User talk:Benlisquare/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

MediaWiki message delivery

I was just looking at why I got a message and noticed your post at User talk:MediaWiki message delivery. You may want to remove that as it is not useful—if you really want a page in your user space deleted you would add {{db-user}} to it. The reason you received the message at User:Benlisquare/Userboxes is that that page is in Category:WikiProject Medicine members because {{User WPMed}} adds that category. I mentioned this at Template talk:Userbox#Should usercategory values be applied to templates? because some fix is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't notice that happened, Twinkle did it automatically and I forgot to double check. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Participate in discussion about Media Viewer follow-up study

I'm contacting you because of your involvement in the Media Viewer RfC. I understand that this is a bit awkward since the RfC has closed with consensus, but I have been tasked with helping the Multimedia team run a study to gather more feedback about Media Viewer preferences. I think the the write-up for the study could use your feedback. Would you take some time to review the study and share your thoughts on the talk page? Please feel free to invite others to participate as well. Thank you! --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

福建省旗

您好！我看到您在中文維基百科的福建省加上了它的旗幟。請問這面旗的檔案是您上傳的嗎？我對旗幟很有興趣，但從未看過這面旗，很好奇請問您是如何得知這面旗的呢？請在我的中文維基討論頁留言，謝謝。--Jitcji (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your zhwiki talkpage. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

謝謝您，我再向那位上傳者詢問看看。打擾了。--Jitcji (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to my article 感謝閣下爲在下條目所做貢獻

My English isn't very good ,it's kind of you for your contributions to my article...-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

沒問題。如果有什麼事需要問，請隨便來講。 --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Providence(religious movement)

Hello! This message is for recent editors of the Providence(religious movement) article.

I just wanted to inform you all of some of the changes I was hoping to make to the page! I am actually studying theology, and have been spending a lot of time studying Modern East Asian Christian organizations in particular. You might have noticed the deletion tag I applied to the article--actually I am really new to Wikipedia, I created an account specifically to make edits to this article and am still a bit confused on the whole deletion/editing process ;)

Anyway, I came across this article while I was doing research and found a few discrepancies I thought might be good to address! I know the allegations against this group are quite serious, I was shocked by them, by I think it's important that we get the article right for the academic purposes of the encyclopedia :)

Mainly I just noticed that the article is missing information in a few crucial places, i.e. the details of the trial, an extended discussion of the philosophies of the group, etc. Also, at times the tone does feel a bit hostile--again, as scholars, we should do our best to remain neutral, especially when the topic is highly controversial.

Thank you all for your time, and hope that the article can really be well done!

GIOSCali (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Just wanted to say that I began a few of the edits I was mentioning in my earlier post regarding the Providence(religious movement article). I just made a small sample of some of the edits I want to make, namely changes that will make the language of the article neutral. Also, there are a lot of dead links for references and many references in foreign languages-- I will be deleting these and would appreciate some help! Also I think it would be good to include actual information on the trial and the Korean judicial system, as well as Joshua Jung's early background if any can be tracked down.

Thanks, and I'm sure the article will turn out great! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles about China

Including content about Taiwan in articles about China is not neutral. --Uaat (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I already explained on your talk page, but instead of discussing the issue, you revert all my edits by the same time telling me not to revert you.

--Uaat (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You cannot revert after simply posting on my talk page, you need to gain community consensus for your changes. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Greetings. I have reverted an edit you made at PlayStation 4. The revert was an edit you made that was a revert of an edit I made that added the PlayStation 4 is not capable of 4K for games. I wanted to apologize for not adding a citation to support it, but I have since added the proper citations. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chambr (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Outpost Harry

Unlike other WP:Redflag claims I have been seeing with regards to Chinese casualties number during the Korean War, 4,500 casualties (killed + wounded + missing + captured) in a WWI style battlefield against a dug in position is actually pretty plausible. However, there are still few requirements:

• The source must be cited to here with proper citation format (page 469).
• Info box must highlight this is an UN estimate number only.
• Info box must also state technically this is US 3rd Infantry Division operation.

As a side note, the most definitive source on the topic would be the Official History of Greek Armed Forces: The Greek Expeditionary Forces in Korea (1950-1955) published by Greek Ministry of Defence. Jim101 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, here is a different take on the battle:

• Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (2006), Descendants of Athene: A History of Greek Soldiers’ Participation in the Korean War, Sejong City, South Korea: Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, pp. 91–94, retrieved 2014-08-22

It's referred to as "The Battle for Hill 420, Cheolweon" within that document, right? 5 killed and 20 wounded vs approx. 500 killed seems like a huge difference to what the WP article is giving. Should one assume that the remainder of the figures would be covered by the United States forces? --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

US 3rd Infantry Division inflicted rest of the Chinese losses would be my guess too. Jim101 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I finally sort out the mess on that page. Cheers. Jim101 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence of circumcision Map

Hi, I think that you should edit your prevalence of circumcision map to show countries with the majority circumcised versus countries with a minority. I think the way you currently have it is misleading. Everyone with 20-80 percent gets turned red. I can edit it for you if you want. You can contact me at jpolzeng2400@gmail.com.

JP 08/24/14

I don't have a circumcision map. You might have me confused with somebody else. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Organization of WW2 articles

Something really bugs me about Wikipedia's organization of its articles on the Second Sino-Japanese War. We have a separate article called Japanese invasion of Manchuria, from Japanese invasion of China. The latter redirects to "Second Sino-Japanese War", which has two separate section titles called "Invasion of Manchuria, interventions in China" and "Full scale invasion of China". So, somehow, despite worldwide contemporary condemnation of the seizure of Chinese territory, our history today treats "Manchuria" as something separate from "China".

