User talk:Wctaiwan/Archive 4

Talkback
PC2012/RfC 1

I made a comment on your oppose. Your response is appreciated. --Mysterytrey 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replying here since it looks like the "vote" sections aren't intended for discussions: Only a small group of community-vetted editors (i.e. sysops) can edit fully-protected articles, and they're usually careful not to use the advanced permissions to gain an advantage in content disputes. In comparison, the Reviewer permissions will be given out to a much wider group of people, so preventing misuse would be far more difficult. Furthermore, the scope of full protection is clear--it's generally for very short periods of time, with the intent of stopping edit warring. I'm concerned that PC/2 would be applied on contentious articles and used as a tool in content disputes, especially if the dispute itself is whether something violates BLP, etc. wctaiwan (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re at PC2012/RfC 1. --Mysterytrey 23:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for de-trolling my page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. :) wctaiwan (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, but like I said, it's much easier to do what I do... wctaiwan (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw your note
I saw your notes about my signature and my edit summaries. I've lightened up my signature at your request. Regarding my edit summaries, I understand about using all caps (yeah, that's tacky -- I should have caught that ). I 'll stop using all caps from now on. Thanks for the heads up. "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 14:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your reply and changes, except you've really made your signature more distracting by moving the text shadow further away. :/ Prominent (dark / large blur radius) or significantly displaced text shadow isn't really ideal, in my opinion. If you really want to use the kind of effects, perhaps consider making it more like 's? It's not as simple as plain text, but at the same time isn't hugely distracting. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * After writing the above I see that you've already changed it to something entirely different. You can safely ignore what I wrote, then. wctaiwan (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for helping out! I speak Chinese Mandarin and live in Wales. Happy to know you!

 RexRowan Talk  13:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 
 * No problem. Don't know what was going on there... wctaiwan (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yinxiang (magazine)
Hi wctaiwan,

I've seen you around for a while and was just reminded when I saw your nick on Mabdul's talk page. This article could use some help. I have done some basic reformatting and some other minor clean up. I think the writing needs some help. I also wanted to add titles to the cover images at the bottom, but I'm not very confident in my Mandarin. Regards, --  :- ) Don 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and see what I can do later. Thanks for the note. wctaiwan (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, it's looking better. It was a bit of a mess when if first arrived in AfC. I see a lot of notes in the references I need to break out yet.  --  :- ) Don  04:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a major problem I've noticed is that there appears to be a lot of original research. That's the main thing holding me back from starting to copyedit and reorganise it. I'm wondering whether we should a) leave the less serious stuff be b) try to talk to the author, or c) just wait a few days and then start removing what appears to be OR. There don't seem to be a lot of online sources, even in Chinese (understandable considering the time period). wctaiwan (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could tag the problem areas as time allows and sometime in the future contact the author. She (I assume) seems to still be involve with the Wiki and somewhat prolific. The only other Taiwan article I've worked on Miniwiz, was just sort of dropped here and never touched again. Which upset me, because I did a lot of clean up. --  :- ) Don  07:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for editing/accepting my first article (on Søren Solkær Starbird) !
Hi Wctaiwan, I am thrilled that my article got accepted - and for your great help with the changes needed! Is there something more that I need to do now, or will the article automatically appear on wikipedia now? I tried searching for 'Søren Solkær Starbird' on wiki and then found nothing. Wonder if it just takes time, or if there is something I need to do in order for it to be 'searchable'. ? Sunshine Warrior 07:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tine Reingaard (talk • contribs)
 * Hi. I don't think you need to do anything else for it to show up. Just wait a bit--maybe the search index hasn't been updated or something. wctaiwan (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I think you are right. I just googled 'starbird spiritual leaders' and then it showed up. Funny :) 2.111.21.52 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio tool?
I replied quickly to your post on my talk page. Is there a tool for identifying copyvios? Putting chunks of each reviewed article through Google doesn't seem feasible. Thanks for your help and all the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 13:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * User: Earwig has been working on an app for quite a while. There is a duplication detector that can be a help if you have two pages you want to check against each other. --  :- ) Don  15:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me wiht my article. It has been declined twice and i would love to know what i need to do to get it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Edit Conflict info
Thanks for the info in reply to my question on User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak :) Gmporr (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Thanks, and yeah, apparently a local chain even managed to establish stores in NYC. I prefer unsweetened black tea myself, but I do like how everyone outside Taiwan seems to enjoy bubble tea. wctaiwan (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see it here in the UK. It looks very nice! Starbucks should bulk buy them :D -- RexRowan Talk  17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate tea. I love Bubble tea
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was organized by Dom497. Care to join AfC?

