User talk:Cartakes

Welcome Cartakes!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,585,516 registered users!

Hello, Cartakes. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm This lousy T-shirt, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks   Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Sincerely, —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

This lousy T-shirt has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Video game templates

Hi,

I have reverted your changes to the numerous video game generation templates. These templates were merged into one based on discussion and consensus here at Wikipedia. A discussion needs to occur before they are unmerged, as they cause a lot of clutter and unnecessary information. Please visit the talk page at Template_talk:Video game consoles if you want to open such a discussion.

Thanks! -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are mixing two different issues together. The merge of generated-related templates and the transfer of content from Template:Video game consoles to Template:Home video game consoles are different issues. That list only lists home video game consoles, so it should be in Template:Home video game consoles instead of Template:Video game consoles. Whether we should merge generated-related templates to one single template is another issue, which you should not mix them with. I can put the merge issue aside for now, but handheld game consoles etc are obviously also game consoles. You should not use the term video game consoles just for home consoles. Thanks for understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are resulting in near duplicate templates being displayed on multiple articles, due to redirects. Such sweeping changes to the article contents need to be discussed, and I once again ask that you begin a discussion before you do this. I would suggest self-reverting and opening the discussion, as another editor is likely to revert you and going forward without consensus just creates more work. Also, creating new templates rather than moving them as appropriate hurts the article history and makes it easy to lose track of why changes were done. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Templates also require that the articles they are used on are linked to within the template, and several of your edits have not followed this. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

See my reply in your talk page. --Cartakes (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. I appreciate your enthusiasm and efforts, but please discuss with the community before making such large changes that affect so many articles. It seems you've only been here a few days. Please slow down a bit and take the time to learn how things work here. Please discuss big changes like this at place like Wikiproject Video Games, and only proceed with them if there is consensus to do so. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games ‎. Please note that currently video game console-related articles in WP are already in a VERY inconsistent state now which needs to be fixed, as I mentioned in that page. --Cartakes (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that you need to discuss when your changes are opposed, and then only reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sooo...were you able to come to a consensus on how to handle this? I see you reinstating the changes again... Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the result of the discussion at WT:VG. There is obviously no objection for solving the inconsistencies any more. I have already waited for 3 days and no more message, so I think I can safely assume the discussion is already over by now. --Cartakes (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I'm telling you again to slow down and learn how the website works. What you want to get is consensus. I don't see that there. No one really took a stance, it was still just you and Ferret arguing. I don't see a consensus for change there, and when there's no consensus, there's no change. In this instance, this would mean your change would not be implemented. You need to discuss further, especially when, again, its something as important as the foundation of how video games are defined and organized. I'm thinking you should stop and not make these changes again unless you literally get the go-ahead from an uninvolved party, like myself. Refusing to follow these protocols could conversely, get you blocked from editing. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not refusing to following any protocols, but certainly I am going to stop now when I am told this is the right thing to do under such protocols. Thanks for telling me about how the protocol (or website) works. But I think there is already a consensus there are inconsistencies. The remaining things may be how to resolve them (I didn't see any objection from that discussion though). --Cartakes (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping. Please just wait a bit longer, to get a consensus on how it should be fixed - if your approach is the right approach. I've notified a few people usually more active in these sorts of discussions, lets see what they have to say. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please slow down again? I've watched the work on the templates today, and while it should have been done in a Sandbox first it seems to be ok.... Should have waited but fine. Please delay adding them to tons of new articles though, because there's still some details to handle and having things like the Home console and 8th generation template on the same article is duplicate data and clutter. At this point Home game consoles, Handheld game consoles, and Micro console templates should probably be redirected. Please REJOIN the still-in-progress discussion at WP:VG. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Home video game console, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strider. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

List of PlayStation Now games

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of PlayStation Now games, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ign.com/wikis/playstation-4/List_of_PlayStation_Now_Games.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of PlayStation Now games

Hello Cartakes,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of PlayStation Now games for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. William2001 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

List of PlayStation Now games

Hello,

I read your message in my talk page. I would like to let you know that I have removed the deletion tag from your article. Have fun editing, William2001 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Hyperdimension Neptunia Re;Birth 1 cover.jpg

