User talk:Sumple/Archive 1

I've replied on Talk:Fort_Street_High_School#Count_of_High_Court_Justices. Basically, it's horribly incorrect. enochlau (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

lol ok... --Sumple 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone's managed to find Crennan's school: Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#High_Court_Judges_and_their_schools, which is neither Grammar nor Fort St. That leaves 2 judges remaining - maybe wait for a few days and see if anything else crops up, otherwise those numbers are going. Thanks for the fact checking. :) enochlau (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An idea: could the numbers be referring to Supreme Court judges? There are lot more of those, thus allowing for numbers like 11-12. But I'm not going to count those, too hard. Stats that build up school pride, being spread by word of mouth primarily, do end up garbled sometimes... enochlau (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

but there are millions of supreme court justices... lemme see if they list biographies at the supreme court site--Sumple 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, new sections/discussions go down the bottom, not up the top. You can quickly add a new topic to a talk page by clicking the + sign at the top of the page instead of manually editing the entire page. enochlau (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you have a citation for the fact that "faber est..." was attributed to Sallust? The Fort St article is starting to become substantial to the point where inline citations might start to be needed. enochlau (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I got it from Marron and Silver. Want me to cite it? It also contains a list of principals, and a list of Fortians who've competed in the Olympics. I was going to type those up when I get time. --Sumple 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooh that's good. I have a copy floating around somewhere too. enochlau (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know anything about tax deductibility or the rules regarding non-profit organisations? There's some talk of a Wikimedia Australia chapter, but people are unsure about the law around it. See if you can help: Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Local_Chapter. Thanks! enochlau (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"diet of communist propaganda"... Very funny! Cheers. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"The inner west line is the train line that runs from Central to Liverpool. Outside of peak hours, there are only shuttle services that serve the inner stations. From Lidcombe to Liverpool there are no trains between 9:30 am and 2:30 pm."

Wow... that sucks. Sorry man, I just looked at CityRail's timetables which in retrospect probably aren't a very good source. - Randwicked Alex B 06:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"... aren't a very good source". Definitely, especially if you're trying to work out when the next train's going to come. enochlau (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this you? [1] enochlau (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied in person 21/01/06

Hi there. Could you explain why you removed the "libertarian" from the description of SMH but not the "centrist"? --Sumple 09:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, two different things really - part of the definition of a 'Libertarian' is an individual who believes in minimising the role of the State. SMH does not advocate this view.

I removed the speculative 'left' from 'left-centrist' as this indicates bias not apparent in their published policy nor in practice. As an 'independent' broadsheet they aspire to a neutral or balanced middle-ground.

- Mr.Clicky

I made it up because I couldn't think of another way of describing the situation without being POV. -- ran (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit is funny: [2]. It's by User:Phanatical - look at his user page, familiar name... Wasn't he one of those desperate to get into the SRC? :S enochlau (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(replied on user page)

The idea has the taste of jealousy. "We can't get into the SRC, but we want something on our CV, so we're going to start up another one." enochlau (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the code behind your user page - to link to an external site and have the URL appear as the link's text, just stick in the URL without the square brackets, like this: http://www.google.com.nz/ enochlau (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks! --Sumple 10:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd be a little careful with doctoring history without references: [3]. From memory, mainland immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon, and Chinese immigration before the 1980s was primarily from HK and Guangdong. Or am I mistaken? enochlau (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

On a closer reading of that sentence, yeh it's since the 1970s, not in the 1970s. Cool. enochlau (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol I wonder who the hell whote this article? :) They so confuse northern china with mainland china... enochlau (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you reckon you could remember the date (or approximate dates) of when it was bulldozed? This is the type of stuff that could be recorded, but when we need it later, it'll be forgotten a few months down the track. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, it was one of those days when I met you for lunch but E was not there --Sumple (Talk) 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the specific source for this image. Thanks! -SCEhardT 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Added a link to Chinese Wikipedia page. Would be good to add a translation of what's written there. enochlau (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you recently worked on the Chinese mythology article. Please consider supporting its nomination on the article improvement drive. Cheers, jacoplane 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you've edited this... if you haven't already done so, take a look at the credits for the photos :) enochlau (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your cleanup is complete until someone screws it over again: [4]. Sigh. enochlau (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you made some changes to the explanation of the name waibaidu. While I guess it makes equally (if not more) sense, do you have a source to back it up? The details about the toll policy (Chinese yes, foreigners no) were the same where I found the history, the explanation for the name though was slightly different. Bluebird47

