User talk:Takeaway

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

Talk archives:

Thai political protest photos[edit]

First, I just wanted to give you a heads up and further explanation about my edit. I understand and fully appreciate the photos you have been adding to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons to document these events, and that you are attempting to show the event fully on our article. However, the number of photos was excessive compared to the length of the section and really, the article as a whole. They expanded clear down beyond not only the references, but also extended well beyond into empty space. We have links to Wikimedia Commons expressely for the purposes of having galleries of photos and other media. The Wikipedia article does not need to feature every single photo that was have about the subject.

Now, saying that, feel free to change the two pictures I have left on the article. I simply chose what I believe were the most informative photos, but I have no problem with you choosing photos that you think better fit the article. However, just please try and keep the number of photos about the same. The359 (Talk) 06:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I was actually hoping that the article would catch up some time soon but apparently, that's not happening. ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Similarly to the above, but regarding the Thailand article, I thought the change you made to a photo caption, and a photo you added and its caption, amounted to adding a viewpoint that was not entirely neutral as per the WP:NPOV guidelines. Also, the Thailand article is a general overview of the country and not a "Breaking news" article, and adding more photos about the current conflict seems to me to be weighting it unduly towards that specific subject. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • It seemed to me that describing a rally where nothing violent happened as "peaceful" to contrast it with the present violent situation is not really POV. I can imagine that some people might think so though. As for "breaking news": I added the photo of the (peaceful) March 20 rally on March 20 itself and apparently that was not seen as being breaking news. I guess "breaking news" just depends on who happens to work on an article at a certain moment and perhaps too on the content of the "breaking news". - Takeaway (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. I've no objection to just removing the word "peaceful". Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I'll just sit this edit out, just as I am now sitting out today's violence inside my hotel. Too dangerous to go out where I am! Regards - Takeaway (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've just had a look, and I can't see the word "peaceful" anywhere in the article -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess that was because no one found the March 20 rally of that photograph, which attracted 65.000 red shirt supporters from all over Thailand, important enough to mention in the article. The only mentioning of that rally in the Thailand article is through that one photo. ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the article is just an overview of the country, not a detailed account of the current political problems - there is a main article on that subject that goes into it in greater detail -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Rereading the Thailand#Political crisis section, I am thinking that the sentence "backed financially by fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra" is a bit POV actually. Even though it is well-known that he backs some of them, not all people receive money from him and joined the movement out of pure conviction. - Takeaway (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it would benefit from a reference, certainly, but I really don't think anyone is actually disputing Thaksin's financial support (not even you), and it seems pretty factual to me - it certainly makes no claim that he gives money to everyone (I don't doubt that many people have joined the movement out of pure conviction - some members of my family have, for example - but that is in no way contradictory to the fact that Thaksin provides financial support to the red shirt movement). -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • How about changing "a set of new violent protests by Red Shirts opposition supporters, backed financially by fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra have..." in to "a set of new violent protests by the Red Shirts opposition movement, backed financially by fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra have...". That the "movement" is backed by Thaksin is without doubt, I just oppose the word "supporters" as it makes it sound as if the supporters are doing it only for the money they receive. As it is written now it sounds so "yellow shirt". Regards - Takeaway (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I like that better - "movement" is more factually specific. Please do make it so ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! I will. Take care, - Takeaway (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, in the edit summary for the article I accidentally wrote "changed to more POV wording" where I meant to write "more NPOV". - Takeaway (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, no worries - keep yourself safe (I'm away from Thailand myself right now) -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, apparently the army is at this moment sweeping the soi in front of my hotel, and shots are fired. I'll not go out for a look. - Takeaway (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Thai political protests: A man shot "by the army": why leave that part out?[edit]


I have changed the image caption and removed the unverified claim that the man in the image was shot by the army. I am sure that this probably was the case, but there is no citation evidence that this was actually the case. Mootros (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Next time I will ask the wounded people on my photos to sign a testimony and subject it with the photograph as to who had shot them to satisfy this citation-lust. - Takeaway (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should also remove the wording that he was shot as it might have been possible that he had tripped over a banana peel. - Takeaway (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, I think you did a great job taking those pictures and providing them to the community. Thank you! Have a look at the captions in the guardian [1]. They are really descriptive of the images themselves. The rest is left to the reader/ viewer. Again, thank you. Take care. All the best, Mootros (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I also see unverified claims in the descriptions of the photos in the Guardian. Where can you see that the zone the monk is walking through is a "sniper fire zone" as I don't see any snipers on the photo? Where can you see that the street is deserted where the man is resting as the rest of the street isn't shown on the photo? As for the photo of kids sleeping in the temple, yes, I see kids but where is the temple? That the man in my photo was shot by the Thai army just 50 meters away and not by some one else (the "red shirts" are some 500 meters away) is so obvious that asking for a citation for this photo verges on the absurd. - Takeaway (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: banana peel Hmm, I see the joke.. But honestly, how about: "Injured protester carried away to safety" Although we have plenty of citations that state shooting of people by the army has happened (and people have died as a result), the problem is linking this to a specific image that is a primary source here. The image in light of all the evidence speak more then a caption can do. What do you think? Mootros (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Guardian. Yes, you are right, but the Guardian image captions trying to limit this within reason. The captions are short and tend to capture what you see. This was really just an example of style. However, your image I would say is a type of primary source. If you read this, in wikipedia this should be substantiated with secondary sources. Mootros (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that claiming that this man was shot by the army is also "within reason" and citing primary source where it states "though primary sources are permitted if used carefully", my interpretation of this sentence is that one can write something which is not backed up by a citation if it is obvious that it is so. As you wrote earlier "I am sure that this probably was the case". But I can also agree to the wording "A severely wounded protester is carried away from Rama 4 road to safety" as one of my other photos on wikimedia shows that he is indeed severely wounded as he is covered with blood, and one can see, if one knows Bangkok, that it is indeed also Rama 4 road. And if one clicks on my photo to enlarge it, one can still read what I saw there. - Takeaway (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this, but trying to be careful I would avoid "army". I really like the caption you suggested now. Excellent! Please go ahead, if you may. Many thanks for this conversation. Mootros (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I might have to state here that I am absolutely not a red shirt supporter but I also have to state that I am not a supporter of the Thai government's use of the extremely euphemistic terms as to what they are having the Thai army do and the rumours which have been started that so-called "mysterious outsiders" are the people who were responsible for deaths as it contradicts what I have seen. It is therefore that I protested when I saw that the captions in Wikipedia had been watered down. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. I have not doubt so ever that this person was shot by the army. I deplore the use of violence.
However, Wikipedia is not about taking sides, believing or disbelieving someone. Instead it is about facts. We have overwhelming evidence of the government's use of the army that kills protesters by using live ammunition. Verified fact! In order to maintain this credibility, we should really stick to the facts. The caption of the actual image you upload to the commons if perfectly fine and should stay there as your testimony. In the article, however, I would be careful. It is not "watered down", it is descriptive. Such neutral description is much more powerful than a fact that has no secondary source on this specific instance. It also would avoid writing captions like: Example of man shot by army. Images in the end in Wikipeadia articles are to illustrate. This image does a brilliant job in doing this. See the caption like an aid for visual impaired readers explaining what one sees. That's all there is to a caption. Mootros (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Bulletproof Barnstar.PNG The Bulletproof Barnstar
In recognition of your contributions to 2010 Thai military crackdown, in which you risked your own personal safety, I award you the Bulletproof Barnstar. Your photography is in keeping with the highest standards of Wikipedia, and I thank you for it. Stay safe out there. - Kafziel Complaint Department 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This is really the strangest barnstar I have seen! Thank you! - Takeaway (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are the first recipient. The photographer's barnstar didn't seem sufficient, so I created this instead. There's a big difference between taking a photo of a statue in a park and taking a photo of a protester during a riot, and I think it's high time we had something to recognize that in some small way. And I'm glad to see you got out safely. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that award too - outstanding photographic service in a dangerous situation -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel honoured but I feel that this barnstar really has to go to the ordinary Thai people on both sides of the divide for looking out for my safety, for their kindness and generosity, and for their readiness to rather sacrifice themselves than let an outsider such as me, a guest in their country, come to harm. It is this unique quality of the Thai people from which the rest of the world can learn a lesson. I truly hope that the people of Thailand can find a way to sort out their country's internal problems without having to resort to these measures ever again. - Takeaway (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Extremely well said -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Forgive me if I was wrong to do so, but I have reverted your revert of an anon. user, who is blocked now, if I'm not wrong. But why remove the refimprove when there are no references? Brambleclawx 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I routinely reverted all the "refimprove" templates which the blocked user had placed all over wikipedia as they were placed in an arbitrary manner by said user. I had overlooked the fact that the article to which you refer, didn't have references at all! So thanks for reverting my revert. - Takeaway (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Brambleclawx 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Himesh Reshammiya. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You could possibly break the three-revert rule. HelpingHandTalk 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning! :) - Takeaway (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Panang Curry[edit]