Sorry but had to delete this as a copyright violation. I know you copied it from hyperdimensionneptunia.wikia.com but its hosting there is also a copyright violation as that site are not the owners of the original image. It's use might meet the non free content criteria but it is most definitely not a public domain image Nthep (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was really wondering why you deleted the image because it says "Content is available under CC-BY-SA" in the page. Thanks for the explanation. --Cartakes (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're generally OK to copy text from Wikia sites if you're sure it's not been copied from somewhere else but images are mostly copied off the internet even though Wikia rules ask users not to. Nthep (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I know how to use its content. --Cartakes (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of PlayStation Now games

added a link pointing to Opus

List of dedicated consoles

added a link pointing to Videoton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your experience with Wikipedia so far

Hello Cartakes,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Neptunia characters list

Can you help trim down the list of characters for Hyperdimension Neptunia Mk2? It should focus on the new characters and briefly mention that it is in the same shared universe as the original. In other words, the old characters do not need a complete entry listing, which is what the characters list for the franchise will cover. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF: Thanks for the invitation. Personally I think it is already significantly better by now. What I am thinking is that even the new (and common) characters like Nepgear can be trimmed down and focus only on how they particularly appear on that game, while more detailed info for them will go to List of Hyperdimension Neptunia characters directly. How about this? --Cartakes (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that would be great. That's how the Final Fantasy sequels have been treating their characters. It can even be merged into the plot overview as with many of them anime shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Custom Firmware

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

No indication of reliable sources to show notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to List of rump states does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Providing edit summaries is a common courtesy to other editors. Your list of contributions show you make a large number of edits while never providing edit summaries. This is very inconsiderate. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please show common courtesy to other editors and provide at least some summary of what you are doing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

System software

Re: [1], I linked the discussion in the edit summary. Please revert your edit. – czar 14:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

czar: I already undid it before seeing your message here. However, I think it was a very old discussion. A more recent discussion is desired, IMO. --Cartakes (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the supporting details have changed. Check the link in the discussion: video game trivia#9. Reams of version histories are specifically prohibited. Feel free to bring it up again at WT:VG but I think it's a waste of everyone's time. – czar 14:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Still, the discussion was over 2 years ago, and why (only) move it now? Someone has questioned your massive removals of articles in Talk:Xbox One#Removal of software info as well. --Cartakes (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please keep your discussions in one place. This is now the third place in which you're splitting the same discussion. That "someone" agrees with the merge. It took two years because there's no rush. The rationale hasn't changed. – czar 16:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is fine to keep discussion in one place. However, I need to clarify that "someone" tried to use Afd instead of suddenly removing of all contents in these articles. --Cartakes (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop canvassing users on article talk pages. Thanks. – czar 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

czar: In fact, I did not leave any message on article talk pages until this happens. Other people really want the article content, and I have to explain why and how to handle them (i.e. by voting against article deletion). This is NOT canvassing. --Cartakes (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The big red deletion notice atop each of the nominated pages is commonly regarded as sufficient. There is no need for talk page canvassing.[2][3] Please revert and desist, thanks. – czar 19:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

czar: I think you have mixed two things together, i.e. the Afd notice for deleting the whole article AND my reason for deleting the changelog part. The other people obviously tried to restore the changelog in the articles, and I need to explain why I removed them in talk, referring to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The other editor want the article obviously, but simply did not know or unfamiliar about Afd, so I also mentioned the action for Afd. Note that I only left messages in 2 article talk pages (instead of every "system software" talk pages), so in no way I tried to canvass in the first place. However, for keeping in good faith, I still changed the wording to just notice the Afd in these two talk pages. --Cartakes (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Mughal Empire into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now mentioned it in Talk:Timurid dynasty#Why Timurid Dynasty and not Timurid Empire. --Cartakes (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo 3DS System Software

Thanks Cartakes, I didn't realise. Thanks for making me aware of this though. Why are changelogs being removed from pages though might I ask? And if there is a genuine reason, should a separate page be made for it? --Jrmswell (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. WP articles can't be simply a collection of changelogs. --Cartakes (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

History of Tibet revision

So you are saying that because China has sold off all of Tibet's archeological past in the worst possible place, that NONE OF IT no longer counts, is this correct? These people get nothing because they were robbed and all their graves were looted by Communists? Evidence is evidence, particularly if it is verifiable physical evidence. But thanks for doing your part to disenfranchise these people even further from their own things and past and never letting their story be told.

