User talk:Cartakes/Archives/2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neptunia characters list

Can you help trim down the list of characters for Hyperdimension Neptunia Mk2? It should focus on the new characters and briefly mention that it is in the same shared universe as the original. In other words, the old characters do not need a complete entry listing, which is what the characters list for the franchise will cover. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF: Thanks for the invitation. Personally I think it is already significantly better by now. What I am thinking is that even the new (and common) characters like Nepgear can be trimmed down and focus only on how they particularly appear on that game, while more detailed info for them will go to List of Hyperdimension Neptunia characters directly. How about this? --Cartakes (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that would be great. That's how the Final Fantasy sequels have been treating their characters. It can even be merged into the plot overview as with many of them anime shows. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Custom Firmware

The article Custom Firmware has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of reliable sources to show notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to List of rump states does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Providing edit summaries is a common courtesy to other editors. Your list of contributions show you make a large number of edits while never providing edit summaries. This is very inconsiderate. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please show common courtesy to other editors and provide at least some summary of what you are doing. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

System software

Re: [1], I linked the discussion in the edit summary. Please revert your edit. – czar 14:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

czar: I already undid it before seeing your message here. However, I think it was a very old discussion. A more recent discussion is desired, IMO. --Cartakes (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the supporting details have changed. Check the link in the discussion: video game trivia#9. Reams of version histories are specifically prohibited. Feel free to bring it up again at WT:VG but I think it's a waste of everyone's time. – czar 14:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Still, the discussion was over 2 years ago, and why (only) move it now? Someone has questioned your massive removals of articles in Talk:Xbox One#Removal of software info as well. --Cartakes (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please keep your discussions in one place. This is now the third place in which you're splitting the same discussion. That "someone" agrees with the merge. It took two years because there's no rush. The rationale hasn't changed. – czar 16:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It is fine to keep discussion in one place. However, I need to clarify that "someone" tried to use Afd instead of suddenly removing of all contents in these articles. --Cartakes (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please stop canvassing users on article talk pages. Thanks. – czar 18:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
czar: In fact, I did not leave any message on article talk pages until this happens. Other people really want the article content, and I have to explain why and how to handle them (i.e. by voting against article deletion). This is NOT canvassing. --Cartakes (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The big red deletion notice atop each of the nominated pages is commonly regarded as sufficient. There is no need for talk page canvassing.[2][3] Please revert and desist, thanks. – czar 19:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
czar: I think you have mixed two things together, i.e. the Afd notice for deleting the whole article AND my reason for deleting the changelog part. The other people obviously tried to restore the changelog in the articles, and I need to explain why I removed them in talk, referring to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The other editor want the article obviously, but simply did not know or unfamiliar about Afd, so I also mentioned the action for Afd. Note that I only left messages in 2 article talk pages (instead of every "system software" talk pages), so in no way I tried to canvass in the first place. However, for keeping in good faith, I still changed the wording to just notice the Afd in these two talk pages. --Cartakes (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Mughal Empire into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now mentioned it in Talk:Timurid dynasty#Why Timurid Dynasty and not Timurid Empire. --Cartakes (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo 3DS System Software

Thanks Cartakes, I didn't realise. Thanks for making me aware of this though. Why are changelogs being removed from pages though might I ask? And if there is a genuine reason, should a separate page be made for it? --Jrmswell (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. WP articles can't be simply a collection of changelogs. --Cartakes (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


History of Tibet revision

So you are saying that because China has sold off all of Tibet's archeological past in the worst possible place, that NONE OF IT no longer counts, is this correct? These people get nothing because they were robbed and all their graves were looted by Communists? Evidence is evidence, particularly if it is verifiable physical evidence. But thanks for doing your part to disenfranchise these people even further from their own things and past and never letting their story be told.

So very sad no one cares to actually report this horrific mass murder, grave robbing and robbery in the news, but I guess the greatest robbery the world has ever seen doesn't count because it happened on Ebay. Wow. --ThayneT (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ThayneT: First of all, article-editing is for the improvement of content in Wikipedia articles, not about opinions. There are at least two major problems in your edits, one is that eBay is absolutely not a reliable source; you may find actual reliable sources per WP:RS for your text. Second, the Hongshan Culture netsuke, even with some Tibetan characteristics or even contain materials from the Tibetan plateau, is not an actual representation of prehistory Tibet. You need to put images in appropriate place. --Cartakes (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you a Hongshan expert? Or you're saying archeological specimens have nothing to do with prehistory of places? How long have you been studying the culture? How many artifacts have you seen? I believe this is the appropriate place for such items to go before such items completely lose provenance as the Chinese government would prefer. I can show you the rest of the set that laying dog and the pig dragon comes from if you would like and perhaps you can give me your professional archeological opinion with about 40 specimens? Would that be enough evidence for you to allow the thought that perhaps Tibet getting completely ripped off of its hugely important past in China and the public needs to know about it? There are also plenty of larger Hongshan stone statues made of pure turquoise that surely indicate a connection with something bigger than what the Chinese have always said, given the amount of other Tibetan artifacts and jewelry in turquoise- numbering at one million on Ebay right now. Could you not let the evidence be seen by people and known? --ThayneT (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not about whether we are Hongshan expert or not, but the Hongshan culture is a Chinese culture, isn't it? Why not put them in articles like Hongshan culture instead? I can't see how the Hongshan Culture netsuke is a representation of prehistory Tibet to be placed there. As for sources, please refer to WP:RS for how to identify reliable sources. eBay is obviously not a reliable source for use in WP. Please follow the rule of Wikipedia in WP. --Cartakes (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Names of the Qing dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jurchen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Presumptuous

