User talk:Takeaway/Archive 3: Miscellaneous and Barnstars

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, I know but I sometimes forget to do that in my enthusiasm... Takeaway (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities in Thailand
Thanks a lot for your edits on Thai topics, especially the cleanup of the long lists of touristic attractions. However, when you moved the section on sister cities from Chiang Mai province to the city of Chiang Mai this was probably in error. I also wondered some time ago whether this section was placed correctly in the province article, as so often province and city gets confused. But in this case it seems it was really the province which was twinned, despite the term "sister city" it's not just cities which get twinned. But as I blogged on it, I haven't yet found a good source on the twinnings in Thailand. Also, that change of "ward" into "district" might not be that much good idea, as district is already the suggested English term for Amphoe, so it would be quite confusing if the article talks about districts in two different meanings. andy (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I never knew provinces could also be twinned up but sure, please move it back to CM province.
 * As for "ward": I looked up the Chiang Mai municipality website and they themselves talk about "districts". As far as I know, "ward" isn't really a word used in English to denote an administrative subdivision; hence my changing it to "district". Maybe it would be a good idea to also mention the official Thai word for this administrative division of Chiang Mai in the article? And I am sure that an alternative word in English can be found for it other than "ward".Takeaway (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Woops... correction on the word "ward". It is indeed used as such. I'll change them back in the CM city page and link it through to this page==> Ward (division).
 * It would still be nice if the original Thai word could also be mentioned here.
 * Thanks for checking my edits! :) Takeaway (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Found the correct Thai word (khwaeng) in your blog! Thanks Andy! Takeaway (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Yao.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Yao.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Valletta
Hey there. I found it somewhat offensive that you would refer to the capital city of an European, Mediterranean country as a 'village'. Perhaps reading the article linked to before reverting would have made things easier? Anyway, I've restored the link. Pietru (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have offended you. I had gotten a bit flippant in my description of the changes I had made due to the regular re-appearance of Valletta (and also Gibraltar for that matter) in this list of major cities. I really do know that it is the capital city of a European country but I still can't really view it as a major city, however hard I try, due to it only having a bit over 6000 inhabitants. It could be viewed as a major city in its capacity as a capital city and in its historical significance but in its size it just doesn't really compare to cities with millions of inhabitants such as Alexandria for instance. Seeing that it has been removed much more often than now without any of the participants to that page protesting against it, it would seem that the general consensus is that Valetta just does not belong in that list as it is a list of large cities.Takeaway (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, I hadn't realized Valletta was being added/removed with any frequency, I just stumbled across the article and made the correction. However, I would still maintain that as the most important city (and only city of such importance) in the central Mediterranean, Valletta merits mention for it's uniqueness if nothing else. Ps. I've commented on the Med talkpage, before reading this (you might have responded on my talkpage?). ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing Category:Sukhothai Province; I made quite a few categories at Category:Provinces of Thailand and Category:Cities, towns and villages in Thailand; I trust there are no more spelling errors. --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome! I had a quick look and also changed Yasothan in to Yasothon. I could't see any other spelling mistakes but I could be wrong.
 * I do have a question though: Why don't Bangkok and Chiang Mai have the word "Province" in their category? That would mean that, for instance, Amphoe Omkoi would not be categorised in this system. Takeaway (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I made at least more than one spelling error! I have applied a speedy rename tag to the two old categories.  As far as Bangkok and Chiang Mai are concerned, I noticed that they have no "Province" category; I am not sure of what to do. Perhaps they are ok as they are?  IDK. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! 2 mistakes out of 75 isn't too bad. I guess it would be better if they too were renamed as a province. If only to keep the system clear especially as cat:Chiang Mai now says: For more information, see Chiang Mai Province. I can rename these now if you are okay with it? But we'd also need to have the (now unused) misspelled categories deleted and I have no idea how.Takeaway (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to help, but here are the instructions at Categories for discussion/Speedy in the first paragraph, if you would like to do so yourself. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past, I have simply applied the speedy rename tag and waited for the administrator on duty to check the category and do the technical work of removing the old category; these are very non-controversial renames. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a better idea concerning Chiang Mai and Bangkok. All articles in the present 2 categories are only concerned with the cities of Chiang Mai and Bangkok (I think). We could make two extra categories of Chiang Mai Province and Bangkok Province and place both existing categories inside these two new ones as sub-categories. Would you do the speedy deletion please? as it's midnight here and I need to get some sleep.Takeaway (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved these two in to their respective "Province categories". I'll check tomorrow to see if all the articles therein and other wiki language links are correct. Cheers!Takeaway (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me which ones, I'm not sure I can find them, when you get the chance. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that you've put the speedy deletion template in both "cat:Sukothai" and "cat:Yasothan". Great! Thanks! :))
 * I'll try and clean up the "cat:Bangkok" and "cat:Chiang Mai" now as some links should be put in to the "cat:XXXX Province" instead.
