User talk:Mr Tan/Old discussion 1

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


Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 16:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hey, stop editing the page and go to the discussion page and let's discuss this first. OneGuy 08:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed the China to 8%. Please calm down and go through this slowly. I have program that makes it much easier to calculate and generate the table. If some percentage is wrong, just post it on the talk page and I will fix it OneGuy 08:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care about Japan percentage .. I can change it. What exactly you want me to change it to? I will change Loas to 60% .. state department also has 60-65%

OneGuy 11:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I changed Japan to 71%. This is not hard for me because I wrote a program to do all the capitulations, including printing the tables. All I have to do is change the percentage of a country in the program, and all the tables are updated automatically. I had to write that program for Islam by country because otherwise all these calculation (especially the region tables) are very hard to do using a calculator. By the way, if you are using Windows, you can cut and past the numbers to the windows calculator (even if the number has ","). Just a suggestion because you would have not made the mistake with China calculation if you had cut and pasted the numbers to the calculator OneGuy 12:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All the calculations for region table are done automatically by the program I wrote. To change something in the region table, the country's percentage in the first table "By country" has to be changed. For example, currently I have

Mauritius 0.3% (Southern Africa) South Africa (0.1%) Tanzania (0.1%)

These have to be changed to change the region table for Africa. The region table directly cannot be changed. The source for these three country's was I think OneGuy 20:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism[edit]

I don't like your changes to the last paragraph of Korean Buddhism. I'm not at all sure that the Christian missionaries in Korea are fundamentalist, but they definitely are not "Fundamental" as you wrote. In fact, imho, the largest groups in South Korea are Pentecostals, who are not fundamentalists. Reconsider your wording, please.

Mr. Tan, just to follow up on old comments on my talk page, I want to clarify that from my American English speaking point of view, "Fundamentalist Christianity" is a particular sort of Protestant Christianity as opposed to a mere gloss for "conservative, hardedged, and bigotted." There is no such beast as someone who calls him/herself a Fundamental Christian. Protestant fundamentalists are people who take the Bible as the literal and infalliable word of God, and refuse to add any other sources of inspiration to their liturgy or theology. Pentacostals, on the other hand, pride themselves in being Spirit-led, which is to say that they believe themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Pentacostals are likely to have differences with other groups. There are groups of Fundamentalists who are missionary and non-missionary, and the same is certainly true with Pentacostals.

One way to get around all this is to say "conservative Christian." Or you could just say "Christian missionaries." In general, be careful to accurately describe which sort of Christians you are talking about: as in Buddhism, there are many important sectarian differences. --Defenestrate 1 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)


I saw your addition to General Duong Van Minh, it looks great. I myself have been putting some relevant information concerning him. Are you also Vietnamese? I currently live in California.--Bnguyen 01:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adding Chinese characters to articles about Vietnamese people[edit]

I think it's inappropriate to add the so-called "chữ nôm" characters for most article dealing with people with Vietnamese names. First of all, if they were born after c. 1930, the Chinese written form of their name would not be used at all. Furthermore, nom was never formalized, so any symbol we have is just conjecture. So I think unless the person actively used the Chinese written form of their names during their lives, we should make no mention of it. DHN 02:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Responding to your answer:
I am a Vietnamese speaker. Note that virtually all of modern Vietnamese writing since 1945 is written in quoc ngu. Vietnamese speakers are not taught the ideographic writing AT ALL. The purpose of putting somebody's name in an alternate script is so that the reader can find references to the subject in its native language. I doubt you'll find much work referring to anybody with a Vietnamese name in Chinese (except Chinese-language works, of course). So while I think it is appropriate to put the Chinese/chu nom scripts for articles dealing with people born after 1900, it is irrelevant for other people. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of Chinese characters on articles dealing with people who never spoke Chinese nor know how to read it is a bit condescending, implying that the Vietnamese people are Chinese, and the Vietnamese language is just a dialect of Chinese.
As an example, many English names have Hebrew or Latin origins. Do we put the Hebrew text or the Latin version of the name for every article dealing with people with those names? While Chinese probably have a stronger influence on Vietnamese than Latin had in English, the average Vietnamese speaker probably knows as much Chinese as the amount of Latin that an average English speaker knows. Probably even less, since they can't read the script. DHN 03:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism by country=[edit]

Do you have stats for Kazakistan? Or do you want me to add all the countries back with "n/a" OneGuy 08:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

Your recent edit on Agama Hindu Dharma has been reverted because of suspected copyright violations. Bali Hotels Travel claims the copyrights to the text [1].Unless you are the owner of the copyrights to the material you cannot submit it to wikipedia no matter how useful it is. If by some small chance you are the owner of the copyrights, you may change the article back to the way you left it. --metta, The Sunborn 07:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lena Park[edit]

For Korean Americans:How about the Dean Harold Hongju Koh? Mr Tan, 11.44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess that's the most common way his name is used in English, try googling it. "Lena Junghyun Park" doesn't get any google hits at all. Kappa 21:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh[edit]

-this photo of him is inspirational because he is a "hero to Vietnamese" that is why his body is present to show all fellow vietnamese and tourists that visit.

-I myself am from was born in South Vietnam, and there are some vietnamese that dont feel the same way, but we have to give this man the credit he is due for his inspiration of uniting vietnam.

-It is due to his bravery and leadership and the motives of the communist party to share this with everyone in the whole world.

-some people would never get the chance to goto Hanoi to view him, and to see him in his present state is a memorial to a man that gave the supreme sacrifice for his people.(Bnguyen 20:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC))


I was in Sikkim in December last year and was captivated by the people and the state and pledged to write all about it. However getting facts on the place was difficult and relied on my own experiences. As for History; well I have loads of historical references on Sikkim that I am currently assimiliating; thats why I had left it intentially blank. The current text is vague and lists just part of the history of Sikkim. I would be happy to work with you on Sikkim related matters so that the state can be put up as a Featured Article. As for tribes; I have made a category [category:Himalayan peoples]. Also see the town Kalimpong; I have listed a few ethnic groups such as Yamloos and Kamai and Bhutias and subsequently added a bit on them. Might I ask where are you from? Nichalp 10:27, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Lepcha ethnic group is indegenous (native) to Sikkim (not Nepal) unlike the other groups such as the Damais and Yamloos. It would be wrong to feature them as an ethnic group of Nepal. As for the history of Sikkim; I did intentionally leave it blank so that I could concentrate with the rest of the sections first. I always add the history to in the end. See the main article on the History of Sikkim now. I had put up a warning about editing the page, so that others edits are not reverted when I add new sections. I always wanted to go to Arunachal Pradesh — India's least known state, but unfortunately never had a chance to. I've removed the temporary page; have a look at the completed Sikkim page. I'll let you know what help I need on Sikkim in a day or two. (Festivals such as Losar... is it possible?) Nichalp 18:22, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a category [peoples of Sikkim] would do so well since there are only Bhutias, Lepchas, Tibetans and Nepali. I don't have any information about the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, I've got to look it up. As for the Arunachal Pradesh article, much of it is a POV, I'm afraid. Since you are working with India related topics why don't you take a look at this page Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics, you could also add your name to the list. Go ahead with your Arunachal Pradesh article, I'll join you over the weekend as I have a lot of information to put up. Nichalp 18:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh should be deleted. It is an informative page unlike a category. I will be away for a day or two so please take care of Sikkim while I'm away. Nichalp 19:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arunachal Tribes[edit]

I would advise you not to move the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh to the main Arunachal Pradesh article. The Arunachal article should contain information on the state on the whole not on a list of tribes. Since there are around 80 tribes as you say, it would be wise to add only the top five tribes in Arunachal Pradesh on its page with a brief description on them. The current Tribes page is good enough and sufficiently informative. Nichalp 21:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Arunachal Tribes[edit]

I would advise you not to move the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh to the main Arunachal Pradesh article. The Arunachal article should contain information on the state on the whole not on a list of tribes. Since there are around 80 tribes as you say, it would be wise to add only the top five tribes in Arunachal Pradesh on its page with a brief description on them. The current Tribes page is good enough and sufficiently informative. Nichalp 21:06, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Longest traceable migration path"[edit]

"Longest traceable migration path"[edit]

"The Pumi have the longest traceable migration path of any minority group in China." I'd love to see the sources for the claim that implies that the existence of the Pumi nationality of today was attested (in writing?) in the 4th century BC. This claim sounds absurd to me. Where did you get that from, Mr. Tan? Babelfisch 01:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sikkim title[edit]

Hi, recently you have added the title in Sikkimese to the Sikkim page. I can't see the first one as I don't have the font. Do you know where I can download it? Nichalp 19:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

If its in Tibetan, I'll have to remove it as it is not the state language. Also please give licencing details on the Arunachal Pradesh map you have uploaded. If its a copyviolation then I'll have to delete it. You can, on the other hand point me to an image that has all districts and their headquarters, and I'll make a map for you based on it. Nichalp 20:45, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Apa Tani[edit]

That's not my grammatical structure. I had to clean up the last editor's grammatical structure. I tried my best to preserve all the information at the same time. I have to still edit some more so please forgive me if it's sloppy. Working on Wikipedia from work puts a bit of pressure on me to save half-finished work when real work comes up. :)

District map[edit]

Hi, I've listed the Arunachal Pradesh district map image:Arunmap.jpg as a possible copyviolation here WP:CP#March_13. If it is not a violation, please tag it with the apprpriate tags. GFDL, PD, or CC (the most common ones). Nichalp 19:42, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sherpa move[edit]

Why did you think Sherpa needed to be renamed to Sherpa (people) which you then renamed to Sherpa (Ethnic group)? The ethnic group is the main meaning of the term so there was no need to rename the page. You also created a double re-direct which you did not fix. RedWolf 02:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


I mentioned a few days earlier (its up on this page) that the title is not the official language. Tibetan is not the official language of Sikkim and hence should not be put up. Nepali (or Bhutia) would be fine. But languages cannot be displayed here as this is an English Wikipedia. Nichalp 19:04, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


I mentioned a few days earlier (its up on this page) that the title is not the official language. Tibetan is not the official language of Sikkim and hence should not be put up. Nepali (or Bhutia) would be fine. But languages cannot be displayed here as this is an English Wikipedia. Nichalp 19:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, Mr. Tan. I didn't know you will be so angry to me. I'm so sorry.
(Well, My English is too strange. ^^a;;;)
I sent a note of apology to you by E-mail. I'm very sorry. My behavior was innocent.
Well, Korean name is consist of 'Last name + First name'.
Western name is consist of 'First name + Middle name + Last name'.
If we write this style, 'XXX XXX XXX' it will be understood by foreigner.
Because this type is too similar to western naming system.
I was so worried, because Korean name don't have middle name.
I was not good at how to use Wikipedia.
And I knew 'Bae Yong Jun' is more use than 'Bae Yong-jun'.
I promise, I'll never edit too arbitrary.
Sorry to all of you. I didn't know. So sorry... I apologize for what I did.
Bye bye... *^^*
Gildong7 17:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kuan Yin[edit]

According to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles, names usually expressed in kanji (e.g. Junichiro Koizumi) will not have the kana shown. WhisperToMe 03:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Kannon's name is often written in kana by other Japanese people?

If you are trying to refer to the Chinese and Korean scripts, they use different conventions than the Japanese convention. WhisperToMe 06:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. You notice that kana is seen in the Thousand Character Classic article. As I assume most Japanese write it in kanji, the kana doesn't belong in that table according to the MoS. WhisperToMe 06:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Kunrei-shiki isn't to be "listed" either - The consensus is that people who know about it can look after themselves - Most anglophones use Hepburn. WhisperToMe 07:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the manual of style, if there is a "kanji" field, there should be no "kana" field. The only time kana should be visible is if a name is usually written in kana. WhisperToMe 07:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Googling the first brings up hits that look like that they may not be referring to Kannon. Googling the second brings the kana in parenthenses next to the kanji (as a pronunciation reference)). The current consensus is that the kana is not necessary if a name is written as kanji. Period/Full stop. WhisperToMe 07:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Borrowed content"[edit]

Yes, absolutely, borrowed content can be part of 1.0. In particular, material from the 1911 Britannica and other public domain sources is entirely legitimate, as long as its use is acknowledged. Also, when material from a third-party source expresses an opinion (e.g. that a custom is "curious"), it should be clearly quoted with clear citation, otherwise it violates NPOV.

There is a lot I could say here, but in particular I want to make sure that you are clear on the distinction between the academic-ethical matter of plagiarism and the legal matter of copyright violation. Plagiarism is using sources without acknowledging them. It does not matter whether or not those sources have copyright protection. A good citation apparatus, honestly used, is a complete defense against plagiarism. Copyright violation -- I am sticking to U.S. law here, since Wikipedia is hosted in Florida -- is a matter of taking material, without permission and beyond what is considered to be fair use from a work that is not in the public domain. The 1911 Britannica is in the public domain. As long as the material in question is cited and either is NPOV and still up to date or is appropriately contextualized, its use in an Wikipedia raises no issues whatever.

One more point: one almost never wants to remove references from an article. A "reference" indicates what documents were consulted in the preparation of the article. About the only times I can immediately think of where a reference would be removed is (1) if it was added in bad faith or (2) if a more comprehensive/authoritative/inclusive work by the same author is cited in its stead.

Hope that's helpful. I'd be glad to answer other specific related questions. You may find that opinion on matters like is not absolutely unanimous, but if consult Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards you will find that it is pretty close to unanimous, with a very strong consensus among those with academic backgrounds. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:20, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


I've never been there. I don't have any pictures. I don't know anything about the pictures currently on the page; have you clicked on them to see what their image pages say? Among other things, they will say who uploaded the images. I'm not particularly interested in working on Tibet-related articles, nor particularly knowledgable about Tibet, I just got pulled into the article that is now entitled Tibetan people via Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups, which I was working on very hard for a while. If you look at the state of the article a little over a year ago, you can see that it was little but a very POV 1911 EB article. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Han Tan Old Man[edit]

Hi, your name Hans Tan sounds like the Han Tan Old Man or Lau Guai Wu, a character in the Chinese kungfu drama, Reincarnated or Tian Chan Pian in Mandarin which was aired on Singapore TV some donkey years ago.

Arunachal Pradesh -- Links[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your comments on Sikkim. I have got you some links on Arunachal Pradesh. These are official Govt of India links. You may want to refer to them. PS. I can make you a district map of AP if you can point me over to a relavent image online. The earlier image lacked a district.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


Please do not blank articles; this is vandalism. Your actions are likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute; the poorly spelt and constructed notice is not what readers expect to see when they look up Zanskar, nor are its contents in line with Wikipedia policy. Disagreements should be discussed in the talk page, not in the article space.

If you wish to continue contributing to the article, come and explain your objections to is current content at Talk:Zanskar. I've protected it from editing for a short period to allow some cooling down. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I dont agree. You have shown surprising rudeness to another editor (rudeness in criticising his English, surprising in that it's better than yours), you've accused him of pushing a point of view, though with no grounds apart from the fact that you disagree with him, and you've unilaterally blanked a Wikipedia page and replaced it with a poorly written, non-Wikipedia request for votes. As soon as the page was unprotected, you did exactly what I'd said that you shouldn't do — you replaced it with your own version. You are acting in an aggressive and arrogant way, which has to change.
“Do you realise, if you check its page history, [2] that I have made a cleanup, I comparison to Nichalp's Sikkim (see history) [3], and in one of which, you see the Sikkim/temp. Therefore I'm merely shifting my cleanup version from Zanskar/temp to Zanskar, and you may contact User:Nichalp for more information.”
I can't make out what you mean by this, I'm afraid. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check my User page to correct your mistakes about me. I suppose that, having insulted one user for writing English that's better than yours, it should be no surprise that you patronise me in the the same way. I'm also aware of 'temp' pages (and they have more than one use, incidentally); that makes absolutely no difference to anything that I've said. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you think that calling what another editor has written 'rubbish' isn't an insult, I suggest that you check the word in a dictionary. Moreover, I've removed the PoV tag from the article; putting it there looks like mere petulance, especially as you haven't cited any differences in view, only in English (and, as I've already said, there's little to choose between you version and the current version in that regard). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't understand much of your latest message to me. I suggest that you leave the page alone until I've finished copy-editing it, and then explain (on the Talk page) what it is that you think needs up-dating. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I warned, I've blocked you from editing for 24 hours for yet again completely replacing the article. I shall continue copy-editing it. I've contacted the other main editor, and when he returns, as I hope he will, we can start to working on it as a collaborative process. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


ok, translation was completed. --Tachitsuteto 19:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry for the delay in replying, I had a computer problem. I'm sorry but I don't have any idea on Zanskar. Its the first time i've heard of the place. Arunachal Pradesh has 14 districts: Changlang, Dibang Valley, East+/West Kameng, East+/West Siang, Lohit, Lower/+Upper Subansiri, Paum Pare, Tawang, Tirap, Upper Siang.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

  1. I've reverted the change that you made. It wasn't that the English needed correction (though it did), but that your change didn't improve the article; rather, it turned a factual paragraph into a rather obscurely-worded piece of tourist advice.
  2. Please use edit summaries; they are part of Wikipedia policy.
  3. Before you make any more changes, could you talk about them on the Talk page? The article has been developing gradually and encouragingly, and it would be a pity to jeopardise that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote to me:

Go to the talk page of Tsushima Islands for my reply. As for Zanskar, I will take a breal and answer your comments later including User: Nichalp, but the Zanskar standard is not acceptable in comparison to Sikkim. Please, while I rest, cleanup the article, or I will step in and you condemn me for this and that. I'm sick and tired of your guys ridiculating comments,

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but assuming that you mean "ridiculing comments", then no-one has ridiculed you. Indeed, if you hadn't persistently made derogatory remarks about another User's English, I'd not even have commented on your English, but would have quietly corrected it. You challenged me, however, to comment on a passage of yours, showing you where you went wrong, and I did so. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alison.jpg and others[edit]

Hello! Why do you believe that "celeb photos are freeuse"? Images of celebrities are copyrighted just like any other image, and in general need to be licensed. Wikipedia may be able to make a "fair use" claim for some such images, but it is very rare indeed that "the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose". The {{copyrightedFreeUse}} tag is thus not appropriate. Lupo 08:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


By syntax, I meant the grammar. Please note: I will be offline for a week to ten days starting tomorrow.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 14:30, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, honestly speaking your grammar is full of inconsistencies and numerous spelling mistakes. I feel you should use word processor such as Microsoft Word or Open Office to check if the sentence is correct. In such a position, I wish that you would add matter to articles, let it be if the grammar is bad, but please do not undertake copyediting tasks of improving the grammar and deleting sentences. This is why they are reverting your edits. You could also take a break and come back to Zanskar after your exams.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 14:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
You'd have to accept that your English currently does not match up to the standards of Mel and a others. Don't let the article waste away, since you have college projects to complete why don't you come back to the article later when you have free time? I don't think the Zanskar article is that bad. If you want a neutral perspective, why don't you put it up in Wikipedia:Peer Review? Best of Luck,  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


Your behaviour is now becoming worse. If you again place "gcheck" on an article that doesn't need it, or make another change of an article from good to poor English, I shall open a Request for comment on you. I do not want to spend my time on Wikipedia clearing up after you. As I am now involved in the various articles, I shall not block you from editing myself, but I shall certainly ask other admins if they agree that a block is appropriate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


As a reminder, here are some of the comments you made on the Zanskar article (reproduced here in your own words):

  • it seems that Zanskar will be doomed as a poor quality article. So how I'm going to cleanup? It will really needs massive re-working in that case
  • I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case
  • Just look at the etymology section; does anybody ever write such "rubbish" in terms of sentence structure and gramatical error?

Now, even if it were true, these are really not nice comments to make about anything or anybody. However, out of curiosity and since you are so persuated of your own superiority in all things literary, I decided to take a look at your "major" contributions in the hope of maybe learning something from you. In this respect, I was rather dissapointed but it was worth a good laugh. Reproduced below are some real nuggets to be found in your Kinnaur article:

  • "Woolen clothes is worn contributing to its cold weather" I do not know how wearing any kind of clothes, be they woolen or not, can contribute to the weather. Should you be able to document this, it would certainly be a major break-through in climatology.
  • "These three religions have undergone religious infusion" This sentence is mysterious, but again, if you can demonstrate that religions can undergo infusion, be it religious or not, you would also make a breakthrough in theology.
  • "the Hindu and Buddhist religions interwine together over the centuries". Well, this is a practice they should definitively put on hold, unless you meant intertwined? but in this case, intertwine together is kind of redundent.
  • "the upper areas of the valleys fall mainly under the rain shadow area""". This sentence is very poetic, but what is it supposed to mean exactly?

Your articles are also full of typos (to be charitable). Here are the most obvious one lifted again verbatim form your Kinnaur article:

  • "posses" should be possess. Posse is a word and posses is its plural, but it has a meaning that does not exactly fit into your sentences. In the same spirit, it should be possessed and possessing
  • "descandants" should be descendants
  • "embridered" should be embroided
  • "maybe worn" should be may be worn
  • "iving" should be living
  • "interwined" as already mentioned should be intertwined

I have already mentioned before that I do not consider myself to be an authority in english grammar (as opposed to you), however I have the sneaking suspicion that the sentences reproduced below do not exactely match the high standards you claim promoting:

  • "Strains of racial mixing is the greatest in Middle Kinnaur, however.". ???
  • "They also claim descent to the Rajput" one claims descent from not to
  • "Of late, Tibetan refugees from Tibet has settled in parts of the district as well." Aside from the fact that it should be obvious that Tibetan refugees are from Tibet, they have settled not has
  • "Pakpa, a skin of made out of animal skin" One of the of shouln't be there. Guess which one?
  • "is accompanied with a white colour velvet band". Correct is: to be accompanied by something
  • "The first wrap of Dohru is based on the back" ???
  • "Folk Hindu gods are also worshipped. This necessarily include the Durga, where it is locally known as Chandi, Narayan, Vishnu, and many other folk Hindu-Animist gods.". Woodstock in the Himalaya? and besides, speaking of Durga, one does not say "the Durga" and the qualifier for a God is certainly not "it"
  • "They are generally divided into two groups, the celibate Gyolang, who shave their heads, and the Durpu, who do not shave their heads and marry, and there are no restrictions in their marriage." What do you mean no restrictions in their marriage?
  • "Mount Kailash is the most sacred peak by most Kinners" probably revered by most...
  • "Legendary and mythlogical accounts spreaded by the word from the mouth is also heard among the local folks." Very strange sentence.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on for hours...

Also, you have obviously lifted most of your text from the following website: [] and just worsened it. Your "Tourism"" section reads as an advertisement from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Office, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. In the article you also constantly introduce very very obscure words that you fail to define or link with other Wikipedia articles.

And then there are the factual errors. For instance, the "Kinnaur Kailash" has nothing to do with the "Mount Kailash", therefore linking the one with the other is not only completely misleading but plainly wrong.

I hope that you now start to understand why we have reverted your edits on Zanskar so many times. Should that not be the case, read again carefully the comments you received by User:Mel Etitis and User:Nichalp.

Oh yes, before I forget, some times ago you posted the following message on my page:

"I want you to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Stay online in wikipedia between those days. Thanks.

Tan 23:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

Do you even realise how extremely impolitely this sentance of yours is formulated.? It comes across as an extremely rude order. A polite request could have been:

I would like to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Would it be possible for you to be online on these two days?

Can you spot the difference?

Moumine 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

English & Zanskar: warning[edit]

You have again edited Zanskar simply in order to make a grammatical change that changed good grammar into bad ([4]). I realise that this will do no good, as you are inexplicably convinced that you write good English, but: your grasp of grammar and spelling is appalling — you are not in a position to correct other editors' English, much less to criticise their English. That you insist on doing so – thus making more work for other editors who have to clean up after you, and temporarily reducing the quality of the articles in question – is unacceptable. If you continue with this behaviour you will be blocked from editing for a period. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Your claim that no-one else has commented on your poor English is either an outright lie or an example of serious memory problems; see Talk:Zanskar for examples. When I brought this to the attention of other administrators, one comment about you was "Outstandingly the worst English I've seen here for some time, with an attitude to match". I strongly suggest that you rethink your attitude. Aping my advice to you and aiming it at me is neither impressive nor productive.

2. I have spelt out in detail your mistakes in anumber of cases; on each occasion you've simply ignored the fact that the English that you claimed to be perfect was riddled with simple yet serious grammatical and spelling mistakes. The latest example, to which I refer above, was [5], in which you changed:

"Zanskar, together with the adjacent region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet."


"Together with the adjacent region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet."

Your edit summary read simply "grammar". I have no idea what you thought was wrong with the original, but your version created a non-sentence with no main verb or subject. This is in fact typical of your contributions (actually it's pretty mild compared with many). This sort of thing has to stop. As an occasional mistake it's OK; as a frequent, even habitual action, it's wearying and annoying to other editors. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "Sorry about the error that no one has commented about my English. In addition to you, I should not exclude Nichalp, and Moumine, the three of you. "You have not answered my question: should adminstrators warn of the blocking policy and rules?"

I have answered it, but I'll do so again, in more detail. If the behaviour for which you've been blocked is such that a User of your experience can be expected to have known the rules, then no warning would be expected (though one would probably be given anyway). Where a User might not be aware of a rule (as new users with the 3RR rule), then a warning is usually considered necessary.

"I still do not understand how bad is bad. To overcome this slution, I would suggest that you help me delete off Zanskar/temp, and put it with the current version, and let me reedit myself from there, serving it as a test. When I have completed, I will reply to state that I have completed. Fair enough to test my english? I feel that the Zanskar article still seems awkward, but I can bet you that our english are miles apart, be it me or you, either poor or good, vice-versa."