Re: [4], AfD is not a vote, so there is no final tally of "votes". And IPs are absolutely included in AfD consensus. Please don't make vague waves at policy without reading it. And please revert your edit. – czar 17:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the "IP user" part. Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Cute, but remove the "(nominator)" addition as well. You don't get to add whatever text you want to other people's comments. I very clearly did not nominate the article at AfD. – czar 17:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Now I see you are the initiator of the deletion instead of the actual nominator of the Afd. Deleted. --Cartakes (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I find that you (czar) are in fact doing talk page refactoring (see [5]) as well, claiming another IP who opposes you "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". However, at least two other IPs made few or no other changes outside the topic made comments in that page as well, but you did not label them as "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". I think you are just trying to hide those who oppose you. This is against the Wiki policy. Please don't do this again, thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Chinese dynasty names

In my article List of predecessors of sovereign states in Asia, I have noticed that you have been changing the titles of the Chinese dynasties from their official names (Great Yuan, Great Qing, etc.) to their common Western names (Yuan dynasty, Qing dynasty). This article was designed to only include the official names of each state during their respective period, therefore the original names are the correct ones to be used in this article. Please respect the formatting of the article and of other articles with similar naming conventions (such as the original articles for each dynasty). Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Mitchell 98: What you said is not true. There was simply an inconsistent usage in the infoboxes of Chinese-dynasty related articles. For example, in articles such as the Zhou dynasty, Han dynasty and Tang dynasty, their common Western names are used. On the other hand, in articles such as the Sui dynasty, Yuan dynasty and Qing dynasty, "Great"-style names are previously used. I am simply making them consistent across articles and follow the standard convention in English.. --Cartakes (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you. The standard naming convention in English is being used with the translations of the official state names being used. This is consistent with the infoboxes of all other current and former countries where the official name, not the casual or common name, is used. In this regard, you are incorrect and are changing infobox titles that have existed for a long period before you changed them to the incorrect titles. As you can see in the syntax, the parameter reads "conventional name", essentially official name, there is a secondary parameter for "common name", the titles that you are mistakenly using.
Also, did you care to read the articles before you carelessly reverted them as I had made other changes to their content, not just the infobox title. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your comment as well. "Conventional name" really reads conventional English name in English Wikipedia, which is the name we usually know of and definitely not the same as the so-called "official name". "Common name" is for other common names and "native name" is for names in the native languages. You said I was changing infobox titles that have existed for a long period, but you are doing the same thing as well, since there was simply an inconsistent usage among such articles (as demonstrated above in my comment). As for your other changes, I can revert to your version though. --Cartakes (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If you search the definition of "conventional" on Dictionary.com, it reads: "conforming or adhering to accepted standards", or "pertaining to convention or general agreement; established by general consent or accepted usage; arbitrarily determined". Sorry to say, but the "accepted standards" that have already been "established by accepted usage" are that the infobox titles use the official names of each country/state, not the common/casual name (if that were the case, then every article on contemporary China including the ROC period and current PRC would simply read "China" according to your logic, which they do not as all articles use the official state names). Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The definition of "conventional" on Dictionary.com does not mean that the "conventional name" means the official name though (obviously). The "conventional name" parameter simply lists the conventional English name for that particular political entity. In other words, "China" is a general name for the country, whereas "PRC" (or ROC) is the conventional English name for that particular political entity. That's why we use PRC (or ROC) instead of simply "China" in the infobox of respective articles ("China" may be listed under "common names" however). Furthermore, if you look at articles such as Mughal Empire and Byzantine Empire, which all list conventional English names instead of "official names". Neither Mughal Empire nor Byzantine Empire were official names anyway. --Cartakes (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
In the cases of both the Mughal and Byzantine Empires, those names are used as there was likely no official name for these entities. In the case of the Chinese dynasties, the official names are known and hence should be used. If you care to look on the Chinese versions of all pages, the infoboxes clearly read the state names without "dynasty" and with the prefix of "Great" where appropriate. How are you supposed to argue against that? Besides, I have good friends who speak Chinese as a first language and I have also studied Chinese history, so I know what I am talking about. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
How do you know there was no official name for Byzantine Empire? The official name for it was simply "Roman Empire" as mentioned in the article. Also look at Trần dynasty, which simply lists "Trần dynasty" in the infobox, despite the fact that its official name was Đại Việt. As for other language wiki, we are in English wiki and talking about English conventional names, not to mention there may be different rules for other language wikis (BTW, I can read Chinese myself and I have also studied Chinese history, so I know what I am talking about as well). --Cartakes (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Without wishing to take sides in an edit conflict concerning a topic I don't know much about, I would suggest you both bring this matter up on the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s), and also on the relevant project page, if there is one, so that other users can have their say. I won't take sides, but will try to work towards a consensus. There are a couple of points I'd like to make for both you to note:-)

