User talk:Rincewind42/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sorry but we cannot be inconsistant like that, the telephone might be patented by Bell but this does not mean that he was the Inventor of the telephone.

I will state the reasons why :

• The Telephone page here on wikipedia page DOES NOT recognise Bell as the inventor. So how in Gods name can the Scotland page on the same site say that he did? That is totally wrong and very unencyclopedic[1] [2]

• The US house of representatives does NOT recognise Bell as the inventor[3]

Superdude99

I'll reply here if that is OK.

The sentence I corrected in the medieval section, read exactly like this in the article before I changed it - which I'm sure you'll agree didn't make any sense.

"The Scots captured the fortress later known as

I amended it with spaces and lower case letters as well as including the "first foothold in Lothian" bit because, (a) I think it is fairly significant, and the person who wrote it obviously did too. (b) Yes we need to cut down, but we need sentences to flow and the section you removed allows it to do that, whilst merging with the next sentence beginning with "The reign of....." Taking out that just makes the section look like Statement. Statement. Statement, and that's not very fluid.

The peer review suggested we cut down on snakes. I understand that long snakes should be cut down, but we can go too much the other way and have lots of short monotone sentences that are a bit jarring in the text - they would be criticised if it were to be reviewed because they just don't flow in the text leading from one point to another.

Another of the Law sentences I changed was "Combining features of both uncodified

As far as I am concerned that is not a proper sentence, because it doesn't have the object of the "subject, object, verb". If this was to be reviewed you'd be asked "what?" combines features of uncodefied civil law etc. It looks like someone has forced a full stop in the middle of a proper sentence to make two sentences out of it. I was always taught at school that you should be able to take a sentence out of its surroundings, look at it on its own and understand the point it is making (even if you don't understand the subject matter). I wouldn't with the above sentence because the object is missing ie what the sentence is referring to.

Also In the Law section I amended your sentence - "For example;

I hope that explains my rationale for the edits that I carried out. I really don't want that to sound too critical, because I genuinely think what you are doing needs to be done, but we need to have a fluid prose as well - and that is just as important as a factually good article Thanks Globaltraveller 10:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You said in your reply that "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962), the Scots captured the fortress later called Edinburgh, their first foothold in Lothian." Flows better than "The Scots captured the fortress later known as EdinburghDuring the reign of King Indulf (954-962)." Now I hold my hands up and say, there is a typo there. "EdinburghDuring" should be "Edinburgh, during" However, I was too lenient with my criticism of the grammar before. The first quotation above is an illegal construct. It is three sentences joined together.

Ignoring the typo. There is nothing wrong gramatically or linguistincally with the first sentence. I suppose it may read better taking out the comma to give: "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962), the Scots captured the fortress later called Edinburgh which was their first foothold in Lothian." That is not an illegal construct, in any convention that I have seen.

You could join 1 and 3 above to produce "During the reign of King Indulf (954-962)The Scots captured a fortress. The fortress, later called Edinburgh, was their first foothold in Lothian." or "The Scots captured a fortress during the reign of King Indulf (954-962). This was their first foothold in Lothian, the fortress later called Edinburgh." Either of these is acceptable (though I think the last one reads poorly.)

I don't think any of those read very well IMHO - I think they read terribly poorly.

Besides, I still think we can live without the foothold bit. There is a citation on the main Scottish Midievel history page for this period. "Sometime in the reign of king Idulb (954–962), the Scots captured the fortress called oppidum Eden, i.e. Edinburgh.[18] Scottish control of Lothian was strengthened with Máel Coluim II's victory over the Northumbrians and the Battle of Carham (1018)."

Very possibly, but given the person who wrote this is an expert in the field, I would imagine its inclusion is somewhat significant. Disregarding its significance I think its inclusion, as I previously stated makes the prose much more fluid.

You are correct that "Combining features of both uncodified civil law, dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, and common law with medieval sources." is not a sentence. It's three sentences joined together. It was four sentences before. I should really have put "It Combines features of..." Though that still isn't right. I could see there was an obvious sentence end after "Scots law has a basis derived from Roman law" That stands on it's own without any worry. But the next phrase puzzled me. The legal terms are quite mixed and I had intended asking for advice on rephrasing the line. However, looking at it again I now understand it. I'll break it down here, as much for my own thoughts as for anyone else.

