Talk:Zanskar/Archive 1

Archive 1

I wanted to discuss some of the edits regarding population figures, access to foreigners, and the name Zangskar/Zanskar. I made some time ago. I am an anthropologist who has worked in Zangskar for nearly 20 years. Regarding spelling, the proper Tibetan spelling is Zangskar, although the British and Indian spelling of Zanskar has now become standard for tourists as much as for the Indian bureaucracy. While it is important to respect the Indian usage on one level, the spelling of villages and even personal names can be so garbled that bureaucrats and locals have difficultly understanding who or what is being discussed. Karsha 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Karsha, Nov 2007

The images that appear on this page are indeed borrowed from the website http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar. This is however my website and the images are mine and am therefore free to put them on Wikipedia if I wish to. Moreover, the copyright notice on the original website mentions that "Documents on this site can be used inasmuch as reference is clearly made to the above-mentionned publication and/or this website." which I did on this Wikipedia page. There is no rule on Wikipedia that images have to be GFDL.

If you have doubts about the fact that I am the author of the images and that I do agree that they can be used on Wikipedia, please mail the author of the comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage (e-mail adress is to be found there) and ask for confirmation.

Last but not least I would very much appreciate if "Mr Tan" would contribute to this page by adding relevant informations rather than repeatedly defacing it. He might not agree with the "etymological" section, but at least he should say why and/or provide an alternative version.

Moumine 22:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After consideration, I feel that my version will serve well as the basis for article expansion.

Moumine, you may continue to contribute to Zanskar from here, with on better grammar and language. I do not deny your work, but your atrocious grammar has made me very hard to understand what are you writing about.

Also, I would like to point out that the population of Zanskar currently stands at 10,000, not 7,000 anymore.

Tan 13:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found further explanations from Mr Tan in my account (which I reproduce below)

Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zanskar

I'm not defacing the Zanskar page. However, I apologise if it causes displeasure upon you, but your English grammar is really, really bad, and cleanup is critically needed. Furthermore, everybody has the right to edit wikipedia as long as it is not vandalism. However, how can you prove to me that

http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar

is your website? Is your name (note: real name was inserted here)? I hope that the content is really yours. According to the Zanskar talk page, you only specified that the images are yourd, but not the content. I am also unable to reach the website comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage that you have specified, as it has an error check page by stating Document not found and I afraid that you may have to provide more information about the ownership of the images to me if you could so that I can confirm that you are the photographer. (Furthermore, I feel that color images should be put up rather than black & white images. Do you have them? I feel that the look of the Zanskar page would be much nicer if they are colored.)

I also feel that my version serves as a better basis for the page. However, I fully admit that it needs expansion; and if you could use your content to add information is better.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not widely accept borrowrd content, as it is an encyclopedia, unless you are really the author of the website where you borrow the content.

Ah yes, about the etymology, I don't like it because your grammar really terrible. Just compare yourself with how the content of Sikkim is written instead.

Tan, 13:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to comments made by Mr Tan

• English: My english might not be the best, but I will let the community judge whether MrTan's english is any better (see messages above or MrTan's "revisions" to the Zanskar article)
• Editing: editing means editing, not replacing an entire article with ones own version. Editing should also mean improving
• Website: the website given above functions perfectly and it is a lame excuse for not contacting me about the copyright issue (which should not be an issue anymore since it was already discussed prior to MrTans renewed policing attempts)
• images: there is no rule about bw or color pictures in Wikipedia. Color pictures might be more alluring to some but others prefer bw pictures. The advantage of bw is that the files are smaller and therefore take less time to download. Up until recently I had a modem and that makes a big difference compared to adsl/cable and most of the people in so called "third world" countries are probably not equipped with fast internet access. Moreover, there is some text attached to the figures, whose content might be interesting to some, but MrTan's revision makes it just unavailable
• Proofs: I have nothing to prove to MrTan personnally in terms of copyright, be it for the images or the article. I have already given him enough information on how to ascertain that the authors of the original text and the Wikipedia version are the same person.
• Wikipedia: I kind of know that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia:-) and am fully aware that no "borrowed" (I guess with the meaning of stolen) content should appear in it. However, I do think that it makes sense for content that was created in another context to serve as a base for articles in Wikipedia, especially when said content was published in an academic work that was peer-reviewed (one of the reviewers in this case was a native english speaking professor) and if said work has a very friendly copyright notice as mentionned above.
• Etymology: no comment, read and judge for yourself. Improvements in the formulation are welcome, but just throwing eveything away because one does not understand the meaning is nonsense.

General comments

In the above message that MrTan sent me personally (to my Wikipedia Moumine handle), he was kind of concillatory and provided at least some arguments. I do however not agree with the his argument that my english grammar is horrible/terrible. Had this statement come from a native english speaker, I would have found it really offensive.

The first message that MrTan put on this discussion page and the manner in which he simply switched his article with mine are to me incredibly arrogant. I have also read the version of the article by MrTan and was not impressed. For the record, I have spent more than six month over four years in zanskar (first time 1989, last time 1995) for academic research and all my sources for the article are based on scholarly work, whose reference I give at the bottom of the page. (which is better than the new "reference" that MrTan give: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/zanskar.html, a site to which I actually contributed (see acknowledgements) or to state that I am a Professor (which I am not)

I am fully aware that some of the facts that I mention might be outdated, but I think that any contribution would benefit if its sources were cited (this also a general comment for Wikipedia).

For the time being, I have decided to revert to the last version of my article and express again the hope that MrTan will act in a more constructive way in the future.

Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

I've reverted Mr Tan's blanking of the page, and protected it from being edited for a time, until this mess has been sorted out. Would the two protagonists give brief and calm accounts of their positions here please? Then we can begin to reach some sort of accommodation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for the accidental action that I caused to the article, and I shall show our POV here:

The orientation and relavancy of this artcle is disputed between two users and it is implented that wikipedia users should take a vote and decide whose article is more suitable to act as a base and contribute more content from there, thus the present article is temporarily removed. Votes should be based on the basis of grammar, content, vocabulary and language usuage.

For the convinence of all users, please refer to these two past revisions:

• By Moumine: [1]

• By Mr Tan: version

Mr Tan, 23:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Place Your Votes Here:

1. In light of some of the arguments above, I'll start by saying that both versions would need some copy-editing, though the English of the one that Mr Tan call's Moumine's, but which I shall call the original version (because Moumine is only one of a number of Wikipedia editors to have been involved with it) contains fewer obvious mistakes.
2. The plain fact, though, is that the original article should be the basis of future editing. Mr Tan should, in a collaborative manner, edit what's there. Only in extreme cases (usually when there's only a stub, and when an article hasn't been touched for some time) is an editor justified in wiping the slate clean and starting again. When an article is being actively edited, such an approach is unacceptable.
3. This is therefore not a matter for a vote. The article as it stands needs to be tidied in terms of its English, and where the material drawn on by Mr Tan fills gaps, it should be used as the basis for editing. It should not, however, be placed in the article unaltered.

I hope that this settles the matter, and that Mr Tan can now work on the article in the way that Wikipedia editors are expected to do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case.

I hope this will do.

Mr Tan, 14:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, you will not do that. First, I have explained why it isn't acceptable. Secondly, your reference to the English of the original version is simply unfounded; to be honest, your own English is poor, riddled with glaring spelling and grammatical errors. That isn't something that I'd normally say to a non-native speaker, but your insults to other editors' English places you outside normal standards of politeness.
• If you replace this page with your own version again, I shan't protect it, I shall block you from editing for a while, to allow you time to actually read what I said above and understand it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will revert to my old version, and incoporate content from all sources within wikipedia. To work!'

However, some redundant facts concerning about etymology and geography have to be omitted. Progress to come.

Mr Tan, 21:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

?? You seem to be sending messages from the future. I'm glad to see that you've reverted your large-scale changes to the article. This should be a gradual process, with each stage explained and agreed upon. Note that this is the place to do that — not on my Talk page or on yours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Please compare with the current version and my adaption [2](for all users)

• Reasons for comment:

• • I feel that gramatical orientation is far from satisfactory standard
  • Sentence structure is poor
  • Certain vocabulary and gramatical errors is some areas.
  • Also, a few points are placed in the wrong sections. (example:The remoteness of this region also explains why only a few western travellers have visited the area until recent times, the Tibetologist Alexander Csoma de Koros being probably one of the first, in 1823.) should be in history section

Mr Tan 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. It's not clear to me why Wikizap (talk · contributions) is posting here and signing as Mr Tan.
2. It serves to emphasise my position (reiterated a number of times in response to Mr Tan's (or Wikizap's) continued claims about English) that the above complaints about the English of the article are couched in such poor English. The link provided takes us to an article full of grammatical errors. If needed I can give examples (but the first sentence of 'Etymology' provides a number of examples).
3. More importantly, the claims are completely vague. One or two examples would have been useful.
4. If specific points about the article are raised, we can discuss them. Mr Tan, however, believes that the only way forward is to replace the article with one of his own devising. That's not the Wikipedia way, and is not acceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Reasons for comment:
  • I feel that gramatical orientation is far from satisfactory standard
  • Sentence structure is poor (example: Thanks to its adherence to the Indian Union, this is also one of the rare regions in the Himalaya where traditional Tibetan culture, society, and buildings survived the Chinese Cultural Revolution.--redundancy)

In the last twenty years, the opening of a road and the massive influx of tourists and researchers have brought many changes to the traditionnal social organisation of Zanskar.)Highlighted means mistakes.-unnecessary information

• • Certain vocabulary and gramatical errors is some areas.
  • Redundancy(example: These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water.(This is just a mere description which seems like a fiction)

1. I'm not sure why you claim redundancy in your first example; the sentence could probably be improved, but there's no real grammatical issue.
2. there's a typo (gasp!) in the second example (which you could simply have corrected), and no obviously unnecessary information.
3. Your final example is absurd; first, of course it's a mere description — what do you think should be included in Wikipedia articles? Secondly, what makes you think that it's untrue?
4. Your own version (and, indeed, your message above) contains much worse grammatical and spelling problems. I suggest that you forget about criticising the English, and concentrate on trying to improve the article's contents. I'll follow you and correct your English, so long as you proceed slowly, and with explanations here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end. Also, you are equally redundant as well. Point out to me, where my mistakes are.

Expect me to be off for a few days. Fair enough?

Tan 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not add your comments to articles. The reader should not be asked to compare versions; that's an editing matter, and should be asked on this page. I have compared the two, and your version is worse. There may be aspects of it that could usefully be included in the actual article, and if you have the patience and the commitment to explain your view, then they might be incorporated. However, if you insist on a wholesale replacement, then I'll tell you now: it's not going to happen.

Your first sentence – "Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end" – contains three major errors:

1. It's 'my' not 'mine'
2. You can't correct something with something else (you seem to be conflating 'correct' and 'compare')
3. It should be "let's see whose version is better".

Incidentally, I don't think that you know what 'redundant' means. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you're in the future again, though only by a few hours this time. I suspect that, for some reason, you're manually signing your comments. Why? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress

We're finally making some progress. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is some progress but it is still not good enough. What I think is that at least 50% of the content should come from there and the orientation as well. Having brackets in between sentences and things like this xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx with dashes also look strange such as those of Padum-Strongdey-Zangla-Karsha-Padum and I have ractify it. Ah yes, the time I'm using is from singapore.

