User talk:Markalexander100~enwiki/Archive3

Geography of India

Thanks for the copyedits on the Geography of India page. Its hard to spot the subtle errors; and even harder for the main authors to do so. Please do let me know if there is anything else that I can do to address your objection.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:17, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

reverts

Just noticed an revert that you made to a vandalism, Just wanted to make a friendly suggestion that it may be easier for users and admins to keep track of a users vandalisms if you add a warning to their talk as well as doing a revert this helps keep a timestamp list and an easy way to quickly look at a users vandalisms, Some users (myself especially) take into acccount how many vandalisms a user has made when asking an admin to either review a situation or block the user. Keep up the good work on the RC patrol. Jtkiefer 02:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thx for your prompt rv for the vandalism. Regardless of view of point, vandalism is always bad.--Flowerofchivalry 05:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) Mark¹ 05:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smyth 2002 and the Thai language article

Hi Mark - I'm curious to know why you've twice removed the Smyth grammar from this article. I've been using this grammar to check the article. Although I haven't yet made any edits, I am mistaken to think that my editorial use of it qualifies as a source? Many of the facts in this article can be found in this book. The book is a modern, relevant, reputable and authoritative source for this subject. Including the bibliographic details in the article gives credibility to the article and makes the article more useful for readers interested in more details or further reading. Seems to me that Higbe and Thinsan 2003 is a more recent and complete text, but Smyth is cheaper and more readily available outside of Thailand. I don't know Smyth and have no special interest in his books. Either way I'm not fussed, just curious. Comtebenoit 07:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any justification for references beyond those used in writing the article, unless those references support material in the article which the other references don't. If Higbie is more complete (I haven't used Smyth, but I did use Higbie in writing parts of the article) then that seems unlikely. We could always mention Smyth in a "further reading" section if we want to point people in its direction, but including it as a reference is misleading.

I checked to see if you had added anything to the article, but you hadn't. Did you do any work as an anon? Mark¹ 02:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mark - While you've clearly made substantial contributions to the article, can you be sure that none of the other editors used Smyth 2002? (I have, and my edit was to include it as a reference). As Woodstone notes, the other two books are not cited anywhere in the article, so it's not clear how they are more relevant. Seems to me that Higbe and Thinsan 2003 has no information about the Thai script, dialects or tone rules (perhaps Segaller 1999 does, the title doesn't suggest it and I haven't read it). Smyth 2002 covers these topics and gives suggestions for further reading. If you have more and better references for the article perhaps you could include them also? You explanation isn't really convincing to me, but your 'further reading' edit is a good compromise. Comtebenoit 04:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Higbie is there because I used it; Segaller has been there since before my time, I think, so I have no reason to doubt that it was used by one of our predecessors. I did doubt that you had used Smyth since you hadn't edited the article under your username, but if some of the anonymous contributors were you, and if Smyth covers the other areas you mention, then those are good reasons to list it as a reference. Mark¹ 04:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Tibet

Markalexander100,

Please let me know what you think and if you agree on my comment on Talk:Tibet. If you do, would you be able to help me in changing User:Nathan Hill's edits so that it has both methods of spelling with Wylie not as the default? ---User:Hottentot

Antarctic krill

hallo Mark - thanks for the nomination of the Antarctic krill eye - we try to promote this mystic critter Uwe Kils 03:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) Guten Tag

great outcome - Wikipedia is fun ;-) Uwe Kils 03:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The eye is now my wallpaper. ;) Mark¹ 03:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MV Tampa

Can you explain how the MV Tampa entry needs updating? I just read it over, I'm very familiar with the case, and it looks OK to me. Ditto the person who deleted your previous two "update" requests. Clue, please? Bruxism 01:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Lacrimosus/Archive_(April_'05-June_'05)#MV_Tampa. Mark¹ 03:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

who do you think you are about Siam history???