 * Hmmm... to be fully correct, it would seem better to change the present naming of "cat:Amphoe of XXXXX" in to "cat:Amphoe of XXXXX Province" but maybe that is going a bit too far?Takeaway (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just had a closer look at the Bangkok article and it is pretty messy in the sense that it makes no difference between the "city of Bangkok" and "Bangkok province". I'm not really sure how to proceed with re-categorising certain articles in it now. I am surmising that this list of districts of Bangkok should actually be put in to the "cat:Bangkok Province". Perhaps one of the contributors who are more versed in the whole administrative subdivision of Thailand could shed some light here?
 * All 75 of the articles on Thai provinces should now also be purged of the "cat:Province of Thailand" as this has already been dealt with in their respective provincial category. If you go to the page Category:Provinces of Thailand, you will see that it now AND contains the category to the individual provinces AND the link to the province articles itself.Takeaway (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pancake
Hiya, please let me know if I was mistaken with my assumption in this edit. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If one is worried about unsourced statements, one should delete at least another 30% of that article. Most food related articles are not well sourced and I found that the deleted section gave a fair description of the different ways in which pancakes could be eaten. It would especially be enlightening for people from cultures where pancakes are not a commonplace dish. Moreover, the person who deleted that section, did it without any source material to disprove anything in the deleted section. Takeaway (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to your last sentence, the burden of providing references is on those trying to keep information in the article, not those trying to remove it. See V. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right about the last part but the user did try to justify it by mentioning the fact that in his/her view, the deleted section was based on personal experience. The user did try to disprove it but the disproval itself was a personal opinion.
 * As for the first part: There doesn't seem to be much mention of pancakes in scientific literature. All the sources that I can find are those which can't be used here on wikipedia due to their commercial nature. Try doing a search on google using "pancake", "breakfast" and "fundraiser" for example.Takeaway (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being very coherent in the previous part. Just woken up etc.. What I wanted to say was that there is a lot of "evidence" to be found on internet that the deleted statements were true. Unfortunately, those sources can't be used here on wikipedia. And I still do think that the deleted text would have been useful for people from cultures where pancakes aren't commonly eaten. Oh well, it's just a few sentences and their deletion isn't really earth-shattering. Neither would it have been earth-shattering to have kept those few sentences in there.Takeaway (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wat Phra Singh
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! You have recently created a page about Wat Phra Singh, I'm very glad of that. However, I saw you have a link to Blogger, which does not count as a reliable source. Read WP:RS. Thanks! Jeremjay24 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will delete that reference. Pity though as it contains the text of the brochure of Wat Phra Singh. Takeaway (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Food and Drink Barnstar

 * woo hoo! - Takeaway (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of Thai script in article Thai cuisine
Caspian blue 06:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you compromised after out discussion and all the improvement done by you. The newly shaped list article looks pretty good as well as the main cuisine article is in the decent form. Thank you for the work.--Caspian blue 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ermmm, didn't I already write that I indeed agreed with you that the Thai script was distracting? (Although in my opinion it was more distracting in the main text than in the list of dishes.) It was my intention to remove the Thai script so I don't really see any compromise here. All I asked you in my first post to you was to postpone deleting any Thai script until I had finished the List of Thai dishes page, that was until I realised that I could work from an intermediate version of the Thai cuisine page. I still don't understand why you keep insisting that we were opposed to one another while I had explained several times that we weren't.
