Ythlev, you are invited to the Teahouse!Edit

 

Hi Ythlev! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

ANIEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cards84664 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ythlev, FYI in case you were not aware, threads at ANI are archived automatically after 72 hours if nobody posts in a new message in that thread. It's common for threads to be archived with no action. But every new post resets the 3-day clock. Levivich 04:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan: “recognizes” -> “recognises”Edit

  Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. WikiWinters (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please could you confirm that you have understood and agree with the point that WikiWinters has tried to make to you since this edit you recently made raises the same issue? --BushelCandle (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean the removal of the template? That template is used to notify editors when there is a consistent variety. The article does not. It has American spellings (e.g. labor) and non-Oxford ones. So that template should not be added. Ythlev (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply.
However, I'm not sure that's correct. My understanding is that the language variety template is placed so that editors (and potential editors) can quickly see what the established variety of English is so that they don't inadvertently change the established variety or cause it to become a mixture of varieties in contravention of MOS:CONSISTENT.
The article can continue to have other varieties where these are proper names or direct quotations.
Incidentally, I think you're responsible for some of the inconsistency, aren't you? --BushelCandle (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no "established variety". The variety is mixed. That edit was a revert of another user changing from one variety to another, which is against policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ythlev (talkcontribs) 04:47, 7 May 2019 05:32 (UTC)
It's great that we are agreed that your edit/revert (diff above) was against policy since the policy is that "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another" and your edit/revert (diff above) did exactly that.
Please remember to sign your posts and indent appropriately.
I fear you are rather confused: Our Taiwan article has no strong ties to any particular variety of English. Consequently, "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page." (a direct quote from MOS:RETAIN)
Incidentally, this first edit that "corrected" spelling in the article in July 2003 used the non-US spelling of "favour" while retaining the existing non-US spelling of "traitorous". Non-US English should be used consistently throughout this article (except for direct quotations, of course). The only conceivable dubiety remaining is whether to use Oxford or non-Oxford spelling. A decision must be made one way or the other and I would welcome your opinion on the article's talk page regarding that issue... --BushelCandle (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the article should use more global spellings of words, like colour and centre. However when I brought it up, there was no consensus. The policy does not say consistency trumps user opposition, so the article shall remain mixed. Ythlev (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, policy does say exactly that and mixed usages are deprecated, Read the text in green above out loud and with meaning and feeling and emphasis as if you were delivering a speech and maybe you will understand our policy better! --BushelCandle (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

THSR S-line termini disputeEdit

Hello,

I see that you've reverted my edits regarding the termini for THSR's adjacent stations template. You gave the reason that S-line guidelines gives west as the left terminus and east as the right terminus, which is a valid point considering Zuoying is slightly west of Nangang stations. However, due to these reasons, I still believe Nangang should be the left terminus:

  • The THSR line is a runs primarily north-to-south, not east-to-west. If it were east-to-west, then I would agree with you. This is not the case, and therefore, this "rule" shouldn't be applied.
  • All sources I can find lists Nangang as the starting point, including but not limited to:
  • Left is most associated with the start of the line. Line beginnings also would be the start of the numbering and distances. With this logic, the north should be the beginning of THSR lines, as Nangang is numbered "01" and has a distance marked as "-3.3 km", making it with the lowest number designations.
  • I tried finding the S-line guidelines that you mentioned. The closest I can find is the "Termini section" of the template documentation. However, the section doesn't give a rigid rule as to west has to be left, and the Wolverine is merely used as an example. Common sense should be used in these cases to determine termini. If you find the guidelines you mentioned, feel free to let me know.

