![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
I wanted to discuss some of the edits regarding population figures, access to foreigners, and the name Zangskar/Zanskar. I made some time ago. I am an anthropologist who has worked in Zangskar for nearly 20 years. Regarding spelling, the proper Tibetan spelling is Zangskar, although the British and Indian spelling of Zanskar has now become standard for tourists as much as for the Indian bureaucracy. While it is important to respect the Indian usage on one level, the spelling of villages and even personal names can be so garbled that bureaucrats and locals have difficultly understanding who or what is being discussed. Karsha 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Karsha, Nov 2007
The images that appear on this page are indeed borrowed from the website
http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar. This is however my website and the images are mine and am therefore free to put them on Wikipedia if I wish to. Moreover, the copyright notice on the original website mentions that "Documents on this site can be used inasmuch as reference is clearly made to the above-mentionned publication and/or this website." which I did on this Wikipedia page. There is no rule on Wikipedia that images have to be GFDL.
If you have doubts about the fact that I am the author of the images and that I do agree that they can be used on Wikipedia, please mail the author of the comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage (e-mail adress is to be found there) and ask for confirmation.
Last but not least I would very much appreciate if "Mr Tan" would contribute to this page by adding relevant informations rather than repeatedly defacing it. He might not agree with the "etymological" section, but at least he should say why and/or provide an alternative version.
Moumine 22:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After consideration, I feel that my version will serve well as the basis for article expansion.
Moumine, you may continue to contribute to Zanskar from here, with on better grammar and language. I do not deny your work, but your atrocious grammar has made me very hard to understand what are you writing about.
Also, I would like to point out that the population of Zanskar currently stands at 10,000, not 7,000 anymore.
Tan 13:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not defacing the Zanskar page. However, I apologise if it causes displeasure upon you, but your English grammar is really, really bad, and cleanup is critically needed. Furthermore, everybody has the right to edit wikipedia as long as it is not vandalism. However, how can you prove to me that
http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar
is your website? Is your name (note: real name was inserted here)? I hope that the content is really yours. According to the Zanskar talk page, you only specified that the images are yourd, but not the content. I am also unable to reach the website comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage that you have specified, as it has an error check page by stating Document not found and I afraid that you may have to provide more information about the ownership of the images to me if you could so that I can confirm that you are the photographer. (Furthermore, I feel that color images should be put up rather than black & white images. Do you have them? I feel that the look of the Zanskar page would be much nicer if they are colored.)
I also feel that my version serves as a better basis for the page. However, I fully admit that it needs expansion; and if you could use your content to add information is better.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not widely accept borrowrd content, as it is an encyclopedia, unless you are really the author of the website where you borrow the content.
Ah yes, about the etymology, I don't like it because your grammar really terrible. Just compare yourself with how the content of Sikkim is written instead.
Tan, 13:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the above message that MrTan sent me personally (to my Wikipedia Moumine handle), he was kind of concillatory and provided at least some arguments. I do however not agree with the his argument that my english grammar is horrible/terrible. Had this statement come from a native english speaker, I would have found it really offensive.
The first message that MrTan put on this discussion page and the manner in which he simply switched his article with mine are to me incredibly arrogant. I have also read the version of the article by MrTan and was not impressed. For the record, I have spent more than six month over four years in zanskar (first time 1989, last time 1995) for academic research and all my sources for the article are based on scholarly work, whose reference I give at the bottom of the page. (which is better than the new "reference" that MrTan give: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/zanskar.html, a site to which I actually contributed (see acknowledgements) or to state that I am a Professor (which I am not)
I am fully aware that some of the facts that I mention might be outdated, but I think that any contribution would benefit if its sources were cited (this also a general comment for Wikipedia).
For the time being, I have decided to revert to the last version of my article and express again the hope that MrTan will act in a more constructive way in the future.
Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted Mr Tan's blanking of the page, and protected it from being edited for a time, until this mess has been sorted out. Would the two protagonists give brief and calm accounts of their positions here please? Then we can begin to reach some sort of accommodation. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for the accidental action that I caused to the article, and I shall show our POV here:
The orientation and relavancy of this artcle is disputed between two users and it is implented that wikipedia users should take a vote and decide whose article is more suitable to act as a base and contribute more content from there, thus the present article is temporarily removed. Votes should be based on the basis of grammar, content, vocabulary and language usuage.
For the convinence of all users, please refer to these two past revisions:
Mr Tan, 23:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Place Your Votes Here:
I hope that this settles the matter, and that Mr Tan can now work on the article in the way that Wikipedia editors are expected to do. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fine, but I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case.
I hope this will do.
Mr Tan, 14:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will revert to my old version, and incoporate content from all sources within wikipedia. To work!'
However, some redundant facts concerning about etymology and geography have to be omitted. Progress to come.
Mr Tan, 21:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please compare with the current version and my adaption [2](for all users)
Mr Tan 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the last twenty years, the opening of a road and the massive influx of tourists and researchers have brought many changes to the traditionnal social organisation of Zanskar.)Highlighted means mistakes.-unnecessary information
Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end. Also, you are equally redundant as well. Point out to me, where my mistakes are.
Expect me to be off for a few days. Fair enough?
Tan 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do not add your comments to articles. The reader should not be asked to compare versions; that's an editing matter, and should be asked on this page. I have compared the two, and your version is worse. There may be aspects of it that could usefully be included in the actual article, and if you have the patience and the commitment to explain your view, then they might be incorporated. However, if you insist on a wholesale replacement, then I'll tell you now: it's not going to happen.
Your first sentence – "Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end" – contains three major errors:
Incidentally, I don't think that you know what 'redundant' means. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and you're in the future again, though only by a few hours this time. I suspect that, for some reason, you're manually signing your comments. Why? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We're finally making some progress. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is some progress but it is still not good enough. What I think is that at least 50% of the content should come from there and the orientation as well. Having brackets in between sentences and things like this xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx with dashes also look strange such as those of Padum-Strongdey-Zangla-Karsha-Padum and I have ractify it. Ah yes, the time I'm using is from
singapore.
Tan 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Tan asked me to comment on this page. After studying the matter for I day I would like to add my inputs.
= Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 19:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nichalp, many thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've already checked that Moumine is the copyright-holder of images and text, though, so there's no need to do that. Could you point me in the direction of the discussion on the phrase 'third world'; I was unaware of it. The Third World article (and Talk:Third World doesn't help. My own feeling is that B&W images are acceptable (and can make a nice change), but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nichalp, Thank you for your comments. To help
Mel Etitis, I will point you to the 'third world' reference: it is on this page, under Response to comments made by Mr Tan. However Nichalp took it out of context, what I wrote was (quote) in so called "third world" countries. The use of so-called and the "" should hint to the fact that I was not sure about the political-correctness of this expression (an besides, I don't like it). The more politically correct "developing countries" does not suit me either, but I can change it to "emerging countries" or "countries with an emerging market economy" if you think this any is any better. Anyway, please accept my sincere apologies if the use of the T-W word has hurt your feelings.
Now, I do not think that Nichalp can really be serious when he asks me to provide the "best quality you can". In the present case, the "best quality" would imply files with a size of ~5Mb. Are you sure you want this? (ok, I am being sarcastic, sorry). However, if there is a consensus that the colored version of the pictures is preferable to the bw version, I will provide the former (since I am the author,I do have them, right?)
Last but not least, Mr Tan has repeatedly accused me of having a poor english. This might well be true and I am very grateful that Mel improved my writings in a very competent manner. I would however like to return the "compliment" to Mr Tan and ask those of you who really do master this language to go through Mr Tan's contributions (to be found under User:Mr_Tan) and do some serious cleaning-up there. And please do not invite Mr Tan to correct the english syntax and grammar on Zanskar or on any other page.
Moumine 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To Moumine:
Moumine, I'm very grateful for your contributions to the article. .
I also hope that you may use some of my format in Zanskar/temp, for I now understand what Nichalp says that I should not re-work out in a /temp. But, to me, I still find the /temp useful. Even the references and your images are placed up there, and nearly all your content is there if follow that link.
Thirdly, I don't understand why you are chasing me away to give edits to Zanskar. As a wikipedian, everyone is dedicated to give the best of what he can to this wonderful encyclopedia. So, why make things to be so hostile and block people up in the end?
A piece of good advice to you: please do not add too much brackets in between sentences and paragraphs. This may be well be unpleasing to the reader. Pleaseuse phrase like such as, , etc.
To Nichalp:
So how am I to have a structure like Zanskar/temp? It seems that the current version is harder to cleanup.
Tan 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not have the intention to critise, or pruposely condemning others about their English standard. In that case, tell me where are my errors, in such a way that it can be compatible with Sikkim. I use British English, as most Singaporeans do, but saying that I have such a poor standard, please, point out where my mistakes are. I give you a short paragraph typed by me, and retype it out in your english:
Also, tell me the rules why the /temp version of Zanskar is unacceptable. I still cannot make outr your explanation at all..
My version:
Much of Zanskar's vegetation is found in the lower reaches of the valleys, and consists of alpine and tundra species. Crops including barley are grown by farmers at the lower elevations. Domesticated animals such as the yak are found in the region, providing the main source of food and transportation for the indigenous people.
