User talk:Penser

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in People's Republic of China. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ideogram 02:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless, Wikipedia does not defer to individual user's judgments about the quality of a country's political system. You have not shown that verifiable sources demonstrate a predominent or even common view that China is not a republic.

At law (even if not reality), the supreme governmental organ of the PRC is the National People's Congress, which is elected as representatives by the citizens of the PRC. If you argue that the process is so perverted as to make it not a republic, you will need better sources. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. --Sumple (Talk) 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

It doesn't matter who has sources or justifications, you are supposed to discuss your differences instead of just reverting to your preferred version. Read WP:3RR. There clearly is a dispute or you wouldn't be having this problem. --Ideogram 03:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA

First of all, you inserted a falsehood. You said the United States is third in land area alone behind Russia and Canada; this is false, as the USA is ahead Canada in land area. And you seem to think the dispute is about land vs. water area; it is not. The dispute is because the People's Republic China includes Taiwan in its total land area, whereas more objective sources do not. That is the root of the problem, not land vs water. --Golbez 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize, I misread the diff, I thought you were saying it was just ahead of China, but no, it's just ahead of Canada. I'll revert myself. --Golbez 09:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram

It seems you have also had experience in being harrassed by Ideogram. No, he is not a moderator or admin. He is merely a big shot who thinks he can threaten and control the world. Just ignore him. However, since you are victim of Ideogram, I would suggest posting on his Arbitration page. You can find it on his talk page or by looking at his contributions. Post to the arb com about how you have been persecuted by Ideogram. Ideogram's behavior is seriously disturbing and unacceptable. TingMing 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cho's nationality

Dynaflow,

Why did you revert my deletion of the links on Cho's page (Korean American, American killers)? As is now well known, Cho was a South Korean, not an American (he only held permanent residence status). Logically, if you're not an American, you can't be Korean American, nor can you be an American killer.

Penser 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)penser[reply]

I reverted your edit for two reasons:

1. You seemed to be edit-warring with other editors over the issue (see WP:3RR). You seem to be the only one excising the categories in question, while several others are putting them back in. You should not be taking unilateral action on this.
2. I see now that you are trying to be consistent with the nationality business in this and other cases, but sometimes nationality is a fuzzy thing, and I think the other editors are correct to re-revert your reversions. For example, as a permanent US resident, Cho was a de jure US national (not citizen, but national) who would have to have registered with the Selective Service and would be eligible for conscription should the US find itself in heavy enough warfare to justify reinstating the draft. As a permanent resident, he could do just about anything a citizen could do but vote and get a high-level security clearance. He was, by all means, a "Korean American" by the deliberately-fuzzy definition Americans tend to go by, and since he killed a whole bunch of people in Virginia -- in America -- I don't see why the "American Criminals" category or whatever it was would even be disputed.

The persistent deletion of the categories also makes me somewhat suspicious of a possible political motivation that would breach WP:NPOV, but I'll try to assume good faith as well as I can. --Dynaflow 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to LH. Wang's Origin

I put on Republic of China because it is basically where his industry is. Although he was born and raised in US, he is mostly known by Asians, especially in Taiwan and Mainland China. Therefore, putting ROC in there seems legit to me as well because it does not confuse readers thinking "How come he's American and I never heard his songs before?" Sky Divine 02:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American-born Chinese

Please cite the original source properly (journal title, study title, author, e.g. using {{cite journal}}) instead of linking to a webforum. Thanks, cab 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of irrelevant information on Alaska in the "Geography" section of Maine

I apologize for indicating your edit to the "Geography" section of Maine was vandalism, because it clearly was not under "good faith". However why did you insert "Pochnoi Point in Alaska is the easternmost point in the US" in the Geography section of Maine? Don't you think most readers of that section are interested in the geography of Maine, not Alaska? Also your statement about "easternmost" point in the US seems to be technically correct, but also a matter of interpretation - as explained in Extreme points of the United States under the section "Interpretation of 'easternmost' and 'westernmost'".--Chrisbak 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AG Bell Historical Revisionism?

Copyedit from my talk page: "Why do you keep changing the sentence referring to the controversy over the invention of the telephone by writing, "Other claimants for the honour have also come forward."?

First of all, "claimants" is usually used in a legal sense, but no one is legally challenging the patents now, as they have long since expired. The controversy is an academic one, not a legal one.

Second, the antecedent is not entirely clear. For what honor have they come forward? For the honor of claiming a patent?

In contrast, the sentence, "There is some controversy over who deserves credit for the invention." alludes to the historical controversy, which is undeniable, without taking sides on the dispute. What is possible preferable about your sentence?