When I said it was not a sentence, it was my polite way of saying - it didn't make any sense, which it doesn't - it doesn't stand alone, in other words. In your own words it was an illegal grammar construct. Another of your "sentences" (using the definition in its loosest sense) was "For example; Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law." which clearly cannot be a standalone sentence. For an introduction, there is absolutely nothing wrong - gramatically or otherwise - with: "Scots law has a basis derived from Roman law combining features of both uncodified civil law, dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, and common law with mediaeval sources."

One suggestion is: "Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland, such as Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland. Udal Law is based on Old Norse Law." or maybe "Prior to 1611, there were several regional law systems in Scotland. Udal Law, based on Old Norse Law, is an example of a regional law system that was used in Orkney and Shetland." You can try some others, but whatever way you go, you have to have 2 sentences for correct grammar here.

I sctually agree with your analysis here, but would probably tend towards the former rather than the latter. The "sentence" from your edit: "For example; Udal Law in Orkney and Shetland — based on Old Norse Law." was/is completely incorrect.

I don't mind the English lesson, though I think it is an extremely abstract form of analysis and I don't think that you are altogether correct in some of your assumptions, and I certainly don't think your edits were correct.

Sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of your analysis. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

hi, just saying hello - i like the name.--Bilbo B 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rincewind42/Archive 1, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :)   This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rincewind42, I changed one of your references because it looked wrong. The series "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" was started in the early 1960s; and was first published in London by Phoenix House. However, unless there was an earlier version, Volume 6: Scotland: The Lowlands and the Borders was published in Newton Abbot, by David & Charles, in 1971. The author was John Thomas. Your citation appears on page 116 in John Thomas' book. There was also a series "Forgotten Railways" and John Thomas wrote the volume on Scotland (published 1976 & 1981). H.P. White wrote "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" Volume 2, Southern England, and Volume 3, Greater London. He also wrote the introductory volume to "Forgotten Railways" it was called Forgotten Railways; and the volume in that series on South east England.Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The edition I referenced was co-authored by David St, John Thomas and Henry Patrick White. It appears I omitted part of the names when copy/pasting over to the edit box. I don't have access to other versions but if you say that the same information is in the 1971 edition then that is fine. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rincewind42, I have been embroiled in an ANI report[4] where I decided to clarify the circumstances in which I recently engaged in edits and discussions of the

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new

Two questions: may I know whereabouts in NE China are you? Are you attending Wikimania 2013? Cheers. DrewHeath (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am in the North East of China. I don't want to be more precise as this is a public accessible page and privacy is therefore important. I won't be at Wikimania 2013 as I have family and work commitments. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood! DrewHeath (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was glad when I scrolled to the bottom to see your query: exactly what I was wondering.

Best,

[email protected]

DavidLJ (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Rincewind42, thanks for creating Spade money!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. /

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

However, I appreciate your interest - will you be adding more pictures of coins? I always hoped people would do that as I found the process of getting through Wiki formalities made my head tired. If you want to contact me outside of Wikipedia: [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhartill (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not so much a question of fragmentation but rather of granularity. This is covered under Wikipedia's notability. If the subject of the article is notable, then it will receive contributions and stay current. Previously someone searching for spade money on Google or elsewhere found no Wikipedia result in the first page of the search results. The reason is that although ancient Chinese coinage includes spade money, it is not the primary topic of the page. There is allot of other stuff on that page which drowns out each individual topic. That page may be far down on Google's result pages. The new spade money page is already visible at the top of the Google search results.

Most people will not go to the whole coinage page first. Rather they might enter via one of the in depth pages then move out into the more general over view then dive deeper again on certain topics or even get pulled off in a different direction altogether. Some may just hit one section of an article, grab the data they needed and leave. Others will spend days reading every single item on every article they can find. Each will have their own path through the information depending on their personal requirements at the time.