Ractified version:
Tan 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3) Some of the images on the page are listed as copyrighted, and one does not have an information tag. I just want to clarify if you intended having one or two copyrighted. If you are planning to release all your images under GFDL, I would suggest that you upload it to wikipedia commons so that it can be shared by all wikipedia languages. If you needed the map replaced by a *free one*, I'm willing to trace over it and release it under GFDL. 4) Colour photos would be the best.
To Mr Tan: my intend was not to prevent you, or block you from editing Zanskar or any other page. What I wanted to make clear is that you should refrain from correcting the syntax or grammar of other articles. This does certainly not mean that you should not add content (as long as you give your sources), correct typos, Wikify articles or whatever else you are good at. I also hope that you will see the benefit that is to be gained from asking native english speakers to correct your own articles, which are otherwise quite good.
To Nichalp: Thank you for your proposition to retrace the figure, but this is how this figure was created in the first place (I retraced and modified it from its original source, which was the National Geographic Magazine). I have now put it under GFDL license.
Moumine 07:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mel: Thanks for you advice on my English errors. However, my altitde of displeausre towards you is that you have been revertig every edit contribution of mine, and I still do not comprehend. While I stop editing Zanskar for sometime, I suggest that you further style the Zanskar into something like Sikkim styiling. What I'm not contended is the current styling. I want something like the format of Zanskar/temp. That's all.
Nichalp: I'm grateful that you have point out that I have numerous gramatical mistakes. Thanks alot. I also do agree with the recomendation of colour photos. What is the syntax?
Moumine: I'm grateful for the contributions of the content to Zanskar, but I'm not happy about how you style the article. Thus, please give me sometime to work out the article, and there are many content that can be merged. Also, there is no need to add too many unnecessary facts in some of the sections, in which you do.
I also have reviewed the etymology section. Based on the guidelines of Sikkim, you should not give information like a research paper, in which you do. This is an encyclopedia article. For more information, please visit the articles in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Tan 09:01, 21 Apr 2005
Is this notable information (from the livestock section)? I feel that there is no need to tell such acute details about the uses of yak in Zanskar. This looks more like a research paper than an encyclopedic article.
Livestock Livestock, and especially the yak, is of paramount importance in Zanskar. Yaks are used to plough the land, to thresh the grain, to carry heavy loads (up to 200 kilos), and their dung not only serves as fertiliser but is also the only heating fuel available in the region. They are a vital source of milk and sometimes, but rarely, of meat. The yak's fur is used to make clothes, carpets, ropes, and bed covers. Tan 19:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The section talks about the lifestyle of the Zanskaris! Thus, I feel that it seems strange to have it up.
Also, why Moumine is making reverts on every edit I make? I do not understand what kind of syntax is Nichalp is talking about.
Tan 12:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since you do not seem to have carefully read the messages that I posted on your user talk page, I reproduce it below under its original heading "Kinnaur":
Or was this your answer?:
I would apologise if I'm rude, but I have no intention to be agressive. Due to my exams, I would like to hold back the discussion and major edits, which I would be doing at that time. Anyway, I gave you this meessage partly because you were not always online in the past.
Anyway, your stuling is poor, but not the grammar. Thus, the {gcheck} template have to be put up, as this also pertains to the styling of the article. From there, I will have to either reshift, (maybe delete a few facts) to make it more tidy. Honestly, your styling and sentence construction is very poor.
Mr Tan 09:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do you know what a fact is? A fact is exactly what should be included in an Encyclopedia but YOU say that this is what you want to delete from the article.
Moumine 14:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a reminder, here are some of the comments you, Mr Tan, made on the Zanskar article (reproduced here in your own words):
Now, even if it were true, these are really not nice comments to make about anything or anybody. However, out of curiosity and since you are so persuated of your own superiority in all things literary, I decided to take a look at your "major" contributions in the hope of maybe learning something from you. In this respect, I was rather dissapointed but it was worth a good laugh. Reproduced below are some real nuggets to be found in your Kinnaur article:
Your articles are also full of typos (to be charitable). Here are the most obvious one lifted again verbatim form your
Kinnaur article:
I have already mentioned before that I do not consider myself to be an authority in english grammar (as opposed to you), however I have the sneaking suspicion that the sentences reproduced below do not exactely match the high standards you claim promoting:
This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on for hours...
Also, you have obviously lifted most of your text from the following website: [
http://hpkinnaur.nic.in/] and just worsened it. Your "Tourism"" section reads as an advertisement from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Office, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. In the article you also constantly introduce very very obscure words that you fail to define or link with other Wikipedia articles.
And then there are the factual errors. For instance, the "Kinnaur Kailash" has nothing to do with the "Mount Kailash", therefore linking the one with the other is not only completely misleading but plainly wrong.
I hope that you now start to understand why we have reverted your edits on Zanskar so many times. Should that not be the case, read again carefully the comments you received by
User:Mel Etitis and
User:Nichalp.
Oh yes, before I forget, some times ago you posted the following message on my page:
"I want you to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Stay online in wikipedia between those days. Thanks.
Tan 23:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
Do you even realise how extremely impolitely this sentance of yours is formulated.? It comes across as an extremely rude order. A polite request could have been:
I would like to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Would it be possible for you to be online on these two days?
Can you spot the difference?
Moumine 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mr Tan ( talk · contributions) has returned in order to make a change to the article that does nothing more than turn good grammar into bad ( [3]). This really has to stop. Continually adding misinformation to an article on a subject about which one knows little, and refusing to stop, would be accounted vandalism; this is exactly analogous. Mr Tan's grasp of English grammar and spelling is extremely poor, yet he insists on 'correcting' other people's English. If he continues to behave in this way he will face an editing block. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης)
I placed up the gcheck because
Jmbell:
Editors contributing to this page might wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Mel, Please do not interrupt by removing the gcheck template. It need not copy-editing as badly as last time, but some is still needed. Let me do the job first in a few day's time, before you interfere. I have no wish to see you bullying me like this.
The fault lies in you and Mel in the fact that both of you are people who are extremely impatient. Just becuase seeing that Zanskar seems depreciated in terms of article quality in your POV while I'm copy-editing, that doesn't mean it will look bad after I have done everything. Furthermore, I am not finished, so why revert for no reason? This is hoolinganism. I cannot control you on protecting the page or blocking me, but I will do in accordance to the right ways. To me, if the article needs copyediting to me, so be it. Let me finish up everything before you proceed. It may be the right of yours to revert bad edits, but it is my right to edit useful things and it is also my right to complete everything properly before you do anything that will interfere my copy0editing.
Ah yes, before I forget, encyclopedia should be presentable. Zanskar is not quite up to standard according to my view. Go and see how George W. Bush is written. That it is the way I accept. I insist that formatting is needed. It is neither vandalism nor subvandalism.
According to my POV, a lot of copy-editing needs to be done. As a matter of courtesy, please do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point for the time being.
I have done the long and windy descriptions of the pictures into the image article itself, following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Captions. Short descriptions are retained in the page itself.
If there is no problem with the article, Nichalp, me and other editors would still edit the article itself. If I can extensively edit the article itself gramatically, there is no reason for you "subvandalising" the article itself by removing the gcheck template. You been rude, impatient and belittle the efforts, decision to copyedit and intention of the copyeditor, which is me myself. You have also quickly removed and reverted the changes in a few hours time before I could complete editing.
I have again removed your incorrect use of the "gcheck" template, and I have reverted your ungrammatical changes to the article. Your insistence on what should be the case, meaning that you want it to be so, is not acceptable. If the RfC on you has taught you nothing, and if you continue to act arrogantly and disruptively, I shall not hesitate to take firther steps to reign you in, up to and including arbitration. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Mr Tan's behaviour has again led to this page being protected. This, together with Wikipedia:requests for comment/Mr Tan, should have brought home to him that his attitude and actions need to be modified. I hope that it has, because otherwise he's heading for an arbitration request, and I should like to avoid that if possible. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have been accusing me of vandalising pages. I'm trying to make the best of making the page better, and here youy are trying to revert all the changes that I'm trying to make. I also don't understand where I am guilty of artribation. Furthermore, I have not even finished my work and here you interruptted.
You do not understand. I can explain in detail. But it will be a long one. If you let me edit first, then explain, it will be easier.
I don't understand why you are accusing me of trying to taking over control of articles!
I do not understand how you define my english as "very poor". However, I have detected some of the differences in our english in which I will explain later.
I have not even completed my response of the RfC, so I wonder what the h*ll are you talking about artribation so early. For your information, I will try to complete the response bu 21 May. Furthermore, I feel that their comments sounds strange as I have not even completed my response in the first place! See for yourself. I have concrete evidence against your actions. I cannot open an RfC against you, for this is a 3 to 1 confrontation, although at the present moment there is only you alone.
I don't see where my actions are bad. In fact, I feel that what you said is actually saying on yourself.
Even if you feel that RfC is not needed at all, I feel that copyediting is needed. I do not see why you are so impatient to revert the edits. In the first place, I haven't finished copyediting! Even if you want to revert, I would prefer it if I have completed everything.
If you have a innovative set of thinking, a building that is under construction will look ugly. But it will look nice after construction. Do you get the picture of what I mean?
Do you realise that you have turned good edits into bad without sparing a thought? I give you one example for now.
Rain- and snowfall during this period is thus scarce
There is no reason why a hyphen should be there. This is a sign of Moumine poor english, or his carelessness.
