Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:36, 4 May 2009

Archived talk

• Archive 1 (June 24, 2005 - April 24, 2006)
• Archive 2 (April 24, 2006 - June 18, 2006)
• Archive 3 (June 19, 2006 - August 25, 2006)
• Archive 4 (August 29, 2006 - November 13, 2006)
• Archive 5 (November 13, 2006 - February 2, 2007)
• Archive 6 (February 2, 2007 - March 15, 2007)
• Archive 7 (March 15, 2007 - April 24, 2007)
• Archive 8 (April 25, 2007 - June 17, 2007)
• Archive 9 (June 18, 2007 - August 1, 2007)
• Archive 10 (August 2, 2007 - October 12, 2007)
• Archive 11 (October 13, 2007 - December 26, 2007)
• Archive 12 (December 28, 2007 - February 29, 2008)
• Archive 13 (March 1, 2008 - July 5, 2008)
• Archive 14 (July 5, 2008 - September 10, 2008)
• Archive 15 (September 10, 2008 - January 8, 2009)
• Archive 16 (January 8, 2009 - March 22, 2009)

Replied at my page

I replied to your post at my talk page, in order to keep the discussion in one place. Cheers. -GTBacchus 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Badagnani, I've noticed your name popping up in places such as WP:AN and other noticeboards, and I think I'm noticing a disturbing pattern. Do you realize that this comment, for example, is extremely likely to worsen a dispute, rather than improve it? Surely this isn't your goal - we wish to resole disputes, not to prolong them.

I do believe that you will have a better time at Misplaced Pages if you take a different approach. I hope my posting this here doesn't bother you. I just think you'd be happier editing here if you do it in a manner that generates less heat. -GTBacchus 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

I think it would be very helpful to review WP:BATTLE, especially, "Misplaced Pages is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users."

Many editors, myself included, will often make substantial changes to article without discussion, based upon the application of specific policies or guidelines. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove this inappropriate comment that comes off as a snide personal attack a preachy and demeaning attack. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Substantial changes are often made to individual articles without much or any comment (such as reversion of vandalism or improvement of grammar), but when other long-time editors, in particular instances, request that deliberate and careful discussion be engaged in, engaging in such deliberate and careful discussion prior to large deletions does become the reasonable and right thing to do. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet you do not participate in these so called "discussions". It's only when someone files a dispute or mediation that you respond. Most editors simply do not care about any bold editing done on articles such as Foam take-out container and List of * Americans, which obviously need some work done on them. I am strongly questioning your overall behavior on Misplaced Pages. Eugene2x► 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your question at WP:UAA

I suggest WP:AN/I or contacting the two admins who requested the user have a clickable signature directly on their talk pages. KuyaBriBri 19:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Badagnani)

Hello, Badagnani. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. Eugene2x► 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Essay

I would like you to read WP:DRNC, WP:BOLD, and WP:BRD. You should not compel editors to discuss whenever every single bit of information is removed. It disrupts the experience here and is the main cause for the edit warring issues lately. Eugene2x► 03:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am wikihounding you, then so be it, I will try to stop the edits you claim are against WP:STALK. I do not want to cause irritation or any harm, even if we are opponents. Eugene2x► 03:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Going along with this, kindly do me the courtesy of undoing the edits of mine you followed me around to nearly a dozen articles reverting, and pledge to, in the future, discuss large deletions with care, seriousness, and collegiality prior to implementing such deletions, when requested to do so with sincerity by long-time editors. Badagnani (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My statement did not necessarily mean that I would revert the edits (which were perfectly reasonable). It would also be a much, much better place for all of us if you stick to the WP:BRD essay and WP:DRNC. Frankly, just because you have the ability to undo someone's edits does not mean you can defend the edits with statements such as "use Discusssion."

Tibetan goji

Re this edit: the text is preserved at the Talk page for possible repair. It's clear WP:SYNTH - a collation of material to advance an argument, not collated previously - and no-one is obliged to discuss in advance the removal of material in breach of WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Chaunk

फोडणी is the way we (Marathis) write Phodani. You can also use google search to verify this. Also check Marathi wikipedia article mr:फोडणी. - कोल्हापुरी (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be because they are not proficient in typing Marathi font ड़ is never used in Marathi, we use ड. And a lot of Marathi people are confused between "नी" and "णी". I know I am correct but I understand your dilemma. Google is your friend. Search old and new term to find which one is correct. - कोल्हापुरी (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

णी and नी problem is inherent to Marathi literate and illiterate folks irrespective of Hindi influence. In this particular case though I feel the previous writer didn't know how to type "णी". - कोल्हापुरी (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

फोलनी - I never heard of that, at least it is not used in south-west Maharashtra. Not sure of the etymology either but verb - फोड means "to break open". —Preceding unsigned comment added by कोल्हापुरी (talk • contribs) 08:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bánh chuối

Thanks for starting this article. Is there a holiday at the end of January that this food item would be part of? As I recall it's not a regular item, but the store owner said it was part of a holiday celebration. Chinese New Years even though it's Vietnamese? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the info. I kind of wanted to try it although it wasn't cheap, but I got the sense from teh store owner that he didn't want me to buy it so his Vietnamese customers could have it as part of their holiday celebration. Fun stuff. I was back last weekend and got some good stuff. I still have to take some photos of the goodies... Cheers. Thanks for your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be Tan O (with all sorts of accents). Does that ring a bell? Also, is Can Tau (celery) different from our celery or same thing. I haven't looked yet to see what's on Misplaced Pages for that one yet... I also have a photo of Hung lui, so I have to see what's there for that. Sorry, too many things going on at once. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's tàu, that is an adjective meaning "Chinese" (literally "boat," as the Chinese used to be referred to as "boat people." Whenever you see tàu as a modifier after a word, you'll know what that means. In this case, though, it's cần tây, with tây meaning "Western" (i.e., European). Badagnani (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So Can is celery? I think they sell regular celery too... Am I missing something? It looks pretty similar but the stalks are more slender or maybe just harvested younger. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See .

Húng lủi is either water mint (Mentha aquatica) or spearmint. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tần ô is Garland chrysanthemum. Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of liqueurs, then?

