User talk:MainBody/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MainBody. 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.

Welcome!

Hello, MainBody/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 11:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Feces or Faeces

English or American English, that's the only difference! Como006 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm the wrong person to ask. You need someone with Checkuser privileges to check for sockpuppets.

In any case, please put requests for checking for sockpuppets on this page.

Also, before asking for a check for sockpuppets, please make sure that you have reason to believe that the two users are sockpuppets of each other. As far as I can tell, they seem to be editing in different areas and don't seem to be particularly connected to each other. -- ran (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on your what you told me, I have no problem with you reverting, and or reposting those edits. I am sorry, but to my limited experiance (less than 100 reverts on vandal patrol), your edit matched the profile of others I have seen. Agian, 99% chance you are right and I am wrong. I apologize, is there anything I can do to make things better... just let me know.

Trust me, your contacting me has allowed me to better learn what is and what is not vandalism. Agian, I am sorry.

Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. to bad I am only human:-)

I will remove the vandalism warning.

I did not know whether or not you wanted to archive it or not. it is in the same spot it was before, (hit edit this page) between <!-- . . . -->

Agian sorry about the hassle, I'm learning but not yet (if ever) perfect. :-)Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

lol... dai sei~ (Chinese: 抵死; Chinese: Dǐ Sǐ; Jyutping: dai2 sei2) Now you know how I felt [1] [2]. Anyway, your signature is very 低B. 得閒過黎簽個靚名 — as you know, I'll be leaving this I.P. very soon. 199.111.230.195 03:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that (Taiwan) was added to the end of the template was because it is usual to denote the State (and to differentiate it from the PRC) and to denote the nationality of a person. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of_China.2C Taiwan, and variations thereof, under the second colomn, bullets one and four. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was disputed by one user who was subsequently banned for distruptive editing, vandalism, extreme POV pushing, and personal attacks. Even if the tag is there, it is the authority and the guidelines on ROC/Taiwan-related articles until new one are drawn up. Therefore, as of 17:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC), I have reverted your edits per convention and removed the tag per the reasons above. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The {disputed} is there and it is far enough. Obviously it is not one person raising question (at least including me) disputing the usage. By the way, please discuss on the template's own talk page. You guys are sidestepping the issue

Undiscussed edits reverted MainBody 17:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not implying that China (excluding Tibet) is South Asian. I only put in a comment saying that PRC, the country that governs Tibet, is an observer nation of SAARC. The same comment was added to Iran. Thegreyanomaly 08:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ok I revised the reference list. They're at the bottom of my talk page for now if any of you want to look. I took down the Helsinki site (it appears to reorganized their website). I reworded the comment on the Brandeis link. I fixed the Rutgers link. At the time when I put up the sources, I thought it would be logical to display the sources to justify Tibet as part of South Asia along with the sources that claim Tibet as at least linked to South Asia. The Britannica source originally started with an ip vandal who listed the Tibetan plateau as being East Asian (which was obviously wrong) and then afterwards it got fixed to Central Asia and the Britannica citation got added. For whatever reason it was just left there.

Anyways, MainBody, the sources aren't showing a picture that Tibet might be South Asian. They are stating that it is. The Madison source has a dotted line because it is sadly politically incorrect to depict Tibet as an independent state (as it is now under PRC rule). Also if you click on Tibet on the map you get led here [3]. A better UW-Madison source is this one [4]. The UW-Madison source was one of the first sources I added for Tibet, and since then the outreach page changed. Originally it was clearer on what it affirmed as South Asia; it used have all the places' name, flag, est. population, and a link. Everything in this debate is starting over instances of confusion.

First I added sources for and against Tibet being South Asian Then John Hill begins to take out the 'against' sources, but when he is he accidentally starts removing some Afghanistan sources by accident and claims there to be fake sources and makes the comment about UW-Madison saying that Tibet is only possibly South Asian. (You can look at all the other sources and you will clearly see that none of the sources are making such claim) Then 210.0.212.59 hears of this and writes on everyone's walls that I am using fake sources that never mention Tibet. And now the idea that sources only claim that Tibet may be South Asian is running amok.

Ok so in short, I reviewed all the sources. They're on the bottom of my talk page. These are only the sources claiming that Tibet IS South Asian. The ones that said Tibet is related to South Asia have been removed. I'll take out the SALRC source.

Also keep in mind that Tibet is not being added on the portion of the list saying that "Tibet is always considered South Asia" it is in the portion of the list saying "Tibet has often been recorded as being called South Asian by well-respected academics" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan on responding? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Ran has responded very well. If no geopolitical source is added in the future, I will remove all those POV sources by U.S. university departments MainBody (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're problem is that you don't think the South Asia article should include only a geopolitical/geographical definition, but if you look clearly, the East Asia and Southeast Asia articles have multiple definitions (specifically East Asia which has a cultural and geopolitical definition on the page just as South Asia currently does). Also four out of the five European region articles, North Asia, Southwest Asia don't even mention the world geopolitical. The articles on regions of the world are all homologous to eachother. They all have the same purpose but for different places. If you can tolerate East Asia having a cultural definition, you really have no business trying to remove a cultural definition from South Asia. The East Asia article has a region of Russia (RFE) alternately just South Asia should have a "region" of the PRC (Tibet) shaded.

So just a friendly reminder, please don't try to display a bias between South Asia and East Asia or any of the other region pages; if you really care about the article displaying a cultural definition you should be doing the same things to East Asia as you are to South Asia, but you're not as your contribs record shows you've never edited East Asia or Talk:East Asia. If your real problem is seeing Tibet on South Asia and you think it pov, then address it as such and not as a geopolitical issue.