The sensitive case is that Thailand was the (informal) British colony, which it actually never was, and we cannot accept that. And the truth is that we also used to own the areas around which was later became the new territoties under the British Empire by an unfiar threats (in many historians' opinions). PS1: SIAM HAS NOT BEEN COLONIZED BY ANY COUNTRY (FORMAL OR INFORMAL) PS2: PLS DONT CHANGE ANYTHING IF YOU DONT EVEN KNOW SIAM HISTORY!

Flowerofchivalry

Hi Mark, I think it's time we (meaning Mandel, you and me) do something about Flowerofchivalry. Right now he is most active in Iris Chang (talk) and Rape of Nanking (talk), and both you and I are pretty much fed up with trying to explain some basic etiquette (no, not wikiquette, etiquette) and wikiguidelines to him. Right now we are doing a very bad job of it, as Flowerofchivalry resorts to insults ("do your homework"), violate 3RR, cry wolf, ignores comments, does not listen to reasonable requests and facts, and generally creates a royal pain in our collective rear. I left a message with Mandel, and was wondering what you have to say. Should we escalate this further? It's obvious that there's no use talking to Flower anymore (see his latest retort on Talk:Iris Chang, I don't know whether his comments were aimed at me or you or who, since it doesn't answer any questions and is basically a regurgitation of everything he spewed out from last week.) Thanks. -Hmib 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we have no choice but to RfC Flowerofchivalry. Just look at his latest masterwork at Nanjing Safety Zone (history). He's been in violation of 3RR, personal attacks, lack of basic etiquette, abuse of (nonexistent) power, revertwarring, pov pushing, not responding to discussion, ignoring comments, using anon-IP sockpuppets, disregard for wikipolicies. That's not even a full list. I'll write my portion of the rfc, and will await your and/or User:Mandel's endorsement. Thanks. -Hmib 08:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Keep it cool, though, and stick to the facts. ;) Mark¹ 08:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I might need your help, a new revert war at Nanjing Safety Zone. -Hmib 10:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finally it's done. Please take a look at it here, feel free to add/delete/amend as you see fit. If you endorse it, please sign your name and move it from candidate page to approved page if it's not already done. I hope this works. Thanks. -Hmib 11:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to come down hard on FoC, I hope you deal with "211.30.211.93" as well if he/she continues to root out anti-CCP/Mao comments. Cheers John Smith's 14:00, 26th June 2005

I'm on the case. Mark¹ 04:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Admin Abuse

Hi Mark,

You may be interested in taking a look at this.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I think he's a little frustrated. ;) Mark¹ 09:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turns out it's always either Jimbo or Raul. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at this, too. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FoC, again

Once again he is using sockpuppets to start revert wars at Nanjing Safety Zone. I'm at my 3RR limit today, but he is ignoring his. Your help is appreciated. -Hmib 04:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello, we're trying to resolve the origin of those anonymous IPs on Nanjing Safety Zone. On FoC's last 3RR violation you mentioned the IPs were all Sprint ISPs, so I guess you have some way of tracing these IPs? My networking skill is really bad (despite studying for CCNA, haha) so please help us resolve this issue. User:SlimVirgin is also on this matter. Thanks. -Hmib 20:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not an expert at these things. I've been using arin.net, which tells you which ISP an IP is from; 204.210.33.122 and 68.124.90.72 come out as Road Runner and Pac Bell respectively. Different ISPs don't necessarily mean different people of course. Mark¹ 04:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

thai naming

It seems that you do work in Far Eastern questions. Could you tell, from your experience and opinion, what additional value does "princess" and/or "of Thailand" have in a such heading here. What is your opinion. Arrigo 08:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, none. Mark¹ 08:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you visit Talk:Manual of Style for Thailand articles and contribute to my latest framework. 217.140.193.123 21:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As you say that there is no need to vote and that we already know what each of us thinks, then what is the result from that? Can we already now write a sentence into the MoS? (I think a formal vote will become an uncontestable evidence, now some of expressed opinions can be interpreted even misrepresenting them.) What do you think: could we already now write an addition to MoS and I could erase the newest vote from the talk page, or do we continue? Arrigo 09:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest cancelling the proposed vote, then first of all asking if Aoi has any further thoughts. Mark¹ 09:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hero of Ukraine

