many of you think is a sockpuppet probably isn't that simple. I commend your move of taking those IP trolls to sockpuppet investigation, because without a sockpuppet investigation the claims of "banned user" will be unfair to everyone involved.
 * Have you ever been to or lived in Hong Kong? Deryck C. 15:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll see above in some previous conversation I defended against a range block. I've also requested admins to modify blocks before so registered users can edit through. I'm not too quick on the draw here, the edits that gave the current 194.* IP away were a few weeks ago. I didn't mention every IP used to edit war in the SPI either. It is when the 194 IP began disrupting polls - and someone unfamiliar with the situation template warned me - that I figured it was time to spell it out.
 * I'm curious about those you've met at meetups. Why do so many not use usernames? Is there backchannel communication about edit warring? What else is the explanation for so many 'unrelated' IPs to come to one article and blind revert?
 * I've been to HK - enough to maintain a phone # there. At one point I'd have lived there but the employer thought I already had a permanent work visa. They'd have transferred an existing visa but didn't want to sponsor a new one. Woah is me. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Meetup/Hong Kong/56 and Meetup/Hong Kong/57 will probably give you some idea of what kinds of people I meet in the HK meetups. Some of them actually registered for accounts or made their first logged-in edit at the meet-ups! Although there were some general discussion about the situation of Hong Kong on en.wp, No one among them has told me that they've been involved in an incident as an IP which you were also in; I think the conversation with User:Ohconfucius was the only one in which you were mentioned by name.
 * Occasionally I'm contacted privately off-wiki to look at certain articles, which accounts for a few instances in which I joined a dispute involving you. (I may have been canvassed, but please be assured that I'm not stalking: as a local Wikimedia chapter member and WP:Ambassador, I get called, e-mailed and Facebooked about lots of things related to Wikipedia, and I usually step in with my own perspective.) I'm not aware of a backchannel between the IPs who participate in edit-warring, however as you have said before (I quote from memory) someone in some forum advocated others to blind-revert all your edits, so you're likely to know better than I. Deryck C. 16:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent message on my Talk Page
Any message from (pro-Chinese) users who refuse to recognise the fact that Hong Kong and Macao are Chinese territories but not part of China will be ignored and deleted upon receipt. Your recent message, like all your previous messages, are deleted because:

1. you are a pro-Chinese user who refuse to recognise that Hong Kong and Macao have a stqtus equivalent to Chinese dependencies

2. your message was a threat; you thretened to block me because you believe that 'Hong Kong and Macao are part of China' and you are not happy with me not agreeing with it

All your future messages will be deleted without notice. Should you dispute the decision, please submit evidence which shows you did not do what I have listed. I shall treat you equally as other users if I am satisfied of your evidence. You can submit the evidence to my Talk Page, it will not be subject to deletion.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DJ Andrew Townsend and albums
I believe that DJ Andrew Townsend (which you tagged A7) just barely has a claim of importance in the claims of club/radioplay, though it was really borderline. I sent it to AfD instead, just to be on the safe side. I converted the album CSD's to prods, since A7 cannot be used for albums. A9 can be, but since technically the artist article currently exists, A9 can't be used either. I am going to block the user though, given the username. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CSD is convoluted and has everchanging criteria. Thanks for converting to PROD/AfD.
 * Please don't block the user. A blatant COI, obviously marketing oriented writing, but all done in good faith. Perfect example of where our policies should be explained, not beaten into them. :) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The problem with the original user (who I noted actually hasn't edited since May 2010) is that their name is User:Escovatorrecords, which violates the username policy by appearing to represent a company. If they ever return to WP, they can ask for a username change and be unblocked if they promise not to make promotional edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My edits
Why are you undoing all my edits without a reason? It's such a hostile act to me. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is no answer, please revert your own undos. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of your edits the ones that looked positive have already been re-instated.
 * To be blunt you've started editing by posting a thread about companies based in Taiwan of which you clearly aren't confused about the name as your first action. While you may have beaten me on the point that the companies were founded after 1949 they were all founded before 1971 when the UN recognised the People's Republic as China. Additionally you know that most of them were founded very shortly after 1949. If you want to engage positively with the community stop doing things that we see as being disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Your recent editing history at Kinmen Daily News shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Alexf(talk) 19:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverting disruptive sockpuppets of banned users is exempt from 3rr. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