1. Nick Mitchell — "My article" —I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Once you've published it, it's no longer yours. That was a lesson I had to learn the hard way myself. 2. Cartakes — IF you revert anything, please be more careful. Nick made other changes besides the ones you objected to, and you wiped those out as well. Please be more careful from now on. 3. I do believe naming should be as consistent as possible. However, I don't know enough about the topic to say which one you is right about this. Moreover, Wikipedia itself may have a naming convention to be followed — let's check that out. 4. As I said, allow other interested users to have their say too, and we'll take it from there. David Cannon (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you David Cannon. I would only like to clarify that the reason that I used "my article" was to show that I was the one who originally created it, I do realise that I hold no ownership rights to it as it's in the public domain. I am adding a discussion to the WikiProject China talk page in hopes for a discussion that includes the opinions of people with experience in this area. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you David Cannon too. His other changes were actually pretty minor, usually deleting the life-span of a dynasty (which is already listed in the infobox). I have restored his changes by re-deleting them in the text (such as [6]). --Cartakes (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest to request a third opinon on WP:3O. STSC (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This discussion deserves a wider audience given its importance. I recommend transcluding all or part of it to Wikiproject China.  Philg88 ♦talk 12:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I came to this user page to comment on the changes in the dynasty articles, which were well-intentioned but not discussed (or, in many cases, not explained in edit summaries), and find that others have the same concerns. I second Philg88's recommendation to move the discussion to a place where a wider group of editors can contribute.ch (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cartakes has been asked repeatedly to provide edit summaries, yet he simply refuses. At least four editors have complained about this above, and another does so here. I'm guessing there are other compaints on other talk pages as well. Edits without explanation give the impression that you are trying to slip something in without anyone noticing. Especially when a policy like the naming conventions discussed here are involved. This is deeply inconsiderate and disrespectful of other editors. You make dozens of edits per day, yet you never provide an explanation of what you are doing. Please show basic consideration for other editors and provide edit summaries. How many times do you need to be asked? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. I did not "refuse", but simply accepted during the course of that discussion or event. When I make major changes, I virtually always provided a edit summary or a discussion in the talk page. For other (minor or copy-edit style) changes I usually didn't, but usually accepted or alternatively started a new discussion for my changes after prompted by a user during the course of that discussion or event, and other editors seem to be fine with this. Please don't wrongly accuse me, thanks! --Cartakes (talk)
I'm looking at your user contributions. In your last 200 edits, I count eight edit descriptions. That amounts to refusal to do what you have been repeatedly asked to it, a practice that most editors follow as a matter of course out of respect for other editors. Other editors are not fine with it: as I said, at least five have asked you to comply with this basic courtesy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
After I was prompted by some other users, I did provide edit summary in my most edits during the course of that discussions or events. None of these editors mentioned this again. Only you, repeated to accuse me of this. Not to mention that this message of yours is left in the wrong place, as this section is for the discussion for dynasty names, not the issue for edit summary. Whether you are right or wrong, you are in fact disturbing this very discussion. If you want to me to provide edit summaries for long term, you may advice me at the right place. But what you are doing here is in fact something completely not useful for the discussion of dynasty names. Still, I am trying to provide edit summaries now. --Cartakes (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly violated Move policy!

Since you are relatively new, you may not realize, but Cartakes Contributions Page shows that in creating new articles you have not created new material, but cut and pasted from existing articles. This seriously breaches policy WP:MOVE, which requires 1) that the move be acknowledged and 2) does not allow a move by copy and paste.

Korea under Yuan rule is only one of several, also including Names of the Qing dynasty.

