Talk:Zanskar

The images that appear on this page are indeed borrowed from the website http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar. This is however my website and the images are mine and am therefore free to put them on Wikipedia if I wish to. Moreover, the copyright notice on the original website mentions that "Documents on this site can be used inasmuch as reference is clearly made to the above-mentionned publication and/or this website." which I did on this Wikipedia page. There is no rule on Wikipedia that images have to be GFDL.

If you have doubts about the fact that I am the author of the images and that I do agree that they can be used on Wikipedia, please mail the author of the comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage (e-mail adress is to be found there) and ask for confirmation.

Last but not least I would very much appreciate if "Mr Tan" would contribute to this page by adding relevant informations rather than repeatedly defacing it. He might not agree with the "etymological" section, but at least he should say why and/or provide an alternative version.

Moumine 22:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After consideration, I feel that my version will serve well as the basis for article expansion.

Moumine, you may continue to contribute to Zanskar from here, with on better grammar and language. I do not deny your work, but your atrocious grammar has made me very hard to understand what are you writing about.

Also, I would like to point out that the population of Zanskar currently stands at 10,000, not 7,000 anymore.

Tan 13:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found further explanations from Mr Tan in my account (which I reproduce below)

Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar

I'm not defacing the Zanskar page. However, I apologise if it causes displeasure upon you, but your English grammar is really, really bad, and cleanup is critically needed. Furthermore, everybody has the right to edit wikipedia as long as it is not vandalism. However, how can you prove to me that

http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar

is your website? Is your name (note: real name was inserted here)? I hope that the content is really yours. According to the Zanskar talk page, you only specified that the images are yourd, but not the content. I am also unable to reach the website comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage that you have specified, as it has an error check page by stating Document not found and I afraid that you may have to provide more information about the ownership of the images to me if you could so that I can confirm that you are the photographer. (Furthermore, I feel that color images should be put up rather than black & white images. Do you have them? I feel that the look of the Zanskar page would be much nicer if they are colored.)

I also feel that my version serves as a better basis for the page. However, I fully admit that it needs expansion; and if you could use your content to add information is better.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not widely accept borrowrd content, as it is an encyclopedia, unless you are really the author of the website where you borrow the content.

Ah yes, about the etymology, I don't like it because your grammar really terrible. Just compare yourself with how the content of Sikkim is written instead.

Tan, 13:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to comments made by Mr Tan

• English: My english might not be the best, but I will let the community judge whether MrTan's english is any better (see messages above or MrTan's "revisions" to the Zanskar article)
• Editing: editing means editing, not replacing an entire article with ones own version. Editing should also mean improving
• Website: the website given above functions perfectly and it is a lame excuse for not contacting me about the copyright issue (which should not be an issue anymore since it was already discussed prior to MrTans renewed policing attempts)
• images: there is no rule about bw or color pictures in Wikipedia. Color pictures might be more alluring to some but others prefer bw pictures. The advantage of bw is that the files are smaller and therefore take less time to download. Up until recently I had a modem and that makes a big difference compared to adsl/cable and most of the people in so called "third world" countries are probably not equipped with fast internet access. Moreover, there is some text attached to the figures, whose content might be interesting to some, but MrTan's revision makes it just unavailable
• Proofs: I have nothing to prove to MrTan personnally in terms of copyright, be it for the images or the article. I have already given him enough information on how to ascertain that the authors of the original text and the Wikipedia version are the same person.
• Wikipedia: I kind of know that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia:-) and am fully aware that no "borrowed" (I guess with the meaning of stolen) content should appear in it. However, I do think that it makes sense for content that was created in another context to serve as a base for articles in Wikipedia, especially when said content was published in an academic work that was peer-reviewed (one of the reviewers in this case was a native english speaking professor) and if said work has a very friendly copyright notice as mentionned above.
• Etymology: no comment, read and judge for yourself. Improvements in the formulation are welcome, but just throwing eveything away because one does not understand the meaning is nonsense.

General comments

In the above message that MrTan sent me personally (to my Wikipedia Moumine handle), he was kind of concillatory and provided at least some arguments. I do however not agree with the his argument that my english grammar is horrible/terrible. Had this statement come from a native english speaker, I would have found it really offensive.

The first message that MrTan put on this discussion page and the manner in which he simply switched his article with mine are to me incredibly arrogant. I have also read the version of the article by MrTan and was not impressed. For the record, I have spent more than six month over four years in zanskar (first time 1989, last time 1995) for academic research and all my sources for the article are based on scholarly work, whose reference I give at the bottom of the page. (which is better than the new "reference" that MrTan give: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/zanskar.html, a site to which I actually contributed (see acknowledgements) or to state that I am a Professor (which I am not)

I am fully aware that some of the facts that I mention might be outdated, but I think that any contribution would benefit if its sources were cited (this also a general comment for Wikipedia).

For the time being, I have decided to revert to the last version of my article and express again the hope that MrTan will act in a more constructive way in the future.

Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've reverted Mr Tan's blanking of the page, and protected it from being edited for a time, until this mess has been sorted out. Would the two protagonists give brief and calm accounts of their positions here please? Then we can begin to reach some sort of accommodation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for the accidental action that I caused to the article, and I shall show our POV here:

The orientation and relavancy of this artcle is disputed between two users and it is implented that wikipedia users should take a vote and decide whose article is more suitable to act as a base and contribute more content from there, thus the present article is temporarily removed. Votes should be based on the basis of grammar, content, vocabulary and language usuage.

For the convinence of all users, please refer to these two past revisions:

• By Moumine: [1]

• By Mr Tan: version

Mr Tan, 23:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Place Your Votes Here:

1. In light of some of the arguments above, I'll start by saying that both versions would need some copy-editing, though the English of the one that Mr Tan call's Moumine's, but which I shall call the original version (because Moumine is only one of a number of Wikipedia editors to have been involved with it) contains fewer obvious mistakes.
2. The plain fact, though, is that the original article should be the basis of future editing. Mr Tan should, in a collaborative manner, edit what's there. Only in extreme cases (usually when there's only a stub, and when an article hasn't been touched for some time) is an editor justified in wiping the slate clean and starting again. When an article is being actively edited, such an approach is unacceptable.
3. This is therefore not a matter for a vote. The article as it stands needs to be tidied in terms of its English, and where the material drawn on by Mr Tan fills gaps, it should be used as the basis for editing. It should not, however, be placed in the article unaltered.