I'll see you there. One article at a time, one edit at a time. First important lesson - be the first to use the talk page. -GTBacchus 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me put that more clearly. If you're reverted, don't revert back. It's very bad form. Go straight to the talk page, and start a section asking why the revert was made. Explain your reasons for the edit. Keep anything personal out of it - it's a dry content question. This is the stepping stone from which you can later make more powerful edits. -GTBacchus 21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, trust me on this. Let me help you, ok? You have to do that the way I'm telling you. -GTBacchus 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a right way to get behavior policies enforced, and there is a wrong way. Reporting people, as if to the police, is a very wrong way. I didn't make that fact true, but it's true. If you do that, you'll end up turning more and more Wikipedians against you. There's a better way. -GTBacchus 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a practical recommendation. If one editor is pursuing you to multiple articles, then the most powerful way to defeat them is to stop moving, and deal with them on one article. If you can do this in the right way, they won't follow you anymore. Think about it. -GTBacchus 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree with this advice. If someone is stalking you please get an impartial admin to intervene. There are clear policies on stalking that need to be respected. Baiting and disruption are an unfortunate part of editing on Misplaced Pages, and those who engage in these actions should be discouraged form doing so by third parties. Since the trolls are trying to get a reaction out of the editor targeted, that person's doing so just feeds them. Take care. Thanks for you help and collaboration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Impartial admin? Cool, go get one. I'm trying to help Badagnani, but he won't provide me with the information I need to do it. How can I make a rational, well-informed decision in a Wikihounding case if the editor appealing to me won't give me details about the edits involved? How can I say that these link removals are wrongful, if I can't argue about the consensus support that the links enjoy? Maybe you can convey this to Badagnani, and persuade him to share the information I need. Good luck. -GTBacchus 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the history tab at the top of your page broken? Have you tried using the "contributions" history? If you need guidance on how these functions work please let me know. It appears to me based on your sarcasm and attitude, as well as the bad advice you've offered, that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about the history tab. No information there makes it clear why the links in question enjoy consensus support, so what do you want me to find there? All I see is Badagnani adding links, but nothing about how we know they enjoy consensus support. Nobody seems to be able - or willing? - to provide me with this essential information.

If you think I'm part of the problem, then I certainly encourage you again to find another admin. It's rather rash to speak of "bad advice" when you haven't tried it... -GTBacchus 04:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

It appears, Badagnani, that you want to change the way Misplaced Pages handles external links. Is that accurate? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you - just asking. -GTBacchus 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you want me to do?

What do you want me to do, make people agree to use the picture you found? Do you think there's a way around persuading them? -GTBacchus 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You haven't cooperated with my attempt to help you. I asked you how we could demonstrate consensus for your links at List of liqueurs, and you wouldn't say anything about it. I asked, how can we demonstrate that your version is the one supported by consensus. I would ask that again about the ice cream picture. Most of the comments on the talk page don't support it. Do you think it is supported by a consensus? -GTBacchus 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what it looks like, but there really isn't a clear consensus for removal, just several editors coming over from the RFC edit warring about it, so it is really 3-3 to remove, and with no clear consensus to remove the image should stay. But more importantly, regardless of Badagnani's arguments, whether he's wrong or right, he is being hounded by at least three editors from the RFC, all of whom hold serious grudges against Badagnani from past and recent disputes. When I pointed this out to them, they tried to follow my contributions as well, proving my point. This is like dealing with a wild pack of juvenile wolves, and I'm surprised that Misplaced Pages tolerates this egregious behavior from any editor. Obviously, Badagnani has eroded some of his good faith due to his inability to deal with problems he has both created and contributed to in the past, but no matter the blame, a community is judged by how it treats its accused, and those who have little defense. My guess is that the editors (all of whom happen to be non-admins) doing this to Badagnani have the ok from several administrators. Basically it makes Misplaced Pages look pretty bad when the so-called authorities condone this kind of bad behavior. The RFC should be deleted and the editors admonished. And Badagnani needs to have a mentor so he doesn't keep getting into these types of situations. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know so much about the ice-cream headache image. I know that the links at List of liqueurs were inline links to commercial sites for non-notable products, and that sort of link had better have a very good reason for being in an article, despite our linking policies. The hounding I know about, and it's unfortunate. I'm talked with at least one of the editors involved, and I've been encouraging him to engage on a more constructive level.

At the same time, Badagnani has been responding to it badly. I'm trying to coach him to learn a less combative approach, but he's showing a lot of resistance to working with me. I think he really wants me to yell at someone, but that really isn't how I work. I can only teach him to empower himself, but he has to trust me a little bit. I don't know if it'll work. -GTBacchus 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that you get to make whatever you want, without having to use reasons to convince other people that your edits are good? If people don't agree to use your links, then we don't use them. You have to either go along with consensus, or do what it takes to change consensus. Yelling at people for hounding you will never have that effect. Think about it. -GTBacchus 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree?

Do you agree to work my way, yes or no? If no, then don't me for anymore help. I work one way. -GTBacchus 02:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, is there a reason you aren't letting GTBacchus help you? If it's pride, then we all know where that leads... Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yangmei in Shanghainese

is ; approximately "yang meh" (in psuedo-pinyin) or "yahn meh" (in pseudo- um, English?). Tone on the first character is dipping, on the second is rising. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Spirits

Hi there, I noticed your interest in the improvement and development on wikipedia's articles based around alcoholic beverages, spirits and liqueurs. Perhaps you would consider signing yourself up as a member of Wikiproject Spirits? Joining a wikiproject is as simple as going to the project page, scrolling to participants and following the instructions! Easy as pie If you have any questions regarding the project either ask on the project talk page or my personal talk page and I'm sure you'll get a quick response. Hope to see you around the project, Cabe6403 12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusing?

