User talk:Currentlybiscuit/Archive 4

On "resolution" of images concerning the presidential palace in Taiwan

You reverted a changing of the image of the presidential palace in Taiwan: diff1 anddiff2. Your comment appears to indicate that you thought my image and Jiang's restoration of previous image were of "lower resolution".

Here are the three images:

Jiang's image

Your image (the original before I changed it)

My image

Have you zoomed in on my image to compare them to the other two? Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(Directed to this page by Fred Hsu): can't we have different photos on different pages? the same readers will be reading these different pages, and I think we ought to give them some variety. i don't think Fred Hsu's image is am improvement over the other two because the weather, and hence lighting, was crappy. the second image (not "Jiang's image") was taken by me, so there's my bias...what matters is not the high resolution, but the appearance of the thumbnail, since few readers will bother clicking on the image. so between a poorly lit high res image and a well lit low res image i would choose the latter to put in the article. there are probably many more options on commons.--Jiang (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the first image was fine but that's just my opinion. Feel free to bring the issue on the talk pages of the respective articles to gather more opinions. Laurent (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you help with a wiki project on Human Rights in China?

Hi :), This is to invite you to join: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Human_Rights_in_China . You could contribute much to the project. Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Akmal Shaikh on hold

The GA review of the Akmal Shaikh article has been on hold for over 30 days. It is near to being passed, but the Akmal_Shaikh#Reaction section needs editing to reduce the amount of direct quotation as per Wikipedia:Quotations, and also to be trimmed in general to meet GA criteria 3(b): "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PRC government type

Hello, Currentlybiscuit. You have new messages at Talk:People's Republic of China.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of WorldVentures

A tag has been placed on WorldVentures, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Laurent (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Task Coach

The article Task Coach has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

the subject may not be adequately notable to justify a Wikipedia article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vectro (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

France

Bonjour Laurent,

Vous faites du bon travail de correction aux articles sur la France. (Merci d'avoir enlevé l'affreux "puppet regime".)

Que pensez-vous de cette photo [1] qui, à mon avis, n'apporte pas grand-chose à l'article? À première vue, on dirait un gros crapaud dans l'herbe. Il me semble qu'il y aurait mieux pour représenter un "French soldier".

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Frania, oui c'est vrai qu'elle est assez moyenne cette image car on ne distingue pas bien le soldat. Peut-être qu'on pourrait utiliser cette image à la place ? Le soldat est presque visible en entier et la luminosité est meilleure donc on voit mieux les détails (y compris son écusson "OTAN"). Laurent (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Laurent, d'accord pour cette photo qui montre plus de détails en plus de la jolie tête du petit gars. Merci et bonne continuation. --Frania W. (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Réussi. Merci. --Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Miser

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Many thanks for the good work you are doing at Miser. I'll leave you to it now, to avoid edit conflicts. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look

Looks like Polylepsis has accused you of sockpuppetry which can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiLaurent. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Good try indeed ;) Laurent (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple revisions of WorldVentures

I have noticed that the page about WorldVentures has been revised by yourself and another person since my revision quite a while back.

While I respect your right to change pages in this public encyclopedia, I would like to see some discussion on the 'Talk' tage for the WorldVentures when changing information on the page. It is only fair to allow other editors to see your reasons for your revisions.

The revision done before your current one was promotional, I agree. The page I had originally looked fair, balanced, and non-promotional. I merely described the products that the company offers. I would like to know why the information on the products was removed completely as well as the information about the company being featured in national magazines (which was sited from non-primary sources).

Your continued forcing of the company being called a 'pyramid-scheme' begs me to wonder if you might have a bias against this company. The current source you have supporting the claim of the company being a 'pyramid-scheme' is one I have seen that often slam various companies without proper knowledge of them. Information in that article in fact is misleading and some of it is completely false!

Basically, I am merely inviting you to share your concerns about my revision (now buried deep in the page's history). I have started a 'talk' on the page but I have yet to see any contribution to it before your revisions (or the other editor's revision). Please share your thoughts and concerns for my revision and the company on the WorldVentures 'talk' page.