I hope that this settles the matter, and that Mr Tan can now work on the article in the way that Wikipedia editors are expected to do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case.

I hope this will do.

Mr Tan, 14:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, you will not do that. First, I have explained why it isn't acceptable. Secondly, your reference to the English of the original version is simply unfounded; to be honest, your own English is poor, riddled with glaring spelling and grammatical errors. That isn't something that I'd normally say to a non-native speaker, but your insults to other editors' English places you outside normal standards of politeness.
• If you replace this page with your own version again, I shan't protect it, I shall block you from editing for a while, to allow you time to actually read what I said above and understand it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will revert to my old version, and incoporate content from all sources within wikipedia. To work!'

However, some redundant facts concerning about etymology and geography have to be omitted. Progress to come.

Mr Tan, 21:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

?? You seem to be sending messages from the future. I'm glad to see that you've reverted your large-scale changes to the article. This should be a gradual process, with each stage explained and agreed upon. Note that this is the place to do that — not on my Talk page or on yours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Please compare with the current version and my adaption [2](for all users)

• Reasons for comment:

• • I feel that gramatical orientation is far from satisfactory standard
  • Sentence structure is poor
  • Certain vocabulary and gramatical errors is some areas.
  • Also, a few points are placed in the wrong sections. (example:The remoteness of this region also explains why only a few western travellers have visited the area until recent times, the Tibetologist Alexander Csoma de Koros being probably one of the first, in 1823.) should be in history section

Mr Tan 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. It's not clear to me why Wikizap (talk · contributions) is posting here and signing as Mr Tan.
2. It serves to emphasise my position (reiterated a number of times in response to Mr Tan's (or Wikizap's) continued claims about English) that the above complaints about the English of the article are couched in such poor English. The link provided takes us to an article full of grammatical errors. If needed I can give examples (but the first sentence of 'Etymology' provides a number of examples).
3. More importantly, the claims are completely vague. One or two examples would have been useful.
4. If specific points about the article are raised, we can discuss them. Mr Tan, however, believes that the only way forward is to replace the article with one of his own devising. That's not the Wikipedia way, and is not acceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Reasons for comment:
  • I feel that gramatical orientation is far from satisfactory standard
  • Sentence structure is poor (example: Thanks to its adherence to the Indian Union, this is also one of the rare regions in the Himalaya where traditional Tibetan culture, society, and buildings survived the Chinese Cultural Revolution.--redundancy)

In the last twenty years, the opening of a road and the massive influx of tourists and researchers have brought many changes to the traditionnal social organisation of Zanskar.)Highlighted means mistakes.-unnecessary information

• • Certain vocabulary and gramatical errors is some areas.
  • Redundancy(example: These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water.(This is just a mere description which seems like a fiction)

1. I'm not sure why you claim redundancy in your first example; the sentence could probably be improved, but there's no real grammatical issue.
2. there's a typo (gasp!) in the second example (which you could simply have corrected), and no obviously unnecessary information.
3. Your final example is absurd; first, of course it's a mere description — what do you think should be included in Wikipedia articles? Secondly, what makes you think that it's untrue?
4. Your own version (and, indeed, your message above) contains much worse grammatical and spelling problems. I suggest that you forget about criticising the English, and concentrate on trying to improve the article's contents. I'll follow you and correct your English, so long as you proceed slowly, and with explanations here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end. Also, you are equally redundant as well. Point out to me, where my mistakes are.

Expect me to be off for a few days. Fair enough?

Tan 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not add your comments to articles. The reader should not be asked to compare versions; that's an editing matter, and should be asked on this page. I have compared the two, and your version is worse. There may be aspects of it that could usefully be included in the actual article, and if you have the patience and the commitment to explain your view, then they might be incorporated. However, if you insist on a wholesale replacement, then I'll tell you now: it's not going to happen.

Your first sentence – "Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end" – contains three major errors:

1. It's 'my' not 'mine'
2. You can't correct something with something else (you seem to be conflating 'correct' and 'compare')
3. It should be "let's see whose version is better".

Incidentally, I don't think that you know what 'redundant' means. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you're in the future again, though only by a few hours this time. I suspect that, for some reason, you're manually signing your comments. Why? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress

We're finally making some progress. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is some progress but it is still not good enough. What I think is that at least 50% of the content should come from there and the orientation as well. Having brackets in between sentences and things like this xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx with dashes also look strange such as those of Padum-Strongdey-Zangla-Karsha-Padum and I have ractify it. Ah yes, the time I'm using is from singapore.

Tan 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Mr. Tan asked me to comment on this page. After studying the matter for I day I would like to add my inputs.

1. I do believe Moumine is rightful owner of the images. Mr. Tan please contact the authors of the website to ascertain if the images and text are really his.
2. Moumine, please do not use the phrase "third world." From discussions I've seen on wikipedia, it is considered a POV.
3. Moumine stated: there is no rule about bw or color pictures in Wikipedia. Color pictures might be more alluring to some but others prefer bw pictures. If Moumine has colour images it would be better to have the colour versions as they have more detail. Wikipedia is not an art gallery; B/W pictures are preferred by many artists for various artistic reasons, but a majority would prefer seeing the images in colour as it offers a better understanding of the subject. I do feel that colour images should be here if available, (I admit, I'm not aware on any policy). Remember: a colour image can be easily desaturated, but the other way round is almost impossible to achieve.
4. Moumine also states: The advantage of bw is that the files are smaller and therefore take less time to download. Images are always thumbed on a main page rendering a smaller resolution and file size. A person interested in a higher quality image can click the link. The option rests with the reader. Please provide the best quality you can.
5. Mr Tan: Please do not accuse others of having poor English language command. Some people with poor English are valuable contributors to wikipedia. As Mel himself offered to, many wikipedians can be requested to cleanup the level of English on the page.
6. Mel: Mr Tan is following my example of creating a new temp page to work on major edits. I usually do that when I clean up the page and nominate it for a Featured Article status. See Maharashtra and Maharashtra/temp as to what I mean. However Mr Tan, since you are correcting the only the syntax and grammar on this page you shouldn't create a temp page. There aren’t too many radical changes to justify the creation of a new page, plus it's bad to blank an article page. It would be better that you work on this page here, in addition to editing the page text offline in a good word processor to improve the English.

