Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) →3RR warning: new section |
→Image:Viet Ladies.JPG: new section |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Dreams from My Father|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Dreams from My Father]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Dreams from My Father|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Dreams from My Father]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Image:Viet Ladies.JPG == |
|||
If you can add the source of this image proving that it was indeed a postcard scan of 1904 it can be recreated. It was deleted because this image, and some other images of the same user all had no source. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:37, 10 October 2008
The Vietnam War
Before you go about saying "'the American War' is quite obviously not a Vietnamese term," have you spoken to any Vietnamese lately? All the Vietnamese I've met in Vietnam, including the English-speaking ones, refer to the war as "The American War." It is 100% a Vietnamese term for the very same war. (They refer to the other major wars they fought in the last century as "The French War" and "the Chinese War") I supplied a reference for this, and there are many such references if you google around. A shared experience by millions from different nations cannot and should not be automatically defaulted to titles/terminology from the western perspective alone. The Vietnamese terminology is equally valid since this war was largely fought on their soil.
Best Regards, Mouseydung (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I live in Saigon and I have talked Vietnamese about this. I don't think I should have to explain that when Vietnamese talk to each other, they don't use English-language phrases. Not only that, but there is no phrase in Vietnamese that is directly equivalent to "American War." 06:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I replied on the Vietnam War talk page, supplying references and documentation for this term being used by the Vietnamese.
- Best Regards, Mouseydung (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think the Viet Cong article is best illustrated with a picture of a baby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
VNQDD page move
I think compared to its full name, the name "Viet Quoc" is less often used in modern usage. If people want to abbreviate it, I often see "VNQDD" used instead. I suppose "Viet Quoc" might have been popular at one time when it was used in parallel with "Viet Minh" and "Viet Cach", but I haven't seen it used nowadays. DHN (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Internet censorship in Vietnam
I was there a couple of years ago and was frustrated by the snail-pace connections in Internet cafés. When I had time to kill while waiting for a bus one day, I decided to volunteer my technical know-how to a café owner and track down the bottleneck. With my tools I did a trace and discovered that all Internet traffic was being filtered through a single hidden proxy. Even "secure" connections were routed through it. It explained why the hotmail log-in process was at a standstill most of the time. I checked around from different locations across the country and found the same to be true: Big Brother was watching. Mouseydung (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Since you're in Saigon, maybe you can help me: I remember every web cafe in Vietnam has a sign posted warning the customers that they're not allowed to access "depraved, reactionary, and materials counter to the social norms". My brother was there last month and I asked him to take several pictures for me but the memory card ate them up...if you can take pics of those signs that would be great. The signs might be in both in English and Vietnamese or just in Vietnamese. Look for a piece of paper on the wall printed with phrases like "đồi trụy" (depraved), "phản động" (reactionary), or "chống phá nhà nước" (against the state). DHN (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've started a stub incorporating your pictures. See if you can find a sign that discourages or forbids the user from talking about politics altogether - I saw several during my trip to Vietnam. DHN (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You will need better sources than the run-of-the-mill websites that you are using otherwise the GA reviewer won't pass it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Vandals
User_talk:VegitaU#Removal_of_talk_page_comments He was reported by me.
And he continues... User_talk:VegitaU#Stop_with_the_vandalism Please report him...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
--Ilhanli (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Good Article Review
I have started a review here of the 9/11 article you are welcome to comment. BigDuncTalk 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
dark ages
see comments below. Your discusiion was sensible and I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in now and try to improve the situation at Dark Ages.
I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness...you see stbalback beecoming a crusader...it is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done?--Cimicifugia (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia
- We can have a vote on the talk page to merge Dark Ages with Early Middle Ages. Then Dark Ages would be a redirect an article that focuses on the actual history of the period as opposed to word usage. Kauffner (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
GA Promotion
Hey, I reviewed your GA nom for Aodai and everything checked out, so I promoted it to GA status. congrats! Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Movie
Hey there, regarding the movie discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Cliff_(film)#What_I_learned_from_this_movie...
What happened to the bridge in the Battle of Sterling Bridge in the movie Braveheart? Or what about how the Roman army broke formation and started barbarian brawling in the opening scene of Gladiator?
No movie ever made has historically accurate battle tactics...well maybe except Alexander, but the Persian army was still poorly represented. Yes I believe it is soccer - in the soccer wiki page and it says cuju is an ancestor of soccer. The Vulcan nerve pinch is an obvious exaggeration of acupuncture, and who knows about the pigeon part... Intranetusa (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Popular history of popular folly
Hi K!,
I like the turn of phrase. Nothing says that articles have to be written in the most boring way possible. "Widely read" just doesn't get the point across. An academic book could be widely read, but this was written by a popular journalist. So, I'll switch it back if you don't mind too much.
Thanks for your understanding.
Smallbones (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dreams from My Father. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Viet Ladies.JPG
If you can add the source of this image proving that it was indeed a postcard scan of 1904 it can be recreated. It was deleted because this image, and some other images of the same user all had no source. Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)