If you'll look at the interwiki links for "Japanese invasion of Manchuria", you'll see some European languages (probably translations of the English), but no Chinese. Mukden Incident says that both the Japanese and Chinese names for the false flag event also refer to the aftermath. If we truly needed a separate article on the precise military operation and tactics—I don't think we do; most of the articles linking to "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" really refer to the political consequences—, we can link to Jinzhou Operation, right? So I think having a separate article called "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" is unnecessary and harmful. Let me know what you think. Shrigley (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but...

Just so you know, {{stub}} tags should have two blank lines between the categories and them. I think that's buried somewhere in MOS:LAYOUT or WP:STUB. I think I removed some "extra" whitespace before I figured that out. It's not exactly obvious or critically important, but it does arguably look a little better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Phil Fish

Hi Benlisquare! I've had to remove your addition to Phil Fish, but I wanted to quickly stop by and let you know that this was because of things happening elsewhere. The site you referenced hadn't properly vetted the article, and since had it pulled. As there was no reliable source reporting it once that one was taken away, I've had to remove the addition. I believe that the source got it wrong - even the source they were basing it on has been removed by its author - but either way, you couldn't have known that when you made the change. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Racist

You are a racist, and the only reason you still exist here is because you are the "safe" kind of racist. The kind that isn't white. You also have severe issues with insecurity, as you see the entire world against you and other Chinese, or Asians in general, and therefore you feel the need to constantly lash out at incorrectly perceived white and European "bias" and "pride" in all sorts of places where it is absent. If you were white and acting the exact same way against anything non-Western and/or non-white, you'd have been banned long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.137.54 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did I do this? Any links you can provide? Keep in mind that I don't remember anything I did on Wikipedia before 2009 since that's a long time ago, and that was probably my edgy period. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I find your accusations quite ironic since I've also been accused by others of being a "pro-white apologist", because I have a strong anti-immigration attitude, especially by those who identify to be among the left. Not entirely on this website in particular, but I've been quite vocal for my "Europe for Europeans" ideas for quite some time elsewhere. But yeah, keep chasing that victim complex of yours without any proper context or evidence. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL Victim complex? Your history shows you're the one with the victim complex. Listen, here's some good advice for you; go back to making stupid and asinine comments about ridiculous image board bullshit. At least your silly rants about that childishness wasn't as obnoxious as your racial crap. Years on and you're no more mature than you ever were here, and that is to say not very mature at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.137.54 (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2014‎

You still haven't provided URLs or diff links demonstrating my alleged anti-white racism. All you've done is write more angry words at me, and I'm still confused as to why you're angry. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Suspicious" - wtf, man?

I strongly object to your characterization of my reviewer flag request as "suspicious" and request that you reconsider the use of that word. I have been entirely above-board and completely forthright with the request and everything related to it. In fact, it would have been perhaps "suspicious" had I not specifically mentioned why I want the flag at this particular moment and what I plan to do with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - Alright, I'll eat my words. I hope you'll be fair in how you use your new powers. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to object to it, that's fine — I just feel kind of "jabbed at" by the use of that particular word. I took pains to be transparent in the request specifically because I wanted to be above-board with it. I have no qualms about my record defending the integrity of articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - Given that you're currently involved in something, it feels strange to see you apply for new user rights. If this had been any other month, I wouldn't even have bat an eyelid. I hope you realise that this is likely going to be a long, lengthy and messy dispute right? The current environment is hardly far from toxic, and when things like this happen, I can't help but notice. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm kind of confused. So I should basically not do anything for awhile, request rights, and then go to town with them? That seems kind of odd.

One would think that it would be easy enough to demonstrate that I have no interest in abusing the review flag by, well, me not abusing it. I've had rollback for umpteen months and never abused it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - You can say it's probably a knee-jerk reaction on my behalf then, and that I'm thinking too much. I've only had a long look at the entire thing, so it may well be that I'm coming to wrong conclusions. I don't even want to touch that article for the sake of my sanity, the talk page has essentially people accusing people in all directions, I can't even wonder how everyone's going to keep it all together. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:AMX ELC.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AMX ELC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 04:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• （閣下會中文的話就不用英文好了。。。）原來是閣下上傳的啊。。。沒有想到。其實在維基共享上已經有很多ELC的圖片了。。。在下目前正在中文維基百科寫作這篇條目。在下竊以爲條目質量會超過閣下的。如果閣下不嫌麻煩，可以將之翻譯到ENwiki。。。-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I didn't notice that there was a free image on Commons. In that case, we should use the free image, and delete the non-free fair use one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Camp Sovereignty

I added some references to Camp Sovereignty. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Sovereignty. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for helping on the talk page. It's a hostile and draining environment, which is why I've given up on trying to discuss anything with the people there. Your translation allowed me to sidestep that so, thanks again, much appreciated. If you have any other Chinese sources you think deserve inclusion and translation, I'm sure your efforts would be appreciated. But if you'd rather not, that's okay, too. Have a good day. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Willhesucceed: You aren't going to leave a comment within that talk page section? It'll get archived if you don't do anything, and everyone else has been conveniently sidestepping the issue for some reason. I've only put forward a basic summary, it's up to community consensus whether or not the points raised in the translated piece can be included in the article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to resume the discussion today, but the time's passed. I'll get to it within some months, after the current crop of editors have tired. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Really?

"A-K, Australian colloquial term for the Yellow pages telephone directory" - Really? (i.e. "That's news to me".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In Queensland, we tend to say, "Oi Barry pass the A-K, the car's not starting up". I'm not sure if this differs from city to city, but I've always seen the Yellow pages separated into A-K and L-Z. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Sharp intake of breath. "In Queensland, we tend to say". Do I take the bait? No, that would be rude.)