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

please respond before you go on talking about geopolitics again Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I am copying it onto the south asia talkpage, answer it there Thegreyanomaly (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, we are revoting to propose a new name for the People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) article. Many people would like to move it to "PLA occupation of Tibet". If you have any last minute opinions, please join us here. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for filling in the blank I left in the article. I was planning to get back to it sometime but I first had to remove all the clutter and merge what i could into the History of Tibet article. I think you have done a fabulous job of summarizing it all. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say I also very much appreciate your efforts to rid of that huge history sectin that was there before. Sorry if I seemed like i was complaining at yourselves. Not at all but just a little shocked at how it had changed and this is clear in my immediate reaction. I have the greatest of respect for John Hills work on central asian history and on a personal level and I am sure you also are an excellent contributor. Naturally the history section needed cutting down a great deal but I strongly felt the intro and history sections had been done so a little too much. For me the history section should outline the history in a summary and cover the main points -this for me would be from gampo to present but summarizing the main events etc. But when I looked at it initally it missed some things which I thought were major events in the history and should be summarised in the main article. Obviously any real detail should be in the seperate history articles (or which you;ve done a remarkabke job). I deeply apologise if you or John feel I've discarded any efforts you have made to genuinely improve it. If I have put anything back in problematic please please either of you discuss it so we can improve it. I;ve tried to do it in a way that it is still a interesting summary and read but isn't 30kb like it used to be. Naturally it will need a lot of copy editing and rewriting in places so it flows. I've also cleaned up the geogrpahy section a little bit -it didn't mention any lakes or anthing. I;ve also filled out the religion section a bit but this could do with writing to summarize the main points and could mention the dalia lama and panchen lama lineages etc too. Best wishes ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear MainBody: Here is a note I have just inserted on my Talk Page. Thanks for your patience and help. John Hill (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear MainBody and Blofeld of Spectre: Thank you both for your concern - not only for the articles but for me. I really must apologise to both of you for causing all this fuss and giving you both extra work and headaches. I have just written a letter on Blofeld of Spectre's Talk Page which gives my reasons for what I have done and thoughts about where we can go from here - so, to avoid having to repeat it all - I will just paste in the letter here:

Hi buddy! Good to hear from you - and sorry I have caused you all this angst! There is certainly no need for you to apologise! This whole fuss is really my fault. I was reading the Tibet article the other day and was horrified by the size of the section on Tibetan history and the jumble and confusion and POV in it. I thought that, especially with the focus on Tibet-China relations at the moment it was really urgent to get something more coherent and accurate together in one place. I thought I could do it in the few days left before my big trip - but probably overestimated my own capabilities and hadn't counted on the stream of unannounced visitors coming to wish us a good trip (and wanting to stay for a couple of hours drinking coffee and chatting).

I really did mean to get back to writing a shorter history on the Tibet page but I was too slow off the mark and I should have decorated the site with big Under Construction warning signs and also I should have realised you would have been right on the ball as usual and warned you personally.

Anyway, from this point on - I think it should be much easier to straighten everything out. The historical notes you have added to the Tibet article are a good start - and I am grateful you have restored some of the photos.

My only suggestions are that we should now try make it as brief and punchy as possible without losing the basic flow of the history. I, for example, would like to see a bit more on the ancient kings and the establishment of the Dharma and the early Empire while separating out some of less critical material in the more recent history.

I will try to do what I can while on this trip - but it may not be much, unfortunately - and now is when large numbers of people are likely to be checking the Wikipedia for information on Tibet. Also, of course, all the material in the History of Tibet article needs to be rechecked and tidied up. Sorry to leave you such a headache! I send you my apologies once again and all best wishes and thanks for your concern and hard work. John Hill (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Do have a look at the long quote I have given in the History of Tibet article from the 821/2 Treaty between China and Tibet. If only something similar could be worked out again now!

PSS Thanks, Ernst for your welcome note above which you have just inserted before I managed to get this completed! You are just too quick for me! ;^)

Thanks again to both of you for your hard work and concern. I do think getting this right is really very important and there is a real urgency to getting it done now - I just wish I had more time and energy to work on it myself - so I am having to dump most of the responsibility on you and other well-intentioned people. Cheers, and best wishes with it all. John Hill (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Prom3th3an (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've no idea who I am, you are receiving this message because of your British Empire UBX! If you are a regular editor to articles related to the British Empire please sign up (no pesky newsletters!) to the project and help better organise and improve articles within our scope! Thanks --Cameron (T|C) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained changes will usually get reverted, you made no attempt to provide an informative edit summary. Justin talk 13:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[5] But the edit I reverted gave no clue and came from a one off IP address. Looked all the world like a wikifiddler. There was no informative edit summary, recent change patrollers are no clairvoyant, your faith in my powers of extrasensory perception is touching but sadly misplaced. Ciao. Justin talk 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[6] Didn't revert you once you'd explained did I? Ciao. Justin talk 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi MainBody. Thank you for coming to the Catholic Church page. I want to invite you to the article talk page to discuss your recent edits. Many editors have been discussing the wording and sources of the sections that you edited. Because you have not participated in these discussions and you changed wording that we have been diligently working on, I reverted your changes. If you want to argue for their inclusion, please come to the talk page and let's see what others think before we make these changes. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MainBody. 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.