User talk:Alex Shih

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Home   Talk   Workspace   Subpages   Archives   Logs

My tea's gone cold, but oh, think twice.
It's the editor formerly known as Aquarius.

Current time: 18:03, 19 September 2018 JST [refresh]


22 August
Debussy au coin.png
Happy birthday

Thank you for helping The Little Nigar to join his creator on the main page on the composer's birthday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda Arendt. Alex Shih (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hope you enjoyed the little fellow ;) - more than 4k people clicked, that's about 10% of what the TFA received, - with much less effort ;) - Off to writing about 4 more compositions, for 2 more composers remembered this week, Leonard Bernstein, and another TFA, Ralph Vaughan Williams, quite a life, both. Will listen to Bernstein music tomorrow, at our local festival which is focused on him and Debussy this year, - and on friendship, - the founder was a friend of Bernstein, pictured in the program on many photos of people and dedications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
ps: could you kindly link O clap you hands in queue 2, to the new article O clap your hands (Vaughan Williams). Requested on DYKTALK under the composer's name, whose day is on Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another tban question[edit]

Hello Alex,

I am currently working on an article on petrol direct injection for the German language Wikipedia and I found some oddities in the English language version of the article gasoline direct injection. The section I intend to edit is definitely not on automobiles (Gasoline_direct_injection#Early systems). However, I suppose that someone might say that the entire article is somewhat automobile related; now is that article covered by the ban despite not being "automobile"? What do you think, User:Andy Dingley? Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's on a topic that is clearly involving automobiles. You are TBANned from such articles.
If you want to work on that article, you are first going to have to apply to have your TBAN lifted (or it's likely to get extended). You are also going to have to convince those discussing such a repeal that the past issues will not be a problem again, and also that you've contributed usefully since, without breaching that TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The topic is not involving automobiles only, and the section I inted to edit is on aircraft engines; in fact, initially, this technology was not automobile-related, since it all started with aircraft. And I definitely do not want to edit anything related to automobiles in that article. That is why I am asking. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The topic is involving automobiles. It might involve other things too, but it does involve automobiles. You are TBANned from, " any edits relating to automobile and units of measurement of any kind, broadly construed. ". Now if you want to edit an article which involves automobiles, but claim that you're "not editing the parts related to automobiles", then that's your choice. But you are almost guaranteed to then have to explain that at WP:AN, and it's unlikely to be viewed generously. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say, that, in general, one has to make a distinction between cause and effect. The fact that petrol direct injection is used for automobiles is caused by it's fuel-saving potential. If fuel was inexpensive, nobody would use direct injection for automobiles (and history has already shown that this is true). But "automobile" has not caused petrol direct injection. I have already been at this point before; to make a very plain example, wheels are also part of automobiles, would they be covered by the ban? Is every part of an automobile covered by the ban? How am I supposed to distinguish between automobile-related and unrelated if the way people here use to distinguish is mostly arbitrary? I have seen that people claim that flathead engines were used for agricultural engines (=automobiles?) because they believed it was true (=original research); (I suppose you know that agricultural engines (=Diesel engines) don't work with the flathead design), but what happens if someone declares something I edit automobile-related because of their personal beliefs? I think that this might also be a problem of cultural/regional differences; an Unimog is most likely considered a truck or a tractor in North America, while in Germany, everyone understands what an Unimog is; it is somewhat it's own vehicle category an nobody would call it a tractor or a truck. Also, sulphur is related to American gasoline, while it isn't related to our petrol. For me it is very difficult to tell the difference between automobile-related and unrelated in many cases. Anyways, I don't want any trouble. I suppose I am going to create another good/featured article involving petrol direct injection for de then. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Meh, what Andy said, Johannes Maximilian. I know you are genuinely just asking for clarification due to your familiarity with automobile-related topics, that you feel the need to go into specific details about distinguishing what is covered by the scope; topic bans in general are phrased "broadly construed" for this purpose, and the tendency to repeatedly asking for specific clarification is kind of related to why the topic ban was imposed in the first place. To uninformed editors here at enwp this comes off as wikilawyering, which I do understand isn't your intention. Alex Shih (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not even going to answer that.
If you think that the best response to a question of whether you're breaching a TBAN would be to start a detailed discussion on engineering, which no-one else will understand, then you are going to get your ban extended. That is based on simple empirical observation of past AN threads. "Wikilawyering" is the one thing that is always seen badly, and this approach will be regarded as such.
I think you have a reasonable chance of having this ban withdrawn, if you request that first, and you point to some good contributions since. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The 100k-edit-non-editors with maybe three fivethousand-byte-articles will tell me that I barely contribute to this project when appealing the ban (Special:Contribs/Johannes Maximilian); I suppose that the quality of edits doesn't count here (as it doesn't do in other language versions of Wikipedia either). Amongst all articles on the Diesel engine found in different language versions of Wikipedia, only one is considered to be a GA; around 70 % of that GA was contributed by just one editor. Now, would it be reasonable to say that this editor is knowledgable? If people who do not understand the subject have to decide whether a certain edit is a ban violation or not, they should maybe listen to knowledgable editors; I have learnt though that other editors consider it wikilawyering if I explain it myself. As far as I am concerned, amongst all editors here I know, you seem to be one of the knowledgable ones out of them. You have actually helped me a lot with explaining that air-blast injection is not automobile-related, which allowed me to safely create that article without risking a block; several other editors believed it was covered by the ban due to the fact that it is related to 'Diesel'. I still believe that petrol direct injection is a subject of its own and not too much connected to automobile, given the history of that topic which is covered by books known in Wikipedia as reliable sources. Well; take a closer look at that French aircraft engine. Maybe you will find it and improve the article. I have stolen too much of your time. Thank you and best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've no interest in fixing Diesel engine, nor steam locomotive or steam boiler (and some others) because I just don't think that the WP editing model works for articles so broad. Everyone knows [sic] what a Diesel engine is, so they can all edit away at it - not always for an improvement. When I've finished writing all the other articles which I can achieve something more useful with, then I might think about them.
Air-blast injection has no overlap with automobiles. Gasoline direct injection though does. Maybe not in the paragraphs you were looking at (although in the same section), but enough to raise a problem at AN if anyone wants to. WP also has a problem with editors having subject knowledge - we (rightly) require non personal, objective sources to WP:Verify things, but this too often spreads over into the flat-earth snowflake view of "my ignorance is to be valued equally as your knowledge".
I still think that you should avoid this article, and that you could get this ban lifted. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