replied on user page

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a week as requested: [5]. enochlau (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sumple (Talk) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't insulted or anything by what you said. You actually were right about the He Fei castle info needing trimming and all. Looked through your talk page, you must know a lot about China. I might see you again then, I don't know that much about Chinese history but I'm learning! Thanks for your help with that section. Karwynn 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

The information was not false. Several identified rebel leaders were huiguan directors, so the native place associations or huiguan were fuly participants in the event. (see Native Place, City, and Nation by Bryna Goodman, page 77)--Daanschr 07:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

I am writing a paper on the history of shanghai as a treaty port and i studied the map of Shanghai thoroughly. The old town was on the Huangpu River south of the Soochow Creek. The British Concession was build on the southern bank of the Soochow Creek and the western bank of the Huangpu, north of Shanghai. The French build their concession between the British concession and the old city of Shanghai. The British Concession became the International Settlement, which expanded rapidly in the early 20th century, until it was 4 times larger then old Shanghai and on both sides of the Soochow Creek. The KMT government expanded the city north of the International Settlement (1927-1937), so the city was divided in four in the 1930s, from north to south: new Chinese districts, International Settlement, French Concession, old city.

Native place association is the term that Goodman uses in her book. I am not english from my morther language, but Goodman is.--Daanschr 08:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

Thanks for the information! Goodman makes an difference between huiguan and tongxianghui. The tongxianghui was a modern association since the 1911 revolution and huiguan a traditional pre-revolution association according to her. Strange thing is that her book is praised by 'The China Quarterly' and by Zhaojin Ji. Maybe the term huiguan refered to both the house and the organization before 1911. The tongxianghui was more democratic and progressive. Huiguan were ruled by the elite of a native-place association (she really uses this term).--Daanschr 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[6] Reverted and idiot blocked indefinitely. Don't worry, the silly season (school holidays) will be over soon. enochlau (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

hehe thanks --Sumple (Talk) 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings: re.: Forbidden City: I restored your deletion if traditional script, but with appropriate formating to clarify that it is not part of the placard. Please note that simplified script is not used universally in the chinese literate community. Thanks for your consideration, Leonard G. 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

I've removed the sentence relating to allegations pending a reliable source being cited. Statements of that nature MUST be supported by evidence else others may suspect a bad faith edit. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian (?), it's a bit tricky with that, because everyone concerned in that incident (myself included) would be able to verify it, but because it has not got into the news, it's a bit hard finding secondary sources to back up the claims. But I'm fine with leaving it off. Cheers. --Sumple (Talk) 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm mainly concerned that WP could end up with a defamation suit. Regards -- I@n ≡ talk 04:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to change the page to a redirect as she is clearly non-notable and someone else reinstated the unsourced allegation comment since the above coment from me. If and when a verifiable source of the allegation is found, the page should stay as it is. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal experience unfortunately counts as original research: WP:NOR. enochlau (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, when removing one lot of vandalism, did you add nonsense:-

• motto =Sidere mens eadem mutato (Latin: "See the man, eat the potato")| ?

