User talk:Vic226/Archive 1

Helpme request
Although I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, I am only a fresh member of the Wikipedians registered for only about a month. I understand that I can look through the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if I take my time, but I would like to know which of them are the most important or commonly violated by other users. I apologize if I make any inconvenience to anyone.
 * I'll be dropping off a welcome message, while I'm here; hopefully that will clear up a little bit. There's always the five pillars of Wikipedia, or the simplified ruleset. Some people even boil it down to the policy trifecta -- ultimately, the five pillars will probably make the most sense for new users, but I recommend a glance at all three, whenever you're ready. :) Luna Santin 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical induction
Hi Vic,

there is no mathematical difference between starting at 0 and starting at 1; the two versions are easily seen to be equivalent. It's more of a style issue, and leads to one of the sillier religious wars you'll see in mathematics. That said, of course the true faith starts at zero. --Trovatore 02:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is that if you start with one rather than zero, then you cannot conclude that the property holds for zero and thus you have not shown it for all natural numbers. Zero is a natural number. The external link to cut-the-knot is not a reliable source. It is not written for technical correctness, but to give a raw beginner a "feel" for the subject. For example, he says
 * "(2) If x1, x2, ..., xn > 0 then (x1 + x2 + ... + xn)/n ≥ (x1·x2·...·xn)1/n
 * etc. n here is an 'arbitrary' integer." which is clearly false since -5 is an integer, but one cannot define the arithmetic or geometric mean of -5 positive reals. JRSpriggs 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to my user page
I'm utterly and genuinely curious as to why you reverted my last two edits to my own User page. Did I put something inapproprate that I was not aware of? Ripogenus77 05:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The time I reviewed it, there was someone else who apparently edited your personal profile. If I actually pressed revert after you have reverted (or anything) the changes made by another person, I apologize for the confusion. (Actually, thinking right now, I don't think I need to stick my neck into your business, either.)

User:SpecialWindler
I was just transfering the article over to make it all right. I know this may have caused some confusion so Apology accepted. SpecialWindler 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cabal case Israel-Lebanon conflict revert war
Hello. You requested mediation for that case and suggested your user page. Thus, I'm here. Because nobody has actually counted the number of dead bodies with any degree of certainty, any news article is probably going to be off. I'm suggesting that the article mentions a few different sources and their respective numbers, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion from it all. This would also keep a NPOV, so long as it is noted that there are more articles with different numbers. If this works for both parties, please respond below. Thanks, --Mechcozmo 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the discussion board and considered your remedy for this case, and it sounds perfectly fine to me, just need to bring this into attention for some comments from both parties. I don't think anybody in either party has considered the fact which you pointed out, that no matter how reliable a source may be, the death figures can by no means be proven to be valid (also because it's a current event it won't stay the same). Also, I see from the debate the problem with cited sources that almost everyone judges their reliability by their own speculation in various ways. And that's one POV issue there. --Vic226 08:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the strategy of including multiple sources is the one we are currently utilising. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll mark this case as closed then. --Mechcozmo 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the explanation. Thanks for not killing the noob. Morpo


 * No problem. I highly respect the principle of not biting newcomers on Wikipedia. :-) Vic226 06:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me what to fix.
Hey Vic226 this is jgomez 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I was wondering why half of my article is gone? i have been working on outside source material which i have, and am posting on the page those articles about ISM. how could those things which you deleted have been re-worded so as to not read like an advertisement?


 * Hello Jgmz. If you check in the history of the ISM article, it was not me but Humblefool who purged half of your article. Although you should ask him about the reason for the deletion, I can understand why the entire middle section about the features are deleted: an encyclopedia should be accessible to a general audience to have a general concept of an article, and possible summaries of analysis, significance/achievements, and/or cultural impacts may be followed. It is not a textbook; it does not attempt to focus on overly detailed information for a specific article. Instead, it should leave the sources/references/footnotes for those who are interested to understand further. Part of the reason that the before-ISM article reads like a brochure is because that the explanation of online interfaces and systems are way too detailed, and it could even make the reader confused.