What sections, do you feel, should have the most need of a grammar check? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd start with Regulations, Display and Construction. I would also have waited until the copyedit was complete before nominating it as an FA.;) Mark¹ 04:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I knew some of the translations were off, but I am fixing them now. Also, the FAC helps me notice things I might have missed earlier. Plus, I do not mind fixing stuff during the FAC. But thanks for telling me the sections, but I am going to fix them all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I fixed everything. I will keep on fixing it for a few minutes, and I will call it a night. Please visit it whenever you feel like it and just let me know if I am missing anything else. Thanks again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Pianoman87 made major edits to the article, please come by and see if you like this version. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There are still some problems, even in the lead, for example: Ever since the first award went to Borys Paton in 1998 [1], 141 people were awarded the title. Mark¹

Ok, how about this: After Borys Paton first received the title in 1998 ^[1], 141 people have been awarded the title. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"Since" would be better than "after". Mark¹ 02:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Anything else? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Spangineer went and edited the article a bit. I was wondering if you wish to see if there is anything else I can do in order to gain a support vote from you. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who had the same objections as you, as in the article has poor English, have changed their vote to support due to the changes. I was wondering if you wish to do the same. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Flowerofchivalry Redux

Aloha Mark:

I'm suggesting, that the matter regarding FoC should probably skip mediation and go straight to arbitration. I cannot see how it is possible to really mediate this matter as he continues to assert, in particular, that the Nanjing Massacre did not occur. Since I'm still a bit new to the politics of Wikipedia, I would like some feedback if this is an appropriate path to take. -- Xanadu 17:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I try to give politics a wide berth myself. ;) I think that attempting to reach a consensus is important though, even if it's a long shot. Mark¹ 06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For your reverts on the article on His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Minor as my edits may be, I think they're justified. Kind regards, --Twisturbed Tachyon 22:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Ukraine

I kindly invite you to review the article and, possibly, change your vote to support. Sashazlv 01:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Could you, please, explicitly state which sections you still find "incomplete" or "not well written"? Sashazlv 02:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Banteay Srei

Thanks for the photo compliments. Unfortunately I can't remember which exactly which tower it is. It was a long time ago now - I've got some other photos at home that might jog my memory when I find them, but I'm in the states at the moment and a long way from home. The article you've written is great! About time this got a write up as it's an amazing place. Jgritz 05:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Archive 5

Mark -- Out of curiousity, why did you revert my creation of a much-needed Archive 5 on the Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake page? --zenohockey 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for reverting. --zenohockey 03:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

FOC Alert!

He's back, just so you know. I'm looking forward to his entertainment, after him being away for half a month. -Hmib 00:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio FPC

My friend, I do not want to be impolite, but I think it is only right to explain to you in short words that I'm upset with you. I understand you do not like my nomination; that is your right. You removed my nomination; you may or may not have the right to do this thing; I think you do not, but it is, at least, a gray area. You might have found some technical grounds to perform the action, but you did not.

You performed this edit [2] with edit summary: rm bad-faith nomination. You will notice I stated in the text of my nomination: I sincerely believe this photo represents the very best this project has to offer. and Perhaps no other photo we have is as deserving of the honor of FP..

What do you not understand about that?

My nomination may be in bad taste; it may offend your religious faith or your moral sensibilities; it may shock your wife or get you fired from your job; it may, perhaps, get all of us arrested by the FBI; but in absolutely no way do I fail to stand behind it.

Maybe you just don't understand what "bad faith" means. You might read Bad faith and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Don't forget to check out the talk pages, too. If you'd like the short explanation, "bad faith" is when somebody is lying about his reasons for doing something.

• For instance, it is Saturday night, and my (purely hypothetical) teenage boy asks me for the keys to the car. "Dad", he says, "I just thought it was getting dirty, so I thought I'd take it to the car wash." Foolishly, I give over the keys. Six hours later, the tow truck brings the car back home, with smashed-in fender. Indeed, the car is clean -- my boy did wash it -- but then he spent the next five hours driving around town with his friends, chasing fast cars, faster girls, and drinking white lightning. His request to borrow the car for the purpose of washing it was made in bad faith.