Also, whre is the full stop at the end of the sentence in the livestock:
Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar are the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep and goats, and the lammergeier
I have pointed out two mistakes. And there is more.
Anyway, the first two points above are part of the explanation cause.
There is also poor sectioning.
I will explain further.
Wikipedia is not meant for a place to use shortcut phrases. Proper sentences should be used. This not only confuse people, but also inculcate the person himself to lower the standard of english, and as well as his own laziness. I'm not condemning Moumine, but that is what I learnt in the Confucian virtues.
If you think that anyone have committed a mistake, I would be happy to accept apologies.
I can listen. I want copyediting, as I feel that it needs. After pointing out some of the mistakes, I hope you can understand my motive for copyediting, and let me do everything first. Them you can subsequently clean it up in anyway you like, and everybody will be happy. I am also pleading you to cooperate on this point. Can?
As for the bracket busines, I need time to reply your question.
If you notice, the paragraph is being written like this:
Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. Zanskar, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.
Omit mention of the second "Zanskar" as the first one represents everything. Making this is not proper english.
Why would I want to say that? If you notice, adding every other sentence with Zanskar, Zanskar, Zanskar within the same paragraph is very boorish. Also, even if you want to add like this, pronouns such as it, should be used rather than nouns. However, again if you use pronouns like this:
Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. It, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.
It has little meaning in its sentence. Thus, I would like to advise that ommision of the seond Zanskar is feasible.
Are the seems to reflects more on Singlish, and include is a proper substitute, for it stresses the importance of the animals.
Mr Tan 15:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why use the phrase Zanskar's population is small? Small is a free definition, and such phrases should be ommitted to avoid confusion.
Free meaning can be confusing.
Mr Tan 15:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place for proper articles, not research papers or journals. Using the I signifies that the Zanskar is not an article, but rather a journal. Thus, if you understand the principle and usage of active and passive voice, again, you should understand what I mean.
There is always a reason to what I edit. Thus, I assume that your accusation of me for near-vandalism is perjury. I don't know how you define the term, either, but if that is what you say, I think that you are two to three times worse. If you let me handle the copyediting, I assure you that you can counter-copyedit to further enhance the standard.
(after edit conflict)
That Mr Tan simply can't see his grammatical errors, and that he tried to lecture me in fractured English about the use of English, demonstrates that he has learned nothing from the RfC — nor from the RfC on him under his former name of
Chan Han Xiang. For example, not only did he mistype "It" as "I", but when this was pointed out he got confused, took the "I" to have been someone else's edit, and provided an argument against the use of the first person (apparently not noticing that it made no grammatical sense, and was clearly meant to be "It"). He then confused it with the distinction between active and passive voices. And he topped it off by accusing me of "perjury"! You couldn't make this up.
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης)
16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see where I am the reincarnation
User:Chan Han Xiang at all (it is extremely interesting that you hinted out another person with a similar character of mine and co-incidents). I am just
User:Mr Tan, and I have joined wikipedia on 2 Jan 2005. That's it. I don't see why you are accusing me as a reincarnation of that user stated above.
Why did you accuse me of near-vandalism in User:BrokenSegue talk page? I do not even understand where I conducted subvandalism. I have never heard that subvandalism is the reverting of edits. If you say that, and I'm telling the truth, that ypu are three times worse that what you think that you are. Thus, this is supposed to be perjury, at least in my POV.
Fractured English? I'm sorry, but I assume that your judgement of good and poor english may be distorted. Show me where are my flaws, but I have seen what you have judged as "bad english". I still can't make out why you say that my english is a flop.
I don't understand which "It" and "I" you are exactly refering to.
Mr Tan:
I don't know what your first comment (with two spelling mistakes and two grammatical mistakes) is meant to refer to. With regard to your second comment, the phrase is "know something like the back of my hand", and "perjury" means giving false evidence in a court of law while under oath. With regard to your final question, I suggest that you use your vaunted command of English to read what went before and work it out. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I am very sorry to have to say this, but because of Mr Tan's repeated actions, the Zanskar article, which started as a perfectly well shaped and informative article (albeit with some grammatical mistakes), has now turned in parts into an unintelligible mess.
The article for instance now contains broken sentences like this
Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season.
This is due to the fact that despite the best efforts of the other contributors (myself included) to clean-up after Mr Tan's edits, his "contributions" are so numerous and messy that things could only get broken at some stage (and this also valid for many other articles that Mr Tan decided to "improve").
I really start to believe that Mr tan is much worse than your typical "off the shelf" vandals who are at least easy to spot and whose vandalism are easy to revert.
And now the Zanskar article is protected again which means that it will stay in this borked form for some time...
Moumine 18:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you to cleanup the Zanskar article, for I have spotted so much defects in the article, and here you all are trying to reverts all of my edits? This is attacking! I thought all of you want to edit collaboratively?
I don't see why you are accusing me of typing that sentence either; in fact, it was you who written the broken sentences. That is why I say copy-editing has to be done!
One of the bad atrocious sentences of yours include
Trekking is the best method to gain full access to Zanskar, although one may hire a jeep or take a bus to drive from Kargil to Padum over the Pensi-La mountain pass.
Taking a bus to drive to Kargil? Are you trying to say that you can drive a bus or get onto a bus that is driven by another person? Your sentence is very vague, very unclear. Therefore, I assume that you are trying to mean that one can hire to drive to Kargil.
I don't see why the "Tourism" section needs to go to wikitravel. A little content concerning tourism add colours to the article if it is written in an encyclopedic, rather than a "tourist guide book" manner.
I have decided to start copy-editing. Especialyy for Mel, please do not revert my edits (though you may try to help out a little). I have stated why the english used is wrong.
Ah yes, I have just found out that there is a definition that may help in explaining why the article is unacceptable: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. There are a lot of "peacock terms", I'm afraid. An example of such kind of phrases include: Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest,....
It seems more like your own personal journal than an article paragraph to me!
I do not understand why you are treating this page as an advertising page, not sticking to discussions related to Zanskar. You have not explained on your reverts on Zanskar. In fact, you changed to another topic. And you, while accusing me as rude in my messages, is actually rude in yourself here.
I feel that the article needs thorough restructuring. There is little problems with the grammar. Thus, cleanup is more appropriate for Zanskar, as in Joseon dynasty. See [4] for case review.
As I have promised, I will put up the cleanup tag today, as the article throughly needs content restructuring--no information will be removed, unless otherwise stated. Do note that the article at is current standard is gramatically correct.
Feel free to contribute to Zanskar or ask questions, but please elaborate your reasons if anybody wants to revert(it is strongly discouraged), or it will be merely treated as vandalism. Tan 21:32, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
I did not say that I did not like it, but if you notice much of the content is not clearly classified. I also stated that there are no gramatical errors. If you want me to explain where it is not properly structured, then please frankly ask me; I do not want reservations concerning this matter.
Feel free to ask that admin to speak to me, but it seems that your behaviour is not acceptable to me--I don't see that hard with getting along with other users.
That is because I have yet to explain on my view of conduct; and I done it a little too late. I posted my response very long after they wrote the comments. Come back to the point; it seems that you have no questions concerning the cleanup, and I will put up the tag soon.
I have already read and knew them, and I am planning to do in accordance to the cleanup guidelines. I am also aware of the comments of the other editors above, but that doesn't warrant you to revert unconditionally before I complete the whole process. If you can, try calling back JMBell and Moumine, but it seems that both have disappeared completely. Do you have anymore comments on that?
Can you please give me a brief explanation why I am not warrant to put up the cleanup tag then? Or can you please tell me on what other tag can I put up concerning this restructuring activity?
Also, I want you, not to mention any "bad" things on my past edits on this article, and my intentions is all based on restructuring.
You haven't reply your questions, I have no choice but to go ahead with my plan. Tan 00:37, 5 June 2005 (UTC) (This message in fact added at 17:36, 4 Jun 2005 , together with one of the questions that he says I haven't answered [5] -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC))
What I'm doing is by looking at my Singapore time of my clock; unless you show me how am I going to gage it with wikipedia time.
Also, the cleanup tag says that This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of article quality. And content restructuring necessarily fits into this category.
Unlike copyediting, cleanup offers a wider span of activities in addition to copyediting. And restructuring--falls almost exactly into the description of this page--- Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/proposal. This article has much of the content not in appropriate section, and has peacock terms, although gramatically correct. All the links above are tributaries of Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory, so I find why the tag should not be put up, but giving a clear-cut definition would be difficult.
Do you still have any objections concerning {cleanup}? Feel free to post them here.
Mr Tan 11:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Tan
Nobody agrees doesn't mean that the article does not mean that it does noneed restructuring in the actual case. I never stated that the grammar is bad anymore, and I don't see why Mr Bell is still saying that the article is broken (in what way?). Furthermore, I have not done anything to the article yet, how can you predict what I will have done? This is causing in the increasing number of articles needing attention, and consensus, to me, is not perfectly reliable. I want your attention, and stop all those irritation.
I have already explained that there are peacock terms or weasel terms, Mr Bell, for it seems that you still do not get my point. The use of cleanup template is very wide, and the standard of this article is comparable to Joseon dynasty, which has a cleanup tag. Opinions?
Mr Tan 15:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about English here. I'm talking about the structure of the article, and it can be comparable. (Not amounting to insult you), I'm sorry, but your behaviour has been shown traits of hypocrisy.
