User talk:DerechoReguerraz

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

Parent systems[edit]

If you don't understand what a parent tree is than you should not change it. Just because I am not a user does not mean that I don't know what I am writing.

Look at Chinese character yourself and you will see that the Oracle script is the ROOT of Chinese and therefore Japanese (writig system).

The root of a language is not the final language itself ... Oo !

PS: You should read and know the stuff you are changing. If you would than you would know that Oracle Bone Script

Seal ScriptClerical ScriptRegular script (Kanji)

are all parts of the Chinese language dev. and that they build up into todays chinese. Therefor its wrong to name Chinese character anywhere in that tree as IT IS this thee itself.

Only because there are wrong templates here you don't need to spread them.

79.192.231.198 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What you wrote is pretty much incoherent. Please use proper English grammer.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You desperately try to fight aren't you ?
Your edit is plain wrong and does not make sens. You should know what you are doing before you do it.
EDIT: Ok since you are not seeing your failure I will make it more clear to you ...
Look into ANY of the above articles and you will NOT see chinese as the root. Now since they are a chain of development your edit is not logic. ALL those aricles do not support your idea that it should be the root. The article [Chinese character]] does describe the tree in more detailed words but has nothing to do with its root. Another way to see this is to look at Arabic_alphabet where you can also see that the tree is build up from the dif. writing system periots. There are 2 bad template and 7 other in that writing system set who say different and you change 4 of em. realy what should I ask else than "are you dumb?" if you do that twice without even thinking about your edits.
The set is Kana (changed by you to wrong version) Hiragana (was wrong) Katakana (was wrong) Kanji (was right) Oracle Bone Script (is right) Seal Script (is right) Clerical Script (is right) Regular script (is right) Chinese character (is right)
the ones marked "is right" where never changed by me - so it is not my own lil personal idea ... !
PS: My bad english or bad choice of words is much batter than your blind changes.79.192.231.198 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Topkapı Palace[edit]

hi there,

I have readded the listing of Topkapı Palace as World Heritage but updated the link that leads to it to make the point clear. sincerely Gryffindor 18:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Avatar[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you were editing in some of the avatar related articles. I wondered if you might be interested in trying to synthesize them together, one of my current projects. If you want, you can try editing it at User:NuclearWarfare/Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Master Kong[edit]

The hat is necessary because the company is referred to as "Master Kong" in English and Master Kong redirects to Confucius. Alternatively, a dab page could be created at Master Kong that directed people, but if there's only two entries, a hat is desired. –xeno (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Most visited cities[edit]

Hi Derecho! Thank you for fixing the Euromonitor link, as we couldn't find it! I'm going to add it to footnote #13, so all the links will go to the right page. It is too bad that the Euromonitor statistics are from 2006, I'm working on getting the 2008 info, but can only find Moscow in Russian for 2008 and Saudi Arabia's is in Arabic. Anyways, if you see me adding refs and info, don't worry, I'm on the up and up! Thanks again!--Funandtrvl (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I know you updated the citation to point to the 2007 data, but this link doesn't work: [1]. Is there any possibility that you could find a working link, or is it in restricted access space? Let us know, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Mainstream critics in association with Metacritic[edit]

Hello, DerechoReguerraz. Since the above linked section is partly about you, would you mind commenting there about this topic? Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page, of course. I get your point, but I feel that this should be discussed with the larger community -- to gain WP:Consensus about using "mainstream" in reference to Metacritic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup O[edit]

Hi, you said that the link from Nature isn't correct but don't you think that the title "A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe" wrote by the AUTHOR's represent their fundamental idea? Counter clockwise means a circle. If you look at Asia, counter clockwise would be Southeast Asia through Vietnam, along the coast of China, Japan, Korea then Siberia! You can look for the definition of counter clockwise if you want to understand it better.

The last correction about African ancestry is correct. Thanks. I posted a useless link. It's obvious everyone are from Africa.

If you look at the Haplogroup tree map. Haplogroup O are from Indonesia. So it's impossible, because they didn't have planes yet, to travel from Indonesia to Central Asia or Siberia without traveling throught Southeast Asia first.

Please link some reference to your saying that Haplogroup O might be from Siberia or Central Asia or delete your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettto (talkcontribs) 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar Critical reception rewrite[edit]

DerechoReguerraz, thanks for your contribution on Avatar. Following some editors' suggestions, I have proposed a restructured Critical reception section for discussion here, hoping to try and accommodate a deeper and more balanced coverage of the film internationally. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Euromonitor[edit]

Hello. When it comes to [2], please give a link to data of 2010 on my discussion. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Sex Ratio[edit]

Hi there - I note you have been adding useful content to the countries list on human sex ratio. The World Factbook is flawed, the data reported by it might better be called The World Estimatebook. I would like your thoughts on how we can improve the information, so wiki page is more useful to everyone. One approach is to include two columns on birth data - one marked at birth[1], and other marked at birth[2]. We could then report CIA data under [1], and census data under [2]. People can sort it, view it and get either encyclopedic information in the manner they want. What are your thoughts? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't input original research or personal opinion onto an encyclopedia article. Basically these numbers are by CIA's The World Factbook, and it is different to some countries' government reported data. I don't see any problem with noting there are other numbers, such as the census ones. However the entire chart is based on The World Factbook's data, so two columns probably isn't necessary, as many countries' census aren't available.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - Census data is neither original research, nor personal opinion. It is just data, independently verifiable. Of all census and demographic data, birth records are most current, as these are created by and recorded by many countries, for passport / electorate count / such reasons. These census numbers are useful, and will make the wiki page more useful. Yes, you are right, we may not find census data for all 200+ countries, yet some data is better than no data. When time permits, I will add another column with census-based human sex ratio data. Thanks for your thoughts. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
One big problem with that is the chart consist of various categories i.e. "at birth/under 15/15–64/over 65/total". It seems only CIA World Factbook provides the entire information. If you only add extra columns (and provide a few additional information) to one, but not to all the other categories, it would seem wildly inconsistent.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD tagging[edit]