Well there you go! However, WP:MOSDAB explains that disambiguation pages don't work that way. I suggest that you may find reading it interesting, as well as useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Itu Abu / Taiping?

Howdy! My ISP is making life difficult for me. May I bother you to summarise what's going on?
With huge amounts of thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing too big - someone wanted to move Taiping Island to Itu Aba Island, and I invited them to start a proper WP:RM discussion, per proper procedure. After all, anything SCS-related is a contentious topic, as you and I both are very much aware of. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL! (Are you planning to take a Postgraduate Diploma in Understatement? Clearly, you have the skills!) Thanks for the concise summary - most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Union Banks Map

I was looking at various things and came across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Union_Banks_en.svg which states that it was you who modified it "to suit an English-speaking audience".

a) Good work!

b) Thank you!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

There is a DYK-nomination in progress, which might interest you over at: Template:Did you know nominations/Polandball. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sock

I believe you dealt with a sockpuppet account called Chinese-proti at Prostitution in China who subsequently opened multiple accounts to add misleading content and you semi protected the article. Well he came back as User:Mixjang1234 and User:Baohio8888 (and apparently he constantly watches the article every single day to see if any of his content his removed) and I don't think he is going to go away until the article is permanently semi protected. He appears to be a Korean nationalist, trying to downplay about Korean women's prostitution to foreigners while trying to spam content about Chinese women prostituting or Korean men getting sex from foreign women.Rajmaan (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Me again. RE: Spratly Islands & Dangerous Ground - Seeking opinions

Greetings! As you've no doubt already noticed, I've recently been active with List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands and Dangerous Ground (South China Sea).

I've had many thoughts - my current ones involve List of maritime features ... . By virtue of the fact that I've restructured the page into three h2 levels, I'm wondering whether the page should be renamed to "Lists of maritime features ... ", and the content be split into sub-pages.

Or something.

Do you have any thoughts / opinions / ideas / etc. ? If so, I'd be interested to read them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: I'm not sure. Do you think there is a need to separate the lists into separate pages? I don't think it's necessary to split the page since it isn't that long. Do you intend to detail it up even further? --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ummm. Errr. Yeah. Good questions. (Thanks!) I'll think about it and get back to you with a hopefully-useful-reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

HI, Benlisquare.

You just undid some edits I made on Milo Yiannopoulos's page.

Er... I don't think you checked the sources I edited.

The citation for the subject's birthplace, to which you reverted, includes nothing whatsoever about his birthplace! The subject was, indeed, born in Chatham, Kent and not in Greece as he claims. The English register of Births, Marriages and Deaths, to which I linked as a source, has him born as Milo Hanrahan. This is his father's name; his father continues to live there and is a public figure. This is a matter of fact.

Secondly, Milo Yiannopoulos did indeed publish two books of poetry. They're still available to buy on Amazon, and they're listed in the British Library's National Bibliography, which I cited! Is the British Library's catalogue now a 'secondary source'?

Thirdly, he did indeed claim to be a German native speaker. He did this on his own website, on his wiki profile, and on the author's biography of his poetry books (which you can check for yourself if you pop down to the British Library.

So I'm confused, a little, why you reverted the changes. I'd be grateful for your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbets (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gibbets: What may or may not be factually correct or incorrect is not the issue here, Wikipedia's policies strictly define what can and cannot be used to reference a statement. You cannot use Wikipedia as an inline citation, full stop, since Wikipedia is not acceptable as a reliable source. In fact, all websites which are user-content driven and dynamically changing cannot be used as sources for topics relating to living people. In addition, per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources cannot be used for improper synthesis, and usage of primary sources is heavily discouraged for WP:BLP articles, see WP:BLPPRIMARY.

Essentially, all of your additions fall under original research and improper synthesis, and hence are problematic since they are at odds with Wikipedia policy. If you have a reliable source that inexplicitly and verifiably states these claims, then by all means feel free to make the changes to the article, however what you are doing is synthesizing information with your own original research, through the use of primary sources. Remember: Wikipedia should never be used to introduce new ideas, all content must strictly repeat what existing sources say. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough.

This was the citation given for his place of birth as Athens: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/milo-yiannopoulos

As you can see, it only gives his birthdate. It is also, of course, a user-content driven and dynamically changing website, too — so you'll agree (I'm sure) that it is not an adequate source for the subject's place of birth. Until a more adequate source can be found I'll edit out his place of birth altogether. It's pretty clear he was actually born in Britain, so we shouldn't have to wait too long.

The National Bibliography held at the British Library includes two books of poetry written by the man, and that seems like a good enough source to me, so I'll edit that back in again.Gibbets (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Arch Linux ARM suggestions

Hello Benlisquare, I am a new user to Wikipedia, and I thought the Arch Linux ARM article would be a good place to start. I see you have recently edited it, and I would like to ask if you have any suggestions. Thanks, Linux o'Linus (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit thanks

Thank youfor 'tweaking' my edit at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, here. I did this (also deleted a superfluous ref) to 'fix' this edit, but conflicted with AussieLegend who was doing this (removed a comma) at the same time and I missed removing the extra 'n' in Australia. --220 of ^Borg 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Benlisquare, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, @Starship.paint, and a Merry Christmas to you too. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone marks

