User talk:Mistakefinder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Mistakefinder, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- IRP 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to drop you a short note as to why I reverted the recent edit that you made to Gene Simmons. Although the band normally spells Kiss in all caps, it is part of the Manual of Style to treat trademarks as words and not use all caps. This is explained in MoS:TM, Kiss is even one of the provided examples. Cheers, J04n(talk page) 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, changed it. J04n(talk page) 01:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Makiyo[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

redirect to another language wikipedia? Not how we do things.

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. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ambox warning pn.svg

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Makiyo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cnilep (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, November 9, 1989[edit]

Imbox notice.png

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, November 9, 1989. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - November 9. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at November 9 - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for Deletion[edit]

Dear Mistakefinder, to answer the question from my talk page, for Z-Chen I think the issue that lead people to think he's not notable is lack of coverage in English-language media. There are actually a whole mess of rules/standards on this stuff. See WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:MUSICBIO and related pages. As for your concern about similar artists who have not been deleted, see also WP:OTHERSTUFF. A person's vote in these debates is supposed to be impartial and without prejudice, and I don't think everybody on Wikipedia behaves that way, but most do. So there's no hatred toward Z-Chen, hopefully, but people just concluded that he is not (yet) notable enough for Wikipedia. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Please see response, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#China and Taiwan map in Cross Relations article.

If you do need more help with anything, please use the {{helpme}} here, on your own talk page. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Local churches (affiliation)[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to explain that I undid your edit over at Local churches (affiliation) - I appreciate your desire to wikify things and to make sure there are informative links for people to jump to, but in this case, there were just too many links :) We try to pick our links carefully so that whatever *is* linked to is relevant to the article and will enhance the reader's understanding of it. If you want to read more about what is considered overlinking (along with policy on links in general), please click here. Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

Your approach has promise. For the moment, I'm going to change national flag to civil ensign, "under" to "in", and "is the business" to "describes the business". I have a feeling that "that registrant" and "sovereign state" could be polished. Cheers. HausTalk 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial usage of "country"[edit]

I invite you to provide a reliable source and/or discuss it further. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Two Chinas[edit]

Hi, your edits clearly state Two Chinas, this POV is contradicted by both the "One China" and the "One China, One Taiwan" POVs. T-1000 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Anyone interested in this discussion, please go to the China discussion page. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Taiwan (false)[edit]

On 23-May, you tagged Republic of Taiwan (false) with {{rfd}}, but you did not complete the nomination by listing it at WP:RFD. Can you please complete the second step of the nomination per the instructions at the WP:RFD page? If you do not list it within a reasonable amount of time, I'll assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the template. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JLaTondre. I've completed the RFD listing. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan, China[edit]

Hi, from here: [1], the convention states to "As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."" T-1000 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Here, you linked the word 'fortnight' under the guise of "wikification'. The word has no salience to the subject of the article; all you are doing is supplying a potential dictionary definition. Please refer to WP:OVERLINK. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

    • You're right. Thanks for the pointing to the guidelines. I'll revert it. I was thinking it wasn't a commonly used word (at least in the US). Perhaps it's much used in the British Commonwealth world? Mistakefinder (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Military occupation[edit]

That text is problematic for more reasons than its being unsourced. It is a total fringe position held by no one except some KMT extremists that China is under military occupation. (So I don't believe that you can find reliable sources saying that directly; otherwise I would have just slapped a {{citation needed}} tag on there) There's a better case to be made that Taiwan is under military occupation, since the world's governments basically recognize the PRC as the legitimate government of China and China's position on Taiwan, but making that argument is not my intention. Shrigley (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're no longer saying that Taiwan claims the mainland. However, you still don't have a source that says China considers Taiwan "occupied territory". Also, your last sentence about "Taiwanese [living] under long-term threat and fear of war" is still hyperbolic and not neutral. Shrigley (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think such feelings are necessary to mention at all. The article is supposed to be about occupied territory, and it should only really discuss the legal aspect. Shrigley (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The text looks good now! Merry Christmas to you too. Shrigley (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Why revert my edit of Taiwan?[edit]

  • Post-recent-move, the article is now also about the island of Taiwan, so no hatnote is needed for it.
  • I agree that normally using less generic hatnote templates would be preferable. However, the hatnotes need to include their reason for existence, which would make them repetitive in this case:
"Republic of China" redirects here. For other uses, see Republic of China (disambiguation).
"Republic of China" redirects here. It is not to be confused with People's Republic of China.

Hence the combined generic {{hatnote}}, to avoid saying "Republic of China" redirects here twice. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, joining in because I've reverted your hatnote at Geography of Taiwan. The purpose of a hatnote is to help people who arrive at an article by mistake find the article they were really after. No-one is going to arrive at Geography of Taiwan when they're looking for the country (unless they've followed a misdirected link, in which case it's the link that needs fixing). Kanguole 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC) To Cybercobra and Kanguole,

  • Is the island article being merged into the former ROC article? I didn't see the concensus on merge. Only saw that all island related entries [Island of Taiwan, Taiwan (island),etc.] redirected to Geography of Taiwan. So seems it's necessary to clarify it's on the Geog of Taiwan island, not Taiwan/ROC as a whole?

Cyber, I'll need to revert yours to restore my paragraph, then I'll keep your hatnote. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NAMB explains the issue. It's implausible that anyone looking for the country would go to "Geography of Taiwan", "Island of Taiwan" or "Taiwan (island)". Kanguole 09:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (island) was indeed merged (by others) into Taiwan prior to being redirected to Geography of Taiwan. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court[edit]

Regarding your addition to the lead in the Supreme Court of the United States: we used to have a mention of the SCOTUS abbreviation in the lead. After discussion it was decided to remove it. That's why I directed you to the archive. See also the more extensive discussion in the current talk page. First: you should not simply state that it is used "often" without references. Second: the press does not seem to use the abbreviation much, though it is somewhat common in Blogs aimed at professionals (but even such sites as SCOTUSBlog usually uses "The Court" when talking about it). Of the many things that the Supreme Court is called (e.g., "the High Court", "the Court", "the Supreme Court", "the Supremes") SCOTUS is just not that common outside a particularly narrow circle. I'm posting essentially this in the talk page, perhaps we can discuss it there. Magidin (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Coronary arteries WP:DABCONCEPT violation[edit]

Please note that disambiguating Coronary arteries appears to create a WP:DABCONCEPT violation. I would suggest restoring the previous redirect to Coronary circulation. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


What is it, precisely, that you want to add that you don't feel is adequately covered by the previous version? The history section has a much more detailed and nuanced explanation of the issue, and we already spend one paragraph in the lead talking about it...

Consider replying with what you're trying to say in Chinese? :/ Aside from generally finding it unnecessary, I'm also confused by what you're trying to say with your new paragraph. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Division of China listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Division of China. Since you had some involvement with the Division of China redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)