User talk:NVanMinh

Who are you?[edit]

Almost everything you've posted so far is a personal attack on me. Somehow, I don't think you started editing Wikipedia yesterday. Kauffner (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the best thing that could happen to the Vietnam province articles since you moved them to a naming format not found elsewhere in South East Asia or East Asia. NVanMinh (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on reverting that Kauffner's edits. A lot of people (including myself) already get tired of his mass undiscussed and discriminating moving and renaming articles about Vietnamese-related articles. Together we will counter that and put an end to it. ༆ (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks for the feedback. NVanMinh (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to remove diacritics, you should discuss with the whole WP community and tell them to remove all diacritics in all languages that use the Latin alphabet, including those European one, and NOT just Vietnamese. Check here. This question has been praised many times: why are people targeting Vietnamese diacritics but not European ones? ༆ (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox province and Template:Infobox settlement[edit]

Moved to: Template_talk:Infobox_settlement/Other_templates_up_for_TfD#Redirects_for_deletion_-_they_break_tools NVanMinh (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

I don't get it? the template points to settlement template; nothing is categorized, so WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES cannot apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit requests[edit]

Hi there. I thought I should probably leave a comment here, because it is pretty hard to communicate effectively when conversations are scattered across multiple template talk pages. First, an apology - I should have checked how many transclusions the redirects in question had. Now that I know there were no transclusions, I can see that this was a perfectly reasonable request. If they had had any transclusions I probably would not have added the template, however, as that looks really ugly in articles. I know that it is the established procedure to add the template, but in cases where doing things like that would wreck articles, the articles should get priority. (This would be a good example of a time to apply WP:IAR.) Let me know if you have any other questions about edit requests and related things, and I'll be happy to answer when I have a chance. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Very friendly. I will contact you in case I have any questions / requests. NVanMinh (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Infobox settlement - data analysis[edit]

Sorry, don't have time for your request. I am sure other bot operators will step forward to get you the data. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the reply. NVanMinh (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Why are you still orphaning the redirects and creating wikilinks to common terms? You need to stop this immediately, as I have asked you before. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where did you say I am have to stop to create links to common terms, and where did that happen and you object. As for the neighborhood link - it was only used by less than ten articles. This is clean up. Please tell what is the problem at the template page. NVanMinh (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this neighborhood redirect there was agreement with the one that reverted me, AFAIK. So, I now reverted him - under the agreement that he does not care about the neighborhood redirect. NVanMinh (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stop orphaning redirects, and you basically ignored my request. So what exactly do I have to do to get you to stop? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change any province link after that. NVanMinh (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my first post? It said "Could you please stop orphaning redirects?" So, I am asking what I need to do to get you to stop orphaning redirects to {{infobox settlement}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please say what do you refer to? I did not change any province links after the talk with Frietjes. So specify what do you refer to. Please tell what do you mean? NVanMinh (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to stop changing every "infobox city", "infobox neighborhood", etc to "infobox settlement" just because they are redirects. You have already started an WP:RFD for a large batch of these, and now you are orphaning more. You should wait until the RFD has finished before orphaning more, even if they are not in the same batch. I am about one step away from asking another admin to get involved. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not interfere with {{{infobox city}}} anymore. AFAIK it is an orphan anyway. But where is the policy or any agreement that infobox city must stay even if the item is a village? Almost all new creations use Infobox settlement. So what I do is clean up and error correction, since normally a village is not a city. NVanMinh (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for an uninvolved admin to have a look (see here). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an unpleasant encounter. This looks very childish. Why can't you explain the issue yourself? You still did not reply to my clarification request WRT your complain about linking to common terms.

I have a break now. I thought this is a collaborative project, but you only say "stop stop stop" without saying what is the problem. NVanMinh (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this does look childish. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

undone within 3 minutes [1]. So, look into the future. NVanMinh (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subdistricts → Districts?[edit]

Dear NVanMinh,

Between 02:24 and 02:34 UTC on the 21th of December you have changed the name of 22 articles and 1 template about kecamatan in Indonesia, without giving a reason. I have not found any place where the move of these articles was discussed. In my opinion, for historical reasons district is not a valid translation for kecamatan. Could you please give your reason for these edits?

Yours Sincerely,

Tjibbe I (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tjibbe I,

the naming change is based on:

NVanMinh (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21[edit]

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.

Departments of Peru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to San Martín Department, Junín Department and La Libertad Department

Regions of Peru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to San Martín Department, Junín Department and La Libertad Department

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]