 * There is not much you can do about it for improving the deleted parts alone, such as features section. Instead, try to focus edits on why the article is important and worth notice for a typical audience. I suggest you to take time to read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or, based on the issue above, tackle on what Wikipedia is not, importance of verifiable and reliable sources, and citing sources.


 * I understand that it may be a lot of reading to many new users, so here's what I did when I started to contribute here: I skimmed most of the policies and guidelines specifically on bolded, italicized, and/or underlined parts, and several lines of the beginning of each paragraph. This way you should have a basic concept of what a standard article in Wikipedia should look like. If you want, you can also browse through featured articles to see what makes them perfect (well, almost) and stand out from others.


 * I sincerely hope that you could one day become a legitimate Wikipedian and make Wikipedia a better place. It could be hard at first, but as you edit, you will discover that it's actually easy and a lot of fun in this great community. Cheers, Vic226 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a problem.
So Vic, why is is ok for Gerald R. Molen, Janusz Kamiński, Frank Grillo, Conrad W. Hall, Edward Neumeier, and Reed Smoot to all have wikipedia pages, But Darrin Fletcher, and Chet Thomas get erased?jgomez 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, see the following deletion logs for why your articles were deleted:
 * Darrin "Fletch" Fletcher
 * Chet Thomas


 * Also, I would like to clarify that I do not have the permission to delete articles of my choice; possibly only the administrators can do that. Concerning about the reason of the deletion of Fletcher and Thomas but not the others as listed above by you, I believe it has to to with notability of the person/event. It would be helpful to read about the notability of people and why is the person not worth noting in Wikipedia (essay only; not a policy or guideline). There might be other related Wikipedia-based articles concerning this issue, but I could not recall any others at this moment.


 * I have red through the two biography pages you have created, and have done some researches for all of the people you listed above. I think the main difference is that Fletcher and Thomas are still relatively unknown to the general people. If you think of the credits after the movie, there are indeed a huge list of many people involved in creating this particular movie. So why aren't they listed in Wikipedia? It's because they do not contribute enough to have a significant impact on either the film itself or the society.


 * Take Frank Grillo for example: his article page is still a stub as marked, but he is one of the main characters in a rather popular TV series Prison Break. Also, Janusz Kamiński has involved several famous movies (e.g. Schindler's List) under the title of cinematographer. In comparison, Chet Thomas has made three movies as a producer, one of them also as a director. However, there is not much review from members in IMDb, hinting that the films might not be as significant in impact as the others. Under the title of founder for ISM does not make them any more notable, either, for ISM itself isn't really that influential either. Similarly, Fletcher has made numerous cameos in a lot of films, but his contributions are rather minor for a general audience to know.


 * I hope I did not bore you with the unintentional essays above. I also hope that my points could make you understand why half of the ISM article were purged while the articles co-founders were deleted. Again, if you could manage to understand the norms of the Wikipedia, I believe you will be one of the great contributors around someday. Until next time, Vic226 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Vic
I appreciate your patience with me and helping me understand a few things. I just wanted to say thank you for the advice and information. I will read those things that you have referenced for me.--jgomez 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Paradise Lost - official MySpace link removed
Hi Vic, Why has the official MySpace Paradise Lost page link been removed? This wasn't advertising of any kind - that's the page they link to on their official site as well. It's just as legit as for example other (lyrics) link. BTW - I am not a MySpace user :) This link was added only to provide additional information about the band. Thanks, V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varelse (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 November 2006


 * Hi Varelse. For one, the page actually need to be cleaned up more or less, and requires adequate citations for most of the claims in the article (in fact, there is none at the moment). I just happen to be rather busy with my college application and can not possibly take up too many loads of tasks myself. Of course, if the official site has the MySpace linked to their site, then it should be considered more or less reliable as an exception. However, it would be more appropriate to let those who are genuinely interested in them find it in their site and focus on how Paradise Lost is worth notice in Wikipedia (not that MySpace is bad, only that it was considered in the guideline inappropriate and should be avoided if possible).


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia is to meet the basic understanding for a general audience, not dedicate to any specific field. An article should focus mainly on its significance, such as its achievements and cultural impact, rather than on the already-detailed information of their facts. Hence, the lyrics link actually belongs to the LyricWiki Page, and the other external links may or may not meet the criteria of reliable sources.


