User talk:MarkSweep/archive3

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feynman references

If there are lots of references there is no way to tell, unless I'm missing something obvious. I'm not picky about the format, but some way to tell that they are in fact references is needed. All the article has is a list of works by him, about him, and some external links. Those could have been simply listed for more information for the insterested reader and not consulted at all by the article's authors. I do see a couple works mentioned in the text, but even those aren't entirely clear. In order to be a reference, the work needs to have been used by the author to add or fact check material in the article. It is not clear which, if any of those works listed were used for that. - Taxman 13:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan

Thank you for adding more information and making some changes, especially with the sources, renaming "Sources" to "References." I know that I'm going to change the D-Day video by the CBC to CBC Coverage of the 60th anniversary of D-Day. User:SNIyer12

Hey, thanks for fixing the big glaring mistake in one of my references. I also noticed that you have sources and references inline as external links. Those should be converted into roughly the same format at the end of the article (I'll need to check the Manual of Style to make sure we're using the standard format); I'll work on that a bit. You'll need a proper list of references if you want to nominate it for FA. --MarkSweep 23:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your message about the sources and references as external links. User:SNIyer12

How have you been doing on it? I know that you have made some changes since you were last at that article I'm talking about. User:SNIyer12, 20:34 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm done with reorganizing the references. Do you want to list it on WP:PR now? --MarkSweep 01:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. Go ahead. User:SNIyer12 13:53 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. --MarkSweep 02:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reorganizing the references. I'm going to be titling the references, where there's untitled. User:SNIyer12

Right, I forgot about that. Thanks. I'm having a hard time opening some of the video(?) streams. Perhaps it's better to link to those indirectly, i.e., first to an external HTML page, which then contains a link to the video? --MarkSweep 19:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I just finished titling the references, where there's untitled. I went to the page where it is found, and took the title down for the video. You can look at the page. -- User:SNIyer12 19:39 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I also noticed you changed some of the dates in the list of references. I agree with your changes – it sometimes happens that the date in the URL and the date on the page are different. In the case of your changes, the date in the URL makes more sense. --MarkSweep 20:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sollogfan/The Number RFAr

Please note that Wyss, AFAIK, is still missing in action. (I'm telling you this because I was asked to watch over the page.) I don't feel like chipping in myself; I think the RFC speaks for itself and no further comments are necessary on my part. Thanks for informing me, though. JRM · Talk 10:06, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think I have a pretty good sense of your position on this and agree with what you said during the RFC. However, given the latest developments, I don't really see any other options for collectively putting this whole episode behind us. Hopefully something good will come from it. Cheers, --MarkSweep 10:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think it's pretty safe to just block these guys indefinitely. Sollog is a special case, with a clear hard ban, and I'm really not too concerned about who exactly is behind them - the behaviour is the same (they could be GNAA impersonators, for example). I don't really think we need to open a formal case to get rid of these guys forever. Ambi 11:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
especially as all I and Sollogfan have done is object to being called Sollog! The Number 13:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
If it's that simple, fine by me. I imagined we would need developer assistance to make sure we are dealing with a pair of sockpuppets (of each other, not necessarily of Sollog), and I didn't know there was a formal hard ban on Sollog in effect. All I knew was that open proxies, impostors, and accounts that violate the policy on acceptable user names had been blocked indefinitely. --MarkSweep 11:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
So to persistently accuse someone of being a sockpuppet of Sollog is somehow 'acceptable' ??? I quote:"I imagined we would need developer assistance to make sure we are dealing with a pair of sockpuppets (of each other, not necessarily of Sollog), " So if I and Sollogfan are NOT Sollog....incredibly that's not important? That excuses the perpetual vandalism? The Number 13:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Uzbekistan coa.png

Hi, I'm Sanbec, from es:. My english is poor, sorry.

At this coat you put coatofarms. It's a very unspecific tag. What is the source? Is fair use? Is public domain?