I have another one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chen Da (Chinese folk singer). It will take me a month to touch this one. And I'm still poking at: Yinxiang (magazine) as I get time.

--  :- ) Don 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. Sorry, maybe when I'm less busy. I really don't have the time required for AfC work right now. :/ That said, if this person is going to stick around, it may save a lot of work on both sides if we could talk to her about references and the less embellished, more detached style of writing expected on Wikipedia... wctaiwan (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. NP, just wanted to show it to you. It looks interesting. I assume you have studying type things to do.  I can work on it.  You guys are just so prolific with your annotations.  Lucky to get one cite out of US people.  Enjoy your Sunday. --  :- ) Don  06:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My Taiwan edit
Hi WcTaiwan, regarding my edit of Taiwan, I was trying to point out in the intro to explain briefly why Taiwan has the Republic of China name in two or three sentences, mentioning/linking to the Two Chinas article and the political status of Taiwan, and it is a key issue due to Taiwan's unusual situation. I know it's described in detail in the History section and also covered in the intro lead, but the intro description is way too detailed to be put in the intro. The intro should be brief about the current key facts about a country, but the intro has 4 paragraphs, 3 of which included prehistory of Taiwan, the period before the founding of ROC, and the economy and evolution into a democracy. I think only parts of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should be combined and condensed, and left in the intro. Pre-1895 history should all just be in the history section, and even the transfer to Japan. This way without too much unnecessary details, then the important issue about Taiwan's unusual international status would be easily seen, and look into the history(or political status of Taiwan) if he/she's interested. Average readers go to Wikipedia for some quick facts, and I'm sure most (younger) people probably have never known there are "Two Chinas", and writing what I wrote would draw a reader's attention to read more if they're interested. I will also post this comment on the Taiwan talk page. Feel free to reply there. Mistakefinder (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan is a territory administered by Republic of China not just Taiwan. Because it only makes up of 96% of Republic of China's territory. i am also aware of People's Republic of China's One China as this purpose is to unify all Chinas since there are Two Chinas. Captain2123 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi
Hi, my problem with User:林木森森's contribution to the Christianity section in the Fang Zhouzi article is that these English quotes are not from an actual source that contains these quotes as they were, but it seems the quotes are actually translated by the user him/her-self. Quotations, specifically stated that "Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Verifiability)." I don't doubt the overall "meaning" of the quotes, but its just that they are quite terribly and even laughably translated with ill-grammar and choice of words. They should be removed unless there are actual English language translations (not by Wikipedia users) on these quotes.--Thomasettaei (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have since reverted the section back to your last version due to the problems with the self-translated quotes.--Thomasettaei (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I naturally have no objections, though in their defence, I think the word choice was pretty close to Fang's own. wctaiwan (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yinxiang (magazine)
Hi, I'm still cleaning up this article, I think it is getting better. Wanted to get you opinion on my use of the abbr template for Mandarin and Pinyin. The original is haphazard in the usages, but I'm trying to standardized everything. I like having Pinyin and Mandarin, but it really clutters up reading. --  :- )  Don  02:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd suggest removing them for the translations (publisher, etc.) and just put the Chinese names in parentheses after the English transliterations for the people. I'd also get rid of the diacritics, as my impression is that they're rarely used. wctaiwan (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh huh, sorry, I only just realised I had misread that—I thought you meant that the author added the tags and you were pruning them. But the general point still stands, as in, if the Chinese would be too much clutter if placed in braces after the English, they should probably just not be included—especially transliterations of phrases that have been translated. I made a few changes to show the sort of thing I mean. What do you think? Anyway, I really should be getting to bed now... wctaiwan (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you are still getting my change. Where it is translated text, it show with little dots under it, when you hover, you get the translation. Which varies.  I'm still looking for the Madarin for Chen Xihe, I have not found it, or I keep missing it.  Sleep well 00:15 your time right now.  --  :- )   Don  16:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do know what you're talking about. :P I'm somewhat conflicted—I agree with the desires to include Chinese names where helpful and to reduce clutter, but the use of &lt;abbr&gt; is pretty uncommon on Wikipedia, so it looks somewhat out of place. If you think it's the best approach, then just use it, I suppose. My objection is pretty weak. On the other hand, I've been thinking—what if we
 * include the Chinese names of the editors in a footnote after the sentence (e.g. "卓柏棠, 朱道凱, ... respectively"), as that's really the only part where the clutter really affects reading,
 * eliminate the unnecessary ones (the word "publisher", restating the name of the magazine, etc.), and
 * use parentheses for the others?
 * A combination of these may be able to largely solve the problem without using &lt;abbr&gt;. But it's up to you. wctaiwan (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your guy is probably 陈犀禾, a film scholar in Shanghai. Here's a bio in Chinese and here's one in English. The trouble is that I can't find a page that actually unambiguously ties the essay to him. But it's probably him unless there's another Chen Xihe who is also a film scholar... wctaiwan (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and, I would appreciate it if you don't reply for a couple of days. :P I have two tests coming up and I really shouldn't be refreshing Wikipedia waiting for the orange banner. >_> Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)
