User talk:Vic Park: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:59, 20 December 2022

Vic Park, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vic Park! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bop34 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dry port, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United State.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Perth metropolitan region, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. Vic Park (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits in the List of island countries

I got your points, but the article of Zhongshan Island you referred to was not all relevant, as the description of the same article in English version is contradictory to the original contents from the Chinese counterpart.

In Chinese version, if you can understand or translate it, clearly pointed out that the island no longer exists and widely regarded as part of the the mainland by conventional cognition from Chinese themselves, quoting from the Chinese version "香山島是中國宋朝之前位於珠江出海口西岸的一個島嶼，目前已和大陸相連" [Xiangshan (Zhongshan) Island was an island located in the western Pearl River Delta before the Song Dynasty of China, which is now connected with the continent.] 118.163.139.3 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, I am aware of this. However, the term "river island" has different meanings in Chinese and English. In Chinese, a landmass separated by one or more natural rivers on one side and the sea or ocean on the other side is considered a part of the mainland. In English, this type of landmass is still classified as a river island. Hence, in English-speaking countries, Marajó is considered the largest river island in the world. In English Wikipedia, the description in Zhongshan Island is correct, the classification of Macao as an island territory is also correct. Vic Park (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the Watershed article

Thanks for your recent edits to the Watershed article, and for all your work on Wikipedia.

One of those edits, though, runs counter to the result of a discussion on the article's talk page. The use of "watershed" to mean "drainage divide" is not restricted to Commonwealth countries, but is, even in North America, the most common meaning when the term is used metaphorically. So one definition is regional and the other is universal, and the universal meaning should therefore be listed first.

I invite you to read that discussion and, if you don't find it persuasive, to add your view to it. TypoBoy (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that a headline in the Washington Post today quotes President Biden calling Finland and Sweden’s decision to join NATO a "watershed moment". So yes, Americans do use "watershed" to mean a divide. TypoBoy (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TypoBoy, thank you for your comment. I had discussions with people from different English-speaking countries on the Internet, from my personal experience, I noticed that:

1. Among Commonwealth countries, watershed is the preferred term for drainage divide, but we know what drainage divide means and we mainly consider this term to be the preferred term used by Northern American countries.

2. For drainage basin, some Commonwealth countries prefer to call it catchment basin or catchment area, but we would never use watershed to describe drainage basin and we consider it a strictly Northern American usage.

3. For Americans (general people, not journalists or academics), a lot of them don't realise that the word "watershed" has a different meaning in Commonwealth countries.

I once had a discussion with a guy on the Internet about a geography-related topic. He was confused and didn't really understand what I was talking about. I suddenly realised that he could be an American, so I asked him: "Dude, are you American?" He said yes. Then I changed my wording and replaced watershed with drainage divide, then suddenly he understood what I was talking about.

To sum up, I wouldn't say that drainage divide is a universal term, it appears to be "universal" because people in the Commonwealth countries have more knowledge about the different usages of "watershed", but I agree for disambiguation purposes, we should place it ahead of drainage basin (coz our English is the pure form of English, haha). Vic Park (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Socotra