At es:, de: and Commons, the fair use images are not allowed. If you could provide the complete information abot source and licence, we will be able to use it. Thanks, --Sanbec 07:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

{{coatofarms}} is the tag that is standardly used here on en: for seals, coats of arms, and other insignia. They are either in the public domain or used under the fair use doctrine. I have no idea where it came from; I merely took Image:Gerb.gif and re-uploaded it under a more descriptive name and in PNG format, on somebody else's request. The original GIF image is still available from the Commons. --MarkSweep 07:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, at commons says PD but there is no info about source. I have put the incomplete license tag there. --Sanbec 08:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal

Hi there! I've reworded this a bit per everyone's comment, and would like to get support to make this a guideline and allow it to be used. Could you please indicate if you agree? Thanks, Radiant_* 12:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your note. I think I have now sorted the standard template style stuff. If you could check Template:Peerreview for me, and tell me if it works or not, the style argument can be implemented and the template removed. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

A very belated thanks for correcting the Latin quote on my user page! My own Latin was never good and is now about 10 years dormant. Isomorphic 03:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

JNLP issues

So, I finally got around to looking at the JNLP stuff and there are some issues I have that maybe you can help me rectify. First off, my nameserver has been acting a little slow, so the first time I tried out the JNLP, it just kept telling me it couldn't find the .jnlp file (even though I could access it via Firefox, but it took a minute or so). Is there some sort of timeout that could be set so that it doesn't give up after not being able to load for a few seconds? Secondly, when I did finally get it running it wasn't able to open a socket and didn't save the file. Are there restrictions on sockets and files with JNLP? CryptoDerk 15:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about the network timeout. About the second question, an unsigned JNLP app runs in an untrusted environment where it cannot write to the filesystem or open network connections in JDK 5.0. I didn't realize this before, because it's a bit different in JDK 6.0. You'd have to sign the jar file using jarsigner and add one line to the JNLP file. I can point you to scripts for doing that, it's really quite simple. --MarkSweep 19:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

User:The Number's ban

Thanks for the update. It's about time!  — Saxifrage |  07:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Presidents template

How is your Presidents template going to be used?? Please do not use it to replace Calmypal's template, see Template:USpresidents. Georgia guy 00:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, you're fast! I'm trying to make list of Presidents of the United States a proper list article instead of a redirect. The list has been nominated on WP:FLC, but there is a concern that it is an embedded list at the moment. To avoid duplication, Template:Presidents of the United States will be transcluded in both President of the United States and list of Presidents of the United States. Give me a few minutes to work on this, please. Thanks, --MarkSweep 00:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I've nominated it for deletion. --MarkSweep 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Battle of Gettysburg.jpg

Hi. I removed the black boarder of that photo and uploaded the boarderless version to Commons. I requested deletion of the copy hosted on en.wikipedia.--KAMiKAZOW 22:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Better to have it on Commons anyway. --MarkSweep 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Motion to close

Thanks a lot MarkSweep. :-) — Instantnood 10:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I hope they don't just let it fizzle out, or else we're back to square one. --MarkSweep 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One more vote to go. :-( — Instantnood 18:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Image for deletion

I listed the image HausdorffSpace.png for deletion at Commons requests, because I changed its name to Hausdorff space.png - no CamelCase. --Fibonacci 00:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. --MarkSweep 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"PRC" vs. "Mainland China"

It's the same old problem again. I noticed you have been changing some of the reference to "China" to "PRC". But in my opinion, some of these are actually meaning mainland China (for instance, [1], [2] and [3]). We will have to decide on whether the term "mainland China" should be used, as per the naming conventions, after the ArbCom case is closed. — Instantnood 16:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom case is closed, no? That's why I started making those changes. --MarkSweep 19:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes it was closed, but it was closed without satisfying the requirement of four net support votes. There were four support and one oppose votes. :-) — Instantnood 06:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I guess it's not much use complaining now, though. I doubt they will re-open it on technical grounds. Anyway, I'm trying to de-POV some of the most blatant statements now. I don't think "mainland China" has much hope as a compromise term: people are opposing it (unreasonably, in my opinion), but what can be done is to say explicitly "PRC, excluding Hong Kong and Macau" or "PRC including Hong Kong", etc. where appropriate. That's unambiguous and unassailable, IMHO. --MarkSweep 07:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yule-Simon distribution

I wanted to do some plots for the Yule-Simon distribution, but I cannot resolve some inconsistencies in the formulae. Could you check:

  1. that the first two formulae in the Yule-Simon distribution article are correct. I cant seem to derive the second from the first.
  2. shouldn't the CMF function be zero for k=1?