 * I understand that there may be some confusion on my revert, and I hope I answered you question above. If not, just ask me again since it may be my misinterpretation as an intermediate English user. Until next time, Vic226 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Daisuke
I added an inline comment about the WP:EL policy; but, if it doesn't work, then semi-protect is probably reasonable. Neier 22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Atletico Madrid kit.
Why'd you change it back, I changed it so it was accurate. as seen There
 * And that's why the edit summary is important when you make edits that affect the general context of the article. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]] The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.


 * Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers.


 * I will post the same message as above and another onto your talk page for your future reference, and revert the article back to your edited version. Again, please use the edit summary to avoid such confusion with other Wikipedians, who might deem the change(s) without proper reason as vandalism. Thanks, Vic226 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Operation Wrath of God
Hey, I reverted your addition of the protection tag. The page isn't actually protected, and it's considered bad practice to protect main page articles unless they are being brutally vandalized (which is not the case tonight). --Wafulz 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I'm okay with that. And thanks for your note about the use of protect tags. Vic226 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your reverts, it's amazing what nonsense people decide to do, and how much effort it takes continually stop it. Joshdboz 12:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems, although I tend to get a bit intense on either onging blatant vandalism or raised controversy by anyone. Vic226 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Urf, IRC?
No. According to people in #freenode on EFNet, everybody just got dropped. --Rory096 06:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied Boxes
Hi Vic226 - yes I copied the boxes. And the suggested help for new users sources. (These I've got to read) The boxes looked so professional I really though they were "standard issue". I had tried explaining the use of 4 tildes myself but just ended up with SmithBlue 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC), which wasnt much use. The help list - I wasnt clear if it was from you or someone else and so didnt acknowledge either. But now I have the opportunity "Thank you - they are all very useful." I am fairly impervious to the rougher edges of Scott Adler and am continuing talking with him - I think he could be a great benefit if he will work within the guidelines. Thanks for cleaning up my User page. SmithBlue 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Breakfast Club
I saw your request on WP:RFF and took a look. I don't really think there's a good way to turn that list into prose, so I added headings to tell the reader how we're categorizing the entries and think it works pretty well. &mdash;Seqsea (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking time to review my edits (finally lol)! I also appreciate your changes that make the section look more neater. I wonder why I didn't consider that.  Vic226  (chat) 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mussina
Angelos, Anderson to Meet

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but it's a start. I'm not going to pay for the full text, however, the excerpt should shed some light. You will note that the Oriole's & Mike HAD a deal on a contract extension and that the "deal breaker" would be the omission of a no trade contract. The fact that Mike did go elswhere and there was no contract extension signed should illustrate my point that it was the lack of a no trade clause that forced a change in teams. His Yankee contract does include that clause I'll do some more digging as time permits but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I just hear so many people still say the Mike went to the Yankees for the money and I'm sure that it's Steinbrenner's payroll history that predicates that. I'm sorry I put something in that is considered "original research" and you're right, I can see where Mike's word would constitue that.````

Kevin Armstrong Muncy, Pa.


 * Hey, thanks for the reply. I think I just spent about 1 hour to finally dig out this news. I hope it would be revelant enough to prove your point. (Ironically, I finally decided to add "-Yankees" on Google search just for kicks, and got this info about his stalled negotiations with Orioles)


 * I will also post this link to the talk page for broader discussions with others, and may eventually readd the deleted paragraph back, though not without some rewriting to do. Feel free to respond in here or in the talk page if you have any questions. Regards,  Vic226  (chat) 11:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll have to figure out how to create those links. Most people don't watch Mike's career as closely as the folks around here and this is Phillie's country. Just for future references, Mike may very well be on his last contract. When his 2 year deal with the Yanks is up he will only look at the Mets, Pirates, Phillies, maybe Boston, and of course the Yankees and Orioles. Any future deals will have to include a no trade clause or he'll just retire. He doesn't care about money (as evidenced by the cut he took this year) and he doesn't care if the team is a contender or not, staying close to home is paramount. He may very well become the Dan Marino of baseball, but that doesn't matter to him. None of this is important now but in 2 years when negotiations start again....remember I told you this.````