 * Thanks. I like the Mandarin being available, but sometimes it makes more clutter then it helps.  And when you add Pinyin... I'm not sure about Pinyin at all, because most of my friends don't read it.  Which is hell for me, because it's the only way I have to learn your mute pictograms.  I came across the abbr template working on a article filled with acronyms and by the end of the 100kB I had forgotten 1/2 of them, so it was a reminder.  I will think about you suggestions.  Thanks again. --  :- )   Don  16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will leave you alone. Good Luck. --  :- )  Don  16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan edits
Please stop changing names en-masse. Wikipedia's current consensus is to use Taiwan for things that are not directly related to the state itself (e.g. geographical features, culture, etc.) and the ROC for things that are (e.g. the military). Your edits are disruptive. Please do not make a large number of changes unilaterally without prior discussion or regard for the current consensus. wctaiwan (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for moving the talk here because my IP hops. The widely recognized and commonly used name in English for the ROC is Taiwan. The official name "Republic of China" is puzzling and potentially misleading to readers not familiar with Taiwan strait issues, as they may confuse it with the PRC. In my opinion, ROC should only be used when referring to history in 1912~1949.114.136.179.48 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's your view, and people like GotR would tell you that contrasting Taiwan with China is all sorts of POV-pushing. This is a contentious issue, and disruptive editing from either side don't help. My advice, as it would be to others with strong views on the issue, is to correct things that are obviously wrong (e.g. using "Taiwan, Province of China" outside of the very specific contexts), and leave good enough be. Generally, when talking about the state, Taiwan is mentioned in parentheses when the Republic of China is mentioned for the first time in an article, which should be enough to eliminate confusion. Beyond that, ROC should be used, unless you can gain consensus for current practices to be changed. wctaiwan (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wctaiwan, (s)he is at it again. Despite the restrained tone of your advice, this user seems to abide by WP:IDIDN'THERETHAT! See my latest string of Twinkle reverts at around 05:00 UTC today. A harsher response should be considered. GotR Talk 05:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I left some comments at the ANI thread. wctaiwan (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterisation of our differences as being "polar opposites". It seems that your views are more in line with those of Readin. What you have stated to the IP user above is essentially what was the guideline even after the renames of the state articles themselves. GotR Talk 06:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that you're pretty strongly against TI and I'm pretty strongly for it. What we do have in common is the understanding that unilaterally changing things against consensus is disruptive and unhelpful. The point was to emphasise that it was not a content dispute (i.e. the complaint isn't based on the fact that you disagree with the IP), but a behavioural issue. wctaiwan (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Time to rebuild that guideline... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 02:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But as you'd know, it's going to be pretty hard to get consensus for anything. I'm also somewhat worried that something with guideline status would be abused to bludgeon opponents. For example, a reasonable conclusion to draw from WP:NC-TW is that a phrase like "the Taiwanese president" should never be used in an article, instead "the president of the ROC" should always be preferred, even though the former reads better and is probably okay when the president is not the main subject being discussed--do we really want that? I think we already focus way too much on the technicalities of names (ROC, Taiwan, China, mainland China, ...); codifying things would likely make it worse. While it's sometimes problematic, I think the current approach of referring to the informal consensus (ROC for state, Taiwan for most other things) and applying common sense works most of the time. Really, I doubt having a guideline would reduce the amount of pointless back-and-forth--it's just that instead of typing out an argument, people would turn to linking to the guideline when they revert someone else or argue on the talk page... wctaiwan (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but having the guideline in place (restored, anyway) would make it easier. Maybe time to start an RFC to restore?... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese translation
Hello. I was on Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Chinese to English translators and wondered if you could translate some of the stub articles for the King of Eastern Zhou at Template:Kings of Zhou? Thanks.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese
Identifying self as Chinese is not harmful. Besides, it's also widely known that ROC is also a Chinese. Hence, if you study the history, about quarter of the Chinese artifact and antique is now located in ROC, mainly to avoid the Mainland Cultural Revolution in which many Chinese artifact has been destroyed and so on. Most of the Chinese value and culture are now retain mostly in the territory controlled by ROC, not PRC. Hence they ought to be called "Chinese" Captain2123 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Suffice to say I disagree, and indeed this study shows that I'm hardly some extremist minority. But again, what I think doesn't matter. If you want to change the way Wikipedia phrases these things, you need to convince other editors (one of the places you can do so is here, in case you missed that). If consensus indicates that Taiwanese people and the ROC should be referred to as Chinese, I would have no choice but to respect it. Until then, Taiwanese should be considered distinct from Chinese, in the sense that Chinese (in a modern context in English) is generally taken to mean someone from the PRC. wctaiwan (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