Tell me what's confusing, and maybe I can explain it. -GTBacchus 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not restore

Badagnani is right. Do not repost messages that an editor deletes from their own talk page. I have warned the user doing the restoring, and if he continues, he will be blocked. -GTBacchus 01:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Krakebs

Hi Badagnani. Yes, you are right... Arabic is the official language of North African countries but the musical instruments have African origins and have nothing to do with Arabic. Hope you are doing great. -- FayssalF - 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Banh and Bahn

Okay, thanks for the catch. I think it is technically called Banh tet chuoi. Does that have a distince name? I also added a bit about the flat version of Banh chuoi. Should we do an article for Bahn tam #2, I couldn't find one. I'm going to look for Banh bot loc (3), green rice noodles (5) Xoi ga (11) Xoi gac (13). They probably already exist, but this is a nice source to add. Anyway, thanks for your help. I think I looked at the galrand chrysanthemum but the leaves near the flowers looked so different. But looking again and checking some sources, I think that is correct. The leaves do look similar to chysanthemum leaves. Anyway. Thanks for your help. I like Vietnamese food a lot. Everyone likes Thai, but I would like to move to Vietnam now.  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just go get more people?

If you're right, it should be very easy to find others who agree with you. Why don't you just do that? What's stopping you? I'm not. -GTBacchus 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because our project is about working together, not against one another. It's not a battle, it's a teamwork effort. I love working that way, and did, usually, until recently. One builds on the efforts and knowledge of the other. The thing is that some editors don't like to contribute new articles or content, or working in the collaborative manner described above, but just enjoy removing such, and don't really like discussing, even when asked. Those editors seem to have found one another over the past few weeks. I suppose, from your failure to do anything at all to stop their persistent hounding (a policy issue, not a guideline issue as the removal of the external links), you're one of these. Badagnani (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your excuse for not getting others to work with us is that our project is about working together? That's insane. If it's all about working together, (I agree), then get more people and work together with them. Use your social skills. Do it.

I've been trying for days to discuss with you, and you stubbornly refuse to do it, because you'd rather ignore my substantive questions, and pretend you've already answered them. You know what question you've never answered? Why won't you go find people who agree with you? Why, Badagnani, why? Will it hurt so much, to go ask some questions? Am I the only person you know how to talk to? Do you enjoy this conversation we're having? If not, do something about it. -GTBacchus 03:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC) By the way, why should I do what you ask, when you've never done anything I ask you to do? Double-standard, much? -GTBacchus 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, moderate your tone. You are an admin, with a great deal of patience (as you said), and such a tone does not assist in making matters better. Regarding your insinuation that I have not answered your questions; to the contrary, I have answered each one with great care and seriousness (and, in some cases, at some length). Is the reason you keep reiterating your belief that I have not answered them due simply to the fact that you do not like my answers, or philosophy of editing Misplaced Pages? You are perfectly free to disagree with me, but to say that I have not answered your questions is simply not correct, so please don't continue with it. I received your message which was obviously written and submitted with great care, but the failure to stop the hounding, combined with the fact that what you wrote disregarded the clear bad faith represented by several of the editors, led me to believe such a path is not viable. My original request, which is simply that large removals be discussed prior to implementing when requested to do so by long-time editors, was eminently reasonable, and should be upheld. In fact, such a policy means that edit wars won't ever happen, because consensus eventually does emerge through such careful, collegial discussion. There is no hurry at Misplaced Pages; discussion does take time, and should be engaged in. If admins would uphold this fundamental aspect of our project rather than advising editors to simply ignore poor behavior, using "Discussion" always and only after large deletions have been made, it would solve nearly all such problems. Badagnani (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to answer one simple question: "Who agrees with you?" I'm listening, very carefully... -GTBacchus 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC) By the way, I only advised you to ignore poor behavior in the very short term. At the same time, I offered to teach you how to deal with it very effectively. You spat on my offer, repeatedly. Thanks. -GTBacchus 04:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is very offensive and I ask that you strike the above comment. As I said above, I believe your words to me were offered with great sincerity. However, your failure to stop the wikihounding led me to believe that should I follow your plan, I would again be left hounded, in perpetuity, always discussing after huge removals are made rather than before. It really is best if huge removals are discussed with care at "Discussion" prior to being made. Your point seems to be that if one "rises above" edit wars by refusing to revert huge removals, instead canvassing to get more editors to ask for the restoration of such content at "Discussion," one can avoid hounding. What happens in such cases, through the enabling of such aggressive and insistent deleting behavior, is that huge deletions are made, and stand, frequently impoverishing our articles' content. Badagnani (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you had your chance. You blew it. If I feel spat upon, then I'll say so. You offended me. Where is my apology? You were too proud to accept help, and now you complain. I'm not sorry for you. I offered to be your friend; you decided you'd rather be an enemy. I'd rather be your friend; I continue to offer help. Why do you continue to reject my help?

Did I not chase User:Sea888 away from your page? Did I not insist that you were right, that you the right to remove text from your own talk page? Where is my thanks for that? You ask for a lot, but you give nothing. I'm not sorry for you.

Your guess about what my point seems to be is entirely wrong, by the way. You never bothered to find out what my point is. -GTBacchus 04:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the very good things you have done and do not consider you an enemy. You did say, at the outset, that you hoped I would be gone from Misplaced Pages, which chilled my blood then, and I believe you said it again a day or two ago. That, combined with the failure to stop the hounding (the worst of my tenure here), a policy issue, while interceding strongly on a guideline issue (the removal of external links) also left me feeling that it would be difficult for me to evaluate your proposal. Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. Never would say it. I only tell the truth you see, and I don't hope for you to be gone. I hope for you to learn. -GTBacchus 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the very good things you have done and do not consider you an enemy. You did say, at the outset, that you hoped I would be gone from Misplaced Pages, which chilled my blood then, and I believe you said it again a day or two ago. That, combined with the failure to stop the hounding (the worst of my tenure here), a policy issue, while interceding strongly on a guideline issue (the removal of external links) also left me feeling that it would be difficult for me to evaluate your proposal. If it were my decision to accept your proposal or not, and I were not being pressured, your strongly ascerbic language above would not have been used. Finally, I take the strongest offense to the statement that "I have given nothing" to Misplaced Pages. I am one of the 20 most productive editors, with over one thousand articles begun, and I always edit with our users foremost in our mind, in expanding our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I hoped you be gone. I can't say it, because I don't believe it. I also do not mean to suggest that you've "given nothing" to Misplaced Pages. You've given a lot of good work. I meant that you were asking a lot from me without helping me by doing the small things I asked, like having simple conversations with me about edits that you expected me to defend. You wanted me to defend you blindly, I suppose. If you're ever represented by a lawyer in the future, be more communicative with them. Refusing to discuss your actions doesn't help. -GTBacchus 05:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