Kevin


 * Interesting, however we can never know for sure what the future will be two years later just by speculation. ;-)  Vic226  (chat) 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Vic226! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Yet another IRC cloak request :-/
Please visit http://tools.wikimedia.de/~xyrael/cloaks and submit your application there. Thanks. &mdash;Xyrael / 07:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am Vic226 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Vic226. Thanks. -- Vic226  (chat) 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wellesley-Needham Record
Yeah, sorry about that... I was almost sure the alltime record was mentioned somewhere in there... you can remove the link if you want. Ychennay 05:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanlove
I think he's going to report me, again. He talks exactly like Nationalist in my talk page. I really think that he is Nationalist.--Jerrypp772000 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is what he just did...--Jerrypp772000 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Use WP:CHECK for CheckUser, although my first one failed to go through. I wonder if you could manage to gather more information than I did to convince the admins.  Vic226  (chat) 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sid212
Looking at the contributions of this user,, I suspect a little bit that he might be another sock puppet of Nationalist. However, it might just be a new user.--Jerrypp772000 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is so suspicious, because the articles that he edited, are the same ones that I just edited like an hour ago.--Jerrypp772000 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does he even care that it's harmful to himself and Wikipedia? Anyways, thanks for the info, but I think I'll need to gather more evidence to convince CheckUsers.  Vic226  (chat) 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if he is the sock puppet of Nationalist, Nationalist obviously is gonna get blocked for like 48hrs again. So I don't get why he would do that. But he really did just open the account like an hour ago and started editing. I don't think a new user would do that.--Jerrypp772000 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Labeled as suspected, filed the notice of suspicion, and requested for checkuser again.  Vic226  (chat) 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist is back! Looking at Talk:Rende, Tainan, he said he finally read the naming conventions for Chinese. To me, that's kinda suspicious somehow.--Jerrypp772000 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed already. I don't think I will involve in articles such as Taiwan's city and townships because they are indeed specific political divisions of Republic of China. Others I will interfere.  Vic226  (chat) 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. But what I'm trying to tell you is that it might be a clue. It's all right, I'll still try my best to make this encyclopedia better.--Jerrypp772000 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ; put the evidence into the case here, however obvious it may be.   Vic226  (chat) 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm not sure if I should add my name under, since I'd had edit wars with him. Probably not, but I think I've been trying to resolve the problem peacefully with him. (Well, maybe I should not have had edit wars w/ him, right?)--Jerrypp772000 18:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody is likely going to pick on you for that. In fact, you both edit warred and attempted to discuss with him at the same time. So if you think you have tried but failed to reach any consensus with him, feel free to sign.  Vic226  (chat) 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this considered a legal threat? Because I'm not sure what a legal threat mean, even thought I've read this:WP:NLT.--Jerrypp772000 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't legal threat... even though it is still some kind of threat. Nothing about things such as lawyers, court or lawsuit is involved. It could still be taken as refusing to cooperate and resolve disputes peacefully, disrupting only to prove a point, and being dense about it.  Vic226  (chat) 00:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Jerrypp772000 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that Nationalist is going to be blocked for a month. I would keep an eye on Sid212, since he had been inactive when Nationalist is active.--Jerrypp772000 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sid212 just edited Checheng and Yuanlin, Changhua, those are one of the last things Nationalist edited before he was blocked.--Jerrypp772000 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * is now editing without discussion in various article see his contributions. I don't know what to do to stop him, and make him discuss. Can you help, please?--Jerrypp772000 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to contact an admin if possible.  Vic  226 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deval patrick article