translating a wiki article into Chinese[edit]

Dear Alex I have written this article in the English wikipedia about ballerina Yen Han, who is originally from China, quite famous in Europe and very famous in Switzerland, where she resides: We would like to have the article translated and published into Chinese as well. Can you help? Kind regards Markus2666Markus2666 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Markus2666: I am always happy to help with translation, but you need to disclose who the "we" refers to; and if you are editing for pay or has financial/conflict of interest connection to the subject, then no. Alex Shih (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alex Shih, I am researching this at the request of Miss Han who is even less adept at Wikipedia than myself... Not sure if that applies to your criteria or not. Markus2666Markus2666 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For being the most sane voice across the entire GW-Kudpung saga, in my eyes.The diplomatic chime-in(s) failed to stop the escalation, but nonetheless they were immensely valued:-) WBGconverse 08:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks, I didn't think my comment contributed much; everything appears to be settled now, but nothing is resolved yet. Alex Shih (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Please do me a favour and block my account indefinitely. I have failed in the German language Wikipedia; apparently, I am a vandal and not knowledgable at all. Thank you for all your help and goodbye. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian, I actually went and read the discussion at de:Portal Diskussion:Auto und Motorrad since I was curious. I thought it was slightly similar to the trouble you have experienced here; sometimes it's better to go with the consensus, even when you think the consensus is wrong. Enjoy your break and let me know when you want to return. Alex Shih (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juche-Capitalism[edit]

Hi Alex Shih. Would you mind taking a look at this AfD? I think there might be some WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT going on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Salvio giuliano already dealt with them. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).


Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.