So, you've been arguing that the links should only be taken out with careful discussion. Are you willing to have that discussion on the talk page, or will you refuse to discuss the links on a case-by-case basis until your edit is reinstated? A short answer will suffice. I will happily discuss those links with you, one-by-one. What do you say? -GTBacchus 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm always interested to discuss articles I am interested in thoroughly. I would not have asked for such discussion, so many times, if I were not interested or committed to engaging in it. Keeping in mind that we have jobs and real lives, discussing 100 links all at once can be very difficult, but a few at a time would be very doable. I think we have done this on a case-by-case basis in the past, for individual liqueurs. Badagnani (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, let's do it. Go to Talk:List of liqueurs, choose one link to talk about, and start a conversation about it. Doing that would be a great sign of your good-faith willingness to talk about these edits. -GTBacchus 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This selection would be contingent on the editor wishing to remove a given link (I didn't wish to remove any of them, so didn't have a pressing need to discuss each one prior to the huge removal; I had scoured the Web to find them in the first place, and used the best one available for each). Once they come up with one, we can research and discuss it, and, if they're really interested in liqueurs, we can probably work together to actually create an article on that liqueur. Badagnani (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So that's a "no"? You refuse to do the simple things that it would take to show that your edit has consensus, and you're just going to insist that the burden is on others? Not impressive, Badagnani. Not at all. -GTBacchus 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a "yes," as you can clearly read above. I do wish to discuss any of the references a given editor wishes to remove from the article, with care and thoroughness, in a collegial manner. In fact, in response to your request, I presented and thoroughly explained, through many paragraphs, a link verifying "Copa de Oro" coffee liqueur, which you failed to respond to at all, instead reiterating your own reading of our guidelines and failing to take into account anything I had said. Badagnani (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about the Copa de Oro link now, and I do appreciate that. I believe I have responded to you, with the main content being this: Pepsi is a notable product about which we have an independently sourced article. The best sources available are independent of the company, and we use them. Having written that article, we link to the corporate homepage of the company that makes it.

Copa de Oro is different in two very important ways: (1) We do not have an independently sourced article about it. A link to a commercial site will not help us develop an independently sourced article about it, because no such page is independent of those selling it. (2) The link you wish to include is not to the corporate homepage of Heaven Hill Distilleries, but to a company press release announcing a new promotion. That does not help us create an independently sourced article.

Does this reply address your concerns. If not, please let me know what I've missed. I do mean to respond to your points, carefully and seriously. -GTBacchus 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this

You seem to believe that arguing will accomplish what you want. Why do you believe that? In particular, do you think you can get your way without showing that other Wikipedians agree with you? This is a very serious question. I do hope you can answer it. -GTBacchus 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to refer to thoughtful and careful discussion as "arguing." Different long-time editors have different viewpoints regarding the purpose of Misplaced Pages; some contribute and write articles while others seek to delete from them. Our users must be foremost in our mind, and our job, through careful and collegial collaboration, is to provide the best, most thorough, and encyclopedic articles on each subject. This always involves using the best sources available (as at the Pepsi article, one of the best at our project). Badagnani (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I was really trying to make here is that you don't seem to consider it relevant that more people disagree with you than agree with you. Look at Talk:List of liqueurs and WT:EL. Even if you subtract out those people harassing you, your edit has not got consensus support. You seem to think that this is unimportant, as long as you can argue that your links are useful. However, consensus is very important, and it can only be demonstrated by the fact of other people actually agreeing with you. No amount of reasoned discussion from one person can demonstrate consensus.

Does this make sense? Do you agree that consensus requires more than one person? -GTBacchus 20:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources

"This always involves using the best sources available" Correction: This always involves using the best independent sources available. That word you omitted is very important. -GTBacchus 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate

It would probably be appropriate to move our discussion from Misplaced Pages talk:External links to Talk:List of liqueurs. Would you be ok with that? -GTBacchus 19:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. You could simply copy the text rather than moving it, but either way would be fine. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of unanswered questions

I hope I have addressed your points. I certainly don't mean to ignore any. The first question I asked you about the liqueurs article is one you still have not addressed. Namely: "How do you know that people agree with you?" Where are these people? You have yet to address this question. -GTBacchus 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The asking of questions three or more times is becoming a bit bothersome. I had responded to you, in response to this same question, that the subjects I edit articles on often don't have many other interested editors. The ones who are attracted by the policy issues rather than content-adding or content-creation often do have a fundamentalist reading of our guidelines, which, as written, are eminently reasonable. As I also stated, our project is not a war or posse-based one, it is one based on collaborating to create the best and most encyclopedic articles possible for our users, who must be foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can't find people who agree with you, even after looking, then you have to accept that your edit has not got consensus support. It's the rule I play by; why should you be different? -GTBacchus 20:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Our community's consensus is that we work to create the most thorough, encyclopedic, and best-sourced articles on given subjects. That is all I have ever done, and it is an admirable goal. Those who primarily wish to delete and remove content have their own philosophy, and that is normal in any organization. However, I refuse to accept that our project is "posse-based," but based on reason and placing our users foremost in our minds with each and every edit we make, adhering to the inherently reasonable guidelines set out for us by our founders. Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If no person can be found to agree with your reading of a guideline, that is a very good indication that your reading is incorrect. By your reasoning, you can do anything you want, as long as you think it's a good idea, and nobody may oppose you? How is your position different from that?

A reasonable person accepts that when more and more people disagree with them, then they might actually be wrong. Where is your reasonable side? Where is the side of you that even cares what other people think? Have you even looked for others who agree with your very singular reading of our policies? Is your conviction that you're right more powerful than any number of Wikipedians saying you're wrong? -GTBacchus 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

And now you're edit warring at Fruit wine. Stop. When your edits are taken you, it is your job to take it to the talk page. That's the rule I play by, why are you entitled to more?