Howdy Vic226. Are you contesting that the Boston Herald endorsed Healey, and whether it is a tabloid? Please take a look at the tabloid article. The Herald did endorse healey,a nd that would make it pertinent to their article regarding Patrick meeting Bulger. Question: Mitt Romney met with the brother of a serial child molestor on January 23. Is the behavior of a sibling pertinent? If not, should mention of Whitey Bulger's relationship to William Bulger be maintained? CApitol3 03:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit that I did not take a closer look at the tabloid article. It was mainly the "endorsing Healey" part that I would like to see a verifiable source about it, that's all.  Vic226  (chat) 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you would check on the BostonHerald source next to "William Bulger", it has been archived and would only show part of the article. I'm not sure what to do with it.  Vic226  (chat) 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Template
I just want to point out that other articles that do not relate to Taiwan proper are linked to that geography template. For example a city in Fuchien province, Republic of China. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish by saying ROC on Taiwan that is NPOV and correct. Although some may find it awkward, it is still 100% correct and NPOV. -Nationalist 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you delete the (Taiwan) altogether and the same to the Category article? The Category states the definition that "This category is for stub articles relating to the geography of the Republic of China, that is, the island of Taiwan and other islands controlled from there". (Taiwan) is there to avoid confusion for a general audience, not to state that ROC equals Taiwan. By the way, NPOV of anything is not defined by your sole opinion.  Vic226  (chat) 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if you say ROC on Taiwan, then it'll still have the same meaning of Taiwan only. Whereas ROC (Taiwan) would be better since it shows that Taiwan is the common name.--Jerrypp772000 02:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesnt because Republic of China on Taiwan shows the government is based in Taiwan. And that is true. however, it does administer other areas like Kinmen and Matsu. -Nationalist 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider what the others (especially the general audience of Wikipedia) might think, not solely on your opinion. We cannot expect the majority of others will understand what your "Republic of China on Taiwan" really means. Literally, they will think that it is about ROC's administration on Taiwan only (but ROC covers more than just Taiwan), not about ROC's government being based in Taiwan. Therefore (Taiwan) may be necessary to avoid confusion. Edit to meet the understanding of general readers, not the understanding of us alone.  Vic226  (chat) 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You said yourself that Republic of China covers more than just Taiwan. So therefore adding (Taiwan) after the Republic of China equates ROC to Taiwan. And we all know that is no true, because it covers more than Taiwan, as you admitted. So therefore, Republic of China (Taiwan) would not be proper and correct as well it is a POV. -Nationalist 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, ROC (Taiwan) shows that Taiwan is the common name.--Jerrypp772000 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No that can be disputed. Some people think (Taiwan) would equate Republic of China To Taiwan. -Nationalist 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So how do you think we should show people that Taiwan is the common name? Besides, there's barely nothing wrong for saying they are equal to each other because ROC only governs Taiwan (yeah and other small island groups).--Jerrypp772000 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Nationalist
ArbCom has made it pretty clear that page blanking is OK