These are some of the reasons I can think of right now as to why Nangang should be on the left. As a Taiwanese editor, it seems very very weird for it to be listed the other way, and I believe Taiwanese Wikipedians would agree with me as well. However, even so, I'm more concerned about reach consensus here and figure out a solution. Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Ganbaruby! 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm Taiwanese and I disagree with you. What do you think about Taoyuan Airport MRT then? It is totally east-west. Taipei is listed as start because people are Taipei-centric, but there is no reason why Wikipedia should feed into that bias. Ythlev (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev:I understand where you are coming from, but you still have not adressed my point about numbering. I would argue for Taipei to be the first station when adressing the Taoyuan MRT as well because Taipei is numbered A1, which is how that Wikipedia page is written. Ganbaruby! 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I have. The numbering and which station is "start" is biased from a Taipei-centric viewpoint. Ythlev (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev: Not from Taipei, but I believe that since Taiwan's kilometer zero is located in Taipei, a "Taipei-centric" viewpoint would be appropriate here. Even if that were not true, the numbering system itself provides an established sequence that the stations are written in. It would make more sense for Wikipedia to reflect this commonly-used sequence than to follow this rigid rule of west-is-always-left. Ganbaruby! 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not appropriate. It is a systemic bias and is considered undesirable. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Ythlev (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev: I guess I was not clear enough in my response. The discussion of whether Taipei-centric viewpoint is correct is irrelevant to this discussion; rather, I'm arguing that from the Chinese Wikipedia and THSRC links provided above, there is a clear existing sequence that is commonly used. This isn't an issue of systemic bias, as I have yet to come across one where Zuoying is listed first except for the English Wikipedia, and the sources above point to listing Nangang first. If some sort of reasoning as to why an alternative system should be used (some sort of prior discussion or consensus, perhaps), then I will be happy to oblige with the listing you have in mind. Ganbaruby! 09:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It is totally relevant. This isn't an issue of systemic bias, as I have yet to come across one where Zuoying is listed first except for the English Wikipedia That's exactly what systemic bias is. Society has a bias towards a certain viewpoint and you want to reinforce that bias by using the same viewpoint simply because it is commonly used. some sort of reasoning as to why an alternative system should be used If we ignore conventions, there is a benefit of having Nangang on the right: it is easier to associate the succession box with the map. On the other hand, station numbers and mileage are hardly relevant to passengers. Ythlev (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I understand where you're coming from, and I realize that to normal readers, your system might be more intuitive, and it does make sense. Based on how both you and Cards84664 both like the west-is-left better, I guess we should go with your system. I feel like the documentation in Template:Adjacent stations and Module:Adjacent stations should explicitly state this guideline for future reference, and I hope that you can do so because I don't really know the how the template works. On a separate note, what would you propose the ordering for a vertical station list to be? Cheers, Ganbaruby! 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ganbaruby: Whenever we have a north-south template, we also look at where the terminals are located in relation to each other. Nangang station is geographically east of Zuoying, making Zuoying the left terminus. Cards84664 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cards84664: Is this a hard-enforced rule or is it a general guideline? Looking at other examples: the Hanwa Line is alos a north-south line and its Wakayama Station is more to the west than Tennoji Station, yet Tennoji is written first. Both that line and the HSR have numbering that start at Tennoji and Nangang, respectively. Therefore, I would argue for Nangang to be written first. Ganbaruby! 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: It should be changed too. I’d like to point out that this has only been massively enforced in the US so far. Cards84664 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cards84664: Just out of curiosity, may I ask why is this an enforced rule? Should this "rule" be subjected to national varieties of railways? I don't know about US railroads, but station numbers in Japan (and to some degree Taiwan) in my experience are displayed widely and are what stations are typically ordered in. From how I see it, it would make more sense to go with this established sequence by the railroad company than to restrict ourselves to west-is-always-left. The benefit of the US system makes less sense in this context, where readers would hardly be aware that Kaohsiung is slightly west of Taipei. Ganbaruby! 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure anyone in Taipei is aware that Nangang is to the east and Banqiao is to the west. Flipping that and having east on the left does not make sense. Ythlev (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan train station naming conventionsEdit

I see you reverted my move and edits. Can you join the discussion here? --Jiang (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Stub taggingEdit

Hello Ythlev,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Geolodus (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The specific article I am referring to here is Baldur's Gate III. Geolodus (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection of the Varieties of ChineseEdit

Hello- I would like to invite your comments and edits on a new page, Protection of the Varieties of Chinese, which is based on a Chinese Wikipedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summariesEdit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring warningEdit

Your recent editing history at United Nations shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wadaad (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding your recent edit warring. The thread is "User:Ythlev reported by User:Wadaad".The discussion is about the topic Edit warring. Thank you. Wadaad (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring warning #2Edit

Your recent editing history at United nations shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Wadaad (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at United Nations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ythlev (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have only reverted twice, and the second time was with a different reasoning in an effort to convince the other user. This follows two discussions that the user does not respond to and went stale. Only after my edit did the user engage in the discussion, hence my edits are justified. Ythlev (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were both clearly edit-warring. You don't automatically get three reverts; see WP:EW and WP:3RR. Yamla (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Disambiguation link notification for October 25Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taiwan High Speed Rail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yilan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Important NoticeEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop removing native language infoEdit