 * Anyway, after having totally overhauled the "List of Thai dishes" page, I am now busy making a "List of Thai ingredients" page so I can also remove the Thai script from the main text. - Takeaway (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What an unexpected cold response over my friendly gesture and appreciation to your work. Sorry that you feel I insist that we're in disagreement, but we're indeed in disagreement on several things, and you changed your comments several times to persuade me. That's why I call your edits "compromise". You said the script may look "slightly distracting" to my eyes, not yours. If I removed the script, could I have ever known of your future plan and intention? I also never expected that you quickly moved them to the list article. I appreciate all your effort to improve the notable topic, but I can not read your mind and know your working progress. I firmly believe such excessive usages of the foreign scripts do not improve articles, and you first wanted to make the lists consistent with the usage of the scripts. My next plan after my big engagement in some Korean cuisine (currently up for GA was supposed to be editing Thai cuisine by searching and inserting reliable sources like this one. However, I think it is better not to edit the articles at the same time together. Good luck with your plan--Caspian blue 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing of my comments on your talk page several times because you obviously did not understand what I was writing. I wrote that I wanted to put all the Thai script in a "List of..." page but you replied (apparently not understanding that I wanted to create a "List of..." page as I had written) that 50-100 articles needed to be written and that this would take two years. I also wrote that, in my opinion, the Thai script in the main body of text was more distracting than the Thai script in the section "Representative dishes" of "Thai cuisine" from which you had chosen to remove part of the Thai script from. You chose not to go in to that subject and instead kept insisting that we disagreed and that the Thai script was "very distracting" because you did not understand it. I wrote that I did agree with you but apparently you still chose to ignore this and still kept (and keep) insisting that we disagreed. (What are we disagreeing about? We both want the Thai script removed.) I wrote that I understood that the Thai script was distracting, and I don't see where I wrote that it was not distracting for me. I used the phrase "slightly distracting" in an understated way. Perhaps I should have written "somewhat distracting"? I actually wanted to make the page "List of Thai ingredients" first before overhauling the page "List of Thai dishes" because, as I have written several times before, it is my opinion that the inline Thai script in the main body of text is more distracting than the Thai script in the section "Representative dishes" which is a neat list. It is only because of your misunderstanding of me that I overhauled the "List of Thai dishes" first so yes, one can see this as a compromise from my side to you but one which in my opinion was less needed than lifting out the Thai script from the main body of text. As for adding Thai names and script for items which have English names, I did this for non-Thai people who either are travelling in Thailand and are interested in Thai food and its ingredients, and for those non-Thais who live there and don't read, write or speak any Thai. For these people, having the Thai names and script for everyday ingredients is very useful. Indeed, you can not read my mind and you can not know how fast I work but perhaps instead of saying things to me like "I think I just need to stop even caring about the main article of Thai cuisine" you could have asked me what my plans were and when they would be executed. As you have seen, I work rather fast. - Takeaway (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Captive Breeding
Sorry. I pulled the trigger a bit too fast. I will leave it be for now because I don't have time to do what I think needs to be done. IMHO, the Panda pornography article is small enough that it should be rolled into the Giant Panda article (in fact, most of the information is already there). I checked the discussion, and I don't really buy that there is a lot more information to add, unless this technique is indeed being extended to other animals (and for this there are no citations). Also the statement "Under zoo conditions, the animals have in general proven unenthusiastic about mating, placing their species in danger of extinction." in the article no longer seems to be accepted by professionals if you believe the Giant Panda article -- they now think that the "normal" rate is only once every two years or so (I have not done the checking to see which article is correct). As for the Captive breeding article, I think that either an explanation belongs in the narrative somewhere, or it's not important enough to point to (and I'm not prepared to write it in right now, though I am planning to work on the article in the next couple of weeks).Donlammers (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's no problem, I can understand why you pulled the trigger that fast. I guess this article could indeed be merged with the Giant Panda article but it would be a bit of a pity though as wikipedia would lose one of its articles which are listed in Wikipedia:Unusual articles. The article does not mention if the panda cub which was born in May 2009 in Chiang Mai zoo, was the result of this, somewhat unusual, breeding program. - Takeaway (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect (but of course can't prove) that it's pretty hard to know for sure -- especially since so little seems to have been known (or is known) about mating habits in the wild. I'm not sure I care whether an "unusual article" is removed. I tend to be more offended by data maintained in two places (since one of those is almost always out of date or wrong). Unless there is a lot more information out there, the Panda porn article is basically just repeating stuff already in the Giant Panda article or which probably should be there. I won't do anything drastic for at least a few weeks, but I will see if I can figure out how the scientists interpreted the data. We'll see what happens.Donlammers (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nontransitive dice
I recommend that in future, you actually assess an edit before so casually reverting it. It might also be more useful for other editors if you were to add a little more information in the edit summary.