This is astonishing. Because your English is so bad, you want to replace a perfectly good article with your poor one, so that it serve as your test ground? certainly not.

"Do you realise, that it is extremely awkward in the same sentence again, to mention Zanskar within the same paragraph again when the introduction already states Zanskar? It is really, really awkward. I will give more poiters in the near-future."

First, it isn't extremely awkward. Secondly, good grammar and good sense take precedence over minor awakwardness. Thirdly, the offer to give me "pointers" (which is what I assume that you meant) is unbelievably patronising. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your English[edit]

Truly, truly, I say to you, if you continue to write the way you are writing now, you will surely be expelled from Wikipedia. The following minimum requirements are expected of every user in Wikipedia, be they registered or anonymous:

  • The ability to write at least fairly good English. For all your bragging and boasting on your extensive and superior mastery of English grammar and vocabulary, you still manage to put a considerable numbers of grammatical and typographical errors into your grammar "corrections."
  • Proper and respectful conduct (as well as manners). I have read portions of your talk page, and read this "request" in which you "asked" a certain user to "stay online on those days (May 10 & 11)", as you wanted to discuss your edits with him. A grammar expert like you should surely know that when requesting a peer or superior to do something, one should make use of the subjunctive case. Failure to do so could provoke the person(s) you are speaking to.
  • Meaningful content in article edits. Some of your edits read like Zen koans - one can make neither head nor tail of them. If someone reads an encyclopedia article, I am sure (s)he would want to immediately understand the content of what (s)he is reading, not waste precious time contemplating the meaning of some cryptic statements which you wrote. If you do not make considerable effort to improve your English grammar, spelling, and comprehension, there will be no option left except to block you from editing Wikipedia for all eternity.

And just as Mel Etitis said, if you feel the need to do a grammar check or "correction", please specify exactly what you intend(ed) to do. Better yet, refrain from editing until you've polished up your grammar or until you've made an agreement with the administrators regarding your English. Do whatever suits you. Just keep this in mind: You are being observed for your quite horrific grammar (and notice, I'm saying this straight to your face so you can fix it straight away), which you like to display quite proudly on your edits, to the dismay of most people. This issue is not about you. It is about the accuracy, and (grammatical et al.) consistency of Wikipedia. We want to give the best we can give to our readers. And while anybody can edit Wikipedia, we want it to be as high-quality as possible. So don't complain if someone reverts your edits - it's all for the good of Wikipedia. If you want to continue contributing, you might as well improve your English, otherwise out you go. So this issue is about you after all. Or maybe not. Fifty-fifty, I guess.

But in case you didn't understand the things I wrote, it all boils down to this point:

Do not disrupt Wikipedia with mistakes. We need as few of them as possible. Shape up, or ship out.

And, by the way, you have to improve your typing skills as well. Otehrwise, alll you'r aricles and eddits wil look likw thisd. And we don't want that, do we?

That is all.

JMBell° 19:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands[edit]

  1. Your edits have again introduced serious grammatical errors.
  2. You have changed some of the Wikilinks that I corrected, depite the fact that mine linked directly to actual articles while yours don't (they go to redirects, which lead to — the same articles that my links went to).
  3. You have "corrected" my use of the word 'parts', saying that they're not parts but islands — yet the original text, which you seemed to think was OK, called them sections.

This isn't just a matter of your usual appalling English combined with your belief that it's better than other that of editors — you're also editing very carelessly. Please stop and think before making changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar and others[edit]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Zanskar article. Perhaps you have mixed up your Chinese and English grammar. It is therefore unsurprising that your comments fell on dead ears. If Mel doesn't want to fix it up, perhaps it's because it doesn't need fixing. It would be best if you'd refrain from "correcting" our grammar. Most of the time it just gets worse. Also, stop putting misinformation into articles. It lowers the quality of the encyclopedia. You may always go to the Chinese Wikipedia and correct their grammar. You may claim to have "passable" English; the grammar in your messages, however, states otherwise. Fix your grammar before fixing others'. You'd do us a great favor by doing that. If you want to know more about the blocking policy, I'd suggest reading the FAQs. You have also received numerous warnings and threats regarding blocks. Learn to read the signs. Heed our advice. Refrain from introducing your grammatical/typographical errors into Wikipedia. Failure to do so could result in your being banned. That is all. JMBell° 19:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kinnaur Kailash[edit]

I have corrected your redirect from "Kinnaur Kailash" to "Mount Kailash". These are two separate mountains. The "Kinnaur Kailash" is located in India (Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh) whereas the "Mount Kailash" is located in Tibet (China).

I have already pointed out to you (above, under the heading Kinnaur) that your confusion between these two mountains is a factual error but you do not seem to read the messages that are posted here or you intentionally choose not to listen.

Moumine 22:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lahul and Spiti[edit]

I've received a plea from another editor concerning your edits at this article, and indeed it is a hopeless grammatical mess — and yet you pointed to it as an example of how good your English style is. For example, the summary contained a number of significant grammatical errors: the misuse of "comprise", and a couple of double-pasts ("Prior to the formation of Lahul and Spiti, the village of Kardang was the former capital of Lahul, while Dankar was the former capital of Spiti." — if Lahul was only the former capital before the district was formed, what was the capital before the district was formed?). The article goes downhill after that.

Wikipedia does not discourage contributions from those whose English is poor, but unless you accept that you come into that category, your behaviour is going to continue to aggravate other editors, and you will sooner or later (and it's getting closer) face a request for comment.

I have tried many times to persuade you to take heed of such warnings, for your own good. This, I think, has to be the last time. If you continue to edit in the way that you have been, changing good English to bad, and refusing to interact in good faith with other editors, then you may face a block from editing, and will certainly face an RfC. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Article edits[edit]

Dear Mr. Tan, please do not trouble yourself with fixing up the articles. I assure you that we are doing everything possible to improve the state and quality of such articles as Zanskar, Lahul and Spiti, and others. Not that we don't want you to edit, but if you keep on correcting this stuff, it can lead to an edit conflict. Regarding Zanskar - it is all right for encyclopedia articles to look like research papers. There should be as few opinions as possible, you see. I hope you understand. Mel and Moumine are getting upset because you keep on changing their edits, and then there's an edit conflict and so on. Please stop editing these articles for the meantime until we have finished editing them. Thanks very much - JMBell° 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


I've already explained my questions about your edits and pointed out your errors at Talk in detail. So it's your turn. But you reverted without aswering my remarks. That's what real vandalism is. --Nanshu 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


I have today opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. I would advise you to read the instructions and advice carefully, and make a statement of your side of the issue. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Message for you (lifted from userpage)[edit]

Mr. Tan, when you do get back, if ever, don't forget to check out your RfC so that we can discuss your English. Am posting this here bec. I know this is the first you'll do when you get back. Or check your mail. Anyway, I put a message there too, but this is just to make sure. And don't put that rubbish down below about our edits having bad grammar because I'm sure that an English professor, a freelance writer, and a Swissman all have better grammar than you. If you have any objections, you may reply to me or Mel or Moumine, but don't forget to reply on the RfC. - James a.k.a. JM*Bell° 22:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Your demands[edit]

Mr. Tan, I find your message to me very rude. Your failure to use the subjunctive implies either that 1) your grammar is substandard and very poor or that 2) you are a very rude, boorish, and barbaric person. If you had straight As in school, then either your English fell into disuse over time, you were taught a dialect, or that you cheated or crammed for your English exams. You should say something, you know. Guess what it is? And your demands are simply unacceptable. We cannot merge your faulty dialect grammar with our international English. Why do you not accept that your English may have deteriorated or is simply too defective? We will be fixing up all your errors. Unfortunately, you are bound by your word to stop editing Wikipedia articles. You may defend yourself on our talk pages or in the RfC, but if you do otherwise, I will personally see to it that you be banned. This nonsense must be stopped. JMBell° 18:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Really, I mean it. Your Singaporean dialect is not compatible with Brit-Am English. Anyway, I've given up hope of dealing with you, and so have the others. I'll just fix up all your errors and you defend yourself on the RfC, ok? And don't go around making impossible demands, like changing perfectly good English into a defective Asian dialect. To tell you the truth, all Asians have English problems (no offence to Asians!), and the only ones I know who speak quite good English are the Filipinos. I was going to count in Singapore as well, but I think I'll take it back. What annoys me is your arrogance. Go look it up if you don't know what it means. Anyway, enjoy your Wikibreak and keep on lengthening it, yeah? Hoping not to hear from you soon. Have a nice day. JMBell° 11:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It needs to be made clear that this isn't in fact about variants of English; that's Mr Tan's claim, but it's not true. I've had friends, colleagues, tenants, and many students from Singapore, Malaysia, and other countries in the region, and I can tell the difference between dialects and bad English.
In fact it's not even about Mr Tan's bad English; if we only permitted people with perfect English to contribute, we'd lose a vast number of knowledgeable and valuable editors (and Wikipedia would be a fraction of its size).
The problem is Mr Tan's insistence on correcting and criticising the English of other editors (despite his own failings), together with his general attitude to Wikipedia and to his fellow editors: ordering people about, trying to take control of articles, and so on. If he can be brought to recognise that, and to modify his behaviour, he could yet be a useful contributor. That's what the RfC is for — not trying to get rid of him, but to demonstrate to him that the Wikipedia community disapproves of his behaviour, and wants him to change it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes, but his arrogance annoys me. The dialect stuff is a sort of tactic - know what that is, Tan? - and besides, he referred me to another Singaporean's page to show what "Singaporean English" is like. I don't want to throw him out, but I am peeved by his inaccurate "facts", insistence on "correcting" "wrong" grammar, and pride in thinking that his English is far better than that of an English teacher, a learned Swiss, and a freelance writer (is that the correct term) combined. Really, it gets to be too much sometimes. Well, at least it's good to have this small breathing space. But we need to ask him about the cryptic sentences he places in the articles, and which I have sequestered (or isolated, whichever may be better). I feel that the articles will be incomplete without these and evidence that they're for real. Anyway, that's all for now. Till next time - JMBell° 14:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Cao Xiong[edit]

i was about to ask you how you acquired the birth and death years of Cao Xiong, but having read quite a handful about you, i guess i wouldn't quite take your words for it. You could drop me a note if you think you've got a point. --Plastictv 06:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Wee Kim Wee[edit]

As with Zanskar, it is not acceptable to place your editorial comments on the page, with links to temp pages. It would also be polite to other editors to explain what you're doing at Talk:Wee Kim Wee, and it is very impolite to order them not to edit the temp page as if it were your private property. Has the RfC told you nothing? If you can alter your approach to editing, you might find that reactions to you change considerably; this non-collaborative approach just won't wash here, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan, I have remove your notice on article of Wee Kim Wee and clean it up to make it presentable. You are of course free to continue your edit on the temp page and update the main page later. But the notice really look like a "under construction" sign and may be insensitive to others who may be reading the page in memory of the president. Hope you can understand my consideration. thanks. Vsion 09:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Mr Tan, if you continue to place your notices on pages, with links to temp pages, you will be blocked for vandalism. I have also removed your impertinent and unacceptable notice from Wee Kim Wee/temp; you do not own that page, and you have no right to add such a notice. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Mr Tan, what is your reason for using the "/temp" page? I would like to point out that between May 2 to May 9, at least 12 different users have made contributions to the article. After you put up the "notice", only 1 other user made a minor spelling correction to the "/temp" page. Isn't it better if everyone (youself included) can contribute to the main article collaboratively? It will be more enjoyable that way... Vsion 19:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Greetings, Mr. Tan. It pleases us to see that you have responded quickly to the RfC. Your words are greatly valued.

However, when defending yourself, please do not insert untruths into your defense. This is unfair and illegal (see perjury), and may result in your losing the case if you are innocent.

By this, I mean your quotes:

  • "usuage of brackets in a wholesale sentence"
  • User:JMBell - "personal attacks-- stated in my talk page as your grammar is substandard and very poor or that 2) you are a very rude, boorish, and barbaric person"

You must remember that

  • this quote may have little or no effect on your case, as there is evidence that your grammar may be poor; and
  • taking a quote out of context and expanding it to mean something totally different may classify as perjury. The Crusaders used this same tactic in the 12th century against the Muslims and got satisfactory results. We have a different system nowadays - it's called democratic - and doing this in a court of law or anywhere similar may result in you losing the case. May I remind you that the above quote was an interpretation of your nature, which in itself was a conclusion of your behavior(?), rather than a personal attack. May I remind you that this was a conclusion arising from your failure to use the subjunctive mode, which could imply that your grammar is substandard or that you are a very rude, ... person. Note that "could imply" is not the same as "you are." This quote of yours will therefore have no effect on your defence after I have given a counterstatement.

Please look over the above points thoroughly and edit your case accordingly. Thank you. JMBell° 14:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you supposed to be on vacation? --maru 15:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Tan. Again, your swift response is very much appreciated. May I answer your following points:
The responses to the corresponding aforementioned points are:
  • the arguments between you and User:Mel Etitis are not caused by your dialects, nor by your inablilty to write or speak English, but rather by your inability to accept that you do not have sufficient mastery of grammar and your persistence in claiming that you are still much better than us in terms of grammar and vocabulary. I have had no problems in working with User:Huaiwei, another Singaporean who has grammar very similar to yours. He, although his grammar is also substandard, does not claim to have "passable English," and more importantly, does not "correct" other peoples' English. I have been able to correspond with him quite pleasantly and have even resolved a dispute with him. Please listen to us when we correct your English - it's for your own good. After all, an English teacher, a writer, and a Swiss can't all possibly have terrible English, can they?
  • May I remind you that before Mel blocks you or reverts your edits, you do numerous edits, some of which are bad, some good. We have the right to revert all your bad edits, but notice that we let the good ones stay. Also, you must not put a {{gcheck}} template onto articles which have no errors (the majority decides this). Aside from this, I think that your claim that Mel has been depriving you of the right to edit is an exaggeration.
  • Since your English has been proven to be of substandard level, this should be superfluous; nevertheless, I will elaborate to you the circumstances under which one may or may not use brackets. If one writes a paragraph, one should always start with the most important details, and then follow them up with supporting details. These supporting details must, in one way or another, be related to each other. If a detail is not directly related to the others, or in layman's terms, does not fit into the paragraph, it may be removed from the paragraph altogether or put inside parentheses after the details to which it is related. Example: 'The Kinnaur Kailash (locally known as "Kinner Kailash")...' This may be written as: 'The Kinnaur Kailash, locally known as "Kinner Kailash"...' but the phrase "locally known as K. Kailash" is not very important, as mostly non-locals will be reading this and will not be going to the Kinnaur Kailash in the near future. Therefore, it would be better to place this in brackets, as this will give the phrase a feeling of unimportance. You will find that all the instances in which we make use of brackets are justified and grammatically correct. For further questions, may I refer you to User:Mel Etitis. Also, when I omit some words, this is because they are superfluous and will only lengthen the sentence in which they are written. We must keep everything short and concise as possible, while delivering the information our readers want to see. Again, ask Mel if you have any further questions.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. The continuation of your RfC is eagerly awaited. Please fix up your grammar accordingly and present your apologies to those whom you may have offended. I await your response. Most cordially, I remain,
JMBell° 13:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, sir, I cannot find anything unusual in my edits. In yours, however, there is a treasure trove of things unusual. Seek the opinion of others, I will. The Force be with you. JMBell° 16:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want to defend yourself in the RfC, defend yourself. Don't go pointing out the mistakes you think we have. If that's what you want to do, you can open RfCs against the three of us, but I doubt if anyone will be willing to support you, as we all have a clean record and all our faults might only be in your head. This is not a personal attack - notice the "might" there? That's a hypothesis. There's a difference. JMBell° 17:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Goh Chok Tong[edit]

Hi Mr. Tan, regarding the article on Goh Chok Tong, in the box at the bottom, you have changed the text from "Prime Minister ..." to "President ...". Is this correct, can you clarify? Thanks and regards. Vsion 05:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Mr. Tan, we bracketed the above sentence (refer to User_talk:Mel Etitis) because it has no direct relation to the other sentence AND because it is NOT THAT IMPORTANT! (for emphasis) I hope you do understand our motives. You are directing this edit war, not us. We are only reverting in self-defense. Zanskar and the other articles are good enough as they are, but I don't know why you have to edit them to suit "your point of view." That is entirely in your favor and bias, and I'm sure our readers will be very uncomfortable reading it, as your earlier controversial edits have proven. The /temp page is supposed to be a collaboration, not a page which you possess. Nothing on Wikipedia is entirely yours, Tan (a very sad lesson I had to learn), not even your own user page (though you do have power over these). Articles, even temp pages, belong to the public, so if they want to edit, let them. You have no power over that. And then you say that we are tracking down all of your edits and shooting each one down. Do you not notice that all your good edits still remain? We only take down the bad ones because, well, they're bad. But we let the others stay. So stop maligning us. Your statement in the RfC that we have commited perjury by saying that you keep the temp page to yourself is not at all true. The temp page is for everybody. Don't claim it for yourself. Your statement should therefore be considered irrelevant. That is all I have to say. JMBell° 12:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Re : Tan[edit]

I'll need a bit of time to digest messages from all parties. For Woodlands, Singapore, I'll take a look into it.
- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC) :)


You seem to have the wrong idea of the RfC; you're not going to help yourself by attacking other editors (that just demonstrates their point); you're supposed to defend yourself. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


In light of the comments you left me, I feel it is only fair to change the article from Template:vprotected to Template:protected. At least until your RfC is settled. BrokenSegue 15:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you have broken the three revert rule on Goh Chok Tong. I have blocked you for just 12 hours because you were never officially warned. If you object to my decision, feel free to e-mail me or any other sysop for reconsideration. BrokenSegue 01:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Wee Kim Wee/temp[edit]

Mr Tan, I am here to inform you that we have reached an agreement regarding your editing of the page Wee Kim Wee/temp.

You may edit the page until you are satisfied with the results. However, you must observe the following conditions:

  1. When you have finished, you must place a message on the article's talk page stating that you have finished editing the said article;
  2. You must not independently move the content of Wee Kim Wee/temp to the article Wee Kim Wee without the agreement of any of the following users: User:Mel Etitis, User:JMBell, User:Huaiwei, User:Vsion;
  3. You should accept friendly comments made by other users;
  4. You should permit other users to add relevant content to Wee Kim Wee/temp or its respective talk page.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me or any of the aforementioned users.

Thank you and regards - JMBell° 18:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

In the first place, I haven't written my response in my RfC. In fact, I have already issued a dateline to complete the response.

Secondly, I have well-pointed out the mistakes of the Zanskar article. The manner you edited in other articles in not the same as those of Zanskar.

Thirdly, you are using artribation as a threat to chase me away just because you disagree with my views.

Fourthly, either you are biased towards Moumine, behaving in a way that you are merely making personal attacks against me. You are the one who needs artribation, not me. You have yet to try meditation before Artribation.

Fifthly, I have explained why it the English in wrong! Furthermore, when you revert, you made wholesale changes, making English from good to bad instead. If you have good wits, you must be able to spot a lot of gramatical and punctuation errors.

Last, but not least, is it fair for you to interrupt before I have completed the whole process?

Do you realise that I have backings against your explicit behaviour? I'm swallowing it down right to the bottom of the heart! If you insist on artribation, either I or you may win, but be expected to suffer heavy casualties against your rapport.

C'mon, let's work colloboratively. If you revert, you make a lot of reverts like this, you are doing harm to the article. I have explained, time and again, like a grandmother talking to her stubboirn child, the English errors that the article contained inside. I have my reasons for every edit that I make. Neither that my English is so bad now that it is substandard. If my english is atrocious, I wouldn't be able to explain about its english. So why don't we start again, and copyedit the article collaboratively?

Tan 20:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't realise that this message is itself perfect proof that your English is desperately sub-standard. It's not a matter of the occasional typing error, or spelling slip; much of the time I have to work to understand what you meant to say, and sometimes I have to give up. Even your aggression and insult lack any real effect, because the English is so mangled.
If you showed any signs of working collaboratively, I'd take heart from your final comment — but you've shown that what you really mean is that you intend to make large-scale changes to articles, and thus present us with a dreadful mess which we then have to disentangle. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

You are in danger of breaking the 3RR on Tsushima Islands. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing for a period (usually twenty-four hours). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The same now applies to Zanskar. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The same now applies to Goh Chok Tong. I have reported your 3RR violation on Tsushima Islands. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocking you for 24 hours, Mr. Tan. Please try to find solutions on talk pages rather than edit warring after the block expires. regards, dab () 15:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please try to learn[edit]

You have now placed an (oddly worded) accusation of vandalism on my Talk page. Why do you refuse to learn from your experiences? You're criticised and resisted by every editor on the articles that you edit, you're the subject of a unanimously critical RfC, you're on the verge of being taken to arbitration — yet you not only persist in the same sort of behaviour, you intensify it. Please use the next twenty-four hours to reflect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I don't think they are credible and worth translating. --Nanshu 08:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Grammar lesson[edit]

So that you can learn, I want you to find and correct any mistakes in this text. This includes grammar, spelling, and context. Do the best that you can:

Exercise cautioun in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strove for high ideals, and everywere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the councel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strenght of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be genteel with yourself. You are a children of the universe, no less than the tres and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is cleare to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Copy the above text and paste it below, with your corrections in bold, and give explanations for your corrections. For your own sake, do it. JMBell° 11:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Mr. Tan. Your absence has kept us waiting. Would you be kind enough to finish your RfC so that we can get on with life? And please answer the little grammar lesson I've prepared for you. JMBell° 11:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

It's difficult to believe that you really can't tell what was wrong with your message. It was hostile and arrogant, and a perfect example of the inappropriate way that you interact with other editors. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I should add that it is not OK for you to copy-edit Zanskar. By all means add useful new information to articles, but your English is simply too poor for you to be in a position to correct other people's English. It's astonishing that, after all the comments from other editors, including those on the RfC, you still refuse to accept this point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Exercise corrections[edit]

Your corrections in spelling were very good, though there are still some problems in grammar. The sentences containing them are in bold:

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strove for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is just as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counseling of the years, gracefully surrendering the possessions of youth.

Nurture the strength of your own spirit to shield yourself from any sudden misfortunes. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginations, for most fears are born out of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a children of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, there is no doubt that the universe is expanding as it should.

I suppose you can see them quite clearly now, no? I will give you the answer key once you have corrected them. JMBell° 13:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your answers. JMBell° 19:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
You must realize that I'm doing this for your sake, not mine. I have nothing to gain from it. What I'm trying to do is to get your grammar up to par in time for your case so that you won't look so pathetic. If you don't cooperate, you'll be stuck with your appalling grammar. I suggest you do your best in answering these exercises; I've still got a whole lot for you to answer. They'll help you out, I promise. As long as you don't repeat your mistakes. JMBell° 20:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Your final version is:

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many people are striving for high ideals, and you can see heroism everywhere in life. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is just as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counseling of the years, gracefully surrendering the possessions of youth.

Nurture the strength of your own spirit to shield yourself from any misfortunes. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginations, for most fears are born out of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are the children of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, there is no doubt that the universe is expanding as it should.

The correct version:

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

-excerpted from Max Ehrmann's Desiderata

The Desiderata is a very famous poem, written in 1927 by Max Ehrmann, and circulated published in 1965 with the mistaken belief that was found in "Old Saint Paul's, Baltimore," and dated 1692. The poem was about attaining happiness in life; the word "desiderata" is Latin for "something to be desired." Many people believed and still believe the Baltimore hoax, although close analysis shows that some of the concepts expressed in the Desiderata seem to sophisticated for the 17th century.

The Desiderata takes its power from the author's choice of words. In this case, it would be unwise to change the word order or the choice of words in the poem. For example, "many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism" loses its impact if the first phrase is put in the present progressive, or if the pronoun "you" is included in the second phrase: "many people are striving for high ideals, and you can see heroism everywhere in life." The second phrase should describe "life," with "heroism" only acting as an attribute ("full of heroism"), so making "heroism" the subject would take away the phrase's power.

The second correction, "counsel" to "counseling," changes the meaning of the sentence. "Counsel" can mean 1) advice, 2) any discussion which results in exchange of advice, or 3) a discussion. "Counseling" is merely the progressive form of the noun. "To take counsel" also means to deliberate or exchange ideas, but as of now, there has been no such term as "to take counseling." The third correction, "things of youth" to "possessions of youth," again subtly changes the meaning of the phrase from "things related to youth" (i.e. strength, confidence) to "things which (the) youth owns."

The fourth correction takes away the power in the short, concise sentences by combining the two sentences into one compound sentence. While this may be grammatically correct, it gives the sentence a less vibrant (or powerful) character. The fifth correction, "you are the children of the universe," is grammatically incorrect, as the poem is referring to only one reader (observe the rest of the poem); the correct phrase would be ... I presume you already know. And the last correction, "the universe is expanding as it should," is wrong in terms of word choice. In the early 20th century (and surely in the 17th century), people did not yet believe that the universe was expanding, and anyway, it would have ruined an otherwise perfect poem. The term "unfolding" could denote the "Will of God" slowly unfolding, or the ways of the universe becoming clearer to Man.

As proven by this exercise, you have an uncanny desire to change the words and word order of a text. The next exercise, though short, will give an insight on how you define words based on context.

Give the meaning of the underlined word based on the surrounding context:

1) "Wherefore rejoice?/What conquest brings he home?" - Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"

"But wherefore could I not pronounce 'Amen'?" - "Macbeth"

"Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" - "Romeo and Juliet"

Wherefore means: a)why ; b) where ; c) what for ; d) whom for.

2) "This room is so noisome, it makes me want to throw up."

"It was intended to replace a noisome dungeon."