So very sad no one cares to actually report this horrific mass murder, grave robbing and robbery in the news, but I guess the greatest robbery the world has ever seen doesn't count because it happened on Ebay. Wow. --ThayneT (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ThayneT: First of all, article-editing is for the improvement of content in Wikipedia articles, not about opinions. There are at least two major problems in your edits, one is that eBay is absolutely not a reliable source; you may find actual reliable sources per WP:RS for your text. Second, the Hongshan Culture netsuke, even with some Tibetan characteristics or even contain materials from the Tibetan plateau, is not an actual representation of prehistory Tibet. You need to put images in appropriate place. --Cartakes (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you a Hongshan expert? Or you're saying archeological specimens have nothing to do with prehistory of places? How long have you been studying the culture? How many artifacts have you seen? I believe this is the appropriate place for such items to go before such items completely lose provenance as the Chinese government would prefer. I can show you the rest of the set that laying dog and the pig dragon comes from if you would like and perhaps you can give me your professional archeological opinion with about 40 specimens? Would that be enough evidence for you to allow the thought that perhaps Tibet getting completely ripped off of its hugely important past in China and the public needs to know about it? There are also plenty of larger Hongshan stone statues made of pure turquoise that surely indicate a connection with something bigger than what the Chinese have always said, given the amount of other Tibetan artifacts and jewelry in turquoise- numbering at one million on Ebay right now. Could you not let the evidence be seen by people and known? --ThayneT (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not about whether we are Hongshan expert or not, but the Hongshan culture is a Chinese culture, isn't it? Why not put them in articles like Hongshan culture instead? I can't see how the Hongshan Culture netsuke is a representation of prehistory Tibet to be placed there. As for sources, please refer to WP:RS for how to identify reliable sources. eBay is obviously not a reliable source for use in WP. Please follow the rule of Wikipedia in WP. --Cartakes (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Names of the Qing dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jurchen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Presumptuous

Re: [4], AfD is not a vote, so there is no final tally of "votes". And IPs are absolutely included in AfD consensus. Please don't make vague waves at policy without reading it. And please revert your edit. – czar 17:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the "IP user" part. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cute, but remove the "(nominator)" addition as well. You don't get to add whatever text you want to other people's comments. I very clearly did not nominate the article at AfD. – czar 17:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I see you are the initiator of the deletion instead of the actual nominator of the Afd. Deleted. --Cartakes (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I find that you (czar) are in fact doing talk page refactoring (see [5]) as well, claiming another IP who opposes you "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". However, at least two other IPs made few or no other changes outside the topic made comments in that page as well, but you did not label them as "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". I think you are just trying to hide those who oppose you. This is against the Wiki policy. Please don't do this again, thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Chinese dynasty names

In my article List of predecessors of sovereign states in Asia, I have noticed that you have been changing the titles of the Chinese dynasties from their official names (Great Yuan, Great Qing, etc.) to their common Western names (Yuan dynasty, Qing dynasty). This article was designed to only include the official names of each state during their respective period, therefore the original names are the correct ones to be used in this article. Please respect the formatting of the article and of other articles with similar naming conventions (such as the original articles for each dynasty). Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Mitchell 98: What you said is not true. There was simply an inconsistent usage in the infoboxes of Chinese-dynasty related articles. For example, in articles such as the Zhou dynasty, Han dynasty and Tang dynasty, their common Western names are used. On the other hand, in articles such as the Sui dynasty, Yuan dynasty and Qing dynasty, "Great"-style names are previously used. I am simply making them consistent across articles and follow the standard convention in English.. --Cartakes (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. The standard naming convention in English is being used with the translations of the official state names being used. This is consistent with the infoboxes of all other current and former countries where the official name, not the casual or common name, is used. In this regard, you are incorrect and are changing infobox titles that have existed for a long period before you changed them to the incorrect titles. As you can see in the syntax, the parameter reads "conventional name", essentially official name, there is a secondary parameter for "common name", the titles that you are mistakenly using.

