User talk:Xiaoyu of Yuxi

Help! Followed a link here, apparently this is where I ask for help.

I've edited a page in a language other than English. I have registered for an account (in English) but it seems I need to apply for another in Chinese. Is that right? I hope this is the right place to ask. Maxiewawa (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Round 5 of my user talk. As a quick reference regarding my archives...

Archive#	Period
1	July–November 2010
2	November 2010–January 2011
3	January–March 2011
4	March 2011–TBD

Taihu Lake

Regarding the current move discussion at Talk:Taihu Lake, I have restored the two votes/comments you deleted. Your opinion of their quality is immaterial. Removing good faith talk-page comments is poor editorial practice and uncivil, as are the tone of your reply ("hillbilly", "I will have no choice but to silence you") and your unproductive reversions of other edits by 65.95.13.213. You may find other editors' opinions frustrating, but please try to behave politely toward them anyway. Combative language and edits that might appear vindictive won't help you sway those opinions. Regards, --ShelfSkewed Talk 07:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that not many editors have kept my notice regarding WP:AGF in mind when posting here. Anyway, this editor's opinion is frustrating, yes, but also completely ignorant and quite stupid, almost to the point that his "votes" were unproductive. Also, his actions are quite possibly deceptive: If you look at the votes from the two different IP addresses, you will note that the basic arguments are the same. You know that doubly votes in discussions are not tolerated. Also, both addresses have or had a history of unusually high activity for an IP. Based on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle...until it has been proven that the two IPs were not operated by the same person, one of the comments will have to be struck out, if not removed. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I take your point about the double vote--those two IPs do appear to be editing the same articles, or same types of articles. But that is a point that could have been made in the discussion rather than by simply deleting the comments. As a serious editor yourself, I hope you can see that other serious editors will treat your arguments with more respect if you conduct yourself with restraint, as I, for instance, appreciated the civil tenor of your reply here. Now offer the same attitude to the annoying editors, as well: Kill 'em with kindness, HXL. --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you check the talk page for Taihu Lake? I left a support comment but then changed it after viewing a Google translation of this Chinese Wikipedia page. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%AA%E6%B9%96 I do not know if the google translation is correct, and if you can show me that it is not I will go back to the page and change my comment back to support. Thank you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments after the closure

Hello. I closed the requested move you requested some time ago, with the result to move. However, your actions to gain this were broadly unethical and uncouth. Specifically I am referring to your use of popups to remove a comment left by someone (especially to refer to it as vandalism) and your general incivility to refer to their comment as "hillbilly speak". Such disruptive edits contravene what vandalism actually is and Wikipedia's assume good faith guidline. Please take this into consideration when participating in discussions in future. KiloT 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

These edits were made almost 3 weeks ago, why bring them back now? (Although, with respect to this editor, I don't really have the right to talk. Sorry HXL) Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The next time around, if I suspect an IP to be doubly voting (see rationale above), I will raise the concern with possibly an admin instead of acting unilaterally. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am bringing up these comments again because the discussion is now closed and the move has been completed. Regards, KiloT 21:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

PopUps

This is not what PopUps is to be used for. Don't do it again. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Then explain the users who rollback such posts on their user talk? Explain why you have such alarming alacrity as to tell me what I can and cannot do? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. This discussion is about you, not other users. I will not warn you again; it is inappropriate to use any sort of automated tool to revert a talk page post. Consider this your only warning. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Common tactic to engage others, eh? I am not attempting to change the subject. The behavioural standards that apply to others apply to me, too. Talk page guidelines state very clearly about what users can do on their own talk pages. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, don't talk page guidelines say that users have the right to remove warnings from their own talk page and that it is taken as proof that they have read them and understand them? Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they are, but it is exceedingly bad form to remove talk page posts using automated tools. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad form, yes, but blockable offence? No. While you were preparing to inform me of the ANI thread, I was in the middle of posting a response there...until an edit conflict occurred. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is? Fastily, tell me more. I have no idea what you are talking about or why anyone would care if someone removed a talk page section with 1 click or with 2? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Exceedingly bad form? Nothing in any of the information I have read has said anything about not using automated tools to edit user talk pages. Honestly, why would you care? 174.25.210.243 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Better that I use fully automated pop-ups (with no edit summary) than use them with edit summaries, as I have learned to do. If I use pop-ups with an edit summary to RV a recent addition, then that is a bad sign. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily is normally a reliable editor, so perhaps there is some good reason why one should not use automated tools to remove talk page messages. However, I can't for the life of me think what that reason is, and I have never had any qualms about using Twinkle and Huggle to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as this last message was not an ANI warning, I just left it be. A truce is effectively satisfied when there is no contact. And I have kept good on my promise not to post at "WP:Requests for..." for the rest of the week. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CentralAsianHistory