Noisome means: a) very loud, noisy ; b) foul-smelling, nauseating ; c) dirty, filthy ; d) annoying

I'll give this stuff first so that you can correct your mistakes and so forth. Any questions, ask me. JMBell° 13:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


I checked the Korean pages you listed. My knowledge on the Korean language is very limited, but I don't feel urgent need to learn that language bacause machine translation is sufficient.

In addition, we don't need to learn Korean to study ancient Korean history because all primary sources are written in Classical Chinese or Japanized Classical Chinese. Note that there is almost no chance to discover new literature from this period. --Nanshu 07:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

New information doesn't come out from nothing! Everyone deals with a limited number of sources to study ancient history.

Akimai for Infoseek Japan and Cross Language for Yahoo! Japan. --Nanshu 07:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

For the problem with Mel Etitis, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to use talk if almost all passages of an article are disputed? if you are interested. --Nanshu 07:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

still alive[edit]

Please try to avoid empty date of death and place of death fields in article boxes, such those which resulted from your most recent edits to Mahathir bin Mohamad (since fixed). In Anglo-Saxon culture, this is regarded as morbid or ghoulish and hence in bad taste. Thanks, -- Viajero | Talk 17:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to use talk if almost all passages of an article are disputed?][edit]

(Anybody who is interested to post their comments concerning about this dispute should be written in my User talk page.)

User:Mel Etitis[edit]

In the first place, you have shown unsociable behaviour at the very start of our talks which made our mutual misunderstandings build up as each stage of the discussion "level up".

Secondly, I would like to point out that ignoring one's comments is not inly rude, but it will also cause a wrong turn decision without the opposite party's correction. (You, however, have done that many times)

Thirdly, I admit that many of my works look like a piece of shit gramatically and structurally--this is the reason of my frequent peer-review of many of articles written by me. Although I welcome help like people from you with gramatically good english, the problem of your approach towards articles--you seem to have a very negative approach towards the content of many articles, the stiffest being Zanskar. I have planned to evaluate your attitude your approach towards article content--in my RfC tomorrow.

James Bell[edit]

You have been understating about every action that I have done. Do not think that I use a word blindly---I always check a dictionary upon every word that I use, yet I do not know the meaning. Analysation is the critical factor to develop mutual understanding.

  • But I do, Mr. Tan, I most certainly do. Tell me now - what does "vehement" mean? Use simple words to give the meaning so it will be clear to all. And regarding analyzation ("analysis" would be the correct term), I am the most analytical of persons, planning all my moves days ahead. Though a little flexibility is necessary, of course. You don't notice that I'm analytical, do you? Good. JMBell° 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan 20:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

But not in the least in the case of Mel, as I had thought what it had supposed to be, and this is the very cause of our mutual misunderstandings---thinking that omission some points (which may result in a slightly different reply if the reply is too straightfoward) will still be sufficient for him to analyse my true motive. But it didn't, and I was utterly shocked upon knowing that a man of fifty can give such replies! And yes, note that I always try to analyse before replying (although it may result in a wrong turn of answers). I'm glad you do.

And yes, vehement means marked by forceful energy, or intensively immotional. Indeed, Mel is vehement, and I have stated it before.

Tan 23:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

Oh my God, I can not actually believe that you wrote "my frequent peer-review of many of articles written by me". Doesn't this strike you as odd? I mean peer-reviews of your own articles by yourself?
Moumine 12:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, he did write that. Odd. JMBell° 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

If you notice, I partially acknoledge that my grammar can, many a times, be an outright disaster, after months of keeping away my hands from an article that I have edited significantly. It may sound odd and lame, but think about it--learning at the expense of time--makes one feel that article that were contributed by the User himself with little interference from other editors--can make the user himself know his mistakes after months on end. --Tan 21:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Problem 2[edit]

You misunderstand. Only one choice for all three/two cases. --JMBell° 13:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Tan


I didn't remove them both, only one (see the talk page for what led to it). In both cases, it's because you're misusing the "inuse" template, which is for specific periods of intensive editing, not to protect a page from other editors for days while you do nothing to it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. Your usual aggressibve and arrogant demands have no interest for me.
  2. I repeat, I didn't remove the "inuse" template from Wee Kim Wee/temp, nor have I ever done.
  3. It is not acceptable to dirupt Wikipedia to make a point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I should add that your "decision" that no one should touch the notice unless you've not edited the article for four days is also not acceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wee Kim Wee/temp[edit]

Hi Mr Tan, regarding the above, we're not allowed to create our own temporary versions of articles in the encyclopedia. Temporary versions like this belong in your user space; for example, at User:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee. That way, readers won't find it in the encyclopedia, and you can also control who edits it. As things stand, you can't leave the in-use tag on it, or the other tag that you've created, as everyone has the right to edit pages in the encyclopedia. Let me know if you would like me to move the page for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The same goes for Maharashtra/temp and any other temp pages you've created. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, Wee Kim Wee/temp is now at User:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee. This means it's in your personal user space, and you can do almost anything you want with it there; and others can only edit it with your agreement. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't move it again. It is a temporary article and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia (the main namespace). Also, as you won't allow anyone else to edit it, it should be on your user page. Can you explain to me what difference it makes to you where it is? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

I'm willing to delete your user page if you're leaving, Mr Tan, but you seem to want to keep the talk page. Can you explain? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


Hi Tan. I'm going to be away for some time, around a month or so. While I'm away, don't get into any fights or debates. Always choose your battles (a nice saying), and don't waste your energy on trivial things, like whether or not Wee Kim Wee/temp should be at User:Mr Tan/Wee Kim Wee or not. Believe me, there are better things in life, like writing a nice article or enjoying the unlimited amounts of knowledge in Wikipedia. Also, be nice to Mel - I've told him to be nice to you, so you do your part and be nice to him, too. Use "please" or "could, would, or should." Be friendly and cooperative, and don't keep arguing with users about inuse tags or copyedit. Try to take as little stress as possible by resisting as little as possible (of course, you'll have to fight for the important things, so choose your fights carefully!). If a long-time user decides that he should move an article to fit Wikipedian policy, don't take it personally. Just remember that it's their job to keep Wikipedia in order, and if that requires moving one of your articles, it's okay. Keep going about your business as if nothing happened. Accept comments. You are a human, and humans make mistakes (lots!), but accept criticism openly so that you can fix your mistakes. If you do this, nobody will criticize you in the future (though it is also human nature to criticize, so expect some nasty comments once in a while). Read a lot. Read classic authors such as Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, or if you're the adventurous type, you can try Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, and many others. Check your library or in a bookstore - I'm sure they'll have lots of classics. If you find a word you don't know, write it down on a sheet of paper and try to guess its meaning. Note how it is used. When you've finished reading, check all your new word "definitions" with the real meanings in a dictionary. This way, you can improve your vocabulary and grammar, and your intuition will be sharpened. Write a lot. Write poems, essays, stories, even if the grammar isn't right, keep writing. When you think your grammar is better, look at the things you wrote back then, and compare them with what you just wrote. Without difficulty, you should spot the grammar errors (do this over a period of a few months). And don't chicken out and leave Wikipedia just because you think people hate you. Be strong. Remember, nobody likes a loser, and while it isn't effective to waste your time and energy fighting everyone, it sure isn't nice to be a loser. People respect the strong. This world is far from perfect, and in the worst cases, there's just you and yourself to rely on (or you and God if you're a Christian/Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/Buddhist or any religion with a God). Don't worry, if you have any problems, Mel and I are always here to help.

That's the best advice I can give you now. Read, write, be friendly, be strong. When I get back, I want to see you and Mel on speaking terms, and I want to see you in Wikipedia. Got that? Of course, if you think you can't take it anymore, you can leave, of course. I'm not forcing you to stay. But think it over. Wikipedia could benefit from your knowledge, and, to tell the truth, you're the only one I've seen who bothers to fix all the typos in the articles. Wikipedia does benefit from you, and from every user. You may just be one small speck in the universe, and, in relation to the universe, your lifespan is even shorter than the lifespan of an ant is to us humans. That's why you've got to give the best you've got in whatever you're doing, and don't be a quitter, because quitters never get things done. Think about it. You just might want to stay.

Well, I'll wind up (=finish (a conversation)) now. All the best to you, Tan. Be sure to read the above well. Try not to attract trouble, and it will (99% of the time) not come your way. I'm not giving up hope in you. Don't fail me.

Best regards and God bless - JMBell° 21:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan!!! Please read!!![edit]

Tan, it's James. I'm currently on break, so this is the last time you'll hear from me in a long time. Before you leave, I advise you to read the previous message thoroughly as this is the best advice you'll be getting for some time. It will help you not only in Wikipedia, but also in real life. Also, you might reconsider leaving Wikipedia. Assume a more cooperative and open manner, no matter how hostile other users are, and it will eventually do you good. But I wrote that all in my previous message, so just look there, okay? Now I have to go, or else my Wikibreak won't really be a Wikibreak.

Expecting to still see you alive and well (and producing work on Wikipedia!) when I get back. Regards. JM*Bell° 20:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


I'm sad that you had to go. I'm glad you accepted that your English is not the best, as realisation of your drawbacks is the hardest thing to do. Take a nice break, enjoy life (afterall wikipedia may seem like an alternate life); and return when fully refereshed. Once back, be nice to others, and don't be rude; that will give u the moral high ground and your word will be taken more seriously.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


Do not move your personal drafts or their talk pages into the main namespace again. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Also, as you appear not to be leaving after all, your user page ought to be restored. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I'll restore your user page until you decide whether you're leaving; if you leave, let me know and I'll delete it again. User pages can't just be deleted if the user stays; otherwise it looks like an attempt to lose the history. Regarding your draft article, what difference does it make to you whether it's in your user subspace, or in the main namespace (the encyclcopedia)? I don't understand, so please try to explain it to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


My temp pages have a short history. Since I'm not working with it at the moment, I thought I'd better delete the page. Less controversy, since I'm getting an increasing number of questions. Had I been working on it it would have been another issue.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 10:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


Just so you'll all know, in my absence (which will go on, I assure you), I've thought up a new commitee which will serve as an unofficial mediation group. This is in response to Tan's and possibly others' disputes that have gotten out of hand because of the words "RfC" and "ArbCom." This unofficial commitee is supposed to help out in disputes but should be less intimidating to disputing users. To prevent messy situations, the standards of entering this commitee are very high, but there should be no doubt that these arbiters will be the best ever (if everything goes well, that is).

I have called this new commitee the Diplomats' Guild and its members diplomats. More info on User:JMBell/Diplomats' Guild.

This is still a prototype and I need some opinions on whether or not it will function or if it is truly necessary (which I think it is) et al. Post them on my talk page; answers will come a bit late since I'm on Wikibreak and will not be in front of my computer very often, if at all. After the prototype is accepted and necessary changes are made, I guess we should open a test-guild for experimentation. JM*Bell° 12:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi Mr Tan, you asked for examples of editors who keep personal drafts in their userspace. Many of us do; I do, for example: see User:SlimVirgin/sandbox. Personal drafts can't be kept in the main namespace (the encyclopedia). I didn't entirely understand what you wrote about it being a spiritual thing; by all means, try to explain again if that's an important point. I applaud you for trying to get your article to FAC status and wish you all the best with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Again, drafts can't go into the main namespace. If you want to write a draft that others can edit, you can tell people on the main talk page that they're welcome to edit the article in your user space. Alternatively, if you want a more public space, you can create the article on Talk:Wee Kim Wee/draft. However, if it goes into this public space, you can't exercise any control over who edits it; they can make minor edits or major ones. If you want to exercise control, the article has to stay in your user space. I hope this helps to clarify. I'll also look into unprotecting the article you mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Here is an example of a draft introduction that people worked on for the article Human. It is located at Talk:Human/draft. You are not being singled out. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether there's a policy; there probably is, and I can look next week. Regarding moving your draft into the main namespace when it's ready, you'd have to check with the other editors on the page first, or they'll just revert it. Try to seek consensus for your changes and then they'll stick. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I can't keep discussing this, Mr Tan. Good luck with your editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • For that matter, see .../user/fabartus/battles/Battle_of_Trafalgar. This is a great capability! Fabartus 13:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yu Ki[edit]

Yi Ku is half Korean and half-Japanese. Please do not remove him from the list. Thanks.

Korean and Japanese are not separate races, so he is not multiracial. --discospinster 13:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HUH? -Hmib 16:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From the Talk page of "List of Multiracial People":
So let's use this opportunity to give some clarity to this page. Anyone who is not multi-racial should be removed from this page, Multi-ethnicity and multi-nationalism encompasses far too many people to ever hope to include in any kind of complete listing. As far as defining races, this is not my field of expertise but my suggestion would be to divide things as follows: European/White, African/Black, Arabian, South Asian, Oriental, Pacific Islander, & indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, and anywhere else I've forgotten. Anyone whose ethnic background lies completely within any of these groups would be eliminated from this page. Guettarda 23:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Korean and Japanese are both Oriental, hence a Korean-Japanese person is not multiracial and does not belong in the article.
--discospinster 18:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
North Korea and South Korea are two nations of the same ethnicity. Korea (whether North or South) and Japan are two nations of two different (and more, if you add Ainu and all those) ethnicities. The Korean language has its own phylum (sorry, don't know the correct term) and is independent from either Chinese or Japanese languages.
this is not my field of expertise but my suggestion would be to
Oh and I know many Koreans (and Japanese) who would be outraged at an attempt to clump them together. Don't you think that the people of those 'races' have the right to decide if they are indeed one 'race'? There really isn't anything called the Korean race or Japanese race or Mongoloid race, either. Homo sapiens sapiens! -Hmib 21:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know many Italians and Hungarians who would not like to be "clumped together". Their languages are completely different (Italian is Indo-European while Hungarian is Uralic). But they're both white/Caucasian.
We are all Homo sapiens sapiens, but that's not what this article is about.
--discospinster 00:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By this definition there are only 3 races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Throw in Austronesian if you would. I'm sure most anthropologists agree that this would be insufficient. You mentioned Hungarians and Italians. They most definitely do not share a common language or background or ancestry. Thus they cannot be in the same race, and any union between such two individuals is technically considered a interracial marriage, though popular conception may ignore this. -Hmib 06:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This could turn out to be a very long page, then. My suggestion is to work with the definition given above by Guettarda. discospinster 15:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know any anthropologist (or other researcher in a relevant field) who classifies race by language, culture, etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has disagreed with the working definition of race I offered above, I've gone ahead and taken Yu Ki out of the List of multiracial people. discospinster 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy; your coments suggest that you haven't understood what it's about. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should add that it is not acceptable to edit pages in another editor's user space unless it's being used as a Talk page, or one is invited to do so. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. The wording that you quote is taken from the Arbitration template; I didn't write it(!)
  2. The page that you edited was my private page, there to allow me to experiment with the arbitration form. I didn't make it public, nor is it linked from anywhere. You can only have found it by checking my Contributions — interesting behaviour from someone who has claimed that I'm stalking him... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't forced you into arbitration; you are not in arbitration; I haven't yet requested arbitration; I haven't yet even finished preparing my request for arbitration. When I do, you will be given the opportunity to add your comments. Until then, stop editing the test form in my User space. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sysop Abuse[edit]

Mr Tan, I thought I would first apologize to you for having to suffer some of the abusive tirades and vicious vedettas by some of the sysops here. Please do not be discouraged by such abuse.

Furthermore, it is a pleasure to inform you that a disciplinary hearing has been scheduled to hear the case of possible abuses by Mel Etitis. After we have examined the evidence we will hear recommendations on what action(s) to take against said sysop. Our decision will be final.

Please give us at least 5 days for the procedure. Due to the number of people in management involved, it will take some time to come to our decision.

Impersonating members of the Arbitration Committee, even when done so transparently, isn't a good idea. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Mell Etitis's user page[edit]

Please don't do that. I know you want to present your side in his request for arbitration, but he hasn't submitted it for arbitration yet. He is merely creating a subpage to draft his request, and it is disruptive to that process to insert your comments. Once he has formally submitted his request to the proper arbitration page, then you can write what comments you wish on that, but as it is, it's just a draft, and you should not interfere with his drafting. --khaosworks 16:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

You said:

Please see what he wrote in User:Mel Etitis/Arbtan: Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. And see my statements in User talk:Mel Etitis and do some analysis. Is he lying on his statement?
Tan 00:53, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

That line is standard on all request for arbitration pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck for an example. He's drafting the request, not submitting it yet. Once he's submitted it, then you can edit the page. Do you understand what I'm getting at? --khaosworks 17:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this unless I feel a need to. I will say that I will keep an eye on the arbitration of it goes forward, but I'm not on the ArbCom, and unless there's something I feel I can contribute, that's between you and Mel. I will say, though, that I believe on the Lee Kuan Yew article, you're not on firm ground when it comes to the name issue, but I've said my piece in that talk page. --khaosworks 17:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Lee refrained from official dealings ... "[edit]

Hi, can you elaborate on this statement, which is your input if I've not mistaken:

"Lee refrained from official dealings with all ASEAN governments, including Malaysia, so as not to cross lines with his successor, Goh Chok Tong."

As a counter example, Lee was very much involved in the water negotiation which was an official dealing. -- Vsion 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just asking for a clarification which you did. The water negotiation example probably does not count because Lee was specifically directed by Goh to be involved. Vsion 12:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have already clarified the statement; I understand now. thanks ... Vsion 12:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bush gubernatorial portrait[edit]

After Hadal noted the unverified status of this image (Image:Bushtexas.jpg), you removed his note and substituted a statement that the image was the work of a federal employee. Bush is now a federal officer, but I think it highly likely that this portrait was done while he was a state officer. The copyright is probably held by the state of Texas. Not every state follows the federal government's policy of releasing its works into the public domain. Do you have any information about the copyright status of this specific image? JamesMLane 09:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If only...[edit]

If only you had heeded my advice, you would never have gotten into this mess. Why don't you listen? I was here trying all along to help, but you brushed it off. If you had been a bit nicer to Mel Etitis, he wouldn't have gone to the ArbCom. But you decided that the world should govern your fate instead of you taking charge of your own decisions, and see where it got you. Now, I can do no more. You are on your own. JMBell° 10:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am badly needing this text to be translated into English; and I would be very grateful if you can translate the following text into English; for my Korean is very poor(I encourage you to add it into 쓰시마 섬)The source is from [6]:

대마도의 원주인은 백제계 유민?

리아스식 해안으로 둘러싸여 호수처럼 잔잔한 아사우(淺海)만은 요즘 한일 양국의 프로 낚시꾼들이 즐겨 찾는 유명한 낚시터이지만 오랜 기간 왜구의 소굴이었던 천혜의 요새다. 조선 태종 때 이종무 장군도 아사우만 일대에 한 달간 머물며 왜구를 소탕했다.

이 일대에는 667년에 백제 유민들이 나당연합군의 침공에 대비해 쌓은 백제식 산성인 ‘가나다노기’(金田城)가 있다. 백제와의 인연은 13세기 중엽까지 대마도를 지배했던 ‘아비류’(阿比留)씨 가문의 혈통에서도 더듬어볼 수 있다. ‘아비류’는 ‘아사달’ ‘아직기’ ‘아사녀’ ‘비류백제’ 등과 어원이 같은 백제 계통의 성씨인 것으로 추측되기 때문이다.


Mr Tan 06:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll try translating that as soon as I get some time off. My question though is. Although I know most of them, I do not know how to exactly spell them in English, so I am just going by how it sounds like, I hope you can understand them. What's the purpose of this thing though? Is it for Wikipedia? If you have questions, just drop by my talk page. Anyway, I can't do it all at once, so here's the first batch:
  • Dae-Ma Island's natives are Baek-Jae era's vagabonds?
Covered with seas and serene like a lake, AH-SAH-WOO might be a famous place for professional fishermen from Korea and Japan, but it was also a historical fortress for Japanese pirates. In Jo-sun Tae-Jong era, General Lee-Jong-Mu stayed at AH-SAH-WOO for a month and cleared the Japanese pirates.
!!! 12:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

<--------- The entries from here down have been reorder to improve understanding of all Fabartus 17:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) ------------->


Let's see if we can get a compromise everyone can agree to. Could you please email me with a list of edits you like to see made to the article. Breaking up into smaller paragraphs - for example - seems like a reasonable thing to do. My email is my wikipedia username Once I got them, I'll go and discuss them with Mel. -- Mgm|(talk) 07:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'll look at your request when I find time and then reply you. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, finally we're getting results. Good work, Tan (and please tone down your retorts a bit). JMBell° 17:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minor tidying[edit]

I've just reverted an edit that you made to Tsushima Islands, which you marked as minor, and whose edit summary was "tidying". This was actually a substantial edit, much of which had already been discussed (and opposed) on the Talk page. In other words, your claim that it was minor and merely tidying ws a lie. Please don't do that again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Harry" Lee[edit]

Because I remained unconvinced that it is his birth name, or the name on his birth certificate, especially given your record. Give me a footnote. --khaosworks 15:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not conclusive. Suggestive, but not conclusive. Unfortunately, I cannot read the characters you have pasted - they come out as gibberish. I presume this must be how you're trying to paste Chinese characters, and they're just not compatible, so I can't even read it to see if you're interpreting the Chinese correctly (not that I'm questioning your command of Chinese, but that I want to see for myself that it's not ambiguous as to the phrasing).
Is this the Chinese version of his autobiography you're talking about? Tell us which chapter this is (put up the info on the Talk:Lee Kuan Yew page - I don't have a copy on hand to verify but the English version might have the same information and the Oxford library might have a copy for Mel or Mel's colleagues to look up and verify this. --khaosworks 03:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
As I said, put it up on Talk:Lee Kuan Yew. While I can see that "chuen ming" is "full name", a "full name" does not necessarily mean it must be on the birth certificate. My first name is, but that's because my parents registered it - I have many friends whose "full names" include a Christian name but the same are not on their birth certificate.
That being said, the passage is still suggestive, and if you can track down the English version, it would go a long way towards verifying your claim. The title of his English memoir is The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. If you find the English version, quote it, and tell us which page it is on. I say again, put this up on Talk:Lee Kuan Yew so the others can see it. --khaosworks 03:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

050613—14 TsuShima Strait - A heads up[edit]

I left the first two comments in the talk page on Tsushima strait... this is what we call a "heads up" in American slang; in general, a courtesy. (As I put the map back).

The Little Issue[edit]

  • Map is better than nothing. Did you miss the inset showing the relative size, position and locations of Korea and Japan?. It's also free since it's in the system already. It will do until I learn how to request a map and one is generated.
  • We need to add relative and absolute sizes of the Tsu-Shima strait and Korea Srait. One historian mentioned the Korea Str. as circa 64 nautical miles - near a degree of Longitude, and as I recall, the Islands are offset more towards Korea. I was skimming rather than purusing, so should be able to run that down sometime very soon. Would rather have geographer or navigator input instead of historian, but he's likely to be close. Someone also dropped the hyphen as is used by Brittish historian Richard Hough ("The Fleet that Had to Die"). My principle focus is on the Russo-Japanese war +/- a couple of decades. Drop me a note if the map bugs you enough to request a replacement! ttfn Fabartus 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I see you're already in a near shooting war with a few folks. Hope you leave the map until it can be improved. If I can help you with phrasing something, drop me a note. If complicated, send me your email (first) via my user page 'email this user' and I'll send you mine back (so you can send the larger document). I have no chinese, but am willing to help you phrase things properly and perhaps overcome some of the problems you are having in the above. Best wishes. Frank Fabartus 04:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly Clear in Context[edit]

Taken together with the text (Map Legend) Above the map, it is perfectly clear, especially if the reader looks at the inset map, or alternately, clicks the map to zoom in. If you want to own an article, start your own encyclopedia. Adding that map improves a sparse article into something useful. You are apparently already close to being banned on Wiki - don't press it. Period. Fabartus 05:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re-Response and Reaction[edit]

  • I recieved your response, and detect an intention on your part to remove the map again.
    • You seem unable to comprehend that WIKI is a project where we all SHARE both RESPONSIBILITY and AUTHORITY. You do not own or control anything in any Wiki type of project. In this case, I fear I can take up someone else's valuable time generating a better map and you will still find it unacceptable. I begin to understand the frustration implicit in some of the dialogs left as messages above.
    • You do not seem to understand the fact that There is no "I" in the word "TEAM", nor do you seem to comprehend that this (Wiki) is a TEAM effort. The decision is not yours to make. The article is much better to those of us outside your local region by having some map, any map that shows the strategic narrows. I too am picky about maps, and agree this one is not the best, but the inset map clearly shows the general location so that the history reader (my concern) can easily locate the straits in an Atlas. So we must compromise, as I know that to be true; especially in that my focus is now on the naval battles of the Russo-Japanese War, which of course end in the epic Battle of Tsushima.
    • Neither you nor I will ever live enough hours to write an encyclopedia by ourselves. You, like a four year old boy or girl, must learn to Share and Compromise. Since you are being so picky, perhaps you should find the map YOU like. The one you dislike is better than none, and I 'promise' I will request 'something better' to replace it. But replacement requires something there to be substituted for - deleting it will be taken as an unfriendly act of VANDALISM on the global-TEAMs joint article Tsushima Strait.
    • Surely, in your closer geographical proximity, you have a greater chance to find a out-of-copyright navigational chart or defunct publication, so we should both act to find one. In the meantime, please leave REVERT it or I will lay a charge of vandalism. When I get an answer on how to request one, I'll alert you and you and I can request one together. That's the essence of teamwork, not ownership.Fabartus 13:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promise Made and Fullfilled[edit]

re your: " But if I revert back, the old map will confuse readers who read the page within that time span before we put a new one! Anyway, I can make a new map for you, but that will be a bit rudimentary. Unless you have the appropriate map-making software, if the thing is not going to be permanent, or at least long-term, then a revert or putting up a rudimentary map will cause more harm than good. Mr Tan 13:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

    • So what. If they get confused (I don't know how they could), they will look closer, and unconfuse themselves. I can see no Harm in providing a clue as to where to look in an Atlas. Perhaps you are worried a work in progress is esthetically imperfect? That is a matter of taste, and the good imperative outweighs the bad esthetic as it does the key thing - it provides GOOD INFORMATION.
    • I have been very patient and diplomatic. There is nothing about those maps that would confuse a reader. Are you suggesting that a Map of the Strait would not show Tsushima Islands? I'm tempted to start a new article called Confrontationally Stubborn People Unwilling to Compromise. It will be WIKI'S SHORTEST ARTICLE with two words: "User Mr. Tan". It's not my style, but it is tempting. Perhaps you should meditate on it for a while. Fabartus 13:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I do not know what you meant by the following posted about twenty minutes ago (as I start this).
But this issue should now be a dead horse... ride it as far as you like, but I complied by getting a new map, as promised.