He's read the messages, and if he's read them, doesn't matter if they stay or not; he's been warned. It isn't polite, but restoring blanked comments has been deemed harassment. By removing these comments, he isn't hampering/disrupting Wikipedia in any way. Anyways, the comments are in the history, and if there is anything vital, you can always move them to the RFC page, or add diffs there. Cheers! -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am allowed to blank my talk page
I am allowed to blank my talk page per the rules of Wikipedia. I guess you aren't so acquainted with the rules. -Nationalist 05:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that I am more concerned with the records in your talk page than the fact you are blanking it. Now that's made clear above I will not bother with that.  Vic226  (chat) 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no rule on removing warnings (no guideline has been voted on) - admins will generally not block people for removing warnings unless done maliciously. There are a number of lengthy discussions here. Generally if you're the subject of an RFC you should not alter your talk pages or edit the disputed articles until a resolution has occurred. Yankees76 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interest
I don't know if this serves any particular interest to you. But I translated Nationalist's user page on Babelfish, and it gave me:

"link"

Just a matter on his political stance I guess. Just for interest. You can delete this is you want. --Borgarde (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am from Taiwan and I speak Chinese (Mandarin or whatever), so I know what he says in his user page. Maybe it could be an evidence for RfC.  Vic226  (chat) 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very absurd though, since I find it quite nearly impossible. Besides the relative difference in size, the political organization is just a total mess in ROC compared to PRC.  Vic226  (chat) 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not one to judge his political position in public, I just think he shouldn't push POV in Wikipedia. I'm considering commenting in the RfC as well. --Borgarde (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The translation is awkward, but since Vic knows Chinese and Mandarin he understands it. Why do you find it strange? It is my freedom of opinion and expression. It is my freedom of speech. -Nationalist 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, just saying my own feelings about your political stance. Nevertheless, as much as you are free to do whatever you want (mostly) in your user page, pushing it into Wikipedia articles and persist it to be a fact does not help the community as you have presumed. I have seen you stressing the importance of Naming conventions in your recent edits and discussions, but have you made any consideration of the understanding of a general audience at all? Most of them may not have as much knowledge about Taiwan as you do.  Vic226  (chat) 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is impossible. The goals of my talk page may one day be realized soon enough. So what is your outlook over the Republic of China situation -Nationalist 07:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to prolong this topic in here in part because it has little value to do with your current situation. Let me ask you again from my last comment: I have seen you stressing the importance of Naming conventions in your recent edits and discussions, but have you made any consideration of the understanding of a general audience at all? Most of them may not have as much knowledge about Taiwan as you do.  Vic226  (chat) 09:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, look at this. This is crazy, man.--Jerrypp772000 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to check if he previously had the 4th warning of WP:NPA and see if I should either contact an admin for intervention or post again in incidents.  Vic  226 20:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Yeah it was no problem. I was just getting really annoyed having to continually revert edits made by him, and got sick of his lack of ability to communicate. Thanks for all your effort in this as well. Who knows how he'll act when his ban is over.. --Borgarde (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan53 vandalized Council for Hakka Affairs and Township (Taiwan), please keep an eye on him/her.--Jerrypp772000 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist
Re:. At this point I don't think we're going to get anything out of the RfC from Nationalist. From what I've seen he's one of the "true believers" of the various political camps who show up periodically - we've tried to reason with him but he's ignored all of it. I think edits such as the ones he's made to Taiwan under Japanese Rule are evidence of his intent to use Wikipedia for soapboxing and stand in stark contrast to his excuse that he's only obeying naming conventions. The fact that he's been creating sockpuppets nonstop to circumvent bans ever since he first got blocked for 3RR suggests that he has no intention of working constructively with other editors. Given the circumstances, I would support bringing the issue to the attention of RfARB. -Loren 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The latest CheckUser for turned out to be negative. However I still have my suspicions - the registration date and edits made under that name seem too uncannily close to Nationalist's to be a coincidence... I suspect Nationalist may have wisened up and started using another IP block or even an open proxy. -Loren 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also noticed the consistent editing patterns between Chunghwa Republic and Nationalist + his sockpuppets. His activities and behaviors are way too similar to be ruled a coincidence at all unless he has a twin somewhere else. Right now, I'm not sure what to act next besides waiting for the next outcome after the denied unblock request. What we can be 99% sure of, however, is that he would not take Wikipedia policies into account and will commit unilateral edits and moves at all costs.  Vic  226 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point of blocks is preventitive, not punitive. If being blocked compels an editor to change his/her anti-social behavior then it's generally considered to have fulfilled its purpose. Anyhow unless it's blatantly obvious, I'd prefer to wait a bit longer before rushing to judgement on whether a new user is a sock. Thanks for keeping an eye out though. -Loren 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Check this out.--Jerrypp772000 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know, I've indef blocked and reset the 1 month block on  in light of his sockpuppetry. However as before, I doubt that we've seen the last of him. -Loren 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also requested a check on, who is currently blocked. By the way, i think you'll be interested in this discussion on the naming conventions.--Jerrypp772000 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another confirmedsock of Nationalist was found, what should we do now to stop him from disrupting Wikipedia?--Jerrypp772000 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see no solution other than pushing the RfC case to Arbitration. He has been unable to cooperate with the rest of us, either refusing to discuss and edit war or departing from an ongoing discussion to one point (example: Ideogram's statement that there is no consensus concerning this issue, and Naming Conventions (Chinese) itself is tagged NPOV and therefore useless). I am rather busy these days, but I will try to gather any information necessary for RfARB.  Vic  226 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that is another sock of Nat. RfArb failed last time, what now?--Jerrypp772000 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This user is currently blocked for violating 3RR. I don't think that we should request for Arb. again. If this user is indeed a confirmed sock of Nat, then Nat is eventually going to be blocked indef.--Jerrypp772000 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you just answered it yourself. That was the ArbCom's suggestion too.  Vic  226 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfAr
You didn't even need to do that. Just file a Checkuser request on him, eventually he'll be blocked indef if ke keeps avoiding blocks. By the way, RFC = Request for comment, RFCU is the checkuser. Just thought you'd like to know. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 12:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I wasn't expecting anything will get resolved since there are more and more editing incidents from his socks and the sock-blocking cycle would just go on forever, so I thought that it needs to be brought to others' attention. It was a rather mundane case relative to others compared to others, as the RFC case has been sitting there for a while without any more outside inputs. Thanks for informing me this though. Also, I knew the difference, except that I just keep getting my fingers too swift on typing since I typed more "RFCU" than "RFC" (ouch, right hand's middle finger tempted again) these days.  Vic  226 19:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional note: He was blocked for 2 months per block evading. See . - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TingMing (Nationalist?)
Thanks for the heads up, I agree that TingMing fits Nationalist's MO. Since an RfA is in progress, I'll be following it with interest in hopes that we can come to a more lasting solution, as opposed to simply banning this sock only to have another pop up in a few days. -Loren 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Vic, is it allowed to request a second checkuser on the same user? Because at this point, TingMing's been behaving similarly to Nationalist. And I'm pretty sure that he/she's a sock of Nationalist.--Jerrypp772000 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I think you should really archive your talk page. :)--Jerrypp772000 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/TingMing
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/TingMing. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically there's nothing wrong with asking another editor for help, though at this point, I think there's more than enough evidence to prove that TingMing is another Nationalist sock. The only reason I haven't banned him yet is because I'd like to see if ArbCom can't make him adopt a more civil attitude, though I agree that his attitude of flaunting the rules is unacceptable. I'm willing to give ArbCom a chance rather than just banning him outright only to have him come back under yet another sock and have the whole process start all over again. Funny thing is the last time we had a determined POV pusher like this (on the other side of the political fence, ironically), I ended up on a two month long sockpuppet chasing spree. Maybe I've just mellowed since then. -Loren 06:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're both in agreement that TingMing is Nationalist and that he doesn't seem to think that the normal standards of conduct apply to him. However banning him does not appear to be a useful deterrent as he just comes back as another sockpuppet. Now, we could opt for the usual course which basically involves admins chasing down his latest sockpuppet for the next 6 months or so, but I'd prefer to avoid that if at all possible. Do you have any ideas on what measures we could take that would be effective? (If it comes down to it, I will opt for the usual option). -Loren 07:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that we should wait to see how ArbCom turns out. Either way, TingMing is already on my radar as a sock. Perhaps we should think of possible motions to propose? ArbCom is pointless without participation. -Loren 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have sugested a motion on Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop. Basically, I think that edit wars like this are going to persist until we address the root problem of naming conventions. Your input would be appreciated. -Loren 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the arbitration is pretty dead. I plan on getting a few more outside opinions before deciding whether to block TingMing as a sock. In hindsight, I probably should have intervened earlier rather than allowing this to go spin on out of control. I think the best thing that can be done is to revive the discussion on Naming Conventions. In the past we were able to get away with nebulous definitions that took into account common usage and official titles, but I guess eventually, the number of POV pushers will make not having a set standard untenable. Might as well address the problem now. -Loren 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Restarted the discussion here. -Loren 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we can come to a satisfactory compromise. -Loren 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've found out why things are stalled. -Loren 05:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, this might be tougher than we thought. How exactly do we "flag [the ArbCom] down"?  Vic  226說 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I haven't been following up lately.  Vic  226說 06:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerryp
I cannot stand that person. I did not mean to attack him personally, but he edits without reasoning and denounces the name of China and Chinese people. I myself am a 100% Chinese, and I see that you might be of some Chinese descent or some thing along the lines. Jerryp is ridiculous at editing, claiming "🇹🇼 Republic of China" is called "vandalizing" because it should be "Taiwan." His user page proves himself to be an arrogant TI-er that hates China, quote "Taiwan is a free and democratic country, blah blah, which is completely different than China." I don't know how your POV is on this, but I believe Taiwan IS part of China. My apologies to him if I offended him personally... Sky Divine 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, no matter what anyone does, please refrain from making remarks that could be seen as personal attacks. Second, I don't have an actual stance about this issue since there is no general consensus across the Wikipedia regarding this debate for me to take a position. I recognize Jerrypp772000's edit warring against TingMing equally disruptive, but that does not prove him to be "an arrogant TI-er that hates China". Some people see Taiwan as part of the China while others don't, and most relatively sophisticated editors, AFAIK, prefer to leave the mess alone until a valid naming conventions guideline (the Naming Conventions we currently have are still POV-disputed) is reached through a centralized discussion involving all parties.


