Dynablaster (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 305: | Line 305: | ||
Please immediately cease and desist making repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to Obama-related Wikipedia articles. [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
Please immediately cease and desist making repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to Obama-related Wikipedia articles. [[User:Newross|Newross]] ([[User talk:Newross|talk]]) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:You were warned of Obama article probation here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKauffner&diff=248784474&oldid=244332751] - and just accused an administrator of trolling for warning you not to edit war on an Obama article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKauffner&diff=272093717&oldid=272080863] You ought to tone it down and try to avoid stirring up trouble if you wish to continue editing Obama-related articles.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
:You were warned of Obama article probation here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKauffner&diff=248784474&oldid=244332751] - and just accused an administrator of trolling for warning you not to edit war on an Obama article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKauffner&diff=272093717&oldid=272080863] You ought to tone it down and try to avoid stirring up trouble if you wish to continue editing Obama-related articles.[[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Charles W. Freeman, Jr. == |
|||
Hi, quote sections are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please see [[WP:QUOTE]] for more information. Ta. [[User:Dynablaster|Dynablaster]] ([[User talk:Dynablaster|talk]]) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:24, 1 March 2009
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)
Dreams from My Father
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Dreams from My Father, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at talk:Barack_Obama/Article_probation. I understand that the US election season is polarizing. However, please don't use Wikipedia as a soap box. If you really think your quotes are important to the article per se, and not just for the upcoming election, why not wait for a week and discuss them then? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say, this doesn't make much sense. The motivative to write is the hope they people will read it. Obviously, more people will read the article before the election than afterwards -- and it's not like it's an outstanding article the way it is. Kauffner (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really think more people will read the article in the next 5 days or so, than in the eternity (well, conservatively we have 50 million years or so left on this planet before the sun becomes to hot) afterwards? We are not working towards a deadline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, I do not believe and did not claim this. However, I believe that a few days after the election people will cool down quite a bit and it will be much easier to achieve consensus (or something close) on these articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner, I've left a note for you at Talk:Dreams from My Father, about how you would need to proceed if you still want to include the Ayers theory in that article. I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue against what looks like an emerging consensus that it's too fringy to merit inclusion. But if you want to, you'll need to show not that the theory seems plausible to you, but that it seems plausible to notable adherents and is held by more than an extremely small minority. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Julius Africanus
Why do you insist on restoring the error about Africanus and the date of the birth of Christ? If you cannot check the primary source quoted to you, why not leave things alone? (And if you need the book source for Africanus's work I cited, why not indicate it in the Wiki text?) Doktorspin (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The previous version was sourced to Britannica. That's obviously better unsourced material or sourcing to Wiki, which is just a message board. You haven't shown that it is an error -- Africanus could have mentioned the idea in both books. It's your responsibility to source the material you add, not mine. Kauffner (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that Doktorspin hasn't heard that original research is not permitted in Wikipedia. Nor is material composed by Wikipedians based on primary sources. That is for real researchers, not people like us. Well done for resisting his attempts to vandalise these articles. Demonteddybear (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Democratic-Republican Party
Have you been able to find any contemporary sources after 1800 that uses the term "Democratic-Republican" to describe the Jeffersonian party? If so, I would appreciate if you could share the citations. Although, I have found numerous newspapers that have used that name during the election of 1800, I have yet to find a newspaper using that name after the election. It doesn't mean there wasn't a paper using that term (and, as you said, usage of the date in the entry may have, in fact, been arbitrary); but in searching the newsapers, I still haven't found any newspaper using that term after the election of Jefferson. (Of course, it is harder to do electronic searches for the term after the establishment of a newspaper named The Democratic Repubican in 1802. Hundreds of issues of that newspaper keep coming up.) MCB/Boulder, 11/26/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.177 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Arbitary" is perhaps not the right word. I do not doubt what you are claiming. My objection is that gives a false sense of precision about the word usage when all you really mean is that you found citations for those years and not for others. We have more online political material from 1800 than from other years because it was such a historic election. Is there a reason why people would suddenly stop using the word in 1801? It could be just an artifact of the way the material was collected. Kauffner (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, because of its competiveness, the election of 1800 generated more material than other elections from the era, but there is a vast amount of material from the entire period. I conducted online searches of Early American American Newspapers, Series I and II and Early American Imprints, Series I, Evans 1639-1800 and Series II, Shaw-Shoemaker, 1800-1819. These sources gave me access to every document published in the United States during the period. (The first one checked newspapers and the second two checked books, pamphlets, broadsides, etc.) As I said, it was harder to search for the word "Democratic-Republican" after 1802, as every single article published in every single issue of the Democratic-Republican newspaper came up in that search. Still, I spent quite a bit of time looking through the material, and I could not find any other reference to "Democratic-Republican" after 1800.