  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Documenting community bans[edit]

Hi. At User talk:Northamerica1000, you said that community bans need to be documented at Wikipedia:Editing restriction. However, I don't see any full site bans documented there - topic bans, interaction bans etc, but not site bans (and we do have plenty of site-banned editors). The "Types of restrictions" section also lists a number of restrictions, but does not include full site bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I will be the first one to admit that WP:RESTRICT is a mess. It is something that should be done consistently per current instructions but I guess back in the days was never really done properly. The rarity of how site bans are implemented recently in addition to the high profile nature of this user (10k+ edits, former admin) should mean that everything needs to be documented and linked clearly, so that when the user wish to exercise their right to appeal (this instruction is also currently missing), it will be easier to review. Alex Shih (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's particularly important to document this one properly, but the total absence of site bans documented there made me wonder if they're documented elsewhere. Anyway, I'll start a precedent by documenting this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the top of the WP:RESTRICT, "editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users instead", so that's where they're documented, I suppose, Boing! said Zebedee. WP:RESTRICT AFAIK is mainly there because it can be hard to know if someone is TBANed etc or not; not the case with a site ban. There used to be a list of banned users but it was deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, missed that, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom resignation[edit]

I hope all is well with you. Your resignation will be a loss to the committee. The times I have read your commentary it has been insightful and, in my opinion, generally focused on the important things and avoided distractions. I hope you will continue to participate at the various administrative boards since your voice often brings calm and balance to matters when it is needed. Jbh Talk 18:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm sorry to see this. You were one of the few Arbs in living memory who maintained a direct connection with the content creation aspects of Wikipedia and had a real-world view of the kinds of issues that entails. It's a dreadful loss for the already very bleak future for Arbcom this time round. Hopefully you'll continue to contribute just as you did before. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. I will be around. Alex Shih (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the reasons were, but I was surprised to see this. I really very much appreciate the work that you have done, and I think that you have shown yourself to be a very kind and thoughtful person. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I echo everyone else's thoughts, and I thank you for your service on ArbCom - it's more than I'd ever be prepared to do! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for running and serving during the time that you did. I hope your real-world commitments do not prove too burdensome or harrowing, and that they all turn out well. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitely had our disagreements, but thank you for volunteering for a thankless task, and I hope you can get back to what you enjoy doing here Face-smile.svg - TNT 💖 09:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we have ever interacted, but I have observed your work for a short while now. Although I generally stay in the background and don't involve myself in matters, it is important to me that I tell you that I appreciate your work. I have not once seen a comment, post, or action from you that I found inappropriate, unreasonable, or indicative of poor judgement. To the contrary, your activity anywhere and everywhere seems to consistently be exemplary of how editors ought to behave. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in whatever has precipitated this resignation. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all. Alex Shih (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Can you tell me that what us needed, beside 500 edits at the mainspace, to be applicable for New Page Reviewer? Good day, Regards, Knightrises10 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: For me, you would need a few more months of active editing, and maybe some demonstrated article reviewing experience. Perhaps you should try WP:AfC reviewing first if you haven't done so already? Alex Shih (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for telling. For Afc reviewing, will I have to request the permissions first? Knightrises10 (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Knightrises10: Yes, I see you have requested already. You don't seem to have 500 edits to the mainspace? That's necessary for AfC as well. Usually when you don't have that requirement, alternatively it's better if you have some solid content creation; Faizan Shaikh is probably not a satisfactory example. Alex Shih (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Alex Shih. I just did a thorough reading of WP:ER/UC and there is some misunderstanding about its procedures. This page created by you after merging from the main page.[1]

It seems that Swarm has been using this page by picking up the part "These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator.." but not the rest that "" accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log." The several entries logged by him[2][3][4] didn't involved any restriction or unblock in exchange but appears to be single admin notes designed as "final warning", however even that needs to come only after a sanction had been imposed.

Kindly clarify the purpose. Thanks Accesscrawl (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: You might want to start a wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions or WP:AN for more exposure, because you do have a legitimate point about there is some inconsistency in how these final warnings are implemented. None of the procedure here is policy; personally my understanding of "purpose" is to promote best practice, and that is going to be different from person to person. Alex Shih (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK review[edit]