Why was that one picture "fake?"--Nessie (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This picture was "fake" as it wasn't at all like phanaeng curry in Thailand. Phanaeng curry is one of the few curries in Thailand to which Thai cooks would never add vegetables to accompany the main protein (meat or seafood) of the dish. It is garnished only with sliced chillies, shredded kaffir lime leaves and sometimes also some Thai basil (horapha). I think that the Thai restaurant in Melbourne which made the dish in that photo serves it this way because adding in vegetables increases the volume of the dish without being too costly, and, due to the the western tendency of often only eating the one dish that one has ordered instead of sharing several dishes as is usual in Thailand, adding in vegetables would also give a more "balanced" helping. As such it is not a "real" phanaeng curry but a meat and vegetable stir-fry with phanaeng sauce made for a western market. - Takeaway (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like information that would be best added to the article, which is about all versions of the curry and not just the original Thai version. Especially because the phanaeng curry article is thin in content and could use another informative section. I'm sure I'm not the only reader who does not know this information. Are there similar differences in other curries? --Nessie (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of concentrating all Thai curry articles in to one large article as all the separate articles are, as you yourself have noticed with this one about phanaeng, very thin. Seeing that the western concept of "curry" differs in many ways from that which the Thais describe as "kaeng" (which is normally translated as curry in the West), I think merging all the separate articles in to one would make the whole concept behind "kaeng" (Thai curry) much more clear. I'm not sure when exactly I'll start writing the all-in-one Thai curry article, but it will probably be this coming winter. Regards, - Takeaway (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't view the "fake version" of phanaeng, as was featured on the now-removed photo, as being phanaeng curry at all and I therefore believe that it should not feature in the article. It would be like adding a photo of a generic supermarket-bought frozen pizza to an article about real Neapolitan pizza and calling the frozen pizza a "version" or "variation" of the real thing. Furthermore, every part of the world makes their "fake" versions of Thai curries. If you have ever seen dishes that pass for a Thai curry in Japan for instance, then even the Australian dish would seem authentic! I think it would be best to only describe what a real Thai curry should be like and not show what it should not be like unless a specific "fake version" has become so commonplace as to be notable enough to have it mentioned as was, for instance, the case with several "fake" Bolognese sauces. - Takeaway (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC
But there is no separate article for Neapolitan pizza, only for pizza. If a cook makes a poor version of a dish, it is still that dish, even if is not the best or most authentic version. The bar may be lower other places, but bad phanaeng curry in japan is still a phanaeng curry, I don't think it's distinct enough to be even Japanese-style phanaeng curry. --Nessie (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding pictures of non-authentic dishes does not illustrate what a dish should be like, which I presume is what readers come to look for here on wikipedia. The fake phanaengs also lack notability as they haven't established themselves as commonplace yet. I don't think that there is one Thai restaurant in, for instance, Australia that advertises itself as making real "Australian style Thai-inspired food" as yet. I wouldn't opt giving that much attention to what a dish shouldn't be like in each individual article. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the main Thai cuisine page that outside of Thailand, dishes often are not served at all authentic due to lack of authentic ingredients and/or due to the adaptation to local tastes or dining habits. - Takeaway (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Re the new cat - adding the bit at the end of them - cheers SatuSuro 10:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for creating the new category. - Takeaway (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Dont let me start - I am very concerned that too many categories, templates, and articles are asian when the southeast asian, south asian, east asian, and central asian should be separated for a whole range of reasons SatuSuro 12:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I had started out doing that too for a couple of categories in wikimedia commons but there is still lots more to do! It's a good way of staying out of mischief though... - Takeaway (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for undoing my edit. I don't know why, but I thought the template redirected back to {{commons}}. I guess I got a little trigger happy. DKqwerty

No problem! Hmmm... I had accidentally described the commons|Pancake page as being empty... it wasn't actually but it only seemed that way to me due to a temporary glitch in my internet service. I always prefer the "commonscat' template, as very often the "commons" template leads to a very small and outdated selection of images. Especially for 1st-time users this can be confusing as they wouldn't know that there are many more images available if they'd scroll down and click on the category. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Please read my reason for deleting your graphic additions. A good test to see if your material will hold up would be to add a similar addition to the Bangkok article, a city whose international reputation mirrors Pattaya. Further, you can try to get a consensus on the talk page to get other opinions as to the appropriateness of your material for the Pattaya article. The Pattaya city officials have an ongoing campaign to promote the city as a family destination. It is possible your type of additions could harm this campaign and further tarnish the reputation of the city. รัก-ไทย (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please carefully read WP:NOTCENSORED before trying to delete the text for the 3rd time. - Takeaway (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Neither "an ongoing campaign to promote the city as a family destination" not the possibility of "harm[ing] this campaign and further tarnish[ing] the reputation of the city" are valid reasons to remove cited information from wikipedia. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Opps, thought I was on Rak-Tai's talk page. They have a long history of POV edits, so I've been keeping track to build a case. Keep up the good work! Kuguar03 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem! I've also noticed the POV edits. Thanks for the thumbs-up! Takeaway (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I suddenly realise why User:Rak-Tai was so keen on keeping the Pattaya article censored and devoid of any mention of, in his own words, "..every type of perversion listed on Google....prostitution, homosexuality, pickpockets, murder, rape, corruption, and sexual perversion". It was because Rak-Tai had linked the Pattaya article as being where the Thailand office of "Johannes Maas (missionary)" (an article Rak-Tai wrote but which has been deleted as being about a non-notable person) is located. In the remake of the Johannes Maas article, one can see that Pattaya is no longer linked as to where the Thai office is, but Chonburi Province. So it's not really because of his concern for the city's reputation, it was mainly because of his concern for Johannes Maas' reputation. - Takeaway (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice photo[edit]

I do like this :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks there Boing! I'm assuming you are referring to my last photo? I'm very happy with it too. Pure luck really as I was actually doing some shopping in the area. And having the new Nikon D7000 does help. - Takeaway (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one (I linked it in the "this"). While "being there" is certainly part of a good photo, "seeing it" is a vital skill that a lot of people don't have. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you had indeed linked it only after I posted the reply. Just back from having a few beers so not very alert at the moment... ;-)
I also just read your contribution on the Pattaya talk page. Thanks for the support! - Takeaway (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global storm activity of late 2010[edit]

Given your activity in the article, I thought I'd let you know I am put it up for articles for deletion. Hurricanehink (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


You might have seen me rejecting your request to block User:Siswick on WP:AIV as insufficiently warned. I noticed that I'd missed him removing the warnings from his talk page about half a second after I hit Save Page. I have now blocked the account as being used only for vandalism. --GraemeL (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You at least did notice it after double checking the vandal's edits. Thanks! - Takeaway (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom yum[edit]

Interesting, can you give me a link to an Authentic Thai Tom Yum Soup made without chili paste, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaiadd (talkcontribs) 14:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can, as the original basic Tom yam is made only with fresh herbs which you can buy as a whole package in any Thai (super)market. Here are a few very good recipes for authentic Tom yam soups -> recipe 1, recipe 2, recipe 3 and recipe 4. As you can see, only recipe 2 mentions "nam phrik phao", which for non-Thais is also sometimes called "chilli jam". It is a sweet, fried chilli paste which can be used in Tom yam but, as one of my Thai relatives tells me, is purely optional and depending on the family's preference. My own family uses nam phrik phao (NB: this is not the so-called "tom yam paste" but a chilli paste which is also used for other dishes such as phla mu or for phat nam phrik phao dishes and, nowadays, also as a spread on bread), but this in-law of mine is absolutely abhorred by the fact that my family puts this in the Tom yam at all. The so-called "tom yam paste", which according to you is absolutely essential, never features in any true Thai recipe and is only used outside of Thailand due to the lack of fresh ingredients or due to the marketing of the processed food companies. - Takeaway (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, i think i've got your point. People outside Thailand often use such instant things to make tom yum like Lobo paste. In this case you're right - Thais don't use it. But your're still not right saying that tom yam can be made without stir-fried chili, onion and other herb in vegetable oil. It will be just a boiled chicken stock with galangal, lemongras and kaffir lime leaves. Maybe such version of tom yum exists and maybe this version is the real Authentic Thai Tom Yum Soup, but most of cooks at streets cook it with self-made chili paste (or chili in oil or nam prik pao). Therefore i suggest to leave my variant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaiadd (talkcontribs) 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of Nam phrik phao is already mentioned in the text. It is, as I already said, not the same as the so-called tom yam paste. And it is, as is shown in the recipes, not essential at at all. - Takeaway (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As a visitor to this Talk page for another purpose (see below) I can comment that not long ago I stood in a Tesco Lotus in Bangkok and watched locals buy various packets of Lobo spice mixes (of which there are several dozen different types) by the armful (I bought some myself). This includes the one for Tom Yum stock. The idea that Thais don't use this stuff in Thailand, is ridiculous. According to my grandmotherly native Thai companion, these days time-chunched Thais use Lobo spices more than not. Times change. SBHarris 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I only just now saw this edit. Yes, of course time-crunched Thais will use ready made packages but the issue was not about the use or non-use of those pre-packaged Tom Yam paste, it was because that paste was mistaken for being Nam phrik phao. - Takeaway (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Three Parallel Rivers size ?[edit]