3RR
I came across your edits on Kinmen Daily News and reported you for 3RR. I notice that you are claiming that the user is a sockpuppet of a banned user. If so, explain this to the admins and if your claim is proven I will be glad to apologize.  JimSukwutput  21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:China
Taken to Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood, add anything further if you wish. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SPA title in NW:TW
I have created this account to show that the move for the PRC and the potential move ROC will create inconsistencies with numerous articles that are against Taiwan being a sovereign sate. I would only support the move if this line "Taiwan is a sovereign state" is not there because it's wrong. I am not die-hard ROC supporter but it's merely wrong. It will confuse the readers rather help them understand the issue. They will be confuse with the line "Taiwan is a sovereign state" and the purpose of Taiwanese independence. I would aid other topics but this issue has draw my attention. I don't need you to agree with me but that is my stance on this issue. If the ROC move is successful and mentions that line above, I will give up arguing this issue despite that it's wrong and implicating WP in supporting Taiwanese indepndence.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI re Huayu-Huayu
I agree the edit summary wasn’t the best, but I don’t think what happened rises to the level requiring admin action. I think Huayu-Huayu has received the point that civility could be improved. Anu objections if I close the ANI thread?-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  13:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, none. His editing area is running hot and it would be nice if others kept an eye on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Well, that was interesting, maybe good I got distracted and didn't close.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOUND
Hello SchmuckyTheCat:

I would like to point your attention to the Wikipedia policy WP:HOUND – and please note that is it not a guideline, like WP:MOS, which is a suggestion, but a policy, which is mandatory. To quote from it:

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. ... The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason."

I note that you have followed me to quite a number of articles which you have never edited before, in order to undo formatting edits which I made which differ from the MOS, but which nonetheless improve the visual look of these articles -- but which you, personally, disagree with. I would appreciate it if you would stop this behavior, which I do indeed find to be an unenjoyable part of my Wikipedia experience. If you do not stop this activity voluntarily, I will be forced to compile a list of these articles, showing my first edit to the article, my most recent edit, your first edit, and your action. It will show, as I'm sure that you are well aware, that you come to articles which I have edited specfically to undo my formatting edit. I would then take this evidence to an admin in order to have them take steps to cause you to cease hounding my edits.

It does not have to come to that. We can resolve this without resorting to such an extreme. I have not followed you around, and I do not intend to. You can go about your business making the edits which you believe will improve the encyclopedia, as will I. All you need to do is to stop following my edits, and breaking policy in order to enforce a non-mandatory guideline.