The rule is not discuss before removing. The rule is, if it's removed, discuss before restoring. Start following the rule. -GTBacchus 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Again, linking to non-independent sources, I see. -GTBacchus 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The same pattern: the stalker (a policy issue, the worst stalker I have ever experienced in my tenure at WP) is not said a word to regarding 1) stalking, 2) reversion, or 3) highly aggressive edit summaries and discussion page postings, the most over-the-top I have ever experienced at WP. Our admins do have a duty to, even-handedly, preserve order at our project. I see now, clearly, how things work with some admins. I suppose we all have our human frailties, and it does seem that you are yourself afraid of that editor, and this is why you have left no message for him. I do not blame you! Badagnani (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No. That editor is in the right in this case. He removed a non-independent source, per our policies, and you replaced it without discussion. If he has removed it again without discussion, you can be certain he will hear from me. I'll just check that now.

By the way, this "worst stalking you've experienced" is nothing compared to what I've seen. You would do well to grow some thicker skin, and learn to deal with stalkers effectively, and not by running to the skirts of authority figures. If you thought admins were like police, then I'm happy for you to learn otherwise. -GTBacchus 21:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't reverted. Where are you initiating discussion on the issue? Why aren't you following the BRD cycle? Why are your opinions worth so much more than those of others? -GTBacchus 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are willing to intervene on guideline issues but not on policy issues (the worst stalking I have ever experienced in many years at this project, as one of the most productive of this encyclopedia's content creators), but quite willing to use abusive language against one of our project's most dedicated and sincere editors (implying that you are my mother, of all things), please don't post here again. Our admins need to be even-handed and uphold our project's fundamental ethos and policies. You seem unwilling to do so, so don't seem worthy of such a title. Further, we don't all agree that BRD is a valuable policy in all cases, especially when specifically requested by a long-time editor to utilize discussion before making huge removals from an article. Badagnani (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't all agree that your valuable either. If you think BRD isn't valuable, then we drop it, but if fifteen other people think your links aren't valuable, then we keep them? How does that work? Why are your ideas assumed to be correct? -GTBacchus 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post here again (second request). Badagnani (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another admin

If you don't like how I handle the situation, then go get another admin. There are over 1500, and if I'm so unreasonable, then it will be very, very easy for you to find a more reasonable one. So, get to it. Bring another admin, to tell me how wrong I am. I promise to listen. -GTBacchus 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the one who wants to add content, not the one who removes it. The content must meet our criterion of being independently sourced; otherwise, any editor may remove it at any time. That's the rule we all play by. -GTBacchus 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very familiar, as a long-time WP editor, with which links we try to use according to our guidelines, and which we try not to use. This repeated assertion of your personal reading of the guidelines comes across very much as a lecture, and one which is not place in proper context, privileging discussion of individual links and their value, at the pages in question. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and asking that editors evaluate each link with care، thoroughness, and deliberateness (as stated earlier, I only add the best available links as references) is eminently reasonable. Badagnani (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try not to lecture you. It's just that I'm very confident that what you call "my reading" is actually the consensus reading of many Wikipedians.

I claim that, if a non-independent source is the only source available, then we should not cover the topic at all, because independent sourcing is more important that completeness, which you seem to advocate. What do you think of that? Which is more important, independent sourcing, or completeness? -GTBacchus 21:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an unreasonable misreading of a guideline, and we must be reasonable in everything we do, keeping our users foremost in our mind, in our effort to provide for them the most thorough and encyclopedic articles possible. Badagnani (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You say it's unreasonable. I disagree. How do we decide? Do we assume that your reading is correct, and mine wrong? Why? More people seem to agree with my reading. What makes you certain that your reading is correct? -GTBacchus 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasonableness

You and I seem to disagree on how to read our guidelines, specifically regarding independent sourcing, and what to do when no independent sources are available. If two reasonable people disagree, and cannot come to accord, then surely the reasonable thing is to ask the question in a larger forum. Would you agree? If not, how would two reasonable people decide such a question? -GTBacchus 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way

I've left notes at Misplaced Pages talk:Lists and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Lists, asking for more input. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do. -GTBacchus 13:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

China-geo-stub

Hi Badagnani - please don't use {{China-geo-stub}}... as it says on the template, it's been deprecated (China's just too confusing a word, since it can be used for two different countries). For places on the mainland, {{PRChina-geo-stub}} (i.e., people's republic) is used. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Xôi Bánh Phòng

B, have you heard of this? It's also called "sweet rice waffler" on the package. I just ate them, and they were three rice and bean sweets: read bean, yellow, and (maybe) white, inside waffle with coconut. Something purple maybe too I foget now. I'm full and sleepy... I can't find anything about them on Misplaced Pages and I have a photo. Let me know. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah I meant to mention that I hadn't tried the software yet. :) My computer is on its last legs so I am reluctant to add much in the way of software. I will try to cut and paste some of the accented letters and try to use them so maybe that will help...? Sorry. I guess I'm hopeless! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything about it on the net. Nothing. Weird. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

John Blake, Jr.

Thank you very much for your work launching his bio.Dogru144 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy"

"Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." From WP:STALK. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speak and read Italian?