Now that you understand clearly, I hope, the nature of your error, I'm sure you will not repeat it. Thank You! Have a nice day. — Xiong熊talk* 14:05, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

I quite understand what you wrote, and I understand the English language. I can just about believe that you are sincerely trying to make a point, whatever that might be; I cannot believe that you nominated the pic because you want it to be featured. Mark¹ 01:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I think it's a bit weird too, but using admin rollback to revert the changes seems a bit excessive. Why not just let the nomination fail? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too worried about hurting the feelings of trolls. Xiong and Taw should have thought about that before they started. Mark¹ 05:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a clown who promised "no new taxes", read my lips: I sincerely and totally urge that Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is an example of the finest content this Project offers. It is interesting, educational, and of acceptable technical quality. It violates no standard I recognize. It is neither pornographic nor lewd. It is available here, and in very few other places open to the public. I should be only too happy to see it featured and displayed on Main Page.

Naturally, I'm making a point; but I hardly nominated the image merely in order to do so. I, in turn, find it hard to believe in your incredulity or failure to admit my sincerity. Since our subtitle is not The Encyclopedia in Chains or Beddy-bye Tales for Young 'uns, I think I'm right, and you're not. Sorry. — Xiong熊talk* 04:16, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

A lying clown is still a liar, however funny he thinks he is. Mark¹ 04:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That comment treads perilously close to the ground of a personal attack. Sometimes I imagine myself as witty, but in every particular here, I am in dead earnest. Neither have I stated any demonstrable untruth. I shall ask that you withdraw your remark, Sir. You may not agree with my position; you may oppose it vigorously. But I object -- have objected -- to any implication that my nomination was anything other than what I have purported it to be. Let us not have unpleasant business between us. — Xiong熊talk* 06:08, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen

You may have inverted the logical pattern. Sun's birthplace's current name Zhongshan was named AFTER Sun, therefore it's impossible to say that his Japanese name came from his birthplace. Deryck C. 11:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Rightist Movement

I know you posted a message about 2 years ago on the Anti-Rightist Movement discussion. I also want to expand the article, and I'm wondering if you're familiar with the Three-Anti, Five-Anti movement. Oh yeah, I'm also planning, if I have time, to write a much better History of the People's Republic of China article. If interested, please contribute. Colipon+(T) 03:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I did try to do some online research on that, but I didn't come up with much (there wasn't a great deal of info, and most of that wasn't very neutral). I don't have access to paper resources where I am, so I'm afraid I can't be much help right now. Good luck, though! Mark¹ 03:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

List of ethnic groups

Would you mind reverting that article again? I've warned the other guy about the 3RR, and I'm hoping that he'll see reason.Clair de Lune 03:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Do Not Revert

Do not continue to revert to your last verison because accepted ethnic groups have been added to the list and when you revert you take them off the list. 64.109.248.118 03:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Mangosteen External Link Removal

Hi Mark - The "Health Benefits of Mangosteen" links to a purely informational, content-focused website on the Mangosteen. It neither sells nor promotes a product or business opportunity. I put it back but you took it out in a matter of minutes.

Now a Vemma Mangosteen distributor added his/her own product/business opportunity link.

Please visit http://mangosteen-juice-online.com/ and see why I think it helps readers know and understand more about the Mangosteen, especially its health benefits. Then, if you believe the website is worth its salt, please allow and do put it back at your convenience.

Thanks --- Oscar.

That's a commercial link- Adsense and a pop-up. Please add information to the article, rather than linking to other sites. Thanks, Mark¹ 03:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There are many examples of external link entries in other wikipedia topics that link to websites containing Google AdSense. For example, see "dietary supplements". But they are content-focused, informational pages like http://mangosteen-juice-online/. I can spend a day looking for other topics with external links pointing to Google AdSense-monetized websites. Do they all have to be taken out? - Thanks --- Oscar

If you think they should be taken out, by all means do so. We have lost of links that we shoudn't have, but that's not a reason for adding more of them. Mark¹ 04:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do believe - and I think you probably should, too - that informational, content-focused websites should be given the chance to survive with a monetization option like Google's AdSense. This enables the "little guy" to continue maintaining or adding more content pages, which enhances wikipedia's usefulness, even in a small way. I wish you'd change your mind about the "allowability" of Google AdSense in content-focused, informational websites. Thanks.