I think that lengthy explanation should stay. --Bduke 05:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

I don't quite know. It might be some high school nonsense, but then again, the fact that it's (supposedly) at a number of schools might mean that it's worthwhile. enochlau (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo of Sefton station. If you can ever get any other station photos at any stage, we have a huge backlog without them, so that would be great. But your contribution is greatly appreciated. (JROBBO 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

It's starting to get personal... >.< enochlau (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually just two people you know, that Andrew Jens and his friend Tony1. --Sumple (Talk) 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again - wrong, wrong, totally wrong. I have never got personal, and there are now almost 20 users that can't see the justification for the arrogant, unilateral, unreasoned and undiscussed behaviour demonstrated by you and your friend (Enochlau).--Andrew Jens

20? I'd be interested in a list of names. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then start to do what you have failed to do so far - go back and read (objectively)--Andrew Jens

Sumple (and the rest of Wikipedia) - in terms of Enochlau's objectivity, are you aware that it took him seven minutes to: detect the added link to Sydney Technical High School; study the contents of the external link sths84.aus.cc; consider how worthwhile it is; and then remove the link from Wikipedia? Assuming that he detected the change in one minute and took one minute to delete the change in Wikipedia, he was then left with about five minutes to evaluate the sths84.aus.cc site. As the site has approximately 370 links, that means he spent about 1.2 seconds on each page (on average) in order to evaluate the site's total usefulness to Wikipedia. Are you starting to get a sense of why some other people are annoyed at his actions as well as questioning his objectivity? Are you certain that aligning and associating yourself with that level of 'thoroughness' is a good idea?--Andrew Jens

When you work out whether to buy a book in a bookstore, do you read the entire book beforehand? So far, the "other people" who are "annoyed" by my actions consist wholly of ex-students of the school. I wonder why. enochlau (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re. book - of course not, but I also don't then go around denying other people the opportunity to read the book before I've got it out of the bookstore. At least you now admit that you didn't evaluate the entire site - how revealing. Exactly which Wikipedian guidelines did you apply in rejecting the link, based on not having seen the whole site (see table submitted by Winterelf in the "Alumni link" section on Talk:Sydney_Technical_High_School)?

Are you starting to get the point yet, or are you going to continue to display your narrow-mindedness and stubborness to the entire Wikipedian community? If you're not careful, you really will dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole that you will never be able to get out of. Have you considered the other possibility in all of this: reinstating the link yourself? Now that would show real character, and I for one would admire you for it.

Have you considered that those other annoyed people are actually much more objective than you in this matter? All of them have taken more time than 1.2 seconds per page in order to consider it's importance to Wikipedia. Please check your facts before editing a page - the annoyed people are not "wholly" old boys of Sydney Tech. As requested earlier, you still haven't replied as to how you can tell a Wikipedian's high school based on their username. Please be careful as you are definitely drifting into the realms of intellectual dishonesty - for more than one reason.--Andrew Jens

No, I'm not going reinstate the link because that would be contrary to the discussion already held at Talk:Sydney Technical High School. If you would like to know why it was deleted, we have already stated our reasons multiple times. It would appear as if you and your cohort are going to keep at this until you get what you want - and my friend, that is the wrong way to approach things. If you want a Wikipedia policy, for this it's right here: Wikipedia:Consensus. The overwhelming consensus from a range of experienced Wikipedians is that the link does not belong here. enochlau (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jens, I understand that you are not happy that a website that you obviously hold dear has been rejected from that page. However, may I remind you for the umpteenth time that whether something is noteworthy or relevant is judged by all the editors and users of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should try your luck elsewhere. See if the Encyclopaedia Britannica is interested in the 1984 alumni webpage, perhaps?

The link has been rejected by intellectual cretins. Your reasons are not valid - and nothing you have said so far proves them to be valid.--Andrew Jens

If you can point out one person who (1) did not go to Sydney Tech and (2) is not a friend of yours (i.e. Tony) but who thinks the link should definitely go into that page, please do so. --Sumple (Talk) 08:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? An opinion can be correct if not: 1) voiced by a person from Sydney Tech., and 2) not a friend of mine. The two of you really are intellectual morons. You have faced overwhelming evidence against your actions and you have not adhered to any of Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd just love if you'd respond so that you'd dig yourself further into a hole for the entire Wikipedian community to witness.--Andrew Jens

You do realise that based on the comments given on the article talk page, the Wikipedian community seems to be against the inclusion of that link. You're the one who's digging yourself into a whole by destroying any credibility by attacking people over content. enochlau (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Seems" means you haven't got a clue about what you're doing. Who are you to speak for the Wikipedian community? You have ignored all the Wikipedian rules in your unilateral actions. Incidentally, "whole" doesn't mean what you think it does.--Andrew Jens