I'm trying to get some info to clean up the gelato article, but the net seems to be saturated with hyped up junk from enthusiasts and fluff from commercial enterprise. I think I will first get some of the info from the italian gelato article before finding some more substantial sources for this food, but I can't read italian and I don't trust google translate. Can you translate italian, or know someone interested in food and willing to translate the italian gelato article? Sjschen (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Trieu Thi Trinh

I has just removed a part of Trieu Thi Trinh article because they are sourced content and moved them into talkpage. I'm writing to inform you and I hope you won't revert it with no reason.--Amore Mio (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

Editor Bulldog has once again removed loads of images without consensus such as those on French-Americans, Dutch-Americans, etc. I have replaced the images he has deleted, but it's a time-consuming process. I have sent him a message on his talk page asking him to stop with his unconstructive and random deletions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your random reverts

What is the basis for reverting all of my edits to pages that you contribute to? I don't know if you have some kind of grudge against me because you disagreed with my past edits, but it is especially inappropriate that you deal with it in such a snide and inappropriate manner. This can earn you another warning, and it's not going to help your reputation on Misplaced Pages. Additionally, I suggest you please stop this random Wiktionary linking; it only takes up extra space here and won't help a reader understand the term in any way. It's like trying to speak English by reading individual words from a Chinese/English dictionary. You end up with fragmented syllables that make no sense. GraYoshi2x► 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States

Hi, just saw your message about this article, sorry to see it deleted. I've stopped regularly editing Misplaced Pages. I only log in occasionally now. And also sorry I couldn't help with your last lot of questions. LDHan (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary linking

Though there is no specific guideline that explictly disallows what you are doing, what you can infer from the community and various guidelines is pretty clear that such random linking is discouraged. After all, if this type of linking was correct then every foreign subject should have numerous links to Wiktionary about the characters in question, right? I'm sure few people would bother to follow these links nor would they receive any proper definition of the term with such linking practices. Some terms (especially Chinese dishes) have no meaning in Chinese, so it would make absolutely no sense to link to them, especially when you know so little about the language. Link sparingly. A few Wiktionary links in the correct context is fine, but not this ludicrous edit-war cycle to insert space-taking and useless links. GraYoshi2x► 02:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: ). Badagnani (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: ). Badagnani (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

An discussion on some of your recent editing has been started here --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Second reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Third reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth reminder to User:Ronz

Do not post here. Badagnani (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about my edits to Spare Ribs

I made some minor improvements to the article on spare ribs, a topic on which I am a noted expert (see my bio). You undid them. Why? 98.226.204.252 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Third reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: ). Badagnani (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: ). Badagnani (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the great steamed clams photo and for the project addition on rubbernecking. I was trying to find a project, but all I found was some sort of language project that seems very broad. Take care. I hope you can get some breathing room soon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome templates

Hi Badagnani! On 23 April 2009 you posted a message at Misplaced Pages talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Misplaced Pages#Where are the welcome templates?. There is no sign that you ever received a response, so I have answered on the above page. Sorry about the month's delay! Dolphin51 (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A few queries

Hello!

Background: I probably should have written something to you before this, my apologies that I have not. As you've probably seen, I've been trying to defend some of your actions. I'm not sure if I'm actually helping anyone, but I felt the urge to try.

Intent: Here are some badly/bluntly phrased statements and questions. I hope they can help us all to find common ground so that we can adapt to each other.

2 Specific things I'd request a reply about:

1. I hope you can agree that you have been involved in a fair number of disputes. I also hope you can agree that some of them are at least partly your fault (or, that you could have handled them better).
2. I was wondering if you could find a few examples in your archives, of someone giving you criticism, and you replying politely. GT has bet me $10 that there aren't any, but I don't have time to learn your entire contributing history here! (please visualize the grin on my face as I ask this, but do take me seriously. If you simply never respond well to criticism (which some people don't) then I can't go on defending you.

Sorry for anything I have badly/baldly stated. I hope you see that I'm trying to assist everyone in the only way I know how to. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! Certainly I have had all forms of interaction with other editors, mostly quite productive and positive. Such interactions often take place at Discussion pages. When it has been indicated, and proven, that I have added material to an article in error, I have stood corrected. This is usually the case when collaborating with editors more knowledgeable than I on a given subject. Antagonistic messages left at my Discussion page, often made by aggressive editors attempting to enforce their own mistaken readings of our guidelines, are responded to as I see fit (in many cases to remove them entirely, if their language is overly vitriolic). The same question can and should be asked of the editors currently stalking me (for over 30 days straight, always in an effort to undo or delete my contributions, often on an incessant and repeated basis). In fact, the admin asking you the question about me has been unwilling, although he has been asked many times, to even request that the stalkers cease this behavior (which is against our WP policy WP:STALK. So how would we even know how they respond to criticism when admins appear too frightened even to ask them to stop? Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. To start off, I need to convince you that actually the stalking (preferably called WP:Wikihounding so that it doesnt sound like real-world stalking) isn't that bad. The way they were doing it is rude, and annoying, but it isn't forbidden for them to edit the same articles you do. Very bad etiquette, especially by one or two of them, but not forbidden. I'd strongly recommend you cease mentioning it, especially so frequently - no admin is going to do anything about it, unless they start insulting you. If it continues or gets worse, the only option is to start an RFC/UC on them (collect diffs of clear-cut edits that violate the WP:Wikihounding policy).

2 questions. It would be really helpful if you could give simple "yes/no" style answers.

1) Do you understand why GTBacchus was upset that you called another editor a "Korean-nationalist"? Accusing someone of doing something based on their heritage is considered racist by some people. Comment on content, not on the contributor, is the first rule of interacting positively. (WP:NPA)

2) Do you understand that many of the sources you have added or defended at certain articles are simply not good enough - and, in some cases are worse than nothing? For example, in this edit, Bulldog was quite correct that most of these sources are inappropriate. Most of them don't mention Danish/Denmark, or they are not from reliable enough sources for WP:BLPs.

Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:STALK is a policy, and our admins do need to make sure it doesn't occur. The current 30+ days of stalking (with the stalking editors always undoing or removing my contributions at any and all pages I edit) is quite different from "editors editing the same pages"; from my very first edits at Misplaced Pages I have very often collaborated with editors, particularly on Asian cuisine articles, with several of us building on one another's edits, working together to produce the best possible articles. Yes, in this case it is "that bad." Regarding Korean nationalism, you need to examine the history of the page in question to see it in action (always in an attempt to remove text about dog meat). The Administrator's Noticeboard contains a section about Greek nationalists at this very moment, yet I did not see that the admin you refer to has admonished any of the editors making reference to this. I suppose it's the same double standard that makes requests for thoughtful, considered discussion by a long-time, productive, and sincere editor a blocking offense, while Wikistalking, hyperaggressive discussion page postings, and massive blanking without prior discussion (even when asked for such discussion numerous times) are consistently overlooked. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stalking: Then you need specific proof. Individual edit diffs , or article history pages . You need to make clear exactly why you think the edits are HOUNDing (should be obviously close together from timestamps) and Tendencious. (and make it short or concise, with less adjectives & superlatives. Call it "blanking" instead of "massive blanking")

Remember, if those editors are removing what are actually inappropriate sources, then they are correct in doing so.