JACDEC Report and China Airlines
I find it strange that instead of just making the changes you recommended yourself, you removed the entry completely. Regardless, I have updated the entry to reflect that China Airlines has the worst safety record among the 60 international airlines that JACDEC reviewed, as per their reported that is cited. Regardless of personal or national pride in an airline, Wikipedia is fact based and while I do sincerely appreciate your attempts to set the record straight regarding the report, the complete removal of any reference to it is suspiciously protectionist and nationalistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.219.72 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. That's fine by me. And rest assured, there is no national pride involved—I saw the change to China Airlines first because I had it on my watchlist, and after reading the source I reverted. Afterwards, I checked your contributions and noticed you added similar sentences to other articles, which is when I left you the talk page note.
 * However, I'll probably add a discussion about the source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines later today. As someone who likes and reads about civil aviation (not a whole lot, but it's a hobby), I question the authoritativeness of the report and the appropriateness of citing it on Wikipedia. Aside from being a limited comparison with no explanation of how the airlines were chosen, the methodology used is unclear—we don't know how they arrived at their scores from the metrics they used. And it seems to compare the past 30 years regardless of the age of each airline, arriving at conclusions that are questionable when labelled as the "safety rate (index?)" of the airlines, as many of the airlines close to the bottom have not had any major accidents in recent years. I'll freely admit that China Airlines had a terrible record (to the point where the phrase "Four-Year Limit" was coined to refer to its having a hull-loss accident every 4 years), but unless the report is a well-recognised publication on aviation safety, citing it for the sort of claims seems inappropriate, for articles on any airline. wctaiwan (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion started here. wctaiwan (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

My talk page
Take a look at it now =]. If you think you can do it without the table go ahead and fix it :)  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's some way to do it, but if tables work and you're happy with it I don't think it's worth the effort. It's not like most of Wikipedia's HTML code doesn't already have horrible style anyway. :P wctaiwan (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're clearly delusional
Legoktm was right.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I keep trying to explain (and as Legoktm continues to refuse to listen >_>), I keep it at en-3 not because I think my English is terrible, but because my English does fit the description for xx-3 at WP:Babel/Levels, which is to say I'm confident writing in English, but I occasionally make minor mistakes and had never realised that you were supposed to use "Yours faithfully," at the end of a letter addressed to some "Dear Sir / Madam" until very recently. The babel box is just that--it tells people I can communicate in Chinese and English. :/ Plus the yellow for en-4 is too bright and fluorescent. :P wctaiwan (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * wctaiwan has an IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue here. I recommend a topic ban from his user page. :-) —Emufarmers(T/C) 08:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, let him bee. -— Isarra ༆ 15:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi again
I want to show you one thing, please tell me your feelings.