 =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, many thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've already checked that Moumine is the copyright-holder of images and text, though, so there's no need to do that. Could you point me in the direction of the discussion on the phrase 'third world'; I was unaware of it. The Third World article (and Talk:Third World doesn't help. My own feeling is that B&W images are acceptable (and can make a nice change), but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, Thank you for your comments. To help Mel Etitis, I will point you to the 'third world' reference: it is on this page, under Response to comments made by Mr Tan. However Nichalp took it out of context, what I wrote was (quote) in so called "third world" countries. The use of so-called and the "" should hint to the fact that I was not sure about the political-correctness of this expression (an besides, I don't like it). The more politically correct "developing countries" does not suit me either, but I can change it to "emerging countries" or "countries with an emerging market economy" if you think this any is any better. Anyway, please accept my sincere apologies if the use of the T-W word has hurt your feelings.

Now, I do not think that Nichalp can really be serious when he asks me to provide the "best quality you can". In the present case, the "best quality" would imply files with a size of ~5Mb. Are you sure you want this? (ok, I am being sarcastic, sorry). However, if there is a consensus that the colored version of the pictures is preferable to the bw version, I will provide the former (since I am the author,I do have them, right?)

Last but not least, Mr Tan has repeatedly accused me of having a poor english. This might well be true and I am very grateful that Mel improved my writings in a very competent manner. I would however like to return the "compliment" to Mr Tan and ask those of you who really do master this language to go through Mr Tan's contributions (to be found under User:Mr_Tan) and do some serious cleaning-up there. And please do not invite Mr Tan to correct the english syntax and grammar on Zanskar or on any other page.

Moumine 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Moumine:

Moumine, I'm very grateful for your contributions to the article. .

I also hope that you may use some of my format in Zanskar/temp, for I now understand what Nichalp says that I should not re-work out in a /temp. But, to me, I still find the /temp useful. Even the references and your images are placed up there, and nearly all your content is there if follow that link.

Thirdly, I don't understand why you are chasing me away to give edits to Zanskar. As a wikipedian, everyone is dedicated to give the best of what he can to this wonderful encyclopedia. So, why make things to be so hostile and block people up in the end?

A piece of good advice to you: please do not add too much brackets in between sentences and paragraphs. This may be well be unpleasing to the reader. Pleaseuse phrase like such as, , etc.

To Nichalp:

So how am I to have a structure like Zanskar/temp? It seems that the current version is harder to cleanup.

Tan 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tan: I don't know how many times I have to say this, or how blunt I have to be, but Moumine's English is much, much better than yours. Even your criticism of him ("But as you can see, to my opinion, your standard of english is indeed not passable. I apologise if that provoke you, but I'm onto my honest opinion and the way of writing articles in the fact that Sikkim is a good example" contains a string of grammatical errors:

It should be "in my opinion", "English", and "if that provokes you (and 'provoke' is the wrong word here anyway); I don't know what you mean by "I'm onto my honest opinion here" — perhaps "I'm giving my honest opinion"? Finally, "the way of writing articles in the fact that Sikkim is a good example" is almost incomprehensible.

The English of the rest of your comments is equally poor if not poorer. I'd never normally say this to a non-native speaker, but as you've taken it upon yourself to attack another editor's English, and to offer advice(!), I feel that I have no choice: your English is dreadful, while Mourmine's English is good (not native-speaker level, but good).

I've just reverted your latest changes to the article because, first, the English was again very poor, secondly, you introduced the tone of giving advice and making value judgements, and thirdly, you reverted a spelling change introduced to provide consistency. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not have the intention to critise, or pruposely condemning others about their English standard. In that case, tell me where are my errors, in such a way that it can be compatible with Sikkim. I use British English, as most Singaporeans do, but saying that I have such a poor standard, please, point out where my mistakes are. I give you a short paragraph typed by me, and retype it out in your english:

Also, tell me the rules why the /temp version of Zanskar is unacceptable. I still cannot make outr your explanation at all..

My version:

Much of Zanskar's vegetation is found in the lower reaches of the valleys, and consists of alpine and tundra species. Crops including barley are grown by farmers at the lower elevations. Domesticated animals such as the yak are found in the region, providing the main source of food and transportation for the indigenous people.

Ractified version:

Tan 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The example you give is the only part of your message here that isn't full of errors; more useful, perhaps, to look at the passage that I last deleted from the article:

One can take the round trip that bypass Pafum, Strongdey, Zangla, Karsha and then back to Padum, which covers most of the cultural sites of Zanskar. Another prime attraction along the road to Padum is the Pensi-La, situated at 4,200 metres high,which separates Zanskar from the Suru Valley and Ladakh.

(replacing "Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest, one can take from there the Padum-Strongdey-Zangla-Karsha-Padum round trip, which covers most of the cultural sites of Zanskar. Another prime attraction along the road to Padum is the Pensi-La, 4,200 metres high, and separating Zanskar from the Suru Valley and Ladakh.")

It should be ‘round-trip that bypasses’, there should be a comma after ‘Karsha’, it should be ‘situated at 2,400 metres’, and you've omitted a space between ‘high’ and the following comma. Moreover your supposed stylistic improvements do nothing to improve the piece; at best they're a matter of personal tatse, mostly they're actually more clumsy.

And:

Tourism is probably the major disruption that Zanskar has experienced during recent times. The opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits such as the financing of schools, the restoration of monasteries, roads but iy has also taken its toll on this fragile mountain environment and its population. Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season, but the local population has sometimes developed a debatable attitude towards visitors towards begging, and occasional thefts.

(replacing "Tourism is probably the major disruption that Zanskar has experienced during recent times. The opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits (the financing of schools, the restoration of monasteries, roads) but has also taken its toll on this fragile mountain environment and its population. Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season, but the local population has sometimes developed a questionable attitude towards visitors (begging, and very occasionally stealing).")

Leaving aside ‘iy’, there should be an ‘and” before and a comma after ‘roads”, ‘questionable’ is the correct term, not ‘debatable’, and “towards visitors towards begging, and occasional thefts” makes no sense.