Cheers --ManUtdDenBronx (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please consider participating in this discussion

Another editor and I have a disagreement about a table (here [2]) at Popular cat names. Since you contributed to the article, perhaps you'd be interested in the discussion on the talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to gaza flotilla raid

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.

Not while the discussion is still ongoing! (Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Which one? so i can clarifyLihaas (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary was quite misleading as you've done a lot more than copy editing and fixing links. Laurent (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Great Chairman and Tutor Mao Zedong

I ask that you revert the link to "Chinese people", as labelling him Chinese (correct), and linking it to "Han Chinese" equates the term Chinese people with only the Han group: though Han occupy around 90% of the mainland population, many consider such equating to be wrong, and such labelling is therefore not NPOV. It seems to me, from your edit summary, that you do not understand this dispute or refuse to recognise the major implications of it. I ask that either you change the label to Han Chinese, or you leave the link at "Chinese people". I'm just outraged that the Wiki-link was like that for such a long time and the fact that, due to the high percentage of editors from the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, people confuse their labellings: errors such as this and China tantamount to PRC (and vice versa), etc, are shocking and not tolerable. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Under the legacy section... your recent changes were not merely minor changes. Altering the text from "Mao is regarded as a national hero of China" to "The Chinese government officially regards" has two issues:

• previous wording clearly stated that the people of the mainland revere him, Although it is true that the previous wording was vague (could have placed a "who" tag), and that TW-ese certainly vilify him...
• what really should be referred to as "Central People's Government" or "mainland government" or "PRC government" (as HK, Macau, and ROC would disagree) is instead labelled as "Chinese government".

and it is a widely-held fact that his military theory is nearly universally praised, and that the People's Volunteer Army faced considerable odds against UN imperialist forces is also widely-held. To me, your "fact" tags only serve to downgrade both of their accomplishments. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 15:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with what you're saying about equating Han Chinese with "Chinese". Would you be ok with rewriting the link as simply [[Han Chinese]] instead of [[Han Chinese|Chinese]]? For the other changes, I think it's not right to write that "Mao is regarded as a national hero of China" because we probably don't have any reliable data on what Chinese people (and not just the government) think about him. So I agree that the previous wording was vague - if the new one is not right either, do you have any proposition on how we should rewrite it? As for the "fact" tags, I'm not disputing what's written but we still need a source for it. Hopefully someone will come up with one. Laurent (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ok. let's fix it to Han Chinese and label it as such. Cheers ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Laurent (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

The September 11 attacks article is delisted as a GA article, but does that mean it has no class at all until improvements change the status back to GA? I have not seen this situation before, so tell me about how it works. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't know what rating should replace the GA status. However it looks like the article has been rated B-Class by Geometry Guy, so perhaps we could apply that same rating to the other project boxes? Laurent (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons - QI File:Black iPod Nano 4G.jpg candidate

Hiho, I've uploaded newer version of photo which you opposed, can you take a look at the new one? Read my info: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Black_iPod_Nano_4G.jpg. Greetings, Jackzor (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse report on Eeeeeewtw

The long-term abuse project is currently being revamped and integrated with the abuse response project to provide a more effective and centralized project to effectively counter long-term vandalism. As part of this cleanup, old inactive reports are being deleted. I see that you created the report on User:Eeeeeewtw back in May 2009, but from what I can see, this user is no longer active. Could you verify that he is no longer active so we can delete the report? Or, if he still is, please help us update the report. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 13:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

refimprove

Hi Laurent,

You have added a 'refimprove' tag to DirSync Pro page. What does this mean and what is to be done? I'm not sure I get the clue from the documentation. Thnanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogivi (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I added some references. Please confirm if the refimprove could be removed. Thanks!