I am looking for other pictures to use. Don't be put of my the image upload system. It has improved somewhat over the years and is now a bit more user friendly than it used to be. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Granularity?? I find users of Wiki-jargon usually lack common-sense, although I am sure that this is not so in your case. Why one cannot have an index entry that says "Spade money see Ancient Chinese coinage" like you could in a real book defeats me. We already have an example of the dangers of fragmentation. The Spade Money article has not been going a week when it attracted duff information in the shape of pictures of fake coins. I have removed them to spare your blushes. What I will do, in the next month, is try and load some good pictures of genuine spade coins from my collection to "my" article. You can then granulate them or whatever the term is to "your" article. Best, David Davidhartill (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, I see that there are various sub-articles in Wiki on individual coins or coinages of various dynasties. eg "Banliang" none of them particularly accurate. Is this the Wiki way, to have lots of half accurate fragments, rather than one main article looked after by an expert in the subject?? Davidhartill (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And if I put "Ant Nose Money" Wiki comes up with the Ancient Chinese coins main article, but not for Spade Money. All very strange. Davidhartill (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Understand your revert and don't have a problem with it, but the 2nd para of Western sweet and sour pork reads like a history of the Chinese original version... should not that one para be taken across to the Chinese section variations ? Phil Geotek (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Know the problems of merging ! Obviously your knowledge is better than mine on this one so I'll leave it in your yard... good luck with it, thanks Phil Geotek (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As promised I added a nice picture of a Square Shoulder Hollow Handle spade. It seems this has arrived on Wiki Commons but not on the article. This is all too hard.

The file is called: Square Shoulder Spade.jpg

David Davidhartill (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm currently swamped at work, but will be back at the edit in the next week or so. Rgr09 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

你好！ I have had a quick look at the pictures and they seem nice, and are not poor photos of tourist replicas which one has to be aware of.

Actually I mastered the new upload process, but don't always have a good coin to scan & upload.

I am a bit busy next week as I have to write an articel for someone of the joys of N. Sing calligraphy on the coins, but will get back to you as soon as I can.

Best

David Davidhartill (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the policy? Consider these two examples which you added:

 Ming Dao yuan bao (Chinese: 明道元寶; pinyin: míngdào yuánbǎo)

 Huang Song tong bao (Chinese: 皇宋通寶; pinyin: huáng sòng tōng bǎo) 

Yuanbao is one word, but tong bao is two (although it is almost a synonym for "currency")

The nianhao Mingdao is one word but Huang Song is two.

Regards, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhartill (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy. Within China, spacing in pinyin is haphazard. Sometimes every hanzi is matched to a space in pinyin - other times there are no spaces at all. It you look at Pinyin#Capitalization and word formation the article gives some guidelines. I'll admit that my Chinese is not good enough to get this perfect all the time. In the article Ancient Chinese coinage I simply went with the spacing that my dictionary/translator showed and tried to be consistent, though not maybe logical, so that I always wrote yuánbǎo not yuán bǎo. If you think a space should be added/removed then make changes as appropriate. The same goes for capitalisation - someone else wrote Ming Dao yuan bao but why is Dao capitalised? Rincewind42 (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ming Dao is a period title, hence capitalisation by some. Others have Mingdao. I see that you are using a modern computer for the Pinyin, so that is why it is often wrong and I have to correct it. Davidhartill (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you meant to do this. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've undone that edit. I was cleaning up spam form the external links of half a dozen articles simultaniously and didn't notice I was editing a historical version of that article. Thanks for pointing it out. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I've added some comments to the section you started here. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We will see what happens at the AfD for some of these places. If you think some of the minor celebrities are not notable, put them up for AfD too. Don't try to clean up articles that are destined for the trash. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All of your arguments were wrong except for one about Wiki syntax. My itemized responses:

• Changing the number of deaths from 15 to 10 million requires a source reference but you give none.

My Ans: there was no source cited for 15 million death in your version.

• You put in "rulling party textbook" in place of "government statistics" which is not a natural way of phrasing the sentence.