I'm not saying that you can't make money from your site. I'm just saying that you shouldn't be linking to it from our site. Mark¹ 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark --- If you want to be consistent, you should also take out the last two entries in the External Links section for being commercial sites. One sells a book from which the linked page's content was lifted; the other has an online store-front that sells a wide variety of related items.

Now, THESE ARE COMMERCIAL SITES (by your definition) disguised as content sites. I won't take them out, but you should if you want to remain consistent. Thanks - Oscar

Mark --- I've added back "Health Benefits of Mangosteen" for the valuable info in it. If you believe you should take it out, reason dictates you should also take out the next two above it BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMERCIAL SITES based on your definition. But I'm retaining them for their "added value" to wikipedia. - Oscar

What does that have to do with it?

What does that policy have to do with Markalexander100 making up a lie about me? 66.73.198.159 02:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You Lied About Me Too

You said I used a different IP address to evade a block. It just so happened my IP address changed, it was not done intentionally. 66.73.198.159 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert for Me

Will you please revert at List of Ethnic groups for me, Lapsed Pacifist reverted even though I removed the questionable ethnic groups, but added in actual ethnic groups. He is reverting simply to bother me. 66.73.198.159 02:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me think... No, on balance I'd sooner boil my head in hogfat. Mark¹ 03:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thai MoS

Construed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Cast votes

pacifist

I just want to warn you that you should probably know what you want to edit before adding a revise. Giving the wrong information from your own idea is not the way the people here should do.

Hawaii

As you have done work with some monarchies, please take a look at this too. There's been a huge fuss lately over whether articles on Hawaii's monarchs are in the right location and there are some people who'd like to change the format used in naming the articles (e.g. one user wants to move the article Kamehameha I to Kamehameha I, King of Hawaii. We're having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs, and your views on the conflict would be appreciated. Arrigo 13:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Shosta

Mark—Give me a buzz if you need collaboration on the Shosta article. I'm determined to see the JS Bach article put up for FA status by year's end. See the discussion on musical content in composer articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers Tony 04:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for the note. I will indeed be happy to provide a list of things and feedback, as well as provide a hand. Let's wait until Tony finishes up with JSB and gets it into FA and we can tidy up Shostakovich then. happy holidays. Eusebeus 18:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Angkor & Gsell

Hi Mark, Could you please tell me how the photo of Angkor Wat by Gsell is dated "1866" - i.e. where did you find that date? I've documented/researched about 70 photographs by Gsell, who was at Angkor twice, in 1866 and again in 1873, so I'd like an idea of how I might differentiate between the two visits. Thanks for your help. Pinkville 17:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I found the link to the source of the photo! Thanks anyway! (Oh the perils of hops.) Pinkville 17:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Mangosteen

Mark,

Retaining/Restoring the two external links "Garcinia Mangostana (Clusiacae)" and "Know and Enjoy Tropical Fruit" in the Mangosteen topic, and removing "Health Benefits of Mangosteen" (http://mangosteen-juice-online.com/) looks a little absurd to me.

"Garcinia Mangostana (Clusiacae)" provides a link to its ONLINE STORE right at the bottom of the page!

"Know And Enjoy Tropical Fruit" highlights the book for sale in the link "Book Details" and provides pricing information (even a table of prices) in the linked page!

"Health benefits of Mangosteen" provides a lot of information about Mangosteen and helps educate readers about this tropical fruit. It has Google Ads, yes, but if you consider that "commercial", you also should consider the other two as "commercial". They clearly are selling stuff.

I hope you "get" this. Let us see a little bit of your fairness here.