In short, almost every change you made involved either an error of style, grammar, or vocabulary-choice. Oh, the only other change in that edit was ‘Pensi-La’ to ‘Penzi-La’ in another paragraph, while leaving the 's' spelling elsewhere.

Not only am I native English speaker, but I've published articles and books in philosophy and poetry, and I taught English as a foreign language for many years; you clearly speak English as a second language at best — yet you continue to insist that you're right, to the extent of giving other people advice!

As for the issue of Zanskar/temp: there's nothing wrong with it in principle, but it should be done in collaboration with, and with the knowledge and approval of, other editors, and shouldn't be used as a way of imposing your version at a stroke. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply

• Moumine: 1) I noticed the quoted text of the phrase "third world". I don't know if there are politically correct phrases, but the situations you described may not always be from the developing world. Here's one discussion I encountered on the topic (TW) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goa. Its mentioned in the last paragraph by User:Travisyoung. 2) 5Mb is certainally large! You needn't upload that big a file, that's why I asked you "as large as you can" not the "largest you have" :). I too had problems with large images and so kept my images to 700kb max. In an archived discussion on my talk page, User:Dbenbenn mentioned this about file sizes:

Well, check out Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg, which is 8460x8900! Besides the current upload limit of 8MB, the policy is to get the highest resolution possible. I hope you're eventually able to upload it.

3) Some of the images on the page are listed as copyrighted, and one does not have an information tag. I just want to clarify if you intended having one or two copyrighted. If you are planning to release all your images under GFDL, I would suggest that you upload it to wikipedia commons so that it can be shared by all wikipedia languages. If you needed the map replaced by a *free one*, I'm willing to trace over it and release it under GFDL. 4) Colour photos would be the best.

• To Mr. Tan and Mel: Mr Tan, your edits have numerous grammatical mistakes. Instead of commenting on others' grammar, could you add more content to this page? Mel: give Mr Tan a few days with the page, and after he finishes adding matter, you may give it a copyedit. I hope this is a workable solution.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

comments

To Mr Tan: my intend was not to prevent you, or block you from editing Zanskar or any other page. What I wanted to make clear is that you should refrain from correcting the syntax or grammar of other articles. This does certainly not mean that you should not add content (as long as you give your sources), correct typos, Wikify articles or whatever else you are good at. I also hope that you will see the benefit that is to be gained from asking native english speakers to correct your own articles, which are otherwise quite good.

To Nichalp: Thank you for your proposition to retrace the figure, but this is how this figure was created in the first place (I retraced and modified it from its original source, which was the National Geographic Magazine). I have now put it under GFDL license.

Moumine 07:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Mel: Thanks for you advice on my English errors. However, my altitde of displeausre towards you is that you have been revertig every edit contribution of mine, and I still do not comprehend. While I stop editing Zanskar for sometime, I suggest that you further style the Zanskar into something like Sikkim styiling. What I'm not contended is the current styling. I want something like the format of Zanskar/temp. That's all.

Nichalp: I'm grateful that you have point out that I have numerous gramatical mistakes. Thanks alot. I also do agree with the recomendation of colour photos. What is the syntax?

Moumine: I'm grateful for the contributions of the content to Zanskar, but I'm not happy about how you style the article. Thus, please give me sometime to work out the article, and there are many content that can be merged. Also, there is no need to add too many unnecessary facts in some of the sections, in which you do.

I also have reviewed the etymology section. Based on the guidelines of Sikkim, you should not give information like a research paper, in which you do. This is an encyclopedia article. For more information, please visit the articles in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Tan 09:01, 21 Apr 2005

Question

Is this notable information (from the livestock section)? I feel that there is no need to tell such acute details about the uses of yak in Zanskar. This looks more like a research paper than an encyclopedic article.

Livestock Livestock, and especially the yak, is of paramount importance in Zanskar. Yaks are used to plough the land, to thresh the grain, to carry heavy loads (up to 200 kilos), and their dung not only serves as fertiliser but is also the only heating fuel available in the region. They are a vital source of milk and sometimes, but rarely, of meat. The yak's fur is used to make clothes, carpets, ropes, and bed covers. Tan 19:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'acute', but I see nothing wrong with the section on yaks; it tells the reader what they're used for by the local populace. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section talks about the lifestyle of the Zanskaris! Thus, I feel that it seems strange to have it up.

Also, why Moumine is making reverts on every edit I make? I do not understand what kind of syntax is Nichalp is talking about.

Tan 12:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan

Since you do not seem to have carefully read the messages that I posted on your user talk page, I reproduce it below under its original heading "Kinnaur":

Or was this your answer?:

I would apologise if I'm rude, but I have no intention to be agressive. Due to my exams, I would like to hold back the discussion and major edits, which I would be doing at that time. Anyway, I gave you this meessage partly because you were not always online in the past.

Anyway, your stuling is poor, but not the grammar. Thus, the {gcheck} template have to be put up, as this also pertains to the styling of the article. From there, I will have to either reshift, (maybe delete a few facts) to make it more tidy. Honestly, your styling and sentence construction is very poor.

Mr Tan 09:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what a fact is? A fact is exactly what should be included in an Encyclopedia but YOU say that this is what you want to delete from the article.

Moumine 14:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kinnaur

As a reminder, here are some of the comments you, Mr Tan, made on the Zanskar article (reproduced here in your own words):

• it seems that Zanskar will be doomed as a poor quality article. So how I'm going to cleanup? It will really needs massive re-working in that case
• I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case
• Just look at the etymology section; does anybody ever write such "rubbish" in terms of sentence structure and gramatical error?

Now, even if it were true, these are really not nice comments to make about anything or anybody. However, out of curiosity and since you are so persuated of your own superiority in all things literary, I decided to take a look at your "major" contributions in the hope of maybe learning something from you. In this respect, I was rather dissapointed but it was worth a good laugh. Reproduced below are some real nuggets to be found in your Kinnaur article:

• "Woolen clothes is worn contributing to its cold weather" I do not know how wearing any kind of clothes, be they woolen or not, can contribute to the weather. Should you be able to document this, it would certainly be a major break-through in climatology.
• "These three religions have undergone religious infusion" This sentence is mysterious, but again, if you can demonstrate that religions can undergo infusion, be it religious or not, you would also make a breakthrough in theology.
• "the Hindu and Buddhist religions interwine together over the centuries". Well, this is a practice they should definitively put on hold, unless you meant intertwined? but in this case, intertwine together is kind of redundent.
• "the upper areas of the valleys fall mainly under the rain shadow area". This sentence is very poetic, but what is it supposed to mean exactly?