Tan 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Mr. Tan asked me to comment on this page. After studying the matter for I day I would like to add my inputs.

1. I do believe Moumine is rightful owner of the images. Mr. Tan please contact the authors of the website to ascertain if the images and text are really his.
2. Moumine, please do not use the phrase "third world." From discussions I've seen on wikipedia, it is considered a POV.
3. Moumine stated: there is no rule about bw or color pictures in Wikipedia. Color pictures might be more alluring to some but others prefer bw pictures. If Moumine has colour images it would be better to have the colour versions as they have more detail. Wikipedia is not an art gallery; B/W pictures are preferred by many artists for various artistic reasons, but a majority would prefer seeing the images in colour as it offers a better understanding of the subject. I do feel that colour images should be here if available, (I admit, I'm not aware on any policy). Remember: a colour image can be easily desaturated, but the other way round is almost impossible to achieve.
4. Moumine also states: The advantage of bw is that the files are smaller and therefore take less time to download. Images are always thumbed on a main page rendering a smaller resolution and file size. A person interested in a higher quality image can click the link. The option rests with the reader. Please provide the best quality you can.
5. Mr Tan: Please do not accuse others of having poor English language command. Some people with poor English are valuable contributors to wikipedia. As Mel himself offered to, many wikipedians can be requested to cleanup the level of English on the page.
6. Mel: Mr Tan is following my example of creating a new temp page to work on major edits. I usually do that when I clean up the page and nominate it for a Featured Article status. See Maharashtra and Maharashtra/temp as to what I mean. However Mr Tan, since you are correcting the only the syntax and grammar on this page you shouldn't create a temp page. There aren’t too many radical changes to justify the creation of a new page, plus it's bad to blank an article page. It would be better that you work on this page here, in addition to editing the page text offline in a good word processor to improve the English.

 =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, many thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've already checked that Moumine is the copyright-holder of images and text, though, so there's no need to do that. Could you point me in the direction of the discussion on the phrase 'third world'; I was unaware of it. The Third World article (and Talk:Third World doesn't help. My own feeling is that B&W images are acceptable (and can make a nice change), but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, Thank you for your comments. To help Mel Etitis, I will point you to the 'third world' reference: it is on this page, under Response to comments made by Mr Tan. However Nichalp took it out of context, what I wrote was (quote) in so called "third world" countries. The use of so-called and the "" should hint to the fact that I was not sure about the political-correctness of this expression (an besides, I don't like it). The more politically correct "developing countries" does not suit me either, but I can change it to "emerging countries" or "countries with an emerging market economy" if you think this any is any better. Anyway, please accept my sincere apologies if the use of the T-W word has hurt your feelings.

Now, I do not think that Nichalp can really be serious when he asks me to provide the "best quality you can". In the present case, the "best quality" would imply files with a size of ~5Mb. Are you sure you want this? (ok, I am being sarcastic, sorry). However, if there is a consensus that the colored version of the pictures is preferable to the bw version, I will provide the former (since I am the author,I do have them, right?)

Last but not least, Mr Tan has repeatedly accused me of having a poor english. This might well be true and I am very grateful that Mel improved my writings in a very competent manner. I would however like to return the "compliment" to Mr Tan and ask those of you who really do master this language to go through Mr Tan's contributions (to be found under User:Mr_Tan) and do some serious cleaning-up there. And please do not invite Mr Tan to correct the english syntax and grammar on Zanskar or on any other page.

Moumine 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Moumine:

Moumine, I'm very grateful for your contributions to the article. .

I also hope that you may use some of my format in Zanskar/temp, for I now understand what Nichalp says that I should not re-work out in a /temp. But, to me, I still find the /temp useful. Even the references and your images are placed up there, and nearly all your content is there if follow that link.

Thirdly, I don't understand why you are chasing me away to give edits to Zanskar. As a wikipedian, everyone is dedicated to give the best of what he can to this wonderful encyclopedia. So, why make things to be so hostile and block people up in the end?

A piece of good advice to you: please do not add too much brackets in between sentences and paragraphs. This may be well be unpleasing to the reader. Pleaseuse phrase like such as, , etc.

To Nichalp:

So how am I to have a structure like Zanskar/temp? It seems that the current version is harder to cleanup.

Tan 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tan: I don't know how many times I have to say this, or how blunt I have to be, but Moumine's English is much, much better than yours. Even your criticism of him ("But as you can see, to my opinion, your standard of english is indeed not passable. I apologise if that provoke you, but I'm onto my honest opinion and the way of writing articles in the fact that Sikkim is a good example" contains a string of grammatical errors:

It should be "in my opinion", "English", and "if that provokes you (and 'provoke' is the wrong word here anyway); I don't know what you mean by "I'm onto my honest opinion here" — perhaps "I'm giving my honest opinion"? Finally, "the way of writing articles in the fact that Sikkim is a good example" is almost incomprehensible.

The English of the rest of your comments is equally poor if not poorer. I'd never normally say this to a non-native speaker, but as you've taken it upon yourself to attack another editor's English, and to offer advice(!), I feel that I have no choice: your English is dreadful, while Mourmine's English is good (not native-speaker level, but good).

I've just reverted your latest changes to the article because, first, the English was again very poor, secondly, you introduced the tone of giving advice and making value judgements, and thirdly, you reverted a spelling change introduced to provide consistency. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not have the intention to critise, or pruposely condemning others about their English standard. In that case, tell me where are my errors, in such a way that it can be compatible with Sikkim. I use British English, as most Singaporeans do, but saying that I have such a poor standard, please, point out where my mistakes are. I give you a short paragraph typed by me, and retype it out in your english:

Also, tell me the rules why the /temp version of Zanskar is unacceptable. I still cannot make outr your explanation at all..

My version:

Much of Zanskar's vegetation is found in the lower reaches of the valleys, and consists of alpine and tundra species. Crops including barley are grown by farmers at the lower elevations. Domesticated animals such as the yak are found in the region, providing the main source of food and transportation for the indigenous people.

Ractified version:

Tan 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The example you give is the only part of your message here that isn't full of errors; more useful, perhaps, to look at the passage that I last deleted from the article:

One can take the round trip that bypass Pafum, Strongdey, Zangla, Karsha and then back to Padum, which covers most of the cultural sites of Zanskar. Another prime attraction along the road to Padum is the Pensi-La, situated at 4,200 metres high,which separates Zanskar from the Suru Valley and Ladakh.

(replacing "Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest, one can take from there the Padum-Strongdey-Zangla-Karsha-Padum round trip, which covers most of the cultural sites of Zanskar. Another prime attraction along the road to Padum is the Pensi-La, 4,200 metres high, and separating Zanskar from the Suru Valley and Ladakh.")

It should be ‘round-trip that bypasses’, there should be a comma after ‘Karsha’, it should be ‘situated at 2,400 metres’, and you've omitted a space between ‘high’ and the following comma. Moreover your supposed stylistic improvements do nothing to improve the piece; at best they're a matter of personal tatse, mostly they're actually more clumsy.

And:

Tourism is probably the major disruption that Zanskar has experienced during recent times. The opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits such as the financing of schools, the restoration of monasteries, roads but iy has also taken its toll on this fragile mountain environment and its population. Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season, but the local population has sometimes developed a debatable attitude towards visitors towards begging, and occasional thefts.

(replacing "Tourism is probably the major disruption that Zanskar has experienced during recent times. The opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits (the financing of schools, the restoration of monasteries, roads) but has also taken its toll on this fragile mountain environment and its population. Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season, but the local population has sometimes developed a questionable attitude towards visitors (begging, and very occasionally stealing).")

Leaving aside ‘iy’, there should be an ‘and” before and a comma after ‘roads”, ‘questionable’ is the correct term, not ‘debatable’, and “towards visitors towards begging, and occasional thefts” makes no sense.

In short, almost every change you made involved either an error of style, grammar, or vocabulary-choice. Oh, the only other change in that edit was ‘Pensi-La’ to ‘Penzi-La’ in another paragraph, while leaving the 's' spelling elsewhere.

Not only am I native English speaker, but I've published articles and books in philosophy and poetry, and I taught English as a foreign language for many years; you clearly speak English as a second language at best — yet you continue to insist that you're right, to the extent of giving other people advice!

As for the issue of Zanskar/temp: there's nothing wrong with it in principle, but it should be done in collaboration with, and with the knowledge and approval of, other editors, and shouldn't be used as a way of imposing your version at a stroke. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply

• Moumine: 1) I noticed the quoted text of the phrase "third world". I don't know if there are politically correct phrases, but the situations you described may not always be from the developing world. Here's one discussion I encountered on the topic (TW) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goa. Its mentioned in the last paragraph by User:Travisyoung. 2) 5Mb is certainally large! You needn't upload that big a file, that's why I asked you "as large as you can" not the "largest you have" :). I too had problems with large images and so kept my images to 700kb max. In an archived discussion on my talk page, User:Dbenbenn mentioned this about file sizes:

Well, check out Image:Africa satellite plane.jpg, which is 8460x8900! Besides the current upload limit of 8MB, the policy is to get the highest resolution possible. I hope you're eventually able to upload it.

3) Some of the images on the page are listed as copyrighted, and one does not have an information tag. I just want to clarify if you intended having one or two copyrighted. If you are planning to release all your images under GFDL, I would suggest that you upload it to wikipedia commons so that it can be shared by all wikipedia languages. If you needed the map replaced by a *free one*, I'm willing to trace over it and release it under GFDL. 4) Colour photos would be the best.

• To Mr. Tan and Mel: Mr Tan, your edits have numerous grammatical mistakes. Instead of commenting on others' grammar, could you add more content to this page? Mel: give Mr Tan a few days with the page, and after he finishes adding matter, you may give it a copyedit. I hope this is a workable solution.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:59, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

comments

To Mr Tan: my intend was not to prevent you, or block you from editing Zanskar or any other page. What I wanted to make clear is that you should refrain from correcting the syntax or grammar of other articles. This does certainly not mean that you should not add content (as long as you give your sources), correct typos, Wikify articles or whatever else you are good at. I also hope that you will see the benefit that is to be gained from asking native english speakers to correct your own articles, which are otherwise quite good.

To Nichalp: Thank you for your proposition to retrace the figure, but this is how this figure was created in the first place (I retraced and modified it from its original source, which was the National Geographic Magazine). I have now put it under GFDL license.

Moumine 07:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Mel: Thanks for you advice on my English errors. However, my altitde of displeausre towards you is that you have been revertig every edit contribution of mine, and I still do not comprehend. While I stop editing Zanskar for sometime, I suggest that you further style the Zanskar into something like Sikkim styiling. What I'm not contended is the current styling. I want something like the format of Zanskar/temp. That's all.

Nichalp: I'm grateful that you have point out that I have numerous gramatical mistakes. Thanks alot. I also do agree with the recomendation of colour photos. What is the syntax?

Moumine: I'm grateful for the contributions of the content to Zanskar, but I'm not happy about how you style the article. Thus, please give me sometime to work out the article, and there are many content that can be merged. Also, there is no need to add too many unnecessary facts in some of the sections, in which you do.