In Kinnaur, "where they can see orchards of fruits and the exquisite designs of the local temples." is a peacock term, and it seems that you removed it. This ignites my logical thinking, and how is this sentence Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest is directly related to Tourism? It seems more like showing one's opinion that describing the scenic views of Zanskar, and thus it is a peacock/weasel term.
More cleanup to be done: Although gramatically correct, I would like to hint out another fact how is
"Zanskari houses, though otherwise well built, are not adapted to the recently increasing rainfall, as their roofs leak, catching their surprised inhabitants unprepared. Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period. These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water."
is it directly related to the topic climate? Much of the content needs restructuring for what it states is not relavant to the point. You can see [6] that a annoyomus user has tried to cleanup, but the fact that obliterating necessary content isn't exactly my style. There is more that I have yet to mention.
Mr Tan Mr Tan 07:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tan Mr Tan 12:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, no-one agrees with you; leave it. Secondly, you're simply not in a position to judge the "strangeness" of the use of English. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The no one you stated is just a community of a few people, not a large population. And it is not for you to say whether you should block me of my own rights to edit or revert as and wish you like, or say that I'm not fit to judge people. Wikipedia is a free, caring, open but bold society.
My edits, so long if it is within wikipedia legal limits, there should be no reason for you to revert, for I have done little to the article. In any case--I would allow you to do anything to this article except reverts--I have already lost my trust in you. There should be no reason why I should be your dog.
I have to work. I'm serious on this article, and I'm not leaving it, irrespective whether you are going to block me or not. This is my duty to serve wikipedia--I'm going to restructure, and whether you like it or not, I accept all edits from you except reverts, and removal of templates without giving reasons. Opinions?
Tan 12:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Opinions?
User:Mr Tan Mr Tan 14:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you please explain what do you mean?
Mr Tan 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In a few days time (if there are no more messages on objections), I shall work the article in accordance to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, along with a blend of my own ideas, and a cleanup temp. Please do not revert the changes without explaining, for it looks very offensive to many. The explanations and links stated above may also serve as a guidebook to my edits.
Mr Tan 16:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is silly; even leaving aside what you know the response will be to most of your edits, the template is for when you see problems but can't fix them immediately — it isn't for use when you're actually editing the article. You've already received a list of our objections; we don't have to repeat them every time you post another incomprehensible and/or repetitive question. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed; I have no time now, so I would put up the template, and need a few days of rehabiliation. However, I do not want to have this article is such a mess, and I have made myself fully understood in your statements. Much of your statements are bleak; especially in the case of the peacock/weasel terms.
I want to come back to the question;"Zanskari houses, though otherwise well built, are not adapted to the recently increasing rainfall, as their roofs leak, catching their surprised inhabitants unprepared. Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period. These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water."
and your answer is: yes, the section that you quote is directly related to the climate.
Asking you, how do you define that this is related to the climate section; I half-agree, especially in the case of "Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period", but not in the case of the other parts. It is, at least, a borderline case.
I would also like to elaborate further: This paragraph talks about how the houses are constructed as well, and I don't see where's the significance of the house in respect to the climate section. That is the best that I can explain; and it needs cleanup in my view, and let me do it at my own accord, but do not revert without leaving messages.
Mr Tan 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about me? While you are losing patience, did you consider my side? I have already stated that I have understood the situation, but that is not what I favour. And neither do I want you to say the wor "permission", for I see no reason why that I should be banned from editing this article. Time and again, I have already explained the state of the article but either you are defiant, or you are merely making life difficult for other people by mere ignorance, and both of you are behaving like dictators. Three against one in such a consensus against a discussion? I don't believe it a consensus within such a small group of people, when there is the potential to call in more people.
Nor my soul can rest just like this without even having a chance to give a revision. You want edit war? Go ahead. You play your own game, but I myself is equally fed up as well. Look here, to be honest with you, my blood is already boiling. And having users like this is really making other users like me going to hell. And if I--have the heart to help out on this article, you people should not give me such kind of face like this. I do not like that. Many questions have been ignored in this article, sometimes deviating the discussion into another topic especially by your good freind Mel. Is it a fair discussion? The consensus is a fraud in the first place because of this! And the deviated discussions ended up in a hostile approach without giving any proper reasons! Your comments is really putting me in a difficlut position whether to edit, or not to edit.
Otherwise, I have an alternative. I"ll write out a draft in accordance to my plan, and you then look into it. What do you think? Otherwise I have to take the old, risky way if anybody thinks he is a King and is too hard-up not to discuss this matter slowly and patiently so that we can reach a stable aggrement or consensus. How can you simply imagine that my revision will be full of nonsensical information?
For the convincence of everybody, I will revise in accordance to Mel Etitis' Flowers of life attitude and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. There is no reason why I can't, but I'm sure that you do not agree, and it would be hopeless to repeat this question again and again.
Mr Tan 09:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If only---I doubt you do---If only you can cooperate with me---we have already reached to such a extent that you need and have to to listen to me--not the reverse in editing the article. I have already, time and again, stated that I WILL REFRAINfrom editing the grammar and sentences, but rather the content. And that is my point.
What I want is your co-operation and your trust. And not giving me the permission to edit the article is the wrong thing, for wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everybody is free to edit as long as it does not amount to vandalism.
The outcome is always poor--yes, I have done that months ago, but not now! As one of the Users have said, a person with poor grammar will think his grammar is the best--I apologise, and the topic of discussion was initially grammar--I was targeting at the content, actually, but I could not elaborate my points well, thus leading to misunderstanding. Again, I apologise.
In the first place, who wants you to spur emotions on your edits? Why did you do that first? And it is you who mentioned the edit war. Why? Had not you been so harsh, I would not have retaliated. I do not tolerate such attitude. I see the person first, then consequences, especially you and your colleagues.
Also, my intention to edit in my namespace is to show you on my style. However, I have already seen what Mel has done to me, twice, and I do not want to encounter the same "attack" from him again.
I do not want the article in such a state. Neither do you think that I'm so childish that I am writing a draft in my name space and just stop there. Do you think that editing a article is child's play? If you say like this, there will be a lot of unproductive users in wikipedia! And that is not my motive, and all I want is to gain trust. I do not like that matter, for I have already witnessed difficulty in Wee Kim Wee/temp, and I am fed up of editing that article with so much involvements.
Again, go and see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, and compare the style and structure of the article. To test your trust in me, I will make two minor edits, one of which is adding the cleanup template. If you disagree, you might as well remove it. If you do, or Mel, it is an expected phenomenon, for I believe that after months of discussion, they are merely sing-songs. It's useless.
That is all I have to say. Opinions?
Mr Tan 14:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{cleanup}}
I shift the template here to discuss about the status of the article standard. Do not remove it, please.
JMBell:To revise the point on the edit war, it is you who mentioned it first. I take it as a threat, I'm afraid. I hope you reply on my previous message soon.
Mel Etitis: How do you define my edits as useful? In nearly every edit that I made, it is always that you reverted it. I assume that you took my edits as nonsense, and I have already thus developed an impression in a way that I see you as an element of suspicion and threat. I am very sorry to say that.
I still do not fully comprehend why you reject the idea of cleanup. If you have already explained, then I would appreciate if you can take the trouble to summarise your points again.
How you want me to paste my text here? I'm reworking on the entire article! If you still reject the idea of cleanup, for it is good enough, then let's work it the other way: Is the article fit enough to be on FAC?
I do not see why you are unable to comprehend the conversation between Mr Bell and me. It is your own curiosity, so I will not take the trouble to elaborate it unnecessarily. For your own interest, I believe that my handwriting is not illegible, so read over it carefully again (If you are curious).
Mr Tan 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have, as usual, little idea what Mr Tan is talking about, but I have no-wikied the cleanup tag. Why Mr Tan wanted it on this page I find difficult to say. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bell: In the first place, it was you who hinted an edit war. Although you and your friend had suggested collaborative edits, but to me, I do not see the element well. I have already stated that my cleanup is not targeted at grammar.
Now, let's look at the styling you are refering to. What styling, may I ask? Is it related to content re-structuring? If yes, you must note that Zanskar, using your concience, that it is a bit off-line and unusual from other article in this aspect. While you say that matching the style of other articles is "totally unnecessary", it makes one article very unusual. You must note that Zanskar will stand no where in the social factor. For your information, the most awkward feature is how the pictures on this article is structured. They should be either placed in a "Gallery" section as in Kangra, for shift some of the images to commons.
Let's come around the other way. If you think that the article can be left untouched, then can you put it on FAC? And also, I have noticed that much of the facts, much of it distantly related, are collobarated together. Again, see what your colleagues have done on Kinnaur and Lahul and Spiti. Can you spot the difference in style? This is why the intention of cleaning up this article is very strong. And just because of your passion stating that it is unnecessary to revise, I do not see any policy where I cannot contribute on my part.
Not withstanding the intention of retaliation, I want to do it in a way that it looks like a standard article in accordance to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.
Last but not least, I have noted that a draft is meant for a major edit. I am doing it for the social factor. However, I believe that a draft is totally waste of time, for I have already experienced bitter rejects from your friend Mel. Also, I feel that content restructuring does not need to go to such an extent of writing a new draft.
