User talk:Sevilledade/Talk archive 1

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article because of SIZE issues and also because it is redundant to the relevant Commons galleries and categories. Wikipedia is NOT a repository of images that do not have encyclopedic content alongside them, since images only supplement article prose. Image galleries are not accepted at GA and FA. Thanks, —O (说 • 喝) 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Animated map

Hi, this is regarding the map that illustrates the different territories occupied by Chinese Dynasties throughout history. Even though it seems that it is not "essential", it is still a good addition to the article. Just like wikipedia is not "essential" because there are other encyclopedias around like Encarta and Britannica. But wikipedia is good to have around. I hope you understand why that image is good for the article as a whole. Oidia (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I added some comments to your talk page.--Sevilledade 02:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is true that the map needs to be improved. Although I do personally believe the map serves a good purpose. A reader can just stare at the animated map and see the (generalized) territories of China changed over time, instead of having to scroll along the article to compare the individual maps of different Dynasties. The creator of the map user:Ian Kiu said he would work on the map and improve it further. Thanks for your understanding. Oidia (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of China‎

Hello, thanks for move. But could you give an exact source for supporting that? I had been looking for that for some time indeed; at last I gave up and moved the article to the Chinese name. I just want to make very sure. Sorry for bothering. Regards.--K.C. Tang 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of moving back the article, if no exact sources are provided. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 07:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you refer to this particular source? It looks reliable, although I still prefer to find a reference on the publisher's own website. Perhaps I'm being stubborn. Sorry for bothering.--K.C. Tang 07:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

History of East Asia

I agree with you that the article on the History of East Asia is of sub-par quality. I've been following it at a distance. You should hit the talk page of the article with some criticisms. Even better, continue making edits that improve the article. 130.63.104.86 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia

I noticed you had removed all of the government and politics section in Inner Mongolia. I believe in the process of working towards building an impartial and informative Wikipedia. Therefore I will work hard to build consensus if you specify your exact concerns. However, removing the section altogether seems rather extreme. Colipon+(T) 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re translation

Sorry about that. I was going to move it to the talk page, or just have it in the edit history. Next time I think I'll put a copy of the whole original-language page in before I start translating, but again only either on the talk page, or very briefly in the article and then delete it again so it can be found in the edit history (or do that on the talk page). That way it's clear what version of the original page is being translated. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality

I was editing as an anonymous IP here. There was also another anonymous IP working. His/her edits were the ones to mexico, which was what you disagreed with... We were not the same person, and did not edit the same, so next time, please make sure to not just revert everything that has been done since then. If you looked, there was in fact more than one IP address... I will overlook it this time, but if I see you reverting useful information without checking again, I will have to give you an official warning. Do not reply to this message. Thank you 89.241.189.185 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 unrest in Tibet

Hi Sevilledade,

You removed this statement from the article:

"The protests are reportedly the largest against the Chinese Communist Party's rule since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989."

and said that its source, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asiapacific/7296837.stm, does not support it. However, the article says, "Rallies have continued all week in what are said to be the largest protests against Beijing's rule in 20 years. " Exactly 20 years ago was 1988, but no protests occured in China in that years. It's reasonable to assume the article referred to the 1989 Tiananmen incident, which was only one year less than 20 years ago. --Bowlhover 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why I posted that link instead of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7296837.stm.  :(--01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
About the second concern posted on my talk page, I found another source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/140308_b_protest.htm.
"The last mass organisation against the regime took place in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in 1989 when tanks rolled over students who had gathered to call for democracy." --Bowlhover 06:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The above quote is pretty direct, in my opinion. If it's accurate, it's definitely worth putting into the article as proof of the protests' significance. It's true that these Tibet protests are no where as large as the Beijing ones, but that's because the Chinese are afraid of their government and don't dare to create another huge protest. Oh well. *Sigh.* --Bowlhover (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I was actually referring to the quote from Prisonplanet, not the one from BBC, when I said "the above quote is pretty direct". I agree that the BBC statement is vague, and that it should not be included if BBC were to be the only source. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize that you might have been referring to the fact that I quoted almost exactly from BBC in the article. I welcome you to change it as you see fit, but (1) I do insist on including it, and (2) don't make any assumptions; the protest isn't just the largest Tibetan protest since 1989, but it was the largest overall protest since 1989. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch out - you are about to violate 3RR (as I did recently), and I am happy to revert Spanos's vandalism, so let me make the revert. Alexwoods (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not fight. I will stop reverting you.

Re: the WSJ article, I'd like to see something in there that emphasizes this: "China's government has been highlighting the ethnic violence, in part to justify its use of force to restore order." What do you think? Alexwoods (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry, and you're right, I didn't read the article closely enough. My bad. Alexwoods (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Your proposed change (from my talk page) sounds good to me. Go for it. Also thanks for keeping an eye on the vandals on that page. Alexwoods (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Remark

This is an encyclopaedia. We report notable opinions. One random Canadian tourist's view is not notable. Relata refero (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, of course, we could keep it out while it is being discussed, and you read WP:NOT. Relata refero (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The others report facts or eyewitness accounts. That, an opinion. Big difference. Relata refero (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The others are from governments. Those are notable. An eyewitness is notable for what he witnesses, not what he thinks about it. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I mentioned it on the talkpage! Relata refero (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rioter/Protester

About Tibet riot, please refer to discussion page about this change. I'm change it back. If you disagree , please post your opinion there. -munford (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My message to Beijing 2008!