Please stop edit warring to remove native language info from multiple articles. All Wikipedia articles about entities from non-English speaking countries include native language info. Names in native language are not the same as etymology. Look at the lead section of Russia and its etymology section, for example. -Zanhe (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: show me one for France. Ythlev (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Duh, France is called France in French. Look at Germany, Spain, China, Japan, Korea, where the native names are different from English. -Zanhe (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
What about Constitution of France, French franc, French Fifth Republic? Ythlev (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at German cuisine, Korean cuisine, Italian cuisine, Taiwanese cuisine. You don't think it's ridiculous that everything to do with a country has to be translated even if the term is English? Ythlev (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not every article conforms to every Wikipedia guideline, but most high-profile articles do. There's nothing ridiculous about including native language info about foreign topics. -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes there is. MOS:FOREIGN: "Foreign words should be used sparingly." Those wanting to learn more about the topic in another language can easily link to the relevant page. Ythlev (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
For Taiwan-related articles, there are sections with tables of 80% names in Hokkien, Hakka etc. It gets in the way of reading other stuff. Ythlev (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with removing excessive foreign language stuff from tables and article content, but the topic's name in its native language(s) needs to be mentioned at least once, usually in the lead or the dedicated language infobox, per MOS:FORLANG and MOS:CHINESE. -Zanhe (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attributionEdit

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Taiwanization into Taiwanese nationalism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Driver license in Taiwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Driver (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to please slow downEdit

@Chongkian and Zanhe: Ythlev, you are doing some good edits making things easier on the eye for English speakers. But you are also doing some major damage to Wikipedia (in my opinion). For instance, you omitted Dài-uăng-nè̤ng from the list of native names for 'Taiwanese people', you completely abandoned the standing precedent for the way official names of nation-states (Taiwan) and national currencies (New Taiwan dollar) are displayed in the infobox of their English Wikipedia page, and you deleted the historical English language names for Taipei. I have tried to do some triage work. Overall I like your new work, but please make sure everything is working right. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As sad as it might seem, even within Taiwan itself, there is no 100% fully acceptable naming convention, whether it is to use Hanyu Pinyin, Wade Gillis etc. These things keep changing all the time depending who is in the government office. It is really bad for Taiwan themselves when people have to type either 'Zhongli', 'Chungli' or 'Jiufen', 'Jioufen' or 'Fujian' or 'Fukien' just to find a name of a place there. For those who understand Chinese, I don't think that sort of thing is a really big problem. But for those who do not understand Chinese at all, it will lead to a big problem along the way. My own personal opinion, I have to say I need to agree to the full standardization of the use of Hanyu Pinyin and for any official term that Republic of China precedes over Taiwan. But then again, if I really insist on this, it will just create a 'World War of Edit War' unnecessarily. At the end of the day, 99% of edits with regards to Taiwan-related article is only about naming, thus every other aspect of Taiwan is completely sidelined and abandoned just because people are extremely sensitive thinking that naming convention can be 'translated' into whether Taiwan is part of China or no, or whether Taiwan is Republic of China or no. I ended up to never bother about those naming thing, and just keep focusing on writing new articles about Taiwan, in which I have made more than 1,500 new articles. This is way more important than just to argue about naming all of the time (I can tell you this naming war will never end anytime soon in the next 100 years). If people still insists that naming is everything, then please write the official name as the main name (and the name of the article) in Hanyu Pinyin, and other alternative names within the text. Or if there are too many alternative names, please list them all down in its Wikidata page (in the "Also known as" section). Chongkian (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chongkian: I agree with you. Unfortunately writing content is hard, while edit warring is easy. I've wasted tons of my time dealing with determined edit warriors, including filing time-consuming ANI complaints such as this. -Zanhe (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
you omitted Dài-uăng-nè̤ng from the list of native names for 'Taiwanese people'. I didn't realise Matsu is Fuzhounese. Also I've mentioned this before that I think the amount of foreign language on Taiwan-related articles is ridiculous and goes against MOS:FOREIGN: "Foreign words should be used sparingly." abandoned the standing precedent for the way official names of nation-states (Taiwan) and national currencies (New Taiwan dollar) are displayed in the infobox. Well I'm abandoning the precedent by using footnotes instead of appending to the word in the lead section and you have no issue with that. Take a look at South Africa. Different countries are different. Why should they be the same? deleted the historical English language names for Taipei. Now that is following convention. The field is for current alternative names, not historical names or names in other languages. Take a look at other cities. Ythlev (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: I've already complained about Ythlev's mass removals of native language info to WP:ANI, and he received a warning from an admin. See archived discussion. -Zanhe (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Ythlev:, I would like to respectfully request that you never remove historical English langauge names from "other_names" ever again as you did here. [1] Thank you for your efforts overall, but we have to allow the English language terms for locations to be displayed on the page. Let me know if you have any other thoughts on this issue. I have restored what you removed in this edit ([2]). Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Show me an infobox of another city which has such kind of names. I thought you were all about following convention. Ythlev (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your question- I will try to reply here. I'm not your enemy; I want to work together to create a better encylopedia. Mumbai and Ho Chi Minh City have their former names in this part of the infobox. Template:Infobox settlement reads "other_name optional For places with a former or more common name like Bombay or Saigon". Ho Chi Minh City's English language name under a previous regime was Saigon; Taipei's English language name under Japanese rule was Taihoku. Taipeh and Tai-pak are seen in 19th century material on the area when it was under Qing rule. (Sources: William Campbell (1915). "Sketches from Formosa". pp. 82–83.; Taipeh; Taihoku https://archive.org/details/nationalgeograp371920nati/page/256 "old Chinese name of Taipeh"; https://archive.org/details/netaji/page/n17 "at Taihoku air-field in Formosa"; https://archive.org/details/cu31924023511185/page/n153 "Taihoku, the capital city"; https://archive.org/details/educationinformo00arno/page/18 "Taihoku, the capital city,") That's my justification at present; let me know what you think. Thanks for your time and work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Saigon is an alternative name that is unrelated to the official name, and it is still widely used. Bombay is related, but it is still widely used too. Also India is an English-speaking country, so the name Bombay was definitely an official English name. On the other hand, Taihoku, Taipeh and Tai-pak are the same name in different languages and romanisations. It's like adding Londinium to London, which is absolutely pointless. Ythlev (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Here's the difference that I see between the names Taihoku, Taipeh, and Tai-pak and Londinium: Londinium was not a frequently-used name in the English language for the city of London within the past one hundred or even two hundred years. I am adding three names which have been documented to be in use for people describing the city in the very recent past (within the 20th century at minimum) in the English language. (see above links; see also: [3] [4] [5] William Campbell, one of the early 20th century English-language writers on Taiwan, in his 1915 "Sketches from Formosa" uses Tai-pak within English language sentences. [6]) There is no need to ignore these English language forms; they are all an integral part of the English language and they all refer to Taipei. That's how I see the issue and that's why they are bona fide "other_names" of Taipei (within the context of the English language). Ignoring these other names obscures the deeper truth that Taipei has gone by many different English language names in the recent past. No need to hide this truth from the readers and pretend that "we've always called it Taipei" or that the other names were illegitimate or irrelevant. I hope to actually convince you with my argument so please let me know if you disagree. I don't want to dumb down Wikipedia: I want to make it the resource that it should be. Again, thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of my most recent edits. I believe I am doing my best to make sure that English language readers recognize the forms Tai-pak, Taihoku, and Taipeh as alternate forms ("other_names") of Taipei in the English language, which they seem to be proven to be. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Not having it in the infobox is not hiding or pretending anything. It can still be in the article body. Too much detail in the infobox goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. You are arbitrarily deciding 2000 years ago is too old but 200 years is fine. Makes no sense. Ythlev (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