User:CentralAsianHistory inserted this map which he created on his own with absolutely no sources, its considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, not only that, but he puts a Star of David on the Chinese flag on his "map". this is just laughableΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am watching your talk page, so there is no need for a reminder message such as this... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Green rain and precip

my problem with green rain is that it doesn't have enough colors in it which means it's hard to see the difference between 80 and 100 mm for example, and also rain isn't green i added the sunshine hours for these places from climatetemp.info but i suspect it isn't a reliable website so i'll try looking for it in NOAA now, also doesn't los angeles already have sunshine hours data?

and be careful when you revert my edits, i added other data in some of these edits (in eureka california i added record highs and lows and snowfall data) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1) That green presents fewer colours is an issue to be taken up at Template talk:Weather box, not here; and I had asked you to respond there, not here, so what were you thinking? 2) Anyway, an abundance of rain produces a green environment, even in semi-arid areas. Also those who participated in the overhaul of this template more than a year ago would not have added the parameter "|rain colour = " if they felt that green should not be used or if there was no need to use that colour. Secondly, the default blue colouring could cause a 'blending' of colours if snow, humidity, precip/rain/snow days, and/or record temps are filled in. Conduct some test edits yourself to see how this is the case. Thirdly, as I see it, blue, especially for non-arid places, could falsely leave an impression of a chilly climate for places that aren't cold in winter (averages below −3 °C or 0 °C) anyway. Conversely, in places that are cold and very wet in winter, green would not be so appropriate. 3) The links to NOAA's Dossier website are all dead. 4) Only the snow was removed for Eureka, CA because the annual amount of snow is so trivial it doesn't quite deserve a mention. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

the data of london's humidity is taken from NOAA. also london is a foggy and cloudy city with many rain days so it IS possible to have a consistent 90% humidity. you can find those station in this url, just add the name of the city you're looking for before the word "site" and click the link of NOAA's website. the green rainfall is only good for places like bangkok with changing rainfall (i mean 2 rain seasons and months of 0,200 and 400 mm of rainfall), also you can barely see any difference between 60 and 80 mm with green rainfall, unlike blue rainfall, so let's say that blue rainfall is good for places with no more than 150-200 mm of rainfall in one month, ok?

Yes, but nearly 47 cm of snowfall for London? Seems like an average of the past decade, and is significantly more than Washington, DC, which averages 2.26 °C (36.1 °F) colder than London for the months of December to February and receives 50% more precipitation than London does in those months, and yet has 37 cm of snowfall per season.

Also, if you experiment with the climate table for Lanzhou, you will see that green distinguishes between 67 and 73.8 mm equally well as blue, but of course, I prefer green only for places that average above −3.0 °C in their coldest month. And at best, blue is only slightly better (i.e. 60 vs. 80 mm). So your point about distinguishing between 60 and 80 mm is mute. I just think green is only particularly bad between 100 and 150 mm. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Zh/format/Confucius

Your reverts has introduced transclusions of Template:Zh/format/Confucius and others (e.g, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Zh/format/Confucius). I have asked for a change at Template talk:Zh, but until then, the only solution is to provide a value for "first=". Any value will do. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Just be careful when both traditional and simplified are validly (i.e. when different) supplied. I may go ahead and use AWB to fix this problem, which is endemic to every article that uses ZH. What a mess. And then we will have to change it back if the request is satisfied. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem will be solved once my requested edit is addressed. But until then, I have tagged a couple of these subpages for speedy deletion and don't want them to have any transclusions (it will confuse the admins). So, there shouldn't be any need to use AWB to fix them all. Once my edit request is address the problem will be solved. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All right...thanks for saving me an incredible amount of time. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Zh template has now been updated, the "what links here" will still show a link, but no transclusions, so it will not show an inviting redlink at the bottom of the page in edit mode, which is what we want to avoid. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Xiaoyu of Yuxi. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 21:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

One week block

I've blocked you for one week. There's absolutly no place here for threats like the one you placed here. [1] RxS (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This 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).

Xiaoyu of Yuxi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, any admin who has had significant interaction with me or has commented on any of my ANI's should (ideally may) not review this request, be it a deny or grant. I now get to the point.

I request only that this block be reduced to the range of 24–48 hours.