Thank you.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

GDP by Country
I am asking you to call for a consensus vote on the issue of the inclusion of the EU in a list of Countries. Each vote must be tagged by place of birth. Can you make this happen? 75.194.236.73 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: discussion here and RFC already exists here.
 * Wikipedia discusses, not votes. A consensus vote is an RFC, and there already is one. Tagging commenters by nationality or birthplace is not going to happen. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Trolls and the Taiwan move discussion
Who, aside from User:Instantnood (and their various Hong Kong IP's) do you think is a banned user who has participated in the discussion? Additionally which other pages do you think the discussion needed to be listed on? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS It seems I missed . But who else have they used as a sock in the Taiwan (disambiguation) discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop your persistent unexplained removal of the fooian fooers template from Macau categories. This is vandalism. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is being removed is the CFR tag without accompanying discussion. You know this as you always hide your bad edits with something neutral and then complain about the neutral part. Go away sockpuppet. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Follow up
I know you deal with socks quite a bit, so is there someone that deals with ISP relations locally? I'd really prefer to nip this in the bud now rather than have to log back on to find a wave of socks.  Night w   22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Abuse response, but they generally want a more egregious case. This may count as an exception considering he claims to have access to a /10 IP range to abuse from. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll get them to take a look at it just to see what they think.  Night w   22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Looks red-tapey. I'll get on it if it comes back after protection has expired.  Night w   23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I imagine though that the admins who follow and act on that page have quite a bit of experience. You might ask one for advice and to watchlist the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Seems to be the same guy. Made a report on WP:3RRNB. Thanks for keeping an eye on it!  Night w   15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Santorum (disambiguation)
I'm having the experience of wading into a tidal wave. The further I look into answering your questions, the more I find that I don't have answers. In the spirit of AfD, I will come up with responses for your questions. However, it is unlikely that I will within the next 12 hours or so. I am leaving this note to let you know that I am not just brushing off your valid arguments, but rather that I am researching and likely sleeping. Having (intentionally) stayed relatively a-political for the last few months, I didn't realize the traction that this issue had gained on WP. I remain confident that there is a way to address the issues involved without compromising the project, but the case of a well known and (at least by me) relatively well respected public commentator intentionally disrupting the public discourse is a test of how we respond as a project. I look forward to working with you to find an answer that honors what we are both up to here - even if that means withdrawing my delete for the dab page. Thank you for really holding my feet to the fire to come up with well-reasoned responses. I look forward to tomorrow. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... Rocks are hard, and water is wet. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You owe me no duty to answer. I just put a pragmatic workaround ahead of holding to the letter of guidelines that don't work in this circumstance. WP is designed to be flexible just for this reason. Very few of the guidelines and policies look like they did when I first started editing years ago, but the spirit is the same. It's that flexibility that allows consensus and collaborative editing to function.
 * Don't worry about disrupting the public discourse. An article built on reliable sources is a notable subject. That subject should be reasonably simple to navigate to via title, redirect, categories, searching, et al. Let readers determine what they want to read and let them find it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

218.250.159.25
Hi Schmucky; you seem very sure that 218.250.159.25 is a sock puppet of some sort. While several other IP's from Hong Kong (which are clearly SPA's) have similar voting records.. do you have any other evidence that justifies 218.250.159.25 being a sock puppet (and of whom)? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably most of the Hong Kong IP's are the same user :(. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, Hong Kong has a lot of puppetry going on. It also has IP editors unwilling to get a username and ISPs who proxycache which makes those IP editors consistent to follow. For a city of 7 Million, it has about 500% more representation on EN Wikipedia than any other territory in Asia.
 * I don't think that level of participation in Wikipedia is really that high, but most IP edits aren't that big of an issue until the big political battles start. When all of those IPs rally to a cause we have no way to differentiate which are good faith, and which are not. There is a mix of both.
 * Now, 218.250.159.25, is a sock of User:Instantnood. IMHO, other editors often see a bunch of contentious edits from an HK ISP and point it at him. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes wrong. Even when identified wrong, it doesn't bug me much because a variant thinking of WP:DUCK is that someone who edits so alike to someone banned it doesn't hurt to block them too.
 * In this case though, it is an obvious case:
 * He writes like him. I communicated with Instantnood offsite and onsite saw him argue and filibuster talk pages for years. His English has some very obvious peculiarities once you recognize them.
 * Bot-like tackling of hundreds of similar edits in a single session.
 * Focusing POV edits into presentation issues like stubs, templates, and categories. If those stick, it has the largest "win" by covering many articles (potentially hundreds to thousands)
 * Constant spam, rebuttal, and filibustering on every discussion everywhere related to the battle of the moment.
 * Revert warring is part of it, but isn't really necessary to recognize him. Neither is violation of other WP policies. He's learned to be entirely disruptive while strictly following rules. Eventually ArbCom said "Enough." and that was the end.
 * At one point, I believe he edited in good faith, even though it was severely disruptive. If he mailed me and asked to correct something, I often would. Then at some point there was a disruptive username, and CheckUser was ran, and they found a big huge nest of sockpuppetry with accounts going back years. Some were still active. Others he'd created, made innocent edits, then let them go idle until he needed a new account. I lost my AGF after that.
 * So tl;dr - an abusive HK IP address is not necessarily Instantnood, but once you see other characteristics, they become recognizable fairly easily.
 * SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 500% is pretty high - at first glance I would expect it to be roughly the same edit rate as Singapore, so you'd expect it to be about 50% higher overall. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 500% is ex-recto, don't quote me on it, but the point is that that the number of HK editors is extremely disproportionate. Not all of those are individuals. You're right about Spore. Spore editors care about sinosphere articles too, half their mums taught them the family language and culture. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Given that this editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet, do you think it is appropriate to remove his "contributions" to Britons in Hong Kong (see also Talk:Britons in Hong Kong)? I have my own (quite virulent, as you can see) point of view on this matter but I'd appreciate the opinion of other Hong Kong editors. Thanks for your help, 61.18.190.15 (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no opinions on that article but contributions from banned users may be removed by anyone. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows 98 RC0 Disk.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Windows 98 RC0 Disk.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to this local event!
Since you attended a Seattle Wikipedia meetup in the past I thought you might live in Seattle.