I also have reviewed the etymology section. Based on the guidelines of Sikkim, you should not give information like a research paper, in which you do. This is an encyclopedia article. For more information, please visit the articles in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Tan 09:01, 21 Apr 2005

Question

Is this notable information (from the livestock section)? I feel that there is no need to tell such acute details about the uses of yak in Zanskar. This looks more like a research paper than an encyclopedic article.

Livestock Livestock, and especially the yak, is of paramount importance in Zanskar. Yaks are used to plough the land, to thresh the grain, to carry heavy loads (up to 200 kilos), and their dung not only serves as fertiliser but is also the only heating fuel available in the region. They are a vital source of milk and sometimes, but rarely, of meat. The yak's fur is used to make clothes, carpets, ropes, and bed covers. Tan 19:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'acute', but I see nothing wrong with the section on yaks; it tells the reader what they're used for by the local populace. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section talks about the lifestyle of the Zanskaris! Thus, I feel that it seems strange to have it up.

Also, why Moumine is making reverts on every edit I make? I do not understand what kind of syntax is Nichalp is talking about.

Tan 12:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan

Since you do not seem to have carefully read the messages that I posted on your user talk page, I reproduce it below under its original heading "Kinnaur":

Or was this your answer?:

I would apologise if I'm rude, but I have no intention to be agressive. Due to my exams, I would like to hold back the discussion and major edits, which I would be doing at that time. Anyway, I gave you this meessage partly because you were not always online in the past.

Anyway, your stuling is poor, but not the grammar. Thus, the {gcheck} template have to be put up, as this also pertains to the styling of the article. From there, I will have to either reshift, (maybe delete a few facts) to make it more tidy. Honestly, your styling and sentence construction is very poor.

Mr Tan 09:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what a fact is? A fact is exactly what should be included in an Encyclopedia but YOU say that this is what you want to delete from the article.

Moumine 14:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kinnaur

As a reminder, here are some of the comments you, Mr Tan, made on the Zanskar article (reproduced here in your own words):

• it seems that Zanskar will be doomed as a poor quality article. So how I'm going to cleanup? It will really needs massive re-working in that case
• I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case
• Just look at the etymology section; does anybody ever write such "rubbish" in terms of sentence structure and gramatical error?

Now, even if it were true, these are really not nice comments to make about anything or anybody. However, out of curiosity and since you are so persuated of your own superiority in all things literary, I decided to take a look at your "major" contributions in the hope of maybe learning something from you. In this respect, I was rather dissapointed but it was worth a good laugh. Reproduced below are some real nuggets to be found in your Kinnaur article:

• "Woolen clothes is worn contributing to its cold weather" I do not know how wearing any kind of clothes, be they woolen or not, can contribute to the weather. Should you be able to document this, it would certainly be a major break-through in climatology.
• "These three religions have undergone religious infusion" This sentence is mysterious, but again, if you can demonstrate that religions can undergo infusion, be it religious or not, you would also make a breakthrough in theology.
• "the Hindu and Buddhist religions interwine together over the centuries". Well, this is a practice they should definitively put on hold, unless you meant intertwined? but in this case, intertwine together is kind of redundent.
• "the upper areas of the valleys fall mainly under the rain shadow area". This sentence is very poetic, but what is it supposed to mean exactly?

Your articles are also full of typos (to be charitable). Here are the most obvious one lifted again verbatim form your Kinnaur article:

• "posses" should be possess. Posse is a word and posses is its plural, but it has a meaning that does not exactly fit into your sentences. In the same spirit, it should be possessed and possessing
• "descandants" should be descendants
• "embridered" should be embroided
• "maybe worn" should be may be worn
• "iving" should be living
• "interwined" as already mentioned should be intertwined

I have already mentioned before that I do not consider myself to be an authority in english grammar (as opposed to you), however I have the sneaking suspicion that the sentences reproduced below do not exactely match the high standards you claim promoting:

• "Strains of racial mixing is the greatest in Middle Kinnaur, however.". ???
• "They also claim descent to the Rajput" one claims descent from not to
• "Of late, Tibetan refugees from Tibet has settled in parts of the district as well." Aside from the fact that it should be obvious that Tibetan refugees are from Tibet, they have settled not has
• "Pakpa, a skin of made out of animal skin" One of the of shouln't be there. Guess which one?
• "is accompanied with a white colour velvet band". Correct is: to be accompanied by something
• "The first wrap of Dohru is based on the back" ???
• "Folk Hindu gods are also worshipped. This necessarily include the Durga, where it is locally known as Chandi, Narayan, Vishnu, and many other folk Hindu-Animist gods.". Woodstock in the Himalaya? and besides, speaking of Durga, one does not say "the Durga" and the qualifier for a God is certainly not "it"
• "They are generally divided into two groups, the celibate Gyolang, who shave their heads, and the Durpu, who do not shave their heads and marry, and there are no restrictions in their marriage." What do you mean no restrictions in their marriage?
• "Mount Kailash is the most sacred peak by most Kinners" probably revered by most...
• "Legendary and mythlogical accounts spreaded by the word from the mouth is also heard among the local folks." Very strange sentence.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on for hours...

Also, you have obviously lifted most of your text from the following website: [http://hpkinnaur.nic.in/] and just worsened it. Your "Tourism"" section reads as an advertisement from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Office, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. In the article you also constantly introduce very very obscure words that you fail to define or link with other Wikipedia articles.

And then there are the factual errors. For instance, the "Kinnaur Kailash" has nothing to do with the "Mount Kailash", therefore linking the one with the other is not only completely misleading but plainly wrong.

I hope that you now start to understand why we have reverted your edits on Zanskar so many times. Should that not be the case, read again carefully the comments you received by User:Mel Etitis and User:Nichalp.

Oh yes, before I forget, some times ago you posted the following message on my page:

"I want you to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Stay online in wikipedia between those days. Thanks.

Tan 23:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

Do you even realise how extremely impolitely this sentance of yours is formulated.? It comes across as an extremely rude order. A polite request could have been:

I would like to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Would it be possible for you to be online on these two days?

Can you spot the difference?

Moumine 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling

Mr Tan (talk · contributions) has returned in order to make a change to the article that does nothing more than turn good grammar into bad ([3]). This really has to stop. Continually adding misinformation to an article on a subject about which one knows little, and refusing to stop, would be accounted vandalism; this is exactly analogous. Mr Tan's grasp of English grammar and spelling is extremely poor, yet he insists on 'correcting' other people's English. If he continues to behave in this way he will face an editing block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Methinks that Mr. Tan deems his English to be of high caliber. He is currently in a state of denial, and has blamed other people for not telling him that his English is bad. My suggestion would be to tell him straight to his face that his English sounds totally ridiculous and is not worthy of being in an encyclopædia. He should be in the Chinese Wikipedia instead of here. His inaccurate and untrue facts also lower the overall accuracy and quality of the article and thus the entire encyclopædia. Also misuses words. I'd suggest a longer block if he doesn't follow advice. JMBell° 12:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

gcheck

I placed up the gcheck because

• The format and styling is still not at a reasonable level.
• The way the article is written looks monotonous.
• It is not vandalism at all.

Jmbell:

• Stating that I'm not fit to be in English wikipedia is an insult.
• I never stated that my english is of high-caliber at all. What I say was that I feel that my English is poor, but yours (mel, Moumine) is below unacceptable standard, as evidenced in this article.
• I do not understand what ridiculous statement is Mel stating my English is extremely poor. Instead, a vote should be taken against me to vote on my standard.

Tan 20:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan,

• • I'm merely stating a fact. How can that be an insult? You have bad grammar, and so admit it. Everyone's been telling you. If you do, you can stay. The problem is, you like to go around fixing things that ain't broken, and then you fiercely deny all (and may I say true) accusations or statements that your English is faulty.
  • Saying that the English of a Swiss(man) and an English professor from Oxford is extremely poor, is entirely preposterous. Perhaps you have got your statement the wrong way around?
  • That's what we're doing right now on your RfC. When this is finished, I hope you believe us all and humble yourself so that you can start anew.

Regarding the gcheck,

• • The format and styling is very good.
  • Encyclopedia articles must be monotonous.
  • It could be regarded as vandalism.

That is all I have to say. The rest is up to you.

JMBell° 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Editors contributing to this page might wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Mel, Please do not interrupt by removing the gcheck template. It need not copy-editing as badly as last time, but some is still needed. Let me do the job first in a few day's time, before you interfere. I have no wish to see you bullying me like this.

Tan 10:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You are bullying, Mr. Tan. There is no need to fix up Zanskar. You are just introducing errors into the article again. If you repeat this one more time, I will request page protection from a sysop - no, not Mel - just to show you that you are in the wrong. Please stop. JMBell° 12:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The fault lies in you and Mel in the fact that both of you are people who are extremely impatient. Just becuase seeing that Zanskar seems depreciated in terms of article quality in your POV while I'm copy-editing, that doesn't mean it will look bad after I have done everything. Furthermore, I am not finished, so why revert for no reason? This is hoolinganism. I cannot control you on protecting the page or blocking me, but I will do in accordance to the right ways. To me, if the article needs copyediting to me, so be it. Let me finish up everything before you proceed. It may be the right of yours to revert bad edits, but it is my right to edit useful things and it is also my right to complete everything properly before you do anything that will interfere my copy0editing.

Ah yes, before I forget, encyclopedia should be presentable. Zanskar is not quite up to standard according to my view. Go and see how George W. Bush is written. That it is the way I accept. I insist that formatting is needed. It is neither vandalism nor subvandalism.

tan 14:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You are at fault. If you had read the RfC, you'd have seen User:Smoddy's comment that we are very calm and patient with you. Also, you shouldn't be editing Zanskar anymore. You yourself said that from your "point of view, it is not quite standard." Formatting is not needed. If you want, we can ask outsiders if they think formatting is needed, but I doubt if they'll agree with you. It is true - you do have editing rights. However, do not abuse them by doing everything your own way. Remember: this is Jimbo's encyclopedia, not yours.

And before I forget, you told me that I have spelling errors. Guess what? I ran a spell checker on all my posts here and my spelling is 99.98% correct. That's around one typo in a million. Happy? I'm not.

Stop maligning us or I will have reason to bring this case to a higher court. That's all. JMBell° 11:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Reasons and things done in copy-editing

According to my POV, a lot of copy-editing needs to be done. As a matter of courtesy, please do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point for the time being.

I have done the long and windy descriptions of the pictures into the image article itself, following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Captions. Short descriptions are retained in the page itself.

tan 17:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

there is no grammatical problem with this article, and you haven't given any indication as to why you think that there is. Stop placing the gcheck template on this article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is no problem with the article, Nichalp, me and other editors would still edit the article itself. If I can extensively edit the article itself gramatically, there is no reason for you "subvandalising" the article itself by removing the gcheck template. You been rude, impatient and belittle the efforts, decision to copyedit and intention of the copyeditor, which is me myself. You have also quickly removed and reverted the changes in a few hours time before I could complete editing.