Also, did you care to read the articles before you carelessly reverted them as I had made other changes to their content, not just the infobox title. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your comment as well. "Conventional name" really reads conventional English name in English Wikipedia, which is the name we usually know of and definitely not the same as the so-called "official name". "Common name" is for other common names and "native name" is for names in the native languages. You said I was changing infobox titles that have existed for a long period, but you are doing the same thing as well, since there was simply an inconsistent usage among such articles (as demonstrated above in my comment). As for your other changes, I can revert to your version though. --Cartakes (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If you search the definition of "conventional" on Dictionary.com, it reads: "conforming or adhering to accepted standards", or "pertaining to convention or general agreement; established by general consent or accepted usage; arbitrarily determined". Sorry to say, but the "accepted standards" that have already been "established by accepted usage" are that the infobox titles use the official names of each country/state, not the common/casual name (if that were the case, then every article on contemporary China including the ROC period and current PRC would simply read "China" according to your logic, which they do not as all articles use the official state names). Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The definition of "conventional" on Dictionary.com does not mean that the "conventional name" means the official name though (obviously). The "conventional name" parameter simply lists the conventional English name for that particular political entity. In other words, "China" is a general name for the country, whereas "PRC" (or ROC) is the conventional English name for that particular political entity. That's why we use PRC (or ROC) instead of simply "China" in the infobox of respective articles ("China" may be listed under "common names" however). Furthermore, if you look at articles such as Mughal Empire and Byzantine Empire, which all list conventional English names instead of "official names". Neither Mughal Empire nor Byzantine Empire were official names anyway. --Cartakes (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In the cases of both the Mughal and Byzantine Empires, those names are used as there was likely no official name for these entities. In the case of the Chinese dynasties, the official names are known and hence should be used. If you care to look on the Chinese versions of all pages, the infoboxes clearly read the state names without "dynasty" and with the prefix of "Great" where appropriate. How are you supposed to argue against that? Besides, I have good friends who speak Chinese as a first language and I have also studied Chinese history, so I know what I am talking about. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you know there was no official name for Byzantine Empire? The official name for it was simply "Roman Empire" as mentioned in the article. Also look at Trần dynasty, which simply lists "Trần dynasty" in the infobox, despite the fact that its official name was Đại Việt. As for other language wiki, we are in English wiki and talking about English conventional names, not to mention there may be different rules for other language wikis (BTW, I can read Chinese myself and I have also studied Chinese history, so I know what I am talking about as well). --Cartakes (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Without wishing to take sides in an edit conflict concerning a topic I don't know much about, I would suggest you both bring this matter up on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s), and also on the relevant project page, if there is one, so that other users can have their say. I won't take sides, but will try to work towards a consensus. There are a couple of points I'd like to make for both you to note:-)

1. Nick Mitchell — "My article" —I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Once you've published it, it's no longer yours. That was a lesson I had to learn the hard way myself. 2. Cartakes — IF you revert anything, please be more careful. Nick made other changes besides the ones you objected to, and you wiped those out as well. Please be more careful from now on. 3. I do believe naming should be as consistent as possible. However, I don't know enough about the topic to say which one you is right about this. Moreover, Wikipedia itself may have a naming convention to be followed — let's check that out. 4. As I said, allow other interested users to have their say too, and we'll take it from there. David Cannon (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you David Cannon. I would only like to clarify that the reason that I used "my article" was to show that I was the one who originally created it, I do realise that I hold no ownership rights to it as it's in the public domain. I am adding a discussion to the WikiProject China talk page in hopes for a discussion that includes the opinions of people with experience in this area. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you David Cannon too. His other changes were actually pretty minor, usually deleting the life-span of a dynasty (which is already listed in the infobox). I have restored his changes by re-deleting them in the text (such as [6]). --Cartakes (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest to request a third opinon on WP:3O. STSC (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion deserves a wider audience given its importance. I recommend transcluding all or part of it to Wikiproject China.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• I came to this user page to comment on the changes in the dynasty articles, which were well-intentioned but not discussed (or, in many cases, not explained in edit summaries), and find that others have the same concerns. I second Philg88's recommendation to move the discussion to a place where a wider group of editors can contribute.ch (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cartakes has been asked repeatedly to provide edit summaries, yet he simply refuses. At least four editors have complained about this above, and another does so here. I'm guessing there are other compaints on other talk pages as well. Edits without explanation give the impression that you are trying to slip something in without anyone noticing. Especially when a policy like the naming conventions discussed here are involved. This is deeply inconsiderate and disrespectful of other editors. You make dozens of edits per day, yet you never provide an explanation of what you are doing. Please show basic consideration for other editors and provide edit summaries. How many times do you need to be asked? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. I did not "refuse", but simply accepted during the course of that discussion or event. When I make major changes, I virtually always provided a edit summary or a discussion in the talk page. For other (minor or copy-edit style) changes I usually didn't, but usually accepted or alternatively started a new discussion for my changes after prompted by a user during the course of that discussion or event, and other editors seem to be fine with this. Please don't wrongly accuse me, thanks! --Cartakes (talk)