Mel:I am sorry, but I do not understand what you do not understand. Unless you state where you do not, I will not take the initiative to elaborate for the sake of your own interest. For the cleanup, see my reasons above. It is expected that you will merely reject it as a piece of rubbish, I believe. Opinions?
Mr Tan 13:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am currently not very sure of how much understanding do you have in retrospect to my very previous message while you pour out your message with your extreme sarcastic feelings. Whlist I am quite sure that you cannot get the FAC point right; but I do acknowledge that my attempts to revise Zanskar has damaged the article. I agree, but did you ever considered about my current condition?
I want to make it clear: Is there any policy page or guidelines concerning the draft articles? Concurrently, my plans towards this article will not be drastic, nor will it be miniscule. Instead, it is the midway. Is content restructuring necessary to be in a draft article?
Did you not realise that I am also equally fed up of this bloody discussion? To be honest, your attitude towards this article, but much more worse for Mel Etitis, has been very radical and negatively conservative. Is there anything wrong with putting up the cleanup template? Or at least cleanups?
I want to make this point clear. Be reasonable. I know that working in a draft article is hopeless because of your, and to a greater extent, Mel's attitude. Thus, can't I just go ahead with my plans smmothly? Why is there such great difficulty in working on Zanskar but not on other articles? Why? I'm telling you and Mel: Don't interfere and make harrasing reverts.
Just let me go ahead with my work. We have already come to a stage where you have to obey me, not the reverse in this article. So, why can't you and Mel sit back and stop those harassing reverts? I will tell you when I'm finished. In fact, I'm never able to finish my work in Zanskar in the past. Not even once. Can't I even prove my own capabilities? I am not not using my brains, but it is you two who don't let me use it!
Please--for heaven's sake, don't drop of the discussion if you still have grudges. Opinions?
Mr Tan 17:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I cannot understand what are you trying to say. Making this point very clear; cut all intention of reverts on this article. And your andswer is not directly answering my question. That's it. And if I see Mel doing those stubborn reverts again--I will not hesitate to revamp the discussion--It is very clear that both of you are doomed to be hard-headed, and immune to the outside world and positive outlooks.
I am starting work now, but it seems that my mood is already seriously injured by all the defiant whinings. And encouraging me to work in a draft--it is completely useless. You all want to remain here, but that is not the way things should work. All I know is that my draft will be a waste of work for it is sure to be rejected--despite following those guidelines. Just let me do I see fit first. See Wikipedia:Cleanup process and Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers.
Mr Tan 07:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did, time and again, but it is you yourself that you do not want to put in any effort in listening to me. I have already talked about the FAC, but you made no response concerning that point, neither did you respond to my advice; for I have told you that we have reached up to a stage where you have to listen to me, not the reverse. But if you do not co-operate, either I have to indulge in an edit war, or request for other dispute resolution means with you and/or Mel Etitis, sooner or later. How I wish if all this nonsencial reverts can stop. How I wish..If we could work together, resolve our differences, ignore all those previous bitter discussions, and work collaboratively. I really hope that, but you could not prove to me you can even co-operate by giving your attention by listening to me when we have already reached such a stage. If you are still so haddup not to provide attention, you are merely bringing me, and Zanskar to doom. Think about it carefully. If you think that I feel that this article is simply Okay, and I'm merely stubborn on making trouble, then why did I hang on, for so many months relentlessly?
I hope that you can give me an answer concerning this message alone in a few hours, or I will have to go on and do my own edits.
Mr Tan 13:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can still somehow tolerate your attitude by showing out your own contradictions in retorspect to this article, but I cannot tolerate people who shows no respect of people and those who takes discussion as a joke, and your attitude proves to me that your entire discussion is merely an act of you playing a joke?
Since you think that this discussion is not a serious affair, I better tell you straight in the face: Go and do your own sing-songs. Don't create anymore din here. I AM NOT WILLING AND DO NOT want to talk to people who thinks discussion is a joke. You better pack out in that case.
Mr Tan 05:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because of the ongoing revert war concerning this article, I've protected it for the time being. Ask for other opinions, request mediation or talk it out between yourself, but please stop reverting and start looking for a solution. - Mgm| (talk) 21:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate this remark is not particularly appropriate to a discussion page purporting to be for the article on Zanskar, but I'd just like the opportunity having read all the many comments on this page, to offer my congratulations to Mel Etitis, Moumine and JMBell for their handling of this issue. How you guys have managed to maintain so much patience is beyond me - for what it is worth I am most impressed by the way the three of you have taken so long to maintain a professional degree of communication and explain the problems to Mr Tan. With regards to the dispute itself, I doubt it will come as much of a surprise for me to say that I fully agree with the three of you. I think Mr Tan has made frequent changes, which could constitute vandalism. He writes with an appalling level of English, and then dare's to attempt correcting other users, in so-doing lowering the quality of the article. In addition, he seems to take ownership over the article, and of his contributions - totally against the ethos of Wikipedia. UkPaolo 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for the facts about increasing precipitation in recent decades? I ask becuase I've been working with some researchers in the region who are seeing extreme water shortages, albiet at very local scales. I'd be interested to know if the fact about increasing rainfall is true for the region as a whole. P.S. I second UkPaolo's comments above. Congratulations to the long term editors here for their admirable patience and Wiki manners! Coyote-37 10:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope nobody would mind my design; it improves the outlook of the page itself. Having the pictures all displayed in one row always made me mistook for Zanskar as a bad article, but with this design this changes its outlook and more friendly to read, and practical for articles with several images. In the near future, I hope that I can contribute more to Zanskar, but by no means engage information deletion on the article.
All the best, Mr Tan 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why? In the first place, why do the admins create such technical features such as <gallery> for us? Secondly, why do mind such the design overhaul? I would appreciate if you give a good reason. Thirdly, the article does not belong to you, and you are editing as if its yours in a way, to some extent. If you wanted to revert my overhaul, you should have done that in your previous contact with me, in which case I would not have suspected your intention of sabotage. Do you have any hatred on me or what?
I really hope that your heart is pure. I had enough of Mel Etitis, whose reverts and edits are close to the extent to emotional abuse, for three long months, editing nearly every article that I edited, and I do not wish that you are like him, and I hope that I will not cross his path again. Anyway, for the gallery matter, please seek Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I really prefer the overhaul, it looks much better. People who want to see the picture would have click on it to see the enlarged version; it would be silly for you to do such a thing if that is your intention.
Also, I have provided some references on the Dard people on your userpage, why do you delete those edits? Please explain as well.
I do not like to drag on matters for too long, I want peace, not disputes, and for goodness sake please visit wikipedia more often to resolve this issue quickly. I happy you happy, and then there will be no dispute if everyone cooperates. Thanks.
Mr Tan 10:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, no. I am not talking anything about grammar, etc. I am talking a new topic, different from the old one together. There is nothing to do with English nor whatever he had added in the past, only the gallery design and his act of removal of my edit--a fact which I have added in on the local populace. I touched nothing on his old content. I have shown him examples for gallery design which all other articles have used-- snow, Thubten Gyatso. Furthermore, I am already very unhappy with the way Moumine expected me to wait for his reply---ten odd days since I last posted my message. So please don't go too far. I beg you. I have my own life to go on, and I don't want to be hampered emotionally. Mr Tan 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I know my English is not at its best. My focus is not at my English. My answers are straight to the point, no questions of very indirect intentions. Please follow suit as what i state and don't give deviating conclusions. That was probably the reason for the long-standing arguement with Mel Etits.
Moumine, I believe, might really has his problems, as what you said. But there are negative possibilities that he purposely does not want to log on because of me! There are plenty of reasons to it. Anyway, whatever the reason, I have waited his reply for a reasonable period of time, careless about his life or whatsoever. An impatient person would go on to do whatever he likes without telling the opposition his reasons, and wait for him to reply within a reasonable period of time. But I didn't, because I also know that the opposition will conduct reverts, which will not only develop chaos but worse emotional pain.
The emotional agony and impatience will automatically develop with time if the opposition member never replies, however patient the person himself may be. Patience has its own limits. It is just the matter of amount.
Life just can't stagnate there. You got to move on with time. You can't pull people up if they do not want to get up on their own.
For the grudges, Moumine only left me one reply on his feelings towards my gallery styling by saying that he does not like it. Personal tastes? Most likely. But, whatever it is, since he himself knew that he do not/can't come to wikipedia so often, he should have the consideration to put down his reasons first. Contradicting personal tastes must be resolved with reasoning through peaceful negotiations, preferably short-term.
I tell you why I want the gallery style. I explain my taste and official reasons to this as well. The main objective is to get to Moumine himself. (I will also post it on Zanskar). This analysis assignment has gone too far to e-mail this thing to Moumine. I got your opinion on this the first time, by the way.
You know that <gallery> this function is used for compiling images into a section for shorter articles with numerous images. Moumine wanted the original design, probably because of its size. If people wanted to get a detailed view of the image, they can merely click on it to enlarge, and whats the problem there? Also, this gallery function is designated by the adminstrators. Adminstrators will never, ever design wiki tools which would disbenefit wikipedia or dud tools.
That's all I have to say. Mr Tan 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Moumine 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The
Manual of style does not support my orientation, but it doesn't support yours either. Thus this is a neutral stand. I do not wish to make it into a battlefront, of which this will hamper our emotions on our daily lives. So this negotiation concerns moderation of opposition views.