• The article needs re-sectioning. if Nichalp has done some, and you have no complaint in the etymology section, then why you reverted the changes last time? This is a sign of harassment from you.
• Images should not have such a windy descriptions in the article itself. Short descriptions is enough.
• There will be more to come. I insist copyediting and removal of redundant points.

tan 14:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have again removed your incorrect use of the "gcheck" template, and I have reverted your ungrammatical changes to the article. Your insistence on what should be the case, meaning that you want it to be so, is not acceptable. If the RfC on you has taught you nothing, and if you continue to act arrogantly and disruptively, I shall not hesitate to take firther steps to reign you in, up to and including arbitration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Mr Tan's behaviour has again led to this page being protected. This, together with Wikipedia:requests for comment/Mr Tan, should have brought home to him that his attitude and actions need to be modified. I hope that it has, because otherwise he's heading for an arbitration request, and I should like to avoid that if possible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I do not understand why you have been accusing me of vandalising pages. I'm trying to make the best of making the page better, and here youy are trying to revert all the changes that I'm trying to make. I also don't understand where I am guilty of artribation. Furthermore, I have not even finished my work and here you interruptted.

Tan 22:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You probably honestly don't understand, and I'm not sure what I can do to explain it to you. The Zanskar article is perfectly OK grammatically, yet you added a template saying that it isn't, and made changes that turned good grammar into bad; you did that repeatedly, despite various editors explaining to you that you were wrong, and an RfC in which you received widespread criticism and no support. (Note that I didn't protect the page, because I'm too involved in it; another admin, not involved in editing this page, made the decision that your edits were vandalistic, and protected the page. Does that not indicate to you that you might be wrong, and that this isn't just some sort of personal feud between you and a group of other editors?)

You're not guilty of arbitration; I said that I'm trying to avoid taking you to arbitration. That's a more formal process than the RfC, in which the Arbitration Committee looks at the facts, and decides whether to take action. if they find against you, you might be blocked from editing altogether for a time, blocked from editing certain articles or from making certain kinds of edits, or assigned a mentor who watches your editing and tries to help you to behave better. If you want to avoid that possibility, you need to reflect on your actions, and take seriously what others say to you. In particular, you need to accept that your English is too poor for you to make decisions about the acceptability of articles. Limit yourself to adding content (within Wikipedia policy and guidelines), and stop trying to take over articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand. I can explain in detail. But it will be a long one. If you let me edit first, then explain, it will be easier.

I don't understand why you are accusing me of trying to taking over control of articles!

I do not understand how you define my english as "very poor". However, I have detected some of the differences in our english in which I will explain later.

I have not even completed my response of the RfC, so I wonder what the h*ll are you talking about artribation so early. For your information, I will try to complete the response bu 21 May. Furthermore, I feel that their comments sounds strange as I have not even completed my response in the first place! See for yourself. I have concrete evidence against your actions. I cannot open an RfC against you, for this is a 3 to 1 confrontation, although at the present moment there is only you alone.

I don't see where my actions are bad. In fact, I feel that what you said is actually saying on yourself.

Even if you feel that RfC is not needed at all, I feel that copyediting is needed. I do not see why you are so impatient to revert the edits. In the first place, I haven't finished copyediting! Even if you want to revert, I would prefer it if I have completed everything.

If you have a innovative set of thinking, a building that is under construction will look ugly. But it will look nice after construction. Do you get the picture of what I mean?

Do you realise that you have turned good edits into bad without sparing a thought? I give you one example for now.

Rain- and snowfall during this period is thus scarce

There is no reason why a hyphen should be there. This is a sign of Moumine poor english, or his carelessness.

Also, whre is the full stop at the end of the sentence in the livestock:

Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar are the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep and goats, and the lammergeier

I have pointed out two mistakes. And there is more.

Anyway, the first two points above are part of the explanation cause.

There is also poor sectioning.

I will explain further.

Tan 23:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, it would be easier if you pointed out our mistakes instead of correcting them. Not everyone is perfect, and we are humble enough to accept our mistakes. I don't know about you, but anyway, if you pointed out the mistakes, we can easily correct them or discuss about the mistakes - if they are correct or not - but, as other people have pointed out in the RfC, your grammar still has a long way to go. It's not about your finishing it or not - people have already placed their opinions, and you must listen so that we can end up on good terms with each other. I'm sure even Mel would be less upset towards you if you took our (and their) advice.

Now, a possible explanation for the above mistakes. "Rain- and snowfall" is possible; have you ever seen the word "rainfall"? The hyphen is supposed to shorten things (what you like to do) by omitting the first "fall" in the phrase - therefore: Rain- and snowfall instead of Rainfall and snowfall. What sounds better? And with the second point, well, it's forgivable. People make mistakes, as you and we like to point out to each other. And a typo can easily be fixed, if that's your worry. If you'd like a small lesson in styling, you can ask Mel or me. Just be sure to take our advice. I'm trying to find the fastest and easiest way to get us out of this situation, and I need your cooperation to be able to do that, okay? Please listen. Please listen. PLEASE. --JMBell° 16:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant for a place to use shortcut phrases. Proper sentences should be used. This not only confuse people, but also inculcate the person himself to lower the standard of english, and as well as his own laziness. I'm not condemning Moumine, but that is what I learnt in the Confucian virtues.

If you think that anyone have committed a mistake, I would be happy to accept apologies.

I can listen. I want copyediting, as I feel that it needs. After pointing out some of the mistakes, I hope you can understand my motive for copyediting, and let me do everything first. Them you can subsequently clean it up in anyway you like, and everybody will be happy. I am also pleading you to cooperate on this point. Can?

As for the bracket busines, I need time to reply your question.

Tan 23:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not a shortcut, it's standard convention. Please understand. And no. You point out the mistakes, we correct. Not you make the mistakes, we correct, we point out, then you say "aha" and correct some mistakes and make a couple more. We'll stick to Plan A first until something is done and then you do your thing, okay? JMBell° 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

JM is right; the use of the hyphen is perfectly normal and correct English, and certainly doesn't make the sentence "improper". The missing of a full stop hardly warrants the copyedit template! On the other hand, Mr Tan's edits included changing grammatically correct Emglish to grammatically incorrect English — for example:

"Zanskar, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet." changed to "Together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet." (thus producing a sentence with no subject)

If you notice, the paragraph is being written like this:

Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. Zanskar, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.

Omit mention of the second "Zanskar" as the first one represents everything. Making this is not proper english.

Why would I want to say that? If you notice, adding every other sentence with Zanskar, Zanskar, Zanskar within the same paragraph is very boorish. Also, even if you want to add like this, pronouns such as it, should be used rather than nouns. However, again if you use pronouns like this:

Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. It, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.

It has little meaning in its sentence. Thus, I would like to advise that ommision of the seond Zanskar is feasible.

If you say "It, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, ..." and Padum is right behind it, the "it" will be referring not to Zanskar, but to Padum. See the difference? JMBell° 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

"Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar are the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep and goats, and the lammergeier" changed to "Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar include the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep, goat, and the lammergeier." (placing the full stop more than negated by the grammatical mess made of the sentence)

Are the seems to reflects more on Singlish, and include is a proper substitute, for it stresses the importance of the animals.

Mr Tan 15:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Zanskar's population is small; at the last census in 1971, it was 6,886, and was estimated to be around 10,000 by 2005." changed to "The population of Zanskar was estimated to be 10,000 in 2005, although it was said to have a population of 6,886 at its last census in 1971." (Mr Tan has an obsession concerning the clumsy and vague "was said to")

Why use the phrase Zanskar's population is small? Small is a free definition, and such phrases should be ommitted to avoid confusion.

Surely, our readers won't be so stupid as not to know the meaning of "small" in this case? It has free meaning, but readers will be able to guess what it is by the following supporting phrases. JMBell° 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Free meaning can be confusing.

Mr Tan 15:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits such as the financing of schools and the restoration of monasteries and roads, but has also taken its toll on this fragile mountain environment and its population." changed to "I was noted that the opening of this region to foreigners has brought benefits such as the financing of schools and the restoration of monasteries and roads, but has also taken its toll on Zanskar and the people itself."

Wikipedia is a place for proper articles, not research papers or journals. Using the I signifies that the Zanskar is not an article, but rather a journal. Thus, if you understand the principle and usage of active and passive voice, again, you should understand what I mean.

etc., etc. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

There is always a reason to what I edit. Thus, I assume that your accusation of me for near-vandalism is perjury. I don't know how you define the term, either, but if that is what you say, I think that you are two to three times worse. If you let me handle the copyediting, I assure you that you can counter-copyedit to further enhance the standard.

Tan 22:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have put in some notes for you to check, Tan; perhaps now the mistakes could be somewhat clearer to you. And don't accuse others of perjury unless you have evidence. Okay? JMBell° 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)
That Mr Tan simply can't see his grammatical errors, and that he tried to lecture me in fractured English about the use of English, demonstrates that he has learned nothing from the RfC — nor from the RfC on him under his former name of Chan Han Xiang. For example, not only did he mistype "It" as "I", but when this was pointed out he got confused, took the "I" to have been someone else's edit, and provided an argument against the use of the first person (apparently not noticing that it made no grammatical sense, and was clearly meant to be "It"). He then confused it with the distinction between active and passive voices. And he topped it off by accusing me of "perjury"! You couldn't make this up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I am the reincarnation User:Chan Han Xiang at all (it is extremely interesting that you hinted out another person with a similar character of mine and co-incidents). I am just User:Mr Tan, and I have joined wikipedia on 2 Jan 2005. That's it. I don't see why you are accusing me as a reincarnation of that user stated above.

Why did you accuse me of near-vandalism in User:BrokenSegue talk page? I do not even understand where I conducted subvandalism. I have never heard that subvandalism is the reverting of edits. If you say that, and I'm telling the truth, that ypu are three times worse that what you think that you are. Thus, this is supposed to be perjury, at least in my POV.

Fractured English? I'm sorry, but I assume that your judgement of good and poor english may be distorted. Show me where are my flaws, but I have seen what you have judged as "bad english". I still can't make out why you say that my english is a flop.

I don't understand which "It" and "I" you are exactly refering to.

Tan 00:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan, let's make a deal, okay? You edit articles, and I point out your mistakes to you, and you correct them. That way, everyone will benefit. -JMBell° 17:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan:

1. With regard to your identity, see the reasoning and evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan#Outside view. It is possible to ask a developer to check to see if you're the same person; we can do that if you think that it will prove us wrong — but I don't think that it will.
2. Look up "perjury" in a dictionary.
3. I have, time and time again, listed your grammatical errors at length.
4. No, I don't suppose that you do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

1. So I have explained why its wrong and apologised and acknoledged on ocasions if I'm wrong.
2. I know the meaning at the back of my hand. I'm not using the meaning of perjury blindly.
3. What do you mean by No, I don't suppose that you do.

Tan 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what your first comment (with two spelling mistakes and two grammatical mistakes) is meant to refer to. With regard to your second comment, the phrase is "know something like the back of my hand", and "perjury" means giving false evidence in a court of law while under oath. With regard to your final question, I suggest that you use your vaunted command of English to read what went before and work it out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Tan, don't use words you don't know the meaning of. You can get into trouble that way. I did once. JMBell° 00:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Big Mess

I am very sorry to have to say this, but because of Mr Tan's repeated actions, the Zanskar article, which started as a perfectly well shaped and informative article (albeit with some grammatical mistakes), has now turned in parts into an unintelligible mess.

