User talk:Coloane/Archive1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Macau FAR
I appreciate your efforts and various contributions to Macau-related articles. But can you leave the Macau FAR thing to me? It's quite difficult for me to address the reviewers' concerns while you're arguing with them. I know you have put a lot of time on improving the article and you might feel emotionally attached to it. But they are just trying to provide some comments, please don't take them too personally. Josuechan (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- oh you stalker! Lol. Ming is my favorite dynasty and currently I'm not entirely happy with that article... I guess Negraal is just enjoying his weekend and he might come back next week. Anyway, as I understand the FAC rules, people who vote "oppose" have to give very specific problems that can in principle be addressed. Or they will be ignored. I'll add a brief section/paragraph on transportation and we should be fine. Josuechan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
About an external link
Thank you for your understanding. Hopefully the article can make it to FA this time.
I have a little favor to ask. Can you keep an eye on the user Sam777g777? He kept on adding the link Macao Tourism which has little information on various Macau-related articles. I already reverted 3 of her/his edits so far. Josuechan (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The article France you nominated as a good article has failed 
, see Talk:France for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Coloane, seeing as no one was polite enough to explain to you, "closing" in the sense of a featured portal candidate is the end process whereby a decision is made about whether or not there is consensus to promote. So no need to worry, your nomination will get as equal a chance as the others! Hope that clears things up for you :) Seaserpent85 11:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
U2 FAC...
Coloane, I have replied to your two points on the FAC. Could you please review my response, and respond in turn. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that you had better save your time and keep from writing me. Just to remind you it is simply a beginning. We will surely have more chances to meet each other on the page of FAC!! Good Luck! Coloane (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Coloane. I have decided to treat your FAC review in good faith although i know it is not a coincidence. And I have done so politely and civilly even though personally, I don't believe they are valid criticisms. I know you remember me, and your comment above tells me quite a lot. Please review FAC's properly - if you make threats ("Just to remind you it is simply a beginning"), or take revenge on FAC pages, then I will seek administrator assistance. --Merbabu (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Concern
Coloane, I came across your comments on the U2 FAC then saw the comments here between you and User:Merbabu, so I had a look thru your recent contributions. I see that you initially were unhappy with an editors comments during the Macau FAC, this was enough that you nominated the article Indonesia for FAR at which time you came into contact with Merbabu. His assessment that the FAR was a bad faith or point nomination due to the prior Macau FAC was reasonable(though maybe a little heavy) given that there were no issues with the Indonesian article. Then we come to the U2 FAC where you request that rumours be included in the article and clarification over Human rights. When these were explained as already addressed(Human rights) or unverifiable by reliable sources(nobel prize rumours) you responded with a general comment that cant be addressed. Another editor asked you clarify the issues and you say it has nothing to do with them(on this Wikipedia is a collaborative effort anyone can edit and as such address concerns) and only to do with the nominator.
From all of this I am concerned that you are too emotionally involved to be productive in your actions and comments. What I suggest is that before you get any warnings about WP:CIVILITY WP:POINT or WP:NPA, you can break this downward spiral and disengage from further discussions with Merbabu. If you cant do this by editing other articles maybe you could take a few days off wiki and enjoy the outside world. Gnangarra 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- An WP:ANI discussion relating to these matters has been initiated. You may want to comment there as needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
PISA
ha ha i was right and you werent. i bet you wish you were as cleaver as me. im afraid you never will be youo are just a pathetic ignorant idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.24.147 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above IP address, 59.154.24.147, has been warned against making personal attacks. If it continues, please let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congratulations on your recent promotion and best wishes for your future endeavours! Alice✉ 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats on your promotion too. Come back after you settle down, meanwhile I'll take care of the portal. Take care and good luck! Josuechan (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Topic ban
Per the community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359#Coloane_community_ban_discussion, because of disruption in these areas, you have been banned from editing pages regarding to Wikipedia's administration, granting and review of Featured Articles and Good Articles - specifically, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:FARC, WP:GAC and WP:GA/R and subpages thereof. Any administrator can enact a 24-hour block of your account if the terms of the topic ban are violated. If you wish to nominate one of your own pages for Featured Article status, any user who is in good standing - for example, a representative of the WikiProject to which the article belongs - can do this on your behalf. Orderinchaos 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Pataca
Coloane (nice name!), thanks for your comment. Actually, I've realised that my issue is with Wikipedia policies, not with you or Josuechen.