I'm looking at your user contributions. In your last 200 edits, I count eight edit descriptions. That amounts to refusal to do what you have been repeatedly asked to it, a practice that most editors follow as a matter of course out of respect for other editors. Other editors are not fine with it: as I said, at least five have asked you to comply with this basic courtesy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

After I was prompted by some other users, I did provide edit summary in my most edits during the course of that discussions or events. None of these editors mentioned this again. Only you, repeated to accuse me of this. Not to mention that this message of yours is left in the wrong place, as this section is for the discussion for dynasty names, not the issue for edit summary. Whether you are right or wrong, you are in fact disturbing this very discussion. If you want to me to provide edit summaries for long term, you may advice me at the right place. But what you are doing here is in fact something completely not useful for the discussion of dynasty names. Still, I am trying to provide edit summaries now. --Cartakes (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly violated Move policy!

Since you are relatively new, you may not realize, but Cartakes Contributions Page shows that in creating new articles you have not created new material, but cut and pasted from existing articles. This seriously breaches policy WP:MOVE, which requires 1) that the move be acknowledged and 2) does not allow a move by copy and paste.

Korea under Yuan rule is only one of several, also including Names of the Qing dynasty.

In addition to not moving the edit history, these moves did not include the sources for the notes, which are now useless.ch (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

CWH: I think I must clarify the issue. Please look at [7] and [8]. I mentioned "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule", didn't I? This essentially makes your point void, since I did acknowledge the move (not a copy). As for "Names of the Qing dynasty", many or most of the materials are in fact not moved or copied from existing articles. For example, none of the existing articles contained such a comprehensive list of names for the Qing dynasty in English. If you could find another article for such a list, then I'd admit I was wrong. But this is obviously not the case. As for the part that was in fact moved (from Qing dynasty#Names), I did mention that([9]) and made the new article the "main article" for Qing dynasty#Names. --Cartakes (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cartakes, please stop with these cut and paste moves. These are a serious breach of Wikipedia policy since you have destroyed the attribution history. You need to revert what you have done then request history merges AND discuss your move rationale BEFORE proceeding. This is the only time that I will say this, you need to follow policy or risk losing your editing privileges.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Philg88: Thanks for your comment. But please tell me the exact point(s) in that policy I did not follow, since I did mention "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule" etc (for the part that I moved) and thus acknowledging the move of content and the new articles including Names of the Qing dynasty and Korea under Yuan rule are not a simple copy(cut)/paste either. So I personally do not feel I did not follow the policy, really. The part for explaining the rationale for the move would be very simple though, since I do have good reasons (for example, the article Mongol invasions of Korea is about the invasions of Korea, but it previously contained excessive details regarding how Yuan ruled Korea after the invasions, so the new Korea under Yuan rule article contains materials moved from that article). Also, how am I be able to undo things that I have done? The articles of both Korea under Yuan rule and Names of the Qing dynasty contain many materials not appeared in other articles (even the part that was moved from other articles may have been pretty heavily reworded/restructured etc to fit in the respective articles), so do you mean I am going to delete the articles for them? Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning on my talk page, but the discussion should take place here, where it began. I have a great deal of respect for your intentions and did not think that you meant to violate policy, but you need to understand that the violation was cutting and pasting without transferring the history to the new page. Please read the policy carefully, It is not enough to put a notice in the edit summary of the page from which the material was taken. It must go on the page created (otherwise how would a reader know where to look?) Adding new material does not change the need to give the source for the original material.