The article for instance now contains broken sentences like this

Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season.

This is due to the fact that despite the best efforts of the other contributors (myself included) to clean-up after Mr Tan's edits, his "contributions" are so numerous and messy that things could only get broken at some stage (and this also valid for many other articles that Mr Tan decided to "improve").

I really start to believe that Mr tan is much worse than your typical "off the shelf" vandals who are at least easy to spot and whose vandalism are easy to revert.

And now the Zanskar article is protected again which means that it will stay in this borked form for some time...

Moumine 18:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you to cleanup the Zanskar article, for I have spotted so much defects in the article, and here you all are trying to reverts all of my edits? This is attacking! I thought all of you want to edit collaboratively?

I don't see why you are accusing me of typing that sentence either; in fact, it was you who written the broken sentences. That is why I say copy-editing has to be done!

One of the bad atrocious sentences of yours include

Trekking is the best method to gain full access to Zanskar, although one may hire a jeep or take a bus to drive from Kargil to Padum over the Pensi-La mountain pass.

Taking a bus to drive to Kargil? Are you trying to say that you can drive a bus or get onto a bus that is driven by another person? Your sentence is very vague, very unclear. Therefore, I assume that you are trying to mean that one can hire to drive to Kargil.

Yes, the sentence is correct. Taking a bus that is driven by you or someone else is unimportant in this case. JMBell° 11:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the "Tourism" section needs to go to wikitravel. A little content concerning tourism add colours to the article if it is written in an encyclopedic, rather than a "tourist guide book" manner.

I have decided to start copy-editing. Especialyy for Mel, please do not revert my edits (though you may try to help out a little). I have stated why the english used is wrong.

Ah yes, I have just found out that there is a definition that may help in explaining why the article is unacceptable: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. There are a lot of "peacock terms", I'm afraid. An example of such kind of phrases include: Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest,....

It seems more like your own personal journal than an article paragraph to me!

Tan 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted Mr Tan's "copyediting" attempts, which as always introduced countless errors of grammar and style. I've also removed his inappropriate placing of the "copyedit" tag. I am now going to start preparing an arbitration case, with a request to have him banned from changing the English of any article (but a request to allow him to add material, on condition that he makes no objection to its being corrected by editors whose English is better than his). The RfC clearly hasn't had any effect; a number of editors have left comments, all criticising his appalling English and his bad attitude towards other editors, none defending him, and he continues to behave in exactly the same way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan has been blocked for breaking the 3RR on Tsushima Islands, and I've also reported his violation on this article. I can't undo the mess that he's made, unfortunately, because I's be violating 3RR (I'm inclined to say that it's permissible because his edits are vandalism, but best not risk it). Could someone do it fairly quickly, please? It would be a pity for readers to come across the article the way it is now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are treating this page as an advertising page, not sticking to discussions related to Zanskar. You have not explained on your reverts on Zanskar. In fact, you changed to another topic. And you, while accusing me as rude in my messages, is actually rude in yourself here.

Tan 19:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit or Cleanup

I feel that the article needs thorough restructuring. There is little problems with the grammar. Thus, cleanup is more appropriate for Zanskar, as in Joseon dynasty. See [4] for case review.

Tan 20:18, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Message

As I have promised, I will put up the cleanup tag today, as the article throughly needs content restructuring--no information will be removed, unless otherwise stated. Do note that the article at is current standard is gramatically correct.

Feel free to contribute to Zanskar or ask questions, but please elaborate your reasons if anybody wants to revert(it is strongly discouraged), or it will be merely treated as vandalism. Tan 21:32, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

There are no obvious grammatical problems with the article, and your dislike of its structure is not grounds for placing the "cleanup" template onit. I'm removing it, and asking that another admin speak to you to try to get you to understand that your behaviour is not acceptable — though as you've ignored everyone else, including an RfC, I don't imagine that it will help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that I did not like it, but if you notice much of the content is not clearly classified. I also stated that there are no gramatical errors. If you want me to explain where it is not properly structured, then please frankly ask me; I do not want reservations concerning this matter.

Feel free to ask that admin to speak to me, but it seems that your behaviour is not acceptable to me--I don't see that hard with getting along with other users.

Tan 22:20, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the RfC, in which a string of editors all agreed with me concerning your conduct? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is because I have yet to explain on my view of conduct; and I done it a little too late. I posted my response very long after they wrote the comments. Come back to the point; it seems that you have no questions concerning the cleanup, and I will put up the tag soon.

Tan 22:20, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

If you replace the template, it will be removed immediately. Read the instructions concerning its use. Then read all the comments of other editors above, not one of whom agrees with your proposed changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already read and knew them, and I am planning to do in accordance to the cleanup guidelines. I am also aware of the comments of the other editors above, but that doesn't warrant you to revert unconditionally before I complete the whole process. If you can, try calling back JMBell and Moumine, but it seems that both have disappeared completely. Do you have anymore comments on that?

Tan 23:09, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

I shall not revert your edits automatically, any more than I have ever done, but I shall automatically remove the "cleanup" tag from this article, as it's not warranted. It's not enough to read the instructions on its use; you need to understand them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please give me a brief explanation why I am not warrant to put up the cleanup tag then? Or can you please tell me on what other tag can I put up concerning this restructuring activity?

Also, I want you, not to mention any "bad" things on my past edits on this article, and my intentions is all based on restructuring.

Tan 23:09, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

You haven't reply your questions, I have no choice but to go ahead with my plan. Tan 00:37, 5 June 2005 (UTC) (This message in fact added at 17:36, 4 Jun 2005 , together with one of the questions that he says I haven't answered[5] --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC))

What I'm doing is by looking at my Singapore time of my clock; unless you show me how am I going to gage it with wikipedia time.

Also, the cleanup tag says that This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of article quality. And content restructuring necessarily fits into this category.

Tan 00:50, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

1. Why are you signing manually instead of properly, with four tildes?
2. That's what the template says; what do the instructions for use say? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlike copyediting, cleanup offers a wider span of activities in addition to copyediting. And restructuring--falls almost exactly into the description of this page---Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/proposal. This article has much of the content not in appropriate section, and has peacock terms, although gramatically correct. All the links above are tributaries of Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory, so I find why the tag should not be put up, but giving a clear-cut definition would be difficult.

Do you still have any objections concerning {cleanup}? Feel free to post them here.

Mr Tan 11:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tan

My objection: Why fix it if it ain't broken? JMBell° 11:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You really ought to accept your mistakes if you want to get somewhere in life.

1. "Note - Use of this template is somewhat deprecated. Please see Wikipedia:Cleanup for a list of related templates." (from Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes)
2. "In the future, please use cleanupDate, below, instead." (from Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup)
3. No-one else, of all the editors who have been involved on this page, agrees with you that the article needs to be restructured.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody agrees doesn't mean that the article does not mean that it does noneed restructuring in the actual case. I never stated that the grammar is bad anymore, and I don't see why Mr Bell is still saying that the article is broken (in what way?). Furthermore, I have not done anything to the article yet, how can you predict what I will have done? This is causing in the increasing number of articles needing attention, and consensus, to me, is not perfectly reliable. I want your attention, and stop all those irritation.

I have already explained that there are peacock terms or weasel terms, Mr Bell, for it seems that you still do not get my point. The use of cleanup template is very wide, and the standard of this article is comparable to Joseon dynasty, which has a cleanup tag. Opinions?

Mr Tan 15:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Every time that you've made significant changes to this article, you've made it worse; why should we ignore our experience?
2. Our experience also suggests that you might be using the phrases "peacock terms" and "weasel terms" nonstandardly. Can you give examples of what you mean, and what you think is wrong in each case?
3. The English of Joseon dynasty is poor; there's no comparison with this article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about English here. I'm talking about the structure of the article, and it can be comparable. (Not amounting to insult you), I'm sorry, but your behaviour has been shown traits of hypocrisy.

In Kinnaur, "where they can see orchards of fruits and the exquisite designs of the local temples." is a peacock term, and it seems that you removed it. This ignites my logical thinking, and how is this sentence Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest is directly related to Tourism? It seems more like showing one's opinion that describing the scenic views of Zanskar, and thus it is a peacock/weasel term.

More cleanup to be done: Although gramatically correct, I would like to hint out another fact how is

"Zanskari houses, though otherwise well built, are not adapted to the recently increasing rainfall, as their roofs leak, catching their surprised inhabitants unprepared. Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period. These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water."

is it directly related to the topic climate? Much of the content needs restructuring for what it states is not relavant to the point. You can see [6] that a annoyomus user has tried to cleanup, but the fact that obliterating necessary content isn't exactly my style. There is more that I have yet to mention.

Mr TanMr Tan 07:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Reference to "peacock terms" and "weasel terms" isn't talking about structure, but about the use of English.
2. yes, the section that you quote is directly related to the climate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Directly related..yes, but it seems that it is more suitable to reclassify the content, or/and change it appropriately--just cut down this windy dispute and let me do it.
• I mean the weasel/peacock term is Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest ! Can you get my point? Just let me get to work---three months have past and I have yield no results--very pitiful. The use of English--very strange. Even after copyediting on Lahul and Spiti, I still find them much better than this article---come on, this cannot go on forever!

TanMr Tan 12:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, no-one agrees with you; leave it. Secondly, you're simply not in a position to judge the "strangeness" of the use of English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The no one you stated is just a community of a few people, not a large population. And it is not for you to say whether you should block me of my own rights to edit or revert as and wish you like, or say that I'm not fit to judge people. Wikipedia is a free, caring, open but bold society.

My edits, so long if it is within wikipedia legal limits, there should be no reason for you to revert, for I have done little to the article. In any case--I would allow you to do anything to this article except reverts--I have already lost my trust in you. There should be no reason why I should be your dog.

I have to work. I'm serious on this article, and I'm not leaving it, irrespective whether you are going to block me or not. This is my duty to serve wikipedia--I'm going to restructure, and whether you like it or not, I accept all edits from you except reverts, and removal of templates without giving reasons. Opinions?

Tan 12:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Imagine that you are on a desert island and it's just you, me, Mel, and a few other people. None of us agrees with you. Does this mean that our disagreement doesn't count just because we are few? And of course it is not right to say things like that, but put into context, this is a response to your poor judgment of article grammar and structure et al. based on your poor English grammar, which, as you have already said, you know about.

But if you know your English is poor, why don't you let us edit your work? Why don't you accept well-meaning reverts? Why, oh why, do you have to take everything personally??? Don't put a copyedit or inuse template on Zanskar; if you want to edit long-term, put it in your userspace. This is all according to Wikipedia policy.

Your knowledge of the English is very limited, so as of now you are in no position to judge others' English to be strange. If you think it to be strange, how dost thou know thy judgment to be true? Your little excerpt there is not considered to be a peacock or weasel term - it is not based on a single person's opinion, but rather on the collective opinions of many people. If you went to a bleak town where there was nothing to see but white buildings, and I described it as "not of great interest," would this fit your definiton of peacock or weasel terms? I think not. Public opinion spells all the difference between a personal opinion and a general view. JMBell° 13:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There are a lot of users in wikipedia; you can easily pull in some more into the consensus. Is it that hard?