My Ans: I was telling the truth. There was no official government statistics about the death toll. The publication was in Chinese and was circulated within the party school. I do have photo copy. But you did not cite "government statistics". So my number is more reliable than yours.

• You added "...after 1949" to a quote by Frank Dikötter but is that what Dikötter actually said?

My Ans: Yes, he did mention

• The edit to the info box section "relief" needs to be backed by references and is certainly a minority opinion not the general consensus of experts on the subject. Minority views may be included in the body text of an article but not front lined as you have done. They also need to be worded appropriately so that all points of view are induced without excluding other view points.

My Ans: The economic embargo was a fact. Don't tell me you don't know. No food relief act by international community was also a fact. How did you know your view is "majority opinion"? Did you have reliable statistics to prove it? To be fair, it should include all opinions, even if it were minority

• "According to a textbook published in 2011 for training Chinese communist party leaders," What text book. Name, date, ISBN number, author? In any case, a textbook produced by the CPC is probably not going to be a reliable source of information for this article. Please see WP:V and WP:RS.

My Ans: The name is "Textbook of Chinese history", published in China. There is no ISBN. In fact, many of your citations have no ISBN numbers.

• You wrote, "Someone also claimed that..." Who is someone?

My Ans: I am one of "someone"

• Likewise, "However, another recent study indicated that there were only 2.5 million death directly linked to malnutrition." begs the question, what other study. Give a reference.

My Ans: I did include the citation source. It was published in Chinese. If you cannot read Chinese, I will translate into English. By the way, if you don't read Chinese, how could you possibly study Chinese history?

• Then again, "by some officials" and again who?

My Ans: I am one of "someone"

• You added "^[1]" please use the template [[Template:Citation needed

Citation needed]] instead. My Ans: my apology. I will correct it.

• The "Further perspectives" section is entirely one sided and lacks balance or neutral points of view.

My Ans: Well, if you think it is one sided view, please provide your side. In fact, the original article was mostly one sided views. 75.186.1.70 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You write "you" and "Your" but nothing in the article is written by me. I need to point out you don't know who I am. You don't know my views. Please read Wikipedia:Civility before making claims about what other editors may or may not believe or view they may or may not hold.

Regarding you being "someone" please read WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Note the above IP was User_talk:Oldhand_12. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. I thought it was vandalism, sorry.--Gray16 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the above article is now suffering a contribution history problem. On 31 August 2010 I moved the article from University of Science and Technology Liaoning to University of Science and Technology, Liaoning because I thought the title was missing a comma. However, on 29 March 2011,

talk

) 13:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have placed a history merge template on the page. An admin should fix the issue relatively easily. -- Rincewind42 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you've worked hard on deleting my content. Although, I saw you mentioned "don't use content without a blue link". So does that mean that I can just make redirect pages to the episodes and that will automatically mean that they will be able to be disambiguated on disambiguation pages? MadisonGrundtvig (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence quoted comes straight from

WP:DABPIPE it says bold letters: "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." Rincewind42 (talk

) 00:33, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

WP:DABRELATED, "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article." Disambiguation pages cease to be functional if they're filled with dozens or hundreds of trivia links. Even more so if those links go to articles that provide no actual information about the subject. Rincewind42 (talk

) 02:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and style guides exist for a reason. The function of disambiguation pages is to help readers find topics in the encyclopedia that are ambiguously named. Removing links as you have reduce the function of those pages. It appears to be nothing more than your opinion what topics are trivia and what is useful. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please look up what a

WP:DABNOT is quite specific. It does not use the word "mention" it uses the word "described". Ultimately it is the editor of the target article pages that decide: do they describe that topic in the article or do they gloss over it in passing. Linking to a page that contains no information on a topic, but just mentions the title of the topic somewhere within, does not help any reader in the slightest. Rincewind42 (talk

) 13:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that

WP:DABNOT contradicts what I have said. The term being disambiguted IS described in the linked article and may be included on a disambiguation page. If you really think I'm misunderstanding this, perhaps you should take it up at WT:Disambiguation. This has come up in the past, and while there were a range of opinions, there was never any consensus that bare mentions should be excluded. older ≠ wiser

13:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(Sgemmill (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)).

