User talk:Timmyshin/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Timmyshin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Five Dynasties

I have been working on the problem here. Hope you can help. If you look at the corresponding entries in Britannica and Columbia, they focus on the major trends of this period rather than on itemizing the dynasties, kingdoms, and rulers. H. Humbert (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I am surprised by your reaction. If Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period is turned into a redirect to Five Dynasties, that would pretty much fulfill your original request. H. Humbert (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, I wanted "Five Dynasties period", which would include the "Ten Kingdoms" and other states. Timmyshin (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Just add a section on the Ten Kingdoms to the new article. A dynasty is a type of time period, so "Five Dynasties period" is redundant. It's Song dynasty, not "Song dynasty period." H. Humbert (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Escort (2006 film)

Hi, I'm Bobtinin. Timmyshin, thanks for creating Escort (2006 film)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good job on the Escort (2006 film) article. However the article may be deleted if it is not properly sourced, but I'm letting you off. Please source this article! Thank you for your contribution.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Bobtinin (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Tidy up after page move

I see you moved Jian Yang to Jian Yang (politician), but I don't see you tidying up all the incoming links that now point to a dab page. Tidying up after a page move is part of moving it. Can I encourage you to get onto it? Schwede 66 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Schwede 66 18:44, 14 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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Yu Prefecture (Chongqing)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Yu Prefecture (Chongqing), Timmyshin!

Wikipedia editor Ueutyi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

You should apply for autopatrol

To reply, leave a comment on Ueutyi's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Huang Chao declared the state of ___ when he sacked Chang'an?

Hi, Just wanted to direct your attention to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huang_Chao#Factual_Accuracy - see the note here? wonder if you know about this also? That dispute was like 9 years ago (hey, Wikipedia Time) but the page still talks about him proclaiming the state of Qi when he sacked Chang'an. Thoughts? Happy monsoon day 00:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any dispute, the question has already been answered by someone else, if you are still unclear: Huang Chao's state was named Qi (齊), which is different from the Qi (Li Maozhen's state) (岐) state established by Li Maozhen a few decades later. Li Maozhen's state was a little bit to the west of Chang'an. Timmyshin (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ok thanks. yes I saw it answered but not to such specificityHappy monsoon day 14:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. History can be confusing to read, especially in another language. Timmyshin (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Timmyshin, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Love You Like a Love Song", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — $Llywelyn II$ 11:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Article titles

I see that you changed the article title Central Secretariat to Zhongshu Sheng, but left the title Department of State Affairs or Shangshu Sheng as is. Clearly this does not look very consistent. Your stated reason for the renaming is that the department is not the primary topic for Central Secretariat, which might be true, but according to Google "Imperial Secretariat" could be the primary topic. What do you think? Thanks. --Wengier (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Central Secretariat" and "Department of State Affairs" were not consistent to begin with since only one term had the word "department". I did not move "Department of State Affairs" because it is the primary topic and widely used in academia, but "Central Secretariat" is not per Google. I don't believe "Imperial Secretariat" is primary topic either. The "Imperial Secretariat" results in Google Books, even if we disregard the many Indian and British results and only focus on China, are evenly split between Zhongshu Sheng and a different office Shangshu Tai (尚書臺), the precursor of Department of State Affairs that existed in the later Han dynasty before the establishment of Zhongshu Sheng. So I cannot agree with moving this topic to "Imperial Secretariat". But if you feel "Department of State Affairs" needs to be moved to Shangshu Sheng for the sake of consistency, I don't really have an objection. Timmyshin (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Huang Shuqin has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Timmyshin. Huang Shuqin, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 07:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Huang Shuqin

On 8 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Huang Shuqin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Woman, Demon, Human, directed by Huang Shuqin, is considered to be China's first feminist film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Huang Shuqin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wu Zuguang

Hi there, the article is under GA review, so everything needs to be sourced. If you have a source that says he was an alumnus of the International Writing Program, please add the info and source to the article. If not, then I'll need to remove the category. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chang You

A recent RM is closed as "no consensus". Care to create a newer RM discussion? I'll vote if you do. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass db-authoring

Hi, Is there a reason that you are replacing all the articles you made with db-author? TJH2018 talk 23:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I want them deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

But is there a reason that you want perfectly good articles deleted? Also, I'm not sure db-author even applies to the article namespace. Pinging TomStar81. TJH2018 talk 23:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, db-author only works if the only person to have ever edited the article is you, and the history of the articles shows that with very limited exceptions at least one other person has edited each of the articles so far tagged under db-author, making them ineligible for deletion under that criteria. The other major problem here is the article main space: once you put something in the primary article space it is considered to be a community article, no longer your exclusively. To delete the articles in question would require a different csd criteria, or a mass afd nom in which good reasons were laid out for the deletion of the articles in compliance with our article guidelines and regulations. As it stands right now, tagging the articles for db-author is more likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing than it is to get your articles deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not true, db-author works if I'm the only person to have edited "the only substantial content to the page", see WP:G7. All of them fit this description. I've had numerous articles deleted this way, I don't understand what the problem is this time. Timmyshin (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably just the number of articles being deleted. I concede that this is a case where the bulk of the content in each article was created by you, so G7 would apply here I guess, but a little leery to deleted so many articles in this way since I self-identify as an inclusionist at heart (though you wouldn't necessarily know it from my deletions logs). A case could be made for disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, that the more I look at it the more that seems to be a long stretch. I think the best solution here would be accept what you say and leave this for another admin to look at and rule on, all the more so since for once its not fraught with legal threats or personal attacks (also, I'm hearing thunder and lots of it, so I'm gun shy to start something and then have the power fail on me). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I too had a look and am not comfortable with deleting these articles. — Diannaa (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've declined all of these - or, at least, all of the ones that were still tagged and hadn't been deleted. WP:CSD#G7 is a courtesy, not an absolute right of the author, and always presupposes a better reason than "because the author wants it deleted" - most commonly, either the creation was recent and erroneous, or the article is going to be deleted anyway and the author's willing to facilitate that. I can see no such reason here. —Cryptic 08:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)