I can't Google a Yule-Simon definition that doesn't look suspiciously like a copy of the Wikipedia article, and I have no books that reference the Yule-Simon distribution. Thanks - PAR 14:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first formula for the PMF is definitely correct (if it's properly normalized): I checked Simon 1955 (cited in the article) who effectively defines it as
I'll need to check the rest later. What specific inconsistencies are you concerned about? --MarkSweep 14:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of the beta function we could write the Yule-Simon PMF as:

Using the falling factorial definition:

gives:

not

as in the article. Also, the cumulative mass function for k=1 is

which is not zero. Shouldn't it be zero? PAR 17:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your definition of the falling factorial is actually the rising factorial. The falling factorial I'm thinking of is
Then it all works out, because
Second, the CMF is usually defined in terms of , no? So in this case, which is
Right? --MarkSweep 19:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also added a book to the list of references. It vaguely refers to the Johnson and Kotz volume on univariate discrete distributions for further details. I haven't checked that yet. Do you have easy access to it? I derived most of the formulas myself; as you noted, the Yule-Simon is not discussed much, so there isn't exactly an overwhelming wealth of resources. --MarkSweep 20:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see it now. I was being optimistic about how closely I had to review the falling factorial, etc. Thanks for the help, Mark. I will check the library at work for the J&K book and let you know. PAR 00:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbolic secant

Are you doing the plots for the hyperbolic secant? If not, I will. PAR 19:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm working on other stuff. --MarkSweep 19:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't present fact as opinions

Please do no edit any article without extensive research. I am merely stating the fact. It is a fact that China is the world's oldest CONTINUOUS civilization. It is a fact, not an opinion; remember, it is a solid fact, no matter what's your opinion on it, the fact will not alter.

I have already provided some of the important historians' views and the reference. If you think the fact that China is the world's oldest continuous civilization is not true, please give me some references and historian's views. Please do not present fact as opinions, no matter what's your opinions on the fact, the fact will always be fact. -- Mimiian

Continued on User talk:Mimiian.

Issues around mainland China and Republic of China

Thanks so much for your help during the discussion on naming conventions on China-related issues, and when the ArbCom case was in progress. The case that I was involved in was closed, and it's not likely it would be considered to reopen it on technical grounds. (It was closed when there were four support and one oppose vote, i.e. less than the required four net support votes.) After all these, I'd like to know your opinion how on mainland China- and Republic of China-related issues should be dealt with, and how the naming conventions can be implemented and enforced. — Instantnood 15:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why did you move the page to List of political parties in the Republic of China. I thought we had discussed in the past and there was a decision not to move the page. Electionworld 6 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

On the general principles of "be bold" and "do the right thing", and as mandated by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). The previous "discussion" was a heated partisan debate, involving ballot-stuffing by sockpuppets and other unpleasantness, and has to be discounted or perhaps dismissed outright. The naming conventions state clearly that in political situations the country name should be preferred. It is both more neutral and more accurate: the political parties in question exist not only on Taiwan, but compete in elections etc. throughout the entire ROC. The ROC does not call itself "Taiwan" officially, for good reasons (doing so would likely trigger a military conflict with the PRC). We thus have a choice between using two biased terms in the title ("Taiwan" vs. "ROC"), and it makes sense to use the less biased, official name. --MarkSweep 6 July 2005 13:39 (UTC)