Do not expect an admin to discover the evidence for you - you have to provide it to them. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. It's so interesting that some issues are so easy for admins to see and comment on, and attract such great interest for them, while others they have such difficulty noting, even when regarding a serious policy issue, and when asked numerous times for assistance with, from a long-time, productive, and sincere editor. The stalking (the worst I have ever experienced) is easily available in the edit histories of the editors engaging in it. If our admins really do live up to the position and tools with which they have been entrusted, they will do everything in their power to ensure that our project lives up to its founders' ideals and ethos. Badagnani (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The only 3 tools that admins have, that we don't, are: 1) protect/unprotect pages, 2) delete/undelete pages, 3) block/unblock users. They have no way of quickly sifting through hundreds and hundreds of edit diffs. Hence, you have to do the work of finding the evidence. If you don't, nobody else will either.

The editors were definitely following you. That much is obvious from the timestamps in various articles. But most of the edits appear to be just revert-wars, which establish nothing. I don't have time to search for proof that they were making actual-and-specific-and-clear-cut mistakes. You have to do that.

Or, ignore it and just edit articles, and resign yourself to the fact that people are infinitely diverse in their expectations of what Misplaced Pages should be - nobody agrees completely on that... :\ -- Quiddity (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears...

....that I have unintentionally offended you. I never meant to do so, and I apologize for any offense that I have caused. My only intention is that you be able to edit here in peace. I have tried to help you, and I have been extremely insulted by your disrespectful reaction to my best attempts to help you.

Since I untintentionally offended you, and I'm willing to apologize, do you think it's fair that you should apologize too, for unintentionally offending me to the bone? You insulted me so deeply that I find it difficult to type any response to you. I assume you didn't mean this. Are you willing to apologize? I apologize for offending you. It has never been my goal to do that, and I am sincerely sorry. -GTBacchus 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC) No response to my explanation of the "don't read policy" remark? Do you think it's fair to demand apologies from me without offering any for unintentional misunderstandings on your part? I'm happy to apologize for unintentional misunderstandings on my part. -GTBacchus 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I had asked you not to post here again due to your failure to address even a single word to the worst, incessant WP:STALK I have ever experienced during my years working to make WP the best encyclopedia in the world. Did you somehow not understand that request? The stalking has been worse today than over the past 40 straight days. Further, the terrible profanity and cursing you subjected me to in a private email was simply uncalled for--something I have never, ever done while at Misplaced Pages. In light of these two things, why do you now feel it is okay to post to my Discussion page? Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I posted here to apologize, and you're welcome to delete my postings if you want. I won't complain. It's "okay" for me to post here because you don't own this page, but like I said, you're welcome to delete this. I have offered you my help, and that offer remains.

Have you offered to do anything about the insults to which you've subjected me? Is your offense to be taken seriously, and mine to be ignored? How is that fair? If I feel insulted, it doesn't matter, but if you feel insulted, it matters? How is that fair?

I'll help you, if you let me, but I'll do it my way. If you don't want that, then you don't want my help. However, it's not fair for you to complain that I won't enforce policy when I'm standing here offering to enforce it. All you have to do to get me to help you is agree to my conditions. I will help you, if you let me. -GTBacchus 13:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Hi. Sorry to jump in. Badagnani, I most emphatically urge you to treat GTBacchus as a helping hand. He knows your situation well, and is acting within his own comfort zone to assist you, and is demonstrating immense patience at the ANI thread. He is the best assistance you are likely to get. He is trying to get all people involved in the dispute to improve their methods of interaction, which I applaud. Please, please, take him at his word, forgive him any past mistakes/misunderstandings, apologize for any of your own, and, most difficult of all, recognize that some of your own habits need to be changed or improved. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another admin?

You still haven't said why you don't get another admin to help you. If I'm so bad, then why complain about me when you can easily get someone better to help you? Why haven't you found someone else? Am I the only admin willing to take your side? And you reject my conditions? Do you really want help? -GTBacchus 13:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth reminder to GraYoshi2x

Do not post here (as requested on 26 March 2009: ). Badagnani (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Badagnani, I realize you were notified earlier of the RFC regarding you, but I just wanted to remind you about it again. It would be helpful if you could share your viewpoint. Jauerback/_dude. 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Piva (bagpipe)

I saw this new article and thought you might be interested. This one too Cornstalk fiddle. One more Noodle-core. It's prodded, I have no idea if it's notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a freshman researching on Wiki. Could you help me?

Dear Badagnani

I am a student in Seoul National University in Korea doing a research project on Misplaced Pages. I am very impressed about your insight especially on NoGun-ri Massacre pages. Reading your page, I see you are truly concerned about a variety of issues, and I appreciate your contributions. So I thought you could provide some opinions really worthwhile. So, would it be possible for you to take some time off and give an online interview via E-mail or online messenger? It would provide my project a lively voice of an actual editor, and this will be of a great meaning; your experience, concerns, opinions and ideas would add a lot to my project. Actually I'm in real need of something concrete; for my project is about the mechanism a biased version of explanation is settled, and as you will probably guess, understanding such things involves a lot more than just watching explicit process. Again, I would really, really appreciate your help. It will not take that long; in fact everything will depend completely upon your will. If you are willing to give some help, would you mind mailing me within April? Thanks a lot.

Sincerely, Bongeun 121.170.42.47 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very nice to hear from you! I don't know much about the subject you mention, however. Badagnani (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

芝麻

It's the fifth tone.

The fact is, often I myself am unsure about the pronunciation of certain words due to certain idiosyncrasies I've acquired. Also, as I am not Taiwanese, I cannot vouch for the official pronunciation in the ROC without looking up an ROC published dictionaries.

This is especially true for neutral-tone things which varies greatly from speaker to speaker and from region to region.

Here are two dictionaries that I've found really helpful in looking up the pronunciation of Chinese words.