Additional gripe[edit]

While doing so, I discovered you had also 'taken the map out of' Battle of Tsushima. Neither of those deletions was appropriate in my view - those maps told a valuable thing - Where. Being local, it may surprise you, but the world is a big place from this side, and where helps understanding a great deal.
Taking them out, however poor they might be, out did not help understanding, but instead it made the articles poorer and less valuable. How can you consider yourself a good editor if you make an article less good? Fabartus 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The New Map[edit]

You Wrote (poorly) &mdash So I don't understand what you want:
I need your co-operation--you reverted first, but I counter revert to tell you to tell you to make the mark and stop reverting, so that we can settle down to discuss. But you have an attitude of forcing people to make the mark every time, yet it is your doubts that you want to inquire. That is rude.
Also, why ask for a revert if you have no questions or doubts on Talk:Tsushima Islands? You say that "Your attitude at the moment seems to be that you'll simply make the same wholesale edit repeatedly, changing parts of it once the rel;evant mistakes have been pointed out at least two or three times. That's not a productive, nor a collaborative approach.", but your attitude match the above description stated. All I want is attention, but how come simply cannot get the facts right into one's mind? If you object, say so directly. Don't blast it at other people in anyway you like.
Mr Tan 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""

The Bill[edit]

I'm glad you like the new map, or so I understand, you to mean. I think. But it cost me most of a days work, so you should pay the bill (See Tsushima strait\talk), or at least think long and hard over the time other people spend hereon before you make' another high-handed, unnecessary and arbitrary change. Fabartus 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big fuss[edit]

This regards: Hey, what is the big fuss, Mr Bartus? I only made two reverts, and explained that bad maps can be misleading. Now you have corrected them, Thanks. But what is the matter? I am satisfied, you are satisfied. Why spur the big fuss? And don't be too harsh. I am at your son's age--fourteen to fifteen, approximately. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • If you are indeed that young, that explains a very great deal as to why you have gained such a lousy reputation on Wiki. You had many of us wondering whether you were an old man slipping into early senility. It is simply this at the core: When you make careless, or arbitrary decisions, you negate other peoples time - precious, never to be recaptured time - that they voluntarily put into this project. As you grow ans mature, you will eventually come to understand that asking a person for blood is far better than taking up their time unnecessarily.
  • I'm not going to tell you not to edit here, the fact that you are trying is to be commended, but bear in mind that someone like myself with a son your age has very few spare hours to chase prob lems caused by a head-strong individual of whatever age. I will urge you to slow down your edits, and instead take some of your energy to reading more like JBell suggested to you in his Talk. The fact that I saw 'THAT' is some indicator of how much of my time I spent yesterday trying to figure out behind the scenes how to manage your high-handed edits. The fact is, if you didn't like that map, you have to learn to respect the judgement of another that some map is better than none. I couldn't have indicated more clearly when I wrote you first above that I expected that map to stay - you immediately reverted it anyway - that is the big deal.
  • I have to go now, but read more and play here less for a while at least. People like myself see the dream that this can be the best encyclopedia ever written in a couple of years more time. Do try not to slow this down! I'd like to recommend some authors to you, but time presses. I'll do so later. Fabartus 13:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleting my comment[edit]

You removed a comment left by me at User talk:Fabartus ([7]); this is not acceptable. I had left my request for arbitration to one side, but I see that it was silly to think that you might improve. I'll resume work on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your Request[edit]

You asked for a couple tips about the Tsushima Island article, which I found strange, considering I have not been active in maintaining that article for a couple months, so am a bit out-of-date as far as the edit history goes. Concerning the Korea Strait issue: The information in the Wiki article on the strait would certainly go towards placing the islands within the Korea Strait -- I would look for a difinitive source (such as the UN) one way or the other. You might just write that the island lies between the Korea Strait and the Tsushima Strait, since it basically acts as a divider between the two. As for the island/islands thing: I am not going to step into this one, much less unilaterally changing the name of the article when there is still an active discussion going on about that very issue. Not that I'm overly concerned by a very minor naming issue. Korean culture on the island: A gloss of this with references would probably be more useful (and more encyclopedic), since we don't really need to have every single instance of Korean influence on the islands listed. I would personally just mention somewhere in the culture section that the culture of the islands contains some Korean influences (perhaps even to a greater level than Japan as a whole) due to the closeness of the island to Korea. However, this is already a very large article on a very small island/group of islands, and adding every Korean influence on the island (like signposts in Korean) does not lend much to its readability. Anyhow, I'm staying out of this one, since I value my sanity a bit too much.Zonath 01:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Small World[edit]

  • It's a small world after all - I'm wondering about the same issue, i.e. the distinction of and betweeen the two terms. If you track down a authorative reference drop me a note, otherwise I'll look (on a low priority basis) as well. A good authorative source would be a nautical chart from a chandler (mariners shop). I'm on the wrong side of the planet to find local charts here, but your cities shops should have drawers full of them. Ships, Fishermen, and recreational boaters need to update such about once a year or risk running aground. If you find one, make sure to copy it's ID numbers and publisher and add in a Reference section.
    • I dropped in to tell you good job on correcting the mis-edit by whomever it was that removed the plural... but the sentence syntax on location still reads wrong.
    • Specifically: "of the four main islands of Japan, or Iki Island ", the later phrase grammatically speaking is out of place like a bump in the road.
The key question is whether the strait is between Iki Island and the Tsushimas, or between the Tsushimas and Kyushu as I understand it. The "four main islands of Japan" is much too general, spanning an arc of 1000+ Nautical miles (call it 2200+ km)
      • The Iki island, thus would be located in the Tsushima Strait, 'x1' km east of Name (the Southern Tsushima Island) and 'y1' km west of Kyusu.
    • Another issue is raised by this phrase taken from the Iki article: "Together with the neighbouring island of Tsushima, they are collectively known as the Iki–Tsushima Quasi-National Park."
      • The term Quasi-National Park needs a definition. It also now appears in the article on Tsushima Islands. My suspicion is that the Japanese legislature has declared a fisheries protection zone of some sort, and that is what is refered to by such a term.

A Fresh Start[edit]

  • I started this nearly two hours ago, but got distracted by the edit I did on the Tsushima Island arty. I have on my laptop, a pending change to my comments on your RfC. I think between the tone above, and that change, you will see that my attitude towards you has changed significantly since you revealed your age. That makes much of your behaviour at least understandable, if not condonable. I drew a line when I first directly wrote you. You crossed it almost immediately, and I acted as evidence of your actions elsewhere - your reputation - seemed to indicate I should. I do not suffer fools gladly, in fact suffer them not at all, especially when they are stealing time and effort. You will understand better when you are a parent, that things can be forgiven a youth that are incomprehensible in an adult. Your 'rep' was toward the incomprehensible, so I took strong action. I am now acting to remediate the strength of the response, as I regret it now as a father understanding the follies of youth. So, the below I just recieved is itself out of date. I would be, want to be your friend and will help you.

You wrote:

do not like people treating me as dirt. If you're going to insult at me, I will request for arbitration againts you. Really, I do not like it when people act like they own Wikipedia and try to order people to do things. And what's wrong if I'm a kid? I have straight A's in English in school. Mr Tan 12:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In the end, we were both a little hasty. I apologize. I really admire your pluck in trying to work in this adult venture. I have suggested that my son Jon work with you as a copy editor. He is willing with some reluctance. But if you want to have a good lesson in english composition and gain insight into where your understanding of good written english is slim, I think you would both enjoy and learn from the experience. Then you can fight your battles on the basis of content rather than of acceptable 'acedemic' english language construction, where you are weakest. Jon is a good student in an advanced private school, and should not threaten you as a peer your own age. This should also disarm arguements from people you have truly pissed off like Mel Elitis. I was not in that category, but making a stand on principle. There was nothing personal involved, save my own behavior of not suffering fools. you are certainly not THAT!. I have an appointment in 20 mins and have to close now. I'll finish my RfC amendments as soon as I can, and I think that should help take off some of the heat for you.
In the meantime see the Talk:Tsushima Islands for two loose ends that need tied up.
My sincerest best wishes and admiration. It is a brave thing you do being so young.
the above could be formatted better, but I DO NEED to go NOWFabartus 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Just finished doing what I could to mitigate your situation on the RfC. You really need to slow yourself down. SEVEN EDITS in less than three hours is a bit much... even if part of it was at my suggestion. It really clutters the history almost into a state of uselessness. If someone reverts, let me know and deal with it. Keep a low profile. If something is important and reasonably urgent, email me as well as posting my talk. I don't always spend time on Wiki, and my email makes an audible alarm if I'm working on the computer. Most of all, realize that there is no urgency to making a change today... let adjustments accumulate to several (7-10) changes. Then do them all at once. If you do that WELL, no one will want to revert them. Best advice there - print a hardcopy, work out your english while looking at it, and copy the edit window to an editor program with a spell checker like Microsoft Word, or Windows Wordpad.exe, even an email window. Then paste your edits in no more than two or three lines at a time. Hit Preview in between each pasting and check your effects. Do the next change, etc. Since you lack experience you need to substitute hard work and carefulness with double doses of double checking yourself before you ever hit Show Preview. Wait a few days before editing the same article again - even if you made a mistake, don't fix it - write it up in the Talk, and go on to something else. Better yet, read a good book, the examples of good writing will pay dividends when you go to write yourself, and the phrasing of things will become second nature and unconscience. Your spelling will benifit most - you will find you develop a sense, a 'knowing' that something isn't quite right. That you can cut and use to check - it's very good at suggesting the right spelling if you're only halfway close. I never work at the computer without it.
  • With respect to the division of the Islands, I presume the causeway mentioned also has a bridge allowing seagoing traffic to continue passing, or was that construction one which effectively rejoined the two parts? A 2 km gap is about a mile - a large engineering project whether removing the island material or replacing it with a bridge and causeway, so deserves mention in the article if you can chase it down. Don't forget to add strikeouts (example)in the talk for stuff you've settled (i.e. the Islands names). The list is duplicated on the Talk:Tsushima strait so strike out there too. If you finish the list, goto the Korea BB and remove the request for information - there is one for each article.
  • I suggest you stay out of projects Mel Etitis is actively working, or at least move on to something else once he makes a complaint of any kind. There is far too much that needs built to worry about sticking with one article or group of articles like a mother hen with her chicks. If you start a dozen projects with a good research basis, and cite a reference or three for each, you will be making a large contribution to Wiki, no matter how bad your english presentation or how unfinished the stub, so long as it's at least half a screenful. I'm not encouraging you to write badly, but to write about things that won't cause turf fights. Be the bigger person, the Adult person, walk away, and move on to something else. If you have research that still needs posted, keep your notes, see if the data is missing in a week or ten days. Then put it in if it's useful to the article. Check back on older stuff and compare from history, and learn from the improvements, etc. that others have made on the foundation you built for the article. By all means, if no one else picks it up, carry through to completion, but if someone makes a fuss, walk away, perhaps afer refering it to me. That kind of thing will make you valuable, and improve your english very quickly, but it will take study as well as practice, research as well as composition. If you focus on new, email me a copy before the first posting, and I'll work through it with you even if Jon drags his heels, or decides to opt out. As of the moment, he was reluctant but willing to give it a try. That's a start. You have to be prepared to wait a day or two, or a week for us to get back to you. But I will, I promise. Just don't bury me. I suspect James Bell will as well, I'm almost positive he's guessed you are young. But that's no crime, so let's make the most of your enthusiasm! Fabartus 00:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

050615 New Biz[edit]

re: your message on my talk: Interleaved It seems that somebody is inpersonating me, after checking its page history. The person is User:Mr. Tan, not User:Mr Tan, if you notice that there is a extra full stop.

The stop does not carry over, both Links redirect to your talk. Hence the impersonation and occurrences of same are not visible, but the edit history should show the user's computer making the changes, at the least, his/her IP addy. THAT you should report to an ADMIN ASAP.
In the above, I don't understand your use of the term stop - define please, but fight as noted already.

User:Mr. Tan[edit]

I've permanently blocked this account, which was obviously intended to allow the user to masquerade as you. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I understand 'Stop Now' after Mel's message Fabartus

- Anyway, I thank you for your offer. I am willing and eager to meet Jon and develop a good wikifriendship on wikipedia, moreover with a person who has a better command of English of my age. I will try to improve my English, and have scored well in my English tests, but the attitude of Singaporeans' English has really made me "one eye among the blind" case, for my English is at most somewhat better than the rest of the Singaporeans, who has some traits of Singlish in their English. I will try, to use proper British English, if I can--I"ll try. Anyway, I extend my thanks again, Mr Bartus. Mr Tan 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr Tan 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much a bystander wrt (with respect to) arguements extant on talk pages such as that of Talk:Tsushima Island. I wouldn't be respecting my own time without getting into the middle of some of what went on. My advice on that, is to step back a week or so, do something else, and let people cool down. If you disagree with something, or don't understand something, use the User_talk:whomever to ask them to consider whatever facts you disagree with.
Consider this: IN AN AMERCIAN UNIVERSITY, a person with a major in Science or Engineering would have to complete a minimum of five semesters (One semester equates to about 1-1/2 Middle School and/or High School years here) to graduate; People majoring in one of the liberal arts or humanities aiming to work in History, Government, Business, Education, etc. would have at least three additional semesters of required English, not to mention lots and lots of term papers imposed on subjects in the rest of the ciricula - far more formal papers making up a much greater percentage of their grading in each course, and their final grades overall. I tell you this not to discourage you, but as the reason I admire you. Anyway you look at it, You've set yourself one very tall mountain to climb!
That should give you some additional patience born of a better perspective when others pick on your grammer (sentence construction) and other technical complaints about english phraseology. I can barely write in english myself, so your knowledge of the many languages you mentioned on your user page is wonderful to me. I hadn't visited it until I checked the redirects above, a discourtesy, and for that, I apologize again. I've studied three other languages, but never mastered any of them well enough to be able to hold a good conversation in even one other, much less try to write technically as you are doing. Personally, I admire that a great deal - I'm even envious, so don't let language arguements slow you down from writing good information into the article. Shed complaints about such like water sheds off a ducks back - worry about the facts, not the way they are presented, but don't be confrontational. Reverting something is like a slap in the face - very, very confrontational. (Notice that I did not revert to put that map back, but simply reinserted it. Longer, but more friendly. Like my heads up.)
But writing perfect english is far far less important by far than getting your facts straight. (The sentence construction therein is very untypical, but acceptable emphasis suitable to a private communication, not a formal document). If Someone is picking on FACTS, you need to back up your POV with facts from solid references - in the main, THOSE should not be On Line references, but ones in a well respected reference book (or other published source like a nautical chart)... which is exactly what we are building here - a solid reference useable world wide.
That's an exciting thing, and something that you will be able to point out with pride to your kids when you get 'over the hill', like myself. In the main, if I were you, I'd totally forget about ever reverting an article. Whittle instead at single disputed facts on talk pages, and politely ask if the user would fix the error he/she imposed AFTER proving your point to their satisfaction - which kills the contention.
When someone agrees that you are CORRECT on your facts, they will likely go and change the point as the decent adult businesslike right thing to do. If they lack time, they will agree and suggest 'in talk' that you can or should (or would you please) make the change. If there is further disagreement, it is not about fact, but technical language, and you can leave that to the roaming editors to correct, or better yet - ask the person you were disagreeing with to check your change as the right thing to do. Thus you win, AND help them save a little face. They get to 'pee a little' in the change, and you can both go away with good feelings.
(You recognize I hope that your facts will be called into question very quickly when phrased in poor english - I suspect that has been part of your problems with others. Had you followed the above with me, the map would have still been changed, but cost neither of us the time involved in the big fuss. A courtesy deserves a courtesy, so you should in such cases talk only until you both agree... Otherwise you piss off the bear 'Mr Bartus',or one of his cousins and have to go through another big fuss. In sum, if YOU are HARDLINE or Hardheaded, YOU INVITE the other person to take an equivilent HARD posistion. Note I got miffed, but I didn't get really ticked off until well afterwards. After spending a lot of time 'Politicking' and asking for advice, that is. Spending that time was well resented, and as I did so I kept running across arguements other's had had with you, which stoked the boiler in the bear, so to speak. It wasn't until I stumbled across the RfC that I decided that this society (and we are a community) 'needed' to be tough with you. After all, all you had had to do is not change the disputed fact (map) and all of that would never have occured. I did after all agree that the map sucked... and I asked for time to resolve same. So why piss off the bear? Discuss, not confront is the lesson to master there. It is not an easy one to assimulate, especially while a teen. You lack the perspective and experience - the seasoning - that gives good judgement, and live too much in the now, not realizing how quickly "now" became and will become long ago. (Another sense of that would be to say Life passes too slowly to the youth, at breakneck speed to an adult.) Hang in there - you'll grow out of it!)
The step by step process outlined above will also avoid a lot of grammer arguements, and the resulting article will then be something you can compare to a draft you prepare for your own benifit and practice if they choose to make the correction once they concede the facts. If your information is new, add it after careful thought to phrasing and punctuation but forget reverting - satisfy yourself with doing the best job you can (No One, can ever ask for more than your best effort for anything - ever. Not and be considered 'SANE') with the language, and especially, in researching the fact. Never accept only one source of data if you can get two or three. THEN, and only then, you are in a unassailable possition, unless newer research contraindicates the use of those sources. It will happen. But that is what the give and take of reasoned debate is all about. For example, when I decided to commit to major Wiki edits, it was the very day I inserted those maps. Take a look, I added those edits as an anom user like I'd been fixing things here and there for months. (Note I signed with my email - send me something as that will be better for us going forward if I'm to help and have Jon help you as well.) I'd just been doing some reading in history as a passtime and found the articles of and about the Russo-Japanese war to be in need of a lot of TLC. Since then, on the history in and around the Russo-Japanese War I've gone to the library and brought home enough references to stand something over 2/3rds of a meter tall. I'll send the full list by email, and there are a couple of others I have also aquired but not yet evaluated. When I write a fact, I want to be unshakably correct. So should you. Procede as fast as you can, but slow enough to be sure.
Another Aside: Used in the way I first used the word arguement above, 'arguements' refers to (means) talking point in a chain of reasoning, not having an arguement with someone over a disagreement. I hope that's clear - it's idiomatic, which is tough to understand for non-native speakers of any language! Of course, one uses an arguement while having an arguement with someone, but having an arguement with someone is to be avoided almost always in adult POV - as I avoided having an arguement with you, taking instead another recourse - seeking advice and such. The word arguement has the 'feeling' of 'anger' connoted with it, so that having an arguement pretty much means raising one's voice and is a violent form of behaviour more characteristic of juveniles and uncharacteristic of serious minded individuals acting in a professional manner. Wiki-rules want no arguements of the second kind, but provides talk for arguements of the talking point or logical exposition kind. (Even there, logical arguement is the more prevalent useage, as is arguement in the equation in mathematics terminology. A slippery word since it has multiple meanings and uses.
Use on line references to generate background understanding and research leads. If they are solid use them to bolster your arguements in the 'disagreement discussion', but don't rely on them absolutely for factual exposition, save in something straight forward like ''. The exception there is professional journals like those wherein original research papers and doctoral dissertations are published. Note however that THOSE have a (i.e. Echo what is) printed equivilent. Special interest websites may have correct facts, but are contraindicated as they are usually of unknown editorial standards. Another exception - University Websites, but only for attributed articles with date, author, and formal format. You'll be able to tell once you see one.
I think this gives you enough to chew on for now. I haven't talked to Jon yet today about how he can help you, but that should rightfully be done on email. Track my addy down from the history and email me direct. CC him by substituting 'jf' for 'fa' in mine. Right now I need to finish ammending the RfC commentary to reflect better on you. Should be 'up' by 20:00 hrs (UTC) if I've finally got this time clock figured out. Best wishes! Frank Fabartus 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 050616[edit]

  • I just left you a few notes on Talk about your recent edits. Unfortunately, I scanned the preview and saw this more serious matter, so that's what ended up in the cut buffer. Slow down!!! You are arguing with academics that have been trained in research and what constitutes properly supported evidence. This historical reference I cite here below is the kind of thing you need to be able to put on the table in an arguement. The RfC is still open, and these folks are sharpening their knives, so revert, cede the arguement, walk away and tackle easy to research stuff like the geographical factoids I've suggested. Best Move, to be sure, is to leave the Tsushima Islands to them altogether. Or are you one of those crazy people that sees Elvis I cite below. My point is based on a history backed by years of research and experience by a trained scholar. You need to focus on aquiring such training and practice it by reading before acting. I repeat - WEB SOURCES are not up to most standards of proof - they are merely starting points for good research. I'm appending the list of references I've been purusing for two plus weeks, and I haven't yet made a single change reflecting the things I've learned from them. These folks you are arguing with have made similar time commitments, which is why they get so hostile when you are pressing for things you can't support with acceptable references. Do you get somekind of thrill arguing? Also, take into account that most people working here on Wiki are doing so SOLELY in their SPARE TIME. Most of us have very little of that as we are supporting families, do keep that in mind when there is something in dispute. Three days to you might seem a long time to wait for an answer, but the typical adult may only have 20 minutes a day of SPARE TIME with a hundred demands on it. Wiki is not their life nor thier work, and three days or a week to resolve something by discussion is very demanding - like a baby wanting fed NOW. That dog won't hunt. Be patient, take days between changes. Better, limit yourself to one quality change per week. Again, consider the list I append, and I have yet to make any substansial changes based on this list -- a fact which you are rather central to in the last three days, tho' I'm willing now that we know you are a student.

References for the R-JW Expansion Project[edit]

Bear in mind, this is partial - there are at least three books I've yet to skim to see if they strike oil or are off point. See Russo-Japanese War

  • F.R. Sedwick, (R.F.A.), The Russo-Japanese War, 1909, The Macmillan Company, N.Y., 192 pp.
  • Colliers (Ed.), The Russo-Japanese War, 1904, P.F. Collier & Son, New York, 129 pp.
  • Dennis and Peggy Warner, The Tide At Sunrise, 1974, Charterhouse, New York, 659 pp.
  • Geoffrey Jukes, The Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905, 2002, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, Ox2 9LP (Britain), ISBN 1-84176-446-9, 95 pp.
  • William Henry Chamberlain, Japan Over Asia, 1937, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 395 pp.
  • Frank Theiss, The Voyage of Forgotten Men, 1937, Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1st Ed., Indianapolis & New York, 415 pp.
  • Ian Nish, A Short History of JAPAN, 1968, LoCCC# 68-16796, Fredrick A. Praeger, Inc., New York, 238 pp.
ditto, The Story of Japan, 1968, (British Title and Publisher), Farber and Farber, Ltd. (i.e. same book)
  • Edwin O Reischauer, Japan - The Story of a Nation, 1970, LoCCC# 77-10895 Afred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 345 pp. plus index.
Previously published as Japan Past and Present (4 Editions, 1946-1964), (i.e. 5 revisions overall)
  • Richard Hough, "THE FLEET THAT HAD TO DIE", 1958, LoCCC# 58-9650, The Viking Press, Inc., New York, 212 pp.
  • Tom McKnight,PhD, et al; Geographica (ATLAS), 1999-2004, 3rd revision, Barnes and Noble Books AND Random House, New York, ISBN 0-7607-5974-X, 618 pp.
  • David Walder, THE SHORT VICTORIOUS WAR, 1973, Harper & Row, New York, ISBN 0-06-014516-1, 321 pp.
  • Constantine Pleshakov, The TSAR'S LAST ARMADA, 2002, Basic Books/The Perseus Books Group, New York, ISBN 0-465-05791-8, 396 pp.

This is the kind of thing you need to do to make quality changes. This is a college level project, not elementary school level after all. ttfn, send me that email. You have none listed hereon. Fabartus 16:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You Make Me Sad[edit]

re: this message: Books You have given a list of books which I presume is targeting at the Tsushima Islands project. I have searched for books concerning Tsushima in libraries and bookshops in Singapore and Johor Bahru, but I would sincerely say that I cannot find any.

Also, I do not have sufficient time to do all these things because I believe that our goal on wikipedia is merely for the sake of satisfaction, not on serious work. However, meanwhile, I will try to search for more internet sources, and I will be happy to accept any sources concerning this Tsushima project.