• When did I not let you all edit my work? I believe that you are refering to the copyediting affair, for you did that at a time where our debate is at its peak, thus I have suspicions against his genuinity of his edits. And I had to preserve my own reservations. and this is why Mel mistook me for retaliation. But I'm very happy about Kinnaur and Lahul and Spiti. Thanks and apologies.

• However, I must reveal that Zanskar is far behind to those of the above article I stated, honestly. I have already explained why those are peacock/weasel terms, and I want the article to be a model of the article stated above. I also have stated that the article has strange content that needs to be remodeled, for much of the content just needs restructuring. And all I need is no intervention from Mel Etitis, for I have been bery miserable for three months--I just want to have a chance to remodel the article, for it needs through reparagraphing. Sorry about my poor comment, for my mind is in a mess. Just give me this chance to try to remodel the article into those of Kinnaur and Lahul and Spiti. And I haven't even started anything and you all, especially Mel, are saying nasty things. Can't I let things work my own way in this article even for a period of time? Is the request so great that it is going to kill you? Tell me then, if it really is!

Opinions?

User:Mr TanMr Tan 14:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You want the impossible. JMBell° 15:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you please explain what do you mean?

Mr Tan 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In a few days time (if there are no more messages on objections), I shall work the article in accordance to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, along with a blend of my own ideas, and a cleanup temp. Please do not revert the changes without explaining, for it looks very offensive to many. The explanations and links stated above may also serve as a guidebook to my edits.

Mr Tan 16:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is silly; even leaving aside what you know the response will be to most of your edits, the template is for when you see problems but can't fix them immediately — it isn't for use when you're actually editing the article. You've already received a list of our objections; we don't have to repeat them every time you post another incomprehensible and/or repetitive question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; I have no time now, so I would put up the template, and need a few days of rehabiliation. However, I do not want to have this article is such a mess, and I have made myself fully understood in your statements. Much of your statements are bleak; especially in the case of the peacock/weasel terms.

I want to come back to the question;"Zanskari houses, though otherwise well built, are not adapted to the recently increasing rainfall, as their roofs leak, catching their surprised inhabitants unprepared. Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period. These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water."

and your answer is: yes, the section that you quote is directly related to the climate.

Asking you, how do you define that this is related to the climate section; I half-agree, especially in the case of "Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period", but not in the case of the other parts. It is, at least, a borderline case.

I would also like to elaborate further: This paragraph talks about how the houses are constructed as well, and I don't see where's the significance of the house in respect to the climate section. That is the best that I can explain; and it needs cleanup in my view, and let me do it at my own accord, but do not revert without leaving messages.

Mr Tan 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you weren't so dense, you'd have realized that you have not been granted permission to edit the article. Go ahead, though. You'll be asking for something unpleasant if you proceed. And we don't want to repeat our answers n thousand times before you understand them. Please try and comprehend both the situation and our reactions to it. We are all slowly losing our patience and humor (even I am) and it will not take long for people to get fed up with you. Fair warning. And if you don't want to start an edit war, don't revise anymore. Fair warning again. JMBell° 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about me? While you are losing patience, did you consider my side? I have already stated that I have understood the situation, but that is not what I favour. And neither do I want you to say the wor "permission", for I see no reason why that I should be banned from editing this article. Time and again, I have already explained the state of the article but either you are defiant, or you are merely making life difficult for other people by mere ignorance, and both of you are behaving like dictators. Three against one in such a consensus against a discussion? I don't believe it a consensus within such a small group of people, when there is the potential to call in more people.

Nor my soul can rest just like this without even having a chance to give a revision. You want edit war? Go ahead. You play your own game, but I myself is equally fed up as well. Look here, to be honest with you, my blood is already boiling. And having users like this is really making other users like me going to hell. And if I--have the heart to help out on this article, you people should not give me such kind of face like this. I do not like that. Many questions have been ignored in this article, sometimes deviating the discussion into another topic especially by your good freind Mel. Is it a fair discussion? The consensus is a fraud in the first place because of this! And the deviated discussions ended up in a hostile approach without giving any proper reasons! Your comments is really putting me in a difficlut position whether to edit, or not to edit.

Otherwise, I have an alternative. I"ll write out a draft in accordance to my plan, and you then look into it. What do you think? Otherwise I have to take the old, risky way if anybody thinks he is a King and is too hard-up not to discuss this matter slowly and patiently so that we can reach a stable aggrement or consensus. How can you simply imagine that my revision will be full of nonsensical information?

For the convincence of everybody, I will revise in accordance to Mel Etitis' Flowers of life attitude and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. There is no reason why I can't, but I'm sure that you do not agree, and it would be hopeless to repeat this question again and again.

Mr Tan 09:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please stop being so self-centered and notice that all the users we have talked to concerning this article have expressed their opinions about you editing: namely, that you should refrain from editing as you contribute mostly grammatical errors and confusing sentences to the article, leaving the edited version in a worse state then before. This has been confirmed by numerous people. Secondly, I have all the right to use the word "permission"; I am only the messenger, not the dictator. What I bring are the wishes of the community. And thirdly, a consensus may be reached with just the three of us - we are directly involved in this dispute. Other people can only give comments (sometimes half-heartedly) and so pulling others into the dispute will have virtually no effect on the outcome.

If you declare edit war so openly and without consideration, then I doubt if you should even be in Wikipedia at all, if you believe that disputes can be solved by edit warring. If you have a problem with me, why don't you say it to my face, instead of making me guess what you don't like about me. And Mel is not a "good friend" but simply an acquaintance and colleague, as are you. I see not why the consensus should be a fraudulent one. I have been trying to mediate for the longest time, but your stubbornness keeps getting in the way. If you would just accept our advice and the advice of all those who have commented on your behavior...

Go ahead and make your draft - in your userspace!!! - and we will all look into it, if that is what will make you happy. After that, let's leave this topic alone. And I really wonder where you got the impression that we're playing "Follow the Leader" around here. If there's anybody who's even slightly bent on having his own way with the article, it's you.

Once again, we cannot give you permission to edit Zanskar because the outcome is never good, as has been proven by your previous edits (look at article history) and confirmed by numerous other users. Regretfully, I may have to bring some of your statements for deliberation, namely the part that says

"You want edit war? Go ahead."

This obviously reveals a belligerent character and eagerness to participate in edit wars, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. I will state your rights here: 1)You have the right to remain silent. Anything and everything that you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 2)You have the right to a lawyer (which we unfortunately do not have in Wikipedia).

Please reconsider your actions before you get yourself into more trouble. JMBell° 12:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response

If only---I doubt you do---If only you can cooperate with me---we have already reached to such a extent that you need and have to to listen to me--not the reverse in editing the article. I have already, time and again, stated that I WILL REFRAINfrom editing the grammar and sentences, but rather the content. And that is my point.

What I want is your co-operation and your trust. And not giving me the permission to edit the article is the wrong thing, for wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everybody is free to edit as long as it does not amount to vandalism.

The outcome is always poor--yes, I have done that months ago, but not now! As one of the Users have said, a person with poor grammar will think his grammar is the best--I apologise, and the topic of discussion was initially grammar--I was targeting at the content, actually, but I could not elaborate my points well, thus leading to misunderstanding. Again, I apologise.

In the first place, who wants you to spur emotions on your edits? Why did you do that first? And it is you who mentioned the edit war. Why? Had not you been so harsh, I would not have retaliated. I do not tolerate such attitude. I see the person first, then consequences, especially you and your colleagues.

Also, my intention to edit in my namespace is to show you on my style. However, I have already seen what Mel has done to me, twice, and I do not want to encounter the same "attack" from him again.

I do not want the article in such a state. Neither do you think that I'm so childish that I am writing a draft in my name space and just stop there. Do you think that editing a article is child's play? If you say like this, there will be a lot of unproductive users in wikipedia! And that is not my motive, and all I want is to gain trust. I do not like that matter, for I have already witnessed difficulty in Wee Kim Wee/temp, and I am fed up of editing that article with so much involvements.

Again, go and see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, and compare the style and structure of the article. To test your trust in me, I will make two minor edits, one of which is adding the cleanup template. If you disagree, you might as well remove it. If you do, or Mel, it is an expected phenomenon, for I believe that after months of discussion, they are merely sing-songs. It's useless.

That is all I have to say. Opinions?

Mr Tan 14:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you add the cleanup template, I shall certainly remove it, if no-one else gets there first. I don't understand much of what you say above, but if you edit the article in a useful way, no-one will revert your edit. It would be wise to place your text here first, so that other editors can discuss it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

I shift the template here to discuss about the status of the article standard. Do not remove it, please.

JMBell:To revise the point on the edit war, it is you who mentioned it first. I take it as a threat, I'm afraid. I hope you reply on my previous message soon.

Mel Etitis: How do you define my edits as useful? In nearly every edit that I made, it is always that you reverted it. I assume that you took my edits as nonsense, and I have already thus developed an impression in a way that I see you as an element of suspicion and threat. I am very sorry to say that.

I still do not fully comprehend why you reject the idea of cleanup. If you have already explained, then I would appreciate if you can take the trouble to summarise your points again.

How you want me to paste my text here? I'm reworking on the entire article! If you still reject the idea of cleanup, for it is good enough, then let's work it the other way: Is the article fit enough to be on FAC?

I do not see why you are unable to comprehend the conversation between Mr Bell and me. It is your own curiosity, so I will not take the trouble to elaborate it unnecessarily. For your own interest, I believe that my handwriting is not illegible, so read over it carefully again (If you are curious).

Mr Tan 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is what I wrote:

"And if you don't want to start an edit war, don't revise anymore. Fair warning again."

And this is what you wrote:

"You want edit war? Go ahead."

Clearly, you can see that I just merely mentioned it, and even tried to stop you, whereas you seem very eager to participate in edit war. If you want to know which of your edits are useful, try looking at those with good grammar and clarity. We reject the idea of cleaning up because there is no current problem with either styling or grammar, and trying to match the style with that of other articles is totally unnecessary. Write your draft in User:Mr Tan/Zanskar, not in Zanskar/temp. Okay? JMBell° 09:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have, as usual, little idea what Mr Tan is talking about, but I have no-wikied the cleanup tag. Why Mr Tan wanted it on this page I find difficult to say. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bell: In the first place, it was you who hinted an edit war. Although you and your friend had suggested collaborative edits, but to me, I do not see the element well. I have already stated that my cleanup is not targeted at grammar.

Now, let's look at the styling you are refering to. What styling, may I ask? Is it related to content re-structuring? If yes, you must note that Zanskar, using your concience, that it is a bit off-line and unusual from other article in this aspect. While you say that matching the style of other articles is "totally unnecessary", it makes one article very unusual. You must note that Zanskar will stand no where in the social factor. For your information, the most awkward feature is how the pictures on this article is structured. They should be either placed in a "Gallery" section as in Kangra, for shift some of the images to commons.