• What I have learned: It is clear that I was blocked for the post that RxS linked to above, because parts of it were construed (and not entirely unreasonably so) to be threats. I think what I have taken from this incident and the one that led to last weekend's ANI is that I really ought to ignore those baiting you, and not to have such a penchant to be hot-headed. Henceforth, it is not that I do not wish to be like that, but because of the potential trouble (for me and others) that can arise.
• Block was punitive, not preventative: This week, after the thread at ANI where I was being reported for behaviour far nastier than what is in the post at RPP above, I was preparing to dis-engage myself from Fastily.

• A: I remained completely silent at this page protection request, even though I was in a foul mood after the events of the weekend preceding that and I really wanted to berate him for daring to interact with me.
• B: The 60 edits or so I made between 22:00 and 23:59 is clear evidence that I was attempting to calm myself.
• C: You really think the tenor of this reply was nasty? Indeed, this was a de-escalation from the tone seen in the last post at my last RPP (Xiamen), which led to this block.
• D: I was open to a 48-hour block as all that was necessary to ensure I don't continue with this matter any further. And 1 week? Do you think that, after a second posting on me at ANI by Fastily, that I would have another go at him? I won't go looking for trouble by interacting any more with him, but if he comes at me...well hopefully you read point #1 above. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The post mentioned in the block log entry contained a threat, quite enough to justify the block. A part of the reason given for unblocking was, in effect, "you may think that was bad, but I've done far worse at other times". Surely that is, if anything, a reason for increasing the block, not for reducing it. Another part of it amounted to "I have a personality which is so inclined to react angrily when anyone does anything I don't like that I really had to work hard to bring my level of response down to the level of aggression seen there, rather than even worse". Well, the fact that you are trying hard and managing to control yourself better is no doubt to your credit, but whether to unblock or not has to be based on what is beneficial for Wikipedia, not on punishing you for bad temper or rewarding you for self control, and if making intemperate attacks and threats to other editors is what you do when you are doing your best to bring down your level of aggression, then that is a good reason for blocking, not for unblocking. You have also used such language as "if he comes at me...", which at best indicates a battle ground mentality, and at worst is another threat. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Xiaoyu of Yuxi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, any admin who has had significant interaction with me or has commented on any of my ANI's should (ideally may) not review this request, be it a deny or grant. Secondly, sorry if this may be long to read...I doubt I can give an adequate appeal with anything less.

I request that the expiry time be changed to 16:20 13 June (UTC). At ANI, I stated I was open to a cooldown block of 24 or 48 hours so I can really minimise the high level of wikistress I previously had.

• Why I was blocked: As RxS explicitly stated in the log, for the menacing post linked to above, and this could not be clearer. It is self-evident I did not have the sense to avoid exacerbating matters with a user with whom I already had a bad fit the weekend before. With him I fell into the trap of attempting to seek vengeance when I can, and combined with my foul mood at that very moment, I was incredibly hot-headed and only 'asking for trouble'. And contrary to what Watson said, 'making intemperate attacks and threats to other editors' is what happens when I am not controlling myself. True restraint involves the absence of the displaying of malice toward other editors during disputes, as seen here and in many other places.
• What I have learned: I think what I have taken from this incident and the one from last weekend is that I ought to back off if I abhor a user's post, and at most respond with something such as 'I have discussed these points with you extensively before and will not repeat myself' or I will calmly warn them on their talk page, as to keep discussion constructive. Being confrontational is certainly not good for the target user and will backfire in some form; I really wish to avoid community disruption by the posting of an ANI thread on me. I will never threaten (or write a post that could be construed as threatening) an editor in that manner (i.e. 'there will be trouble') again.
• Block length is punitive, not preventative: Well, if you believe that this sanction's expiry time was set to 1 week because 6 days elapsed between the last 2 sections on me at ANI, you may be correct. And as I have belaboured (by mention of a 48-hour cooldown block), blocking itself was not unjustified. But...

• A: I was preparing to dis-engage myself from Fastily. For one, I remained completely silent at this RPP request, and the tenor of this reply at ANI was civil. Indeed, this was a de-escalation from the tone seen in the last post at my last RPP (Xiamen), which led to this block. As with point #2, I will ignore Fastily or any other that I am truly upset with.

• B: If unblocked I will not post at anything beginning with "Requests for" until Saturday, which is after the original expiry time. Feel free to re-instate the block if I do post there, as I think it was implemented to prevent the only situation where strife between me and Fastily has originated: pages where requests are made.