Nanjing

i'd like to solicit your input on an article i started about Katsuichi Honda. any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. thanks.

also, i made several edits at The Rape of Nanking (book). some of them were copy edit type clean-up, some were substantional additions to content. if you find any of the edits objectionable i have no problem removing them pending further discussion/consensus.

still no luck backing up Poo-T's claims :)

Nateji77 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

About Wikipedia lao version

Hello,

I transcrive here down the text I have edit on my lao page (nick : Siren-Lo ). I am woorking on the preparation of this event and will be pleased to associate all person interested by promote wikipedia in Laos. I don't read or speak lao (just little Thai ) so any help will be wellcome. Are you registered in W:lo ? Thanks

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

French contributor : [3]

After have been staying in Thailande, I will now stay for some month in Vientiane, Laos.

I will use this time to promote the developpement of the Laotian Wikipedia with the help of the Centre de langue Francaise of Vientiane and the Campus numerique of Vientiane.

I will organise, in association with these stucture, a presentation of the Wikipedia project for the franco-laotian student. This event will take place in the biggining of december at the Centre de langue francaise. In this perpective, all people interested by Wikipedia and his laotian branch, will be well-pleased to contact me on my discussion page here.

This presentation will apend on Wednesday, December 7th at 2 P.M. in the "Centre de Langue francaise" Vientiane

'''''''''''''''''''''''' Siren-Fr 07:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be in Laos for the forseeable future, and I can't write Lao articles myself. I would be happy to help out with linking English and Lao versions of articles, though. Mark

Miborovsky's RfA

Hello there Markalexander100~enwiki/Archive3,

Thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It's Thanksgiving Day, too... so once again a big thank you! Have an awesome weekend! (If you celebrate Thanksgiving, that is.) I will do all I can for Wikipedia, to protect it from the alien scum of the universe... I mean, uh, from Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia is Communism!

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for an Hugo Chavez subarticle

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Socialist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in an Hugo Chávez Featured Article Candidacy (FAC). Chavez himself happens to be a socialist politician. As usual, please use your own higher judgment in deciding how to vote on this FAC, if you should decide to devote a few seconds to the matter. Regards, ← SARAVASK — 01:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Socialist

made this userbox thought you might like. template:User Socialist. Bartimaeus 11:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Stravinsky image

Hi, I've been digging around a bit, and it seems that this was drawn in 1920. I may have thought that {{PD-art-US}} applied. I'm not sure now. What's your take on that? Lupin|talk|popups 20:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ivo Andric article. Elephantus deletes "unsourced" the parts when they have been actually proven long ago... HolyRomanEmperor 09:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?

In light of your edit to Kiri Te Kanawa, would you agree with me amending the part of Johann Sebastian Bach which currently reads "Bach spent his last days in Leipzig and died there in 1750, at the age of 65." to " Bach died in Leipzig in 1750, at the age of 65." And doing the same to articles about other musical notables? Moriori 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bach enjoyed relaxing with a glass of schnapps at his beautiful holiday home in Frankfurt would be an abomination entirely deserving of termination. (If you're seriously offering to help on the Bach article, I'd seriously appreciate it). Mark¹ 01:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

About Wikipedia in Lao

Hello, I am french, I am curently in Laos and working i with the french "campus numerique" in Vientiane. I have done a 'presentation' recently and try to promote wikipedia in french and lao. I have notice that on the lao main page, the voyelle are not put in the good place ( up of the consonne ). Can you explaim why this situation and if it is possible to correct in the future ? My name in french wikipedia is "Siren", in lao "Siren-Lo" . Thanks

I'm afraid I can't see Lao fonts on the computer I'm using at the moment, so I can't even see the problem. I'm sure it should be possible to fix, but I've no idea what needs doing. Perhaps it would be best to contact a developer. Mark¹ 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Uploading images to the Commons

Please alays add uploade images to a category and/or an article so other user are able to find and use them !
That also means less work for Commons Admins or other user trying to find categories for thousands of orphaned images. Thank You ! --Denniss

Which ones have I not added to articles? I must have had an article in mind for them... Mark¹ 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Special:Contributions/Markalexander100 at least the last 10-15 are missing categories --Denniss 23:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I generally add images to articles rather than categorising, which I think is a waste of time. (I'm not asking anyone else to categorise the images for me- they can if they want to, of course, but I think that it's not a profitable use of anyone's time). Mark¹ 23:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer articles,too. But at least they shoud have something, if not they are practically invisible because the search engine doesn't find them. --Denniss 00:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston

Hi.