Lu Ruoqing is a girl who had terminal cancer documenting her illness on Sina microblog. Fang Zhouzi accused her of fabricating her illness to swindle money, the girl was very hurt and had to delete all her microblogs. Later, the China Central Television visited the girl in her hospital and verified her illness. Fang Zhouzi, though being asked to, never apologized.

If you don't believe me, here are two posts that contain screenshots of Fang and others' microblogs, you may ignore the commentary if you think they are biased, just focus on the screenshots.

What do you think of Mr. Fang's character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 林木森森 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(Update) Right after Fang's accusations, the girl's condition worsened. She's probably dead now.--林木森森 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gambling in Taiwan
Howdy! I saw your recent comments at VPP (and so concluded you were an active editor) and, given your username, thought you might be keen to help with a new article I recently created - Gambling in Taiwan. I saw the redlink at WP:RA, did a quick google search and determined it would be easy enough to create, so I did. But it could probably do with some local knowledge (which I don't have) to flesh it out a bit. Would appreciate any contribution you care to make. Cheers, Stalwart 111  05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that familiar with the topic, to be honest, and your article covers most of what I knew (and many things I didn't). The only obvious improvement I can think of to add is some information on the failed Penghu referendum: this article is a possible source. I don't really have large chunks of free time (outside of procrastination...) these days to expand the article, but I'll put it on my watchlist and try to help where I can. wctaiwan (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That'd be great! I know there is potential for some of the territorial island stuff to be controversial and the (sourced, mind you) inclusion of things about Japanese organised crime might raise some eyebrows. I have no intention of offending anyone (with due deference to WP:NOTCENSORED) so it would be good to have some local eyes on it from the start. I'll certainly add the Penghu stuff. Thanks for responding! Cheers, Stalwart 111  14:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Shiny!

 * Thanks! wctaiwan (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure
Behold! The mockup, a vision of the future: File:Talkpage 1 mockup.png

Hee. -— Isarra ༆ 21:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks good--certainly more scalable, resolution wise, than the other mockups. And stop distracting me with interesting filler text. :P wctaiwan (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What's this? You want me to come up with more interesting filler text for the next one? I can totally do this! Also yay! A wikipedian approves! -— Isarra ༆ 02:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, whaddya mean, scalable? That's how big my laptop is. Personally I think it looks awful and it still looks awful at higher resolutions, but... eh. -— Isarra ༆ 02:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have a full-width search box. That helps. As does the lack of anything with a fluid width other than the comments themselves, really. wctaiwan (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Talkpage 1 mockup (wide).png -— Isarra ༆ 02:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Something about something and something and something else
You're wonderful.

Also why did you revert yourself? That was perfect, and anyone who'd want to hold it against you will now be able to anyway since it's in the history and such.

Also also I should throw another mockup at you. This one will be hilarious. HI LARRY US.

Also also also you and jorm should talk sometime. He said something the other day that totally made me think of you and since you're both awesome it could be rather... beneficial. -— Isarra ༆ 01:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Er. Thanks. I self-reverted because a) I only realised afterwards that while hilarious incivility abounded, my comment was the first that could be constructed to be a personal attack and b) the whole thing is pretty dumb anyway. >_> At least when I come into the picture.
 * And sure. Mockups are good, so long as I don't have to make them. Jorm is good too, though I'm not sure what you expect us to talk about. wctaiwan (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have been asked to let you know that your so-called "self-"revert is a violation of talk page guidelines and that you should revert your revert or face being reverted by myself. Legoktm (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll revert your revert of the reverted potential revert reverty thing. Vertical. -— Isarra ༆ 05:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)