Re: Your images size question on my talk page for the Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas article.
I gently ask you the same question, but regarding 'small pictures' and untidy look? At 300px they are 'exactly' the same width as the infobox on my average sized screen. Your 252px size is smaller in column width creating an "untidy lay-out" here. I strongly share your concern for simple and clean image integration, and appreciate your efforts. I am quite ignorant on how articles appear differently on small and large screens, being only aware that where an [image:jpg|info] is pasted into an outline can affect image-text flow. It seems that on my screen 300px gives the same clean order 252px gives your on screen? Are there any wiki-editor-tool-articles on this? best—Look2See1 t a l k → 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've checked my lay-out on HD screens (1920 pixels wide), on a notebook screen of 1024 pixels wide, and on an iPad. As I think that perhaps the discrepency between how you see the lay-out and how I see it, might be caused by the browser, I checked that too. For my computers using Windows as their operating system, I used Windows Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and also Opera. The iPad uses Safari. In all instances, the image lay-out from my edit comes out alligned, whereas your lay-out continues to be misalligned. Which operating system and browser do you use? And also, did you perhaps configure Wikipedia to show you its content in a specific lay-out scheme? I have set Wikipedia to show everything in its standard lay-out. - Takeaway (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrawaddy Ecology[edit]

Scherp opgemerkt over die Irrawaddy dolfijn, dat heb ik er al heel lang geleden verkeerd ingezet! Groeten, Pim Rijkee (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hainanese chicken rice[edit]

Thanks for catching my mistake. The vandal added the info back twice. I didn't revert far back enough. Cheers to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! - Takeaway (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

New category[edit]

You may check out the category:Thai dried fish. I shll upload more in a day or two, tomorrow and on Sunday I might be busy. The quality of some of the pictures is not good because it was inside the market, no flash, people wondering what I do, and so on. In one of the pictures there are some fish in a circle which may be the "pla wong" you mentioned. The pictures are from different places; don't pay attention to the dates. Some are from Ratchaburi district, some from near Lopburi and some from Bangkok. Xufanc (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll show it to some of my friends and see if we can figure them out. This might take a week or so as I'll be travelling a bit around Northern Thailand myself this weekend, away from my home in Chiang Mai. - Takeaway (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You were right about the nam chim. I don't know why I wrote nam phrik. I am writing to tell you that I have uploaded most of the dried fish pictures I have. Xufanc (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
We looked at a few of the photos and hopefully were helpfull at correctly identifying some of the fish. Everyone is pretty tired now because, as is usual in Thailand, seeing photos of food led to discussions on how best to cook the ingredients. We'll get back to drinking again and continue identifiying the images at a later date. - Takeaway (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Salé[edit]

Hi Takeaway.

I haven't a clue about the revision of Salé. If you look at my contributions, it will confirm that I did not revert your edit. I know nothing about the subject, and also respect your edits and would not reverse them. I do not know how my name could be used for an edit I did not make. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did look at your contributions (see this here) and it clearly indicates that you (or someone using your account) incorrectly reverted one of my edits as being vandalism. If you didn't do that yourself, I would advise you to try and find out how it could have mysteriously come to pass that someone else used your account to do it. - Takeaway (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed that the revert shows up on my page. On that day I made an edit on Somerset Christian College, an article on my watch list. How the other edit got there, I do not have any idea. I am in Thailand and use only my laptop to edit. No one else has access to my computer. If this happens again perhaps I can trace it. I assure you I have no knowledge of or interest in Salé, and further after our prior conflicts, would not revert any of your edits without first informing you. This one will go in my mystery file. Sorry you were inconvenienced. รัก-ไทย (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Thailand[edit]

The article itself is very messy and needs to be cleaned up, it also seems to be a bit bias by putting Abraham Religions numbers corresponding to the amount of worshippers and not giving Indian religions the same. So based on the articles work I had to assume that Sikhism would be the fourth largest in religion and Thailand. --Schmeater (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Schmeater talk - Takeaway (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I suggest making the article like this one here: Religion in Canada. The article itself is inspiring to other articles and also gives awareness to people planning on going to Thailand or learning more information on it, hence the encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. --Schmeater (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources that will back your edits, please do. As to your remark that the Indian religions, apart from Buddhism of course, do not feature in the Religion in Thailand article with numbers, as is the case for the Abrahamic religions: this is not so much a matter of biase, it is more due to the lack of any reliable numbers for those Indian religions concerned. - Takeaway (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on my page[edit]

I am acquainted with the information you have provided. You seem to have singled out my contributions for more reason than just editorial correction. Could you have an ulterior reason for your scrutiny of my edits? This may be covered under this section [Wikipedia:Harassment]. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked your edits way back when we had a disagreement on your censorship on the Pattaya and the Prostitution in Thailand articles. It naturally made me sceptical about your other edits, checking them for similar behaviour. I thus stumbled on to your article about Worldwide Faith Missions. It would seem that you are very closely associated with this organisation to say the least, and also, certain assertions you made on that article would seem to need citations to back them as they seem quite bold. I therefore tagged both the Worldwide Faith Missions and the related Mission of Mercy Magazine articles for conflict of interest issues and for needing additional citations for some of the content. As to you assessing the importance and quality of an article that you yourself wrote, this too is quite unusual. - Takeaway (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving Wikipedia. My time is valuable, and your constant tinkering with and changing my edits clearly constitutes harassment and a vendetta against me. Good luck in choosing your next victim. With editors like you, you will soon have a monopoly, having viewed the others that you harass. Rak-Tai from my iPhone — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If you truly think that I am harassing you, please take it up with the moderators instead of accusing me of all sorts of things. I have only applied Wikipedia rules and regulations. Rules and regulations which are there to safeguard against censorship and conflict of interest issues from people such as you. I wish you luck in your other ventures and I hope you are more successful in getting what you want there than you have been here in Wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I actually lost a bet. I counted on you putting up a bit of a fight but my friend said you'd run away after having been found out. I guess I owe my friend a beer now. - Takeaway (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Put up a fight with the likes of you? This little story: There was a well-dressed man who was kicked by a jackass. He got up from the dusty road, brushed the dust off, and walked on. An onlooker asked why he didn't get angry and retaliate. He calmly replied, "I just consider the source." รัก-ไทย (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You are very childish in your insults. I feel very much like the well-dressed man in your story now. ;-) Bye bye! - Takeaway (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or not[edit]

Thanks for your message and for the wikilink. According to the first line of Wikipedia:Vandalism that edit in question was a vandalism, then if we want to have a look at all other possible aspects of these edits I dont have a problem (my last edit wasnt taged as "vandalism") but allow me that it "...compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.." by leaving uncomplete information. Overall, before a user act for an edit like the one we talking about, he should have posted at least two lines in the "Talk Page" and not bypass the rest of the comunity by wrongly electing himself to the judge of the matter and change the meaning of the paragraf. Greatings! :-) --Sal73x (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

i don't see any problem at all having Palestinian Territories mentioned in the Mediterranean sea article. I don't understand why you do. They were always mentioned in that article until some anti-Palestinian person removed it. - Takeaway (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Disregard the previous. I was obviously not very alert at that moment. The person who removed it was indeed a vandal. Thank you for setting it right. - Takeaway (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for your work always appreciated. --Sal73x (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Please, don't accuse me to be a vandal again. The criteria is "sovereign countries", not only cities. Thank you. Kordas (sínome!) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two criteria: "Capital cities of sovereign countries AND major cities (municipalities) with populations over 200,000". Please stop removing Gaza city as it meets the criterium of having more than 200,000 inhabitants. - Takeaway (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mueang and Mang[edit]

A "Mueang" (Thai: เมือง) is an administrative division in Thailand, whereas the "Mang" in Mangrai is written differently in Thai (written as มัง) and has, as far as I know, no meaning. I have reverted your edits to Chiang Rai as you seem to have gotten these two mixed up. - Takeaway (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mueang = Mu'ang = Muang = (Thai: เมือง) is certainly part of the name for an adminstrative division, but it's an older word that simply means "land" as in "Muang Thai." More specifically it once referred to the best type of land, a bit of flat land at the bottom of a gentle basin, perfect for growing rice without irrigation: [2]. As for King Mangrai, if you Google "Muang Rai" you can find him (for example [3]) named as "Phya Muang Rai" as founder of Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, but his name transliterated this way instead of Mangrai, and they presumably are thinking that he was named as "King of the Land." But that may be a false etymology since as you point out, his name is at best a contraction of that. So I don't really know if the "Mueang" in Mueang Chiang Rai refers to the king or the province ("chiang" of cource means city or village). If it refers to province only, the Chiang Rai article should point that out at the beginning, instead of starting by saying that "Mueang Chiang Rai" is a name of the city! SBHarris 23:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
To use the transcription from Thai to Latin script as a way of explaining the possible etymology of the Thai words เมือง (mueang = town) and มัง (mang = part of the name of king Mangrai) is hardly reliable. Having seen too many different (and sometimes very personal) transcriptions of Thai, I stopped presuming anything. Very often these transcriptions are based on mishearing someone pronouncing the Thai word. - Takeaway (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for correcting my silly error. I don't know what I was thinking! I'm trying to "clean up" and focus the Curry article. Hope you'll continue to participate from time to time, especially regarding Thailand! Yankeecook (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Danube basin[edit]