Let's come around the other way. If you think that the article can be left untouched, then can you put it on FAC? And also, I have noticed that much of the facts, much of it distantly related, are collobarated together. Again, see what your colleagues have done on Kinnaur and Lahul and Spiti. Can you spot the difference in style? This is why the intention of cleaning up this article is very strong. And just because of your passion stating that it is unnecessary to revise, I do not see any policy where I cannot contribute on my part.

Not withstanding the intention of retaliation, I want to do it in a way that it looks like a standard article in accordance to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.

Last but not least, I have noted that a draft is meant for a major edit. I am doing it for the social factor. However, I believe that a draft is totally waste of time, for I have already experienced bitter rejects from your friend Mel. Also, I feel that content restructuring does not need to go to such an extent of writing a new draft.

Mel:I am sorry, but I do not understand what you do not understand. Unless you state where you do not, I will not take the initiative to elaborate for the sake of your own interest. For the cleanup, see my reasons above. It is expected that you will merely reject it as a piece of rubbish, I believe. Opinions?

Mr Tan 13:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that our understandings of the situation are on different levels. I am sorry, but I cannot carry on this discussion since our responses clearly do not answer the original statements. Please try and understand the whole situation, including the part about the edit war (which I brought up, but which you proposed) and the cleanup. Also, the draft was your idea, so please carry on with it instead of running around in circles. Your attempts to change the style of Zanskar had damaged the article previously, with no apparent improvements in either grammar, spelling, or styling. If you want to carry out drastic changes such as change the styling of the whole article, please show your version of the article in a draft, which can then be approved or disapproved by other users.

I want to make this clear, though:

I am getting tired of repeating the same things to you over and over again so much that the whole discussion has become totally redundant, and obviously, you take no pains whatsoever to understand our statements and collaborate with us. Instead, you are putting the blame on us and asking US to collaborate with YOU. Know that you are at fault here, as has been confirmed by several users already, and that your stubbornness and self-centered attitude will not get you or the article anywhere. If you say that you, too, are tired of this whole thing, why blame us instead of yourself? You want to clean up an article that has no problem at all and you are mad because we don't let you (for very good reasons), but what annoys me is that you do not want to accept that you had started this whole mess here and are now putting the blame on US! For GOD'S SAKE, BE REASONABLE! If you keep doing this sort of thing, we are never going to get anywhere. Now you know why other users ignore you and your ever-repeating questions. And we don't want to waste our time answering questions that have already been answered - we are all dying slowly, each day, each minute, we are one step closer to having our atoms disassembled. We want to make the best of what little time we have remaining, for truly, our time here is limited. And who wants to waste this time answering questions that have been answered time and again, hmm? Think about it. Use the brain that God gave you, for once, and get us out of this whole mess. Please. I beg you. I implore you. Stop this nonsense once and for all, and let us get on with our miserable lives! Please! JMBell° 16:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am currently not very sure of how much understanding do you have in retrospect to my very previous message while you pour out your message with your extreme sarcastic feelings. Whlist I am quite sure that you cannot get the FAC point right; but I do acknowledge that my attempts to revise Zanskar has damaged the article. I agree, but did you ever considered about my current condition?

I want to make it clear: Is there any policy page or guidelines concerning the draft articles? Concurrently, my plans towards this article will not be drastic, nor will it be miniscule. Instead, it is the midway. Is content restructuring necessary to be in a draft article?

Did you not realise that I am also equally fed up of this bloody discussion? To be honest, your attitude towards this article, but much more worse for Mel Etitis, has been very radical and negatively conservative. Is there anything wrong with putting up the cleanup template? Or at least cleanups?

I want to make this point clear. Be reasonable. I know that working in a draft article is hopeless because of your, and to a greater extent, Mel's attitude. Thus, can't I just go ahead with my plans smmothly? Why is there such great difficulty in working on Zanskar but not on other articles? Why? I'm telling you and Mel: Don't interfere and make harrasing reverts.

Just let me go ahead with my work. We have already come to a stage where you have to obey me, not the reverse in this article. So, why can't you and Mel sit back and stop those harassing reverts? I will tell you when I'm finished. In fact, I'm never able to finish my work in Zanskar in the past. Not even once. Can't I even prove my own capabilities? I am not not using my brains, but it is you two who don't let me use it!

Please--for heaven's sake, don't drop of the discussion if you still have grudges. Opinions?

Mr Tan 17:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the draft: there is one main rule when living with other people, be they your parents, relatives, significant others, etc. It is: Don't hog the bathroom. And so it is with articles: Don't hog the article space by leaving inuse tags for days. Once again, I am tired of explaining, so kindly look this and my previous message over and exhaust all interpretations. Sooner or later you will hit the right one. And what kind of rubbish are you telling me that we don't let you use your brain? Who controls it, you or me? If we were controlling your brain, you wouldn't be breathing anymore or at least you'd have sided with us long time ago. Use your brain in making decisions and don't tell me anymore rubbish like that. If you continue with these inverse accusations, I may well have reason to sever all diplomatic relations and communication with you, so as to decrease my Wikistress, which is already reaching dangerously high levels. Your questions have already been answered - delve into the archives of some talk pages to find them. Or use your brain-controlled memory storage area - surely you'll find your answers there. JMBell° 00:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand what are you trying to say. Making this point very clear; cut all intention of reverts on this article. And your andswer is not directly answering my question. That's it. And if I see Mel doing those stubborn reverts again--I will not hesitate to revamp the discussion--It is very clear that both of you are doomed to be hard-headed, and immune to the outside world and positive outlooks.

I am starting work now, but it seems that my mood is already seriously injured by all the defiant whinings. And encouraging me to work in a draft--it is completely useless. You all want to remain here, but that is not the way things should work. All I know is that my draft will be a waste of work for it is sure to be rejected--despite following those guidelines. Just let me do I see fit first. See Wikipedia:Cleanup process and Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers.

Mr Tan 07:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you do not want to listen to our requests, and you obviously make no kind of effort to understand them, I regret to say that I have no choice but to stop all forms of communication with you until you have seen our point and stopped this nonsense. All reasons for my edits and reverts have already been stated. JMBell° 10:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did, time and again, but it is you yourself that you do not want to put in any effort in listening to me. I have already talked about the FAC, but you made no response concerning that point, neither did you respond to my advice; for I have told you that we have reached up to a stage where you have to listen to me, not the reverse. But if you do not co-operate, either I have to indulge in an edit war, or request for other dispute resolution means with you and/or Mel Etitis, sooner or later. How I wish if all this nonsencial reverts can stop. How I wish..If we could work together, resolve our differences, ignore all those previous bitter discussions, and work collaboratively. I really hope that, but you could not prove to me you can even co-operate by giving your attention by listening to me when we have already reached such a stage. If you are still so haddup not to provide attention, you are merely bringing me, and Zanskar to doom. Think about it carefully. If you think that I feel that this article is simply Okay, and I'm merely stubborn on making trouble, then why did I hang on, for so many months relentlessly?

I hope that you can give me an answer concerning this message alone in a few hours, or I will have to go on and do my own edits.

Mr Tan 13:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

La la la la la.... Did I hear anyone talking? Did this anyone read the message I posted a while ago? JMBell° 15:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can still somehow tolerate your attitude by showing out your own contradictions in retorspect to this article, but I cannot tolerate people who shows no respect of people and those who takes discussion as a joke, and your attitude proves to me that your entire discussion is merely an act of you playing a joke?

Since you think that this discussion is not a serious affair, I better tell you straight in the face: Go and do your own sing-songs. Don't create anymore din here. I AM NOT WILLING AND DO NOT want to talk to people who thinks discussion is a joke. You better pack out in that case.

Mr Tan 05:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if my message got through to anyone... JMBell° 06:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Because of the ongoing revert war concerning this article, I've protected it for the time being. Ask for other opinions, request mediation or talk it out between yourself, but please stop reverting and start looking for a solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've lifted the protection; it's been 12 days now, which should be more than enough for the participants to have cooled off. If anyone thinks restarting the cycle of reverts is a good idea: it's not. Try asking the mediation cabal for help if you can't sort it out among yourselves, or another way of resolving disputes. I'm seeing a "let's disagree and revert each other forever" attitude going on here. Sorry, folks, but that's not how it works. JRM · Talk 09:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Congratulations

I appreciate this remark is not particularly appropriate to a discussion page purporting to be for the article on Zanskar, but I'd just like the opportunity having read all the many comments on this page, to offer my congratulations to Mel Etitis, Moumine and JMBell for their handling of this issue. How you guys have managed to maintain so much patience is beyond me - for what it is worth I am most impressed by the way the three of you have taken so long to maintain a professional degree of communication and explain the problems to Mr Tan. With regards to the dispute itself, I doubt it will come as much of a surprise for me to say that I fully agree with the three of you. I think Mr Tan has made frequent changes, which could constitute vandalism. He writes with an appalling level of English, and then dare's to attempt correcting other users, in so-doing lowering the quality of the article. In addition, he seems to take ownership over the article, and of his contributions - totally against the ethos of Wikipedia. UkPaolo 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Source for Climate facts?

Does anyone have a source for the facts about increasing precipitation in recent decades? I ask becuase I've been working with some researchers in the region who are seeing extreme water shortages, albiet at very local scales. I'd be interested to know if the fact about increasing rainfall is true for the region as a whole. P.S. I second UkPaolo's comments above. Congratulations to the long term editors here for their admirable patience and Wiki manners! Coyote-37 10:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

New Gallery

I hope nobody would mind my design; it improves the outlook of the page itself. Having the pictures all displayed in one row always made me mistook for Zanskar as a bad article, but with this design this changes its outlook and more friendly to read, and practical for articles with several images. In the near future, I hope that I can contribute more to Zanskar, but by no means engage information deletion on the article.

All the best, Mr Tan 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

as a matter of fact, yes I do mind your design rehaul. Moumine 00:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? In the first place, why do the admins create such technical features such as <gallery> for us? Secondly, why do mind such the design overhaul? I would appreciate if you give a good reason. Thirdly, the article does not belong to you, and you are editing as if its yours in a way, to some extent. If you wanted to revert my overhaul, you should have done that in your previous contact with me, in which case I would not have suspected your intention of sabotage. Do you have any hatred on me or what?

I really hope that your heart is pure. I had enough of Mel Etitis, whose reverts and edits are close to the extent to emotional abuse, for three long months, editing nearly every article that I edited, and I do not wish that you are like him, and I hope that I will not cross his path again. Anyway, for the gallery matter, please seek Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I really prefer the overhaul, it looks much better. People who want to see the picture would have click on it to see the enlarged version; it would be silly for you to do such a thing if that is your intention.

Also, I have provided some references on the Dard people on your userpage, why do you delete those edits? Please explain as well.

I do not like to drag on matters for too long, I want peace, not disputes, and for goodness sake please visit wikipedia more often to resolve this issue quickly. I happy you happy, and then there will be no dispute if everyone cooperates. Thanks.