- Nonetheless, I think there is a reason why the term apparenlty disappeared after 1800. The word "Democratic" had negative connotations in the 1790s, especially in the context of the French Revolution. Therefore, Federalists used the word to smear their opponents. As the election of 1800 was very competitive (and, as Federalists were desperate not to lose), the term was used a lot. After 1800, things changed. Not only did the French Revolution begin to recede into the past, but, with Jefferson now in office, the negative charge that he was somehow "democratic" no longer carried weight. At least that's what it seems like to me.
- Oh, and thanks for changing "usually only." That phrase came about because I kept changing the text of what I was writing, and I must have put one word in without taking the other out. I noticed it after I posted the change, but after spending so much time working on the revision, I didn't want to go back in immediately and revise again. MCB/Bouder (Nov. 27, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.177 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Christmas article
Thank you for helping to combat the influx of fringe 19th and 20th century synthesized garbage that always hits the Christmas wikipedia during the season. NJMauthor (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Article renaming vandalism
Seems a bit complex for WP:AIV - you may wish to put together a report of the articles involved and report it to WP:ANI. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Titles
Please see articles in Category:Royal and noble family templates. Head of each royal family is The Something. The head of the British Royal Family is The Queen; the head of the Monegasque Princely Family is The Prince of Monaco (while his sister is Princess Stephanie of Monaco, without the - you see how the is important); the head of the Jordanian Royal Family is The King of Jordan (his wife is The Queen of Jordan, but his step-mother is Queen Noor, without the); head of the Belgian Royal Family is The King of the Belgians (his wife is The Queen of the Belgians, but his brother's widow is Queen Fabiola, without the); head of the Japanese Imperial Family is The Emperor of Japan (his wife is The Empress of Japan, his son is The Crown Prince of Japan and his daughter-in-law is The Crown Princess of Japan). Do you need more examples? The King of Thailand will be styled in English as King Bhumibol Adulyadej if he abdicates and his wife will be styled Queen Sirikit is her husband abdicates or dies before her. By removing the and adding their names you're actually downgrading them. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, although I'm not a monarchists, so I don't worry downgrading them. There is one other issue: "princess royal" is strictly unofficial as a translation of Sirindhorn's title. In the Thai English language press, she is always "HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn", never princess royal. Kauffner (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
About Thai Royal Titles
In my opinion, I think you do not understand about the royal titles of the Thai Royal Family. I have read the book about how to write the Thai Royal Titles in English in the library of Sukhothai Palace. The title and the rank is not the same. I think you are confusing about the titles and ranks. For example,
- Prince Chitcharoen of Siam, The Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs His title is Prince Chitcharoen . But the ranks The Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs is the rank that was given by his father Mongkut, Rama IV of Siam. In thai called Krom Phraya Narisara Nuvadtivongs So this is what I would like to explain to you.
- Prince Chudadhut Dharadilok of Siam, The Prince of Phetchabun His title is Prince Chudadhut and his rank was The Prince of Phetchabun Or in thai called Krom Khun Phetchabun Indrachaya This title was named from the Phetchabun Province. This rank was given by his father, Chulalongkorn.
So you can see this is not the same between the born titles and the invested title
And I would like to explain you about the title of Princess Sirindhorn. Her full name is Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, although her real name is only Sirindhorn. And Princess Maha Chakri is the name, not the rank. And the rank is Sayam Borommaratchakumari, which was given by her father, Bhumibol Adulyadej. This investing title is equivalent and transform in english as The Princess Royal because she is the highest rank princess of the Royal Family.
And Princess Soamsavali Kitiyakara, Her title is Princess, and the rank is Phravararajatinuddamatu. It means that she is the niece of both the King and the Queen of Thailand. So her rank is transform in english as The Princess Niece.
So this is all I would like to explain to you about the Thai Royal Title in english...Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about Narisara Nuvadtivongs. I noticed almost immediately that I screwed it up, but I didn't know what to do about it. I don't think I changed anything with respect to Chudadhut Dharadilok, so I don't know why you are writing to me about him. In any case, I cannot believe that it is correct to use the word "prince" (or "princess") twice in a single reference. No one would say, "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales."
- It's not proper to get an English-language title by doing your own translation from Thai. There are official translations which you can find in the official biographies, or by searching the Web sites for Bangkok Post or The Nation. Neither "princess royal" nor "princess niece" are used by these sources.