In addition to not moving the edit history, these moves did not include the sources for the notes, which are now useless.ch (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

CWH: I think I must clarify the issue. Please look at [7] and [8]. I mentioned "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule", didn't I? This essentially makes your point void, since I did acknowledge the move (not a copy). As for "Names of the Qing dynasty", many or most of the materials are in fact not moved or copied from existing articles. For example, none of the existing articles contained such a comprehensive list of names for the Qing dynasty in English. If you could find another article for such a list, then I'd admit I was wrong. But this is obviously not the case. As for the part that was in fact moved (from Qing dynasty#Names), I did mention that([9]) and made the new article the "main article" for Qing dynasty#Names. --Cartakes (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Cartakes, please stop with these cut and paste moves. These are a serious breach of Wikipedia policy since you have destroyed the attribution history. You need to revert what you have done then request history merges AND discuss your move rationale BEFORE proceeding. This is the only time that I will say this, you need to follow policy or risk losing your editing privileges.  Philg88 ♦talk 12:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Philg88: Thanks for your comment. But please tell me the exact point(s) in that policy I did not follow, since I did mention "Moved to Korea under Yuan rule" etc (for the part that I moved) and thus acknowledging the move of content and the new articles including Names of the Qing dynasty and Korea under Yuan rule are not a simple copy(cut)/paste either. So I personally do not feel I did not follow the policy, really. The part for explaining the rationale for the move would be very simple though, since I do have good reasons (for example, the article Mongol invasions of Korea is about the invasions of Korea, but it previously contained excessive details regarding how Yuan ruled Korea after the invasions, so the new Korea under Yuan rule article contains materials moved from that article). Also, how am I be able to undo things that I have done? The articles of both Korea under Yuan rule and Names of the Qing dynasty contain many materials not appeared in other articles (even the part that was moved from other articles may have been pretty heavily reworded/restructured etc to fit in the respective articles), so do you mean I am going to delete the articles for them? Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your reasoning on my talk page, but the discussion should take place here, where it began. I have a great deal of respect for your intentions and did not think that you meant to violate policy, but you need to understand that the violation was cutting and pasting without transferring the history to the new page. Please read the policy carefully, It is not enough to put a notice in the edit summary of the page from which the material was taken. It must go on the page created (otherwise how would a reader know where to look?) Adding new material does not change the need to give the source for the original material.
One example of many is here, where the page was created with no mention of the fact that the material came from Qing dynasty. All best wishes!ch (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned in the edit summary of the page from which the material was taken instead of the destination page was that only part of the material in the destination page was taken from the source page(s) and they might have been reworded/restructured to fit in the article. Take your previous link as an example, only some of the material came from Qing dynasty and they had been greatly reworded/restructured when I moved to the new article. However, I will make sure I mention the move of material in the destination talk page as well from now on, similar to in Talk:Korea under Yuan rule. Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to help you as an editor whose work I respect. I can see that your motives were good. I can see that you did not understand the policies. Anyone can make mistakes (I know because I have made many). The important thing now is to follow the direction of Philg88 above, which I think is to undo the moves and request history merges. My personal opinion is that your work will make Wikipedia a better place. You are clearly a good person! The policies are sometimes frustrating, but more often than not they make sense, and in this case keeping track of the history of each page is part of the legal requirements.ch (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
How can I undo the moves though? They had been heavily reworded and restructured etc to fit in the new articles and became constituted part of these articles. In fact I already asked this question to Philg88 in my previous message, yet I have not got a response for this particular question. In my opinion, by mentioning where they came from in the destination talk, I think the policy is already followed. It is not Wikipedia:Moving a page (i.e. WP:MOVE) anyway, but only some text from one article to another, which is under the direction of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I think you might have been confused between the two, as you only mentioned WP:MOVE in your first message. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia instead, which says "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well." I have essentially done both by now (in source page and destination talk), and it does not say I need to do something like undoing the move either. I think I am just trying to follow what the WP policy *actually* says. Thanks for understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Philg88: I think User:CWH might really have been confused between moving a page and transferring some text from an article to another from the beginning, i.e. the difference between Wikipedia:Moving a page (WP:MOVE) and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, as he only mentioned WP:MOVE in his first message, but WP:MOVE really does not apply to my situation since it was not a page move, but a move or transfer of some text from one article to another. I have already quoted the text from Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia in my above message, and I believe the WP policy is already followed by mentioning the action in both source page and destination talk. --Cartakes (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to use the {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} templates, or if it's a complete merge then a history merge may be required.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for not citing the right policy, and thanks for straightening me out! You quote the policy that we should all follow: "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well." ch (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

New category covered by intention of recent CfD

Hi, as you added (see [10]) Category:111 BC disestablishments in China while the discussion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_19#Ancient_disestablishments was in progress, and its siblings are being upmerged, do I have your permission to upmerge the new category likewise? – Fayenatic London 08:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fayenatic london: Sure if you want to make them consistent. Thanks for asking. --Cartakes (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you too. I can now speedily merge it under WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