Hi, do you have a more specific link to confirm that Poland is classified as part of the Danube's basin? Thanks --Sal73x (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it. The document sais that Poland ammounts for <0.1% of the Daunube's basin. A bit of a joke but is still a fact that I can't argue. Thanks for pointing out. --Sal73x (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

KnightxxArrow (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user had added Khmer script to a lot of Thailand-related articles. I think the majority of them are irrelevance. He added Khmer script to Thai province articles. Just wonder how it would be like if we also added Thai script to Khmer province articles. (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, such as the border regions of Thailand which have a large Khmer population, it would seem fairly appropriate. Adding it to, for instance, Sukhothai is a more difficult case. Sukhothai started out as a Mon/Khmer outpost before becoming a Thai kingdom. If the user can prove with a reference that what is being added was the historical, original, Khmer name, it would seem correct. But if the user is only adding the modern Khmer name, then it should be removed. See for instance the article for Jinghong in Yunnan, China. This also has the Thai name added to it because it historically was a Tai city. - Takeaway (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It is even worse, at least for Surat Thani the Khmer name added was totally bogus - it was claimed the province had a Khmer name (which is basically nothing but the Thai name written in Khmer and then romanized like a Khmer name) way before the 20th century. But the province was named Chaiya until 1915, the name Surat Thani did not exist at all before. Thus I do not trust this editor at all, it much more looks like the pathetic, but sadly normal Thai-Khmer fighting over which country has more history, which country falsely occupies territory on which the other had older rights. andy (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Surat Thani having been called Soreach Theani over 500 years ago does indeed seem very far-fetched. I randomly chose Udon Thani from the user's edits and saw that there too the romanised version of the Khmer pronunciation had been added. This would seem totally inappropriate as it is a very new city, built upon what was until a century a village with a completely different name and only receiving its name in 1936CE/2479BE. The editor in question only seems to have started randomly adding romanised modern Cambodian names to some 20 or so articles on localities in Thailand from May 16 onwards so it's still manageable to revert them by hand. I would suggest that an official warning would be sent to this user to stop adding modern Cambodian names unless the user can provide sources that it is either a true historical Khmer name from when a locality was part of the Khmer empire, or a present-day name used by the locality's Thai-Khmer residents. - Takeaway (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Cordial wiki-greetings to all! I too have noticed this editor's activities and have been reverting and/or correcting all I find. However, I do believe that the Khmer names of Surin, Sisaket, and Buriram provinces are relevant because of the large present-day Khmer population and the historical connections. Those three articles are the extent of what I wish include.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Greetings too! Adding the Khmer names to those provinces which have significant Thai-Khmer populations would indeed seem appropriate. I just wish there was a way to find (a) reliable source(s) for the name used by the Thai-Khmer population itself, instead of just a romanised version of the Cambodian pronunciation of the Thai name as these two might not coincide. The former would seem very appropriate, the latter less so. - 12:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for copy editing some of food articles of my interest such as Bubur ayam, Dank je wel.., cheers..!Gunkarta (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thank you for writing them! If you think that any new articles that you write need CE, just send me a message. I like reading about (Southeast Asian) food so I know I will enjoy editing those articles. - 14:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Fried egg. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are continuing to add unsourced information to articles that have already been tagged for this issue--in this case this September 2010. Except in the cases where you are deleting unsourced information. Please see WP:POINT. There is also an active RFC at Talk:List of accompaniments to french fries where the policy is very clear. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

When you threw out the content a second time, it was referenced. I also really don't understand why you are so inconsistent in removing unsourced content. Do you only remove what you have never heard of or don't like? - Takeaway (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I love fried eggs. One thing I focus on is unsourced additions to articles that have been tagged for a long time as needing more sources, especially by IP editors or new editors. Not to say that I wouldn't delete other unsourced information, but I can't do it all. Anyway, the problem here is that you did not give an informative edit summary. If you added references, which is great, don't say that you simply reverted my edit. That is a misleading edit summary. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about my photo of the Dutch fried egg that I had added to the article, this happened BEFORE the refimprove template was added. Oops sorry, I forgot to write that I had added references. I didn't know that you also removed content without reading it first. - Takeaway (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge taocu, tauchu and douchi[edit]

I did not mean to ignore the responses made at Talk:Douchi. I apologise for not remembering to take action. I ought to keep a a to-do list next time. --Pare Mo (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sukhothai Kingdom liberation from Lavo Kingdom is not true ?[edit]

Sukhothai Kingdom liberation from Lavo Kingdom is not true ? Why are you reverted my edit ?

References :

Liberation from Lavo Prior to the 13th century, Tai kingdoms had existed on the northern highlands including the Ngoenyang (centered on Chiang Saen; predecessor of Lanna) kingdom and the Heokam (centered on Chiang Hung, modern Jinghong in China) kingdom of Tai Lue people. Sukhothai had been a trade center and part of Lavo, which was under the domination of the Khmer Empire. The migration of Tai people into upper Chao Phraya valley was somewhat gradual

คุณเข้าใจภาษาไทยมั้ยครับ ? ข้อมูลของหน้าอาญาจักรสุโขไทไม่ครบถ้วน ข้อมูลประวัติศาสตร์ยืนยันว่าอาณาจักรสุโขโทเป็นอิสระจากอาณาจักรละโว้ไม่ใช่หรือครับ ? และละโว้กลายมาเป็นอาณาจักรอยุธยาภายหลัง — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gend07000 (talkcontribs) 23:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The text of Lavo Kingdom is indeed not very clear but it says that the Lavo Kingdom became part of Ayutthaya, not Sukhothai. Sukhothai only became free from Lavo but did not take over the Lavo Kingdom. - Takeaway (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for answer, Information in many Thailand history page is not very clear that thai people always misunderstood. I want to make this clear for to benefit Youth and those who are interested. If you have knowledge. Please help by adding content. thank you very much. --Gend07000 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome. I wish I could add information to the Thai wiki but unfortunately, I only speak a tiny bit of Thai but I can not read or write it. โชคดีครับ! - Takeaway (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing[edit]

Hi.., I just recently create a new article kripik, it would be great if you could help on copy editing. And maybe you could take a look to the article krupuk too. Greatly appreciated. Cheers.Gunkarta (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the nice article! I sectioned off part of the lead text in to "keripik and krupuk" because I thought the lead text was a bit too long compared to the rest of the article. If you think that a different title is better, please change it. Cheers! I will have a look at the krupuk article another day. - Takeaway (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I also saw that emping redirects to krupuk. Shouldn't this redirect to keripik instead? - Takeaway (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I think emping should be further elaborated as separate article.Gunkarta (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. It didn't feel really correct to see it under krupuk. But I didn't know if it should or shouldn't be under keripik, but having its own article does seem like the best solution. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png thank you for the correction :) okichan 19:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Okichan! I like the new info at Thailand. I really disliked the previous one about Thai demographics! It was so weird that the whole Thai population was divided in to only 3 ethnic groups: Middle, Northeast and South. I know that many of my Lanna friends would completely disagree with that! :) - Takeaway (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Open proxy problem?[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Takeaway (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Seems that I am now using an open proxy? Takeaway (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: please follow the directions provided when you try to edit - we cannot guess the IP :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Takeaway (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Pity that it's not mentioned in the unblock request information that one needs to include an IP address of the suspected proxy server. It would save so much time if it had been. Well, here it is: Takeaway (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

That IP was just blocked yesterday for 2 months as an open proxy. In any case, you've got 5 years experience here and nearly 6000 edits to main article space, and you have a clean block record, so I think you can be trusted with an IP block exemption. I have granted that. While I was at it I also gave you rollback rights; see WP:ROLLBACK to understand how it works (use it only for obvious vandalism or spam). ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Is there not a specific message that you see when you try to edit? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Amatulić! As for the specific message, it told me to paste the unblock template and that was it. Clicking on the unblock template itself hardly told me anything more. Reading the info page for open proxy didn't mention it either. - Takeaway (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Message from Ferwert[edit]

Hello Pardon my confusion here. Perhaps you could have user "Takeaway" contact me regarding the following:

Hello, I'm Takeaway. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2010 Thai political protests seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As per his suggestion, he pointed me to discuss it with him on his 'talk page'. Unfortunately, I have been uanable to acess his talk page in a manner that I could communicate with him.

Could you adise how to do this.

What "takeaway' sees as non-nuetrality is decidedly not the case, which I would like to discuss with him/her, and to restore the edits I made.