You've cited Wikipedia policies, and you are spot on. They are the policies.
The problem is that Wikipedia can't adhere to those policies. In order to adhere to those policies, Wikipedia should start again. Simple as that. They are nibbling around the edges, telling people the policies, putting "fact" tags against factoids they don't know or don't like.
But to implement that policy properly, they have to go through and systematically root out every fact, every bit of information that hasn't been sourced properly. They don't dare do that, because it would mean the disappearance of Wikipedia as it exists now.
Instead, the "fact" (cite source) tag is now being used in somewhat sneakier way. People are adding tags to things that they don't like, or things that they've never heard of, sometimes removing information that they think sounds dodgy. It's being used as a weapon like POV -- a way of pushing other people around based on a "negative" -- failure to cite sources. (Someone removed information on the old pronunciation of Li Po (李白) because it "wasn't sourced". I didn't have the dictionary at hand that I could cite to prove the information. Someone just said, "Oh, this isn't sourced". They didn't add a "fact" tag; they just deleted it. When I appealed, they said that that kind of information (the old reading of 白) is precisely the information that should be cited or removed. Needless to say, I couldn't understand why that particular piece of information was removed when there are articles positively swimming in unsupported statements that people simply assume to be true.)
Well, Wikipedia is a bunch of hypocrites. If they really want to follow their own guidelines they should stop running round adding "fact" tags or deleting little bits that they disagree with. They should go though and delete entire sections, entire articles. When Josuechen added that tag, he thought he was bringing the article in line with Wikipedia policies. Well, he wasn't. Adding a question mark doesn't help improve the article, and it doesn't bring it any closer to fulfilling the sacred policies of Wikipedia. The only remedy is to delete the information. Of course, I'm not blaming Josuechen here. I'm blaming Wikipedia. They have their policies but aren't prepared to bite the bullet. As a result, their policies just turn into a weapon for people to wield, just like NPOV.
It's easy to say: "Everything should be referenced!" It's impossible to argue against. Who could disagree? But when it's done in a selective kind of way (the simple-minded way of the person who did the quick-and-dirty appraisal of "Macau pataca" for GA status, singling out 葡币 because it was obviously "local knowledge" and probably couldn't be backed up from a "reputable source"), it's just the same as the selective application of laws by despotic regimes. You use laws not to improve society, but to clobber people when you need to.
Sorry for the rant; it's just that after posting to Josuechen's talk page I came to realise exactly why I find the whole issue so objectionable.
Thanks for your time.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
RE:Airport
So your actual point being?--Huaiwei (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a rather strange request, Coloane. Each of the airports have a country flag. This dosent make the list a country list. However, the location column clearly indicates the country each airport is located in. I wonder just who is the one politicising this list now.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not hesitate to report users who are obviously disruptive and confrontational. See [1]. If you cannot engage in a mature and senstible conversation and choost to be trigger happy with your fingers, I am afraid enforcement will be the only way, even if it costs me a ban as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not bow down to threats, verbal abuse, insults, and gangster behavior in wikipedia. You can rest assure that I will report every single instance of your disruptive behavior henceforth without hesitation. I believe you should have known better by now on what is acceptable and not acceptable around here.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
blocked
- Revolving Bugbear 14:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Coloane (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
technically I didn't break 3RR policy. The first revert is not a revert. Actually I didn't revert anyone from my first edit over there
Decline reason:
As per below, the first revert was indeed a revert. And 3RR does not guarantee you three reverts in any case. — Yamla (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I wouldn't factor your argument around gaming the 3RR system. First of all, that in and of itself is not allowed. Second, edit warring is still edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK! anyway, if you now define the first edit/or my correction is revert, then block me. BTW, I have no intention at all to start so-called edit warring with anyone. That is not fair. Should I check these edits from other editors before my first edition in order to make sure there is no revert? if not, my first edit is not a revert. At most you could give me a warning. Coloane (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you hadn't been edit warring, you wouldn't have breached 3RR. - Revolving Bugbear 15:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK! anyway, if you now define the first edit/or my correction is revert, then block me. BTW, I have no intention at all to start so-called edit warring with anyone. That is not fair. Should I check these edits from other editors before my first edition in order to make sure there is no revert? if not, my first edit is not a revert. At most you could give me a warning. Coloane (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)