Your articles are also full of typos (to be charitable). Here are the most obvious one lifted again verbatim form your Kinnaur article:

• "posses" should be possess. Posse is a word and posses is its plural, but it has a meaning that does not exactly fit into your sentences. In the same spirit, it should be possessed and possessing
• "descandants" should be descendants
• "embridered" should be embroided
• "maybe worn" should be may be worn
• "iving" should be living
• "interwined" as already mentioned should be intertwined

I have already mentioned before that I do not consider myself to be an authority in english grammar (as opposed to you), however I have the sneaking suspicion that the sentences reproduced below do not exactely match the high standards you claim promoting:

• "Strains of racial mixing is the greatest in Middle Kinnaur, however.". ???
• "They also claim descent to the Rajput" one claims descent from not to
• "Of late, Tibetan refugees from Tibet has settled in parts of the district as well." Aside from the fact that it should be obvious that Tibetan refugees are from Tibet, they have settled not has
• "Pakpa, a skin of made out of animal skin" One of the of shouln't be there. Guess which one?
• "is accompanied with a white colour velvet band". Correct is: to be accompanied by something
• "The first wrap of Dohru is based on the back" ???
• "Folk Hindu gods are also worshipped. This necessarily include the Durga, where it is locally known as Chandi, Narayan, Vishnu, and many other folk Hindu-Animist gods.". Woodstock in the Himalaya? and besides, speaking of Durga, one does not say "the Durga" and the qualifier for a God is certainly not "it"
• "They are generally divided into two groups, the celibate Gyolang, who shave their heads, and the Durpu, who do not shave their heads and marry, and there are no restrictions in their marriage." What do you mean no restrictions in their marriage?
• "Mount Kailash is the most sacred peak by most Kinners" probably revered by most...
• "Legendary and mythlogical accounts spreaded by the word from the mouth is also heard among the local folks." Very strange sentence.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on for hours...

Also, you have obviously lifted most of your text from the following website: [http://hpkinnaur.nic.in/] and just worsened it. Your "Tourism"" section reads as an advertisement from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Office, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. In the article you also constantly introduce very very obscure words that you fail to define or link with other Wikipedia articles.

And then there are the factual errors. For instance, the "Kinnaur Kailash" has nothing to do with the "Mount Kailash", therefore linking the one with the other is not only completely misleading but plainly wrong.

I hope that you now start to understand why we have reverted your edits on Zanskar so many times. Should that not be the case, read again carefully the comments you received by User:Mel Etitis and User:Nichalp.

Oh yes, before I forget, some times ago you posted the following message on my page:

"I want you to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Stay online in wikipedia between those days. Thanks.

Tan 23:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

Do you even realise how extremely impolitely this sentance of yours is formulated.? It comes across as an extremely rude order. A polite request could have been:

I would like to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Would it be possible for you to be online on these two days?

Can you spot the difference?

Moumine 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling

Mr Tan (talk · contributions) has returned in order to make a change to the article that does nothing more than turn good grammar into bad ([3]). This really has to stop. Continually adding misinformation to an article on a subject about which one knows little, and refusing to stop, would be accounted vandalism; this is exactly analogous. Mr Tan's grasp of English grammar and spelling is extremely poor, yet he insists on 'correcting' other people's English. If he continues to behave in this way he will face an editing block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Methinks that Mr. Tan deems his English to be of high caliber. He is currently in a state of denial, and has blamed other people for not telling him that his English is bad. My suggestion would be to tell him straight to his face that his English sounds totally ridiculous and is not worthy of being in an encyclopædia. He should be in the Chinese Wikipedia instead of here. His inaccurate and untrue facts also lower the overall accuracy and quality of the article and thus the entire encyclopædia. Also misuses words. I'd suggest a longer block if he doesn't follow advice. JMBell° 12:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gcheck

I placed up the gcheck because

• The format and styling is still not at a reasonable level.
• The way the article is written looks monotonous.
• It is not vandalism at all.

Jmbell:

• Stating that I'm not fit to be in English wikipedia is an insult.
• I never stated that my english is of high-caliber at all. What I say was that I feel that my English is poor, but yours (mel, Moumine) is below unacceptable standard, as evidenced in this article.
• I do not understand what ridiculous statement is Mel stating my English is extremely poor. Instead, a vote should be taken against me to vote on my standard.

Tan 20:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan,

• • I'm merely stating a fact. How can that be an insult? You have bad grammar, and so admit it. Everyone's been telling you. If you do, you can stay. The problem is, you like to go around fixing things that ain't broken, and then you fiercely deny all (and may I say true) accusations or statements that your English is faulty.
  • Saying that the English of a Swiss(man) and an English professor from Oxford is extremely poor, is entirely preposterous. Perhaps you have got your statement the wrong way around?
  • That's what we're doing right now on your RfC. When this is finished, I hope you believe us all and humble yourself so that you can start anew.

Regarding the gcheck,

• • The format and styling is very good.
  • Encyclopedia articles must be monotonous.
  • It could be regarded as vandalism.

That is all I have to say. The rest is up to you.

JMBell° 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Editors contributing to this page might wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Mel, Please do not interrupt by removing the gcheck template. It need not copy-editing as badly as last time, but some is still needed. Let me do the job first in a few day's time, before you interfere. I have no wish to see you bullying me like this.

Tan 10:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You are bullying, Mr. Tan. There is no need to fix up Zanskar. You are just introducing errors into the article again. If you repeat this one more time, I will request page protection from a sysop - no, not Mel - just to show you that you are in the wrong. Please stop. JMBell° 12:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The fault lies in you and Mel in the fact that both of you are people who are extremely impatient. Just becuase seeing that Zanskar seems depreciated in terms of article quality in your POV while I'm copy-editing, that doesn't mean it will look bad after I have done everything. Furthermore, I am not finished, so why revert for no reason? This is hoolinganism. I cannot control you on protecting the page or blocking me, but I will do in accordance to the right ways. To me, if the article needs copyediting to me, so be it. Let me finish up everything before you proceed. It may be the right of yours to revert bad edits, but it is my right to edit useful things and it is also my right to complete everything properly before you do anything that will interfere my copy0editing.