Thank you for your comment on the tone marks. However, the Manual of Style/China-related articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Tones you directed me to, does indeed state, not to use tone marks in the normal Wikipedia texts: Tone diacritics are not used to transcribe names or terms that appear in the normal flow of an article (e.g. "...early Ming dynasty scholar Gù Yánwǔ..." or "...a bronze dǐng excavated from a Zhou dynasty tomb..."). They should only be used in templates and parentheticals (e.g. Chinese: 顧炎武; pinyin: Gù Yánwǔ) or in infoboxes.Elkekeya (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elkekeya: In our case, the pinyin transcriptions are being used to gloss the Chinese characters within the parentheses. What that guideline sentence is referring to is avoiding the use of tone marks within the flow of sentence prose, for example "Zhang Yimou was born in 1930" instead of "Zhāng Yìmóu was born in 1930". When we have something like (哇的麻剌, Wādemálá), in this case Wādemálá is serving as the gloss for 哇的麻剌. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Allright, I see your point, sorry for the trouble. However, this does not apply to Jianada. Maybe rewriting that sentence to "and names Canada (加拿大, Jiānádá)"Elkekeya (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Elkekeya: Just to clarify, this edit of yours was perfectly fine, since pinyin tone marks should not be used within the natural flow of a sentence. I was specifically referring to this edit which changed the gloss within the parentheses. I hope I wasn't being too confusing. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

kantai revisions

Your latest revision to the kantai page indcates that taigei should not be accredited to Yui Ogura based on the fact that there is no citation available, but Taigei is Yui Ogura without a need for citation, the voice itself is so unique and hers alone.

If that is the case where citation is needed, then the last 4 seiyuu entries (Kanemoto, kawasumi, ozawa, horie) should be invalid for no citations. "Ari Ozawa and Yui Horie voice Roles added, it should be everywhere by now so it shouldn't be hard to find source." < and yet no one adds sources, but just states that there is, that is a breach of verifiability. Based on the changes history and what the page looks like, its a failure on your part and on mine to keep the consistency of attributing citations to the ships/seiyuu if prior edits slide but a recent one doesnt because it followed the same "reasoning" as the prior ones. --Kadfast (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the last 4 seiyuu entries are problematic, and most certainly are in need of proper citations. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Kantai Collection (anime)

Just a question: shouldn't this be at List of Kantai Collection episodes? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, maybe. Perhaps we should wait until the first ep airs this week, and then decide what path to take with this page. If they introduce some new and fancy original story or something, the page might actually work better as a fully fledged article about a show (plot, character synopses, production, reception... you know the whole shebang). From the way I see it, all of this stuff would most likely be too much to shoehorn into the existing article at Kantai Collection (the game), which is already quite lengthy. Otherwise, yes, there is also the option of just having a brief lead paragraph, followed by an episode list. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

...And it aired. Now what? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I really have no idea. I do have my own rough vision of what the page will eventually look like, but it's pretty much up to everyone to decide. I'm quite cautious about the page turning into just a list though, and I feel like we need a full anime article that's separate from the game. From memory, I'm pretty sure that Ghost in the Shell: SAC has separate articles for the television anime series and the PS2 game, as an example of what we might be heading towards. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Mami Kawada

By the way, can you take a look at this article and see if it could possibly pass a GAN? I'm planning to nominate it for GA in the near-term, though not right now. Also, don't nominate it yet of course if you suddenly decide to. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The article looks fine from a referencing and formatting style standpoint. I'd say that it's quite close to meeting GA requirements, try nominating it and see how you go. From first glance, there's not much that really stands out when it comes to things in need of fixing up. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed by your response

The problem with an unreliable internet connection is that you can't rely on when you can make your next comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no solution, and I have no intention of finding a solution. It's not something that I take priority right now. Straying from guidelines and policy is not the solution, and it is never acceptable to have personal editorial comments inserted within mainspace articles. While your concerns are noble, the ends to your means aren't acceptable.

If you have concerns with article content, apply a tag within the mainspace article, and start a new section within the talk page, just like everybody else. Do you see anyone else adding comments like "this reference is completely unusable" within mainspace articles? You are literally the only person who does it, and it's been happening for a long time now. It is a problem, because this sort of thing is not what mainspace is for; article fixing meta should not be mixed within article content that the general reader views. You don't see people doing what you are doing on other articles, this sort of edit is something unique to you.

Short summary: When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and the Romans here don't stick commentary within mainspace articles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How incredibly disappointing.

Your choice to pursue a WP:POINT rather than attempt to solve a problem, AND your choice to start an edit war, have succeeded in completely destroying your previously high level of credibility.

Should you wish to apologise and take a more balanced and rational approach, that would be good.

If not, I lament the end of what I thought was a friendly and productive partnership.

How incredibly disappointing.

You don't see people doing what you are doing on other articles, this sort of edit is something unique to you. - No, I am not a sheep; I have a brain, and I use it.

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it odd why you're becoming so defensive and confrontational over, what is it, one non-English citation documenting a 2010 environmental assessment expedition? Your comment about not being a sheep isn't justification for what you've done, it's merely an excuse for not following the usual procedures and protocol that everyone else follows. I might even call it bargaining. If following protocol made someone a sheep, then modern society would be in anarchy, that's precisely why we have rules and norms.