I just think this is time that it was finally resolved. Have you read my post on the manual of style (biographies) page?

Leon.

Yes. The problem seems to be that you have theories about the English language which no-one else shares. As I said, your problem. Mark¹ 12:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems you're mistaken, mate. Go look in a good dictionary, and you'll know what 'nationality' means. I've already told you, in fact, but you responded in an arrogant and unprofessional manor. YOU have the problem with the English language, or more specifically, what 'nationality' means.

Please do have a look; I'd be interested to see how you reply to that.

Leon.

unexplained mass deletion of links

which ones do you disagree about?

All the ones I've reverted. As I say, "see also" links should be relatively rare; if a topic is closely related enough to link to, then it's generally closely related enough to mention in the text. Mark¹ 12:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you should've said which ones, with links. you didn't give any explanations. reverting is no different than adding a bunch of stuff, especially for a new article like this. there's no "it's a revert" so i don't have to explain rule. the thing that really annoys me is those articles are so new that what you say makes no sense--it makes much more sense to link to related articles for now and when there's someone around to write it in, they can incorporate the links in context. i'm really annoyed, seriously. you did nothing but damage a few articles without doing anything constructive.--Moveapage 13:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it makes much more sense to write a decent article than leaving it as a collection of links. Mark¹ 13:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ok first of all, the links were style links that make a value judgment and say that { v(in context links) > v(see also links) }, and they give directions for format. so you didn't justify yourself at all. second, look at google and the web as an example. google is a great search engine because they were the first ones to realize that links were full of information, and they used that information to rank websites. to say that no links at all is better than see also links where they haven't yet been worked into context is not an argument you can make from the value judgement of the policy page.--Moveapage 13:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not Google. Mark¹ 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

that response is basically telling me you're not interested in a rational discussion. btw, you aren't just reverting, you're also deleting a lot of other changes in the process. you lose the argument by default, not having participated in discussion, explained yourself, and having not even the basic care to be sure you're not undoing other changes as well. ridiculous. as ridiculous as thinking chinese and japanese would be similar.--Moveapage 13:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedias contain prose text, not collections of links. Mark¹ 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

my point is that links have high information value. why don't you bother trying to fix the situation? you're only being destructive and unreasonable, as well as illogical.

No, links have a very low information value. If they are not incorporated into the text, then it's not at all clear why the link is there or how a reader will benefit from following it. Mark¹ 13:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you give short, curt condescending responses, prior to this pretending that my point was that wikipedia should be modeled after google, and you don't explain why you specifically target the links that i inserted. these were _just created_ articles in very rough form. having the links there puts in one step closer to being in the prose. not having it there at all makes it many fold more difficult. your point about not knowing why it's related is moot--even an in text link doesn't necessarily tell you why it's related as many times it's linked in passing and they're talking about something else totally--the point is to follow the link and that _afterward_ you'll find out more about the other subject and why it's related. sure it's nice to know a little more before clicking the link. but knowing that it's related is better than not knowing about it at all--Moveapage 13:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So don't link in passing, link in context. And if you don't have time to link properly, leave it. The sky will not fall down. I'm not so worried about the new articles, but adding poor-quality links to important, established articles like Taiwan is not acceptable. Mark¹ 13:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

this is not wikipedia policy! you linked to a style guide! again, logically think about it. you're interested in utilitarianism, but you're failing basic logic here. the guide makes a preference for linking in context versus linking in "see also". but that doesn't mean "see also" links are worse than not having them at all. you're also trying to justify yourself on a single example--you didn't give any explanations, and you removed the links from plenty of NEW articles. the links were also given some basis of a context as they were placed in a section (i.e. politics of Taiwan). that makes sense. that says why it's related.--Moveapage 13:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Poor links should not be in articles. I removed the links from all the articles because you were on a spree of adding poor links. Mark¹ 14:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