Ah yes, before I forget, encyclopedia should be presentable. Zanskar is not quite up to standard according to my view. Go and see how George W. Bush is written. That it is the way I accept. I insist that formatting is needed. It is neither vandalism nor subvandalism.

tan 14:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You are at fault. If you had read the RfC, you'd have seen User:Smoddy's comment that we are very calm and patient with you. Also, you shouldn't be editing Zanskar anymore. You yourself said that from your "point of view, it is not quite standard." Formatting is not needed. If you want, we can ask outsiders if they think formatting is needed, but I doubt if they'll agree with you. It is true - you do have editing rights. However, do not abuse them by doing everything your own way. Remember: this is Jimbo's encyclopedia, not yours.

And before I forget, you told me that I have spelling errors. Guess what? I ran a spell checker on all my posts here and my spelling is 99.98% correct. That's around one typo in a million. Happy? I'm not.

Stop maligning us or I will have reason to bring this case to a higher court. That's all. JMBell° 11:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Reasons and things done in copy-editing

According to my POV, a lot of copy-editing needs to be done. As a matter of courtesy, please do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point for the time being.

I have done the long and windy descriptions of the pictures into the image article itself, following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Captions. Short descriptions are retained in the page itself.

tan 17:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

there is no grammatical problem with this article, and you haven't given any indication as to why you think that there is. Stop placing the gcheck template on this article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is no problem with the article, Nichalp, me and other editors would still edit the article itself. If I can extensively edit the article itself gramatically, there is no reason for you "subvandalising" the article itself by removing the gcheck template. You been rude, impatient and belittle the efforts, decision to copyedit and intention of the copyeditor, which is me myself. You have also quickly removed and reverted the changes in a few hours time before I could complete editing.

• The article needs re-sectioning. if Nichalp has done some, and you have no complaint in the etymology section, then why you reverted the changes last time? This is a sign of harassment from you.
• Images should not have such a windy descriptions in the article itself. Short descriptions is enough.
• There will be more to come. I insist copyediting and removal of redundant points.

tan 14:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have again removed your incorrect use of the "gcheck" template, and I have reverted your ungrammatical changes to the article. Your insistence on what should be the case, meaning that you want it to be so, is not acceptable. If the RfC on you has taught you nothing, and if you continue to act arrogantly and disruptively, I shall not hesitate to take firther steps to reign you in, up to and including arbitration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Mr Tan's behaviour has again led to this page being protected. This, together with Wikipedia:requests for comment/Mr Tan, should have brought home to him that his attitude and actions need to be modified. I hope that it has, because otherwise he's heading for an arbitration request, and I should like to avoid that if possible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I do not understand why you have been accusing me of vandalising pages. I'm trying to make the best of making the page better, and here youy are trying to revert all the changes that I'm trying to make. I also don't understand where I am guilty of artribation. Furthermore, I have not even finished my work and here you interruptted.

Tan 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You probably honestly don't understand, and I'm not sure what I can do to explain it to you. The Zanskar article is perfectly OK grammatically, yet you added a template saying that it isn't, and made changes that turned good grammar into bad; you did that repeatedly, despite various editors explaining to you that you were wrong, and an RfC in which you received widespread criticism and no support. (Note that I didn't protect the page, because I'm too involved in it; another admin, not involved in editing this page, made the decision that your edits were vandalistic, and protected the page. Does that not indicate to you that you might be wrong, and that this isn't just some sort of personal feud between you and a group of other editors?)

You're not guilty of arbitration; I said that I'm trying to avoid taking you to arbitration. That's a more formal process than the RfC, in which the Arbitration Committee looks at the facts, and decides whether to take action. if they find against you, you might be blocked from editing altogether for a time, blocked from editing certain articles or from making certain kinds of edits, or assigned a mentor who watches your editing and tries to help you to behave better. If you want to avoid that possibility, you need to reflect on your actions, and take seriously what others say to you. In particular, you need to accept that your English is too poor for you to make decisions about the acceptability of articles. Limit yourself to adding content (within Wikipedia policy and guidelines), and stop trying to take over articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand. I can explain in detail. But it will be a long one. If you let me edit first, then explain, it will be easier.

I don't understand why you are accusing me of trying to taking over control of articles!

I do not understand how you define my english as "very poor". However, I have detected some of the differences in our english in which I will explain later.

I have not even completed my response of the RfC, so I wonder what the h*ll are you talking about artribation so early. For your information, I will try to complete the response bu 21 May. Furthermore, I feel that their comments sounds strange as I have not even completed my response in the first place! See for yourself. I have concrete evidence against your actions. I cannot open an RfC against you, for this is a 3 to 1 confrontation, although at the present moment there is only you alone.

I don't see where my actions are bad. In fact, I feel that what you said is actually saying on yourself.

Even if you feel that RfC is not needed at all, I feel that copyediting is needed. I do not see why you are so impatient to revert the edits. In the first place, I haven't finished copyediting! Even if you want to revert, I would prefer it if I have completed everything.

If you have a innovative set of thinking, a building that is under construction will look ugly. But it will look nice after construction. Do you get the picture of what I mean?

Do you realise that you have turned good edits into bad without sparing a thought? I give you one example for now.

Rain- and snowfall during this period is thus scarce

There is no reason why a hyphen should be there. This is a sign of Moumine poor english, or his carelessness.

Also, whre is the full stop at the end of the sentence in the livestock:

Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar are the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep and goats, and the lammergeier

I have pointed out two mistakes. And there is more.

Anyway, the first two points above are part of the explanation cause.

There is also poor sectioning.

I will explain further.

Tan 23:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, it would be easier if you pointed out our mistakes instead of correcting them. Not everyone is perfect, and we are humble enough to accept our mistakes. I don't know about you, but anyway, if you pointed out the mistakes, we can easily correct them or discuss about the mistakes - if they are correct or not - but, as other people have pointed out in the RfC, your grammar still has a long way to go. It's not about your finishing it or not - people have already placed their opinions, and you must listen so that we can end up on good terms with each other. I'm sure even Mel would be less upset towards you if you took our (and their) advice.