Username - Ferwert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 16:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Takeaway - please replace my Edit that you deleted. If you wish, we can then discuss what you think may be non-nuetral. I invite such a discussion. But bear with me. I am inexperienced with this communicative method. That jiggly lime signiature thing is confusing. What is a 'tilde'. Never heard of such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 01:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted this edit and this edit of yours where your use of the words "coupist Government", "coup-rooted Government", and "Government based on coercive Parliamentary procedures enabled via Oligarchic and military interventions" without backing these assertions with sources as is required by Wikipedia, as not adhering to WP:NPOV. I see that you have proceeded editing the article again but have now avoided using these specific phrases. I still don't agree with your present edits but I have no time at the moment to dive into this issue. As you are a self-confessed newbie here on Wikipedia, I would advise you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is explained there what is required if you want to make the assertions you do. Just your word that you are knowledgeable due to having read bulletin boards is not enough. - Takeaway (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps best to continue this conversation on Talk:2010 Thai political protests. - Takeaway (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Takeaway - Thx. for your response. Your edits as mentioned in above message are Ok with me, although I could educate those less involved within this Thai Political divide, as to the validity of my characterizations. With respect to your other comments, I need to clarify strongly that my knowledge is not based on "Bulletin Boards" as you suggest. My edits and input are a demonstration of my in-depth, experiential involvement with both sides of this Political divide. Not merely a pawn of the propagandistic domestic, anti-UDD media (Bangkok Post, Nation, ASTV, and Foreign media who often copy or paraphrase this anti-UDD journalism. Most native, English speakers are a captive audience due to their linguistic limitations. It is also unhelpful, that the UDD is a unilingual organization. Let me emphasize - I have my feet firmly rooted in both camps experientially, and accordingly can confidently assert that I represent both sides, as I have in-depth knowledge. In fact, I would equally assert that all quotes and verification based on the BKK. Post, Nation, ASTV should be eliminated. They are propagandistic organs from one side of the Political divide, and I don't need to tell you which side. The eggregious stuff I deleted from those sources, speak to this assertion clearly. A true effort of editting in my view would eliminate all such quotes. But I have refrained from doing that in an effort at neutrality. I will read Wikipedia verifiability as you suggest, but at the same time have difficulty accepting burying truthfullness in administrivia and legalities of Wikipedia. is this our best way to communicate Takeaway? Can we not do it via E-mail....One other question Takeaway, are you involved in any way, either via simple readership, or participation in discussions and posts, on For the sake of transparency, can we ascertain that, so I know what I am dealing with. Considering what you deleted, are you suggesting the following didn't happen, with respect to elevating Abhisit and his Democrat Party Government Takeaway? namely "Government based on coercive Parliamentary procedures enabled via Oligarchic and military interventions". If you think this didn't happen and they had electoral legitimacy, you and I are indeed very far apart. After all, that and the coup were the cause of all the 2010 political problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferwert (talkcontribs) 02:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please continue this conversation on Talk:2010 Thai political protests. - Takeaway (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


I am grateful to you for pointing out the difference between "condiments" and "ingredients" in modern English. As I can see its meaning does not overlap with the meaning in French. I have these lacunae since I am not a native English speaker (Xufanc (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)).

Thank you for writing these articles. - Takeaway (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

ko pha ngan[edit]

i don't see the trouble to speak about the historical hotels of this island. did you ever visit it to feel the atmosphere even if the owner change.. Thesameseb (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTGUIDE. If these "historical hotels" meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:NOTABILITY), perhaps they need their own article. - Takeaway (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

you right i ll reconsider my contribution on phangan , and first start with a page of hotel history. if we can do this on wikipedia.Thesameseb (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Takeaway. You have new messages at Talk:Mediterranean Sea.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Hello, Takeaway.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI re User:Rak-Tai[edit]

Hi, I wonder if I could have your side of this story. There's a comment from Rak-Tai at my talk page, I would appreciate your response. User_talk:Nick#Takeaway. Many Thanks. Nick (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My response to this can be found at "User talk:Nick#In response to Rak-Tai's_accusations". - Takeaway (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

About the Meteora Page[edit]

Hello, I have read the topic about external links and I believe the case falls under: 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

The external link was and under 13 it was my fault to have it included to the list of external links. The site itself belongs to local travel company of Meteora in which I work. There was in no way our intention to spam or whatever wikipedia, especially since it has helped us enrich our site's content. The site itself is about meteora and it does include knowledge about the rock themselves, but it also serves our clients. In that case would a deep link to the wed site's section about meteora meet the criteria? You can view the link at Again our purpose was not to advertise on wikipedia but to enrich (eventually) the content it has about our birthplace.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaschasiotis (talkcontribs) 12:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that even a deep link would fall under links normally to be avoided as WP:ELNO states: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." - Takeaway (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Forgive me if I'm doing something wrong, "user talk" is all new to me and I don't really know how I'm supposed to add a section.

But here goes, That link you gave me is obviously wrong. First of all, the correct spelling is กะเพรา without ร which corresponds to r, in Thai, the r would have nevertheless been silent. The alternate spelling proposed in the is a corruption of the original spelling and it is wrong. There is also a discussion regarding the correct and incorrect usage of กระ and กะ

The correct spelling is กะเพรา without ร thus, the English transliteration must also be without r.

Even the Thai wikipedia entry is

If you are not native Thai, then you can either trust me on this, or find someone able to read Thai to verify this for you.

In additional, I noticed in, the transliterations are not consistent. At the top it is transcribed as gra phao, further down the page, it is transcribed as Royal Thai General System: kraphao, but this is assuming the erroneous Thai spelling of กระเพรา However, they even manage to get the RTGS transcription wrong because เพรา would need to be transcribed as phrao because of the ร. (even though in colloquially speech, it would have been silent, only in for example TV or news broadcasts it would have been pronounced with a clear r rolling of the tongue sound)

In case you want to check how to transcribe Thai correctly according to RTGS, here's the wikipedia link

In additional all the instances they have written it correctly as กะเพรา they still manage to transcribe it wrong as kra or gra each time.

To be honest with you, I struggle to take site seriously after seeing such inconsistent and erroneous writing there.

In fact, here, they manage to get all entries of กะ transcribed as ga "correctly" (albeit not according to RTGS, which should be ka), but all of a sudden the entry for กะเพรา is the only one transcribed as gra

They are also wrong in many of the so called alternate spelling where they suggest many of the words can be written as กระ as well as กะ which is not correct. There is only one way to write a word either as กระ or กะ. Writing it different would be considered a spelling mistake comparatively to mixing up you're and your. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeingMole (talkcontribs) 17:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not a Thai speaker but I more often hear "kraphao" pronounced by Thais, and much less often "kaphrao", when referring to Ocimum tenuiflorum/กะเพรา.
After reading your reply, I think you didn't completely understand the website page. It offers different ways of transcribing Thai: "graphao" follows the t-l Enhanced system, and that is what is mostly used within In a separate box that is clearly indicated with "RTGS" the website uses "kraphao" as transcription. There is no inconsistency there.
What it comes down to is the following question: should one follow the straightforward transcription of กะเพรา and indeed say and write "kaphrao", or is what is written on the website true that "20. Note the silent ร /r/ in the double consonant combination พร. 21. Note: In this word, กะ is pronounced /graL-/ " and should one indeed pronounce กะเพรา as "kraphao"? The link you provided to the Royal Institute discussion about the correct way to write it in Thai shows that it apparently often is written, albeit wrongly, as กระเพรา. A quick search on google shows that the "incorrect" spelling even gets more hits than the correct spelling! All this shows that there truly is a problem with the pronunciation, something that wasn't addressed in the Royal Institute discussion which only concentrated on the spelling. - Takeaway (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt you seriously can claim that you hear most Thai people pronounce กะ as kra simply due to the fact that most Thai doesn't really pronounce the r sound at all. กะเพรา would be pronounced as กะเพา kaphao Most people will pronounce both กระ and กะ as กะ (ka). This is a problem because often people tend to think that words which aren't written with ร would also be written with it. This is a problem is other languages as well and I know there is a technical term for this but I can't just remember what it's called. This problem is also with words with ตะ which sometimes gets written as ตระ such as ตะไคร้ and ตระไคร้.

In collegial speech the r is silent. But when the word is supposed to be pronounced correctly, this r will not be silent. For example, if you use the program available here to input the word กะเพรา you will see how it is supposed to be correctly spelled according to RTGS.

In fact, I suspect they may be mixing up พร which would have been pronounced as phon or often written as porn where the ร r is in fact silent.

But พร together with other vowels such as เพราะ เพรา แพร พระ the r is not silent and must be transcribed.

I also know that google lists more hits with กระเพรา and I am as upset about this particular "problem" as this user is

I just have to tell you that this just got it blatantly wrong when it claims that the RTGS spelling of กะเพรา is kraphao. And with inconsistent just take a look on the translations of เพรา phrao (which is correct) But suddenly for กะเพรา the r is supposed to be silent, and out of nowhere กะ gets the pronunciation of gra while all other words with กะ gets the pronunciation of ga. You can see every word starting with กะ is written as ga, except for กะเพรา which is the only word to be pronounced as gra.

