Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:11, 5 September 2008

Re Karate -- please don't move prominent pages to new titles without first discussing the change on the article talk page and getting consensus. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your remind. --虞海 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --虞海 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 虞海, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Format

Please note we do not say an article is too large - WP:MOS might be well worth a good read SatuSuro 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I got it. You mean the format. Thanks! --虞海 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Asia topic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well，I've already expressed my point in the comment of the edit and again here. I think I should keep this state until he reply me. --虞海 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the edit war and three-revert rule. I support stoping edit war but I keep against stoping three-revert rule (Personally). But what if I replied sb but he/her doesn't reply me? Should I edit the corresponding article as if he/her has agreed with me? --虞海 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, why they can delete my image within only 8 days that I didn't my watchlist? Evidence here. --虞海 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you to decide whether to edit a page or not. However, you are not entitled to keep an article in a certain state, whether you are waiting for a reply or not, because you do not own it. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But how to solve a problem like one side keeping silence? I mean, maybe not for this time, for the future. --虞海 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shuǐshū

I have nominated Shuǐshū, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shuǐshū. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Mark Chovain 05:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been improved. Why do you mark it again? --虞海 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Gazimoff 09:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India

• Articles for deletion/Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India

Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has existed for 10 days and still has only one sentence of actual content, viz: In South Tibet, In Ladakh, India, instruction is in Urdu, with a high dropout rate from Tibetans, but India is never accused of cultural genocide against Tibetans." This sentence is plagiarised from the source provided. There seems to be very little chance that this article will develop into a useful discussion of human rights in one or more areas. Nat Krause 16:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence and the title has been changed. Please read the page and the talk page first. --虞海 (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• keep,malicious deleting.Someone just want to cover the historic genocide.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Can you show us any relaible sources that state that a genoicide is taking place or has taken place in the areas under question? Thanks--Deepak D'Souza 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The tone of the article is all wrong. 1st sentence "In this section, we'll mainly talk about cultural genocide in these place", makes me laugh. --Voidvector (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Voidvector. Tone of the article is like that of 'lecture notes' :) --GDibyendu (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The existing content is no good, and I don't see this title working. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: as per WP:NONSENSE and WP:SOAPBOX --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note. I've get many information from my South Tibet friend. I didn't write anything because he didn't give me references. Later, I'll have him help me to write something. He wants to do so, too. But he dosen't know this place, right now. --虞海 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Deepak D'Souza: it's not WP:NONSENSE because it's still a in-writing stub. Feel free to edit it. Also, it does not fit the definition of WP:NONSENSE. --虞海 (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Show another article which starts with "In this section, we'll mainly talk about"
• Show another article which uses "as well as" in the title
• Show proof of Human Rights violation against Tibetans in India. --GDibyendu (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For the 3rd, it's in Article- in HR in ... (also, I'm finding more); for the 2nd one, it's needless; for the 1st one, it's inessential. --虞海 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note. I'm not afraid if it's deleted. I'm afraid if it's deleted and when I get enough information and rewrite it people delete it directly. --虞海 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The obvious "lol" factor would be allegations of India discriminating against tibetans in Ladakh. Apart from the fact that it is unsourced, not all Buddhists in India are Tibetan, that missionairy religions are generally at fault against Buddhism in Arunachal not the government and so many things but mostly its unsourced and hoaxish.Pectore 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It is sourced since the day I started this article, also what's lol? I saw many symbol like this in the Internet but still now I don't get its mean. Use English, please? Where's "mostly its unsourced and hoaxish"? --虞海 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure I know not all Buddhists in India are Tibetan Buddhists, but this article is talk about Tibetan people or "Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang" people. --虞海 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - It is clear that this article is written in a slanted viewpoint. The national language of J&K state is Urdu because Tibetians don't form a majority of the population of the state. However, Tibetians are allowed to use their native language if they are comfortable with it. There's no restriction imposed on using a language in India, although it isn't the official language. And even so, does this qualify to be classified as "cultural genocide"? Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation! Moreover, the article's only reference is one sentence from a whole article, and nothing else. And on what basis does the editor write "we'll mainly talk about cultural genocide in these place, not normal human rights, since this is the most serious one in these places". Original research? I mean, come on, this article looks more like a joke to me who's started by somebody who's against India. I laughed when I saw: Ancient times: "Since it's too ancient, there's not enough information". Moreover the heading "Arunachal Pradesh under Indian occupation" seems to talk about Ladakh, which is in Kashmir and not Arunachal. If the author thinks he can find proper citations to create a full article, he should just write it once and for all (at least to an appropriate level), and not leave it in bits and pieces for weeks while sourcing information. I suggest the user start a sandbox for this and only create the article once it's proper. Till then I suggest we delete this nonsense.  S3000  ☎ 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Most of this I've writen in talk page. There I stated why it's not an anti-India article.
  • Others:
    • "seems to talk about Ladakh, which is in Kashmir and not Arunachal": it's because the title of this article is "Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India" and this is under the title "Other's situation". --虞海 (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That's because you just changed it.  S3000  ☎ 07:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No, you can see the history of the article: it's before you write this vote. --虞海 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note The article has been improved, please read it before vote it. --虞海 (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, you are editing others responses and deleting or striking out words in this debate. That's surely not a civil thing to do. --GDibyendu (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete, I striked out. I saw other Wikipedian do it. --虞海 (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• It still comes under "Arunachal Pradesh under Indian occupation", which is not related!  S3000  ☎ 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer it. Since I didn't see it. --虞海 (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• And please do not strike out my messages. It's not civil. I look forward to you undoing those edits.  S3000  ☎ 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why it's not civil? It's a talk page not an article. I saw many strike-line in Misplaced Pages! Everyone can express their opinion here. --虞海 (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Striking out one's own words is common. Striking someone else's is refactoring and is not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It didn't says refactoring is banned or not civil, for doing it does NOT change other's opinion. --虞海 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Unsourced biased nonsense, now tagged as such. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedy deletion of Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India

Please do not make personal attacks. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)