PS. Question: how do I get my comment 'Singed'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogivi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To sign your comments, just add "~~~~" at the end. Yes I guess there are enough references now so feel free to remove the template. Laurent (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger! Thanks! Ogivi (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gang of Four at trial.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gang of Four at trial.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cradle of civilization

Hi, just heads up, the discussion has been moved to Talk:Cradle of civilization. So far, the IP hasn't yet backed up their claim about "all sources" nor do they seem to understand that there is no worldwide critical consensus on the issue.--The Taerkasten (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

this discussion isn't really going anywhere. I don't know what to do anymore. --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard Friesner page

Hello,

I am unsure if you rejected this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Richard_Friesner based on verifiability or notability. What can I do to improve this article for re-submission?

Thank you. Capitals tp (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was based on notability. In particular, I think it needs at least one or two reliable third-party sources. If I'm not mistaken, the sources provided either come from his own university or don't address his life or work in details (the NY Times is reliable but I don't think a marriage announcement is enough to establish notability). See Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) for more details. Laurent (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Currentlybiscuit. You have new messages at WikiLaurent's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Capitals tp (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Hello, Thanks for your speedy response. However, references 5 through 8 are all independent third-party sources. Specifically, they are the following:

1. ^ "Editorial information for Chemical Biology & Drug Design". Wiley.com. http://www.wiley.com/bw/editors.asp?ref=1747-0277&site=1. Retrieved 2010-11-20.
2. ^ "Schrodinger, Inc. Scientific Advisors page for Richard Friesner". Schrodinger.com. http://www.schrodinger.com/advisors/. Retrieved 2010-11-20.
3. ^ "Sloan Fellowship page". Sloan.org. http://www.sloan.org/fellowships/list/page/2500. Retrieved 2010-11-20.
4. ^ U.S. Patent 5,600,571 and U.S. Patent 7,756,674

Can you please let me know why these are insufficient, and what types of third-party sources are expected? Thanks again. Capitals tp (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A patent is not a reliable source unless it has been covered in reliable third-party sources (for instance, if a newspaper wrote about the patent). The Wiley and Sloan sources are not enough as they are just lists, while sources are expected to address the subject directly in detail (see WP:N). Finally, I think the Schrodinger source is not enough because most researchers have a similar profile on company or university websites. These profiles are useful to get basic information about the person but are not really independent of the subject, I think they are kind of primary sources. Sorry I don't want to block the creation of the article or anything, but my feeling is that if you create this article as it is, it will end up at WP:AFD. Are there any newspaper articles about him, or reviews in academic journal about his work? Laurent (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Stroke order

WikiLaurent, your changes were either preferential wordings, either misleading statements. For stroke order, Asoer (talk · contribs) and myself (Yug (talk · contribs)) already looked at authoritative sources to write down this article, and create illustrations.

You made about 10 specific changes. Some are are misleading, others are preferences. The misleading part is for me in 2 categories:

• the will to speak about an "area", while we are talking about Ministry's standard, we are talking about States, government, not areas. Thus, PRC is better than Mainland (what is Mainland ? include HK? Macao?), and ROC is better than Taiwan (what is Taiwan ?).
• state that [ =Traditional stroke order. This character is also traced that way in mainland China.] is quite courageous, since there was NO stroke order standard in China before PRC, and both stroke orders were thus in free use.

For aesthetics:

• moving |year=1958 is a meaningless change, we can keep it or cancel it.
• Etymology of the character "马" (horse) is quite an unaesthetic move when you compare to the table width.

I thus explained all the revert, but the |year=1958. We can't simplify to geologic area, never be bold enough to state the official order in ancient China. Yug (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the article page - [3] Laurent (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Laurent,

Shortly: I should not have revert your edit, but rather reread carefully the full section (#SO by policy), understand Asoer recent wordings, and fix them carefully.

As you saw, Asoer and myself discussed about your points. It seems I misunderstood your wordings about "traditional", "standard" (usage), and "standardized" (State's norm). Those words are themselves based on Asoer recent [this year] additions. Those confusing wordings are now localized, some improvements have been done, and some further fixing may be need.