SPAs at AfD

[11] is pedantic. If you want to tag other SPAs, go ahead, but please don't revert obvious cases when the IP has literally no edits in any other discussion. – czar 17:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the previous section of the discussion involving you. I already left a message there, which says "I find that you (czar) are in fact doing talk page refactoring (see [12]) as well, claiming another IP who opposes you "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". However, at least two other IPs made few or no other changes outside the topic made comments in that page as well, but you did not label them as "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". I think you are just trying to hide those who oppose you. This is against the Wiki policy. Please don't do this again, thanks." --Cartakes (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, IPs that have not edited outside the topic area should be marked as SPAs. I'm not following every comment at the AfD. If you want to tag relevant SPA IPs that I missed, go for it, but it doesn't mean you should be removing it from entries where the tag clearly applies. – czar 19:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have realized you perhaps did not intentionally try to miss them. Anyway, I have already tried to tag all of the relevant IPs, including the one you tagged and missed before seeing your above message. --Cartakes (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Names of the Qing dynasty
added a link pointing to Tibetan language
Treaty of Kyakhta (1727)
added a link pointing to Khövsgöl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And another copy page edit for the creation of a new page

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tibet under Qing rule into new page which only content is the copied text. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This page was created more than a week ago. However, not that all content came from that page, and they had been reworded etc to fit in the article. I have left an edit summary there to show where some content came from. Furthermore, the article has been expanded from other sources. --Cartakes (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to add a little background: I believe that the rich article "Tibet under Qing rule" was created by Cartakes under a different name, so we should applaud the addition of this topic, which is timely and interesting. But I do suggest that the best response to friendly corrections is to study them carefully, not try to explain that the policy was followed when actually it was not.
I'm not an expert in how to handle these things, but maybe the easiest solution would be for Cartakes to delete the 1720 article, then create a new one with a different name, following the guidelines. This would make everyone happy, especially readers to want to find out about this topic.ch (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to mention that at the same time he left a message above, he also turned the 1720 article into a redirect, thus deleting the article. Then I re-added content with an edit summary saying it came from the other page, and then also substantially expanded the article from other sources (I did not re-create the article with a different name though since I was simply following the name of the article British expedition to Tibet, which was created long time ago, in 2006). By doing this, I think we have already done what you suggested above as a matter of fact. Thanks for your comment. --Cartakes (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine -- in spirit! I continue to applaud your results, but it still does not follow WP's policy for moving or copying text, which brings the previous history of the text along with it. Again, I am no expert, but my reading of the policy is that bringing the history along is important in carrying out WP's legal copyright responsibilities by giving credit to the editors who created and edited the text.ch (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I already agreed to carefully follow that policy after we both actually read and understood the policy on Aug 6, 2015. However, for article(s) created before that day (i.e. Aug 6, 2015) such as this 1720 article, I think we probably need to find a slightly different or alternative way to handle them, since neither of us really read that at that time. We can't simply delete them, since they might have been heavily reworded, restructured and/or expanded since then. BTW, is there in fact a Wikipedia policy for "tracing back"? I can't seem to find it in Wikipedia although I did search for it (just a side comment: If there is really such a policy, I think we can even accuse people for edits made back in 2001, when Wikipedia itself was created). Nevertheless, I already made a new section as well as adding a {{copied}} template in Talk:Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) saying that part of the materials came from "Tibet under Qing rule", thus giving credit to other editors too. Although it was a little late to write the section there, it did complete the requirement for that policy, which says "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template". After all, the policy did not say the article itself needs to be removed, but instead only the contributions need to be mentioned, such as in the talk page. --Cartakes (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eastern Xia
added a link pointing to Kingdom
Manchuria under Ming rule
added a link pointing to Jurchen
Manchuria under Qing rule
added a link pointing to Fengtian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Buildings & Architecture

Hi Cartakes, I noticed in several of the similar templates such as Template:Yuan dynasty topics and Template:Ming dynasty topics, you have included a section for Buildings & Architecture. Back in March of this year, I voiced this same concern to User:Evecurid who created the Template:Qing dynasty topics (which also included a "Building & Architecture" section), but I'll do that here as well.