Wikipedia should at least be a place to use the correct spelling of กะเพรา instead of further propagate the so called "alternative spelling" of กระเพรา and getting the according RTGS correctly.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeingMole (talkcontribs) 19:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 
As you have said yourself, in all other instances did it correctly, except for kaphrao/kraphao. The makers of seem to be very conscientious and have noted explicitly in the entry for กะเพรา that there is a problem with kraphao/kaphrao. The makers of are not "mixing up" พร. The "phon"/"porn" you describe is a matter concerning transcription systems where some systems use an "r" in front of another consonant to describe a long vowel and a "p" to describe the aspirated "ph".
I am sorry that you have still not come up with anything that can settle this "kraphao"/"kaphrao" matter conclusively, other than to state that "it is blatantly wrong". I will not revert your subsequent edits in other articles where you have quickly changed all the "kraphao" spelling into "kaphrao" even though it was not very polite of you to have done this during a discussion. I only seek to have a correct RTGS transcription of what is is called, not a direct transcription of how it is written in Thai but never pronounced as such, and in this case, I just don't know which one is and which one isn't correct due to the concerns raised by the makers of The reactions of the people in the link you provided ( describe exactly that there seems to be a widespread problem with this whole issue. As one poster states "โห..เพิ่งรู้ เราก้อเรียก กระเพรามาตั้งแต่เกิด..อิอิ" (...we say kraphrao since birth).
The probable reason why I more often hear "kraphao" than "kaphrao" (and not just "kaphao") might be because when speaking to a "farang" like me, Thai people tend to be more precise in their pronunciation; something they might not do when talking to a native Thai speaker. Another reason might also be that I am hardly ever in Bangkok where there seems to be an extreme tendency to drop anything that is even remotely an "R" consonant from their speech, and often even drop the "L". - Takeaway (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I already told you to use the util available which will transcribe any word exactly according to RTGS. This is quite a straightforward process leaving no room whatsoever for alternative interpretations. Everything can be transcribed exactly. Now this may or may not be according to how it is colloquially spoken is another matter. Alternatively you can look up here, which is my preferred tool when I need to look up whatever.

Besides, even if it was spelled กระเพรา or กะเพรา "เพรา" must be transcribed according to RTGS as phrao regardless. So your beloved site will be wrong in that they say it is "phao". In fact, they got it right for the entry of เพรา, but for กะเพรา, suddenly เพรา is transcribed as phao. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself here...??? SeeingMole (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As I repeatedly wrote to you, they have dutifully raised this exact issue on their entry for holy basil. They have not "just" given an incorrect transcription but they have explained why they decided to make the transcription different from the way it is written in Thai (see the pronunciation notes 20 and 21 on the entry). This, for me, makes it a situation that needs delving into. I am not saying that what you are stating is incorrect, I am only repeating the same issues that the makers of have raised. That automatic transcription systems, such as the one from Chulalongkorn that you provided, do it differently, still doesn't wholly address the concerns raised on the correct pronunciation per the pronunciation notes on I was hoping that a Thai linguist could shed some more light on all this. - Takeaway (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I also fail to understand how they can claim that 20. Note the silent ร /r/ in the double consonant combination พร. If this was the case, then เพราะ เพรา แพร่ พระ would also needed to have been transcribed without r. But obviously they aren't. Colloquially they are all pronounced without r as เพาะ เพา แพ่ พะ, but it doesn't mean that you can transcribe it according to RTGS wihtout r. The only time where r is actually silent is exactly in the combination of พร which is transcribed as phon according to RTGS. Transcribing พร is very straightforward it's ph for พ and r for ร, which equals phr. Then you simply add the appropriate vowel to it, whatever that may be, such as phrae, phro, phrao, phra. So why all of a sudden would there be any special rule for กะเพรา. I also have problem with the statement saying that 21. Note: In this word, กะ is pronounced /graL-/. If they wrote กระ, I would agree, but กะ is no way ever transcribed as kra. This is also consistent with all their other entries with word starting with กะ, they are all pronounced as ka. But suddenly they claim that for กะเพรา, กะ is pronounced as kra. If they want to write this correctly, they should have written that the alternate spelling of กะเพรา is กระเพรา which in this case กระ is pronounced as kra while กะ is still pronounced as ka. In other words, simply state the two pronunciations of กะเพรา as kaphao (or phrao) and กระเพรา as kraphao (or phrao). My point is to get it right. กะ is always ka and กระ is always kra. Not "In this word, กะ is pronounced kra", this is just not correct. SeeingMole (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not the maker of this website and I have no idea how they came to this conclusion. They have found specific issues with this particular word and have noted them. - Takeaway (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe this problem is called SeeingMole (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

phrik nam pla[edit]

Would you please provide some link(s) to where it says "nam pla phrik" is the "officially" name of this? SeeingMole (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I found one explanation here, but I think that for you, being fluent in Thai, it would be easier to find such information than it is for me. It was explained to me once by a Thai friend who was a stickler for using the correct terms. - Takeaway (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What I have actually found out is that there is really no "official" consensus on this. It is more of a regional preference. For example in northern and southern Thailand, phrik nam pla is always used. Personally I've also always used and heard phrik nam pla. In fact, the first time I've ever read "nam pla phrik" was here, which right away sounded awkward for me, so I just had to check it and was actually surprised that this term is also widely used.SeeingMole (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This friend, who is a stickler for using the correct names for everything, told me that "nam pla phrik" is the term used at the Thai court. He is a very reliable source in this. I assumed that the way it is called at the Thai court would be the "official" way. - Takeaway (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I find this very puzzling... Why in the world would they need to use the term "nam pla phrik" in court? I am starting to understand why some people find Wikipedia to be an "unreliable" source of information. Especially now that we have to rely on a statement of a friend of a farang. SeeingMole (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The reason why they use the term "nam pla phrik" at the Thai court seems to be explained in reply number 2 of the above link to the Royal Institute. 2. What made you assume that I was a farang? 3. And why is it for you, that a friend of a farang (if I were one) can't be reliable? - Takeaway (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, look who's talking? This is the self proclaimed "farang" (you wrote it yourself when trying to explain away why you claimed you were hearing Thai people say "kraprao" to you, when in fact, I'm pretty sure most would have just said "kapao", even to a so called "farang") who refused to accept all the links that I gave you regarding "kaphrao", but stubbornly stuck to that thai-language site (even though it was obviously wrong and inconsistent), and yet in this case, you expect me to take your word for it that your friend is correct, despite there are no other links to support this whatsoever. I already told you that there is really no "official" standard and it depends on the region of Thailand. It just happens that your friend is from a place where they usually say "nam pla phrik".SeeingMole (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC) How ironic that you refused to take my word about "kaphrao" and demanded links to back my claims, while you expect me to simply trust the word of a friend of yours. Meanwhile for the past couple of days, everybody and their brother-in-law has said "phik nam pa" when I asked.SeeingMole (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true, I do look like a farang. :)
Yes, you "told" me that there is no official standard after I had provided a link to the Royal Institute forum where it was explained that it should be "nam pla phrik". I then wrote that a friend of mine had pointed out that at court they used "nam pla phrik" (which colloquially is hardly used) and that is why I researched this and found it to be true.
I didn't demand but I asked you if you could back up the "kaphrao" pronunciation because it intrigues me due to what was written on the website.
Is the weather up in Norway particularly nasty for the time of year? - Takeaway (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear the summer this year so far has been quite good. I've lived in Thailand for the past 15 years.SeeingMole (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Brilliant edit! So you undo "Nusantara" back to "Javanese", on the basis of the existence or not of chillis in that part of the world. Brilliant! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you had changed it to Indonesia or Indonesian archipelago, I would have been fine with it. I just don't understand why it has to be changed to Nusantara which is:
1. An Indonesian word for the Indonesian archipelago and not an English word (and this is the English language wikipedia)
2. Nusantara, meaning the areas which do not reflect Javanese culture, but are colonies where they had to pay tribute. In the context of Majapahit empire, this includes the modern territories of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Brunei, East Timor and southern Thailand.
3. The name coined for the Indonesian archipelago in the 13th century CE when chillies, the defining ingredient for a sambal, had not yet made their way from the new world to the old world.
Because of this, using the word Nusantara is incorrect and it is therefore that I reverted it to the original. - Takeaway (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
For starters, I was not the one changing it ("If you had changed it to ..."). But that is besides the point. All that you say about the names makes perfect sense - except that is not what you said in your edit summary, which read - and I quote - "unlikely as no chillies in the old world at that time". And what exactly is "at that time"? It is like saying that Italians couldn't have had the idea of putting tomatoes on pizza, as there were no tomoatoes in the old world at that time. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm extremely sorry for having mistakenly assumed that you were the one who had changed the sambal article. I apologise profusely for this mistake.
Edit summaries tend to be short and perhaps my edit summary was a bit too short. For that matter, the user who changed "Javanese cuisine|Javanese origin" to "Nusantara|Nusantara community" did not supply an edit summary at all. In any case, my edit summary was to be seen as reflecting on above point 3, as point 1 and 2 are very incorrect. - Takeaway (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough and certainly interesting aspect. Which opens a lively can of worms:
  • 1. Are you saying that IF chillis had reached the east and been adopted into local cuisine when the name Nusantara was in use, that it would then be right to say Nusantara were the creators? If so,
  • 1.1 Are we going to separate Sri Lankan and Ceylon cuisine?
  • 1.2 Are we going to break up Italian cuisine into the constituent states, to reflect the historical moment that something came into being? For example, tomato on pizza, Neapolitan cuisine?
  • 1.3 Are we going to break up a whole range of cuisines into the separate eras that preceded the current era of each country?