Penser 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)pense[reply]

Penser, thanks for your note. I have not been an active participant in this article and have only come across it in passing, however, the first time I read the article there was a large note attached to the introduction indicating that Alexander Graham Bell was not the inventor of the telephone. After reading the bill that was sponsored by a politician in the United States, it was evident that the claim of an earlier inventor was not being recognized as primary. The bill merely established that Antonio Meucci had developed and created a device that predated the Bell invention. The entirely fallacious claims that Meucci's work had been "stolen" by Bell has turned out to be an urban legend. There is a no controversy over the discovery other than a historical one which has long since been resolved in Bell's favour. As you will note from the discussion that revolved around this issue in the Alexander Graham Bell Talk page, the issue has now revolved into one of proportion and the fact that others have attempted to redirect the introductory sentences into a condemnation of the Bell invention of the telephone is the reason to have an appropriate but not disproportional mention of others' work. The other inventions and research carried out by Bell and his associates in his later life was just as important as the legal challenges that marked the first years of the telephone debate. I will revise the sentence to indicate the earlier but less than convincing efforts to establish the primacy of Meucci's claim. By placing a proviso into the introductory paragraph is IMHO placing too much emphasis on what has turned out to be an act of historical revisionism by an adroit yet biased American legislator. Bzuk 07:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The latest revision to the article adding "American" to AGB's nationality is being left in place for now due to the note that has been placed in the reference citation wherein Bell noted that he considered himself a U.S. citizen. FWIW Bzuk 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply Yo-Yo Ma

You're using what I said every time I edited and just pinpointed this one sentence. I very well know that to be an American, you think like an American. That's it. However, you're getting way too technical. Beyond technical. Super technical. If some random person starts reading his article and sees that he's an American, he might just have the perception of him being American. Let me ask you what the hell is wrong with putting Chinese-American? It's stupid to like saying you are what you are now, you must forget your past. Outrageous. Sky Divine 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the problem with someone reading the article and having "the perception of him being American"? He is American! Then you raise the red herring of Chinese-American. My comment to you was about equating a person's looks or "racial" appearance with his or her status as an American. Who ever said anything about forgetting one's past? The Yo-yo Ma article, for example, includes his history of being born in France, and raised in the US. It also describes information about his parents. That's his past. I certainly have no qualms with that. Penser 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)penser[reply]

There is no doubt he is American. There is also no doubt he is a Chinese-American. Both statements are correct. This is an encyclopedia, not a technical bizarre set of laws stating what can be written and what can't be. Sky Divine 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Graham Bell

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexander Graham Bell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject should be discussed on the article talk page, per bold, revert, discuss. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 14:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It appears the wording presently on the page has been come to after considerable discussion and compromise by various sides, so it's probably best not to force one version over the prevailing consensus. If you wish to move that it be changed, I suggest doing so on the talk page. Also, characterising others' edits as "nationality vandalism" is not operating in good faith - if you want to get something changed, you're going to need to convince others, and to do so, you'll need to treat them with respect. Orderinchaos 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current Alexander Graham Bell talk page discussion "string" on nationality that you may wish to join. One of the first suggestions by an editor/admin in the discussion was the contention that national origins do not fit in the lead paragraphs. I have provided some examples of a rewrite that will still not immediately address the issue of national origin or citizenship which will be brought later into the main body of the article in a chronological format. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gary Locke (politician)

Hi --- regarding your edits to the Gary Locke article; it's understandable that you feel the comments are illogical, but per the policy on original research, articles should not contain Wikipedians' own interpretations of sources. We have to rely on what the source itself (the newspaper article) said, and the author of that newpaper article declined to refer to the comments as illogical. Thanks, cab (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Because it's a Wikiproject-specific infobox. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chinese-language_entertainment/Templates#Infobox. That, and the name is NPOV so people from pro-TI and anti-TI camps are satisified by having both names there. Pandacomics (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui Cho

Hi! You can't just add categories arbitrarily because you feel that Cho was "American enough." Nationality is a binary thing: yes or no. If Cho were to have traveled to England, what passport would he have used? He would have used a South Korean one.

Nationality is not a squishy, subjective thing. Ethnicity or culture may be, but not nationality.

To illustrate further: I may think that Fargo, North Dakota should be listed as a Canadian city because, after all, it is really cold in the winter and they like hockey there, but that doesn't make Fargo a "city in Canada." Close, but no cigar.

Penser (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)penser[reply]

See my explanation at Talk:Seung-Hui Cho#Categories and Cho's "Americanness". I think you misapprehend the purpose of the cat pages. --Dynaflow babble 03:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I agree with Dynaflow that these boundaries are more fluid than you see them; but I appreciate your reasonable attitude on the matter as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leehom Wang

Hello, Penser. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did you see the messages from me and Readin before you reverted? And is there a reason you reverted again instead of responding to them? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]