- Are you sure "Maha Chakri" is part of Sirindorn's name? Paul Handley says it is her title. When she became Maha Chakri in 1977, it was a big deal. If she was just changing her name, who would care? This site has a detailed list of the awards she has received, but no mention of Sayam Borommaratchakumari. Perhaps it is another aspect of Maha Chakri or another way to say it.
- Finally, you should discuss page moves in advance on the relevant talk pages because they not so easy to reverse. Kauffner (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Kauffner. Thank you for your recent moves. But there are some more: please see Category:Chakri Dynasty. I think a lemma like e.g. Prince Bhanurangsi Savangwongse of Siam, The Prince Bhanubandhu Vongsevoradej is a bit of an overkill? --hdamm (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
To. Kauffner... Thank you for your own comment. The reason that we would like to change the name of the Royal Thai articles are because the articles will have the full title and rank like the other royal families. And the reason that I explain you about The Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs and The Prince of Phetchabun is because to compare the difference about them. Narisara Nuvadtivongs is just the name of the rank (or thai called Krom). But Phetchabun is the name of the province of Thailand. King Chulalongkorn gave this rank (Krom) same as the rank of the European Kingdoms that have the rank from the name of the city. Like the UK, there are Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex. These bold words are the name of the city or country. So this is just give an example to explain to you.
And there are more princes that has got the ranks like HRH The Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs; like HRH Prince Bhanurangsi Savangwongse, The Prince Bhanubandhu Vongsevoradej, HRH Prince Disuankumarn, The Prince Damrongrajanubhab. These bold words are the ranks, not the name. So I hope you understand all about these.
And about HRH The Princess Royal, and the Princess Niece. I understand and know that there are many confuses about the rank. Once, her royal highness compared her ranks with HRH The Princess Royal of the United Kingdom. She and Princess Anne, has got the same ranks. Because they are both the eldest daughter. (Although Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya is the eldest daughter, but she hasn't got the ranks). So we can use The Princess Royal with both Princess Sirindhorn and Princess Anne.
And about her name, her formal full name was Siridhorn Thepratanasuda and when she was given the title The Princess Royal from her father. Her name has changed into Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. So the wordMaha Chakri is the part of the name, not the ranks. The websites are written her full name. Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, not The Princess Maha Chakri. Because there has never had the title like this since the Rattanakosin Era. So you can see that it is a part of her full name.
And Princess Soamsavali Kitiyakara, Her title is Princess, and the rank is Phravararajatinuddamatu. It means that she is the niece of both the King and the Queen of Thailand. So her rank is transform in english as The Princess Niece.
So this is all I would like to explain to you about the Thai Royal Title in english...Thank you... --User:Monarchians (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC).
- The first step is to propose a style change here or here. European royalty is often given with the title after the name, for example Charles, Prince of Wales or Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. This is because there are many notable people named "Charles" or "Elizabeth" and therefore a need disambiguate. The situation with Thai royals is of course different. I don't have anything against the idea of using such titles myself, but you should know that this has been discussed before. There are established English language styles used in the Thai English-language press. Wiki style is to follow common English language usage as opposed to original translations of ranks and titles used in other languages. Kauffner (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thai Royal Titles and Ranks (II)
Some European royalties are named Prince in wiki article. Like; Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, etc. So almost every royalty must have the title and name. In case of Charles, Prince of Wales, the rank Prince of Wales, is the ranks of the heir apparent to the throne. It is same as the Crown Prince. So it is not necessary to write the word Prince in front of the name. Like; Maha Vajiralongkorn, The Crown Prince of Thailand. not neccessary to write Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, The Crown Prince of Thailand
So every Thai Royal articles must have both the title and rank. And we are carefully going to name the article shortly. Because some royalty has the long rank. Like The Prince Bhanubandhu Vongsevoradej, The Princess Thipyarat Kiritkulini, The Princess Suthasininart Piyamaharajpadivaradda, etc.
And about the title of Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, we and the office are discussing about the title and the ranks. And discussing about the name of the articles. If the discussing finish, I will tell you immediately...
Monarchians (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Monarchians, have you noticed a difference between Frederick, Crown Prince of Denmark and Maha Vajiralongkorn, The Crown Prince of Thailand? The former doesn't have the ugly The in it's title. That The really hurts my eyes. Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- My objection to the article names Monarchians has chosen is that if you put "prince" twice in title, e.g. Prince Chitcharoen, The Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs, it implies the article is about two different people. I suggest following the style used by the Thai English-language press, i.e. "HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn", "HRH Princess Srirasmi" and so forth. Kauffner (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style strongly opposes including styles such as HRH in the article's title. If we compare articles about Thai royalty to articles about European royalty, we will find that Chitcharoen, Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs is the best solution (format being "Name, Title" - the same format used for Charles, Prince of Wales, Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, everybody..