I notice in this series of edits you change piped links to avoid redirects and link common words and geographic expressions such as Africa and plant. Both are incorrect and contravene WP:NOPIPE and MOS:OVERLINK respectively. I was going to revert your edits but amongst them are occasional beneficial edits. Although the correct edits are in the minority I frankly couldn’t be bothered to sort it out to leave those in place so have left all your edits. But please refrain from doing this in future and review NOPIPE and OVERLINK. On NOPIPE, as a rule of thumb, if a link is blue and links to the correct article then leave it be. It doesn’t need to match an article title. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment about the overlinkings. I thought about deleting the link to plant too, but I decided to left there because the previous editors had not removed it. I will remove these links now. As for the redirects, redirects are supposed to serve as an indication for possible articles in the future. Plain redirects such as nongovernmental organization serve no real purpose other than adding extra bytes and loading time to the server. They are not worth retaining at all. Getting rid of unnecessary redirects isn't really a violation of the policy either. You have done the good thing by not abusing your revert function. When dealing with non-vandalism/non-misleading edits, we should never use the revert function as it is a proven stimulus of edit wars. Vic Park (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? “When dealing with non-vandalism/non-misleading edits, we should never use the revert function as it is a proven stimulus of edit wars.” is nonsense and not how things work at all. There are multiple reasons why an edit can and should be reverted - lack of WP:CONSENSUS is just one. What you shouldn’t do is re-revert if you’re attempting to change the article. I see your account has had a few hundred edits and existed for a few months. You have a lot to learn. I would have been entirely right to revert your failure to comply with NOPIPE. Your comment seems to reveal you don’t understand it. Read it again. If I see you making those unnecessary changes again I will revert you. And by the way, have a read of WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make threatening comments in other editor's talk page. Not all edits lack of WP:CONSENSUS should be reverted, especially if WP:RS is provided. I know I can't change the way you make your edits. Please don't try to change mine. When other people aren't making vandalisms or misleading edits, their work should be respected. I will never revert other people just because I don't agree with them. If parts of their work are incorrect, I will fix that part only. Vic Park (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their work should not and is not respected if it’s not an improvement to the article, does not meet standards of WP:COMPETENCE, WP norms or WP policy or guidelines and it’s expected to revert those sort of edits. In your case if you don’t comply with WP:NOPIPE again – which you failed to do on Socotra, and have not corrected despite it being highlighted to you – you will be reverted by me or anyone else. DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am partly agreeing with you. However, deciding whether an edit is an improvement to the article or not would be subjective, that's why we need WP:CONSENSUS from other people if there is a dispute. The policy you've quoted does mention my point of view, but I get what you meant. It is not a consistent policy, I reckon it should be reviewed for improvement. Vic Park (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve misunderstood our policy. Yes, “improvement” is subjective but WP:CONSENSUS is required to change an article but not to revert the change immediately. In principle, a revert should stand unless a new CONSENSUS comes in to support the change. In other words, the status quo ante normally stands. You don’t need to find a CONSENSUS to revert to the existing text. There are exceptions: vandalism, and WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO infringements should be changed and shouldn’t be reverted. In the case of your edits that we are talking about my reverts (if I had made them) should stand and you shouldn’t revert them for two reasons: you infringed WP:NOPIPE (that’s not subjective - you did by trying to avoid redirects) and because you wanted to change the existing text. The existing text is deemed to have WP:EDITCONSENSUS and you are deemed not to have consensus because you are making the change. If, however, others come to support your changes then, and only then, consensus is deemed to switch to you. In the current case, as I did not revert you, your edits may over time acquire WP:EDITCONCENSUS status and to then change them would require a new consensus. (How long it takes to acquire EDITCONSENSUS is a judgment question). However, there is a grey area here. Because you didn’t comply with WP:NOPIPE some future editor may feel they can revert your changes whether or not they acquired EDITCONSENSUS. That’ how a lot of disputes start. I hope that’s clear now. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like your explanation and it does make sense. I just want to pointed out that the policy you've quoted isn't a perfect policy. I have provided a strong reason why some unnecessary redirects should be avoided as they are wasting our resources. I reckon the policy should be adjusted to correct this issue. In my opinion, you have done the good thing by not overinterpreting the WP:NOPIPE policy. As you've noted in your previous post, I am a pretty active editor and none of the other editors involved in the articles which I've contributed extensively seems to have a problem with my edits so far. In other words, they think my edits were fine, so my edits are likely to be fine (i.e. there is a de facto WP:EDITCONSENSUS in place). You could be the first editor to challenge my editing style, but without getting WP:CONSENSUS from other editors, your point of view would likely be labelled subjective (i.e. no evidence to prove what you said is what it should be). Vic Park (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not your editing style. Your editing against policy - and you’ve done it over a very short time with very few edits. You’ll just have to find out the hard way. I’ve done my best to explain it to you. I’m done. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your input. I might not be an old hand here, but I am very active. So far, I've received a few thanks from other editors along the way, so I think I am doing fine. If there is a problem with my edits in the future, I will make some adjustments accordingly. Vic Park (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (continent) edits

I notice you have reverted my edit of that lists Indonesia under countries in the continent of Australia. Let me just say several things: 1) no part of Italy, mainland Spain or Portugal is located within Africa. On the other hand western Papua is an integral part of Indonesia, not an overseas department. 2) I have specified that only a part of Indonesia is located in Australia, I did not list the entirety of Indonesia as an “Australian country”. 3) Speaking of being in line with other geography articles, we do in fact list Egypt as a country [partly] in Asia and Turkey as country [partly] in Europe - even though they have the majority of their land in Africa and Asia respectively. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Here is my response:

1) Italy has the Pelagie Islands and Pantelleria in Africa. None of the parts of Italy, Spain or Portugal are overseas dependencies. In fact, all French overseas departments or regions are also integral parts of France under the French Constitution.

2) Which is confusing. Countries with only a small part of their land on another continent should not be included in the country count of that continent, instead, they are listed under "internal territories" as separate regions. That's a standard practice when editing Wikipedia geography articles.

3) Egypt is not listed as an Asian country. The general consensus reached in Wikipedia is that Eurasian countries (transcontinental countries with land in both Europe and Asia) are counted as both European and Asian countries. That's because these two areas are treated as separate continents due to historical and cultural reasons rather than clear geographical barriers. The boundaries between Europe and Asia are also heavily disputed, hence Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan have been listed as countries of both continents. For other transcontinental countries, only one continent is applicable: Egypt (Africa), Indonesia (Asia), and the United States (North America). Vic Park (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newest edits to Asia-Pacific article

Dear Vic Park:

Thank you for your latest contributions to this article. However, I must respectfully disagree with the premise that the Indian subcontinent and Myanmar are not generally considered part of Asia-Pacific, as your latest edits seem to suggest. I have several sources suggesting they are in fact considered part of that region. Here they are:

https://dkiapcss.edu/about/ap-countries/

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/apac-countries

And here is a link to a Wikipedia article about the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement. Sri Lanka, India, and Bangladesh all signed it. Further evidence that the Indian subcontinent is part of Asia-Pacific https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Trade_Agreement207.255.243.110 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC) 207.255.243.110 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]