Mr Tan 10:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I came across this talk page a while ago, and I must say, it did give me a big laugh, especially as Mr. Tan refuses to be corrected in spite of his abominable command of English. Kudos to Muomine, Mel Etitis, and JMBell for their amazing coolness in this heated situation! (And from the looks of it, Mr. Tan is still at it, and refusing to be corrected! Strike one!) Igor the Lion^(Roar!) 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I am not talking anything about grammar, etc. I am talking a new topic, different from the old one together. There is nothing to do with English nor whatever he had added in the past, only the gallery design and his act of removal of my edit--a fact which I have added in on the local populace. I touched nothing on his old content. I have shown him examples for gallery design which all other articles have used--snow, Thubten Gyatso. Furthermore, I am already very unhappy with the way Moumine expected me to wait for his reply---ten odd days since I last posted my message. So please don't go too far. I beg you. I have my own life to go on, and I don't want to be hampered emotionally. Mr Tan 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And I must say, you really seem to have a knack for not getting the meaning of words, don't you? Though it must have partly been my fault, forgetting to separate my comment from your discussion. But still.... Quite laughable, I must say. (Vote for BJAODN!!! Hehe ;p) Igor the Lion^(Roar!) 16:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For Moumine

I know my English is not at its best. My focus is not at my English. My answers are straight to the point, no questions of very indirect intentions. Please follow suit as what i state and don't give deviating conclusions. That was probably the reason for the long-standing arguement with Mel Etits.

Moumine, I believe, might really has his problems, as what you said. But there are negative possibilities that he purposely does not want to log on because of me! There are plenty of reasons to it. Anyway, whatever the reason, I have waited his reply for a reasonable period of time, careless about his life or whatsoever. An impatient person would go on to do whatever he likes without telling the opposition his reasons, and wait for him to reply within a reasonable period of time. But I didn't, because I also know that the opposition will conduct reverts, which will not only develop chaos but worse emotional pain.

The emotional agony and impatience will automatically develop with time if the opposition member never replies, however patient the person himself may be. Patience has its own limits. It is just the matter of amount.

Life just can't stagnate there. You got to move on with time. You can't pull people up if they do not want to get up on their own.

For the grudges, Moumine only left me one reply on his feelings towards my gallery styling by saying that he does not like it. Personal tastes? Most likely. But, whatever it is, since he himself knew that he do not/can't come to wikipedia so often, he should have the consideration to put down his reasons first. Contradicting personal tastes must be resolved with reasoning through peaceful negotiations, preferably short-term.

I tell you why I want the gallery style. I explain my taste and official reasons to this as well. The main objective is to get to Moumine himself. (I will also post it on Zanskar). This analysis assignment has gone too far to e-mail this thing to Moumine. I got your opinion on this the first time, by the way.

You know that <gallery> this function is used for compiling images into a section for shorter articles with numerous images. Moumine wanted the original design, probably because of its size. If people wanted to get a detailed view of the image, they can merely click on it to enlarge, and whats the problem there? Also, this gallery function is designated by the adminstrators. Adminstrators will never, ever design wiki tools which would disbenefit wikipedia or dud tools.

That's all I have to say. Mr Tan 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, Mr Tan, I will elaborate a bit on why I do mind your "design" rehaul that consisted into moving all images in a gallery at the bottom of the article. Have you ever read a book where all illustrations were put at the end? Well, I do admit that there are some publications were so called "color plates" are grouped together within or at the end of the text. This however is only for cost reasons (pictures must be printed on higher quality paper than text) and if the authors were given the choice, they would certainly choose to put their illustration within the text as is the case for more expensive books, because it is bothersome to constantly flip from the text to the illustrations. Image publication costs are however not an issue in Wikipedia and thus, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to group the illustrations at the end of the article as you propose. If having text and illustrations side by side causes you problems to understand an article, this is certainly rather unique and weird. Last but not least, the image gallery function was not elaborated for the purpose you suggest and there is absolutely no indication in the Manual_of_Style that supports your claims, so I ask you to please leave the layout of the Zanskar article, as it stands.

Moumine 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of style does not support my orientation, but it doesn't support yours either. Thus this is a neutral stand. I do not wish to make it into a battlefront, of which this will hamper our emotions on our daily lives. So this negotiation concerns moderation of opposition views.

Let's get to the main point. An article or chapter on a book can consist of many pages but an article on wikipedia only consist of one single page, however large. Your idea is that, to make the page look like the design layout of a book, based on the idea of the more expensive printing choice, while you think that I am opting the idea of the cheaper cost. Yes, there is no such thing about the problem of printing costs on wikipedia. That's not my intention, and I will elaborate later.

The thinking of wikipedia cannot be the same as those of a book. You can flip the pages of a book within the same article but you can't flip the pages of wikipedia of an article. Every page of wikipedia is of variable size but every page of a book is of a fixed size. So you can't really compare the situation of a book and a wikipedia article in this sense.

My intetion is to enhance the outlook of the article in comparison to the current layout. In fact, you personally admitted that it looks weird and unique. And I believe you wrote this article out of love, so why don't enhance it to the maximise? The gallery function is widely accepted by the wikipedian community. Browse around wikipedia, and you will see many articles designed in accordance to my style. If your concern is on the image size or other related topics, please refer to previous messages on the same negotiation which I have evaluated with Igor during you absence.

Your description of the design layout of a book is equivalent to the wikipedia design layout of Hwang Woo-Suk. His story is a different thing because a large article can afford to displace many images all over. But Zanskar is not big enough to do that doing so like Hwang either, and scattering images all over would not look good. And our wikipedian motto is to edit and enhance the outlook of articles. Otherwise there is no reason for us to be here at all.

Any by the way, I beg you to visit wikipedia more often. I can't afford to spend too much time to wait for you to post the next message - 21 days since you posted the previous message. That's certainly atrocious. Anyway, I hope to hear from you as soon as possible. Mr Tan 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan, you are clearly totally hopeless. I absolutely do not have the time for your childish games and will not try to reason with you any longer.

Moumine 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Look here, be fair. Consider my interests, for I am already very considerate with your interests. Don't be so blant as to take offence. What I want is to make an evaluation so that we can come to an agreement, on a way to state the problem in a way that both of us can accept. Did I make any reverts to your content in the first place? What I did was only just discussion. I did not harass you.

In fact, what I'm doing is to promote good faith. I can easily engage with you on an edit war if you are so hostile to me like this. And this is bad faith interaction.

I am not a stupid person who would do something for nothing. I would not ask for your opinions if I think is good. So please try to convince me, if you feel strongly for your edits. Please don't leave me high and dry like this and be so self-centered to consider only your own interests. I really hate that. Please don't hurt my feelings. I beg you.

Mr Tan 13:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I had a hard time reasoning with him, too, especially since he never took the time to read my messages and because his English was (and is) usually unintelligible. Consider this: "...so why don't enhance it to the maximise?" Or, "But Zanskar is not big enough to do that doing so like Hwang either,..." I had a hard time understanding this last sentence. What exactly does it mean? One cannot even salvage the meaning from context.

Mr Tan refuses to acknowledge the terrible state his English is in, even saying that his mastery of it "varies from time to time," especially "during the vacations." I have not yet heard of this happening to any native speaker, excepting this case here or stroke victims. Mr Tan's English is a "hodgepodge, turgid and confused" (to borrow a quote from Douglas Hofstadter), and I fear will never amount to anything more than that. We could expect that when it does, if at all, the Vatican will place it on its list of miracles. Igor the Lion^(Roar!) 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I did acknowledge my poor english, and I am fed up of repeating this over and over again, over repeated messages. And I never boasted on my english for a long time. I have been trying to improvise it, and I must apologise for my bad skills. However, don't piss me off on by repeating this criticism over again and again. My temper is not as good as yours and I never took offence on you in the first place.

I only put you on the position as Moumine's representative. Moumine, as you can see, has some queer reasons which prompted him not to visit wikipedia so often in the past. I am only asking for your help as an evaluator. I did not say that you have a real part in this evaluation process. However, I must thank you for the initiative and heart you put in for our interests.

Last but not least I must also admit that I am a lazybone. I do not like to type out the full meaning, often typing part of what I want to say and believing that others can evaluate what I mean. Honestly, I am not a very straightfoward man on wikipedia due to the number of words which I have to type, and I don't really like to type.

I will not let you all guess anymore, and I shall try to explain what doubts you have highlighted to me.

• The images of which the article Hwang Woo-Suk is allocated follows a certain pattern. The length of Zanskar is not enough to allocate images in a dispersed pattern as with Hwang Woo-Suk. Furthermore, Moumine admitted that his pattern of allocating images looked weird and that there are no affiliations with the page of a book and wikipedia's page because they are of two different entities, personally I feel (and I also believe that other users) that the gallery function created by our admins is the best choice. I am only making a comparison, and what's the harm in there? Apparently it is a matter purely of interest sake, although it seems that my idea is more widely accepted among wikipedians as many articles follow the designation in accordance to my pattern.

I really hope that both of you can consider my interests. I really have done nothing to offend both of you in the first place, and I never like taking social offensive behaivour against anyone. This also applies that I am a highly sensitive person. If anyone of you tried to take social offense against me just because you feel pissed off, I will not hesitate to hit you back the same way you all did either. So please, be more pleasant and don't be so blunt in your words. I beg you. Mr Tan 13:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You fail to see that the reason I am bringing up your English is for your own good. Goodness knows how many people automatically reject your ideas when they see the state your English is in (while I am not a racist or prejudiced against poor English speakers, there are still a remarkable number of these unenlightened people in the world). Please do not take this personally. Improve your English as soon as possible so that we can better understand you. And vice versa. Please.

And I did try telling you these things quite subtly, but I fear you never caught on to what I was saying. Excuse my bluntness. It was the only way I could reach you Igor the Lion^(Roar!) 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that. Please do not repeat that over and over again. I am really, really trying to improve my comprehension skills on english. And my school teacher Mr Tyrus Chua has been helping out on this. Honestly, I can comprehend more than I could speak, but my english is far from good even though I'm better than many of my other classmates. However, do appreciate the effort I put in to type my messages, and try to understand if you can.

What I am most angry is on Moumine's poor attitude towards me. Had I not took his comment seriously, I would not have attempted to give my arguements and dismissed it off so easily. And this is Moumine did to me, thinking that it is childish. Yes, I may not be an adult, but that doesn't warrant anyone of you to discriminate me just because of age differnces. A teacher, a mature adult, can always interact well with his pre-adult student. So chiding me blankly on my face and leaving my out high and dry without reasoning with me is certainly atrocious behaviour of a middle-aged man like him. I am not and never like to go onto emotionally-harmful grounds.

I really hope that after clarifications, you can give your opinions on the main topic-the image designations, which both of you have deviated off our discussions to social behaviour. Thanks. Mr Tan 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I still wonder if you even understood what Moumine and I wrote. Let me rephrase - Moumine does not wish to reason with you anymore because you are unreasonable. It has nothing to do with age differences. It has everything to do with maturity, which, I gather, you don't have much of yet. I do not wish to reason with you anymore because I really had nothing to do with this in the first place. If you have any issues, take them up with Moumine, though I doubt that he will still tolerate your meaningless chatter. I repeat - I will not involve myself any further in your gallery problems. Any further complaints will fall on deaf ears. Sorry. Igor the Lion^(Roar!) 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving is needed

For this talk page. It is urgent as this page is now 132 KB of size. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)