I don't think these templates should have a section called "Buildings & Architecture" for several reasons. It is impossible to include all the buildings from the Ming and Qing dynasties, especially when there are so many examples of it you can find in China. By just looking at the Buildings & Architecture in the Template:Ming dynasty topics, I can see that there are countless "temples" that were left out. These templates as of right now, are getting quite big, so we should think of some ways of reorganizing/condensing, and making them easier for navigation. I mean there is no way that you can list all the notable Ming or Qing architecture without making the templates many times the size it already is. I think a a better idea is to include a link to Category:Yuan dynasty architecture, Category:Ming dynasty architecture and Category:Qing dynasty architecture into the templates (since these are basically general category to each dynasties' architecture but they also encompass the main idea), than it is to keep adding all these individual links to buildings, which could grow "astronomically".--TheLeopard (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, Nam Ông mộng lục probably should not be included in the Society & Culture of Template:Ming dynasty topics, since it is generall regarded as a work of Vietnamese literature.--TheLeopard (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheLeopard: Since User:Evecurid (now no longer in use) is in fact me, I know what you are talking about. At that time I replied that I only linked to articles that actually exist in the template. Since now you mention these templates are quite big, besides simply deleting them, I think there might be another way - just list those that are important to the dynasty (such as the Forbidden City) instead of list all relevant articles that actually exist. As for Nam Ông mộng lục, it was included in the Ming dynasty topics only because it was written during his exile in Ming China (as mentioned in the article), but I am fine with leaving it out. What do you think about this proposal? --Cartakes (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
But determining what is "important" is subjective. If you go by the "importance" criteria, how does major temples factor? What about renowned gardens? Historical sites? Also what about infrastructures (bridges etc.)? These all vary. I think it is best to remove the Buildings & Architecture section. The look of these "Buildings & Architecture" sections right now I'm afraid, is just random. There are random temples, halls and pagodas that pops up here and there while countless other similar ones are ignored. And if you only list palaces and tombs, that would look odd as well, since that doesn't really represent "Buildings & Architecture".--TheLeopard (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think we can leave out all buildings such as the temples. But some articles such as the Forbidden City, the Ming tombs and the Ming Great Wall still needed to be linked from *somewhere* in the template I think because they are very important to the dynasty. Maybe simply name it to something like "palaces and tombs" instead for these? Thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

TheLeopard: I have already renamed them and left out all the temples etc in the templates for the Ming and Qing dynasties. Hope you think it is fine now. --Cartakes (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. A section called "Palaces and Tombs" still looks bit random (people might ask why single these two out in particular?). (Also, perhaps rename the "Tombs" to "Mausoleums" as in "Palaces and Mausoleums") But I think it is better than having a Buildings & Architecture section but only to include few items. And I hope in the future there won't be more Buildings & Architecture section added to other dynasties' template (because if you include only a few items, it would seem like there aren't enough material). Thanks!--TheLeopard (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"Palaces and Mausoleums" is certainly fine for me. Thanks! As for why (only) these two, I can say that it is because these two are considered "Imperial", thus directly related to the dynasty itself. Sure, I won't add a section named "Buildings & Architecture" in future templates. --Cartakes (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

While you do not appear to be using multiple accounts for purposes that breach Wikipedia policy, I suggest that you place a {{retired}} template on the Evecurid user page. If that account is, or you suspect it to be, compromised, I will happily block it for you. Philg88 ♦talk 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Philg88: Thanks for your suggestion. Although I already mentioned on User:Evecurid since long time ago that "This account is no longer in use to edit Wikipedia articles.", I have added a {{retired}} template on the top of the Evecurid user page by now. --Cartakes (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. It may help you avoid trouble in the future if anyone hints at a lack of transparency. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 14:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proto-Mongols, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shangjing. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant

Could you elaborate on what you meant by “summarize the updates and only keep the main points instead” on the console software Talk pages? Or maybe give an example? Thanks. (If you don’t recognize my IP address, I’m the guy that asked about removing the update history sections on the console system software pages.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What I meant is basically what you said earlier in the talk page that to "limit it to important and/or noteworthy details". I'd rather see this as the solution instead. --Cartakes (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
In table format, or prose format? I’d be happy either way, as long as it’s properly sourced. My trouble is determining what’s important/noteworthy when the sources we have barely even say anything beyond “hey, this exists and has these features, and you’re automatically updated.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ganden Phodrang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unrecognized state. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War of the Two Capitals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingbei. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

LiveArea

It's already described in the Vita's article and there is no sourced content to merge. What is your contention? – czar 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There does exist sourced materials that do not exist in the article PlayStation Vita. For example, the LiveArea article mentions that "The interface features a new touch-based screen and acts like a hub page and allows users to hop between different parts of the game space" with source given, but I can't find this sentence in the PlayStation Vita article. --Cartakes (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The sentences don't need to be moved verbatim... The Vita article already says, "a touchscreen-based UI dubbed LiveArea". Feel free to merge anything else that you think needs merging, but I think the section already covers what we need to know about the interface. – czar 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of Mongolian history may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • founding of the [[Yuan dynasty]] with himself as first emperor, with [[Khanbaliq]] (modern Beijing]]) as its capital.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Dont do vandalism

I can suggest you some reading materials.