Mr Tan 02:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) The above Retrieved from ""

    • The above was a list to illustrate to you the what others go through to get things correct on Wikipedia. R-JW means Russo-Japanese War, which I have mentioned several times as being my focus. There were a lot of battles in that war, most of which need a lot of expansion, and some of which need first draft articles. It was a list to give you some sense of the time involved in proper research – which is far far more important than the act of writing (composition) and fixing/fussing grammer (editing). (Count the number of pages for me... how many are there?)
    • People world wide will rely (for important tasks and decisions) on what we put on these pages — That's a HUGE responsibily, not an idle amusement just to pass some time. It's part of being part of something bigger than yourself, of giving of your time to others, of giving back something to the community. It is not a pass time for selfish amusement. I can go sit by the pool with a beer to pass time. I can take my two dogs for a walk as a pass time, or take my boat out on the local Atlantic Ocean, or play a computer game, or play ball with my sons, or watch televison, or work on the car, or do gardening or other work in the yard or make sexy with my wife. Those are PASSTIMES. This is serious, important work. Volunteer work, sometimes fun, but work — make no mistake. If you think it is only a pass time, you are very very wrong.
    • I am very sorry to see you say that for it means I misjudged you, that I thought you were trying very hard to do the right thing, to contribute to the world community as we are trying to contribute. It makes me very sad, because it also means you don't respect anyone's time and their love and dedication for this effort, but are merely selfish, egocentric, and uncaring.
    • I don't believe you want to be that way. Do you? Do you really feel comfortable stealing other peoples free time because you are unwilling to find a reference source. Surely having been under British control for so long Singapore must have at least one library. Are there no universities or colleges? Of course it takes time to find such reliable references, and money to buy them, but you don't have to own them, or keep them; the libraries buy them. You just need to borrow them, read them while taking notes on what you want to write about, then with confidence write the article or changes in a well planned edit.
    • You have to make a decision. Are you gonna act as an irresponsible kid — the one everyone gets mad about — or are you going to act as responsible as you can, take your time, be sure and careful, and earn the admiration I was thinking you deserved. Are you that brave fellow I began to admire, or a little brat vandalizing things because it's too much trouble to be careful and act your best in an adult task? It's your life, but the downside to THAT is that ONLY YOU TRULY CONTROL WHERE IT WILL TAKE YOU. You can aim for pass times, or aim to reach the Stars, to be the best you, YOU can be. Only you have total control. No one else will be to blame – Only you. Take a walk and find a quiet place to think about it. Its quite possibly the most important decision you will ever make. Once you do, you can't change it and still be faithful to yourself – you will have no integrity. Think very carefully, I want to help you, but cannot if you will not help yourself. Brave or boorish — those are the choices. Which kind of person will you grow into? Fabartus 03:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heres a Little Research Job[edit]

    • The Iki Island arty (just edited) refers to having three ports. One is listed with a POV comment on over fishing, but the other two aren't mentioned at all. The article (now with a map) should list those towns, as well as where they are about the islands perimeter. Fabartus 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said somewhere above, no one can ask you for any more than your best. Any one who does sees ELVIS <g>. Everyday <G> What you need to do is find something to work on where you can find references. I would not be working on R-JW if I could not find reliable sources. My town library had none — zippo – zilch — nil... except for a couple of encyclopedias to look some facts up. But that generates only leads. What I did do is use the library computer to find books on the library network in other libraries in the region and have my library order them in. That took most of a week. Since then, I've been browsing here, purusing there, taking notes, and doing the odd Wikitask. Now I spend time with you, but I can see already we have one problem &mdash I'm getting ready to go to bed, and you are just getting started. But the very best thing you can do right now is stay off and out of the Tsushima Islands article. Let others carry the arguements, and settle the article down. If you want to add something, have me do it for you, but stop making changes. It's much too political right now, and you are right in the middle of all the anger. Not a good place to be. Be the bigger person, and go onto something else. Aren't there places near you in China that have interest? Railroads, Ferry lines, shipping lines, battle sites, old fortresses, canals, bridges, etc. There have got to be some projects on Wiki that need research where you can find enough references (one good reference is enough to write a long stub) to write new articles. See what's on the Wiki Cleanup list, on the articles needed lists. Heck, just page through some of the articles on the Russo-Japanese War and most any other military reference, and pick a redline article that has no existing article. That'll keep you busy for a year at least!
    • Here's another thing I'd like a reference for in Liaodong -- looking at the satelite map of Dalian both the west and the east harbors appear to be used for shipping. Find out if that's true
    1. If so, is there a canal that cuts across? it's name and history
    2. What are the modern names of Chin-chou Bay (west) and Talien Bay (east harbor), also of Hand Bay (very narrow, but the likeliest place for a canal to cut across the peninsula) just to the north of Talien/Dalien Bay proper.
    3. Note that I guessed in the article that Talien Bay is now called Dalien Bay, but it might be Dalian.

These things are not exciting, but they ARE USEFUL, and you are the man in the right country to be able to find those things out. I'm on the wrong side of the world. Thanks 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Well - I can read two of the four... LOL. I'm not sure that it's neutral enough, but if you don't tell, I won't tell. The one thing that will balance it out is to fill in some more information on Iki Island, so it blends in. See if you can dig up ferrys, airports, anything that will lengthen the article, but blend in with standard 'Place Pieces'.Fabartus 04:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

050617 Exchanges[edit]


I would appreciate if you can reply in contrast to my requests on Talk:Tsushima Strait. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Retrieved from "")

    • Ok - thanks for the heads up - keep your shirt on tho', I just got out of bed and need to inject some coffee. I was up 'til almost 03:30 local, and it's now just after 10:15!!!

and Response[edit]

    • Let's try to keep our 'thread' in the same place on the talk page, with the appropriate indentation, like the above. I check the history first to see who wrote, so that means I can speed down using the index and immediately be looking at the right text. Thanks! Fabartus 14:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More Response[edit]

  • If you haven't seen it yet, I posted on Talk:Tsushima Strait. Bottom line, Leave the article alone - let a patrolling copyeditor remove the 'The'. While I was showering I thought this might make the point clear: Almost every sentence can totally do without 'any' defininte articles — their whole purpose is to FOCUS the attention of the reader or listener on the important words in the sentence... THAT can also be written: "their purpose is to FOCUS attention of reader or listener on important words in sentence", and is JUST AS CORRECT — but unconventional. Some languages do not use any definite articles, some use only a few. English uses a lot of them. So when in doubt, leave it out.

Other Biz[edit]

  • BTW - I still don't know what you wanted me to do with respect to User:Nanshu. The whole article is politics now. You should definitely let it be for at least a month. Whether the Islands are divided permanently is an interesting fact, but a canal also divides a body, as does a railroad. In this country, you sometimes have to go ten or 15 km to get around a railway. Let the grammarians fight that battle — I'm pretty sure Mel agrees with you. I did some copyediting there last night, but that grew impossible, just because I wasn't sure what was established fact, and was disputed fact. So I stopped and wrote Mel who asked me to do so. He's busy with finals, exams and students right now, so don't rush him. None of this stuff is going to make a difference larger than a raindrop to a bucket of your life's work — get on with the bucket!
  • I couldn't resist the temptation to fix up the flow above, it should be a lot easier to use with the new subheadings, let's keep to the same format on my page. Hope you don't mind and Thanks, respectively! <G> LOL Fabartus 17:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)When you leave a note like:

He is clearly addicted to wikipedia; this will overturn his life, but I do not want to know or care. I"ll see to the case of Tsushima Islands, and I"ll only get myself involved when absolutely necessary. For now, I will not contribute anymore information to the article temporarily. Mr Tan 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Please give or leave some kind of context when you drop a conversational reference like that message from you.
  • My "When you leave a note like:" above does that for what follows — it serves to introduce the topic you are writing about and focus the reader on what you are refering to before presenting what you are saying about it.
  • Otherwise, such conversations aren't — They are instead Confusedinglythingys <G>.
  • They always should be arranged to make whatever follows more understandable.
  • After being confused for a while, I presume you are refering to the user N... something-or-other (which) I asked about three or four or five tasks ago in my time.
  • Do you see, how such (Introducing) phrases FRAME the picture you are trying to build for me so I don't have to work hared and scratch my head wondering what you mean — Other people do not live in the same picture you do — they live in their own picture.
  • Which is to say, they are having seperate experiences and paying attention to what is going on in their personal Here and Now. So such introductions go a far ways toward establishing understanding — They put two people in the same strait (page, now, place) by acting as the channel blasted through the Isthmus'. <G> Not a gripe, just a lesson. No response needed.

I guess I got to try and read that talk file -- it probably reads better than a good comic book --at least! Overturn his life, indeed!... I suspect the word/phrase you wanted was 'upset his life'. One turns over ones wife! <G>, or boat, or pancakes, or one can 'turn over a new leaf' (Page in a book). We really need to get these language lessons into email. So email me since you have your settings so I cannot email you first. It will help a lot. Fabartus 18:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I was snooping around and built this reference list of WikiLinks... This is all stuff that needs done, or how to do something. I added to my page, and you may want to move this there on yours. The idea is to have a table of shortcuts. Many of these are projects where articles are needed. See especially the last item in each heading. The 1911EB shouldn't be copied w/o changes, but is an awful lot of articles that are being sought after. The Cities project may interest you as well - there are at least two in austrailia they are looking for someone to start. Have a good day - I'm off to bed! [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]]

Useful links[edit]


Category:Wikipedia articles which could be improved by explaining significance- Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - Deletion log - Commons_Images - Wikipedia:Deadend pages WikiProjects btw - I've only browsed about a third of these. Poke around and let me know if there's something I should know about! [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 05:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) <<<< You do this in preferences signature!

Are You Back Up Riding The Dead Horse?[edit]

  • Regarding your message: I would appreciate if you can help me (and Mel Etitis) concerning an article move by some Wikipedia Japanese Users. Thanks. Mr Tan 11:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You need to give me more clues than this. What kind of help? I thought you had agreed that it is best to leave those articles alone. I've had four days of rain overlaid on time I scheduled off, so had time to poke around here. But this weekend I need to take care of many things outside... the grass is turning into a jungle, I've shrubs to move, shrubs to plant, so I will not be available much before Monday. It is now 12:10 in Boston - almost noon on the 18th. 16:10 (UTC) if I finally figured this thing out. So you may assume I'll be back on circa Midnight UTC, or perhaps a bit before. I just got an email telling me of a death in the family. I don't know what I'll be doing, but it's over a twelve hour drive if I go to the funeral. STILL don't have an email from YOU - At least explain why!!!
  • But if the matter you want help with involves a dispute — an 'edit war' of some sort, the best I can do it refer you back to the guidelines for disagreements, which there is a link to in the stuff I dropped on you last night. I'm not unsympathetic, but from my perspective one fact or another makes little difference amoung the millions of facts we need to put up on the Wiki. Just look at all the articles that the 1911 encyclopedia brittanica had that are still missing on wiki — that is one place you and your energy can make a huge difference. Even writing a bad stub article will advance the overall content of wikipedia. Similarly, the Cities project - there are many many things to do.
  • It strikes me that your interest might be POV based -- some strong feeling you have and believe that has political complications like dolphin fishing or perhaps religion. Such disputes cannot ever be won on wiki as someone will always have capability of coming along and changing it. Best to not ever have it, or constantly check and put it back from some boilerplate text you keep on your mainpage to paste back in, but that's a waste of time. A NPOV article is one that is factual without being offensive so that it becomes stable and reliable without the edit war you seem to be in.
  • If you just like to argue, hang around in the Wikipedia:Vfd See the Vfd pages (Tuesdays list, iirc) on Elizabeth II of Canada for an example of useful arguements — an example of a great article — the kind of quality we should all be aiming for.
  • IMHO, You should save your arguement energy for debates like that will matter. I never see your votes there, but I will have a look at Tsuhima Islands or Island, which I suspect is the reason you wrote. But I only get one voice, and no real vote, just like you if I ma guessing correctly that the Move word you used involves whether the main article does or doesn't have an suffixed "letter-S".
  • Should that be the issue, I'm pre-disposed to agree with you and Mel (btw, It'd be nice to have a first name to talk to you... and that email link!!! — we're generating a lot of clutter on these talk pages, stuff which can be privately said.) but one reason I abandoned over an hour of copyedit effort in that article was seeing that the Tokyo times refered to the Tsushima Island (no 'S') in the first external link. It matters to the grammer, but not necessarily to the content. As such, I couldn't finish copyediting until it is resolved. I've traded a couple of messages with Mel on email on that, and he will eventually finish finals LATE next week, and again have SPARE time to fight the issue. In the meantime, the best course is to wait.
  • We aren't publishing a book that will be on library shelves over many centurys. A move can be moved back after proper procedures are followed... In this case, it may require the arbitration process, which process, I believe Mel was working on. But he can't volunteer time to wiki when he has to spend 14 to 16 hour days WORKING HIS JOB in the crunch time of finals where he has to grade exams and post grades for hundreds of students who need them for jobs, etc. You have never had a job yet, where you have more things to do than hours to do them with inflexible deadlines — Unfortunately, like the rest of us, you someday WILL have that Suck Situation. It's not a fun place to be, and happens all too often in good jobs, and not-so-good jobs (Farming, Fishing) alike.
  • You will have to learn to be patient. Fill your time up so you are busy with other projects, and let the system work — that it works slowly is not a question — but most stable systems have to work slow, or they self destruct. Look into how the American or British courts work, or better yet, how a bill becomes a law in the USA. Stable systems need time to process information and reach agreements. Give it time. I'll take a peak. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 16:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Got your message -- I'm writing in it now. Study hard! You are building the foundation for the rest of your life — a serious matter! Frank [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 17:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue[edit]

I've been alerting qualified Japanese interested persons to check the page Tuesday, and Judge the case. You are the last interested party going back to edits on Talk/Arty pages (300+ in a month!, 70+ in three days! Peh-leeeeaaaase! In any event, I hope you can come up with a good shipping chart (You are in one of the world's biggest and busiest ports, go visit a ship and ask to see a Navigator or other bridge officer!) or something that shows that channel. See my comments on the Move Talk. ttfn Frank

  • I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
  • Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
  • More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
  • In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
  • If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
  • I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
  • I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
  • Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 03:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 03:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinion IS NOT MADE[edit]

Regarding this message you just left:

I am afraid that I cannot make out very clearly what you stated on the voting poll--do you mean that you voted yes on the move, but with certain conditions? <<< NO, I Have NOT voted on the MOVE at all, I voted that if the MOVE VOTE DEADLOCKED, I would support the proposed compromise... the single word title 'Tsushima'. You should vote there as well. I mean to put an end to this nonsense one way or the other. Do you realize there are well over 300 small edits to this article since May 13th? That's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
  • I've spent most of the day trying to make heads or tails out of this. I'm currently contacting people with postings on Japanese articles with a lot of experience and leaving them a version of the message I just left you above. The other boiler plate on the cut N paste is an introduction of the issue, and an appeal for them to look at your foreign language websites since most of us are not multilingual. (I am Jealous of your skill there!) In any event, I am doing all that I can to settle this once and for all, however it comes out on the evidence. I should have 30+ people by Tuesday to give an opinion both on the translation issues, and on the best way to word it in English.
  • Next, My comments, and the history I looked at and put in as background showed that my work that you quoted was derived based on the data in your posting of the Japanese Navy blasting through the Isthmus. If we took that as evidence of anything, it would be evidence that I was guilable of believing a fact and then adding it's historical context — again, I cover that at great length in the TALK. Read it very carefully.
  • It NOW appears to me that I misunderstood what you meant to say. Make sure you Find the question that I asked you to answer in bold. YOU NEED TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION, plus (i.e a Logical AND), IT MUST also BACK UP THE WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY when you wrote about the Navy blasting through the isthmus, or what I wrote and you quoted means nothing. If you prove that, you prove the Island has been permanently divided. Nothing else will save my paragraph as I wrote it; it was based on what you wrote just minutes before, and no one saw you source that information. I didn't realize it myself until this afternoon.
  • I am afraid that, at this point, I now believe this event was a misreading on my part, as I was up a very long time that night. My historical facts prove only what the numbered explainations say in the heading Circular Arguement. But the chain of reasoning depends on YOUR SOURCE and the PROPER MEANING of whether the channel is 2km wide, or the istmus is 2km wide. There's a world of difference between the two! If so, I probably (Almost certainly, I polarized the arguement so they decided to move it and bring the issue on the table for a final settlement of the issue.) caused this last edit war. If my reading of your information, and the information are both correct, then and only then will my paragraph be correct. I don't think that's going to happen. Cutting a canal makes a whole lot more sense than distroying 2km of land of an isthmus. The logical thing is that I made a mistake, and nobody questioned me about it because I had added my historical references at the same time. Since I wasn't watching the article, I didn't catch my own error until about ten hours ago when I built the arguements I pulled out and put under circular arguement. As best I can see. That's what happened. My mistake. Everyone else trusting my writing. The answer to the proper term lies elsewhere.
(Just between you and me -- this was a night I was trying to catch up on time I lost because I took much of it trying to help you and writing at length above. It doesn't excuse my error, but it does account for why I was up late enought to make it!)

That should answer the below question of yours very well. The key is YOU 'first' USED THE TERM blasted... see the reference and dates I cited, and copied into the talk from the difference program. I just happened to sit down to edit next (almost immediately, as it turns out) without having any idea of how unstable the article was, and in fact, should have been in bed hours sooner.

    • If you agree to the move, Mr Bartus, I would be happy if you can explain why did you add the paragraph on Tsushima Islands on how the Island is blasted into two in the first place? Again, your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 03:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, look at my two changes in history. Immediately before, there are reverts and edit wars. For a while after, they slow way down... (I guess that's a compliment of sorts) then pick up frequency again. SO I want some sources before I decide either way. This is as close to looking like a fool as I care to get! SCTRATCH THAT TOO. I do look like a fool here. No Question. But I'm an honest fool and learned long ago to admit my mistakes. This is a whopper.
  • In any event, I'm yelling for extra troops, and will produce some disinterested outside parties with no emotional attachments in this matter to add their neutral views as well.

What you need to do for them and yourself is this: You need to prepare and present a very neat simple well worded case of why you believe the matter should be plural, and what evidence you have definitely supports that POV... You should copy down some of the important web links that have convinced you so strongly (In whatever language, but use the 'pipe trick' to tag the ones that are not english), but calmly tell only JUST THE FACTS AS YOU'VE RESEARCHED THEM. Then state your opinions, and any supporting evidence like the web sites, even if they need translated. In sum, it will all depend on the case you present for your side. Mel will probably help some, but he's buried in finals week with little free time. I told you some days ago that I have no dog in this fight. Well, I do — Honor — The RIGHT THING to do. That is what I am doing now, so I must go back to contacting Japanese savvy contributors and alerting them to the fact that this issue needs settled. You and Nanshu have made a mess of this and should both be embarrased. So since he put it to the vote, lets settle it one way or the other — as you know, there are lots of other things to be working on!

    • The other 67 pages of the talk are way too much to expect anyone but God to be able to sort out. Your case will rise and fall with the tight sentences you place under discussion. Compose that well, and state your points professionally, without emotion, and certainly, without refering to any of the other people that have been in the revert war!

Good luck — Both of you! (I'm going to copy this to Nanshu right now, he deserves the clarification of my POV). [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 05:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not feasible?[edit]

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant about the edit not being feasible. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Life Ironies[edit]

greetings and sended more my sincere desire of more suceses

is ironically for my why i am latinoamerican why poses some farests and ancient Japanese ancestors,with some relation with japanese rigth wing groups veterans or ancient japanese residents associations of losses japanese provinces,for all i seeing in japanese side during pacific war,why my informations are some utiles against preciselly japanese and stay at favour of more knowledge of japanese bad actions in pacific war.

additionally i poses ancient books where mentioned the Japanese Empire and relationed topics with interesting info of theirs,and these info poses oportunity to confirm with my japanese friends too.for other part how know more in direct first japanese hand web sources,i decided to published these info,but in last case i lamentably encountered why if violated some authors rigths,but my pourpose are the present to public knowledge about this.

but i am no poses troubles,at contrary,my direct knowledge in Jap side,i giving oportunity to seeing in first hand your thinking or your actions during this historical period.i too sended somes historical info about Chinese side in Chinese-Japanese conflict debt at why poses one ancient book writing by American women why stayed between Chinese forces during these period.

i am in nexts days decided my definitive retireing,i no poses the writer habilites or well english grammar knowledge,but i expect why my informations sended at your sources and debt cleaned served how source for the well knowledge of the historical period.

this if complete ironically,for me.

more thanks for your amable attention



Begin-4B...Complimentary Evidence by Mr Tan, unearthed by fabartus: I just located Mr Tans cited source way up above for the text I wrote. It is by a professor at Columbia University, and part of his discussion (This is quite a way down in the posting) he refers to a personal visit he made in 1974. The link is: | Gari K Ledyard (Gari Keith Ledyard Fri, 2 Oct 1998 17:12:04 -0400 (EDT) ). Mr Tan placed this above on the 14th.

  • It appears to me that Mr Tans english is NOT at fault and I and a few users owe him an apology, as he quotes this professor pretty much verbatum. (An Eye Witness Account by a scholar of Far Eastern Studies) — (Emphasis Added - fab)
"On another occasion I was hiking high up in the mountains (Tsushima is mostly mountains, and they are very steep), it was a very clear day and as I looked to the northwest I saw the hills of Korea stretching out seemingly forever into the distance. Korea looked very, very big, and Tsushima felt awfully small. It was easy to imagine why Korea was taken seriously by most people on the island.
I once read an article by a Korean writer arguing that Tsushima was Korean because its NAME was Korean. He etymologized Tsushima as coming from "tu shima", which he said was obviously a reflex of Korean "tu sOm" (< syem), meaning "two islands." It is true that today Tsushima is indeed two islands. But in traditional times, Korean maps always depicted it as a single island, and correctly so. Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a cut through an isthmus, perhaps one or two kilometers wide, on the eastern side of island between the great Aso^ Bay and the Japan Strait, not only dividing the land mass into two islands but also advancing their purpose, which was to be able to rapidly move warships from the straits of Korea (between Korea and Tsushima) into the straits of Japan (between Tsushima and Japan). This capability proved crucial during the Russo-Japanese War, when the Russian Baltic fleet, which had spent the better part of a year sailing around Africa (England would never have let it through the Suez canal) in order to be re-based in Vladivostok, was smashed to pieces and sunk by the Japanese in the "Battle of Tsushima." Tsushima has only been "two islands" for only about a hundred years, and the "two islands means Korean sovereignty" theory turns into a bubble.
The name Tsushima has a long textual history, appearing earliest in the Chinese "History of the Three Kingdoms" (Sanguo zhi, compiled before 297 CE and partly based on the earlier Weizhi of ca. 250, though the latter is now known only through quotations ..."
    • I believe a comparison of Mr Tan's insertion, cited in my para 1-4 or 1-5 above compares verbatum with this professor, and vindates Mr Tans text change, though not his lack of using a pair of quotes! I still own the responsibility for jumping to the conclusion that the professors "blasted a cut" coupled with "one or two kilometers wide" referred to the width of the cut. The construction of the sentence is poor, and the comma offsetted parenthetical (?)phrase isn't clear to me even now as to it's object (actual meaning): The cut, or the isthmus? "Cut" however, connotes a canal, not an extravagant outlay for overengineering. Thus, a canal is my interpretation pending further information. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 06:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You have never seemed to grasp that my sentence was predicated upon your placing this in the article, all I did was rearrange the words to make smooth english text, but based on misreading the above. That this guy is a full professor at Columbia in New York City is amazing. This was not clear writing!

In any case, I put it into the discussion section, as you should have done. I asked you for it, and Baru asked you for it. This is how you should present such evidence on a talk page:

  1. Title
  2. Introduction
  3. cite (By Whom, when)
  4. source information (Note I included his date, and your date, Link, etc.)
  5. Quoted material (since this is an excerpt, I included a little ahead and behind the material, plus note how I pointed out in parenthesis that the material was far down in the professors paper.)
  6. Discussion of the material
  7. Summary or conclusion.
  8. Ask for further discussion
  • Put that on a 3X5 file card or use notepad.exe ---> How to cite an reference
  • This method will make your cases far more persuasive than simply saying "see #1, #2, #3. See I told you so." Mr Tan

See which presents better? Which is more professional?

    • You ABSOLUTELY MUST cut back on the shear number of times you access the files. Plan your edits carefully. Cut and paste from the webpage into notepad. Make a header for every place you want to change, then take a lot of time building the correct sentence. Proof that three or four times.
      • Then, paste it in and promise yourself you're not going to open the file again until tomarrow.
  • By all means, if there is an opposed issue on a talk page, wait at least three to five days before even thinking about doing something about it.
  • Your constant tendency to throw in fifteen comments and rebuttals a day are nearly as bad as the number of times you mess up the history by constantly editing and reediting day after day. Let the argument develop -- others may make your point for you, give them time to do so.

AND always keep in mind that this is a part time voluntary effort and most contributors have little time to spend! Find ten articles to work on at once, but let others have time to work, while remembering they are not always free to do so -- Mel Etitis, is a case in point. He simply can't spend a lot of time this week or last. I suspect some of his hasty actions in the last month were because he should have been doing other things instead of Wiki. Why don't you pick out a town or city in Malasia and do an article on it, or Australia. There are at least two Australian Citys on the Cities Project in those links I gave you the other day, so something big and complicated would be fun, wouldn't it?

  • I'm going to be tending more to physical life this week, but I'll check in a couple of times a day -- at least so long as this laptop is working -- it's having some problems, hopefully it was just dampness.
  • Oh Yeah -- Why don't you hang out over in the Votes for Deletion. You see some good arguements there, and get a chance to help decide whether something should stay in wiki, be merged, be given an overhaul (cleaned up), etc. Can be lots of fun.