Let's get to the main point. An article or chapter on a book can consist of many pages but an article on wikipedia only consist of one single page, however large. Your idea is that, to make the page look like the design layout of a book, based on the idea of the more expensive printing choice, while you think that I am opting the idea of the cheaper cost. Yes, there is no such thing about the problem of printing costs on wikipedia. That's not my intention, and I will elaborate later.
The thinking of wikipedia cannot be the same as those of a book. You can flip the pages of a book within the same article but you can't flip the pages of wikipedia of an article. Every page of wikipedia is of variable size but every page of a book is of a fixed size. So you can't really compare the situation of a book and a wikipedia article in this sense.
My intetion is to enhance the outlook of the article in comparison to the current layout. In fact, you personally admitted that it looks weird and unique. And I believe you wrote this article out of love, so why don't enhance it to the maximise? The gallery function is widely accepted by the wikipedian community. Browse around wikipedia, and you will see many articles designed in accordance to my style. If your concern is on the image size or other related topics, please refer to previous messages on the same negotiation which I have evaluated with Igor during you absence.
Your description of the design layout of a book is equivalent to the wikipedia design layout of Hwang Woo-Suk. His story is a different thing because a large article can afford to displace many images all over. But Zanskar is not big enough to do that doing so like Hwang either, and scattering images all over would not look good. And our wikipedian motto is to edit and enhance the outlook of articles. Otherwise there is no reason for us to be here at all.
Any by the way, I beg you to visit wikipedia more often. I can't afford to spend too much time to wait for you to post the next message - 21 days since you posted the previous message. That's certainly atrocious. Anyway, I hope to hear from you as soon as possible. Mr Tan 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Look here, be fair. Consider my interests, for I am already very considerate with your interests. Don't be so blant as to take offence. What I want is to make an evaluation so that we can come to an agreement, on a way to state the problem in a way that both of us can accept. Did I make any reverts to your content in the first place? What I did was only just discussion. I did not harass you.
In fact, what I'm doing is to promote good faith. I can easily engage with you on an edit war if you are so hostile to me like this. And this is bad faith interaction.
I am not a stupid person who would do something for nothing. I would not ask for your opinions if I think is good. So please try to convince me, if you feel strongly for your edits. Please don't leave me high and dry like this and be so self-centered to consider only your own interests. I really hate that. Please don't hurt my feelings. I beg you.
Mr Tan 13:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I did acknowledge my poor english, and I am fed up of repeating this over and over again, over repeated messages. And I never boasted on my english for a long time. I have been trying to improvise it, and I must apologise for my bad skills. However, don't piss me off on by repeating this criticism over again and again. My temper is not as good as yours and I never took offence on you in the first place.
I only put you on the position as Moumine's representative. Moumine, as you can see, has some queer reasons which prompted him not to visit wikipedia so often in the past. I am only asking for your help as an evaluator. I did not say that you have a real part in this evaluation process. However, I must thank you for the initiative and heart you put in for our interests.
Last but not least I must also admit that I am a lazybone. I do not like to type out the full meaning, often typing part of what I want to say and believing that others can evaluate what I mean. Honestly, I am not a very straightfoward man on wikipedia due to the number of words which I have to type, and I don't really like to type.
I will not let you all guess anymore, and I shall try to explain what doubts you have highlighted to me.
I really hope that both of you can consider my interests. I really have done nothing to offend both of you in the first place, and I never like taking social offensive behaivour against anyone. This also applies that I am a highly sensitive person. If anyone of you tried to take social offense against me just because you feel pissed off, I will not hesitate to hit you back the same way you all did either. So please, be more pleasant and don't be so blunt in your words. I beg you. Mr Tan 13:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that. Please do not repeat that over and over again. I am really, really trying to improve my comprehension skills on english. And my school teacher Mr Tyrus Chua has been helping out on this. Honestly, I can comprehend more than I could speak, but my english is far from good even though I'm better than many of my other classmates. However, do appreciate the effort I put in to type my messages, and try to understand if you can.
What I am most angry is on Moumine's poor attitude towards me. Had I not took his comment seriously, I would not have attempted to give my arguements and dismissed it off so easily. And this is Moumine did to me, thinking that it is childish. Yes, I may not be an adult, but that doesn't warrant anyone of you to discriminate me just because of age differnces. A teacher, a mature adult, can always interact well with his pre-adult student. So chiding me blankly on my face and leaving my out high and dry without reasoning with me is certainly atrocious behaviour of a middle-aged man like him. I am not and never like to go onto emotionally-harmful grounds.
I really hope that after clarifications, you can give your opinions on the main topic-the image designations, which both of you have deviated off our discussions to social behaviour. Thanks. Mr Tan 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
For this talk page. It is urgent as this page is now 132 KB of size. Thanks. -- GDibyendu ( talk) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
I wanted to discuss some of the edits regarding population figures, access to foreigners, and the name Zangskar/Zanskar. I made some time ago. I am an anthropologist who has worked in Zangskar for nearly 20 years. Regarding spelling, the proper Tibetan spelling is Zangskar, although the British and Indian spelling of Zanskar has now become standard for tourists as much as for the Indian bureaucracy. While it is important to respect the Indian usage on one level, the spelling of villages and even personal names can be so garbled that bureaucrats and locals have difficultly understanding who or what is being discussed. Karsha 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Karsha, Nov 2007
The images that appear on this page are indeed borrowed from the website
http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar. This is however my website and the images are mine and am therefore free to put them on Wikipedia if I wish to. Moreover, the copyright notice on the original website mentions that "Documents on this site can be used inasmuch as reference is clearly made to the above-mentionned publication and/or this website." which I did on this Wikipedia page. There is no rule on Wikipedia that images have to be GFDL.
If you have doubts about the fact that I am the author of the images and that I do agree that they can be used on Wikipedia, please mail the author of the comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage (e-mail adress is to be found there) and ask for confirmation.
Last but not least I would very much appreciate if "Mr Tan" would contribute to this page by adding relevant informations rather than repeatedly defacing it. He might not agree with the "etymological" section, but at least he should say why and/or provide an alternative version.
Moumine 22:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
After consideration, I feel that my version will serve well as the basis for article expansion.
Moumine, you may continue to contribute to Zanskar from here, with on better grammar and language. I do not deny your work, but your atrocious grammar has made me very hard to understand what are you writing about.
Also, I would like to point out that the population of Zanskar currently stands at 10,000, not 7,000 anymore.
Tan 13:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not defacing the Zanskar page. However, I apologise if it causes displeasure upon you, but your English grammar is really, really bad, and cleanup is critically needed. Furthermore, everybody has the right to edit wikipedia as long as it is not vandalism. However, how can you prove to me that
http://comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar
is your website? Is your name (note: real name was inserted here)? I hope that the content is really yours. According to the Zanskar talk page, you only specified that the images are yourd, but not the content. I am also unable to reach the website comp1.geol.unibas.ch/zanskar homepage that you have specified, as it has an error check page by stating Document not found and I afraid that you may have to provide more information about the ownership of the images to me if you could so that I can confirm that you are the photographer. (Furthermore, I feel that color images should be put up rather than black & white images. Do you have them? I feel that the look of the Zanskar page would be much nicer if they are colored.)
I also feel that my version serves as a better basis for the page. However, I fully admit that it needs expansion; and if you could use your content to add information is better.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not widely accept borrowrd content, as it is an encyclopedia, unless you are really the author of the website where you borrow the content.
Ah yes, about the etymology, I don't like it because your grammar really terrible. Just compare yourself with how the content of Sikkim is written instead.
Tan, 13:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the above message that MrTan sent me personally (to my Wikipedia Moumine handle), he was kind of concillatory and provided at least some arguments. I do however not agree with the his argument that my english grammar is horrible/terrible. Had this statement come from a native english speaker, I would have found it really offensive.
The first message that MrTan put on this discussion page and the manner in which he simply switched his article with mine are to me incredibly arrogant. I have also read the version of the article by MrTan and was not impressed. For the record, I have spent more than six month over four years in zanskar (first time 1989, last time 1995) for academic research and all my sources for the article are based on scholarly work, whose reference I give at the bottom of the page. (which is better than the new "reference" that MrTan give: http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/zanskar.html, a site to which I actually contributed (see acknowledgements) or to state that I am a Professor (which I am not)
I am fully aware that some of the facts that I mention might be outdated, but I think that any contribution would benefit if its sources were cited (this also a general comment for Wikipedia).
For the time being, I have decided to revert to the last version of my article and express again the hope that MrTan will act in a more constructive way in the future.
Moumine 21:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted Mr Tan's blanking of the page, and protected it from being edited for a time, until this mess has been sorted out. Would the two protagonists give brief and calm accounts of their positions here please? Then we can begin to reach some sort of accommodation. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologise for the accidental action that I caused to the article, and I shall show our POV here:
The orientation and relavancy of this artcle is disputed between two users and it is implented that wikipedia users should take a vote and decide whose article is more suitable to act as a base and contribute more content from there, thus the present article is temporarily removed. Votes should be based on the basis of grammar, content, vocabulary and language usuage.
For the convinence of all users, please refer to these two past revisions:
Mr Tan, 23:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Place Your Votes Here:
I hope that this settles the matter, and that Mr Tan can now work on the article in the way that Wikipedia editors are expected to do. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fine, but I will slate clean and restart with my version, adding content as much as possible from Mounmine, because of bad English and it will be very difficult to cleanup, except for certain irrelavant parts, which I must and cannot include. His case, however, is a form of extreme case.