  • 2. Are you saying the modern name for the country should be used?

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On *1: Per my above points 1 and 2, using Nusantara would still not be correct. On *1.1 I have no opinion on that matter On *1.2 If one wants to be very correct, one could break up Italy in its constituent states. Bolognese sauce for the cuisine of Bologna etc., but for pizza I wouldn't (except stating that it originated in Napels) as different parts of Italy now have their "own" local pizza variants. On *1.3 Per my reply on *1.2. Examples of where this already is done is Chinese and Indian cuisine: there are separate articles for noteworthy regional cuisines. It seems appropriate to create separate articles where it is warranted and where enough content is available to actually warrant a separate article for a regional cuisine, as also has happened for several of the regional Italian cuisines. On *2 The user who changed the sambal article probably did it as to use the Indonesian name for the archipelago instead of using the English common name. On a side note, I wonder if it can be said that sambal orginated in Nusantara/Indonesia as it also encompasses the annexed part of New Guinea. Did the original inhabitants of New Guinea also eat sambal before it became part of Indonesia? - Takeaway (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

From Sambals to Maps[edit]

Vaery valid good point you make about Papua New Guinea. I always have a problem with that kind of thing on maps, where they will show - for example - aras affected by yellow fever, and will list a whole country, whereas only a tiny part of it is affected. Or, a map of coffee-growing regions, the whole country is shown, whereas it grows only in a small part of the country. This becomes even more ridiculous when a strip of one country - the DRC, for example, penetrates into another country and one country is listed and the other one not under - for example - a disease of production of a crop, when all indications are that there are virtually no differences between conditions of either side of the border. I am not saying that this cannot be the case, but more often then not it is not. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I find this "probably originally Javanese/Indonesian" of sambal a bit strange anyway. It surprises me that Java/Indonesia is seen as the birthplace of sambal because it is said that the Portuguese brought chillies to (Southeast) Asia and, if I am correct, their biggest and main entrepôt harbour/colony in this region at the time that they did this, was the city of Malacca on the Malaysian peninsula. So why did sambal not originate there? - Takeaway (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for types of food/ dishes/ etc to be 'invented'/ 'created' far from the geographical origin of its main ingredients - curry is a case in point, as is the tomato sauce that goes over the pasta. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It is also not uncommon that dishes are appropriated by localities that did not actually invent them. ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Take Away[edit]