Now, a possible explanation for the above mistakes. "Rain- and snowfall" is possible; have you ever seen the word "rainfall"? The hyphen is supposed to shorten things (what you like to do) by omitting the first "fall" in the phrase - therefore: Rain- and snowfall instead of Rainfall and snowfall. What sounds better? And with the second point, well, it's forgivable. People make mistakes, as you and we like to point out to each other. And a typo can easily be fixed, if that's your worry. If you'd like a small lesson in styling, you can ask Mel or me. Just be sure to take our advice. I'm trying to find the fastest and easiest way to get us out of this situation, and I need your cooperation to be able to do that, okay? Please listen. Please listen. PLEASE. --JMBell° 16:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant for a place to use shortcut phrases. Proper sentences should be used. This not only confuse people, but also inculcate the person himself to lower the standard of english, and as well as his own laziness. I'm not condemning Moumine, but that is what I learnt in the Confucian virtues.

If you think that anyone have committed a mistake, I would be happy to accept apologies.

I can listen. I want copyediting, as I feel that it needs. After pointing out some of the mistakes, I hope you can understand my motive for copyediting, and let me do everything first. Them you can subsequently clean it up in anyway you like, and everybody will be happy. I am also pleading you to cooperate on this point. Can?

As for the bracket busines, I need time to reply your question.

Tan 23:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not a shortcut, it's standard convention. Please understand. And no. You point out the mistakes, we correct. Not you make the mistakes, we correct, we point out, then you say "aha" and correct some mistakes and make a couple more. We'll stick to Plan A first until something is done and then you do your thing, okay? JMBell° 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

JM is right; the use of the hyphen is perfectly normal and correct English, and certainly doesn't make the sentence "improper". The missing of a full stop hardly warrants the copyedit template! On the other hand, Mr Tan's edits included changing grammatically correct Emglish to grammatically incorrect English — for example:

"Zanskar, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet." changed to "Together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet." (thus producing a sentence with no subject)

If you notice, the paragraph is being written like this:

Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. Zanskar, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.

Omit mention of the second "Zanskar" as the first one represents everything. Making this is not proper english.

Why would I want to say that? If you notice, adding every other sentence with Zanskar, Zanskar, Zanskar within the same paragraph is very boorish. Also, even if you want to add like this, pronouns such as it, should be used rather than nouns. However, again if you use pronouns like this:

Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. It, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.

It has little meaning in its sentence. Thus, I would like to advise that ommision of the seond Zanskar is feasible.

If you say "It, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, ..." and Padum is right behind it, the "it" will be referring not to Zanskar, but to Padum. See the difference? JMBell° 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar are the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep and goats, and the lammergeier" changed to "Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar include the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep, goat, and the lammergeier." (placing the full stop more than negated by the grammatical mess made of the sentence)

"Zanskar's population is small; at the last census in 1971, it was 6,886, and was estimated to be around 10,000 by 2005." changed to "The population of Zanskar was estimated to be 10,000 in 2005, although it was said to have a population of 6,886 at its last census in 1971." (Mr Tan has an obsession concerning the clumsy and vague "was said to")

Why use the phrase Zanskar's population is small? Small is a free definition, and such phrases should be ommitted to avoid confusion.

Surely, our readers won't be so stupid as not to know the meaning of "small" in this case? It has free meaning, but readers will be able to guess what it is by the following supporting phrases. JMBell° 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"The opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits such as the financing of schools and the restoration of monasteries and roads, but has also taken its toll on this fragile mountain environment and its population." changed to "I was noted that the opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits such as the financing of schools and the restoration of monasteries and roads, but has also taken its toll on Zanskar and the people itself."

Wikipedia is a place for proper articles, not research papers or journals. Using the I signifies that the Zanskar is not an article, but rather a journal. Thus, if you understand the principle and usage of active and passive voice, again, you should understand what I mean.

etc., etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

There is always a reason to what I edit. Thus, I assume that your accusation of me for near-vandalism is perjury. I don't know how you define the term, either, but if that is what you say, I think that you are two to three times worse. If you let me handle the copyediting, I assure you that you can counter-copyedit to further enhance the standard.

Tan 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have put in some notes for you to check, Tan; perhaps now the mistakes could be somewhat clearer to you. And don't accuse others of perjury unless you have evidence. Okay? JMBell° 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)
That Mr Tan simply can't see his grammatical errors, and that he tried to lecture me in fractured English about the use of English, demonstrates that he has learned nothing from the RfC — nor from the RfC on him under his former name of Chan Han Xiang. For example, not only did he mistype "It" as "I", but when this was pointed out he got confused, took the "I" to have been someone else's edit, and provided an argument against the use of the first person (apparently not noticing that it made no grammatical sense, and was clearly meant to be "It"). He then confused it with the distinction between active and passive voices. And he topped it off by accusing me of "perjury"! You couldn't make this up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I am the reincarnation User:Chan Han Xiang at all (it is extremely interesting that you hinted out another person with a similar character of mine and co-incidents). I am just User:Mr Tan, and I have joined wikipedia on 2 Jan 2005. That's it. I don't see why you are accusing me as a reincarnation of that user stated above.

Why did you accuse me of near-vandalism in User:BrokenSegue talk page? I do not even understand where I conducted subvandalism. I have never heard that subvandalism is the reverting of edits. If you say that, and I'm telling the truth, that ypu are three times worse that what you think that you are. Thus, this is supposed to be perjury, at least in my POV.

Fractured English? I'm sorry, but I assume that your judgement of good and poor english may be distorted. Show me where are my flaws, but I have seen what you have judged as "bad english". I still can't make out why you say that my english is a flop.

I don't understand which "It" and "I" you are exactly refering to.

Tan 00:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan, let's make a deal, okay? You edit articles, and I point out your mistakes to you, and you correct them. That way, everyone will benefit. -JMBell° 17:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan:

1. With regard to your identity, see the reasoning and evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan#Outside view. It is possible to ask a developer to check to see if you're the same person; we can do that if you think that it will prove us wrong — but I don't think that it will.
2. Look up "perjury" in a dictionary.
3. I have, time and time again, listed your grammatical errors at length.
4. No, I don't suppose that you do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

1. So I have explained why its wrong and apologised and acknoledged on ocasions if I'm wrong.
2. I know the meaning at the back of my hand. I'm not using the meaning of perjury blindly.
3. What do you mean by No, I don't suppose that you do.