File:Beijing2008.gif

Here is my gift for you. Please support Tibet and Tibetan people. Please share this image to your friends. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Rédacteur Tibet

Sorry, my bad. Alexwoods (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[1], here you have deleted the text. It is true the reference was not appropriated, the correct reference can be found in the french version of the article fr:Troubles au Tibet en 2008 (http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article='Beijing+orchestrating+Tibet+riots'&id=19922). If ever possible for you, thanks to correct this information which is now missing on the english version. Sorry for the confusion. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Well, Gordon Thomas has a page on wiki, isn't it? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Canadian Backpacker

I don't see any CAN Backpacker statement anymore. If I do, I will challenge it. You have a point there. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuses

Hello Sevilledade,

I come to make some excuses.

  1. That right, you create your account long time ago...
  2. ... and you edited many topics.

Accordingly, my statement was false. I now think that when I checked your contributions ( Special:Contributions/Sevilledade ) I mixed up "older"(50, all on Tibetan unrest) and "earliest" (september 200?). A stupid mistake from my side, I should learn to go slowler and check two time what I'm clicking on.

After what, I just requested Talk:2008_unrest_in_Tibet#Sevilledade_and_HongQiGong.27s_edits to other users to check your edits because I hadn't time to do so. I finally took 2 min to make a quick check, and added a 2nd post saying "all seems fine, except a link (deleted): I haven't [time to] read it". This second post closed my first post at 90%. I don't understand why the talk gone further, a simple other opinion that mine was enough to close this issue. Yug = 220.135.4.212 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sevilledade,
I just read about your opposition with Longchenpa (here) and I'm pleasantly astonished.
Despite all we can believe on such "hot" subject, talks here seems really kind, and I'm really happy to see talks leads by gentlements ;) and find solution.
All my support, and sorry again for my previous wrong statements about you. Yug 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Monk protest

Thanks for your message. I still can't find it. Is it in the body of the text, or in a linked page? Alexwoods (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it! I'll revert my own change and make some little edits to the second mention. Very sorry about that. Alexwoods (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I just went through all the links. Alexwoods (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Great cooperation just now. Re: the Beijing orchestrated theory, I am trying to calm that guy down, and I'll keep an eye on the actual article to make sure he doesn't post anything untrue. I wouldn't get too excited about anything that remains on the talk page. Alexwoods (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rédacteur Tibet

I think his latest edit is ok, and I think we should keep it. I know you don't like Phayul but no one else is reporting that, so maybe we could change the wording along the lines of "according to a Tibetan exile group." What do you think? Alexwoods (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Phayul is worse than Mainland Chinese sources, and as RT pointed out, we are using those. They are pro-Tibetan, but it's not like they would just make something up, and as long as they're the only ones reporting it, I think it has to stay. Anyway at least he's citing his changes in the first place. Alexwoods (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me try to reason with him. I think he's probably going to play by the rules from now on. By the way, his name just means "Tibet Editor", and an interest in Tibetan articles is hardly evidence of bias one way or the other. Alexwoods (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese government claims

Hi, you misunderstand my intentions. The Chinese government claims are significant not because of the contents, but because of the fact of the claims itself. The Chinese government has promised to release "evidence" of what it sees as Dalai's "conspiratorial" role in the matter. This is the official news release of that "evidence". It is significant in and of itself, and given that its relevance stems from its publication by the Chinese government, Xinhua is the most authoritative - perhaps primary - source, and the People's Daily, being the most authoritative carrier of the views of the Communist Party of China, is the most reliable medium of communication of the source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I took out one sentence. You can take out more, but pleaase don't just rever the whole thing, thanks. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The following statement miss quoted the sourced article. "Rumours of monks being killed, political tension, socio-economic issues, such as the comparative economic success of non-Tibetan ethnic groups and rising inflation, fueled the violence. [Fire on the roof of the world http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10870258&top_story=1] What the sourced article said was this: "The violence was fuelled by rumors of killings, beatings and detention of monks by security forces in Lhasa this week." We should use what is said in the article, do you agree? --Littlebutterfly (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion of f

Sevilledade, I understand you deleted the reference because it is in french and there is no equivalent in english. I put it back, because, if you apply equally this principle, you should also have deleted the text translatted from chinese. So, if you delete the french one again, please delete the chinese one also. Thanks--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 18, in an interview to Canadian journalists, the Dalai Lama said more than 400 persons have been killed in the recent events in Tibet while several thousand have been arrested.[1].

CPC, PRC

Hey, appreciate your logic, but the Communist Party of China, while controlling the government of the Peole's Republic of China, is not one-and-the-same as the latter. It will be PRC state organs who will be meeting with the Dalai Lama, not CPC party officials. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Tibetan Unrest

You violated the 3RR rule on this article. I am not going to report you because I think you are a reasonable person and I'd like a chance to convince you that the links are related. Let's continue trying to work together constructively. Yunfeng (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know that I respect you and that I think you're a reasonable person. I think I have made a strong case for putting these links in and I haven't heard much of a response. I don't understand why everyone is getting so offended about it. Yunfeng (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being a stickler for citations

Thanks for being a stickler for citations in the Chinese American article. I got an official source for the fact being referenced, and in the process I found that the sentence was incorrect. In the 1980's, immigration from Taiwan did not decrease. It formed a smaller fraction of immigration, but that is something different.

Red Cliff

Now I spent hours doing the release table and you just delete it like this. Look at the old version you reverted, the "production" section is still talking about where the movie will be shot based on news articles from 2007! You can fix the links but I think I will at least put my table back in place. 129.130.200.60 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Roadrunner (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Le dalaï-lama, la Chine et Hitler on Radio-Canada.ca