Best wishes, and stay out of trouble! Frank

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 06:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English lessons[edit]

If you'd like, we can continue your tutorials... It would benefit you in the long run. :) Cheers - JMBell° 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, we can do it in your summer break, or anytime you'd like. (And by the way, you should archive your talk page - it's already 194 KB long!) JMBell° 13:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)==Tsushima 1-1 Septentrionalis 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)==

I am not persuaded by your arguments against moving Tsushima IslandsTsushima, which I have read and replied to. Writing simply Tsushima is a common English usage, perhaps a plurality. The Britannica orignally did so. And, most important, it permits the question of a consensus on Island/Islands to be argued out on the Talk page, without bothering the administrators. If and when a consensus is actually reached, the question of moving the page again will be in order. Septentrionalis 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)(Btw, please do move some of this page to User talk:Mr Tan/Archive 1. I cannot emend previous comments to you, because the page has so many sections.)

What would I do about Tsushima, Nagasaki? I would leave it where it is, because there is no ongoing controversy about what it ought to be called. I think a headnote saying something like:

This city is substantially coterminous with Tsushima, Tsushima prefecture and the former Tsushima Province

would be nice, but there is no point even to that until the present question is resolved. Septentrionalis 17:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A More Important Question For YOU!!![edit]

Regarding this post by you on Talk:Tsushima Islands:

    • I wonder how to sort out such mess in an article with two seperate votes clashing with each other at the same time. I also wonder how an admin is going to choose which move to take. Mr Tan 16:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the hell do YOU care — you are at least a thousand miles away, and not a native Japanese, whom I now discover you have been arguing with (both Nashu, Hermeneus). Would you kindly get your emotions under control. This is not some school-boy game where one outsmarts the other.
  • You made your case — actually, YOU FAILED to make your case — I asked you, Baru Asked you for sources... I had to go back and follow the trail to the 14th and then read the damn thing, to see what had happened. YOU SHOULD HAVE been doing that, not me. So I made your case for you by posting that extract from/by the professor at Columbia University... the one who's english you USED without QUOTES or Citation, a very very very bad mistake. IT IS NOT ALLOWED — Safer to murder Mother with Axe and Father with Machine Gun in police station lobby while calling names and thumbing nose at cops. When read correctly, in it's proper context, that quotation was making a JOKE &mash; while poking the air out of bubble - that is, a theory by some Koreans that they had once had a claim to the islands because some theory of language development suggests that the island name might have come from the Korean root implying two islands; but wasn't two until the canal 100 years back, so was joke. THAT'S WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON THERE. This is experience you lack, and burnt hand that may help you improve, but you have wasted a lot of peoples time. Also, quoting some artwork on ENCARTA — that's derivative, not authorative, as you must learn if you are to become a good researcher and writer/editor.
  • What's your disputed points with Zanskar? More of the same quality research? What do you REALLY know than is different in that article? (I just happened to see you complaining to Mel in Tsushima about that controversy there, when I was digging the above out. Looks like she wrote a pretty good article, though it needs a little fixing towards the end. Why can't they be merged? Are you being stubborn there as well? Got to take the emotion out and put the brain in — never trust anything you can check, and then cross-check your check — why do you think I have so many books on R-JW? Because have spare time? NOT!!! Need cross-check or is bad research. End story.

I really don't want to find myself going back to the RfC and telling them you are 'incorrigible' and won't take guidance, would be a shame to see you and your IP address banned. Slow down, consider others time. Remember you as youth have ten to twenty times the spare time other people volunteer herein. So you should be working on 20 articles, not 20 edits a day on one small article. If you get THAT busy, you will begin to appreciate how one demanding child's arguements can distrupt your work when someone is arguing with you and you don't have time to get back right away. End of that story - Get busy, and you will see what you are doing to others. NOT GOOD!

Best wishes, Your friend, Frank

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Tags[edit]

Dear Mr Tan,

Thanks for your many contributions to Korea-related topics. I am puzzled by some image tags you have added to images uploaded by User:Sissel111. For instance, you tagged Image:Ahn2.jpg as being released by its copyright holder. If Vogue magazine has actually released the picture, please provide a reference. Similarly, you tagged Image:Prince Eun.jpg as public-domain due to age, but there is no information regarding the age of the picture. Since "Prince" Eun died in 1970, it's quite possible that the picture is too recent to be public-domain. Please clarify why you added the tag.

Sissel111 has uploaded a lot of very nice pictures, but has failed to provide license information for a single one of them. Accordingly, I have listed almost all of them on WP:PUI. If we can't figure out where they came from, they will be subject to deletion in 30 days. The ones I haven't listed are the ones that you added tags to -- thanks! However, I need to know why you added the tags you did. Cheers, -- Visviva 03:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Life's getting tougher every day — but the Sun will Come out Again[edit]

I write regarding This Question you posted circa Noon (UTC) Monday 20 June on Talk:Tsushima:

"In addition to the points that I have stated, I would like all voters who voted "support" to reconsider their vote; While there is more than one topic with the name "Tsushima", why do you not target Battle of Tsushima, Tsushima province to Tsushima as well? The social reason of article "discrimination" should be considered. If this article is shifted to Tsushima, how about the other articles?"
  • SHORT ANSWER: Because Battle of Tsushima and Tsushima Province are SPECIFIC well named subjects. The terms have no confusion associated with them. There meaning is clear and there use is consistant across the board. That is not so with THE PLURAL/SINGLE question. The useage varies widely editor to editor whether it is magazines, newspapers (Japan Times articles use BOTH) scholarly papers, or reference books like encyclopedias. In sum, the practice, the useage record is conflicted, and sometimes even contradictory in the same publication between different editions.
  • The meaning of this term 'Tsushima Islands' did not really come into question either, until you dug out that Professors Comments — where he was actually making a joke to demolish some pet Theory about language held by some fringe group of Koreans who asserted a theory about the evolution of the name that the name meant that the island was once Korean; All that kind of claim has been demolished repeatedly by multiple historic sources going way back, as I told you days several days ago — you took that quote out of context, plus quoted him without quotation marks, and those things lead to this mess.
  • It was an honest mistake, especially the first part, (and as I said last night when I found it, some people owe you a small apology) but from now on, when you produce that sort of alledged evidence, document it the way I told you last night, and this kind of thing will be prevented, even with your lack of experience. It was not a bad thing by itself, but it has had a bad effect. It was good research — but careless interpretation on my part and then your failure to produce the citation again for days has compounded the original errors. Have you seen the pictures of the canal? How can you say the Island is truly divided then? A canal does differ a lot from a 2km wide channel, as anyone in a small boat can tell you. Swimming across a 2km STRAIT open to the sea from both ends (about 15 or more meters deep) can cost you your life unless you are a very good swimmer; If you row across it in a small boat, you can be carried by the wind and current out to sea — again with your life in jeapordy. The difference is enormous. A 50 meter channel is the length of half an olympic swimming pool, IIRC, even a weak swimmer should be able to do that.
  • Hope that helps you understand — your error in documentation plus my misreading lead to this crisis. The best thing to do is own up to your error, and change your vote. People will think better of you for being big enough to admit you made an error, and were wrong. Changing your mind is not something people will hold against you, for it shows that you are strong, confident, and open minded — all good things to be. Think about it. If I understand this process correctly, the vote will go on until at least Wednesday, but it may continue longer if people keep posting votes and comments. Ask yourself whether it is better to be thought stubborn or a person strong enough to admit he doesn't have all the answers. (None of us do, after all. There's no harm in being human!)
  • The Bottom line is how do the Japanese themselves consider the name. I think the vote is going to be very clear on the singular case. A canal is not a strait. It's that simple and you will have to let it go.
  • Going back to the compromise, most of the things I've read (histories) talk about Tsushima Island or Islands in the introduction only — then the authors refer to it simply as Tsushima afterwards. Thus the compromise has a lot of merit... it's simply the way people normally say it.
    • Did you understand Mr Osaki's point about 'the principle of the least surprise'? You don't want to shock a reader, but 'sooth him' with what he expects — that's why bad grammer and sentence construction get such attention — it jars the reader out of thinking about what you are saying to thinking about how you are saying it, which leads by only a short step to doubting whether he should trust you. Same thing with over use of bold and italics. See my second rough article (Stub) Manchurian Railway, or the major expansion like Drum (container). Notice I over use emphasis according to the W:Manual of Style, but it helps me write — as it helps me focus on what is important in what I am saying to the reader. If some patroling editor doesn't get to it first, I'll fix those up to accord better with the manual of style — some day where I don't want to think hard. Notice the merge notice on the Railway article. One of my first from written on a blank screen from scratch and I nominated it myself for merger... it's the right thing to do, no matter how nice it might become. Focus on the right, be flexible enough to consider new thoughts, and be big enough to admit it doesn't matter or I was wrong, and you will go far. Get stubborn and argue minor points to death, and people will shun you (look THAT up), or worse, seek to discipline you (like filing an W:RfC. As always, the choices in your life are your own to make, try and make the right ones.

What did you mean to say with this sentence? "The social reason of article "discrimination" should be considered. If this article is shifted to Tsushima, how about the other articles?"

  • The combination of Social + reason doesn't make any particular sense for openers.
  • One can discriminate against people, but not against things.
  • What were you trying to get across. Rewrite it and run it up the flag pole to see if I can salute it then! That's an idiom. Think about what it may mean, it's pretty obvious. I should get to bed soon, but I wanted to write as I know you think I haven't been on your side in the Move Debate. That's exactly wrong — I have been on your side as a person (who is trying to learn) and backing you all the way (or why am I taking time to write this?) as far as the right thing to do allows me. That I have ended up on the other side on the two questions is because of the merits of the discussion arguements and evidence as it has been presented. Deciding someone else has a better case does not mean I don't agree with your case at all. It means that there are many different shades of grey between all black and all white, and life almost always forces us to choose one of the grey shades, rather than the easy pure colors. In other words, life is complicated, and so are our choices. If the Japanese think of it as a single island with a canal, who are we to tell them otherwise — it is their island, and they know it far better than you or I ever will. I would have liked very much to be on the same side as you on the issues — but we all have to play the cards we are dealt, and it seems to me, the other guys have the best hand on this one. There will be others, bet on it!
[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 04:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Topics on 050621[edit]

Catching Up 'Our' Loose Ends w/You -- 050621[edit]

The InUse Stubb, An Answer[edit]

re: Your request to comment on this (you posted 2+ days stale on User tALK:Fabartus:

  • I noticed that you added an inuse template. In the past, User:Mel Etitis and User:JMBell strongly protested the use of this template while was editing Wee Kim Wee/temp, and it was blocked because of this.
  • While they accuse me that I was doing this to prevent others from editing, I stated that this was to discourage, not stop people from editing.
  • If there is no harm putting this template up if a person genuinely want to work on a specific article, can you please give a statement concerning this past issue? Your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 03:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Answer by fabartus:
    • My understanding of the template is that it is used to make long edits — and warn others off SO THEY DON'T LOOSE MATERIAL. I stated my reasons for it in my numbered points, but essentially, my use of it was to get the three or four of you ''playing schoolboy tag to stop fighting a while and take a long breath and think over how small some of the issues involved actually are. The title of the article is not the article, a canal is not a strait, so while 'technically the two islands have been seperated, the cut/canal can easily be filled in from that gorgeous bridge in the picture using a small dump truck and a weeks time. It's not a big enough difference that it cannot be easily swum across. A 2 km bridge would be a major engineering feat, an 80 m wide by 400 metere canal is boring as all hell. Ditto other language versions Vs lang box; unless there is a lot of use by some significant creditibly editted publication or in widespread literature (rules out blogs and most web pages written for popular reading), people or polity of the term, it should not be there unless the locals use it as well. Is it germane to an english reader? Then is a candidate for inclusion, but not automatic, even then.
    • In sum, according to the advice given by JBell/Mel, my use of that template was wrong — BECAUSE MY MOTIVES (While well intentioned) were wrong per the purpose of the template — My desire and intent was to call a cease fire (in place) and freeze edits on the article; exactly the use they said it COULD NOT BE USED FOR. However, there is this loophole. I was personally asked to copyedit the article by a senior Admin — which cannot be finished while the VOTE on Names is unsettled. <G> Think on it. It's a parlimentary kind of sneaky underhanded lawyer trick, but it would probably hold up in front of the ArbCom were it put to the test — by me, since you are violating the article. Notice I haven't yet fixed that offending paragraph which I have stated and restated in the talk is wrong on further evidence of what happened — it needs fixed, but not until the vote is done.
      • Thus I think I was right morally and still am on FIRM 'letter-of-the-rules ground' (But most 'Everybody hates a lawyer', AT LEAST HERE) — but I was maybe, even probably wrong according to some guideline or other in the way I used it, because of the reason I used it. Since I saw it used AND RESPECTED for over five days on a joint collaberation project with over seven editors, it seemed like a good idea. True to your (Plural) juvenile 'devil-may-care' sensitivity to the wishes of others, you and the other fueding editors didn't even let you slow you down. Tisk-Tisk. When I revert back to the article I placed the InUse template on, you will not have a leg to stand on... Seems to me that you should have thought of that before bothering to make changes and waste your time. Since YOU did make changes, the others have too. Another tisk tisk. THIS EDIT WAR HAS GOT TO STOP - any new changes should be paragraph by paragraph with this version vs that version FORMAL votes. i.e. five days of comments and voting, followed by another 24 hours after the last comment or vote, BEFORE the change takes place when and if it wins the vote.
  • Since as you know, I have counseled you to act carefully at a much slower pace to give other editors their turn at bat (Baseball or Cricket), in the end it failed of my purpose, at least in part. I do notice that SlimVirgin did copyeditting, but left the template. That should tell you what SHE, as a senior Admin with 10,000 plus edits thought about it.
On to another horsey [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Strait and Iki Island[edit]

regarding these messages which got buried by Life, I apologize: (fabartus/fab) Tsushima Strait, Part II I would appreciate if you can reply in contrast to my requests on Talk:Tsushima Strait. Thanks. Mr Tan 13:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Done, I think

He is clearly addicted to wikipedia; this will overturn his life, but I do not want to know or care. I"ll see to the case of Tsushima Islands, and I"ll only get myself involved when absolutely necessary. For now, I will not contribute anymore information to the article temporarily. Mr Tan 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) irrelevant here. fab

  • I"ll hope that your previous message is merely a plain grammar lesson. I am saying what I mean in the previous comment--I do not want to interfere with Mel Etitis in anyway, for I have no reason and purpose by doing so! Anyway, thanks for your notes, I will read them soon, and I will be happy to accept more. I hope that it is British English, but I presume you are American---the notes seems to be a bit confusing as it uses American English grammar which I am not familiar. Mr Tan 18:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) No context, so is ambiguous today. But I think it's been settled, so correct me if you disagree. btw - the grammer is the same, that is how you build a properly understandable sentence — the differences are minor 1) idioms (common expressions - rooted in common experiences (i.e. Culture) like TV shows or sports) and 2) A few dozen spelling differences, of which, I tend to use british useage as often as american. (Your english speaking culture is also different, so is not 'British' either. No Fuss, just fact.) There are many British History writers, and we all tend to subconscieniously soak up what we read, which is why JBell and I suggest you do far more reading and throttle your writing/editing way back (for now) — while you give 'life' time to give you those lessons (while having fun reading!) [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]]

A True Tale — 'The Story of Chris'[edit]

    • In aid to the above point, let me tell you the story of Chris, my youngest son. A year ago, Chris was a marginal student struggling and almost failing in nearly every important course he took. He has had learning disabilities since a baby caused by left-side fighting right-side of brain conflicts. Very Sad, but he was also pretty bright like you. He just couldn't put that into school work very well.
I was always trying to get him to read more. I never saw him pick up a book, newspaper, or magazine. He would not, claimed that he did enough of that in school (with some justifiction - he had to wait for a ride a long time everyday before he could come home, and was reading thin 'Age Appropriate' books from the school library, but nothing much of an adult level that would challange his brain. I knew he needed that.
But as last summer started, we watched the movie 'Master and Commander', and he was so enthusiastic about watching it again and again, that I showed him the 11 book series about a British Sea Officer named Horatio Hornblower (Best (Millions) selling author C.S. Forester — you should be able to locate him over there too; were/was/is very popular and well written series) He went through that adult fiction at one book a day, and made me a deal to do extra yard work (amazing!!!) to have me make a special trip to get two books I did not have on our seven bookshelves. When he finished that, he 'moped', so I suggested he give Honor Harrington a try, as that series by author David Weber is frequently compared to Hornblower and Forester, both in style of story and of writting style. He went through all of those by the end of summer (11? Plus spin off series. DW is my favorite author, so we have everything he's written). By Christmas school vacation, the kid that wouldn't read had wanted us buy him the rest of the whole 26 book series about English Sea officer Richard Bolitho by Alexander Kent (writers psuedonym for Britisher Douglas Edward Reeman) for Christmas presents. We got him the next five (up to 21st, IIRC) and a month later he got the last of the 26.
  • The effect on his grades was immediately noticable in the first quarterly grading period, and he struggled far less, even in math and writting (Composition). So 'D' work had gone to 'C' work in merely two months — more importantly, he ceased falling behind his classmates, and started ever so slowly to catch up. By the end of his mid-year quarter, he was starting to get 'B' grades, and some solid knowledge. The improvement continued, so that he finished the year with just missing honors work for the last quarter, but at his graduation reicieved the 'Special Award for Excellance in Science Achievement' for his class. Quite A LARGE VICTORY, wouldn't you agree? Fifteen months ago the school that was suggesting it's ciricula was too steep for him, gives him one of it's most prestigious achievement awards. Not only that, but he was accepted by four of his five good private high schools, including the prestigious St John's Prep, whereas last April we were worried he'd make it out of seventh grade! (This is bringing tears of pride in him to my eyes.) Quite a victory, a double victory, indeed!
  • If you follow his reading example, I'll bet you will have no arguements with other editors over YOUR grammer — and you will be having fun AND learning 'Perspective' as well. Only reading widely can take the place of actual experience. It's a shortcut to learn from others mistakes and POV. The School both Chris and Jon will go next Term .
  • btw - if Jon is to help you, it will need to be by email at first, as he has no current interest in WikiWritting, but has agreed to help you compose good english... why do you not send me your email address? If your parents are opposed, have them contact me and we can satisfy their concerns — I'm hardly in a position to find you for dastardly acts half way round the world! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subheading: Miscellany 050617, my page? (fab)[edit]

Your intention is to make another map that makes mention of Iki, the strait and Tsushima Islands? I encourage that we would have one, but I hope it will not trouble Jon or you too much then. Mr Tan 16:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

  • YES, but not a hot issue. I have to find some time to learn paintshop pro as I need military maps to compose battle discription text against too. So I added it to my 'ToDo' list on my user page. I'll get it done eventually. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are You Clear on This Yet[edit]

The message was concerning a page move--The Japanese users says that they want to move the article to Tsushima Island because the Japanese government recognizes it as an island, but I opposed because it was geographically two seperate islands today, so I need you to cast a vote and state your advise 'AdviCe' on the move... I am already trying to take a retreat from wikipedia--to reduce stress and to prepare for the end of the school holidays. Tan

re: 'geographically two seperate islands' ... — only in the strictest sense, not in the way the rest of the world would accept. I've dealt with that at length in Talk:Tsushima Islands, but not to common useage. Adding the 'S', IMHO, is only proper if one is talking about the small islets as well, so will likely be used in one or two sentences inside the articles, but should not be the title. St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St Johns, all part of the US Virgin Islands all have islets as well, as do most 'Islands' in fact, even if such are only a shoal poking up above the surface like a harbor rock.
  • My mistake in reading and understanding 'correctly' his sentence late in a 20 hour day plus your failure to quote him so we, with longer researching practice could check you and, could see he was making a joke.
  • That is two errors that do not add up properly to magically divide the island in conventional (customary) use oi the language. So, your POV is 'both right and wrong' — but the right part is minor and insignificant in common useage (language custom and tradition), as would be considered reasonable by most people, especially Native Japanese — and they are in the best position to know. Derivative and Translated sources are divided on the usage, and they are in english and (mostly) not Japanese. I myself have seen Japan Times use both forms, so if they aren't consistant, 'what's all the fuss?' <G>, LOL! (Careful, when you use words, they may come back to bite!)
  • That it is 'Technically correct to say that the two are divided by the canal cut is not being disputed because 'custom' is why the Profssor was using it as a joke to show how ridiculous he believed that korean claim of language evolution (theory) proved the island was once Korean. IN CONTEXT, as I showed it in the Talk, he is saying the opposite — his expert opinion is that the theory is flawed, and so the phrase he used is a joke.
  • Hope that helps, especially on why I think the Japanese have their right to call it as whatever they want to do. It is not our island. I will have to pin Mel down on why he moved it in the first place. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope that catches us up. On final viewing I see I repeated myself some. This would be a lot easier on email where the order is preserved, as is the last messages. Perhaps if you don't have an email account, your mom or dad would let us use theirs???? ttfn FrankB

  • May I suggest you refactor this talk, and archieve our talk sections chronologically in their own archieve. We've done a lot of talking man to man! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This should be the end: Thanks for your message, Mr Bartus. Meanwhile I need to sort out my thoughts about Tsushima. Mr Tan 07:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) I contrast to your message, I would like to say that my English has its own loopholes, and I apologise for my mistakes. I will be happy if you can help me correct them gramatically, but I will find time time do my part as well. Concerning this voting issue, I won't say that voting "support" is wrong, because the point of view of one person can differ, and voting is where the person's freedom of speech is permitted---I bear no hatred of you just because you voted "support", so long if there are no cases of outright criticisms on the person himself. I respect your decision to vote. REGARDING THIS PART: (sts) However, I would be happy if you do allow me to put in a word concerning your vote – your vote for the support has a devastating effect on your contributions in respect to the fact that your mention of how Tsushima is seperated between 1895 and 1905. Your mention of Tsushima as "two islands" in that paragraph certainly contradicts with your "support" vote for moving the page to Tsushima Island", and this will make people wonder what are you talking about, describing how Tsushima is seperated on one hand, and supporting the move on the other hand!

    • The above seeming inconsistancy is due to the two errors — which is why I WROTE the long NUMBERED discussion saying why the paragraph depended upon YOUR WORK, plus my misreading of it. In sum, you are the only one who seems not to understand that since Saturday, I was politely saying that paragraph was almost certainly wrong, and said clearly, that it should not be relied on. SO since Saturday, when I spotted my misinterpretation of your insertion of the unquoted text from that professors talk, I have been consistently saying that the paragraph could not be relied upon BECAUSE it derived from a source I did not confirm. Note I could not have changed that professors quote had you properly put it in quotation marks. It would have been seen and questioned and analyzed many days sooner. Two nights ago, I located your source and posted my understanding that the professor was making his joke, and that YOU had innocently taken it out of context, whereas I had misunderstood it by 90 degrees, taking it to mean a 2 km wide channel, a channel wide enough for ships at full speed to pass through perhaps had been engineered. That was very fuzzy late night thinking and would have been all but impossible even to todays technology. So little mistake + No Quotes + Big Mistake + Fatigue makes controversial mess. What I am having trouble understanding is why you have failed to 'get' the point the paragraph is trash since Saturday afternoon. It's pretty clear that everyone else understands it, or why would Baru have been asking you for sources and specific details?

Also, I would appreciate if you can have a look at Mr Otani's comment--He stated that there are several other islands around the two islands--even the island is joined, it would be ridiculous to say "Tsushima Island". And from my viewpoint, I would certainly advise you to vote oppose. However, your comment is greatly appreciated. Mr Tan 13:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • He also stated that the Japanese are themselves occasionally inconsistant with how they refer to them. The point is moot, as there are many examples of a big island being refered to in the singular, but almost all of which have some small islands with them. God pokes rocks out of the strangest places. In custom, it matters not at all, though you are technically right. But custom rules communications, or we wind up with different languages — which is why in actual fact there are so many different languages. Think on THAT! — is literally true. [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 18:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi, Mr. Tan. I'd be happy to help you with whatever I can on the article. I'm not a Teochew speaker, I'm just interested in the language because I have some friends who are speakers of it. My additions to the article have mostly been general aspects of the language and grammaer and spelling edits. --Yuje 21:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

050623 — Convention, Custom, Tradition and Language[edit]

Re: Customs rules communications? Absolutely wrong. How about Jurong island, which was a man-made reclaimed island, with its origins from seven natural, seperate islands and part of the Straits of Singapore? Why isn't it called Jurong Islands, or the original name of the original seven islands? Mr Tan 06:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • First thing you need to do is loose absolutist words like 'Absolutely', never, etc.
  • Second thing is look at sentence within the context it was given. A phrase is not a sentence, a sentence is not a paragraph, and a paragraph is not a page. (It may take many pages to communicate a thought clearly, certainly not one phrase will always do the job.)
  • Congradulations. Your example just proved the point the Japanese have been making all along. Indeed, why should the Tsushima Islands not be refered to as Tsushima Island? It's customary to call it that, because some people in the society got together and decided the other tense (Plural or Singular, matters not which way) makes better sense in the circumstances that apply there and then. (It is THEIR land after all, not Tans.)
  • SO WHY ISN'T Jurong Island called Islands? C-U-S-T-O-M-!!!, CUSTOM
    • Why isn't Tan emperor of the universe and able to dictate custom to people living a thousand miles away? Because he's NOT an emperor and will never be qualified to be one unless he decides to accept customs and to learn customs. :)
      • Like learning how to give in gracefully :)
      • Like learning to compromise :)
      • Like learning when something is important enough to argue about, and when something is sheer stubborness :(
    • Why is being young so difficult?
      • Because you don't have experiences accumulated yet to guide future decisions
      • Because learning customs is hardest of all, because they frequently make no logical sense, but are simply TRADITION.
      • Because you have no sense of how people really really really resent change, as you are changing fast all the time. But soon you run out of that comfort zone, and people will change things on you and you will resent it. Then something else will change, and you have to adapt to that. Then something else, and something else, and ... Eventually, you will develop sympathy for that person having to deal with changes, as you will have not had the choice on accepting and adapting to a NECESSARY change, but will understand because you will know that being forced to such just by day to day living, such changes suck. They are part of life but they really stink. You learn not to push things that can stay customary.
    • Why can't you fight and rail at every little thing that you diagree with?
      • Because YOU become disagreeable when doing so, and people will shun you.
      • Because you run out of energy for so many tasks, and find that you get more flys using sweets than vinegar.
      • Because if you are a rebel in all things, you will never have peace.
    • Think on it. It's 3:14 local, and I'm off to bed! One other saying: "If it's not broken, don't try to fix it."
        • Good night! [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 07:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Morning! Did you give the above some thought? Consider this, as I started in the middle and was nearly as confrontational as your comment. My Apologies!