Simplified Chinese (PRC) Traditional Chinese (ROC)

-- ran (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- ran (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Aliste (shire)

Wow, that was trippy, within ten seconds of my tossig up a translation of the Spanish Aliste page, you had a redirect up. Just trying to see if we're crossing wires here, as the two Alistes you list are municipalities and not comarcas, best as I can tell. I think the article I translated is about a much wider area. Can you glance at *Aliste (shire) and see if you agree? Can you also read Spanish and glance at the es.wikipedia links to confirm? Oh, what thinks of the Iberian gaita variant pages I brought over? MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a big problem at all, there are indeed two municipalities named Aliste XYZ. For now I've notated the shire/comarca on the disambig page as Aliste (shire), though I might make the shire the main page and make a "for other uses" disambig page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, been mining es:WP a bunch this morning and this evening, with some minor forays into pt:WP ca:WP and as:WP. I can read Spanish and Portuguse well enough to translate about 95%, and can read most other Iberian languages well enough to hit 90%, though I have to use Google to get a few clues at times, and hit a few phrases I just can't get and leave out if they're not vital to the context. Lots of good pics there too. ca:WP has like 30 pages just of Catalan instruments, so I'll be headed back there at some point. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but they're basically all within Aliste (shire). The page you link is the one I translated. It's not any worse than having a page for Texas and having tons of little towns called Texarkana, Heart of Texas, Texas Hills, the River Texas, Texas State University, etc. It does give some impetus to making the shire page the main Aliste page though, and letting the table of municipalities on that page help with the disambig. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a SNU freshman. The researching subject is....

Actually I'm doing a group researching. So the members also posted letters on the other's user talk. First we wanna know how the contents are settled, and why there are certain pattern or tendency on the history. We selected NoGun-ri Massacre as the typical controversial issue. If you are willing to help us and inquire something, please send me an e-mail. And I sincerely wanna interview you via e-mail or instant messenger.

Sincerely, Bongeun my e-mail address is bongeun319@hanmail.net 147.46.226.48 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very nice to hear from you! I don't know much about the subject you mention, however. Badagnani (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Solo man

So whats happening there? what you have put in looks very odd SatuSuro 11:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps my always trying to separate conversations from project tags may have spoilt it - still not sure what you were trying to do SatuSuro 11:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you be more clear in your question to me? I can't understand what you are asking. I added a WPINDONESIA project tag to that article's "Discussion" page, because as I understand Solo is in Indonesia. Badagnani (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(Correct format should be WP Indonesia) Solo is in central java - apologies re my comments - it was probably a small format error on my part and not yours - sometimes when viewing some changes it is possible to think the previous editor caused the problem when it is ones own problem. sorry about that SatuSuro 14:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok took the time to check properly - it was, believe it or not some junk left over from 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Homo_erectus_soloensis&oldid=7677402 - my apologies even further! SatuSuro 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Snacking

I'm eating something called Bươm bướm (butterfly? yellow butterfly?). It's great. Deep fried and sugar coated. I should take a picture, but I'm too busy putting it in my mouth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot and Sour

You haven't heard of the famous Hot and Sour and Sweet Soup? Lololol. Thanks for fixing my typo. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

A discussion on some of your recent edits has been started here --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Music of southern China

• Please see Talk:Music of southern China#Merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

IP accounts

I'm curious if you have any idea who the IP accounts are on Talk:Buddha's delight. Can you show that similar IP's have followed you around? If so, we may have a foundation for a checkuser case. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting images

Please note that {{reqimage}} is not a recommended image request template. Please use {{reqphoto}}, with appropriate parameters. Traveler100 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input to the article Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures which provides hits on requesting pictures for articles. Is the explanation clear enough? How can we make this information more accessible and visible? Traveler100 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. We do need people to add photos to WP more. The FIST tool helps a lot in finding them. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Category...

Hello dear Badagnani,

Can you say me please. Are you the creator of the category site "Americans of Polish Descent"?

Can I ask you to this article a few things,please

217.114.220.34 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)--

Shoring up List of bagpipes

The main bits we're missing right now are the Polish and German pipes. I can tackle the Polish stuff sometime later this month, as there are two pl. articles for the white and black pipes. If you're feeling ambitious with Google Translate, this German wiki has some great stuff to be mined:

• de:Schäferpfeife
• de:Hümmelchen
• de:Dudey
• de:Marktsackpfeife

Found another pipe on ast:Gaita_cabreiresa and bringing it over to Gaita cabreiresa soon. Honestly, most Iberian pipes are a much of a muchness in constrcution, but do represent distinct cultural and historical movements over time, so personally I'm not seeing a problem with a bunch of Iberian articles (ditto France) so long as there's either a difference in the construction or the history/repertoire/development/revival/etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Alcapurria

I'm curious about your view of Alcapurria. I wasn't sure if you would see this on the talk page, so feel free to move it there if you like. When I read the article, I see mostly a recipe, which tells me to add a {{Copy to Wikibooks Cookbook}} template. Isn't this standard procedure? In other words, do you think recipes should appear in articles or should they be moved to Wikibooks? Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

You may want to comment or merely observe silently as the thread unfolds at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page. --Tenmei (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chaozhou xianshi

I'm extremely disappointed to find you edit warring over at Chaozhou xianshi while you are simultaneously the subject of an RFC and a current AN/I report. If you are trying to tell the community that you want to be blocked for an extended period of time, I'm sure someone can fulfill that request. Otherwise, I suggest confining yourself to 1RR from here on out. Any deviation from that course could result in serious ramifications. I'm telling you this as a favor, and I do not mean any disrespect. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. Note: It does not matter who is right or wrong, the community does not support edit warring. While I think the community picks and chooses who to block in such cases (and I think they protect some editors from ever being blocked for this behavior when they should have been blocked a long time ago for repeatedly edit warring) your behavior is under very close scrutiny right now. I'm not sure why you are testing the administration, but I can tell you that there are some very itchy blocking fingers hovering over your user name. If you do feel the need to deviate from 1RR in the near future, don't be surprised if you find yourself blocked for a very long time. Stick to the talk page, and ask other users to help you. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)