I would like to invite you to attend a Wikipedia meetup described on. This meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 6 March 2012 at 7pm in Café Allegro. Thank you for your attention and I hope to see you there.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   00:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass canvassing, meatpuppets or botfarm
There's a thread at ANI about a massive canvassing operation in the China-ROC area involving the same kind of IP-hopping Hong Kong-based disruption that you're used to fighting. Your expertise and input on identifying the perpetrator and recommending administrator action would be appreciated. Shrigley (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
FYI, since he forgot to notify you. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits
Please stop reverting my edits for no reason. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit waring warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear SC, Jack has proceeded to report you here, this is a courtesy message left on his beforgetful-half. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was trying with this warning to advise you of the notice board discussion, but obviously used the wrong message. Thanks to Dave1185 for helping me with this.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Struck. @Schmucky: On another note, why is it that both User:Instantnood and User:ColourWolf are back at almost the same time harassing editors here is really beyond me. Thoughts? -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone else's comment
Please don't refactor someone else's comment. Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 有冇搞錯呀. 猶太陰莖貓 (talk)
 * Jewish penis cat? Uh... *backs away slowly* – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's means SchmuckyTheCat. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I figured. I just found the translation amusing =) – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Gondola lifts category proposal
Hello, you recently participated in a CFD relating to Gondola lifts in Hong Kong. The close rationale at that discussion suggested there may be consensus to merge each country subcategory into Category:Gondola lifts, however that outcome was outside the scope of that CFD and would require a new discussion. As such, WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 7 has been created. Since you participated in the previous CFD, you're invited to leave your comments at the new CFD. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1 and Philippines' Next Top Model

 * Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1 and Philippines' Next Top Model are the same article. They need a history merge. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * WP:Parallel histories. Someone will have to text-merge them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names. KarlB (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your opinion.
I'm in the process of developing an idea to post on the Layout talk page. But, before I do, I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions for improvement. Would you please give this draft a gander? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I've responded to them and asked a couple of questions. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatamidoing has suggested that I go in a different direction (one that deals with your concerns): put a link in the See also section to the navbox content. Here is an example. What do you think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

bad behavior at Talk:Taiwan
Hi Schmucky! There are some ugly unhelpful posts in the "Scope of the history section & reorganisation" section of the Talk:Taiwan page. Some of the comments are by an IP editor. The posts appeared one after another a bit more rapidly than is usual. You seem to be good at detecting sock-puppetry and banned users, and you seem to have a good handle on when it is appropriate to remove things from a Talk page. The edits that I think are problematic start with an edit signed by "— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.129.169 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)". I'm wondering if you might have a look. Readin (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being the only editor willing to criticise that abrasive IP editor (to whom I admittedly seriously overreacted). Benlisqare in particular seems determined to want to continue to condemn me alone (we've had an offline chat too) without being willing to publicly agree that the IP editor did anything wrong at all. I sometimes wonder if major cultural differences are at play. You will note that I have stepped back from contributing there for the moment. I really don't understand the perspective of some here, and am not confident I can work out what they are really on about. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I commented. It doesn't look like obvious socking, but it doesn't appear newbish either. I didn't go look at behavior and grammar of the IP against others blocked in the past. I just don't have time.
 * Meta - the community has a conflict going on that affects how to interpret guidelines. We don't want to WP:BITE newbies and that has been policy since the start of the project. We want to retain established editors and losing them has become a problem. Obviously favoring established users of IPs is a violation of BITE. Data gathered by WMF and other researchers shows that huge amounts of constructive edits come from IP edits. Established editors do massive amounts of cleanup and more substantive (longer text that sticks in articles long term) edits. The clue here in the data is that the constructive edits by IPs is a trend from scattered IPs. Most studies also look at article text, not talk pages. IMHO, I long ago rejected radical egalitarianism and I value existing users in a pretty high ratio to a bunch of newbies that might become established editors.
 * In this case (and all over any China related discussion from the last year), it is single IPs (often geographic) demonstrably being non-constructive and statistically many are socks. I think we should, despite the advice in BITE, favor preventive action to preserve the patience of our established editors. This doesn't apply project wide, but there is no reason to keep up this chivalry charade in high-conflict pages with such strong histories of socking. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Thank you for taking a look. I fully understand the lack of time. It is an issue for me too. Readin (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Mainland China RM
Schmucky, where is the sockpuppetry that you allege verified.?? --Mike Cline (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, another editor has shown up at the scouting talk page to carry on the torch of Jeffrey Fitzpatrick. I notice that WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Fitzpatrick is closed again, but this data point might be of interest in case you are tracking the matter: Wikistalk comparison of Jeremy Hopkins edits with Jeffrey Fitzpatrick edits. I have not checked to see if the two editors have identical POV. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe those two are separate people who communicate and coordinate off-wiki. The circumstance and timing of their account creation made them noticed (to me) immediately. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

