User talk:Seb az86556/archive1

July 2009 Ürümqi riots

Thanks for your input in the discussion on this article. I have to leave very soon, but I just wanted to let you know that if Ksyrie reverts again you can report him for edit warring at WP:AN3 and he will be blocked quickly. If he reverts after I'm gone, you can just go to that page and follow the instructions to file a report. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Seb: you picked quite a doozy of an article for what seems to be your first major experience on Wikipedia! You've been doing a great job, and hopefully as you continue to edit you'll find other articles that are less stressful. In the meantime, though, thanks for all your work cleaning up the article (I had hesitated to do things like format fixes and reference cleanup, since in the beginning things were being added and removed so quickly I didn't wnat to bother cleaning things up just to have it removed a few minutes later...although now that things are slowing down, we definitely do need to do a lot of cosmetic cleanup), and for being a voice of reason at the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow... is there a blush-icon I can use?:P Thank you!Seb az86556 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Manchu/Qing

I think Qing China or Qing Dynasty should be a correct chose. Manchu Empire never became an official name either in history or in nowadays. I'm from China and interested in the history of my fatherland. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

More skeptical? I'm kind-hearted to tell you the answer, why do you become more skeptical? China is my fatherland, and Qing dynasty is a part of Chinese history, did you mean I'm a liar? --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think I'm wrong, then tell me why the name of the artical is Qing Dynasty but not Manchu Empire. --Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I would probably go with Qing, which is the more official name of the period (the dynasty itself was called Qing, and was set up by the Manchus....IMHO, the use of "Manchu" in the West often corresponds with people trying to make it sound more "exotic" or something, but Qing is the name I've always heard in academic or otherwise serious texts). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK.thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete midia citation

In know. But what I added is media citation, not category classification as discussed on talk page. So please don't delete the information. -Qiuzheyun (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the lengthy discussion we've had about using or citing the word "terrorism." PLease read the discussion in its entirety, and contribute to it before making any changes. Thank you Seb az86556 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: East Turkestan

I've fixed the problem. First off, if you want to restore an article, its best to use WP:TW as I have. The alternative is to go to the respective edition in "history", click "edit", and copy-paste the whole thing, which gets rather tedious sometimes. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought about that, but didn't want to cause more damage. Thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: by the way

Thanks for that! :D Don't worry about me not being noticed - I tend to stay in the background. :) Oh and sorry for the late reply.. I should check my talk page more. User:Midway (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Xinjinag ref's

the sources added on the Xinjiang article/East Turkestan section seem valid. can you add them to First East Turkestan Republic as well? thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've already mentioned my thought about having two different articles with nearly identical content, in my talk to another user:

The 1st section (history) of the article Xinjiang is redundant since there is also another article History of Xinjiang. Most of the sentences are identical in both pages. I think the first section should be moved to the history article, including new additions, refs. etc. Xinjiang article better be just related to current Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is redirected to Xinjiang. Maybe a new name "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region" fits better to page, afterwards. Otherwise, Xinjiang article becomes lengthy, and subjected to vandalism by people who do not want to see names of earlier states of a region belongs to their country (PRC). Obuli (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Seb az86556. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stellaland

Whoa, another good one! Like Transkei, I think this is a good GA opportunity. This one is also eligible for WP:Did you know, a project that finds new or recently-expanded articles and showcases a fact from then on the Main Page for a few hours; since it was about 1000 characters before you started and slightly over 5000 now, it just meets the "fivefold expansion" requirement. If you like, you can nominate it on the appropriate section at T:TDYK (the nominations page) with the following template, filling in something for the "hook":

{{subst:NewDYKnom
 | article=Stellaland
 | writer=Seb az86556
 | status=expanded 
 | hook= "[did you know] ... that a star over Africa saw the birth of a small country in 1882?"
}}

Articles can be featured on DYK and reviewed for GA status at the same time, so nominating for either or both won't disqualify it for the other. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still sifting through sources over the last section... it was originally there, but seems rather dubious (revival of Stellaland and all that...junk)... DYK-nomination is something I'm willing to go for. On the other hand, I find GA-nominations self-serving in a way. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Personally, I think GA nominations are a good way to get a new set of eyes on an article and improve it—although there are some reviewers who do lazy reviews, in my experience all my reviewers have offered great comments. I don't care so much about the GA status on the article, I mostly care about the improvements the reviewers suggest. If you want a similar way to get a review without any semblance of self-serving, there is also Wikipedia:Peer review, where you can get another editor to review the article without any awards or baubles attached. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OH! and by the way... Stellaland was founded on the 26th of July . Is there a way to make DYK for the anniversary??? :D Seb az86556 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you nom it now and leave a message at WT:DYK, the project talkpage, to explain this, I bet they could rush it. (btw, you can nominate it under the header for July 22, rather than July 24, since that's when you started working on it.) I'm about to go off to class for four hours (blah) and then not long after that I'm leaving for the entire weekend, but since DYK nominations don't take long to check then I might be able to review it right before I leave, and make sure it gets into the right slot so it'll be up during the 26th in South Africa. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination done. you make me do weeeeiiiird stuff :P Seb az86556 (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job; I've heard of it before, but only as far as I could learn from their stamps (I'm a collector), so it's good to learn much more :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stellaland

Hello! Your submission of Stellaland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and it requires a little bit more to be a 5x expansion. Just another sentence or two should fix it. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stellaland

On July 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stellaland, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicolosi

I could give you a warning for edit warring too. You really have no business warning me. Discuss on the talk page if you want to create consensus. Christian Existentialist (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Signing warnings

Hi. Thanks for the vandal patrolling. It is really helpful to admins like myself when following up on WP:AIV reports if when folks leave u3, u4, and u4im messages like you did on Rishabhsahni that there be a signature with a timestamp (~~~~) after the warning so we can easily see when the last warning was left. This is especially important on IP editors. Otherwise we have to match the warning to the history and compare that to the last edit, with is about twice as complex. That being said, thanks for the warnings being issued. Most folks like you tend to use Twinkle to add such warnings. It almost automates the issuing of warnings and such, and it ensures that you sign. Check it out. Please keep up the great work. Toddst1 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:EAR

There is a discussion at the above board regarding this warning [1]. Is it possible for you to clarify? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

resolved. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Shablewblu

When you add a {{delete}} tag to an article, please be sure to add a reason to the tag. It will help the Admin that reviews for deletion determine if it is a valid deletion candidate. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better, you can use the Speedy deletion templates that are specific to deletion rationales. For example, when nominating a page for deletion as nonsense, {{db-g1}} or {{db-nonsense}} places the image in a special category just for nonsense pages, which generally means admins will be able to respond to it faster; using {{delete}} just dumps images into a general category. There are deletion templates for every speedy deletion reason... {{db-copyvio}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-bio}}, {{db-author}}, etc. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I try my best, but sometimes it's extremely difficult to figure out exactly what category it could be, as was the case here. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

King/Queen

Why Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Kastberg (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah lol. Of course, that did bug me, but I didn't look properly at the King section. Shouldn't it be renamed to Monarch with Victoria added? — Emil K. ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol great. Thanks mate, you did all the work! ;p Great job. — Emil K. ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)