this is like talking to a wall. you aren't responding to the logical fallacy i pointed out in your citation of a wiki style guide. also, you cannot simply say that since i did it, that they should be removed. i added to very different articles. if you can't answer the questions of 1) what makes my links different from the other see also links and 2) what makes them in an absolute sense deserving of contextual linking rather than see also linking then i'm going to keep going on undoing YOUR destructive delete spree.--Moveapage 14:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

oxford template

Hi, I see you've added yourself to the Oxon graduates category. I have begun to create templates for each individual college so that users can put them on their user pages - see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United Kingdom/University of Oxford for details. If you would like another college made fast, just let me know! File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 19:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

removal of split tag on White Elephant

Hi!

I see you removed my split tag from "White Elephant" with the comment "rv drive-by tagging; no-one has suggested this". Fact is, I raised the qustion on the "talk" page for the topic. Does that question not count as a "suggestion" somehow? Is it that I've not followed a particular procedure?

Can you enlighten me on how to have my suggestion heard without being reverted by you, or other users?

Thanks!

Mikeblas 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see it there. Normally the newest comments go at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Mark¹ 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiracial People

Why do you continue to revert the list of multiracial people? You are extremely inconsiderate to the various other edits I have made by reverting them continuously. If you cared to read what I wrote, I will continue to re-add Aniston, Clarkson, and Halliwell (plus some others and re-editing I have done) until what we will use as a race for that article is decided (which it hasn't yet, see talk page).

You seem to be very inconsiderate to all the other work I have been doing by reverting all the time. You really don't deserve your title!

While we're on this subject, I asked you to take a look at the meaning of 'nationality' to show you that I'm correct about using 'American-born', but you haven't even replied to this, presumably because you're either ignorant, or have or haven't looked up the meaning and know that I'm correct, but wish to constantly vandalise the articles.

It needs sorting once and for all, and if you're not prepared to co-operate then I'll have to make you mess up correct until you're willing to chuck me a word.

See you around.

Cypriot stud 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

ASDA security guards.

..Are creepy. They follow around anyone under 25. ageist it is >_< --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 05:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Only doing my job, ma'am. Mark¹ 11:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Fux

Hi Mark,

Sorry about my botched attempt to put in a pronunciation of "Fux" -- I added it because I wanted to prevent a return of the edit I had eradicated immediately before ([4]). Do you know how to indicate the correct German pronunciation using the IPA? (I don't). I thought it might be wise to include one for him. Thanks and happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that IPA will put the schoolboys off, but I'll have a go. ;) Mark¹ 15:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I will revert

The last I looked at this article, it did not have John Company, but based on your response, I will revert. I have not seen the article in awhile, it seems. I have learned something. --Ancheta Wis 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing a legitimate link?

Mark, you sent me a message indicating that my links were not acceptable for the Tsunami pages. The site is private, but there is no advertising, nothing for sale, nor is there any request to contribute anything in order to download any of the content from my site. The other links on the same page seem to link to similar sites. The zip is legitimate, and only contains what the site indicates it contains. Making this link available allows people to access all the videos easily. Why not allow it to remain posted?

Because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising your site. Mark¹ 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Since my site is very minimalist, I presume you're referring to how the link was stated. Is that what needs to change?

No, I'm not objecting to the format of the link, I'm objecting to the presence of the link. This is not the place to advertise your site, in any form. Mark¹ 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re : 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your message, actually I don't mind if you adopt any form of footnote format, new or old, as long as it is one that can go through FAC sucessfully. I'm using the footnote3 format in which an article I did just passed FAC, hence I thought that is probably the most widely accepted version at this time.

Ah yes, after finishing the footnotes, be sure to send it off for Peer Review and FAC, cos' this is really a worthy article (abeit long, if there are issues I suggest separating sections into articles then summarise).

Happy new year! =)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)