• C:Watson stated (and he is correct) that lifting of sanctions must be based on what will be beneficial to Wikipedia. From my contributions it is clear what my intentions are: to expand and improve content as well as defending the encyclopaedia from assaults by vandals and relentless POV warriors. The community can only lose, not gain, from this imposed measure.

• D:The behaviour that has caused this much ruckus is the odd exception, NOT the rule.

• E:Note this reply to Watson's decline. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Reading this unblock request I get the clear message that you have moved on significantly from the position you were in before, and I do not see that a week's block is necessary. I have reduced the block length to 48 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that this block appears a bit punitive. Maybe a 1 revert rule, at least until the original block is up, would be in order? The main problem I see with HXL49's request is that he stated he would "calmly warn" a user if he abhorred their post. I believe it is necessary for one user to discuss with another when they have a disagreement, not give a warning. It is hard to give warnings to an editor making a good faith edit. I have great respect for HXL49's work on pages related to Asia on Wikipedia. Still, his cooperation leaves much to be desired. If he would agree to request elaboration or opinions from a third party on posts he disagrees with, I believe he would be a much more productive editor. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well what if someone comes along with something like this? Vandalism? Obviously not. Disruptive? Clearly.

I apologise for the ambiguity. 'Calmly warn' them as in to advise them to refrain from repeating that behaviour. Most of the time, it will be more of a criticism than a warning, as I can only watch in disapproval if they continue. It hardly is worth it to take matters up to bloated ANI.

I understand your intention from "I believe he would be a much more productive editor" and do not take it to offence. Not for the sake of AGF, but to admit the questionable standard of conduct that I had displayed. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, while it is not technically vandalism I would not count it towards your 1RR. That being said, nobody can say what a specific admins view on the subject would be. If a 1RR is the agreement, I think your best bet would be to immediately bring it up on the talk page or contact another Wikipedia editor. It seems like you and Quigley do a lot of work together, let him make the revert. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Automatic Archiving

I think you want to set your counter to 5, unless you would like the bot to add sections to the archive you just started (ending on May 2011). Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You can also add this, {{Archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot III |age=30 |units=days }}, to create an archive box. Remember to add it above the archive template. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 4 is currently little more than 20 KB and is a bit short, and I do not wish to monkey around with the other archives hehe. Thank you for the help. It seems that I can't force the table to stay on anything other than the left side of the page...will have to address this later.

Weird, I tried Template:Align and Template:Right but both of those removed the table from the page. In addition, I moved your archive template to below your table. If it is above the table, MiszaBot will remove it.Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange auto-block

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Xiaoyu of Yuxi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

71.178.7.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Cyclical auto-block. First my IP was autoblocked because I had been using that IP to log in, and after my block was lifted several minutes ago, then the lingering block on my IP turned on my account.

• Blocking administrator: RxS (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I've not investigated the why, but there is no reason for an auto-block to last beyond the principal block. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sanhe articles

Hello HXL49! On 13 May 2011 you created three new articles - Sanhe, Feixi County, Sanhe, Dabu County and Sanhe, Haiyuan County. After a month these articles contain very little information, and the information is completely unsourced. As a result, they are vulnerable to deletion - possibly speed deletion - because they do not qualify as Wikipedia articles.
If you don't want your new articles deleted I suggest you return to them and provide some significant information. All information should be supported by suitable references and citations. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 06:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Do you understand that articles on places that can be verified to exist through mere coordinates almost always survive AFD? Do you not understand that out of the tens of thousands of township-level divisions in mainland China, we have articles on only a handful of them? That is not an excuse for lack of sourcing but you still see my point. Now could you cease treating me as if I were new here? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was actually trying to help! You have produced a number of articles that contain only the name of a town, and little else. Seeing you are not new here, you will know that Wikipedia requires substance, notability and sources for all its articles. None of these articles has been patrolled yet. There is a risk that the patroller might move to have them deleted. Only trying to help. Dolphin (t) 06:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well...they can move to, but:

• PROD: I will remove the notices the instant I notice them. Done.
• Speedy: Only if it is nonsense, a hoax, advertising/promo or copyvio can this even be thought of.
• AFD: Not worth the effort. As I have said, numerous articles on places where merely correct coordinates are supplied overwhelmingly survive deletion discussions.