But there was a discussion with a result. If you want to move, you should start a second discussion. I do not mind that, but I do mind this unilateral action to move taking into consideration a earlier discussion. I suggest you revert the moves (it was also in elections in ...) and place a proposal to move template at the page. Electionworld 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

WADR, I see no reason to revert. We really don't have much choice here, since the naming conventions (which were subject to extensive discussion and are supported by consensus) provide pretty solid guidelines for what the article titles should be. Our collective hands are tied in this case. What you may call unilateral action, I would call boldly implementing the long-standing consensus on article names. There is no point opening a vote on something that has already been agreed upon, in terms of the applicable naming conventions. --MarkSweep 7 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

I just visited the talk page of the naming convention, but didn't see any vote. Just a vote that started with two votes cast. When was the consensus reached (when a consensus was reached, I will stop the discussion). BTW, what does WADR mean? Electionworld 7 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

With all due respect, but why would a vote be required as an indication of consensus? As suggested on m:Polls are evil, reducing a complex issue such as this one to a simple Yes/No or Approve/Oppose vote often only results in more polarization and does nothing to further consensus. This was amply demonstrated recently for the present issue. The poll with the two votes you saw was part of a series of polls that was aborted when someone filed an RFA because they considered too many simultaneous polls a disruption of Wikipedia. The poll page itself was placed on VfD at that point. The net result was completely unproductive: polls were created to vote on the substantive issues, then a meta-vote was started on VfD about whether having polls in this form was the right thing, then a long ArbCom case ensued that went precisely nowhere, not even a finding of fact.

The tragic thing is that the polls were unnecessary in the first place. There already was a long-standing consensus in place, hammered out carefully prior to 2004. There were some attempts in February through April of this year (IIRC) to change that consensus, but those attempts failed. I believe there even was a survey or poll on the issue, which you can dig up in the archives/history of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).

If you want further examples of why polls are indeed evil, consider this: The set of polls that you mentioned was subverted by two or more sockpuppeteering POV-pushers, who engaged in systematic ballot stuffing, posted inflammatory/trollish comments, and generally did their best to either make sure that the outcome was in their favor, or if it didn't go in their favor they would subvert the whole process. If you look at the history of Talk:Taiwan you'll see how a particularly "clever" sockpuppeteer managed to subvert the scope and wording of the article temporarily by a "poll" with a slim majority of sockpuppet votes (and when the tide turned against him later, he claimed that the poll was already closed and that it was too late to change anything), against the consensus that had already been worked out on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). The point is, it is unproductive at best (and downright destructive at worst) to try to open things up to individual votes that should be and have been decided centrally once. That's what the naming conventions are for. The consensus on the naming conventions that is in effect today was reached in 2003 and has since remained essentially unchanged. --MarkSweep 7 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

I do not want to restart the discussion, but what is a consensus if there are people who do not agree with that consensus. But that is not more than semantics. I cannot see how this consensus was reached. I really think both names are not NPOV. I myself would be pleased with either Republic of China (Taiwan) or Taiwan (Republic of China), but I will not start a vote or discussion. Electionworld 7 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)

I guess I should have said "working consensus". Needless to say, these things are rarely unanimous, since that would require that everyone is rational, reasonable, and generally on the same page. I personally would be happy with either one of the alternatives you're suggesting, and at some point in the past we were close to a compromise on one of these forms (I can't remember which one). Regarding NPOV, the situation is quite tricky: taken out of context, both names are certainly NPOV. Problems arise only when you put them e.g. in a political context: for example, if you look at President of the Republic of China, there is some discussion of why the office is not usually known as "President of Taiwan", which may be acceptable as a short form in the Western media, but which, according to the article, is not even used by supporters of Taiwanese independence. In fact, the situation is so delicate that if Chen Shui-bian were to call himself the "President of Taiwan", it would trigger outrage in mainland China at the very least, and perhaps even military action if interpreted as a formal move toward independence. So in a political context, where one is talking about the country, its government, or its political system or process, "Republic of China", being the official name, is generally safer, and also more accurate. --MarkSweep 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)