Thanks for your interventions which helped to move on and improve this article ! Yug (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think the new section is much clearer now. In particular, the new character on the right illustrates well the different stroke orders. Laurent (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Lewis review

Hello, I have been working with the nominator (User:BabbaQ) on your comments in the GA review of Teresa Lewis. Let us know if the updates to the article have addressed your concerns or if you have any additional recommendations for us. Thank you! KimChee (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Toni Musulin review

Hello, I posted some initial comments in starting the GA review of Toni Musulin. The article appears to require improvement to meet GA criteria. Merci. KimChee (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I picked 7 days as the usual default, but let me know if you need more time. KimChee (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Toni Musulin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Toni Musulin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. KimChee (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Free area of the Republic of China

Let's bring this discussion to the talk page of the article. Meet you there! --Jiang (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Chinese people Wuciou, Kinmen Loose leaf National Revolutionary Martyrs' Shrine Haibao Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee Regional hegemony Gabelsberger shorthand Professional baseball in Taiwan Kaiser Kuo The Battle of the Sexes (1914 film) The Grunt Simplifications to written Chinese in Hong Kong Amir Mokri Tangzhuang Mandate (politics) Juventud Rebelde Chinese Domain Name Consortium Stroke (CJK character)

Cleanup Gregg shorthand Chinese script styles Taiwan independence Merge Section headers of a Chinese dictionary Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese Opening Ceremony of the 11th National Games of the People's Republic of China Add Sources Republic of Taiwan Desinicization Japanese script reform Wikify Craft in the Bay Little Barrie Capital offences in the People's Republic of China Expand Wang Yunwu CKC Chinese Input System Léonie Duquet

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Super-mario-bros-2-usa-characters.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Super-mario-bros-2-usa-characters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl#Chinese New Left POV pushing , and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him. Arilang ^talk 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Beak

Hi Laurent,

I wanted to find out more about the licensing rights. My name has to appear by any of my photos as credit. You didn't mention that, so I wasn't sure.

Cheers, Debi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.119.210 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV reporty on User:Studio guy hervais

Hi, I'm not a fan of his edits, but I don't think AIV is the best venue for this: putting the link to the official website cannot really be considered vandalism. However, whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all is an other question... It doesn't seem notable at first glance. I'm not sure of the inclusion criteria for places. -- Luk ^talk 17:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi, if you have the time could you please check out my GA-nomination for the Murder of Sian O'Callaghan article. You have reviewed the article Teresa Lewis that I nominted in the past. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eli Craig

The article Eli Craig has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

American Tragedy

Thank you for your comment. My reasoning in putting "mixed to positive" for the album is based off of the Metacritic score, which is 59. This is only two points shy of "generally favorable reviews". The margin being so close to positive makes it statistically justified to put mixed to positive on the article. Also, no source credible enough to be included by Metacritic, a trusted aggregate, has given a negative review. There have been 4 mixed reviews and 2 positive reviews, no negative. Therefore, I believe the mixed to positive should be kept. As for putting "perfect", I only did that once to indicate that the score, 5 out of 5, was a perfect score. I have no justification other than that so if you believe it not to be neutral then it may be deleted. This also goes for the Wu Tang and other references, I simply wanted to add comparisons from reviewers. GroundZ3R0 002 04:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

about Flag of Taiwan

Hello WikiLaurent,

I'd like to claim that this is not about historical flag of Taiwan.

1. The article of flag of Taiwan is NOT talking about historical flag of Taiwan. It talks about all flags about Taiwan during all history period, including historical and current.

2. In zh-edition of Flag of Taiwan(台灣國旗), it includes Flag of the Republic of China section, which can prove the part of Flag of the Republic of China inside this article is correct and suitable after a lot of discussion to make content fair and reliable.

3.In English edition of Flag of Taiwan, Whether the Flag of the Republic of China section should be removed is needed to discuss.

I respect your right of revising, and remember to discuss before making big changes.

kind regard David30930 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)