I hope this will do.
Mr Tan, 14:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will revert to my old version, and incoporate content from all sources within wikipedia. To work!'
However, some redundant facts concerning about etymology and geography have to be omitted. Progress to come.
Mr Tan, 21:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please compare with the current version and my adaption [2](for all users)
Mr Tan 01:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the last twenty years, the opening of a road and the massive influx of tourists and researchers have brought many changes to the traditionnal social organisation of Zanskar.)Highlighted means mistakes.-unnecessary information
Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end. Also, you are equally redundant as well. Point out to me, where my mistakes are.
Expect me to be off for a few days. Fair enough?
Tan 20:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do not add your comments to articles. The reader should not be asked to compare versions; that's an editing matter, and should be asked on this page. I have compared the two, and your version is worse. There may be aspects of it that could usefully be included in the actual article, and if you have the patience and the commitment to explain your view, then they might be incorporated. However, if you insist on a wholesale replacement, then I'll tell you now: it's not going to happen.
Your first sentence – "Correct mine grammar in Zanskar/temp with the current version, and let's see whose version will be better in the end" – contains three major errors:
Incidentally, I don't think that you know what 'redundant' means. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and you're in the future again, though only by a few hours this time. I suspect that, for some reason, you're manually signing your comments. Why? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We're finally making some progress. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is some progress but it is still not good enough. What I think is that at least 50% of the content should come from there and the orientation as well. Having brackets in between sentences and things like this xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx with dashes also look strange such as those of Padum-Strongdey-Zangla-Karsha-Padum and I have ractify it. Ah yes, the time I'm using is from
singapore.
Tan 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Tan asked me to comment on this page. After studying the matter for I day I would like to add my inputs.
= Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 19:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nichalp, many thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've already checked that Moumine is the copyright-holder of images and text, though, so there's no need to do that. Could you point me in the direction of the discussion on the phrase 'third world'; I was unaware of it. The Third World article (and Talk:Third World doesn't help. My own feeling is that B&W images are acceptable (and can make a nice change), but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nichalp, Thank you for your comments. To help
Mel Etitis, I will point you to the 'third world' reference: it is on this page, under Response to comments made by Mr Tan. However Nichalp took it out of context, what I wrote was (quote) in so called "third world" countries. The use of so-called and the "" should hint to the fact that I was not sure about the political-correctness of this expression (an besides, I don't like it). The more politically correct "developing countries" does not suit me either, but I can change it to "emerging countries" or "countries with an emerging market economy" if you think this any is any better. Anyway, please accept my sincere apologies if the use of the T-W word has hurt your feelings.
Now, I do not think that Nichalp can really be serious when he asks me to provide the "best quality you can". In the present case, the "best quality" would imply files with a size of ~5Mb. Are you sure you want this? (ok, I am being sarcastic, sorry). However, if there is a consensus that the colored version of the pictures is preferable to the bw version, I will provide the former (since I am the author,I do have them, right?)
Last but not least, Mr Tan has repeatedly accused me of having a poor english. This might well be true and I am very grateful that Mel improved my writings in a very competent manner. I would however like to return the "compliment" to Mr Tan and ask those of you who really do master this language to go through Mr Tan's contributions (to be found under User:Mr_Tan) and do some serious cleaning-up there. And please do not invite Mr Tan to correct the english syntax and grammar on Zanskar or on any other page.
Moumine 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To Moumine:
Moumine, I'm very grateful for your contributions to the article. .
I also hope that you may use some of my format in Zanskar/temp, for I now understand what Nichalp says that I should not re-work out in a /temp. But, to me, I still find the /temp useful. Even the references and your images are placed up there, and nearly all your content is there if follow that link.
Thirdly, I don't understand why you are chasing me away to give edits to Zanskar. As a wikipedian, everyone is dedicated to give the best of what he can to this wonderful encyclopedia. So, why make things to be so hostile and block people up in the end?
A piece of good advice to you: please do not add too much brackets in between sentences and paragraphs. This may be well be unpleasing to the reader. Pleaseuse phrase like such as, , etc.
To Nichalp:
So how am I to have a structure like Zanskar/temp? It seems that the current version is harder to cleanup.
Tan 15:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not have the intention to critise, or pruposely condemning others about their English standard. In that case, tell me where are my errors, in such a way that it can be compatible with Sikkim. I use British English, as most Singaporeans do, but saying that I have such a poor standard, please, point out where my mistakes are. I give you a short paragraph typed by me, and retype it out in your english:
Also, tell me the rules why the /temp version of Zanskar is unacceptable. I still cannot make outr your explanation at all..
My version:
Much of Zanskar's vegetation is found in the lower reaches of the valleys, and consists of alpine and tundra species. Crops including barley are grown by farmers at the lower elevations. Domesticated animals such as the yak are found in the region, providing the main source of food and transportation for the indigenous people.
Ractified version:
Tan 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3) Some of the images on the page are listed as copyrighted, and one does not have an information tag. I just want to clarify if you intended having one or two copyrighted. If you are planning to release all your images under GFDL, I would suggest that you upload it to wikipedia commons so that it can be shared by all wikipedia languages. If you needed the map replaced by a *free one*, I'm willing to trace over it and release it under GFDL. 4) Colour photos would be the best.
To Mr Tan: my intend was not to prevent you, or block you from editing Zanskar or any other page. What I wanted to make clear is that you should refrain from correcting the syntax or grammar of other articles. This does certainly not mean that you should not add content (as long as you give your sources), correct typos, Wikify articles or whatever else you are good at. I also hope that you will see the benefit that is to be gained from asking native english speakers to correct your own articles, which are otherwise quite good.
To Nichalp: Thank you for your proposition to retrace the figure, but this is how this figure was created in the first place (I retraced and modified it from its original source, which was the National Geographic Magazine). I have now put it under GFDL license.
Moumine 07:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mel: Thanks for you advice on my English errors. However, my altitde of displeausre towards you is that you have been revertig every edit contribution of mine, and I still do not comprehend. While I stop editing Zanskar for sometime, I suggest that you further style the Zanskar into something like Sikkim styiling. What I'm not contended is the current styling. I want something like the format of Zanskar/temp. That's all.
Nichalp: I'm grateful that you have point out that I have numerous gramatical mistakes. Thanks alot. I also do agree with the recomendation of colour photos. What is the syntax?
Moumine: I'm grateful for the contributions of the content to Zanskar, but I'm not happy about how you style the article. Thus, please give me sometime to work out the article, and there are many content that can be merged. Also, there is no need to add too many unnecessary facts in some of the sections, in which you do.
I also have reviewed the etymology section. Based on the guidelines of Sikkim, you should not give information like a research paper, in which you do. This is an encyclopedia article. For more information, please visit the articles in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Tan 09:01, 21 Apr 2005
Is this notable information (from the livestock section)? I feel that there is no need to tell such acute details about the uses of yak in Zanskar. This looks more like a research paper than an encyclopedic article.
Livestock Livestock, and especially the yak, is of paramount importance in Zanskar. Yaks are used to plough the land, to thresh the grain, to carry heavy loads (up to 200 kilos), and their dung not only serves as fertiliser but is also the only heating fuel available in the region. They are a vital source of milk and sometimes, but rarely, of meat. The yak's fur is used to make clothes, carpets, ropes, and bed covers. Tan 19:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The section talks about the lifestyle of the Zanskaris! Thus, I feel that it seems strange to have it up.
Also, why Moumine is making reverts on every edit I make? I do not understand what kind of syntax is Nichalp is talking about.
Tan 12:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since you do not seem to have carefully read the messages that I posted on your user talk page, I reproduce it below under its original heading "Kinnaur":
Or was this your answer?:
I would apologise if I'm rude, but I have no intention to be agressive. Due to my exams, I would like to hold back the discussion and major edits, which I would be doing at that time. Anyway, I gave you this meessage partly because you were not always online in the past.
Anyway, your stuling is poor, but not the grammar. Thus, the {gcheck} template have to be put up, as this also pertains to the styling of the article. From there, I will have to either reshift, (maybe delete a few facts) to make it more tidy. Honestly, your styling and sentence construction is very poor.
Mr Tan 09:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do you know what a fact is? A fact is exactly what should be included in an Encyclopedia but YOU say that this is what you want to delete from the article.
Moumine 14:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a reminder, here are some of the comments you, Mr Tan, made on the Zanskar article (reproduced here in your own words):
Now, even if it were true, these are really not nice comments to make about anything or anybody. However, out of curiosity and since you are so persuated of your own superiority in all things literary, I decided to take a look at your "major" contributions in the hope of maybe learning something from you. In this respect, I was rather dissapointed but it was worth a good laugh. Reproduced below are some real nuggets to be found in your Kinnaur article:
Your articles are also full of typos (to be charitable). Here are the most obvious one lifted again verbatim form your
Kinnaur article:
I have already mentioned before that I do not consider myself to be an authority in english grammar (as opposed to you), however I have the sneaking suspicion that the sentences reproduced below do not exactely match the high standards you claim promoting:
This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on for hours...