Hello MarkSweep. I noticed you have been renaming articles as per the naming conventions. Guess you'd be interested to take a look at list of companies in the People's Republic of China, where there's a dispute just now over whether a notice should be included. — Instantnood 16:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Education in mainland China was moved to Education in the People's Republic of China by User:SchmuckyTheCat [4] [5]. :-| — Instantnood 08:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't necessarily agree with that move, but there's nothing I can do about it. --MarkSweep 04:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Well.. again, media in mainland China was moved to media in the People's Republic of China by User:SchmuckyTheCat. [6] [7] [8]. :-\ — Instantnood 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
My only suggestion at this point is to bring it up as part of the arbitration case. Cheers, --MarkSweep 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
IMHO you'd be in a better position to present it to the case. You were the one who moved it to ..mainland China. If I am the one to present it, it would be taken as part of the constant disagreements. — Instantnood 20:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Mainland Chinese licence plates and transportation in mainland China were also moved. [9] [10]. — Instantnood 09:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile, mind helping to take a look at the footnote for mainland China at value added tax#Non-EU countries [11]? I've expressed my concern to Huaiwei that it could be confusing and mistaken that special administrative regions are just tax exemption areas where special economic laws and policies apply, but she/he did not agree, and it turned out to be an edit war [12]. Would be great if we can get some people who are not familiar China, Hong Kong and things about East Asia to comment on whether it's confusing or not. — Instantnood 20:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a look later. --MarkSweep 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks so much. — Instantnood 20:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...if we are interested in moving all XXX PRC articles to XXX Mainland China ones, then shall we correspondingly move all XXX Hong Kong articles to XXX Hong Kong, China?--Huaiwei 10:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Much belated thanks.

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Since then, family issues have unfortunately taken a lot of the energy that I would rather spend on Wikipedia. It's getting to a point where I can get back into my "normal" (ha!) routine, so I plan to wield the mop more actively. Thanks again! FreplySpang (talk) 22:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Place names

I've meaning to offer congratulations on your indefatigable work on the unusual & interesting and misleading place names articles; are you combing a gazetteer or atlas, or do you just know all these places? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I mostly remember them from having used gazetteers in the past. I had kind of assumed that those are all useless pieces of trivia, but now that there actually is a use for them, they are coming back to me slowly. --MarkSweep 14:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments in article talk pages

Mark, do not revert my removal of personal comments from article talk pages. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Personal comments have no place in articles talk pages. Any personal comment on any article talk page is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, those remarks with personal accusations qualify are personal attacks. Read the personal attacks talk page. Nicholas Turnbull's remark "your [...] are nothing but groundless attacks on Prof. Touretzky's name" is a personal accusation. Nicholas wrote "Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals?" I am not accepting vague allegations against me without presentation of evidence that my contributions are "groundless attacks" and my sources and references are "spurious". If the critic doesn't like my sources then that should be discussed without personal remarks or comments. His personal comments should have been sent to my talk page, not posted to an article talk page. If I am acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, I expect more civil explanations of my violation with proof of my offenses. Until then, I will apply the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks. Unless you are a mediator, I will have no further communication with you on this. --AI 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you're familiar with the relevant policies, you know that removing somebody else's comments from talk pages is considered highly controversial (the policy pages say so). The fact that your attempts to remove comments (ignoring, for the moment, the issue of whether they really are personal comments/attacks or not) has met with resistance should tell you that something is amiss. In fact, in my opinion your interpretation of what counts as a personal comment is misguided: comments regarding an editor's knowledge, motives, biases, etc. are ubiquitous on talk pages and should not be removed unless they clearly cross the boundaries of civility. For people with hair-trigger sensibilities, those boundaries may be drawn differently, but then again, they don't get to decide. Instead, the community as a whole will define what counts as civil and incivil behavior. --MarkSweep 22:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A personal comment is a comment about a person. A hypothetical example would be: "Let's ignore (some user), because he is obviously (ethnic)." This is of course wrong on many levels and may be removed according to policy, though the policy pages explicitly caution that such editing may be seen as controversial. However, comments directed at a person are not personal comments. A hypothetical example would be: "You, (some user), are obviously mistaken when it comes to (some issue)." This is not a comment about a person and should not be removed from a talk page. How else can you have a discussion on a talk page? One has to be allowed to address other participants in a debate. Please do not remove such legitimate comments from talk pages. If in doubt, it's usually better to err on the side of caution and leave borderline comments in place rather than deleting them. --MarkSweep 23:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As I have already told you I will have no further communication with you on the subject. This particular message will be ignored, take your opinions to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. --AI 23:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Chinese-related naming conventions and NPOV