I did get pinged at this page, but that was later dealt with further in postings to my own talk page. It left me with the impression that whoever raised this issue in the first place had finished dealing with it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: I don't understand what "talk page stalker" means. The most obvious meaning doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) (Geddit?) @Michael Hardy: Well; the concept has been around for sometime now—it's almost as old as you, here—so it seems odd that you might have missed it :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: It's still not clear, but now I can hazard a guess: You're saying Alex Shih was identifying himself as one of those. Is that what you take that parenthetical notation of his to mean? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy, I can't believe I am doing this, but I will try again. On the left side of the browser, there is a link "Page information". Inside that page, there is a section called "Number of page watchers". Many regular editors like to keep other regular editor's user talk page on their watchlist (I am sure you do this too?); when they feel like they want to respond to people posting at other editor's talk page, it's common courtesy to identify themselves as one of the page watchers (otherwise it would be like, where the heck did you come from?). Of course this has nothing to do with anything. Back to the topic: there are outstanding concerns at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Georg_Cantor's_first_set_theory_article. If you can address those when you have time, that would be great. Alex Shih (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
((_*_) Buttinsky) <— allows for a bit of levity but I'm thinking Michael is more likely to use (talk page watcher) if he uses anything at all. 😊 Atsme📞📧 02:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.


Dear Alex,

thank you for helping me with your original post on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#(2)_Read-only_access_to_deleted_edits?.

It was helpful to me that you provided links to articles in WP space, which explained in detail why a YES to my request would never be possible.

Now, I am a bit worried that I have inadvertently caused irritation to a lot of editors due to my lack of knowledge. I am sorry. In the start I asked 1 single admin, Anthony, for such access. He posted my question on the noticeboard, not me. I was not aware of this noticeboard until it was already closed. I could not decode all the jargon and wished to ask an additional question. Which you directly answered to my satisfaction: your posting helped me understand the background of all of it. That is cannot be done for legal reasons. External.

To my surprise, only after stating I was satisfied and needed no more replies, a whole discussion broke loose on the merits of blocking me? I meant no disrespect and did not mean to cause trouble. At the moment I think it is most wise to shut up - or do you have some advice for me?

I am not American, so American culture is rather alien to me.

--Mick2 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

((_*_) Buttinsky) Mick2, I am American and American culture is rather alien to me, too. 😊 Atsme📞📧 20:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) To be strictly accurate, after Anthony asked on your behalf and it was explained that what you're requesting couldn't be done for legal reasons, you didn't say you were satisfied and needed no more replies, you:
  1. Opened a second, thread demanding that "Any User with an account should be granted access to all Delete Pages, on request";
  2. Ranted incoherently that Stalin, Trump and Putin were infiltrating Wikipedia;
  3. Claimed that "special interest groups hire students and agents to promote their viewpoint on wikipedia";
  4. Approached Mike Godwin to see if he'd support you being given permission to view deleted content;
  5. Claimed "Maybe there are more possibilities" (of you being given permission to view deleted content);
  6. Posted this gibberish which is hard to make sense of but appears to be an unsubstantiated claim that Wikipedia is being manipulated by unspecified external forces;
  7. Insinuated that Wikipedia is undergoing 'serious manipulation'.
If you're wondering just why people are looking askance at you, you may want to ponder that your apparent notion that Wikipedia is being targeted by some kind of conspiracy, your obsession with deleted edits (in which you presumably hope to find some evidence of said conspiracy), and your near-total lack of constructive contributions, may possibly have something to do with it. ‑ Iridescent 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Is that all? Softlavender (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mick2: I think Iridescent has summed up the situation pretty accurately, and if you stand back and try to see it from the perspective of those observing, can you really not see why there might be uncertainty about your motives? My suggestion is that you drop your pursuit of trying to rectify whatever it is you think might be wrong with Wikipedia, and just spend some time helping improve articles - at least until you have a substantial record of productive contributions. That's what we really need here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


G'day Alex, I'm just wondering about your support vote on the Milhist coord election page, where you said "When it comes to mediation, I think there is some further work to do". I'm always keen to improve my editing where I can, and am wondering what specifically are you referring to? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi, it was a vague reference to the GWE case; to be fair my subsequent sentence suggested there may be nothing to improve short of perfection. I thought that the dedication of many coordinators to the MILHIST project may have deprived them of some objectivity to few of the problems within their common practice. Perhaps I was trying to articulate the thought that moving forward, we can be more inclusive while separate user conduct from content issues better. Hopefully this makes sense. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Slow Vandalism[edit]

A 2001:8003 address is whittling away at Dave Hughes. Over 10 cuts since the line with your name, talking about protection.

The article needs updating.

31 September?? (Your return.) MBG02 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


This user continue to disruptive editing in m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Fauzty after indefinite in and abuse:vandalism,personal attacks and disruptive editing).--MCC214Talk with me#Contributions with me 09:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)