New move request you just madeEdit

Looks good! Hopefully you're able to get some good discussion there. Red Slash 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Red Slash: I doubt it. What you are looking at is obvious, policy-compliant moves, and an unnecessary waste of time because you took one random objection as no consensus. Ythlev (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's just disruptive (Template:Efn native lang)Edit

You have repeatedly been asked to discuss proposed changes instead of editing templates, and then you just blanked the template? Please do not do that; it is disruptive, and it is behavior that is likely to get you blocked. It looks like you have taken this to DRN, which is a much better idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Consecutive yearsEdit

I suggest you go and actually read MOS:DOB, which states "Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years". WWGB (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well in many cases three-year ranges use that format anyways. Ythlev (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There's also the such as matching the established convention of reliable sources part  Nixinova  T  C   05:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Official name of the electionsEdit

Please refer to http://vote2016.cec.gov.tw/zh_TW/index.html, The official name of the elections are called the [term] President and Vice President election and [term] Legislator election of the Republic of China. Lmmnhn (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Not according to this or this. Ythlev (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
And if that is the official name, it doesn't include "Republic of China". Ythlev (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
You can leave out the "Republic of China" but to delete the well-sourced reference is disruptive editing. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I've already opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. The source doesn't have that name. Ythlev (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
STOP saying I avoided the discussion if you are the one who did not invite the interested parties into the discussion at the first place. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You are the only one who wants to use that name and I pinged you and you replied, but have stopped responding. Ythlev (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warEdit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.