In the end, you know what's best in this situation. Are you trying to reason with me when attempting to justify your edits, or are you trying to justify it to yourself? Right now you're having a conversation with me, but were you to use the same "sheep-brain" analogy on a proper noticeboard, I'm quite certain that no one would follow your train of thought. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

quick vocabulary question

hello. If you have a moment, I have a quick vocabulary question. I have forgotten a term for particular job description, probably from Quing dynasty, because I've even seen an old photograph of this type of person. Do you recall the word for a local tough guy who worked at the pleasure of a local judge? They sometimes worked as runners or heralds of some sort, but their main job was to catch lower-level criminals and administer the torture/justice. Something like... jaxman? Hetman (but not that word)...? Thank you for your time and trouble. • Serviceable†Villain 03:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@ServiceableVillain: Are you referring to the rows of uniformed men who would stand at the side of a courthouse holding wooden sticks, as a local judge is preciding? Or am I mistaken, and you're referring to something else? Either way, I'm not too sure of the word myself, sorry I can't be of much help. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Benlisquare. Thank you for the reply. I think the word I was searching for was yamen, but obliviously I was confused, since a yamen is a place rather than a person... If it is not an imposition, I am emailing a follow-up question. I do thank yo for your time and trouble! • Serviceable†Villain 09:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! Nlu at least is an old friend, and Pericles is an old friendly acquaintance. Thanks! • Serviceable†Villain 12:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Labeling wikipedians as 'Real'/'Borderline'/'Canvassed' is not a good conduct on your part

I am referring to your recent comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Violence_against_men_(4th_nomination), where you label people based on your opinion of what does it mean to be the "real" wikipedian, and what is not. Ex., you label someone who makes on average one edit per day over 10 years as 'borderline wikipedian'. This isn't reasonable, and such labeling doesn't constitute an ethical behavior. Amount doesn't matter, as you can never know what is going on in people's lives except for that edit count. Besides, I suspect your comments are intended to provoke people to respond online in a violent ways in this heated debate. I could also reasonably argue that in your comments you exhibit all hallmarks of troll, but I would give you the benefit of doubt. I agree with others that you should better keep out of this debate. Yurivict (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you intend on solving the canvassing problem then? It's a real problem, and it's a real pain in the ass when people, all of a sudden, show up out of nowhere to throw votes around. It gives naysayers the chance to drown out legitimate users, and has the opposite effect of what these people think they're going for. You can't just pretend the problem's going to magically go away, and the purpose of that discussion was to make it clear to Flyer that all sorts of different people were taking part in that discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideally this should be done by an automatic process. Wikipedia should have an algorithm that can show to closing admin the total weights of all votes. It is quite difficult and subjective to do this by hand. Human editors don't really have any additional info anyway, because very few editors know others personally. Yurivict (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I would note that my name was not among the "Long Term Wipipedians", which makes me doubt the accuracy of the list. I am purposely not commenting on whether deciding who is a "real wikipedian" is is acceptable behavior, but is it too much to ask that the count be accurate? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, the post was made at 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC), which was before the hero entered the building. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sino-Vietnamese War

Sorry about the unexplained removal of content. My explanation is that I generally prefer each row to occupy as little space as possible, as the lists are primarily meant as navigation tools. Minor geographical changes can be mentioned in the main articles, but I believe the lists should focus on the main outcomes. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support

I used to patrol the Falun Gong articles as part of an overall interest in fringe religions, and there was a good team dealing with them. But the FLG POV pushers keep coming back with new accounts and pushing, pushing, pushing. Meanwhile a lot of the old group who'd worked on those articles moved on from Wikipedia or got tired of the constant fight. Recently I gave up. I figured there's not much damage they can do in the walled garden of Falun Gong articles anyway. But Aaabbb11 wants to cram the organ harvesting nonsense everywhere. He's been putting it on pages related to Chinese leaders from the 1990s, he's been pumping up Ethan Gutmann (a conservative journalist who supports the FLG organ harvesting accusations) and putting Gutmann's book on every page he can cram it onto, and generally running amok.

I didn't want to have that fight with him. It's not worth the headache to me, and there's really nobody left beside me from the old FLG neutrality team. But I can't stand the idea of this propaganda spreading to a main-traffic page like the core China one. So thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I also strongly suspect that Aaabbb11 is a new account created by User:Asdfg12345 - a former Falun Gong battleground editor who flamed out in 2010 after getting three edit-warring blocks in quick succession. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: HoEuhophonium

Hi, I saw from this user's contribs that you reverted their edit on Kantai Collection (anime) here, and from your edit summary, you seem to have interacted with this editor before. I see that they are sockpuppeting with Special:Contributions/Harves745ting, and I'm thinking we should open up an WP:SPI for the user. Can you tell me if there are any other accounts/IPs the user has used before the case is opened?--十八 09:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Juhachi: Not off the top of my head, no. I've seen an identical pattern of edits from IP editors before, but this was back in 2011, which may be irrelevant to our current case. It's quite possible that this is someone's sock since people don't normally use {{cnspan}}, and these kinds of edits are the only kind that this user has made so far; but other than that, I don't have much useful information. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

1923 Great Kanto Earthquake

Hi Benlisquare

You are correct in that the article did not mention the quake, however a reliable New Zealand source Chapter 4 Tsunami and storm surge hazard in New Zealand in The New Zealand Coast by Goff, Nicol and Rouse, published by Dunmore Press 2003, page 86 - ISBN 0-86467-438-5 lists a very small Tsunami from this earthquake as having reached New Zealand, hence the reason for the Category. My intention is to write an article on Tsunami's in New Zealand a little later and depending on coverage I may add mention of the tsunami the article as it is likely to have impacted other Pacific rim countries. NealeFamily (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The current state of shmup articles

Hello! You're invited to express your views about this topic on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Pass by catastrophe

Hello! I see that you recently made some improvements to the article Pass by catastrophe. Thank you for that! I just spent some time trying to document or verify the claims in the article. I then posted a question on the article's talk page, where I would welcome your input. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Replied on the talk page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sturmabteilung name change discussion

The name change discussion was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. [1] Thanks, BMK (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Question on translation

Hi Benli,

I have a question about the following passage, if you don't mind:

国家通用语言能力是国民语言能力构成中最重要的内容，不仅关系到国家统一、民族团结、经济发展、文化传承和社会进步，而且也是人的综合素质的最生动、最直观的体现，对于实现人的成长、成才、成功和全面发展的梦想具有重要的基础性作用。考虑到我国目前仍有30%人口不会说普通话，另外70%人口中只有10%可以用比较标准的普通话顺畅沟通的现实，推广普通话、提升国民国家通用语言能力的任务依然十分艰巨。

Now, does the 10% who speak MSM fluently mean that 60% don't (that is, is it 10% out of the 70% and thus 10% of the total), or is it 10% of the 70% and thus 7% of the total? If we're going to cite the source, "7%" seems a rather precise statistic, whereas I would normally expect to see a rounder number like 10%.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:

"Taking into account that our nation still has 30% of the population unable to speak putonghua, alongside the reality that within the other 70% portion only 10% can fluently communicate in perfect putonghua, the duty of promoting putonghua and elevating citizens' proficiency in putonghua is still an extremely formidable task."

The line "70%人口中只有10%" ("within 70% of the population there's 10%") is written rather ambiguously; at first (without reading the rest of your comment) I interpreted the line as "within the 70% group, 10/100 of this group is fluent" (in other words, 7% of the total population), but then I thought about what you wrote below the Chinese text, and feel that the same sentence can also be interpreted as "within the 70% group, there's also a 10% group that is fluent" (10/70 of those who can speak putonghua, which is 10/100 of the total population - in other words, 10%). Before I was certain that it's 7%, but now I'm actually not too sure. The way it's written, it's not clear what exactly forms the 100 percentiles of the 10%, since it could work either way. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Same ambiguity as in English then. Thanks. Probably safer just to say "ca. 10%", which may or may not be rounding off. Not like the figure is more than a rough estimate anyway. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I get your ideas at Pinyin warrior has me worried?

I left a "freak out" at talk section Pinyin warrior has me worried because I saw that User:Underbar_dk had reverted a couple edits of 76.167.232.59 (talk · contribs)'s persistent Pinyin vandalism. I now see that you reverted a lot of the same kind of Pinyin vandalism edit's back around Apr 10th. And yet there were more, like this from Mar 1st that I've just reverted.

Given that this IP has persisted for more than another month's time, what should be the next step? Could you comment there? Thank you. Shenme (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I've got to think someone must have been seeing my edit summaries over the last 25 reverts/conniptions. Is rollback meant for reverts of a string of multiple recent edits? Thanks again. Shenme (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Shenme: Rollback reverts the entire series of consecutive edits made by the same user, to the revision immediately before the changes made by that user. For example, if Alice makes 2 edits, and then Bob makes 3 edits, a rollback would revert all 3 of Bob's edits and restore the page to Alice's last revision.

Also, the disruptive IP has just been blocked for 3 months. I'll expect that he'll be back in 3 months time, just like his previous blocks. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Shang dynasty's language

Hello Benlisquare. Easy772 added a section called "Language" to the Shang dynasty (and Zhou dynasty) article about that Shang's language was not Chinese but "a highly-creolized lingua franca based on languages of the Southeast Asian type" [2]. Easy772's edit was reverted by Kanguole [3], and Kanguole has started a discussion at Talk:Shang dynasty. However, Easy772 added everything back. Also, according to Talk:Oracle_bone_script#Language_of_the_Shang's discussion on the language of Shang, the viewpoint added by Easy772 (according to DeLancey) is not a widely accepted one. What do you think of this "Language" section?--Balthazarduju (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Babel
Thank you, user of many languages, but not bs "(or understands it with considerable difficulties or does not wish to communicate in Bullshit)", for quality articles such as Anti-Korean sentiment, for concentration, for notable images, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 898th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Persona 4: Dancing All Night

Hi, I'm not seeking 'to edit war' (whatever that actually means), simply provide correct information to viewers of the page.

SONY (the people who make the Vita and PlayStation TV) class the PlayStation TV as a microconsole that connects to the TV. Arguably its most promoted use is to allow streaming of PS4 games to a second TV, something of which a Vita cannot do.

A PlayStation TV has no inbuilt screen, gyro-sensor, speakers, controls etc, whereas a Vita does.

A lot of Vita games are not compatible with PSTV, so listing the ones that are is useful information to readers, as it seems otherwise little known. Removing that edit makes the page worse as it supplies less accurate and useful information.

Also, your analogy of " a variant device is not a new, separate platform: we do not list 'Alienware M17x' and 'Asus G75' as separate platforms to 'Microsoft Windows' " is deeply flawed. Windows is an OS, not a physical platform. Linux/Mac OSX would be the correct parallels in that situation, not machines. The LiveArea OS used in Vita/PSTV for instance, is analogous to WIndows, not some random Alienware machine.

Furthermore, there are pages already on this site that list PlayStation Vita and PlayStation TV separately in respect to software than runs on them both. Allowing it on some pages and not others is not conducive to a consistent & coherent narrative.

This mildy aggressive attitude against a new member is also NOT appreicated! I will edit the information back in in over 24 hours. If you see fit to revert it again, then I see no other choice but to seek arbitration. It's completely absurd that I would have to, but there we go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalsolesse (talk • contribs)

Threatening me with harsh words while you have no thorough understanding of the rules and policies of Wikipedia is hardly convincing. Wikipedia is not about who is "right", and Wikipedia is not concerned with "the truth"; Wikipedia policy specifically stipulates that all information must be verifiable and most not contain original research. Your interpretation of what "platform" means is not a mainstream one, and is not supported by third-party reliable sources. The PlayStation TV is not a platform, and no third-party reliable sources ever refer to it as a platform; you cannot simply make up your own imaginary definitions like that. You are introducing unpublished synthesis into articles, and this is absolutely unacceptable.