My point about WP:COMMENT
I really don't want to add to that thread any more; I probably rambled on there too long already for what is admittedly a ridiculously minor thing. The point I was making about WP:COMMENT is that BMK wasn't using the comment to add whitespace; the comment was just there to explain that the whitespace was intentional. The comment had no effect on the output of the page, and I don't think he intended it to have one. The extra whitespace was there because of the additional newlines, not because of the comment. Your other links to the MOS are perfectly sound, and I hadn't seen them before. WP:MOS is particularly compelling. Had I seen those, I wouldn't have gone off on that tangent. Thanks for linking them; I gladly concede. I also didn't know about the history of BMK, and I wasn't trying to imply unconditional support of him. It was all based on my reading of this one incident, so if I've misjudged, I apologize. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Queensway origin
Hi. I know you were involved in the creation of the Queensway page, and I've been working on it. In particular, I'm concerned that we have no reference for the statement that it was split from Queen's Road East in 1967. In fact I have found possible evidence to the contrary. I would much appreciate your views at the Queensway Talk page. Onanoff (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle
Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle needs you. Please sign up to participate, and discuss a date and meeting location. And maybe volunteer to be the organizer. I've been tagging articles needing photos for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Seattle, Washington. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle 2012
Hello, I noticed you were active in the 2011 event, and wanted to tell you that the 2012 Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Seattle is planned. It's Dec 8th 10am-3pm at Seattle Public Library, and we'd love to have you there, and hear your ideas about what to edit. Hope to see you there. Maximilianklein Maximilianklein (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Where have you been?
I haven't seen you editing for a while. I hope you're ok. I miss your good work. Readin (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm great. WP hasn't been a priority. If there's something I should look at feel free to tell me here or email. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I'm glad to hear you're well. I'm going to take you up on that offer. I think user:Quickbest5t6 and user:Copyangry7fcvc may be sock puppets.  What do you think? Readin (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
.....

Katyperryluva (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Nomination of Samuel Fields for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samuel Fields 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/Samuel Fields 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 template from the top of the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

St. Dominic's Church, Macau
When creating or renaming articles about buildings, would you please put the name of the location, be it a town or a country, after a comma rather than in brackets. Brackets are used for disambiguation, when the following word has nothing to do with the identity of the object named, e.g. Tom Bloggs (politician) and Tom Bloggs (actor).

Particularly in the case of a church, but also in many other cases, the building is identified in part by its town:  e.g.  Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris; Notre Dame Cathedral, Chartres; Notre Dame Cathedral, Strasbourg. In the case of both parish churches and cathedrals the building might be best known as "Fairfield Church" or "Winchester Cathedral". The identity by saints name happens in large towns where there are several churches. Even then location comes into play with churches being known as "St James, King Street" and St Phillips, Church Hill".    Other buildings have their city firmly built into their name: Sydney Opera House,  The Paris Opera.