The only pages I have created that have not been patrolled are all DABs. As I see it, patrolling is done when someone tags a page as uncategorised, AnomieBot adds a {{coord missing}}, etc. That's it. And..."a number"? Come on. No more than 5, I daresay. There will be more to come in a matter of days... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that someone may try to delete them, but, although I can't find a specific policy, Wikipedia attempts to have an article on every city in the world. I would love to see these articles expanded at some time, but it is important that they are here to begin with. HXL49, how do you know about these cities? Is it a website or is it from your own personal travels? If it is from a website could you add that as a reference to all of the articles? Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles about places do not always survive AfD. Outcomes of these deletion debates is summarised at WP:NPLACE. Dolphin (t) 12:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I never say they always do. Some of the villages I nominate for AFD are successfully deleted. In my largest AFD yet, coordinates were enough to prove the existence of the nominated articles, which turned the debate outcome. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of my work involves translation/transliteration from Chinese Wikipedia, and when sourcing, the lists ultimately come from XZQH.org, which are in Simplified Chinese. I have already began a task force in my user space to create these articles, and at some point in the future, this will be moved to WP:CHINA (i.e. prefix Wikipedia:WikiProject China) space.

By the way, Chinese on both sides of the strait clearly indicate what type a settlement is (city, county, town, township etc.), and IMO there shouldn't be any tinkering around with these definitions. Hehe. Since last month, we have had all 2800+ county-level divisions. These things are frustrating...I had no inkling we were missing three until a month ago. Now it is a long way to cover all the township-level divisions (subdistrict, town, township) on this Wiki and even Chinese Wikipedia. This is not to mention periodic mergers, which XZQH is useful for knowing about. Hot damn —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Usernames

A note for the sake of history; non-Latin characters on enwiki were prohibited until the single universal log-in was instituted, at which point it became impractical (and unreasonable) to continue, since cross-wiki log-ins necessarily had to recognize all character sets. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Tidings

Given your apparent change of heart, perhaps you would like to consider a truce? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Or not. FWIW, I tried :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think as long as I don't burst out at you, it is effectively a truce. I dislike making these agreements, seeing them silly as we are not involved in a military conflict, and also, I would not call it a 'change of heart', rather a call to self-restraint. Nothing other than suppression can right the wrong of continuing to handle my requests. But, as Severus Snape said, "what's done is done". I tell you what: all I ask is that you avoid handling my requests, and especially not requests for rollback or autopatrolled. Instead of using the NEA template at RPP, explain yourself right away, and if it is edit warring, fill in the template with 'dr'. I believe that apologies must be fulfilled with action, not merely rhetoric. And I have seen that you quickly fulfilled one of my CSD G6's earlier this week. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sig yellow hard to read!

Sorry to be a pain, but could you possibly change the colour of the last part of your sig? It's pretty much impossible to read, in that yellow, on the standard background. Cheers, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is a link to my contributions, which is less important than my user talk. And I have yet to think of something else as a replacement if I am to change it. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you used darker shade of yellow it would be better. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The previous signature represented the colours of the PRC flag, whereas now the colours of "File:Chinese Unity Flag - Proposal by UserNat.tang.png" are used. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You could always do Roundtable and Record if you want to keep your color scheme. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That one's nice and easy to read, certainly :o) Anything that 'works' is just fine. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I've been starting articles for languages that are trying to develop their database of articles, but I don't really make any references to other existing articles. Can you point to an example from my work that would help see what you're referring to? Thanks! Jhendin (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Add-ons such as this are often handled by bots that are dedicated to adding interwiki links. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai

With respect to your edit summary, what the?!? Maybe there's some deeper edit war history here that I'm not aware of, but your edit summary - which makes accusations of "POV" edits without even bothering to ask me - was completely unjustified. For the record, I was thinking geographically - the last time I looked, Shanghai was geographically located in what Wikipedia describes as the PRC. if there is some consensus somewhere to avoid linking China ever, please point me to it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The POV issue is the piping of the PRC to simply 'China'. The two terms aren't and have never been equal, and this point has been belaboured upon, which is why we have two separate articles (no really) and WP:NC-ZH#Political NPOV as two starters. If AWB could handle it, I would use that tool to remove every such inappropriate piping. I, and perhaps many other editors, have little issue with the lede; I ask that you do the same. Whatever...I will outright link to the PRC. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

See, that would have been better to start with; either that or remove it with a summary that explains why. I can appreciate that you may have to go through this on a regular basis with contributors that are looking to promote a particular POV; my objection lies in the presumption that I was doing that. (A simple check of my contributions beforehand would have clearly shown no connection to any particular POV in editng here, nor even a real connection to Asia-related articles.) Anyway, water under the bridge, but thank you for putting in the "acceptable" version. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mingxing (town)

I believe this is also called Taigu, the seat of Taigu County. The coordinates match.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that's no wonder, considering Mingxing is the seat of Taigu County. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)