Furthermore, Wikipedia works upon community consensus; you must gain the approval from the community prior to making contentious edits or significant deviations from the status quo—again, this is policy. Per WP:BRD, if your edits have been reverted, you must discuss your desired changes on the article talk page, or on a relevant noticeboard. You must not engage in edit warring, which constitutes disruptive editing and will get you blocked from Wikipedia.

If you wish to make your desired changes, I'd suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and gaining the approval of the Wikipedia community first. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A discussion thread has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Is the PlayStation TV a platform?. All further discussion is to take place there. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

About CCP casualties in ssjw

I see someone edited the ccp casualties of ssjw based on this source "The Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the struggle for modern China" [4]. He used 30000 casualties before 1940 as the total casualties. Hence, I try to find the total casualties in this sources. From what I read, this source claimed that Eighth Route Army suffered 22,000 casualties in Hundred Regiments offensive alone before the end of this battle. It also claimed 103,186 Eighth Route Army had been killed (not included wounded, hence not the total casualties for Eighth Route Army) and New Fourth Army suffered a few thousands death between 1940 to 1944. Based on these claim, ccp should at least suffered more than 300,000 casualties.
However, I did not see the total casualties in this book. Hence, I try to use the source which cited by Chinese wiki (孟国祥、张庆军：《关于抗日战争中我国军民伤亡数字问题》．《抗日战争研究》) which claimed about 580,000 casualties including more than 160,000 killed and 80,000 missing(The figure is: 290,467 WIA, 160,603 KIA，45,989 POW，87,208 MIA). However, I did not read this source and just see the citation from Chinese wiki. If you agree this, I suggest to edited figures based on this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Miracle dream (talk • contribs)

@Miracle dream: Sure, go ahead. It's better to have some kind of verifiable figure, rather than a guess figure that's been left unreferenced for a long time, or a partial figure like the one recently added. Given that the SSJW article is among the few most-watched articles on zhwiki (given its political nature as a topic), I'd hope that it's well curated to some degree by a wide variety of editors. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is an IP editor and user:はぐれがらす always revert my edition because the source I used is from Communist China which they think has no credit. I have revert changes again but I guess they will revert it again. I don't want and have no energy to involve an edition war but I don't know how to deal with this. Miracle dream (talk)

Afd for Console war

Hi! The article Console war is currently nominated for Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console war by User:OMPIRE (who is currently blocked due to edit warring). Since I see you are active at Hyperdimension Neptunia-related articles, and the concept of "Console War" is important in Hyperdimension Neptunia game series too in addition to the real-world competitions, I think you may be interested in the discussion in the Afd for this article. Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Dungeon Traveler's 2 article

Just wanted to thank you for creating the Dungeon Travelers 2 article. Was actually just about to do that today myself, looks like you beat me by a few hours lol. I'll defiantly try and help you expend it later today! Spilia4 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Spilia4: Thanks, it would be very helpful if you could assist with expanding and improving the article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Napkin viral marketing nonsense

Just thought you might want to know, for amusement, that the impetus behind this nonsense is a game that the hosts devised where listeners were invited to become a "napkin ninja" whereby they would be provided with Hamish and Andy branded napkins. The listeners would then go out to various eating outlets and substitute a H&D napkin into the napkin dispenser. The edits to the article were little more than vandalism. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

International Age Rating Coalition

What you do on International Age Rating Coalition page? Akmaie Ajam (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

? --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk or i kill you! Akmaie Ajam (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

Hi Benli. Thank you for linking the WP:NOTHERE page. I'm sorry that you're having to go through these editing issues. I also raised a case at AN/I, but forgot about the aforementioned WP page (which I think applies to most of these disruptive editing cases). I agree that the writing of an online encyclopedia is the basic purpose of contributing to Wikipedia. By the way, maybe the editor in your case just needs more guidance? Sometimes a good WP:MENTOR can help editors amend their focus and become productive contributors. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 07:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: You're right, in that seemingly problematic editors often need proper direction by more familiar editors. The issue is that, in this case, I find it rather difficult to assume good faith. For starters, the user's very first edit on Wikipedia was a vandal edit, and that the user has somewhat of a history of sticking their tongue out and calling names at users they personally disagree with. It might just be that I'm rather cautious and impatient, but I have been given a rather poor impression from this editor, straight from square one. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand. It's good that you brought the case to AN/I. I would recommend that you just let it run its course for now. Make sure to save the link to the diff or section. If the behavior continues, despite the warnings, collect more evidence and bring the case up again (making sure to link to this AN/I case). The amount of red tape around these cases is time-consuming and requires a careful collection of evidence, but it's worth to keep track of things so that admins realize these are not one-time offenses. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking help on article related to Chinese military hardware

Hello Benlisquare,

I have found your alias at the Chinese Military History Task Force page under WikiProject Military history. On the page, you described yourself to be a contributor on modern military history, which is the closest description to the topic I am seeking help for. I hope you can provide another opinion, or point to someone who can, or what constitutes as reliable sources for the Type 99 tank article.

Thanks. 86.133.195.173 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the context of the dispute? Are the sources being questioned PopSci and Army Recognition? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI related to File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png

Hi!