Hi there. When tagging files for speedy deletion, please use one of the templates specified at WP:CSD, rather than inserting your own rationale. "Unknown copyright status" may fall under criterion F4, but we give the uploader (or anyone else) 7 days to add that information before we delete it. Please add a legitimate CSD template, or nominate the image at files for deletion. Thanks, Swarm X 04:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (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) 11:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Chang Dai-chien meets Picasso 1953 or 1956[edit]

You recently changed the date of Chang Dai-Chien's meeting with Picasso from 1953 to 1956 based on a Britannica cite. Please see the talk page for that article as I've previously noted that there is a discrepancy as to the year they met. However, the cite I originally included supported the 1953 meeting. When you updated the entry you didn't change the cite to your Britannica source. As it stands, you changed the place to Nice and year to 1956, but the source (my original source) is still in the article for Antibes and 1953. So, you should probably change the current source to your Britannica one, or change the information back to agree with the source, or put both places and years with both sources indicating there is disagreement. I have no idea what the correct date is, but the Britannica is likely just parroting (without citing) the 1956 date which is reported in other places. In any case, the information you are citing is not agreeing with the current footnote. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

'The ARWU actually doesn't have a separate ranking of U.S. universities. Its article is the world ranking.'[edit]

What about http://www.arwu.org/Country2010Main.jsp?param=United%20States? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ranking[edit]

Please stop removing the ARWU national parameter from individual university pages. The ARWU clearly still provides a national as well as a global ranking. If you wish to discuss this, please go to Template talk:Infobox US university ranking. —Eustress talk 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

CWUR Rankings[edit]

Info About CWUR Rankings:

  • reported by universities:

1) http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/07/05/university-of-texas-ranked-no-30-among-world-universities/

2) http://today.uci.edu/facts/rankings_distinctions.php

3) http://live.psu.edu/story/60316

4) http://www.colorado.edu/content/cu-boulder-lands-two-top-100-international-rankings

  • reported by the media:

1) http://www.kvue.com/news/UT-makes-top-100-list-of-best-universities-in-the-world-161469485.html

2) http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8729939

3) http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120710000910&cpv=0

Uwkcls1c (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this particular ranking, I've gone through and reverted your removal of it from various articles. It may end up being a meaningless ranking, but there are better venues through which to establish that then just wholesale deletion with no discussion. Esrever (klaT) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't like how this has been handled, at all. Someone was bold and made the initial edits - cool. Someone else reverted those edits - cool. Now others have just reinstated the initial edits instead of discussing them first and figuring out what the general consensus is - not cool.
Where would it be best to discuss this issue? WT:UNI, perhaps? It needs to be discussed because I don't think that the case has been made at all that these rankings are notable. ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that they're probably not notable. A discussion has been started at Template talk:Infobox US university ranking, which may be the best place to continue it. This is separate, by the way, from the ARWU rankings issues. As far as I can tell, there's only been one set of reverts here, at least regarding the CWUR rankings. Esrever (klaT) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I might be wrong--the MIT article has a fuller history of back-and-forths over this than other articles I watch: here. Esrever (klaT) 16:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Center for World University Rankings has also been mentioned in:

1) the US Congress: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=601978974 <video> see also here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H11JY2-0031

2) EBS News (Korean): http://tvpot.daum.net/brand/ClipView.do?ownerid=8Q4vdRFuOiQ0&clipid=43188897&page=1&q=&type=&lu=b_frm_cview_clip <video>

3) TV Chosun (Korean): http://news.tv.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/07/10/2012071001388.html <video>

4) Yahoo Japan (Japanese): http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120710-00000014-scn-kr

5) Atlanta Business Chronicle: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2012/07/10/georgia-tech-ranked-among-best-in.html

6) Dayton Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/blog/morning_call/2012/07/ohio-universities-among-tops-in-world.html

and finally

7) from Purdue University: http://www.purdue.edu/oir/rankings.html mentioning CWUR along with ARWU, QS, and THE as the only global rankings.Uwkcls1c (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Times Higher Education logo.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Times Higher Education logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

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 Penguin Classics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Discourses, Maurice, Netochka Nezvanova and Ruth Hall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maine penny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newfoundland (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) 10:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

World Tourism rankings[edit]

As you can see, UNWTO's links are really not working. So what can be done about it? I think, adding "dead link", and "ref improve" tags may help. Justicejayant (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ARWU[edit]

Hi! I was just thinking that if an institution was ranked 3rd in a league table, it's quite unnecessary to mention the two that were ahead of it since they're not that relevant to the university itself and the reader will visit the source for the full list if he wants to know more. This is similar to the case on the ARWU page, concerning whether or not to mention QS and THE as well. My point is to keep it concise and precise, especially when the quotations there clearly give the names of the other two. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 06:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If it was ranked 3rd, then it wouldn't be necessary to mention it because we know there is a larger table or list (the "league table") we can look at. But the sentence states "one of the three", that is why it is only logical to show the other two. For example, if the sentence says "she is one of the two most important [something] in the world", it is only reasonable for people to expect the sentence to display the other part of the information. Otherwise, it would feel incomplete.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Um...alright. That sounds logical. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 10:57, 30 April 2015‎

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunhuang manuscripts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (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) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, DerechoReguerraz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)