It is clear that I did not vandalism the page. In fact, i was the one who created that article. Please discuss at Talk:Kaidu–Kublai war#Scope, thanks! Furthermore, please sign your name and don't label other editors like this, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You just copied other authors materials in pages like Khubilai, Mongol Empire, Golden Horde. How come you call yourself the creator? I corrected your many mistakes in the page. There are still many left.--Lauren68 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The article itself was obviously established by me, with the note that part of the content coming from other articles. However, I am not saying I am authoring or owning the article. Everyone can edit it. However, when your bold edits got reverted, please discuss before continuing according to the WP:BRD policy. Thanks for your understanding. --Cartakes (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You shall start the discussion first and kindly improve your knowledge (How can you edit articles which you dont know accurately?). --Lauren68 (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if you are even trying to improve the article. You made the bold changes first, being (partially or fully) reverted, then please discuss it. You on the other hand reverted it blindly without even giving an explanation, either in summary or in talk page. Even worse, you seem to make single-purpose edit in the Kublai Khan article to make nationalist POV push. Both are against the WP policy and please don't do them, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Bongan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Maurya Empire, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. [Self Made without ref.] Bongan® →TalkToMe← 09:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you message. I basically reverted User:Ashvawiki's removal of content and changed "Hinduism" to "Brahmanism (the predecessor of modern Hinduism)", the latter because he said "There is no proof of Hinduism existing before the Mauryan empire or even at the Mauryan times." in his edit summary. I was not sure whether Hinduism (as it is called today) existed at that time, but I believe I was certain Brahmanism (the predecessor of modern Hinduism) definitely existed at the Mauryan times. So I restored the material that User:Ashvawiki removed with the said change, although as you mentioned above I indeed did not cite a reliable source for this change in the article. Anyway as said in your talk page I am certainly fine with your reversion of the article to the version before his edit. Hope you understand the situation now, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PlayStation 4 system software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PlayStation 4 system software, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Headset and PNG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xbox 360 system software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media player. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article review of Division of the Mongol Empire?

Hello, Cartakes. :) I see that on 7 August, you put banners on Talk:Division of the Mongol Empire. However, I can't find the Good Article Review required to promote the article to that status. Can you please link me to it? I'd like to talk to the reviewer about checking for copyright issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied in the article talk page. --Cartakes (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dungan Revolt (1862–77), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aksu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naimans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turks. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Title move without discussion

Hi,

You have twice moved (1 and 2) the article Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910) to Chinese expedition to Tibet (1910) without discussion. The original title seems more appropriate as the term Military expedition usually implies "the deployment of a state's military to fight abroad", while a military invasion can concern a country own territory ("An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory"). In the context of the sensitive Tibet-China issue, using the term "invasion" is far more neutral than "expedition" as it does not imply that China is a foreign force.--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! You also moved the page Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) to Chinese invasion of Tibet (1720) without discussion. For reply to the rest of your message above please see Talk:Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910), thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Humm, you had created the article “Chinese expedition to Tibet (1720) just 1 minute before you renamed “Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910)”, using your own copy/edit creation as a reference for the renaming of the 1910 article. For the rest, see also Talk:Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910). Cheers,--6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I already explained it in the article talk page, why repeat it again here? The article Chinese invasion of Tibet (1910) only contained two sentence before I expanded it (see [13]). It was described as "a Qing military expedition sent to establish direct rule in Tibet in early 1910" in the first sentence. The renaming was simply to make the title consistent with the its own article content as well as other articles. P.S. Please try to discuss in one place, thanks! --Cartakes (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it is clear that it is in fact the above user (6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38) who makes POV push and tendentious edits. He has been blocked on the Commons: [14]. For more information see File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png#Removal of "Disputed factual accuracy template". --Cartakes (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Xinjiang administrative divisions

There should be a new map showing the different administrative divisions in Xinjiang during Qing rule. Tianshan nanlu (Dzungaria/Zhunbu), Tianshan Beilu (Huibu/Huijiang/Tarim Basin/Altishahr/Little Bukhara/Chinese Turkestan/Eastern Turkestan), and Tianshan Donglu (Turfan Basin/Uyghurstan/Kumul and Turfan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qing_dynasty_and_Xinjiang.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qing_Dynasty_1820.png

Yellow is Dzungaria. Red is Tianshan Donglu (Uyghurstan/Turfan Basin/Kumul and Turfan). Blue is the Tarim Basin. Except Qing era Xinjiang was larger so a new map based on the 1820 one needs to be created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xinjiang_regions.png