  • Someone needs to refer to a difference in something, like a project name for the task of combining seven islands. He/she sometimes needs to talk to others about it — Construction contractors, or other people on the city council, to people in the public (usu. through the press or a public meeting), to other involved parties, so he/she makes up a tag — and act of invention. Everyone else talking about it, takes up the tag, and without so much as a single vote, the invention, a 'symbol' for the 'idea', becomes convention — it's simply now the name of the project under discussion, or (eventually) the outcome of the proposed project.
In your examples case, Jurong island, which is I would guess like 'Specticle Island' here in Boston Harbor (A Landfill which had the primary purpose, at least initially, of 'eliminating a cities trash', and we humans make a lot of that!) in an area which was dangerous to shipping, having shoals and rocks and islets, but shallow enough to be 'contained' by an engineered foundation (subsurface surround usu. of big blocks of rock (like many seawalls) to block the energy of waves) of big rocks (we have an overabundance of bolders and big rocks in new england — one can't plant a small shrub without encountering half-a-dozen or more stones and rocks.), but the key thing, the name given first as an invention, becomes a short-hand that everyone refers to, so it itself becomes transformed into a new symbol everyone understands that everyone can substitute for the thing — the idea of filling in the sea there — or the islang as more land, or whatever, long before action takes place, as such projects are costly and expensive. Who is to pay the bill is always a good question to ask, as is Why are they paying for it?
Perhaps the need was to dredge the harbor, so the secondary task was to eliminate that trash, the dredged materials. Someone pointed out that if the scope of the project did this, this, and that, then the land could also be used for new settlement, or docks or manufacturies. But at each step, as the concept evolved, and alternatives were proposed and discussed, the term itself changed a little along the way. When all else fails to make sense, follow the money! Somewhere, sometime decision makers have to be convinced that it is cheaper and better to do 'Jurong' than to have islets Tom, Dick, Fred, Sam, Kwan, JiJi, Nicla, and Betty.
When the talking is over, and the doing begins, such things frequently have the concept name shorted ('Jurong 'Landfill and Island Creation Proposal', becomes 'Jurong Island' or 'Jurong Landfill'), again, another new convention is born — Names after all are just a symbolic shorthand for the 'thing' itself. Of course, there might be an intermediate stage, Jurong Island Lanfill, but that too in time just becomes, by convention and useage: 'Jurong Island'.
  • Consider a young boy named, Grok, the pre-literary historical guy living in a far place who moves several dozen kilometers with his family. He sees a new kind of tree. It's a little like a tree in his old valley, so he gives it a tag something like that other kind of tree. A few years later, someone does something funny or tragic, or memorable that someone makes a joke about. All the villagers repeat the joke, so it becomes a short hand, a symbol that reminds them to smile. But kids are born and grow up, and the memory of the joke and the person it is about fade away, and the old name like the other tree becomes just the shorter 'joke tree' symbol, the convention of the joke has passed into custom and tradition, it's meaning forgotten, and a new word was born as it happened. More time passes, and soon the community has hundreds of their own little shorthand references to things, not shared by those not of the valley. Sometimes visitors bring in new terms, some of which get distorted, while at the same time people of the region form a language habit like using certain sylables less and less, which leads to some words changing to newer sound phonemes. It this way, a shorthand becomes a term in a dialect, which blends into a language, and all drift and change over time. Even those changes get changed, and soon (historically speaking, a few hundreds of years) there is an entirely different language.
This kind of process is etymology, or simply put: "The study of language 'drift' by studying words". Lots of times etymology is used to examine or shed light on historical facts or likelihood — like that korean theory about Tsushima being Korean; The Professor found it to be 'unlikely'. But a lot of that's all touchy and taboo in some cultural circumstances and certain cases. 'Genetically', according to modern scientific research, it is clear that the Koreans and Japanese are the same racial stock, and that it is different though similar to the Chinese (or Indo-chinese) race — that there has been a lot of pre-historic travel from Korea into Japan and back again, but Japan's religious beliefs make it hard for the general population to accept such an insulting thought! Historically, there was a Queen of some sort from Japan that even held the south-Western part of Korea for a time. But the written historical record about then is spotty indeed, and while both Japanese sources and Korean court records make a reference to her and her successors, they pass out of sight after only a couple of sporadic mentions. Consequently, the matter is more legend than fact, and the only thing that can be said about it for sure is that the Korean court did not claim Tsushima at that time, as they ackowledged and recognized her and her terratory, which was centered in western Kyuso.
  • To the Japanese of traditional religious beliefs, the Emperor is a demi-god at least, and the people of Japan have had an emperor for at least 2,500 years. Not really true, but safer to spit in your local policemans face than to say so to a Nationalistic Japanese. That is their tradition. May as well try to empty ocean into pond with a fork. If you succeed, that would be faster than changing such a deep seated tradition. Why bang head on concrete wall? It only hurts head and wall does not even notice. The only good thing about it is that when stop, head eventually stops hurting! When is a cultural insult, is against Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Articles are not supposed to piss people off!
I hope that gives you some understanding that these 'Naming Issues' are really unimportant in scope, but important in culture and custom. Names change, whereas, Things like an island 'just are' — they exist whether there is a man around to give them a name or not. If there are two men who do not communicate or know one another, bet on there being two names. We need word (symbols) to think and communicate. Which symbol we use is based on custom, that evolves and changes over time. In this project, the only real important symbols are those in english. But since these symbols differ from country to country and so many people use english as a secong language, it is good to give alternate names, insofar as some will read them; so I have sympathy for adding Korean equivilents to the text as your Japanese Nationalists opponents do not... to them it is demeaning and insulting... Koreans are dogs (At least subconsciencously, it's in their culture, buried so deep they don't even think about it.)
  • Please consider giving them their own way for a time to end this edit war — even a year or two. I suspect you are all way over the limit of 3RR as well, and your Rfc hasn't gone away. You are just adding bullets to the enemies you have made, and they are certainly that now!
Tuck your good idea away in Notepad.exe on your HDD, or a subpage on wiki and make a todo list for a year or so from now to put the name tables back in. If it is still important to you then, then do so... Chances are they will have drifted off into other juvenile pursuits and passions and will never ever notice.
  • In the meantime, the article can grow, and you will have the satisfaction of having acted as the bigger adult party in the dispute... you may come to like that feeling so much you get good at winning by not arguing, leading to more good feelings about self. It really hasn't done that for nearly a month — look at a 'diff' between now and then — the only big length change low down in the body of the article is the text I added. Think on that professionally; is that the right thing for Wikipedia? Storage space costs money too, so does electricity and licensing and use of the communications network on the internet — the cost of which is shared around, but someone expects a return on their investment and deserve to get paid. More importantly, how many new things could you have been working on where you could have your own way without arguements? Tons! I think. FrankB

[[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


    • Be advised my patience is not unlimited. Shouting is a form of violence and is not tolerated in western countries. I can and will ammend your RfC to be much more negative if you ever talk to me like that again. I've spent the whole week trying to give you pieces of the education you have yet to experience in schooling. Do try to respect my effort and time. If you fail to comprehend my latest lengthy instruction explaining the short form I sent last night, then you truly are unqualified to be working with others yet. You need to develop a wider world view and experience. I've been trying to share mine, one that is not tainted and damaged by over-emotional juvenile POV. Yes, the canal cuts the island in two. No, it was not right (proper) that the customary name was changed by Mel Etitis w/o such a formal voting process as is now going on. No, it is not correct to think that a trivial ditch, a mere technical difference rules widespread and customary use of applied language world wide. And no, it is not proper for you to spit in my face when I am trying so hard to make you see the wider wiser world view instead of the simple uncomplicated childs arguement 'they are now two'. Custom rules naming — custom is many people using the same symbol for an idea. That is a simple concept, so simple, that one must have a simple mind to not understand it. If that is insulting, consider the old saying: "If the shoe fits, wear it". [[User:Fabartus|FrankB || TalktoMe]] 17:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time tonight for long points, but this is exactly on point wrt the issue between you and Ypacari: You wrote (on T:TI): "However, what I saw on Tsushima and Sakhalin was very starkling shocking; I had mentioned that Korea had contributed significantly to Tsushima, and the Korean name should be put up, he removed the infobox relentlessly, along with the Korean names. On the other hand, he had just removed the infobox in Sakhalin (History:[100] (, saying that the infobox was "unnecessary". So is he targeting the infobox or the Korean name? "

  • He is objecting to the Korean Name — appropriately so.
  • Korea has never controlled and occupied either place in modern times. Whether it did so before them is immaterial, and I believe disputed.
  • China and Japan both owned Sakhalin, or at least half of it. Russia traded Japans interest in it for the Kurile Islands, IIRC.
  • Korea has no business there, and never has. Korean names would be appropo in an Korean Wiki. Not in an english one.
  • Those historical Japanese and Chinese names however ARE still present in source materials, such as the books I'm using as references, so they are something Wiki wants to provide to people that may be looking at such older documents of any kind, such as perhaps an old novel that uses that sort of old name. If the novel was written in the 1920s, its author had no way of telling that the name of Ceylon would be todays Sri Lanka. So old name references are kept out of courtesy to certain types of readers. Notice that two of the copyrights on the references I'm using are well before 1910, another two or three are before 1940.
  • If you were arguing that we should include a Russian Name for Sakhalin, you would have a point. But a Russian or Korean name for a place like Tsushima, that they never occupied is inappropriate. You can't even travel directly from Korea (Legally) to Tsushima, but have to go to customs elsewhere, probably in Honshu.
  • Some scholars work with source materials of another country or language, otherwise, even Japanese and Chinese writing would have no place in Wiki, in this case, Wiki makes sure far eastern topics have the translated names so that those readers also can check their translations. But the common denominator is that this is english Wiki, and historical ownership determine what is correct.
User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 07:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)===Why do you keep Pissing up a Stick?===

Aren't your hands getting wet? Why can't you read and think about something written to you, before answering so fast that I know you didn't? My post addressed the point. It is you who has trouble getting the point unless it agrees with your preconceptions. What is your problem. Are you Korean, I thought you were from Singapore. You Wrote:

Your arguement is somewhat out of pointincorrect---The Koreans have owned Tsushima, just like the Japanese and Chinese did so on Sakhalin. The Japanese and Chinese names have been lying there for so long, why is there no objections to the Japanese and Chinese names there? In fact, like Japan is to Tsushima, Sakhalin is not contested by any other country as of 2005, and is legitimate Russian territory. (Makes no difference, Ypacari was arguing from the wrong POV)
Korean has historical links with Tsushima--just like the Japanese and Chinese on Sakhalin. (Who were owned and occupied.)

Do you have to trash up the history on my talk page too? One edit to the customer!

"Why is the Japanese and Chinese there but not the Korean name here? The conditions of the Japanese and Chinese of Sakhalin is similar to those of the Koreans to Tsushima. And that's why I'm using Sakhalin for comparative purposes."
You've been beating this poor horse so much that it's a wonder it has any hair left. China Ruled Sakhalin, Japan Ruled Sakhalin, Russin Rule Sakhalin... Korea never has, and has not done so for Tsushima in Modern History Era.
Consider those reading the phrase "...Daema-do day..." people will wonder what it is if there are no original Korean names. And I would appreciate if you can proceed to [7] ( and reconsider your present ideas. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) Consider who you are writing to, and try again. I wonder what it is in any sentence, because it has no explaination, I immediately shrug and forget it, wondering thoughts about such a crazy writer offering no explaination. You are the multilinguist. Make yourself understood.

Retrieved from "" So I'll restate it differently...

  • The ENGLISH LANGUAGE BOOKS and Scholars Papers, and old newspapers, diaries, diplomatic corespondences, other government documents, old atlases, and such, all primary source materials, will contain these older names. Since Korea has not control Tsushima in what, 1200 years? That kind of reference is the realm of a linguistic specialist of the best kind, not the average researcher. Even were todays Korean name placed in the article, it would be useless to them, as language drift has probably changed the name used long ago. (Remember the story of Grok? I see it happening in my lifetime, words changing, taking on new meanings, being used in different ways. Bet on it. Language Drift happens much more than you would suppose.)
  • Also go back and re-read what I wrote you earlier in the week. All of it. Print it out, and think about each part long and hard. Compare that suggested behaviour with what you do.
Korea has no claim on Tsushima in modern history, whichever definition you use to mean 'Modern History'. Travel across that strait before the 1800s was hazardous and hardly ever done. So it has probably had some cultural influences, esp. as a stepping stone to China, but it was sparsely populated then (1200s) and didn't even have roads as recently as the Sino-Japanese War.
  • It was not a shining kingdom on hill inspiring its neighbors, but a place that people lived and hoped the local warlord wouldn't take their daughters for Bed sports. Today, South Korea at least, is a country to be proud of. But your alledged influences are unprovable, and subtle. Being unprovable, they certainly do not merit the multiple language necesary for students studying english books to find a reference and verify they have the right place they are studying about. It has nothing to do with cultural influence, as I implied above.
Wiki is future looking, but it cannot seperate itself from printed source materials. Where are the printed source materials in english publications or diplomatic documents, or missionaries diaries that would use a korean name for something on Tsushima. Got any in your pocket? Then drop the issue, there is no reason to include them. You are obviously a smart kid, but you need to recognize that you know shit about scholarship. You have not had even the beginning of such as yet in school. Why don't you go start an article or two from some red links and let us finish this article instead of stopping progress in its tracks ten times a day with weak arguments. Everyone would like your help digging out solid data, but there is a lot of junk out there, and you seem to think half of it is primary source material.
  • Trouble is twofold: Junk is junk, and you'd rather argue than research good information. (Hmmmmm this conversation sounds familiar.)

It's after 04:00 for me, so I am going to bed. Whatever has my message flag will have to wait — probably until Monday. Try Mel in the meantime. (Your best move is to move on to something where you aren't causing people to sharpen their knives. If you leave the arguements, and concentrate on writing new articles. Then I have half a chance to get Mel to stop ArbCom proceedings against you. YOU MUST RECOGNIZE that your constant arguing is DISRUPTIVE and UNHELPFUL. Everyone that has had anything to do with this article, even James Bell, has bad things to say about Mr Tan. Trust me, move on, or they will make you stay away from Wiki for months if not years. They'll block your IP, and you won't even be able to look things up. Is that what you want? Then find a new article, you've worn out your welcome in this one. As I told you the other day, if you have something to add, give it to me first to look over, then we can add it together. Every action you take, even on, perhaps especially on, the talk page is now a threat to your Wiki-career. People can only forgive so much, then they strike out and will act. You passed that point two or three weeks ago. If Mel hadn't had finals weeks, you'd be up before ArbCom long ago.

Go write an article on Modern History Era or Period. (Check alternate capitalization and spellings. Then you will understand much better why your insistance on Korean makes no sense to customary standards of writing.

Best regards, and goodnight, Frank

050628: Posted a lengthy response to T:TI[edit]

I've duplicated below: (I've got to runt this morning, may be on and off come afternoon-after 5 or 6 hrs.)User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 12:23 (UTC)

My statement to Frank Bartus' objections[edit]

FrankB rebutts below indented once more, and in italics. Mr Tans post spans several edits ending: 11:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Your arguement is somewhat out ofOff point---The Koreans have owned Tsushima, just like the Japanese and Chinese did so on Sakhalin. The Japanese and Chinese names have been lying there for so long, why is there no objections to the Japanese and Chinese names there? In fact, like Japan is to Tsushima, Sakhalin is not contested by any other country as of 2005, and is legitimate Russian territory. (FrankB has to interject: My arguement was exacly 'On Point', but your failure to take the time to look up words, to understand it, means I must now reply in exhaustive length... because it is you who do not understand! Apologies readers, but I see no option but to interleave answers and rebuttals here in the faint hope I can help him understand. My text is usually Italicised and signed w/o timestamp as the following: '(FrankB))'
    • The Chinese names are there because China owned it in Modern times, and it then passed to the Russians with the ceding of all of Outer Manchuria; Part or all of it had been colonized by Japanese nationals, IIRC, and to 'buy off' the Japanese claim to the Island, the Russians ceded the Kuriles, again, IIRC. I wouldn't state these things I wasn't studying though if I wasn't very sure. Japan then occupied (=Conquered without a fight) Sakhalin during the Russo-Japanese War, and was ceded the southern part instead of being given Money reparations by Russia, as a compromise engineered by our President Theodore Roosevelt in 1905. This I have beens studying, as you know. Where is the Korean claim to Sakhalin? She was a weak country at the mercy of China on one side, and Japan on the other through most (probably ALL, but one must be polite.) of the Modern Era; Then suddenly Russia was there too, and therafter, Korea was in three way trouble. (FrankB)
    • Lets Deal once and for all with 'Modern Times' (=Era) and 'Recent Modern Times'. Those terms are admittedly 'Eurocentric', but the customary usage would be that 'Modern Times' started somewhere in the 14th to 16th Centurys (1300s-1599), almost all historians would agree on a date in the late 1400s to low 1500s. (Also note that an English Language Wikipedia is necessarily Eurocentric itself, the language and shared culture are all derivative from Europe.) (FrankB)
    • Since it is an imprecise term, that definition should suffice so that YOU now finally understand it — use 1500 onward as a working trigger figure. 'Recent Modern Times' would again be imprecise, but would certainly be after the Portugese first sailed ocean going ships up to Japanese and Chinese ports. I'd have to look that up, but vaugely recollect a date in the later 1500s; it's probably listed in Japans History, but dates in that era were firmly during the days of Japans warlords, not Korean Imperialist Conquerors, so far as I know. So for 'Recent Modern Times', I'd bet most historians would probably agree to place the date of that term from the Industrial revolution onward — That is 1750s to present. Some, possibly even many would insist on 1800; so in the period 1750 — 1800 would be a safe start date for 'Recent Modern Times'. So split the difference, use 1775. (FrankB)
    • Lastly, the arguement 'whether the 'turf' (land) is contested in 2005', was an unfortunate choice of arguement, as that particular point is relevant only to an outraged Japanese National insensed by your insistant pesterings about claims on Tsushima by Wacko Koreans on some extreme nationalistic political fringe. (You 'DO' have a talent for bringing out 'the best' in people, don't you? NOT!) Moreover, it is a misconstrual due to your insistance that Sakhalin is a parrallel case, and should just have been dismissed, pretty much like it was... with obvious frustration at YOU. (FrankB)
    • Use of Korean there is as wrong (See two paragraphs down, Damn this is confusing, where I establish (teach YOU) why that is!) as it is here — and that is the only parrallel the articles share. The key is whether any western literature, or other references would have copied the Korean Names you are so insistant on shoving down everyone's throat. So let me ask you for proofs: What 'Western newspaper, magazine, diplomatic letter, military dispatch, diary, or letters to the folks back home, texts, novels, historys, biographies, or encyclopedias (written back then), so called primary and secondary sources, can you show us that 'copy Korean Name sounds' for something they are saying about some place in either Sakhalin or Tsushima? If your answer is none, 'you loose.' Otherwise, I want to see some western source references showing accounts of Korea's occupation and control of the island. Either one. (FrankB)
  • Korean has historical links with Tsushima--just like the Japanese and Chinese on Sakhalin. Why is the Japanese and Chinese there but not the Korean name here? The conditions of the Japanese and Chinese of Sakhalin is similar to those of the Koreans to Tsushima. And that's why I'm using Sakhalin for comparative purposes.
    • I've never said anything other than they are linked 'CULTURALLY' (and even genetically) — I would argue they are even strongly linked; see my add-edits at Tsushima Strait — but they differ considerably in kind and impact; your references are 'Ancient History' cases - The Silla article you link (in your text) below says that qualifying word bluntly. The question is whether those 'historical cultural influences' warrant a Korean name in a place Korea did not and never owned in 'Recent Modern Times'. 'Sakhalin' is an 'Apple' to Tsushima's 'Orange', and one should not call them similar when one cannot compare them. Sakhalin could 'correctly' be compared to Lushun or Dalian or Qingdao or Weihai; all terratories managed for a time by foreign powers, but when has Korea been a power? Or did Korea do some 'stealth conquering' she neglected to tell the rest of the world about? 'Did the Mayor of the town of Tsushima even notice the Korean troops?' No? Too bad for 'Similar' cases. The only similarity I can see between them is you adding Korean names where they do not belong. Like this article. (FrankB)
    • The key point is simply: 'Did Korea own and manage Tsushima for decades and decades' in the 'last few centuries' — i.e. the centuries western culture knew something detailed about Tsushima other than it was an island controled by Japan one had to skirt passing through the Korea Straits — where are the decades long periods in our shared historic period where Korea occupied and managed Tsushima like those when Japanese and Russians did control on the Liaodong Peninsula? No such periods? — Then what 'English language references' in old 'western literature' and 'historical primary source archieves' would have tried to copy the sound phonemes in a Korean Name that they never came in contact with? If there is nothing that occurred to comment about and document (i.e. Ownership and Control), why should Wikipedia repeat (?!!) something that never occured in any western writings about the Recent Modern Era? The only possible reason would be to benifit Korean school children and 'would-be tourists' who are reading about Tsushima in English. 'That reason is something Wiki-is-not', however nice THAT may be in the ideal. It is not a license for Mr Tan or any other lone editor to hold all the adults on the article project hostage out of sheer stubbornness because he has yet to learn how to draw such refined distinctions. (FrankB)
    • 'That key' seems to be the one you consistantly do not want to see. Unless the name would have been reported in English language publications, diaries, diplomatic dispatches, or ships logs, we simply 'have zippo reason' to be interested in it. (FrankB)
  • Consider those reading the phrase "...Daema-do day..." people will wonder what it is if there are no original Korean names. And I would appreciate if you can proceed to [8] and reconsider your present ideas. Thanks.
  • The above link made no connection or sense when I viewed that part of this talk page. It puts one into another Tan argument, that doesn't shed light on 'Daema-do day', but does refer to Sakhalin Island. So I just foiund it confusing. (FrankB)

More to be answered... Mr Tan 07:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Discussion of one or two Korea linked cultural feastivals certainly merits some SMALL reference, but does not in any way justify cluttering the article with Korean names in general which will be of interest to only a few readers, and hard to explain as to why they deviate from standards seen in other articles, regardless of whether such are presented in a table or 'in line' in the text body. If you don't like that standard, try posting an RfC and see if others support your DESIRE. FrankB

First of all, the first four points of what Mr Bartus said seems to be a bit hard-to-make-out-what-is-he-saying sort of things to me. Never mind, I"ll answer what I can, and I hope that both Mr Bartus and his colleague-in-hand maybe able to get my point clear. FrankB, frustrated rejoins: 'Why do you consistantly not see that everyone BUT 'Mr Tan' — understands just fine' , and it is 'ONLY Mr Tan' who does not understand why his personal POV is not welcome in learned discourse? Do you realize how ARROGANT that COULD seem to others, that do not know you well? (Okay — I can answer myself: Perhaps Lack of experience? Lack of training in schools, training which will in time to come teach analytical thinking, uncoupling personal viewpoints, proper research, critical analysis, self-criticism, planning of edits, fundamentals of debating, and many other things it is NOT the job of the Volunteer editors here to teach? But when will you realize that when you get arguments from other editors, strong actions (reverts), or clearly cause frustration and unfriendly comments that your point is perhaps one that wouldn't be made by someone with such training, and so is something you should take as a signal to drop the wish, YOUR WISH, and that it is time to move on to a new article where you will not be 'stealing time' from other editors who are far better qualified to judge what is and is not appropriate? Why do you not get such blatant hints? Or direct statements — I advised you at least three times last week to get yourself out of this article. The ONLY reason I am here is trying to help you to realize just that — you are unwelcome here, becasue it is very difficult to make you understand things you have yet to be trained in, and that 'obtuseness' is costing other people dearly, and alienating them so that they might stop working for Wikipedia all together — which is why you need to leave, or the ArbCom will make you do so, and you will have to leave anyway. The bottom line: 'You are ill equiped to 'complete' any article'. ESPECIALLY one edited by others at the same time, and that makes YOU an issue, because you don't have the training to handle issues of fact and content appropriately. You do not yet know when an arguement is 'empty and inappropriate', or POV; neither do you yet exercise self-criticism to sufficiently check your sources, or demand that they be of high quality. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you no longer have any business in an article this far along, especially, as your participation is wasting others time. 'Precious, never to be given more of, Capitally important time. If you continue to NOT get THAT message, the ArbCom will be giving it to you loud and clear for a long long Wiki-vacation. Go back and read the advice JBell gave you a month ago on your Talk page. You did not listen to that very good advice, and did not listen to the commentary in the RfC, and did not listen to the lengthy posts on your talk page by me. 'JUDGEMENT DAY' is coming, and you still seem unaware that this sort of discussion is A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME. Unfortunately, that is very true, and you will probably be banned while you try to learn the lesson. If you get out of these folks way, you may only be restricted, or banned for a short while for the discord and time waste you have generated thus far. Adults do not argue points over and over. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. With you, it takes days or weeks, and you bring it up again over and over. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE NOR RESPONSIBLE, NOR RESPECFTFUL OF OTHERS TIME! PERIOD. (FrankB)