Amandajm (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Macao Special Administrative Region

 * Please, which page do you want me to history-merge into page Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Macao Special Administrative Region? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Guobiao standards
Category:Guobiao standards, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to participate at Stalking Cat
Hello, I'm Just Tidying Up. I'm commenting because you originally created the Stalking Cat article. I recently performed a major rewrite of Stalking Cat, and I am interested to increase further expansion and improvement of the article, with other editors. If you are still interested in this topic, please join us at Talk:Stalking_Cat. We could use the help Thank you. Just Tidying Up (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Comet-McNaught.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shen Dzu


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Shen Dzu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Yacatisma (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kung hei fat choi/history


A tag has been placed on Kung hei fat choi/history, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

[It is a duplicated page. Same as Kung hei fat choi]

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. L0001d (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hitler listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hitler. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Hitler redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fleet Command (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Meetup to revitalize & prioritize WikiProject Seattle

 * Yours,


 * To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User article ban
Template:User article ban has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of cities in Greater China for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of cities in Greater China 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/List of cities in Greater China 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.  WdS  &#124; Talk 15:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Camshaft (Transformers)


The article Camshaft (Transformers) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Minor Transformers character. No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States. Since you had some involvement with the George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Camshaft (Transformers) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camshaft (Transformers) 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/Camshaft (Transformers) 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheif Seattle listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cheif Seattle. Since you had some involvement with the Cheif Seattle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 17, 2pm
20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Places with unusual names listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unusual articles/Places with unusual names. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Places with unusual names redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

An edit to text you've added
Hello, do you have any strong opinion about the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seafair_Pirates&diff=prev&oldid=766937446 recent removal of some text] that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seafair_Pirates&diff=prev&oldid=49521080 you added in 2006]? I found this while checking out an IP editor's contributions. Graham 87 08:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls. Since you had some involvement with the Minor characters of the Powerpuff Girls redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM
06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Speedy deletion nomination of Twin Hype
Hello SchmuckyTheCat,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Twin Hype for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't understand speedy deletion criteria. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alfredo Bowman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diet ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Alfredo_Bowman check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Alfredo_Bowman?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Windows
I'd like to get a consensus (yes or no) on the Windows debate rather than have it just shrivel up. Any suggestions? Popcornduff (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yo. There's now a RFC going on as I'd like to at least reach a clear consensus before dropping this. If you want to go and make your opinion known, be my guest. (For some reason - I really don't know why - I'm getting a lot of abuse for this, more than any other discussion I've ever taken part in.) Popcornduff (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Help
Hi, SchmuckyTheCat

Please help me move "Qidong, Jiangsu" to Qidong City and "Qidong County, Hunan" to Qidong County. there is not any ambiguity between Qidong City and Qidong County. thanks. Cncs ( Talk) 02:27 March 30 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? I don't know enough about this situation to make this change. I don't oppose it, I just don't understand that it is the correct thing to do. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm
23:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Seattle Wiknic 2018
01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tower of Babel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tower_of_Babel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tower_of_Babel?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Thorazine Shuffle) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Thorazine Shuffle.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Please see changes.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Ifnord (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * lolz SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM
08:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

SQUIDWARD!! listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SQUIDWARD!!. Since you had some involvement with the SQUIDWARD!! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Recreational sublabial drugs has been nominated for discussion
Category:Recreational sublabial drugs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
04:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PM
05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Speedy deletion nomination of DJ Dan


A tag has been placed on DJ Dan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2019
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Great American Wiknic virtual edition 2020
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mazdalogo1936-tripleM.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mazdalogo1936-tripleM.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:
 * File:Mazdalogo1936.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Juan (street protester) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Juan (street protester) 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/Juan (street protester) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

RX-7
Was reading something on Transport in Hong Kong and saw some tantalizing references to your trying to bring a US-market Japanese car there. Just out of curiosity, what happened? Did it stay in Shenzhen?  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  01:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's too difficult. HK licensing doesn't value vintage vehicles for exceptions to their RHD rules. Maybe in 2047. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of United Nations in popular culture for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United Nations in popular culture 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/United Nations in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andro (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDM. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Seattle/Invitees list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Seattle, please add or remove your name here.

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2 Bad Mice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)