The Qing treated all of those regions differently so its important to have a map illustrating the location of those regions.Rajmaan (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rajmaan! I agree that it is a good idea and also illustrative to show subdivisions of Xinjiang under Qing rule. However the main problem now is the reliable source available. None of the above links provide a reliable source showing all the three subdivisions of Xinjiang before the 1860s (when Xinjiang was larger than today's Xinjiang in size). Obviously we can't WP:SYNTHESIS materials by ourselves, and there is no need to show post-1860s subdivision in Xinjiang anyway since Xinjiang was converted into a single province in 1884. But thanks for your suggestion, and we can do it if there is a reliable source available. ---Cartakes (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The division between Tianshan Nanlu and Tianshan Beilu is already on reliably sourced maps, it got included on the 1820 map. Its just Tianshan Donglu which is missing. James Millward describes the geography of Tianshan Donglu in his books. [15][16][17].Rajmaan (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the 1820 map includes Tianshan Nanlu and Tianshan Beilu. But as you said Tianshan Donglu is missing from it. Unfortunately James' books you gave above provide no map for it either. It is hard to draw a map containing Tianshan Donglu simply from the texts. --Cartakes (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
But can't we just include Tianshan Beilu and Tianshan Nanlu then? And I accidently switched Tian shan Beuli (Dzungaria/Zhunbu) and Tianshan nanlu (Huibu/Huijiang/Tarim Basin/Altishahr/Little Bukhara/Chinese Turkestan/Eastern Turkestan) in my first post, I attributed the entirely opposite alternative names, oops. Rajmaan (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder exactly how many circuits in Xinjiang are we suppose to have in the map then, two or three? If there was indeed a separate Eastern Circuit, then it means the subdivision as described in the 1820 map would be inaccurate since it only contains two circuits (Northern and Southern) in Xinjiang. If we only draw Tianshan Beilu and Tianshan Nanlu in Xinjiang according to that map, then it means that Tianshan Donglu simply did not exist in Xinjiang (since according to that map the Northern and Southern circuits occupy the whole of Xinjiang and there is simply no room for the Eastern circuit), contradicting to the main text of the article. Maybe we still need a better map as a reference in this case. --Cartakes (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PlayStation 3 system software, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and Homebrew. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Trimming of information covered in other articles

To qualify under Featured article criteria, an article must be comprehensive, "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Unfortunately, the details you are removing are pertinent to the explanation of the consoles' capabilities, and may be a point of consideration if they were to ever be nominated for FA status. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ViperSnake151: The Xbox One article is already over 100K in size, and I was simply transferring some over-detailed content from this article to one of its child articles, the Xbox One system software. Per Wikipedia:Splitting, "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." The Xbox one article is only supposed to be a Wikipedia:General overview article, not an article covering every over-detailed content, unlike its child articles. Also, why did you remove the Xbox One logo I added to the article? --Cartakes (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
There's already a logo in the inbox. Besides, there are other things that could be split (in particular, we could use a List of Xbox One retail configurations like the List of Xbox 360 retail configurations.) ViperSnake151  Talk  02:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there could be a child article List of Xbox One retail configurations too. Still, some over-detailed content in the Xbox One article already mentioned in the child article Xbox One system software should not be repeated. --Cartakes (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Now the article is no longer comprehensive and standalone. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
How? All necessary information is mentioned either in the parent article or one of its child articles. This is exactly how Wikipedia:Splitting works. Obviously we cannot put everything in the parent or the Wikipedia:General overview article. When there are certain details mentioned in the child article instead it does not mean the parent article is no longer comprehensive or standalone. --Cartakes (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nintendo DSi system software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Inner Asia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • definitions of [[Central Asia]], mostly the historical ones, but certain regions of Inner Asia (such as [[Manchuria]] are not considered a part of Central Asia by any of its definitions. One way

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC) 

be careful when you edit --Lauren68 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the article Kaidu-Kublai war. --Cartakes (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Information icon Greetings. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Stop edit warring. Edit messages are not a conversation medium. I have not made any bold edits whatsoever, and no discussion is even warranted about the article at all at this point, until you stop and read and understand the given guidelines and policies very very thoroughly. Your edits are the only bold thing, in clear violation of numerous and clearly listed guidelines and policies of what Wikipedia is not. You have already been clearly warned of this on that very same Talk page. And now we'll add to the list of offenses, the failure to comprehend the nature of vandalism, where such false accusations are ever increasingly serious on Wikipedia. You really need to just stop and learn. Editors can be blocked for continuously or willfully violating any or all of this. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already mentioned in Talk:PlayStation 4 system software that the above user (User:Smuckola) is removing massive content from this said article. Since he kept edit warring and deleting these content without clear explanation how they are relevant even after my requests, I will treat the action of content removal of the above user as close to vandalism. --Cartakes (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What the above user (User:Smuckola) is doing is exactly like what User:OMPIRE was doing earlier in the Console war article, i.e. massively removing article content and edit warring. User:OMPIRE was labelled as "bordering on vandalism" by an admin at that time in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (now in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive287#User:OMPIRE_reported_by_User:JesseRafe_.28Result:_Blocked_24_hours.29). So there is no problem for me to describe the above user as such too. --Cartakes (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at PlayStation 4 system software

I do not want to have to block you. Please use the talk page and do not modify the article until you have agreement. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I will refrain myself from edit warring on that article too. Thank you! --Cartakes (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy to hear that. You have no block log and I'm sure you don't want to get one. 4RR is grounds for a block right now, so I am happy to hear you will sort this out at talk. In the future, try 1RR or 0RR. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A nice clean block log

Please keep it that way. You can be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. You do know that, don't you? Please share the gift of discussion. Merry Christmas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding both of us. Yes, that is exactly why I only edited/reverted the article twice today so far and did not change the article further. But I think the article should be reverted to the version before the edit war when a consensus is not reached. Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too. --Cartakes (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cartakes/Archives/2015&oldid=1088006870"