Andrewjens, please desist from ad hominem attacks. You are doing no credit to yourself, or your school. --Sumple (Talk) 12:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done nothing but stand up for my school and the sharing of information with the entire Wikipedian community. You have merely stood up for your own predjudiced and narrow-minded views.--Andrew Jens

Yes, I know, you're probably sick of hearing about this, by now. But. I'm here to let you know that someone has requested that the Mediation Cabal attempt to calm down the situation. If you're not interested, feel free to disregard this message. If you are interested, I'll ask that you try to put any harsh feelings behind you, and remember that you and all of the editors around you are all trying to build the best Wikipedia possible; disagreements in how to do so shouldn't get in the way of our good faith towards each other. Wikipedia is not particularly accessible to newcomers, and as beneficial new users are arguably our greatest resource, we would do well to remember that they can have thin skins. Likewise, I've known firsthand how tiresome it can get, reverting vandal after vandal, and I've felt that sort of urgency, getting tired of having what seems to be the same discussion, over and over. (Ahhh, templates.)

Now, the link in question does have some issues, for and against it; I find things to sympathize with and things to fault in all parties, here. For the time being, my interest is in calming things down. I would appreciate it if you (along with any other involved editors) would agree to set aside hard feelings in the pursuit of a better Wikipedia -- our reputation on an encyclopedia depends heavily on interactions between editors. All that much better if we can all agree to work side-by-side, and do so in a public, transparent forum for all to see. Let's try to make this a positive experience for everyone.

I have nothing but respect for your experience, and your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for the time you've taken to read my message, and any subsequent time you might put into this case.

The particular case page can be found here. As you're probably aware, the cabal has no official authority, but in this case that may work to everyone's advantage. Luna Santin 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The help is most welcome. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, apologies for the delayed response -- I took things over to his own talk page in the interest of reducing the impact the whole thing had on your own pages, and I figured responding to him here (at all) would just be an invitation to continue things here. But I think enough time has passed to make note of that. Not sure what to make of the whole thing, just yet; is there anything/anyone still bothering you about it? Luna Santin 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contribution. Please provide your source that it is claimed that Greater China includes Korea, Vietnam, Ryukyu Islands, and Japan. If just a single person or even several persons claim so, it is not proper to include it in wikipedia. Thank you. --Neo-Jay 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Korea, Vietnam, Ryukyu Islands, and Japan were just added to Greater China by RevolverOcelotX at 19:09, 18 June 2006. You can go to his talk page and get to know his reputation. It is fair to say that the rare use of Greater China may include mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, South China Sea islands, parts of Kazakhstan, east Kyrgyzstan and Vladivostok/Amur delta in Russia, but not as far as Korea, Vietnam, Ryukyu Islands, and Japan. I cannot find any serious argument about it. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

section deleted [7]

Check with Mirobrovsky about the translations in the first sentence. I believe that's hir work. (Or maybe Fire Star's. One of them.) CovenantD 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand not putting it in the intro section, but I think it's quite valid to include the fact that riding the Shanghai Metro at rush hour involves crowds and crowds of shoving passengers, quite different from the experience when riding a metro in western nations and Japan. --Easytoremember 03:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

Ok. Cool. --Easytoremember 03:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain the reasoning behind your reversion here? I have posted a message on the article's talk page and you can reply there. Thanks. —Umofomia 06:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

replied on Talk:Ten thousand years

I'll get them back to you asap =) For the time being, you might like to use the material on User:Enochlau/Constitution. enochlau (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

co-educational? ^{[citation needed]}! A co-educational Superior School would have been entirely impossible in 1883 let alone a co-educational High School --Hornetfig 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