I am not "You people". I have no idea what other people you are grouping me with but be sure there is no affiliation. When communicating on my talk page please stay to the topic and refrain from personal comments. I am only replying because you are new to Wikipedia and I don't bite newbies. However, in future modify your tone. Read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and add new comments to the bottom of talk pages and use a new section rather than mixing this in with some other comment that has no relation to your comment.

Read

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (emphasis my own)

The link to on Greenock Blitz included a link to the. See

WP:BOOKSPAM

"Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article. This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article. Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information."

The book on Greenock Blitz was not one of the books used when writing the article. It was inserted by you, and I assume you are the books author, Stewart Gemmill, to promote your book and not to improve the article. The text and the link to the books sales page (rather than the usual title, author, publisher, page number) made that clear. We don't have professional publishers link to their Amazon.com pages so why should your book be different. See

WP:ADV

.

Rincewind42 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you have shown familiarity with article naming issues (e.g.

Well the obvious place would be to post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. I wouldn't bother with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject China/Chinese provinces workgroup or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Chinese cities workgroup as those two sub-workgroups have been deserted for many years. Just post on the main WP:China talk page itself. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chengdu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qionglai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rincewind42! Thanks for taking care of some of the moves we agreed upon in the recent RfC and RM! For my part, I've already moved all the pages with "Qing dynasty" in them to their proper title, and I'll take care of the Ming tomorrow. I see that you just moved "Later Jin (Five Dynasties)" to "Later Jin (Five dynasties)", but you decapitalized "Jin" as well! Also, I'm not sure everybody agrees that "Five Dynasties" should be decapitalized. I'm really happy that we've ***finally*** decapitalized all the "Foo dynasty" articles, but somehow I would tend to keep capitalization on "Five Dynasties" (and on "Ten Kingdoms", "Warring States", etc.). Maybe it would be safer to make a formal RM before moving? All right, keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll agree for now that Five Dynasties could be capitalised, but only in certain cases. For example I would write: "The Later Jin was the third of the five dynasties during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period." In the first case it is not a proper noun and shouldn't be linked, in the second it could be considered part of a proper noun. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Madalibi about Five Dynasties – I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Dynasties. Kanguole 16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

Please sign your comments on talk pages. Also please link directly to the section on the noticeboard as I had to waste time searching. I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template-protected edit request. I had to look at your personal contributions history to find that as there is no information on the ANI that would connect that with myself. I see that Technical 13 marked your request as "not done" and I have nothing further to add myself. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could've done ctrl-F, 'lfdder' on ANI. Templating me for forgetting my sig is pretty poor form. — lfdder 10:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Or nothing. Just do it properly. Rincewind42 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah. — lfdder 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rincewind42;

Since you rated Dongjing Meng Hua Lu as stub class, I was wondering if you have suggestions for what might be added. It looks more like Start or even C to me, since it's got description, references, influence, etc. Cheers, ch (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the article consists of quotations form the book itself in place of cometary, discussion and critic. The commentaries such as, "...which serious scholars disdained", "The numerous mentions of Sichuan cuisine are particularly striking.", "The section in Book 7 describing Spring festival is often used to explain one of China's most famous scroll paintings, the Qingming Shanghe tu (清明上河图) ofZhang Zeduan..." and others are not referenced by secondary sources. You could rate it 'start' class if you wanted but it is a bit shy of 'C' class. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and useful reply! ch (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huludao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The

Hello, Rincewind42. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rincewind42. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, in 2014 you made this edit to Tibet. One of the effects of the edit was to add the article to Category:Articles with text from the Turkic languages collective, which does not ever appear to have existed. I cannot see how the edit adds the article to the category. Do you know what is going on with this? DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you are not very active at the moment, so I've asked the same question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Odd red category to see if anyone else knows what is happening. DuncanHill (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That category must be added by one of the language templates I used. Probably {{lang|trk|...}}. Rincewind42 (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rincewind42. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)