FYI there is an ongoing ANI related to this map, which you have commented in the past. Cheers,--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Han Taiwanese

There is a new article created by Lysimachi called Han Taiwanese. This is a term that is rarely mentioned. Lysimachi also earlier created an article called Han American [5]. Given your involvement on that, you might want to look at Han Taiwanese.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Should Han Taiwanese be nominated for deletion as Han American did [6]? Both are created by the same user.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Balthazarduju: I've been significantly busy over the past month, and haven't been able to have a thorough look at the article in a timely manner. Anyone can nominate the article for deletion, and if you can put together a few arguments pertaining to WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:OR based on what's currently in the article, you can start the nomination yourself and notify the relevant noticeboards. Personally, I think that it's another case of déjà vu, and that the author is creating another dubious content fork of what's already present within articles such as Taiwanese people; an AfD would need a more thorough breakdown than that, however. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Empire of China 1915 map incorrectly includes Taiwan

Hi Belinsquare,

The map uploaded by you on the article "Empire of China (1915-16)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_China_(1915%E2%80%9316) erroneously includes the island of Taiwan as being within the boundaries of the Empire of Japan in 1915. Taiwan had been ceded in perpetuity by the Qing Dynasty to the Empire of Japan in 1895 (Treaty of Shimonoseki), and did not become part of the Republic of China until 1945. Can this map be corrected to reflect the actual claims of the Empire of China? Qiagen (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That map shouldn't be used on that article. It is a map of the territorial claims of the ROC, and should only be used on the ROC article; I'm not sure how that image ended up on that article, but I wasn't the one who added it there. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I apologise; I saw you uploaded the image, so I incorrectly assumed you'd added it to that page. Shall I remove it from the article in question, or should I leave the task to someone more established? Qiagen (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead remove it from that page. (Sorry for the late reply; I really didn't want to touch Wikipedia during the Christmas/New Year break.) --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien

Hello Benlisquare,

I am from Jiangxi province and I see that you have contributed to Hokkien pages. I am interested in learning Hokkien because I enjoy Hokkien songs and I wonder if you could teach me some phrases or words in the Hokkien dialect. You can reply to me on my talk page. Thanks for your help! Dustinliu76 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Dustinliu75

Sorry, I probably won't be of much help to you, since I am not a Hokkien speaker. Within these articles, I only write about what I have read in various books, websites and other print media; I don't have first-hand experience as a Hokkien speaker at all. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's ok. Thanks for your help though. Dustinliu75 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Dustinliu75

Deleting emoji image

This is a CC-licensed image of four different copyrighted fonts.

Hello, just seen your edit on the emoji page. While I didn't add that image, I find your decision contradicts how Wikipedia covers fonts.

It's normal with fonts that only the font file itself (as in the data) is considered covered by the proprietary license. If I type a message in Calibri, my words don't belong to Microsoft. Here's a cover of New York magazine that uses Apple Color Emoji. This is also the position taken by longstanding tradition on Wikipedia. Attached is a font sample image (which I didn't make either) based on a copyrighted font. We have literally hundreds to thousands like it. User interface elements *might* be copyrightable, but the amount visible is so minor I very much doubt it.

As an example of this, if you upload a diagram you don't get told to make sure you downloaded a CC-licensed font to caption it. Blythwood (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The image that he uploaded isn't CC-licensed, however. He just made a screenshot of his phone and uploaded it to Commons; images of operating systems are copyrightable, per consensus on Commons. Hence, the image is nominated for deletion. Finally, the comparison is a rather poor one, since emojis are not typefaces for human writing systems; they are artistic images with enough "sweat of the brow" to be protected under copyright. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. That first argument is more valid. I suggest you rewrite your deletion request on Commons ASAP, because it doesn't mention anything to do with screenshots. As for the second...emoji are TrueType font files technically (albeit with a hack to get colors) and distributed under the same sort of license. Plus I think you've just irritated every professional font designer on Earth saying that font design doesn't involve 'sweat of the brow' but creating emoji does! Blythwood (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess you can say I was wrong about the "sweat of the brow" remark. Nevertheless, I'll reword my nomination a bit. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. Reworded my keep request on Wikimedia to clarify I'm expressing agnosticism on the UI element part of the debate. Blythwood (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If indeed Commons admins deem the emojis of similar status to other typeface images on Wikipedia (I still am of the opinion that they're closer to artistic images), I will concede and allow the image to be re-added to the article without any opposition or protest, if the operating system elements are cropped out of the image. Though, I think it's best to wait for an outcome to the nomination. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

hello i thought i would popby and say hello from an other overseas Chinese. I noticed that you and some others had created virtually every Chinese page on Wikipedia so i wanted to say, Thank you! The Winter of Steppes (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

翻译韩文

您好。 请问你可以将四大国Four Policemen这篇英语维基文章翻译成韩语建一个对应韩语维基文章吗？ Miracle dream (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miracle dream: 很抱歉，我沒有什麼韓語文法技能，無法幫助您。 --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Would you mind having a look at this. Theknightwho is a new user who was reverted after adding thousands of wikt links; most of the edits have been restored. I'm not sure what wikiproject is most suitable for discussing this, and I see you started at least some of the pages. So far, the pages concerned appear to be:

• List of CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (Part 1 of 7)
• List of CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (Part 2 of 7)
• List of CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (Part 3 of 7)
• Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (reverted and not restored)
• Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C
• Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension D
• Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension E

What do you think about all these links? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel I should add that this was done under the precedent already set by List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4, List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 2 of 4, List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4, List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 4 of 4 and Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A. I'm not sure why my edits have been reverted (twice now - I won't change them again) when I was simply bringing them in line with other pages of the same nature. Theknightwho (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Sorry for the late response, I have been extremely busy IRL over the past month. It seems like the issue has already been resolved by BabelStone on some of the pages, so I won't necro the discussion any further. Realistically, I don't think readers are going to be looking for Wiktionary links at pages which list out Unicode glyphs, however if the user insists, I could suggest starting a discussion at WikiProject Writing systems or WikiProject Languages, since their users often deal with related articles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As you say it appears to be resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)