You came out of nowhere and posted some complaint or something in the manner of unapproval of some contrib. of mine. I have no idea what you are talking about. Seeing that you are chinese I am assuming it has something to do with Tibet, HH Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama? Please. If you post a negative comment on my talk page at least make sure to add a link to it so I know what your problem is. Thank you and have a nice day. Me 06:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Please consider WP:NOT a soapbox, and leave your political opinions off article talk pages. They are causing unnecessary tension among editors. If there is some political comment which is appropriate to the discussion at hand, that is fine. However, long sections created purely for the expression of political opinion does not really help improving articles. Thank you and come again! Me 07:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember the whole "He Fei Castle" tidbit at Forbidden City? Well, you were right, it's (true but) original research, so I deleted it. So you were right all along!  :-) Karwynn (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

Can you, Sumple, publicly explain why the Chinese Nanotech Molecular Assembler, part of the Project 863 who was founded in China to develop post-nuclear super weapons in seven fields can not be mentionned in this article[8]?

If it is really a "sci-fi novel", then is Newsmax^[9] disinforming the public ?

If not, then I will have the right to revert the NMA section of the PLA article. --58.136.48.26 06:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you do not have an account, I will reply here. A "Nanotech Molecular Assembler", regardless of whether Newsmax carried the story, is unverifiable. It is pure speculation.

There is no way of verifying whether such a weapons program exists. If Newsmax claims that it exists, sure. Are there reliable sources backing up that claim? Is Newsmax a specialist in military technology or the Chinese military? Does Newsmax have a correspondent at the "Project 863" office?

Plase read WP:Verify for more information.

It is, of coursse, within your right to revert any part of any article. I would suggest, however, that if you insist on adding this information you frame it as speculation (e.g. "The website Newsmax has reported that ...") and add it to the appropriate section. The "Nanotech" section, and also the "Laser" section, are both speculation presented as fact, and really belong in a "future technology" section, if anywhere, and if appropriately cited. Finally, speculative sections like this need sources. If you got them from Newsmax, cite it. Ideally, find a more authoritative and reliable source than an online news website. Otherwise, your contributions may be deleted by other editors because of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. --Sumple (Talk) 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Sumple, I finally understand why you want to get rid of Bhutan! (I'm quite slow-witted, forgive me:)) Because 不丹, when the two characters combined toegether, doesn't mean anything, right? now I see we see the matter differently: I mentioned it simply because the character 不 is "negative", not because the characters 不 and 丹, when combined together, mean anything negative. To make things clear, I've tried to divide those examples into two groups, and tentatively put back 不丹. Would you take a look to see if that's ok? Thanks.--K.C. Tang 05:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem pretty certain that Hsuchow is now Xuzhou, so I decided to change the redirect. However although the redirect says it links to Xuzhou, going to Hsuchow just links to Suzhou.

Have I forgotten to do something, or does it just take a while for redirects to "update"? John Smith's 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It redirects to Xuzhou for me... try clearing your browser cache. enochlau (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, works fine now. Cheers, John Smith's 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

I THINK THIS ARTICLE Republic of China NEED MORE AND MORE PICTURES , SEE People's Republic of China ANDSouth Korea ANDJapan ANDSingapore , THESE ARTICLE HAVE A LOT OF PICTURES ,SHOULDN SOMEBODY TO ADD MORE PICTURES FOR Republic of China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ORDER (talk • contribs)

There is an ongoing dispute over article Han Chinese concerning the term "in and around China", which user Edipedia deemed inaccurate and changed into "in China". See here and here for the discussion. Edipedia also has a problem with this paragraph: "compared with "barbarians" around them. In addition, the Han Dynasty is considered a high point in Chinese civilization, able to project its power far into Central and Northeast Asia", a paragraph, in my humble opinion, perfectly accurate and neutral, but which Edipedia claimed to be "POV".

Your opinion on the dispution would be most valuable as you have far more experience than I in these matters. Thank you. Aranherunar 05:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

It's because you have included {{Shanghai Bund}} on your user page, which has the category tag. I'd suggest that you remove all the categories from the template, and then manually add the category Shanghai to articles that have that template, to allow more flexibility in categorisation, as well as to remove your user page from the category. enochlau (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! It seems that an anonymous user has deleted most of my recent edits and I have reverted to "my" old version. Sometimes this has meant that some of your minor edits have been undone, for which I apologize - many of your article are excellent.--Niohe 12:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page