Tan 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what your first comment (with two spelling mistakes and two grammatical mistakes) is meant to refer to. With regard to your second comment, the phrase is "know something like the back of my hand", and "perjury" means giving false evidence in a court of law while under oath. With regard to your final question, I suggest that you use your vaunted command of English to read what went before and work it out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan, don't use words you don't know the meaning of. You can get into trouble that way. I did once. JMBell° 00:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Big Mess

I am very sorry to have to say this, but because of Mr Tan's repeated actions, the Zanskar article, which started as a perfectly well shaped and informative article (albeit with some grammatical mistakes), has now turned in parts into an unintelligible mess.

The article for instance now contains broken sentences like this

Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season.

This is due to the fact that despite the best efforts of the other contributors (myself included) to clean-up after Mr Tan's edits, his "contributions" are so numerous and messy that things could only get broken at some stage (and this also valid for many other articles that Mr Tan decided to "improve").

I really start to believe that Mr tan is much worse than your typical "off the shelf" vandals who are at least easy to spot and whose vandalism are easy to revert.

And now the Zanskar article is protected again which means that it will stay in this borked form for some time...

Moumine 18:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you to cleanup the Zanskar article, for I have spotted so much defects in the article, and here you all are trying to reverts all of my edits? This is attacking! I thought all of you want to edit collaboratively?

I don't see why you are accusing me of typing that sentence either; in fact, it was you who written the broken sentences. That is why I say copy-editing has to be done!

One of the bad atrocious sentences of yours include

Trekking is the best method to gain full access to Zanskar, although one may hire a jeep or take a bus to drive from Kargil to Padum over the Pensi-La mountain pass.

Taking a bus to drive to Kargil? Are you trying to say that you can drive a bus or get onto a bus that is driven by another person? Your sentence is very vague, very unclear. Therefore, I assume that you are trying to mean that one can hire to drive to Kargil.

Yes, the sentence is correct. Taking a bus that is driven by you or someone else is unimportant in this case. JMBell° 11:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the "Tourism" section needs to go to wikitravel. A little content concerning tourism add colours to the article if it is written in an encyclopedic, rather than a "tourist guide book" manner.

I have decided to start copy-editing. Especialyy for Mel, please do not revert my edits (though you may try to help out a little). I have stated why the english used is wrong.

Ah yes, I have just found out that there is a definition that may help in explaining why the article is unacceptable: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. There are a lot of "peacock terms", I'm afraid. An example of such kind of phrases include: Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest,....

It seems more like your own personal journal than an article paragraph to me!

Tan 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted Mr Tan's "copyediting" attempts, which as always introduced countless errors of grammar and style. I've also removed his inappropriate placing of the "copyedit" tag. I am now going to start preparing an arbitration case, with a request to have him banned from changing the English of any article (but a request to allow him to add material, on condition that he makes no objection to its being corrected by editors whose English is better than his). The RfC clearly hasn't had any effect; a number of editors have left comments, all criticising his appalling English and his bad attitude towards other editors, none defending him, and he continues to behave in exactly the same way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan has been blocked for breaking the 3RR on Tsushima Islands, and I've also reported his violation on this article. I can't undo the mess that he's made, unfortunately, because I's be violating 3RR (I'm inclined to say that it's permissible because his edits are vandalism, but best not risk it). Could someone do it fairly quickly, please? It would be a pity for readers to come across the article the way it is now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are treating this page as an advertising page, not sticking to discussions related to Zanskar. You have not explained on your reverts on Zanskar. In fact, you changed to another topic. And you, while accusing me as rude in my messages, is actually rude in yourself here.

Tan 19:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit or Cleanup

I feel that the article needs thorough restructuring. There is little problems with the grammar. Thus, cleanup is more appropriate for Zanskar, as in Joseon dynasty. See [4] for case review.

Tan 20:18, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Message

As I have promised, I will put up the cleanup tag today, as the article throughly needs content restructuring--no information will be removed, unless otherwise stated. Do note that the article at is current standard is gramatically correct.

Feel free to contribute to Zanskar or ask questions, but please elaborate your reasons if anybody wants to revert(it is strongly discouraged), or it will be merely treated as vandalism. Tan 21:32, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

There are no obvious grammatical problems with the article, and your dislike of its structure is not grounds for placing the "cleanup" template onit. I'm removing it, and asking that another admin speak to you to try to get you to understand that your behaviour is not acceptable — though as you've ignored everyone else, including an RfC, I don't imagine that it will help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that I did not like it, but if you notice much of the content is not clearly classified. I also stated that there are no gramatical errors. If you want me to explain where it is not properly structured, then please frankly ask me; I do not want reservations concerning this matter.

Feel free to ask that admin to speak to me, but it seems that your behaviour is not acceptable to me--I don't see that hard with getting along with other users.

Tan 22:20, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the RfC, in which a string of editors all agreed with me concerning your conduct? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is because I have yet to explain on my view of conduct; and I done it a little too late. I posted my response very long after they wrote the comments. Come back to the point; it seems that you have no questions concerning the cleanup, and I will put up the tag soon.

Tan 22:20, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

If you replace the template, it will be removed immediately. Read the instructions concerning its use. Then read all the comments of other editors above, not one of whom agrees with your proposed changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already read and knew them, and I am planning to do in accordance to the cleanup guidelines. I am also aware of the comments of the other editors above, but that doesn't warrant you to revert unconditionally before I complete the whole process. If you can, try calling back JMBell and Moumine, but it seems that both have disappeared completely. Do you have anymore comments on that?

Tan 23:09, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

I shall not revert your edits automatically, any more than I have ever done, but I shall automatically remove the "cleanup" tag from this article, as it's not warranted. It's not enough to read the instructions on its use; you need to understand them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please give me a brief explanation why I am not warrant to put up the cleanup tag then? Or can you please tell me on what other tag can I put up concerning this restructuring activity?

Also, I want you, not to mention any "bad" things on my past edits on this article, and my intentions is all based on restructuring.

Tan 23:09, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

You haven't reply your questions, I have no choice but to go ahead with my plan. Tan 00:37, 5 June 2005 (UTC)