One example of many is here, where the page was created with no mention of the fact that the material came from Qing dynasty. All best wishes!ch (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned in the edit summary of the page from which the material was taken instead of the destination page was that only part of the material in the destination page was taken from the source page(s) and they might have been reworded/restructured to fit in the article. Take your previous link as an example, only some of the material came from Qing dynasty and they had been greatly reworded/restructured when I moved to the new article. However, I will make sure I mention the move of material in the destination talk page as well from now on, similar to in Talk:Korea under Yuan rule. Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to help you as an editor whose work I respect. I can see that your motives were good. I can see that you did not understand the policies. Anyone can make mistakes (I know because I have made many). The important thing now is to follow the direction of Philg88 above, which I think is to undo the moves and request history merges. My personal opinion is that your work will make Wikipedia a better place. You are clearly a good person! The policies are sometimes frustrating, but more often than not they make sense, and in this case keeping track of the history of each page is part of the legal requirements.ch (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

How can I undo the moves though? They had been heavily reworded and restructured etc to fit in the new articles and became constituted part of these articles. In fact I already asked this question to Philg88 in my previous message, yet I have not got a response for this particular question. In my opinion, by mentioning where they came from in the destination talk, I think the policy is already followed. It is not Wikipedia:Moving a page (i.e. WP:MOVE) anyway, but only some text from one article to another, which is under the direction of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I think you might have been confused between the two, as you only mentioned WP:MOVE in your first message. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia instead, which says "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well." I have essentially done both by now (in source page and destination talk), and it does not say I need to do something like undoing the move either. I think I am just trying to follow what the WP policy *actually* says. Thanks for understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Philg88: I think User:CWH might really have been confused between moving a page and transferring some text from an article to another from the beginning, i.e. the difference between Wikipedia:Moving a page (WP:MOVE) and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, as he only mentioned WP:MOVE in his first message, but WP:MOVE really does not apply to my situation since it was not a page move, but a move or transfer of some text from one article to another. I have already quoted the text from Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia in my above message, and I believe the WP policy is already followed by mentioning the action in both source page and destination talk. --Cartakes (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to use the {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} templates, or if it's a complete merge then a history merge may be required.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for not citing the right policy, and thanks for straightening me out! You quote the policy that we should all follow: "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well." ch (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

New category covered by intention of recent CfD

Hi, as you added (see [10]) Category:111 BC disestablishments in China while the discussion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_19#Ancient_disestablishments was in progress, and its siblings are being upmerged, do I have your permission to upmerge the new category likewise? – Fayenatic London 08:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fayenatic london: Sure if you want to make them consistent. Thanks for asking. --Cartakes (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you too. I can now speedily merge it under WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

SPAs at AfD

[11] is pedantic. If you want to tag other SPAs, go ahead, but please don't revert obvious cases when the IP has literally no edits in any other discussion. – czar 17:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the previous section of the discussion involving you. I already left a message there, which says "I find that you (czar) are in fact doing talk page refactoring (see [12]) as well, claiming another IP who opposes you "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". However, at least two other IPs made few or no other changes outside the topic made comments in that page as well, but you did not label them as "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". I think you are just trying to hide those who oppose you. This is against the Wiki policy. Please don't do this again, thanks." --Cartakes (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, IPs that have not edited outside the topic area should be marked as SPAs. I'm not following every comment at the AfD. If you want to tag relevant SPA IPs that I missed, go for it, but it doesn't mean you should be removing it from entries where the tag clearly applies. – czar 19:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have realized you perhaps did not intentionally try to miss them. Anyway, I have already tried to tag all of the relevant IPs, including the one you tagged and missed before seeing your above message. --Cartakes (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Names of the Qing dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tibetan language

Treaty of Kyakhta (1727) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Khövsgöl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And another copy page edit for the creation of a new page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tibet under Qing rule into new page which only content is the copied text. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)