To be clear, the information that you added back into the article is rubbish. For starters, it is non-notable. If you are unsure about Wikipedia's policy regarding notability, I strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with Notability first. As I explained on the talk page "Dettinger's Dice" is a name made up by Dettinger himself. It is not used by anybody in the mathematics / statistics / gaming community. The only hit for "Dettinger's Dice" on Google is for this Wikipedia article or copies of it.

Furthermore, Dettinger added all of that text himself which is a massive conflict of interest as well as probably being in contravention of NPOV. I have reverted your edit but please feel free to discuss this further if you believe the information should remain in the article. 203.206.43.191 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the, in your eyes wrongful, revert edit I did for Nontransitive dice was a casualty whilst reverting vandalism edits by the user Fivealiveprize who, if you look at his series of edits, vandalises articles by covering up vandalism edits done by IP address users within minutes by making seemingly innocent edits. One can only assume, viewing most of Fivealiveprize's edits, that this user is working together with those who vandalised the articles. I have reverted all his edits and those of the anonymous users who edited articles just prior to those done by Fivealiveprize. Apparently, Fivealiveprize's edit of Nontransitive dice was not preceded by a vandalism edit. I took this chance assuming that those users who did make legitimate edits, would revert them as you have done. As for your gripe that the information which I had added by reverting edits of Fivealiveprize and your own edit was rubbish, please take it up with the person who had added it initially. I would also recommend you to create a username for yourself. - Takeaway (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. It's great that you spend time in the never-ending war against vandalism. However, if you had spent just a little more time checking whether the IP edit prior to Fivealiveprize's was indeed vandalism, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. I spent years fighting this cancer and eventually gave up and left Wikipedia, so I understand how frustrating it can be. I edit from an IP account as is my right and resent the assumption that my edit was considered to be vandalism because of this. BTW, the edits immediately before Fivealiveprize's are from IPs that are all over the place so I think it's unlikely that there's any conspiracy here. Just another bored pest. 203.206.43.191 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did see that the edits prior to Fivealiveprize's came from IP's from all over but with chat programs now making it possible to have "friends" from all over the world, it did seem as if it was coordinated. I'm sorry that your own edit was deleted due to "collateral damage" but, as I have no opinion whatsoever on nontransitive dice, even if I had looked at the article a bit longer, I still would not have known if your edit was valid or not. As I had written previously, I took this chance assuming that those users who did make legitimate edits, would revert them, as you have done. You, of course, have every right to edit wikipedia from an IP account, my suggestion to edit using a user name is because it makes verifying the legitimacy of the editor much easier, and, had you had a user account, we would not have this conversation either as I would have been able to view your past edits. - Takeaway (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Takeaway's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much... I just don't know what to say... ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of military coup Thailand

 * Have replied again -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Overdue barnstar
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
 * rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar_of_Diligence.png|100px]]
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Barnstar of Diligence
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your consistent expert edits on so many Thai-related articles, spotting errors and incrementally improving content. Day in, day out, your skillful review and corrections make Wikipedia into a better and better encyclopedia.  Congratulations! รัก-ไทย (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)|}
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your consistent expert edits on so many Thai-related articles, spotting errors and incrementally improving content. Day in, day out, your skillful review and corrections make Wikipedia into a better and better encyclopedia.  Congratulations! รัก-ไทย (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)|}

WOOHOO! :)) - Takeaway (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)