User talk:FACT NEEDED

February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia as you did to the Eastern Turkestan page. Your recent edits to that article was not encyclopedic and can be seen as an act of vandalism as you insist on cutting and pasting information from one article directly onto another article. Also, please cite sources and references when you present major information or content changes onto an article. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--TheLeopard (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your concern

Your edit summary comment on the History of Xinjiang article stated that I shouldn't be removing your contribution? What contribution? I checked the history revision and I didn't see you editing on the article?

By the way, I overlooked the contents you reverted back; the reason why I removed it is because the "grammers" are full of run-on sentences, "dead-links", and proses that doesn't make sense. They are pretty deplorable. Please also provide at least some references so we can verify the information.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

The sweeping changes you have made to the article are uncomfortably different than the original article. I strongly suggest you make the changes on a sandbox page and discuss it with the other major contributors of the article. Mkdw^talk 09:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a Suggestion

What you are doing here is active vandalism. if you do not want Uyghur history included in wikipedia, I am sorry for you and your friend the Leopard. Just remind you guys that Uyghurs were the absolute majority in the region just 50 years ago, why you do not want their history being told in the wikipedia? FACT NEEDED (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Careful, you should always assume good faith when editing. I would strongly suggest you carefully choose your words. Accusing people of active vandalism is a very serious matter. I understand you are new to Wikipedia and I do believe your intentions are good ones, but please be respectful of your fellow editors. You have made 13 edits to the English Wikipedia and calling someone a vandal is not a good start. I have made over 6,700 edits to the English Wikipedia, am a member of the WikiProject Council, am a member of the counter-vandalism task force, and have been entrusted with rollback privileges to fight vandalism. If you think I am vandalising Wikipedia you are welcome to report this incident to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

On that note, I have made a comment on the Talk:History_of_Xinjiang#Sweeping_changes regarding your edits and preserved your changes at History_of_Xinjiang/Sandbox. Mkdw^talk 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mkdw^talk

Welcome

Please see the Wikipedia welcome page for more information about this encyclopedia, and some tips on how to make useful contributions to it. As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Another excuse

I am absolutely not interesting editing your stuff, I just want my voice heard. So do not try to warn me for something I did not do. FACT NEEDED (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The warning in regards to removing comments left by other users was a necessary and also informative response. You may or may have not known, I can only assume, but you removed my comments I left on the Talk:History of Xinjiang page. Please see diff=193671294&oldid=193670308 for the changes you made where you removed my comments. Your concerns are being heard and I am responding to them but it is difficult if you remove my comments as well as accuse me of being a vandal. Mkdw^talk 10:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already restored my comment as well as inserted your comment below mine on the talk page.

As for the matter of the article, the History_of_Xinjiang, you made some contributions. However, on Wikipedia there are many of us who dedicate our time to fight vandalism done to pages. This includes adding profanity, removing useful content, altering content to make it incorrect, along with a number of other things. Sometimes when we see large areas being edited we suggest that it be done on a sub page or sandbox. Wikipedia is largely a collaborative effort and is the result of many editors working together. I have created History_of_Xinjiang/Sandbox which has your changes. I suggest you use Talk:History_of_Xinjiang and discuss with the other major contributors to the article as well as other experts in the subject matter about the changes you wish to make. Ultimately your changes will get in there, but it will be done in the nature of a wiki and we can be sure it's factual and formatted to the Wikipedia style. Wikipedia is a very laid down encyclopedia with all sorts of editing rules, and styles that should be followed. It's confusing but after awhile you will get the hang of it. There are lots of useful links and things to read that Mighty posted for you. Good luck and happy editing. And remember to try and stay polite with your fellow editors even if they are not with you. Mkdw^talk 10:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced materials and consensus