Some people contribute to this site, life as a whole others like to take away, at least you have your user name correct. That is a poor photo to represent a district, and nothing in that photo clearly shows that the Sky Train is over Saladang or even in this district in 2009 with a cel phone! Wow --WPPilot 13:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what I actually contribute to this site but let's just for now talk about the actual subject of your discontented message: the photo that you had placed in the article for Bangrak district but which I reverted to it's original image. I don't see why a photo which offers a huge vista of the Pathumwan district, and only shows a few buildings of the Bangrak district in the foreground, should be used as the main image in an article about the Bangrak district. I agree with you that the other image is not the best imaginable but at least it shows only the subject instead of focussing on a completely different neighbourhood. Your own photo is also somewhat blurry because the lens was either not correctly focussed or it's blurry due to camera shake during the long exposure. Did you use a tripod for that 1/2 second exposure? Did you use manual focus to counteract bad focussing in low light?
Wikimedia has a few files showing the Bangrak district but none offer a good overview. See for instance view of the buildings in Bangrak district as seen from Lumpini Park, and here's Category:Silom Road, Bangkok. Hopefully someone is able to make some images in future that correctly showcase the district.
There is no need to start insulting people who correct your mistakes. I have noticed that you have had similar problems with other users here on Wikipedia. Please try to be more polite in future as this is a collaborative project and automatically assuming WP:BADFAITH does not help at all when working with others. - Takeaway (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The only other users I have ever had issues with are your buddy's here in Thailand. I made a statement regarding your user name, you took away a photo that was a artistic photo and replaced it with a photo from a cel phone. Yes it was on sticks but it was taken through a window. My observation is based upon the 30 years of professional photographs that I have taken for publications like Sports Illustrated, Time, Newsweek and others that would never even consider a photo taken with a cel phone and as you have decided to comment on quality, do you really think that the photo you reverted to is any better, it is blurry, low res, out of date and just poor quality all together. I have never had these type of issues in any other country that I have contributed to, only your buddy Paul 012, who just happened to take the photo that you seem to think is better that the one I contributed. My photos of Thailand have been selected as featured photos on Wikipedia, and I as a professional would never consider posted a photo from a cel phone, nor would my publishers, I.E. Getty Images, & Wire Image. who would not even consider publishing a old, poor quality, low res, blurry cel phone photo. I doubt that my editors would even consider your comments. It just seems to me that you guys are the experts that are controlling these pages, and could clearly care less about what the public would be best suited in viewing and these reverts are self motivated. I should have stayed home, as I can not and am not interested in dealing with your petty reverts --WPPilot 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
At some point I guess I would hope that someone could offer suggestions that would allow me, a professional that has been published globally in major publications that is her e DONATING my efforts with some type of direction or suggestions to get the shot that you Bangkok experts are unable to get, that pic is from 2009, of a skytrain over a street showing a sign that is not even up anymore, rather then just take away, and revert with out any type of attempt to discuss this. National Geographic Time, Newsweek and Sports Illustrator pay me well and ALL of them are able to communicate in a normal manner, yet only here have I encountered this revert and don't communicate mentality that seems to be predominate with your edits. Yes I have reviewed your edits and I am well aware of your efforts. You control these pages. If you have a professional that is willing to donate his efforts and I was in your shoes, as the controller you own of a page that you that you feel ownership over, I would suggest, to the professional, comments that would help acquire quality, additions rather then just replace with old cel phone pics and claim that MY work is just a mistake here. Anyone can be a armchair quarterback, but it takes true effort to hold the ball and run with it.--WPPilot 16:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
1. Paul 012 is not a "buddy" of mine. I can't recall that Paul 012 and I ever really had any interaction here on Wikipedia other than both of us separately recognising a mistake you made when you posted your photo of Rachadamri Road on the article about Silom Road a few days ago. But if it makes you feel better to entertain conspiracy theories as a way to rationalise why some of your edits were corrected by different people here on wikipedia in the past few days, please do so but in all honesty: you are barking up the wrong tree here.
2. Ah, now I understand! The misfocus and/or camera shake that I thought was accidental, was actually intentional because it's an "artistic" photo. I stand corrected. As for the blurriness being the result of photographing through a window: did you actually open the window to make the daytime photo of nearly exactly that same view? I looked but there is no artistic blurriness whatsoever to be seen on the daytime photo. Nonetheless, the night-time image shows mainly Pathumwan district and hardly anything other than a few foreground buildings of Bangrak district. In that respect Paul 012's photo, however bad it may be having been taken with a cellphone camera, is more correct in its subject matter as it shows only Bangrak district, which prevents readers of the article of mistaking the cityscape of Pathumwan for that of Bangrak. As I said before, I hope someone or some people will soon take photos of Bangrak district that showcase the correct area. Perhaps if you are still there, you can still do that so finally WIkipedia can have real professional photos from a widely published professional photographer who has spent thousands of dollars to specially make all these professional photos for Wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"artistic blurriness & conspiracy theories"? Who said anything about "artistic blurriness"? You are just plain rude, take your D 80 out of the box and go get yourself the picture...--WPPilot 23:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you come here rudely accusing me of ganging up with someone against you, and also falsely accusing me of removing your photo in retaliation of something you had said, and in addition you try to intimidate me with a string of famous names, then that is what you can expect in return from me. This started because I corrected your mistakes first on the Silom Road article and then on the Bangrak article as one would normally do on Wikipedia: either a removal of the mistake or a revert to the previous revision provided with an edit summary explaining my reasons. You might be used to a different approach from those utterly famous publications/organisations but this is how it works on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should begin reading edit summaries of others, and also provide edit summaries when you change something in an article. If you had read my edit summary that I provided together with the revert on the Bangrak article, this whole indignant and intimidation message thingy that you did here wouldn't have been necessary. - Takeaway (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the "artistic blurriness": you yourself called this somewhat blurry photo of yours that I had removed from the Bangrak article "artistic", so I wrote that I did not encounter this particular "artistic" quality in your daytime photo of same view. - Takeaway (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I DID review your edit summary, and you are doing a great deal of reverting on the Wiki's that you edit upon. Now I could be wrong but it also looks like you just ended a battle with a Thai editor that now no longer desires to contribute to this site, due to the rational that you two were involved in (Rak Thai) I also noticed that from the looks for those edit summary's that you seem to be somewhat confrontational, for whatever reason that is but your new assertions that I accused you of ganging up with someone, and also accused you of removing my photo in retaliation of something I had said, is not correct, and in addition you assumed that I was intimidating you with a string of famous names is simply your own impression, it was not my desire to intimidate you with the names of my publishers, only clarify my experience and hope that you would become a team player to suggest photos that would be appropriate based upon your own experience here on Wikipedia. My contributions are diverse and never in the years that I have been editing here have I dealt with the logic that you have put forth. You did not like my photo and you sir are entitled to a opinion, that I do respect. I redid the photo so as to show that district, and I hope that you like the photo. I am on vacation and just as with the Wiki's that I have been a major contributor to, i.e. Jamaica, Newport Beach CA, Sailing and Boca Raton, Florida just to name a few off the top of my head. I try to not put too much energy into this type of dialog, it is unproductive and time consuming. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and perhaps I am more accustomed to dealing with professionals that communicate cohesively to obtain the results that a collaborative effort can achieve then most, if you review my history you will not find many edits of mine that are simple reversions of someone else's contributions. I first use the talk pages to communicate with them so as to achieve the collaboration that results in a quality result. I do not live here, and it was my desire to gain insight into things that I could shoot that would result in the improvement of the Wikis that I contribute to, not to insult anyone and encounter this type of frustration, from you or anyone. I am truly sorry that you feel so strongly about this and can only hope that you are able to enjoy the balance of my efforts here, I will be gone soon and at that point I hope that you can continue to enjoy editing upon Wikipedia. Have a wonderful day/night. Kaizen WPPilot 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how you can deny making accusations as you wrote: "...your buddy Paul 012 who just happened to take the photo that you seem to think is better than the one I contributed". Knowing that you recently had a run-in with Paul 012 over a similar issue, it sounds pretty much like you are accusing me and Paul 012 of ganging up on you, or at least me taking away your photo because of what happened earlier between you and Paul 012. You also wrote: "I made a statement regarding your name, you took away a photo that was an artistic photo and replaced it with a cel phone" sounds like you are accusing me of doing that in retaliation of the statement you made regarding my name. You even call the revert "self-motivated" and "petty".
There is also absolutely no need to let drop a whole string of famous names that are wholly unrelated to the fact that you had incorrectly placed an image into the Bangrak District article, other than to impress/intimidate, writing also "I doubt that my editors would even consider your comments". And why that would entice me to become a "team player" as you now say that you wanted to achieve with that string of big names, I can not fathom.
I wrote in my edit summary "...WPPilots's image showed mainly Pathumwan district with only a few buildings of Bangrak district" when I reverted your edit. If that isn't a cohesive edit summary stating the reason for my revert, what is? I didn't revert it because "I didn't like it" as you now are saying. That your photo also happened to be somewhat blurry due to incorrect focussing and/or camera shake, indeed made me "not like it" too but as it still works in low resolution depictions, I would have let it stand were it not for the fact that, and I repeat the edit summary again, WPPilots's image showed mainly Pathumwan district with only a few buildings of Bangrak district. You could have easily verified that fact yourself after you saw that I had written that on the attached edit summary. Instead you came here onto my talk page to... what actually?
The photo that you uploaded today and since placed into the article does indeed show Bangrak. It's not the most beautiful view I've seen of the area but it is indeed a photo showing a big chunk of Bangrak district.
As for me reverting things here on Wikipedia at the moment, it 's because I am fairly busy with other things right now and only have time to do mainly vandalism and spamlink reverts, and also reverts of edits that are plainly incorrect, on the multitude of pages that I have contributed to and that are now (782 on last count) on my watchlist. I have even been awarded "rollback rights" without having even asked for it by one of the administrators because of my track record, making it much easier for me to do this very basic but much needed maintanance task. In addition I regularly do quite a lot of work over on Wikimedia Commons. I've also written and translated/verified a few articles, and contributed to many others in different ways but apparently all you are focussed on seeing from me now is that I do a lot of deletions because I also happened to have deleted your photo from an article.
As for User:Rak-Tai. He's not Thai at all as was shown in a few of his talk page comments elsewhere on Wikipedia a few years ago. He's just someone who tried to use Wikipedia for his own ends: resorting to censorship, using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle and spuriously nominating articles that he didn't like up for deletion. I put an end to part of it a bit over a year ago. Ever since our run-ins he seems to think that he can aggrevate me by posting spiteful accusations on his user page and elsewhere. I have invited him numerous times to put his money where his mouth is and bring his accusations before the administrators but, as he knows that it will backfire on him, he has always refused to do so even though Wikipedia rules clearly state that he has to do this if he wants to continue his little rant. I even went so far as to start up a discussion about his user page rant at WP:ANI but he never showed up, again avoiding having to actually prove his allegations. Ever since March this year, once every two weeks or so, even after other editors have asked him to stop, he persists in plopping that silly post onto his user page which I then remove as is permitted per Wikipedia rules as it's defined as harassment. I can't actually be bothered to start up another ANI discussion on him.
So now you know why most of my edits are mainly reverts/deletions at the moment and now you also know what the problem with Rak-Tai was all about. Please don't bring things that just aren't there into this situation, and thereby cast doubts on my integrity and effectiveness here on Wikipedia. This is why I advised you earlier to read WP:BADFAITH.
It would seem to me that this whole issue over a simple revert of a misplaced photo has run more than its full course now. Just as that you can add photos without needing an extensive discussion before you do it, it's also absolutely normal that someone removes photos without prior discussion, at least if done for the correct, uncontroversial, reasons, and preferably explaining these reasons in an edit summary. I'd appreciate it very much if you didn't keep going on about things that just aren't there such as me "owning" the articles, and just stick to what it actually is all about: a simple revert of your photo that mainly featured a different district than the one the article was about. It was accompanied by an edit summary explaining the reason why, and it all followed standard Wikipedia procedure.
If, as you now write, you wanted to gain insight in what to shoot for Wikipedia in Bangkok , then you certainly have a strange way of asking for suggestions by immediately insulting someone. It's funny that you actually called me confrontational here above. If I had been asked it in a normal way, my suggestion for Bangrak would be to make a photo, or perhaps a series of photos, that captures that strange and complicated mix of big business, big tourism, 5 star hotel sophistication, sleeze, cons, the countless people that squeeze through jam-packed Silom every day and every night, but also capturing normal everday Thai life such as the numerous markets, the abundant street food, and the temples; all those things that make up the soul of that district. But what to photograph to achieve it? That would be up to you. - Takeaway (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Have a nice day, Kiazen WPPilot 11:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for meddling, but those photos is hardly representative for Silom. The view is at the back of Dusit Thani Hotel. That area is Soi Saladaeng which is in-between Silom and Sathon road. The view is also unfortunate because instead of viewing westwards with Silom road as main focus, it's actually showing Lumpini park and Rajadamri road.SeeingMole (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Swift and over-the-top reaction to an accidental revert due to Wikipedia being terrible on a tablet. Keep calm please. :-) - Takeaway (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Gaijin42, but I'll be happy to accept Takeaway's explanation for an unfortunate accident. I've edited from smart phones and iPads, and it can be a drag. Takeaway, I understand Gaijin's reasoning--no doubt they thought that you were a badge-carrying member of the civility police. :) Drmies (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What tripped my trigger was that it removed two non-contiguous comments, which seemed more deliberate, but I certainly accept the explanation as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nam ngiao may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''''Nam ngiao''''' ({{lang-th|น้ำเงี้ยว}}) or ''nam ngio'' ({{lang-th|น้ำงิ้ว}} is a [[noodle]] [[soup]] or [[curry]] of northern [[Thai cuisine]] and the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aquaculture of tilapia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, ...[edit]

I noticed one of your recent edits, "(restored clearer image of Thai Theparos sauce)". Your choice of the word "clearer" to describe the change struck me as odd as side-by-side comparison reveals that the previous bottle image was in crisp focus and strongly lit (perhaps glaringly so) while the replacement w/ dish is somewhat fuzzy (out of focus) and a bit dim (dark, low contrast).

Regardless, personally I concur that File:Siracha_sauce.jpg with the example serving alongside the bottle has better—more interesting—composition. I see that you uploaded it. Good eye. Thanks for taking the photo and sharing it with the wiki. I may try giving it some post-production TLC w/ the GIMP to sharpen and brighten it a bit.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a little subtle tweaking and uploaded it. Also—just for fun—here's a dramatic version. :  }
--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have a bright, high dynamic range, sRGB-covering screen here so it doesn't look very dim to me but I can imagine that most people who have "normal" screens would think it so. I'm not really a proponent of ultra sharp, smoothed out and ultra-colourful photos unless warrented for specific purposes. Too each their taste I guess. The "subtly tweaked" photo looks fine to me although the warm colour of the background has been neutralised a bit too much (it's actually a warm-white, nearly creamy, painted wall). The "dramatic" version is way over the top and doesn't represent the true colour of the sauce at all. I guess I could have used a slightly smaller aperture when making the photo, which would have gotten the main text of the bottle label more sharp. Why I wrote "clearer image" was because the previous photo was made using a wide angle and flash, thus distorting the shape of the bottle and, indeed, introducing glare and harsh shadows. It also didn't show the sauce poured out into a saucer, which in my image gives the viewer some indication of it's consistency, especially compared with the Huy Fong sauce which is clearly more thick and sticky, probably using some form of thickener. - Takeaway (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Kapsalon move[edit]

Hi, I think Kapsalon should not be moved to Kapsalon (food). If you disagree, please add to the discussion at Talk:Kapsalon (food)#Requested move. --Lonaowna (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glutinous rice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nut (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) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)