  • When you tell yourself 'Never Mind', that's probably a good place to stop and think — which is far harder to do correctly rather than to just do something, because you are frustrated. If there has been something YOU have not understood, when have I ever, or James Bell, or Mel ever not given you a clarification If and When YOU ASKED. DID YOU ASK ME? OR did you say 'Never mind', I see an angle I can wiggle away from the undesired conclusion I think he means and I don't want to accept! Let me do something to create more confusion! No, well, that's not how it looks from outside of you; Better to ponder for days, than to miss an obvious point. FrankB

From what Mr Bartus stated above that "Korea has never controlled and occupied either place in modern times. Whether it did so before them is immaterial, and I believe disputed. " I assume that Mr Bartus is refering to Tsushima. First of all, how does he define the word modern? Secondly, Tsushima has been controlled by Korea during the Joseon and Silla dynasty, and also the aristocrats of Baekje after it was annexed by Silla. If anyone thinks that I'm lying, please proceed to [9] or [10] (It is assumed and editor is acting in good faith — which rules out lying — the policy is unfortunately mute on those lacking sufficient sophistocation to appreciate an arguement is dead horse, and dead on arrival at that! Moreover, your ref. to Josen is a disambig page, add a date range at least (i.e. the specific years you claim), but don't bother, just strike through, if it's NOT in Recent Modern Times FrankB)

Secondly, for the cultural influence, please see [11] by Cho Kyungdal. For the Ariran and Chingu festival, please see [12] and [13]. There is apparently strong Korean cultural influence, if you browse the sites cafrefully and look for its answers. (I don't think anyone disputes that Korea exported influences to all of Japan, not just Tsushima; it is YOU THAT MISUNDERSTAND that cultural influences do not justify foreign names in the article. FrankB)

Use the Japanese and Chinese names on Sakhalin to analyse my reasons, especially through the history section if you still do not understand why I want the Korean names on Tsushima. Both conditions are very similar! Mr Tan 11:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Conclusion, a Personal Plea[edit]

  • I am sorry to have to apply such 'Tough Love', Mr Tan, but you need to leave this article immediately, and go do others where you can make a contribution without costing other editors their precious free time. We've had that discussion several times now... What you've done here is detrimental to Wiki, and you just do not seem to understand something so clear cut — The ArbCom CAN HARDLY IGNORE IT. It needs to keep good editors happy, not let you Play and abuse their time.
  • When someone challanges your text on content, it is probably a good signal that you should now leave that article and go on to some other where subtle nuances and fine shades of meaning, and slight differences and your limited understanding of the Adult world do not matter so much.
  • Please face your limitations RIGHT NOW, and understand that someday you will be embarassed by the behavior you now apparently think is 'OKAY'. It is not. People have been very patient with you, but that time is ending. You now have too much visibility to not be watched carefully in all that you do, as it is clear to everyone that sees your arguements with others, you just do not have the necessary acedemic and analytical tools to participate in finishing an article. If you can accept that, the ArbCom will probably go easy on you.
  • I am willing to help you, but you must take what I say to heart and make it practice. I only wish you well, but you are making it damn hard for me to not join in with others recommending a harse sanction by the ArbCom. Even if you just adopt that little change in behavior — that recognition that the heat in the article Talk reply to you means you did something you wouldn't do if you were fully trained; If you could master that little thing, then you could be trusted to not disrupt the well intentioned work others are trying to finish. But YOU MUST learn that trick, and moreover, you must learn to discipline yourself to not act afterwards on THAT point... whatever point it may be.
  • My server is blocked for maintenance, so I'm emailing this to Mel Etitis, hoping he can post it for me.

Still Your friend, User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 17:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thanks I have read your personal message, and I thank you for that. I had planned to transffer your message from Talk:Tsushima Islands, but you have posted a duplicate on my talk. If you allow me, I would like to have it removed from the Tsushima talk page, for such personal messages is supposed to be placed in the User's talk.

Three months of war--I have spent more than half my time fighting, but wikipedia is not a place for such things. Neither for Arbittration, etc. My purpose on wikipedia is to spend my leisure time away--not to fight. Complaining that I have wasted your time, how about mine? And saying that (Mel Etitis) silence doesn't warrant response--if a person has not respond another's message for a long time, so long what I say is not repeating what I say, I see no reason why I should be ignored, and having the misconception that I reinstate an edit, it is reverted. And I already bear hatred on Mel Etitis on his wholesale reverts, rather than picking out good edits one-by-one, and that is really heart-breaking. I have posted a message concerning this Korean name issue, so I would appreciate if you have a look at Talk:Tsushima Islands.

Anyway, I apologise that I am in no mood to say anything further properly--I am already having half a mind on leaving. Goodbye. Mr Tan 28 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

If you had complaints at Mel response time cycle, check out the note he left me on my talk above yours... 3000 items on a watch list is one very very busy Admin!

I Don't think leaving is the solution, AND neither did JBell almost a month ago — You only need to grow into new thought patterns. The adult world does not always go smoothly without controversy and debate, but you have too much time on your hands with relatively small number of projects, and it is a tendancy of all teens to confuse a rejection of an arguement as a rejection of them personally. Since emotions kick in, you then push back in ways that are too hard, too soon, too impatient. If you just limited yourself to one 'work session' a day on an article, one talk posting and one edit change (if it's time to change — I'm still planning all my big changes, only making little ones that are fuller discussions of what I first saw.) and especially remember that there are many time demands on other editors times, you would do much better. No one but you could slow yourself down, but is a hard lesson to learn as a teen.

Insofar as the 'personal' message on T:TI, you are already well known to the folks there. I wouldn't worry about it, only a crazy new person would tackle reading that page, and most of the editors there would say the same if you gave them time to breathe and reflect. The key thing to keep in mind is that all the activity you created is very hard to track and keep up with for other people that have already full schedules. Cooperative editing needs less pressure from one with your free time, and that's a very good lesson to learn at your age — if you tough it out and master it, you will be 6 to 8 years ahead of your classmates 'early learners', and perhaps a decade and a half ahead of many of the ones that follow them. That will be something to generate jobs — as it is a tough job skill to learn — so would be very valuable to you. Do you think for a minute that people don't remember doing things that were 'Wild' or 'Unthrottled', or 'Inappropriate' as youths themselves? They do, and will, and will forget and forgive if you just slow yourself down.

  • My advice is to leave the posting as is (changing it could be taken as vandalism by ArbCom) and walk away from both pages for a while at least. Mel got the advanced copy via email, and I'd hoped he could post it yesterday, as we were blocked here in America. He said this morning that It was the whole english language Wiki, so I guess you were blocked as well.
  • I don't have all the answers to anything, but I am sympathetic and know that it must hurt like hell to see yourself through other eyes. But growing up is in large part learning to recognize the small signals, the little clues of disproval and displeasure and becoming as sensitive to such nuances as if someone was as blunt as I had to be to get the message to you.
  • The other lesson that is key, is never answer until you are absolutely sure you understand what was said: A question to clarify a message is always Okay... If you asked me about the 'Modern Times', the real meaning of what I said the other day would have been something to consider at length before you acted. JBell, above, suggested you write words down and look up their meanings. Good advice, when I was your age, if I ran into a word I was unfamiliar with, even if I could guess at how it was used, I wrote it down in a little notebook immediately. I looked it up immediately if I could too, but I always wrote it down. Each night I would take my new 25 or 3o words, and make up my own sentences with them, so that they would then be mine to command. I used to do 3-5 sentences for each word. The thoughts needed for composition of a sensible sentence helps make the meaning clear.
  • More important than that even, is the need to read — the gaining of experience through the thoughts put down by others who have traveled the roads of learning before you. Even bad (Smelly!) fiction has something to teach, and good fiction has a lot of factual background to think about and learn. Then you can spend a lot of time wondering whether this or that is true, and check it out for yourself.
  • In the end, you control the direction of your life. If you write Mel, and tell him you are going to take a Wiki-break with an apology for being a kid, he will understand. I can't guarantee he still won't file with ArbCom, or predict what they are likely to take as a sanction, but at the worst, they are likely to just suspend your editing for a while, provided you take to heart the need to respect others time, and try to learn that opposition to a POV is time to Yell to Mel, James, or Frank. None of them actually dislike you, and I certainly don't. We all get annoyed because you don't seem to learn to 'generalize' a lesson, and that too is common to teens... it takes a while, and I guarantee you that this is one of the hardest periods of one's life. ALL THOSE CUSTOMS seem to make little sense, and yet more and more people expect you to follow them every day!!! How could it not be hard? But this too, shall pass. Just hang in there, and don't give up; How could a champion come about if he gave up before he really learned the little tricks? Not! I have to deal with car problems. Take a few days off to just think — go find a good source of books to borrow. I don't know what your situation is there, but the 'Free Library' was invented here in New England, IIRC. Are you able to use one where you don't have to pay? I hope so.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 28 June 2005 14:05 (UTC)


Re: "No, not quite. I am editing it in accordance to the Naming convention, and official policy is superior to consensus. The infobox is only meaningful when bilingual names are needed, and what I want, is to add all the Hangul, Hanja and romanizations, and to make things neater, an infobox is needed such as those in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), but in the form of a bilingual infobox. I do not want the Hangul alone. Hangul is merely for pronouncation. If there are no comments, I shouldn't expect anymore strong objections in future. Mr Tan 29 June 2005 02:10 (UTC)"

  • What motivates you in this? I don't know how to save you from yourself. This morning you gave a clear signal that you got the message. Now you prove otherwise. I was to copyedit that this evening. I had to cancel. Congradulations, you are spitting in the faces of the Japanese once again. Mine and Mels too. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 29 June 2005 06:49 (UTC)

Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama[edit]

Hey Mr. Tan,

I noticed that you're responsible for most of the text in Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama. One paragraph doesn't make sense:

In the course of time, Tsangyang gave birth to a boy who was named Sanje Tenzin (Sangs rgyas Brtan 'dzin), with his grandfather and Nawang Norbu (Dnga' dbang nor bu) with his father. Due to this fact, legend said that he would not drink his mother's milk from the day after their birth. One day, when his face began to swell from an infection, Tsangyang could hardly open his eye, two local diviners were summoned. They prescribed purifactory rite and said that his name should be changed to Ngawang Gyamtso.

When you say that Tsangyang gave birth to a boy, are you referring to his mother, Tsewang? Also, what do you mean by, "with his grandfather and Nawang Norbu with his father"? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. --Hottentot

Just curious...[edit]

Do you have an electric fan where you live? Do you sleep with it on? JMBell° 1 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

An Short Article Needing Input from Your Country[edit]

  • Hows things going? I see you got reverted again on an inline edit, yet. They got you outnumbered, and I've asked you several questions that would be nice to get answers on. You don't have to be a 'lonely warrior', James and I mean you well, as do a few others. Remember what I said about customs - they aren't easy to learn at your age. But they needn't hurt you either, if you just learn to go along with them.
  • The rough but maturing article Military needs a list of military forces particular to your country and any others you may be able to expand upon. At the moment, these lists at the bottom are extremely 'Anglo-centric' (USA + UK). Please pass this on to others you know in other countries after checking theirs hasn't been updated since I looked. (This is a Wiki-Chain letter!)

Best wishes! Thanks! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

  • I'm getting the how to on how to archieve pages properly, this page certainly needs that! I'll pass it along. FrankB
  • I wasn't offering to do it for you, but offering to share 'How to do it properly', so that the history and talk stay with the archieved copy. That's not too important for a user talk page, but important in an article talk page for obvious reasons. Obviously Talk:Tsushima Islands is in dire need! LOL User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 1 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

Joseon and the Pirates[edit]

Time to head up to my office— it's raining on me and my laptop out here on my deck! Hey, I asked you the other day on T:TI which 'Joseon' you are refering to, and asked for a year In: Since the early 6th century, Tsushima has been a province of Japan, named Tsushima province (対馬国) or Tsushū (対州). The Koreans periodically considered Tsushima as part of Korean territory before the rule of the Joseon Dynasty but after they (the Joseon Dynasty) colonized the island, Korea asserted her claim more strongly. The discovery of a book by American missionary Homer Hulbert...

  • What year(s) in the 1392-1910 Joseon stretch do your sources claim Tsushima was colonized by the Joseons?
  • Ok- Thats what I was looking for— nearly totally pre-European days (Naban ca 1545) so my points to you about names adapted to European names holds water just fine. The two periods have no overlap to speak of, as the very few europeans in those days were mainly explorers looking for commercial opportunities. It's unlikely they would have stopped at such a small island at all, so they wouldn't have writen about it either, much less tried to phonetically take a local name into one of their languages, which would probably have just been Portugese or Dutch initially, then Spainards. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB

See User Talk:Mr Tan/English, I think you'll like this! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

regarding this from the Wokou article: "Nevertheless Kyushu was under the sway of the Southern Court, and neither the shogunate nor its deputy could suppress the pirates as requested despite promises to the contrary. In 1381, for instance, the Muromachi shogunate issued an order prohibiting the akutō (outlaws) of the provinces from crossing over to Goryeo and "committing outrages". In 1389 and in 1419, the Koreans attacked the pirate bases on Tsushima themselves but were forced to withdraw without inflicting much damage."

  • The last sentence pretty much says that Tsushima was in Japanese hands (Ronin, et al up above), however they either weren't fully under the control of the Muromachi shogunate either, or they were a political factor the shogun didn't care to stop, while paying lip service (writing the laws above) to the idea of stopping them. Navies are expensive, and he probably didn't want to spend the money! Also, it's obvious that if he was writing laws to prohibit the outlaws from ravaging Korea, he claimed the territory, even if he didn't properly control it. The paragraphs above say something else— they say the pirates were raiding for woman (Why am I not surprised?) in large numbers. That would create a lot of cultural transfer. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Your questions[edit]

  • You: Well, to aclarify your doubts on the Joseon on Tsushima, you may wish to look up [14]. However, from what it is written in wikipedia and the source stated, I believe that "true" Korean control of Tsushima lasted from the Oei Invasion of 1419 to Toyotomi Hideyoshi's attack of Korea in 1592. Tsushima was a dependency according to Homer Hulbert, so Tsushima was also presumed to be under Korean control as well. Got to go. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I went to the link, but I don't read anything but English, LOL. (Which you know!) FrankB
  • That was a lie. Did you read the link I provided you on the above? Tsushima was colonised by Joseon[15], and Korean maps included Tsushima as part of its territory until 1860 (see maps) [16]. Mr Tan 2 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
    • What was the lie, that
      • Pirates, mostly made up of Ronin, plauged that region in those times? Or
      • the court documents of the Shogunate outlawing predation and even visiting of Korea, or
      • the lack of success the Korean military expeditions suffered in the times of the Wokou Pirates article I quoted.
    • It would be helpful to have you give fuller contexts before you give your judgements (like: "That was a lie"). It doesn't help us understand one another otherwise, as I can't read your mind, nor you mine (I hope! <G>). We are both merely humans after all.
  • Take a step back and look at the controversy like a professional historian or a good Wiki-editor. What are proofs and what is 'pontificating' by someone with a POV. Wiki is required to be NPOV in the foundation charter, and that certainly rules out using POV sources without proper background documents. Does that webpage list sources (references) you can individually track down and read for yourself? A proper history or acedemic monograph does, religiously so. It is 'take no prisoners professionalism', or the authors get kicked out of their profession and their families starve— or go into something like sweeping streets and gutters to make a buck.
  • You need to seperate the personal beliefs from the provable, and write about what is provable to th level of acceptable standards of acedemic proof. Hard Work! Worthy, and even Noble work, but this is not a game.
  • That looked like a commercial website or blog or somesuch entertainment web-site, not a university archieve, nor a publisher of any like repute and reputation. Such are simply opinions ('POV') unless acedemic level documentary evidence is clear on any topic. Even trolling through histories like I'm doing is to be done with caution, which is why I'm trying to get three sources that say the same thing before I use the fact they agree on. If I can't get three, I may use two, but only if there is no conflict with another fact by some other historian. They are the one's with the professional duty to spend years, if necessary examining and balancing primary source materials... If and when they disagree, then the newer research had better explain why it's different from what was accepted history in prior publicatons.
  • A single source is to wipe one's rear with, not for Wiki. Sorry, but that's the standard to be used. Argue with Jimbo Wales and the ArbCom if you like, they set the policy, and they want a high standard of professional quality. That's a good thing. Except to those that want to enshrine myth and rumor into more respectable clothes.
  • Gotta go-- do explain the lie! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)== English ==

Thought you'd enjoy this (These)... if you miss a joke in these, ask away! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Reasons why the English language is so hard to learn:

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

2) The farm was used to produce produce.

3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

4) We must polish the Polish furniture.

5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

   6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

10) I did not object to the object.

11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.

13) They were too close to the door to close it.

14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail

18) After a number of injections my jaw got number.

19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.

We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand is slow acting, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham. If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth?


One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend. If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

Regarding the Above Jokes[edit]

I've been asked to suggest that you need to archieve, as your talk page takes too much bandwidth (and time to download and update), which I still haven't gotten an answer on how to do. However, the request also makes a reference, which I can only take as meaning the red link you created when you brought that text into your main talk (just above), and apparently deleted the page... that ismy paragraph above that said: See User Talk:Mr Tan/English, I think you'll like this! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 2 July 2005 08:20 (UTC) is now appearing as red link. If the page is indeed gone by your actions, I guess you should disable the redlinks by replacing the square brackets to "'" or put in a header and edit to the section above.

  • And no, I don't know why that's important either, but that's my understanding of what the gripe was. I suspect the user is operating over a phoneline which runs slow.

Hope you had a good weekend! User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 4 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Tan's reply[edit]

I'm Hainanese Foochow and you're Teochew Cantonese.Wow...Tdxiang 5 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages[edit]

In reply to your e-mail, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for the process for archiving pages. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 4 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

  • Here you go, as soon as I got it! Take a look at my comments on the Tsushima Strait Merge. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

I think some of your country's laws are stupid, such as the law against Catholosism.--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)


Hi Mr Tan, can you please provide more information on your source that all works made by an employee of the PM's office is listed in the public domain? --Andylkl (talk) 07:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam poll[edit]

[17] seeing your post on User talk:Menj, I thought you might be interested in this.Farhansher 04:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Hello Tan,You made edits in the Article Thaipusam that " Thaipusam is a Tamil cult festival celebrated on the full moon in the Tamil month of Thai, by the Tamil community of non-Hindus and non-Indians (they are indigenies and are not Hindu or Indian)." That had been changed by Sam Spade and also I found some difficulty with your opinion. So, please place your suggestions regarding that. - Vaikunda Raja

Sorry, I should have explained. Mr. Tan only made a harmless edit, [18]. The rude edit was by [19] User:, an anonymous user. Sorry for the misunderstanding! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


Sorry for my and Sam's Misunderstanding. - Vaikunda Raja.


Hello, you may be interested in voting on whether the article Yangôn should be moved to Yangon. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


I see your back! =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

About Mel[edit]

I see that Mel has been harassing you, too. Please listen: do not despair, do not commit suicide. You're not his only victim. First, listen to Karmacoma, by Radiohead. Then, go to my talk-page and read the following discussion:

Lastly, either email me with your contact info, or, leave a personal message so that I can reach you. We need to organize our selves and repel this evil person. Thank you! --Anittas 19:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Mel[edit]

--Anittas 00:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


I thought you'd left. Anyway, try not to cross paths with Mel again in future, he's in a worse mood than when you first met him, what with this RfC and all. And I hope you don't mind if I archive your talk page one of these days, it's getting longer than the Reference Desk and hard to load. ;) Cheers. Don Diego 19:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think Mel's basically a good guy who's trying to help, and is doing a fairly good job going by the book and blowing up innocent "vandals" and song-article writers. Anyway, he takes things too seriously and personally so try to avoid him as much as you can. What did he post Jimmy Wales? Does he have allies? Mel's the kind of person who likes to work alone, see, at the most he has only "friends" (more likely, acquaintances) but no allies, so if he does have allies, then that's real weird. Do you know who they are? Are they also ill-humored, Type A personalities? If Jimbo read their complaint and acted accordingly, I guess you'd be blocked by know, which you aren't, so don't worry too much, okay? And lastly, your talk page is doing crazy things like refusing to let me edit. Maybe you should get the content down to 20 or so KB. 300 is a long shot, and nobody will want to drop by to talk if they have to load a 300-KB-big page.
I think you can lead a pretty normal Wikilife if you don't get in Mel's way. That's basically the best advice I can give you now. If you've got trouble with Mel, tell me and we'll try sort it out. Stay well. Cheers - Don Diego 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion warning[edit]

I've replaced the image Image:Bendera Kelantan.jpg, uploaded by you, with Image:Flag of Kelantan.svg. The original has been listed for deletion. Hope this is OK. –Mysid (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Lee Hsien Loong[edit]

The newspaper article I cited contained background on Lee (i.e. him as PM, some of the major things he's done, etc.), and I cited it mainly to corroborate that portion of the Wikipedia article. It's better than nothing at all, if you ask me. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is of course true, so it might be best if we added an HTML comment to the effect of "this article was cited for its coverage of Lee's background". The issue of wide availability, is, IMO, not much of a point against the article. One source available only to Malaysians is a lot better than no sources at all. Internet sources are of course helpful for accessibility but not looked upon as exactly reliable, and anyway, the New Straits Times removes the article from its website a week after publishing. If the source was a book or report with no ISBN and a very limited print run, then the question of accessibility is of course, valid, IMO. However, the New Straits Times is a newspaper publicly available in Malaysia, and is thus a valid source. I don't complain if you in turn cite, say, a Straits Times article only available offline in an article on Mahathir Mohamad, even though I can't access it easily. Johnleemk | Talk 03:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Thank you,Mr Lim,for that comment.I'd recommend that you archive your talk and use email.Thanks,anyway!--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 03:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Sandara Park's Korean name[edit]

Hi Mr Tan, you may want to contact Windspinner. He is the one who expanded the article of Sandara Park. According to what Windspinner has written, "Sandara" is her Korean name but I don't know the Hangul equivalent because I don't understand Korean. Cheers! --Jojit fb 01:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Tan. From what I remember, Sandara was her name at birth, and she did write it in Hangul one time when she signed a letter for a fellow Korean, and another when she made a letter for her ex-screen partner. Excerpts of her interviews from articles states that it was Sandara ever since birth. However, you are right. Sandara is an odd name for a Korean. Maybe her father has the knack of naming his kids: Sandara's younger sister's name is Durami, by the way. Why, can't Sandara be written in Hangul? I suggest you find some Korean articles about her. She was talked about for awhile in Korea during her tenure in the contest, Star Circle Quest. Also, there is a Korean magazine that featured her sometime in August 2005; I forgot the title, but that might also give you some answers. Hope that helped. --Windspinner 23:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Vietnamese in Chinese characters[edit]

Please stop it with adding irrelevant Chinese characters to articles about modern Vietnamese people. They haven't been used in almost 100 years. What was the purpose of adding native characters again? I thought that it's for easier searching of primary sources documents. You'll find 0 primary source document about Vietnamese people in Vietnamese using these obsolete characters. Please also see the discussion at User talk:Le Anh-Huy#Vietnamese and logographic script. DHN 07:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism and Christianity[edit]

I noticed you made some comments on the Korean Buddhism page, all having to do with making a distinction between Protestants and Catholics and their relationship to Buddhists in Korea. I removed them as they did not come with any sort of reference and I have no way of determining if they are correct. Please find a reference and re-add the information then. uriah923(talk) 22:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hwang Woo-Suk article[edit]

Hello, i am user:HappyApple and i am a undergraduate chemist student from National University of Saint Mark. I have been recently started to contribuiting in Hwang Woo-Suk article with some pictures and fixing links and something particular happened just these days. User:WAS 4.250 among user:Dysmorodrepanis and user: ;i believe there were vandalizing the article by adding "biased" points of view about this korean scientist, i do not think is fair or objetive they have deleted content which is valuable for the article like, doctor's personal life and how society looks at him. The quality of this article has been lowered i think, i will put the lack of neutrality sign at the top of the article but i wish you take a look at it. Cheers. HappyApple 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Arghun article[edit]

Hello, I am user:Siddiqui I wanted to discuss the Arghun page. The Arghun Khan was a ruler of Iran but a Arghun Dyanasty also ruled parts of Pakistan. I would suggest that existing Arghun page should renamed Arghun Khan, I will create Arghun Dynasty page, and Arghun page can used as information about Arghuns. Siddiqui 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Mr Tan, if you haven't notice the Singapore COTW page. You may like to take a look here. Do nominate and make a vote for the COTW if you wish. Also, you may want to archive your talk page as it is pretty long. --Terence Ong Talk 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing.

Also, your talk page is now 299kb long. You might consider archiving it. JoaoRicardotalk 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Malays in Singapore[edit]

Hi there. I left a reply on my talk page to your comment. It is rather lenghty though. Take your time to read it, and do feel free to ask. I am willing to help whenever I'm free. --Fauzi 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New attraction "Makam Habib Noh" in Palmer Road, Singapore[edit]

Hello Mr Tan! I have edited the articles of Makam Habib Noh in Palmer Road in Singapore. It is a famous mausoleum by Muslim communities in Singapore. Please write the articles of the story of Habib Noh who was came to Singapore on the year 1800s. Thank You! Aiman Ab Majid 21 April 2006