Hi. Please don't cut and paste contents from another article onto another one, as you did in the History of Xinjiang where you cut quote and information form Seres and directly pasted onto the lead section. It is unencyclopedic where you just cut information without asking editors if it is indeed related to the article you are editing. Also, if you insist on adding the contents you keep reverting back, put it on the talk page and see if it gain some consensus from editors. Until then, please refrain from making edits since they could be seen as original research.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You need "CONSENSUS" and it is important because you are the "editor" that is making massive amount of changes to the article. I've glanced at several major encyclopedias including Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica, as well as " History of Civilizations of Central Asia" by Ahmad Hasan Dani and "Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang" by James A. Millward. None of those sources mentioned many of the "points" you've added to the article. Listen, if you don't reach some form of consensus or receive assistence from other editors, your major change to the article will have a tough time to be accepted by many contributors. I'll be willing to work with you on the article but if you simply adding information from "one" perspective to the article and deliberately change the tone, that would be unacceptable. Believe me, I'll be reviewing your edits.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

March of Central Asia by Ram Rahul

Thank you for citing references, however please review MLA (or APA) style manual for how to correctly listing the references.

I think its interesting that you choose to cite the reference "March of Central Asia" by Ram rahul, yet I wonder did you actually read the book or not, because guess what, I have it as well. I suggest you read through the Xinjiang section page 78-117, and cite them onto the article correctly because distorting references are not encyclopedic. Or would you like me to cite it for you?--TheLeopard (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to fix your references or not? The references are missing author's name, the publisher, the date, which edition and more.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled

Dear "FACT NEEDED": I am very puzzled by the comments you have added to my Talk Page. There appears to be some misunderstanding. First of all, I am not sure which article you are talking about. As far as I can remember, I have never said that Uighurs expelled "Tocharians" from anywhere. If you are talking about my draft translations of the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu and the Weilüe which can be found on the Silk Road Seattle website hosted by the University of Washington, these deal with events which happened well before the first historical reference to the Uighurs during the Wei dynasty (386-534 CE). Please let me know what I have written that upsets you and where you found it so I can try to answer any criticisms you may have. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled and would like an apology please

Dear "FACT NEEDED": I am even more puzzled now than I was before to find your comments on the page on the Tocharians today which I have already replied to on your Talk Page and mine on the 22nd of April and which you have not answered. I would be very grateful if you would answer my reply to your (false) accusations and stop spreading them around the Wikipedia. Here is the reply I sent to you on 22nd April. Would you please let me know why you keep saying that I claim the Uighurs expelled the "Tocharians" when I have never said such a thing? Please find a copy of my original reply to your unfounded accusations below. Yours, John Hill (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear "FACT NEEDED": I am very puzzled by your comments above. There appears to be some misunderstanding. First of all, I am not sure which article you are talking about. As far as I can remember, I have never said that Uighurs expelled "Tocharians" from anywhere. If you are talking about my draft translations of the 'Chapter on the Western Regions' from the Hou Hanshu and the Weilüe which can be found on the Silk Road Seattle website hosted by the University of Washington, these deal with events which happened well before the first historical reference to the Uighurs during the Wei dynasty (386-534 CE). Please let me know what I have written that upsets you and where you found it so I can try to answer any criticisms you may have. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the clarification

Dear FACT NEEDED: Thank you so much for your apology I have just discovered on my Talk Page - it is totally accepted. I know only too well from my own experience how easy it is to make such mistakes in the Wikipedia. As we say here in Australia, "no worries, mate!"

Also, thanks so much for you praise of my work - I am glad you found it useful - even though the early drafts available on the Silk Road Seattle site are now well out of date and contain (I am ashamed to say) a number of errors - some serious. Most of them I have now corrected - but I am still working on it constantly. I hope to make a much revised, corrected and updated version available later this year. However, in the meantime, if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to write to me. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) PS. I agree with you that modern Uighurs are almost certainly descended from a variety of early peoples including the early, basically Caucasoid, tribes of the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yamna_culture

Dear FACT NEEDED, you may want to know that your name was mentioned negatively on [1] as my sock. Please do not be discouraged by false accusations of your detractors. Barefact (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)