Neversay.misher

Welcome!

Hello, Neversay.misher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Confucius edits

Hi Neversay.misher. I see you've been tidying up the Confucius article. Thank you! I also noticed you added in as sources a couple of wikis - wikisource and chinese-wiki.com. Unfortunately publicly editable wikis are not reliable sources for the purposes of an encyclopedia (even a wikipedia!). I noticed you had a Chinese source in some of these places before you used the wikis. I'm not able to assess Chinese language sites, but wondered if they were approriate as replacements? Or if you know of more authoritative sources that could be used? Otherwise we should really replace with a {{cn}} tag. Thanks again for all your hard work. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not stability that's the issue with wiki's, it's the lack of rigorous fact checking and authoritative reputation. Publicly open wikis not only allow, but encourage people who are not well regarded experts to edit - this is not appropriate for a reliable source unless there is expert oversight. Translations in particular need to have a reputation for accuracy. While you may be able to check the appropriateness of a wiki, our verifiability policy requires that sources don't rely on this type of skill from editors - deciding that a translation is good is effectively original research.

I'm came across your edits because I've been following Chinese-wiki on Wikipedia. Editors of the wiki have been spamming it inappropriately across Wikipedia, along with a couple of other revenue generating sites. So I am keen to ensure it doesn't get inserted in places where our policies don't actually support its use. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor from Chinese-wiki.com

Hi Neversay.misher., I have read the above thread and would like to express my thanks for putting ours site links in Confucius' article. It is heartening to know that after spending more than 2 months of rigorous study and translating the Analects of Confucius (Lunyu) into Modern Chinese and English, giving it the proper meaning that other translators failed, someone appreciate such an effort. Thank you once again and do continue to support chinese-wiki.com.

Metal is now the COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

Thanks for your interest in helping improve the core topics! Walkerma 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

CALL TO REFORM: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), ---4--- Names of groups

CALL TO REFORM: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), ---4--- Names of groups

My point is that the linguistics box should include the romanizations appliable to the correspondent chinese characters, both in simplified and traditional chinese... For instance, in the ROC, we can see IN THE LINGUISTICS BOX both the simplified and the traditional form, and the appliable transliterations: In the country infobox we only see the traditional variant, CAUSE THATS THE OFFICIAL ONE THERE... DPP has its own linguistics box and its own political party box, where we only see the traditional variant, the same applies to some newspapers, TV channels... and so on...

Im interested in such a move, cause there is no a clear standard.. just today another contributor suggested to undo my reform of the "KMT" page, cause i added a lingustics infobox, with wiktionary links, and erased the simplified fomr FROM THE POLITICAL INFOBOX, where it shouldn't be... If we add simplified to the political party infobox, we should add simplified too to the ROC country infobox, where its not the official script, and well, that makes no sense...

I dunno if I should ask for support, or just unilaterally declare it a new policy... If somebody created that infobox, well, y dont we use it? Gumuhua (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

About Education in Taiwan/Education in ROC

Hi there... i think we should move "Education in Taiwan" to "Education in the ROC", since we deal with an official organization, I also believe wiki policies on naming convetions support sucha achange... ur POV? Gumuhua (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)