Thanks so much for your contribution to the ArbCom case, and your involvment in the workshop of it. Regarding to your latest comment [13], I'd say, IMHO, the #Political NPOV section of the naming conventions states how NPOV issues, which is non-negotiable according to Jimmy Wales, should be addressed regarding Chinese-related topics. Therefore what the ArbCom case is dealing with was not only the contradiction between the naming conventions on Chinese and on common names, but also the enforcement of NPOV, and resistance of certain users. — Instantnood 19:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

As you may have seen already, Fred Bauder has commented on both issues. I'm glad that he seems to agree with my first point. Regarding the second point, I think the only way out is to build a strong consensus, where everyone concerned is aware of the China-related naming conventions and what problems they address. Unilateral actions and polls will just polarize the debate, and then people will cling on to positions which they would not ordinarily defend. It's perhaps best to avoid the whole agree/oppose paradigm, whether it's polls, position statements, etc. --MarkSweep 04:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm agree. — Instantnood 19:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to Taiwan

Hi, I'd like to get some input from you on where to proceed in regards to recent developments on the Taiwan article. As you have probably noticed, there is an anon user who keeps reverting the page to an edit that IMHO is decidedly POV in it's wording and structure. Several other users including myself have reverted the article back to the original version which takes no side on the political status of Taiwan, however this anon user has continuously reverted back to the POV edit, oftentimes utilizing sockpuppets to get around the 3RR (all IPs originate from the same Australian ISP). I have attempted to contact the anon user to clarify the NPOV policy, however the user has ignored all comments thus far. I have refrained from reporting this individual as a vandal thus far, however this constant reversion cannot continue for much longer. I was hoping you could suggest some courses of action. Mediation and arbitration don't seem to be viable as this individual has ignored all comments thus far. Thanks -Loren 23:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know of any good solution that's guaranteed to work. The person behind this (and perhaps also behind Template:User-multi and dozens of other sockpuppets) has been warned many, many times and is clearly unwilling to modify his behavior. The one blunt attitude readjustment tool I can think of would be an IP-level block, which we could ask an admin about. After all, the only thing the anon "contributes" is to create more work for the rest of us who have to clean up after him until his latest sockpuppet gets blocked. Meanwhile, one technique of dealing with trolls is to decrease the frequency of reverts. Don't revert him right away, as that will only encourage him. I'd also say that in this case it may be better not to admonish him any further, since he may see that as encouragement as well. --MarkSweep 23:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. -Loren 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Would it work to protect the article for a while? We can suggest users to propose necessary modifications in the talk pages or by using the sandbox, when there are necessary ones. — Instantnood 20:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I've nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarkSweep. Please go there to accept. --Jiang 07:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. Wyss 08:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

Hi Mark,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Lens aperture side.jpg is due to appear as Pic of the Day on the 4th August. You can check and correct the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 4, 2005. -- Solipsist 19:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tweaked it a little bit. Cheers, --MarkSweep 20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Value added tax