Well first, I am sorry that I did anything you did not admire. Last night I and the office discussed about the name of the Thai Royalties until 11 pm. The objections we did were to complete the Thai Royal Family articles. We would like to complete all the member of the Siamese or Thai Royal Family, from the reign of Rama I to current Rama IX. I think I would like you to help us, too. At this moment we are editing the User page, so you will know who we are. And when I do anything wrong with the Thai Royal Article, you can tell me anytime you like. And I will discuss with you when I would like to edit or change anything about them. You can cooperate with us...
The result of the meeting of changing the name of the Thai Royal Article in Wikipedia, the free evcyclopedia...
We may cut the title Prince and Princess from the royalty who got the rank. Like Chitcharoen, Prince Narisara Nuvadtivongs, Kitiyakara Voraluksana, Prince of Chunthaburi, Bhanirangsi Savangvongse, Prince Bhanubandhu Vongsevoradej, etc. Because, they will be very long name in the article.
And the name of the monarch of Thailand, I think we should write the name like the European monarch, like; Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Margrethe II of Denmark, Maria I of Russia, Otto I of Austria, etc. So we can write like it in the Thai Monarchs, too. like; Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rama IX of Thailand, Chulalongkorn, Rama V of Siam, and still the name in it. How is your comment about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And the article name of the Crown Prince of Thailand. I think Maha Vajiralongkorn, Crown Prince of Thailand is the best name of the article, do you agree? And the name of the current members of the Thai Royal Family must have the title in the article. Like; Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti of Thailand, Princess Chulabhorn Walailuk of Thailand, etc. So it will be the same of the Royal Articles of the other Royal Family, like; Prince Christian of Denmark, Princess Isabella of Denmark, etc. Do you agree?
And the royalty or nobility whose title Mom Chao, Mom Rajawongse, or Mom Luang. We should write the title in front of the name, too. e.g, Mom Chao Chatrichalerm Yukol, Mom Rajawongse Mannarumas Yukol, Mom Luang Sarali Kitiyakara...
We would like to have your comment, too. Because this is the free encyclopedia, not the private...
Hope to hear from you soon.
Monarchians (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC).
- This type of discussion isn't really appropriate for my talk page, so I'd like to move it to the Wikiproject Thailand. Please respond there.
- The basic logic behind article naming on Wiki is that the names should reflect common English-language usage. For technical reasons, it is necessary for each name to be unique. So when the person has a very common name like "Otto" or "Elizabeth" some additional words are added to make the article name unique. This is why European royals get odd-looking article names with endings like "of Austria" and "of the United Kingdom". But are no notable non-Thais with names like Bhumibol or Dipangkorn. "Of Thailand" is not part of their official titles, so I don't see any reason to put it in. For the crown prince, the Bangkok Post consistently refers to him as "Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn" and that is the style I'd like to follow. In any case, just "Vajiralongkorn" is the current style under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles). This document needs to be revised before the article titles for individual royals can be changed. Kauffner (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I reply message to you in the Wikiproject Thailand. Please respond there. Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Gook
Dravecky 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
"Splendid"
Hi, what is your evidence that 花 means "splendid"? See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%8A%B1 . Badagnani (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
In Chinese, 花 can be used to figuratively mean "ornamentation" or "decoration," as in the term 加花 (to ornament a Chinese melody by adding trills, tremolos, extra notes, etc.). Badagnani (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Flower Flag
While I still think it might have a little too much prominence, good adds to the U.S. flag and some interesting info. I tip my hat to ya'. — BQZip01 — talk 23:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Undiscussed page moves
Kindly do not continue to move pages without prior discussion at the pages in question. For moves to titles with diacritics, kindly first consult at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we are still discussing this on the project page and we would very much like to see you there. You've made great edits to VN-related pages and I'm sure we can all continue to work together collaboratively. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
A drafted new version of the Manual of Style for Thailand-related articles has been started here. Still at issue are specific naming conventions for Thai royals and nobles and settlements. As contributor to previous discussions on the guideline, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand#Updating the Manual of Style (part 2). Paul_012 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see:
- Talk:Barack_Obama#State legislator: 1997–2004 - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits
- Talk:The Audacity of Hope#Reception - repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits
Please immediately cease and desist making repeated inappropriate and disruptive edits to Obama-related Wikipedia articles. Newross (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- You were warned of Obama article probation here.[1] - and just accused an administrator of trolling for warning you not to edit war on an Obama article.[2] You ought to tone it down and try to avoid stirring up trouble if you wish to continue editing Obama-related articles.Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Charles W. Freeman, Jr.
Hi, quote sections are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please see WP:QUOTE for more information. Ta. Dynablaster (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)