 * As long as the arbitration case is open for more scrutiny on both parties' behaviors, I would rather not to make any more comments regarding the political issue. It gets rather tiring.  Vic  226 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing
So, what is the deal with TingMing? Is he a radical TI-er or what? All he does is edit Republic of China instead of Taiwan. I do that here and there too, but with purpose. He solely believes that ROC is a seperate country, with Taiwan being one of its provinces... correct? Thanks. Sky Divine 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, he appears to be more oriented to Nationalism. See here, here, and here. He is clearly (and that is TingMing's word) going out of hands with this, which is completely unacceptable to me.  Vic  226說 08:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI Vic226
FYI, that was not an attack. You brit is not an attack. He is british like he says. So theres nothing wrong with that. PLease assume good faith and STOP accusing me of attacks. I am deeply hurt by your comments against me for no apparent reason. TingMing 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you know a lot about Taiwan and China along with the language, but I don't think you know the background of English as much. Read the first paragraph of the disambiguation article Brit. It states that it's a derogatory mark on British. Even if you meant "You Brit" by "You British", your tone in that message heavily implies disgust toward John Smith's.  Vic  226說 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know my tone? This is the Internet. You cant really tell because you didnt hear me. Dont assume because you are just hurting others. Please stop with the bullying. TingMing 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you calling John Smith's "You Brit" is a compliment? A greeting? Or? I beg to differ. Also, with your rants that precede before the "You Brit" sentence, you are hardly calling him "Brit" in a neutral tone.  Vic  226說 06:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, if you are so deeply hurt by my comments against you "for no apparent reason", then John Smith's should be offended by tenfold by your blatant insult on his ethnicity.  Vic  226說 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I got one more to say before you defend yourself again by sophistry. Using derogatory terms unintentionally (if that's the case) is NOT an excuse for your personal attack.  Vic  226說 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's one more Language Arts lesson just for you: in British English, words that end in "-ization" in American English are often written as "-isation". Therefore, there is nothing wrong in his comment. Try not to pick bones out of an egg.  Vic  226說 05:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that is British English. But I like American English and Wikipedia is American. So who cares? I dont care. He can use s if he likes. Just pointing it out. And it was not meant to be offensive. The Brits are having some afternoon tea. That sentence is not offensive at all. Brit is not an offensive term. TingMing 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, actually what's offensive is that tone. If you think he spelled it wrong, you can be nice, but you purposely added "you Brit" for obviously no other reasons.--Jerrypp772000 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What Jerrypp772000 said. Adding that two extra words is just too much not to be offensive. Also, let me tell you something. Nobody cares if you did not mean offense by "Brit". All in all, it is a derogatory word used by Irish Nationalists since they have grudges against the British Army (and pretty much all British in general). It's not for you to decide whether you meant offense or not; only what other people think matters.  Vic  226說 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You said: "I know that is British English. But I like American English and Wikipedia is American. So who cares? I dont care. He can use s if he likes." So, if you don't care if he uses British English, then why do you feel the need to bust in just to teach him American English which you prefer? And calling him "Brit" afterward? And if you think "-isation" is "completely unacceptable" and "-ization" will "definitely" be the correct one, then there are plenty of this instance in Wikipedia for you to fix. Good luck.  Vic  226說 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy?
You see I sourced it. Happy? TingMing 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a battleground. Please don't take everyone who has ever disagreed with you even on a trivial thing as an enemy to you.  Vic  226說 05:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)