[14] As a compromise, if only it was that easy! I'm assuming Instantnoods objection is to "People's Republic of China" being in the (user visible) table rather than his preferred "mainland China". The footnote, being user invisible, could be named "abcdefg" for all it matters. I predict it will just end up with twoversions slapped on with no conversation. alas, :( SchmuckyTheCat 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the recent reverts, it appeard to me that the most recent controversy was indeed only about the (sort of) invisible footnote name. It occurred to me that I'm probably wrong and that there is more to it than just the footnote, but it was worth a try. --MarkSweep 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm actually I'd like to avoid special administrative regions being mistaken as tax exemption areas of an economy where special economic laws and policies apply. — Instantnood 13:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
FYI I've put up a request at WP:RFC, specifying that I'd like to hear from users who are not familiar with China or East Asia. — Instantnood 14:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Erm...I am not too sure just who will actually think of it that way, so lets see.--Huaiwei 14:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Why would anyone think the SAR is simply some special tax exempt area? Geez, get out in the world, nood. Have you ever left HK? In the states the tax structure can be different from state to state and city to city. All the footnote does is say the VAT doesn't apply in the SAR, it says nothing about the politics whatsoever and implies nothing whatsoever. Get a grip. (sorry for this cluttering your talk Mark) ~ SchmuckyTheCat 18:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ~
Hmm.. take a look at, say, Heligoland, Livigno, value added tax#VAT in the European Union, special member state territories and their relations with the EU. — Instantnood 18:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
So what? This idea of confusion is in your head. That various parts of the EU are exempted from VAT taxes is what happens all over everywhere with every kind of tax. This has absolutely nothing to do with HK/PRC relations and implies nothing about them. I'm done talking about it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No worries. I've put up a request for comment on this issue. The current footnote provides no information on their statuses. There are many tax exemption areas on Earth, but Hong Kong, Macao and mainland China are separate tax regimes, each is independent in public finance. If most average readers won't consider the present form of the footnote confusing then I'd be most happy to accept it. :-) — Instantnood 19:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the link to Special Administrative Region is, by golly, providing information on their statuses! Wow. Isn't it wonderful that through the magic of wikilinks, we don't need to hash out the "differentness" of every single disputed acre of the planet on every page. SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully. But let's wait for and see the comments. :-) — Instantnood 21:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

I have my own team of TBSDY explainers :-) Thanks! Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In answer to your question: I was literal, not sarcastic...

(Here's a copy and paste from Ta's page.)

Are you being sarcastic? This is an honest question, I really can't tell, I'm not very good at detecting online sarcasm. --MarkSweep 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Sorry for the ambiguity. I was being literal, not sarcastic. I wasn't, like, poking fun at somebody for chosing a funny name or for providing helpful links. You were the one who reminded me what the marks were called, when I couldn't reembmer the phrase "tone marks." Thanks. I'm just curious: What part of my post looked less than a real or authentic question? Maybe the fact that I payed such attention to a small matter like a screen name? Thanks in advance.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

--GordonWattsDotCom 01:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Double spacing between sections

hi there. Yes, i like double spacing between sections and am unfortunately a computer ignoramous, so i was unaware that i should look for where i can set the default style sheet to reflect my preferences. so on my user page i go to 'preferences' i gather, but then i tried every option and could not seem to find the one that will allow to get the job done. i couldn t trouble you for what i am to do next. appreciate the help, - Mayumashu 03:48:20, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Re: Clarification

OK, thanks for that. If it was me I still would have waited a couple more days and make been a bit sterner. Sorry for the out-of-context (although from looking at your contribs it would not appear out-of-context) comparison. Anyway, I changed my vote to support so I hope you'll get the nomination (and looking from the votes it appears you will). Thanks --RN 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Congrats Mark, take some advice from Churchill when it comes time to deal with our friendly vandals who still think the RoC will re-take the mainland... "There is, however, another class for which I feel not the slightest sympathy. Parliament has given us powers to put down fifth column activities with the strongest hand, and we shall use those powers subject to the supervision and correcting of the House without hesitation until we are satisfied and more than satisfied that this malignancy in our midst has been effectually stamped out." That strongest hand is now you, and I hope to see some royal bitch slaps dealt out on the ROC template page. SchmuckyTheCat 00:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your support. I'm off to read and re-read procedures and guidelines. --MarkSweep 02:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! You're going to do great. :D Bobbybuilder 07:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You're Welcome

I'm quite confident you'll be an excellent admin! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: [15]. No problem, from what I've seen you've earned it. Best of luck, hope to work with you again soon. -Loren 02:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • You're very welcome and congrats!! I think you will do a great job. Who?¿? 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Changlc is now up. --Jiang 12:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

my RFA comments

Congrats on your successful RFA. Use your new powers wisely and avoid any noob mistakes (for example, there was a recent dustup over one new admin's speedy deletes). And if you do manage to do some successful unofficial mediation, the Wikipedia will be a better place (if you could just get the individuals involved to "Assume good faith" that would help). BlankVerse 03:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations~

Thanks so much for your help over the past few months MarkSweep. I cannot think of any reason for such a helpful, respectable and generous contributor to Wikipedia like you not to be an administrator. :-) I'm looking forward to, and ready for a peaceful resolution, as soon as the case is concluded. Your involvement will be important. — Instantnood 08:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

RFA

I don't regularly monitor RFA, so it was pure coincidence that I saw your name fly by. It was a done deal already, but I wanted to chip in anyway.

It's ironic that Sollog accused us all of being administrators when he bestowed his titles upon us... Maybe he has the gift of prophecy after all! :-D JRM · Talk 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --[[User:Merovingian|User:Merovingian/Sig]] (t) (c) 18:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

reasons

notethe time stamps, and it was, otherwise, kinda a hello./ Gavin the Chosen 19:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Fnord

would people be able to get me in trouble for fnording talk pages? or possiblyt doing it this way to actual pages Gavin the Chosen 20:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by fnord? As I understand it, fnord implies bad faith or outright malice. That's definitely not something you want to do. However, if you just mean adding trivia, there will probably be mixed reactions. Everything you write should be verifiable and relevant. --MarkSweep 21:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

No problem. Yeah, I learned about the sockpuppetry after the fact. Hopefully that has been taken care of. Anyway, congratulations! Wield your mob with pride, honor, and justice. :P Ryan 01:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

IP unblocked

I've made some edits. Thanks a lot for your active --Avia 04:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Mark, thank you for your supporting vote during my RfA, very much appreciated! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Functce,  ) 19:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Killertunes & Platypus Rex

Thanks for your help with Killertunes & his vandalism of the Platypus Rex page. Needless to say this guy's been a major headache for me, and the band has been pretty irked about the gibberish he's been splattering on the page. -Jyaus 15:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Question

I don't know how to report 3RR violation. User:Witkacy did that on Lithuania article. I would like to ask: why did you protect User:Witkacy's version on Lithuania article? May be I am wrong? Bf-109 19:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy, I protected whatever was the current version at that moment. The policy does not allow me to pick sides, nor does it allow me to edit the page except for janitorial tasks like adding a protection notice. --MarkSweep 19:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This user is a sockpuppet of User:Zivinbudas, pls see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zivinbudas and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zivinbudas for details.--Witkacy 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll review that information later. I left a note on WP:ANI, perhaps an admin who's already familiar with that RfAr can clarify. --MarkSweep 19:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Who could stop this bluster of User:Witkacy here? I don't have words. Bf-109 20:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the Lithuania related pages are the subject of ongoing revert wars with multiple parties -- they need to be peeled off of each other like kids in a schoolyard fight. Blocking Zivinbudas was probably right, but Halibutt keeps baiting people and doing clearly inaccurate POV reverts, I believe to match what he was taught in school in Poland. I just wrote him a plea in Talk: Lithuania to please be more eopen-minded. Then he ticks off someone else in/from Lithuania, whose postings probably start to drift more Lithuanian POV and we're off to the races again. If you read the current state of the talk page you'll get an idea... truth is definitely coming in a distant second to POV right now. Help! Thanks... Coll7 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support, shame the threat of admin intervention works better than appeals to common decency, but at least it worked. Congrats on the adminship! --fvw* 05:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)