Also, you have obviously lifted most of your text from the following website: [
http://hpkinnaur.nic.in/] and just worsened it. Your "Tourism"" section reads as an advertisement from the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Office, not like an entry in an encyclopedia. In the article you also constantly introduce very very obscure words that you fail to define or link with other Wikipedia articles.
And then there are the factual errors. For instance, the "Kinnaur Kailash" has nothing to do with the "Mount Kailash", therefore linking the one with the other is not only completely misleading but plainly wrong.
I hope that you now start to understand why we have reverted your edits on Zanskar so many times. Should that not be the case, read again carefully the comments you received by
User:Mel Etitis and
User:Nichalp.
Oh yes, before I forget, some times ago you posted the following message on my page:
"I want you to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Stay online in wikipedia between those days. Thanks.
Tan 23:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
Do you even realise how extremely impolitely this sentance of yours is formulated.? It comes across as an extremely rude order. A polite request could have been:
I would like to hold a discussion on May 10 or 11 about Zanskar. Would it be possible for you to be online on these two days?
Can you spot the difference?
Moumine 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mr Tan ( talk · contributions) has returned in order to make a change to the article that does nothing more than turn good grammar into bad ( [3]). This really has to stop. Continually adding misinformation to an article on a subject about which one knows little, and refusing to stop, would be accounted vandalism; this is exactly analogous. Mr Tan's grasp of English grammar and spelling is extremely poor, yet he insists on 'correcting' other people's English. If he continues to behave in this way he will face an editing block. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης)
I placed up the gcheck because
Jmbell:
Editors contributing to this page might wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Mel, Please do not interrupt by removing the gcheck template. It need not copy-editing as badly as last time, but some is still needed. Let me do the job first in a few day's time, before you interfere. I have no wish to see you bullying me like this.
The fault lies in you and Mel in the fact that both of you are people who are extremely impatient. Just becuase seeing that Zanskar seems depreciated in terms of article quality in your POV while I'm copy-editing, that doesn't mean it will look bad after I have done everything. Furthermore, I am not finished, so why revert for no reason? This is hoolinganism. I cannot control you on protecting the page or blocking me, but I will do in accordance to the right ways. To me, if the article needs copyediting to me, so be it. Let me finish up everything before you proceed. It may be the right of yours to revert bad edits, but it is my right to edit useful things and it is also my right to complete everything properly before you do anything that will interfere my copy0editing.
Ah yes, before I forget, encyclopedia should be presentable. Zanskar is not quite up to standard according to my view. Go and see how George W. Bush is written. That it is the way I accept. I insist that formatting is needed. It is neither vandalism nor subvandalism.
According to my POV, a lot of copy-editing needs to be done. As a matter of courtesy, please do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point for the time being.
I have done the long and windy descriptions of the pictures into the image article itself, following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Captions. Short descriptions are retained in the page itself.
If there is no problem with the article, Nichalp, me and other editors would still edit the article itself. If I can extensively edit the article itself gramatically, there is no reason for you "subvandalising" the article itself by removing the gcheck template. You been rude, impatient and belittle the efforts, decision to copyedit and intention of the copyeditor, which is me myself. You have also quickly removed and reverted the changes in a few hours time before I could complete editing.
I have again removed your incorrect use of the "gcheck" template, and I have reverted your ungrammatical changes to the article. Your insistence on what should be the case, meaning that you want it to be so, is not acceptable. If the RfC on you has taught you nothing, and if you continue to act arrogantly and disruptively, I shall not hesitate to take firther steps to reign you in, up to and including arbitration. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Mr Tan's behaviour has again led to this page being protected. This, together with Wikipedia:requests for comment/Mr Tan, should have brought home to him that his attitude and actions need to be modified. I hope that it has, because otherwise he's heading for an arbitration request, and I should like to avoid that if possible. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 14:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have been accusing me of vandalising pages. I'm trying to make the best of making the page better, and here youy are trying to revert all the changes that I'm trying to make. I also don't understand where I am guilty of artribation. Furthermore, I have not even finished my work and here you interruptted.
You do not understand. I can explain in detail. But it will be a long one. If you let me edit first, then explain, it will be easier.
I don't understand why you are accusing me of trying to taking over control of articles!
I do not understand how you define my english as "very poor". However, I have detected some of the differences in our english in which I will explain later.
I have not even completed my response of the RfC, so I wonder what the h*ll are you talking about artribation so early. For your information, I will try to complete the response bu 21 May. Furthermore, I feel that their comments sounds strange as I have not even completed my response in the first place! See for yourself. I have concrete evidence against your actions. I cannot open an RfC against you, for this is a 3 to 1 confrontation, although at the present moment there is only you alone.
I don't see where my actions are bad. In fact, I feel that what you said is actually saying on yourself.
Even if you feel that RfC is not needed at all, I feel that copyediting is needed. I do not see why you are so impatient to revert the edits. In the first place, I haven't finished copyediting! Even if you want to revert, I would prefer it if I have completed everything.
If you have a innovative set of thinking, a building that is under construction will look ugly. But it will look nice after construction. Do you get the picture of what I mean?
Do you realise that you have turned good edits into bad without sparing a thought? I give you one example for now.
Rain- and snowfall during this period is thus scarce
There is no reason why a hyphen should be there. This is a sign of Moumine poor english, or his carelessness.
Also, whre is the full stop at the end of the sentence in the livestock:
Among the wild animals that can be found in Zanskar are the marmot, bear, wolf, snow leopard, kiang, bharal, alpine Ibex, wild sheep and goats, and the lammergeier
I have pointed out two mistakes. And there is more.
Anyway, the first two points above are part of the explanation cause.
There is also poor sectioning.
I will explain further.
Wikipedia is not meant for a place to use shortcut phrases. Proper sentences should be used. This not only confuse people, but also inculcate the person himself to lower the standard of english, and as well as his own laziness. I'm not condemning Moumine, but that is what I learnt in the Confucian virtues.
If you think that anyone have committed a mistake, I would be happy to accept apologies.
I can listen. I want copyediting, as I feel that it needs. After pointing out some of the mistakes, I hope you can understand my motive for copyediting, and let me do everything first. Them you can subsequently clean it up in anyway you like, and everybody will be happy. I am also pleading you to cooperate on this point. Can?
As for the bracket busines, I need time to reply your question.
If you notice, the paragraph is being written like this:
Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. Zanskar, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.
Omit mention of the second "Zanskar" as the first one represents everything. Making this is not proper english.
Why would I want to say that? If you notice, adding every other sentence with Zanskar, Zanskar, Zanskar within the same paragraph is very boorish. Also, even if you want to add like this, pronouns such as it, should be used rather than nouns. However, again if you use pronouns like this:
Zanskar, is a region in the Kargil district, part of the north-west Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The administrative centre is at Padum. It, together with the neighbouring region of Ladakh, formerly belonged to Guge or Western Tibet.
It has little meaning in its sentence. Thus, I would like to advise that ommision of the seond Zanskar is feasible.
Are the seems to reflects more on Singlish, and include is a proper substitute, for it stresses the importance of the animals.
Mr Tan 15:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why use the phrase Zanskar's population is small? Small is a free definition, and such phrases should be ommitted to avoid confusion.
Free meaning can be confusing.
Mr Tan 15:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a place for proper articles, not research papers or journals. Using the I signifies that the Zanskar is not an article, but rather a journal. Thus, if you understand the principle and usage of active and passive voice, again, you should understand what I mean.
There is always a reason to what I edit. Thus, I assume that your accusation of me for near-vandalism is perjury. I don't know how you define the term, either, but if that is what you say, I think that you are two to three times worse. If you let me handle the copyediting, I assure you that you can counter-copyedit to further enhance the standard.
(after edit conflict)
That Mr Tan simply can't see his grammatical errors, and that he tried to lecture me in fractured English about the use of English, demonstrates that he has learned nothing from the RfC — nor from the RfC on him under his former name of
Chan Han Xiang. For example, not only did he mistype "It" as "I", but when this was pointed out he got confused, took the "I" to have been someone else's edit, and provided an argument against the use of the first person (apparently not noticing that it made no grammatical sense, and was clearly meant to be "It"). He then confused it with the distinction between active and passive voices. And he topped it off by accusing me of "perjury"! You couldn't make this up.
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης)
16:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see where I am the reincarnation
User:Chan Han Xiang at all (it is extremely interesting that you hinted out another person with a similar character of mine and co-incidents). I am just
User:Mr Tan, and I have joined wikipedia on 2 Jan 2005. That's it. I don't see why you are accusing me as a reincarnation of that user stated above.
Why did you accuse me of near-vandalism in User:BrokenSegue talk page? I do not even understand where I conducted subvandalism. I have never heard that subvandalism is the reverting of edits. If you say that, and I'm telling the truth, that ypu are three times worse that what you think that you are. Thus, this is supposed to be perjury, at least in my POV.
Fractured English? I'm sorry, but I assume that your judgement of good and poor english may be distorted. Show me where are my flaws, but I have seen what you have judged as "bad english". I still can't make out why you say that my english is a flop.
I don't understand which "It" and "I" you are exactly refering to.
Mr Tan:
I don't know what your first comment (with two spelling mistakes and two grammatical mistakes) is meant to refer to. With regard to your second comment, the phrase is "know something like the back of my hand", and "perjury" means giving false evidence in a court of law while under oath. With regard to your final question, I suggest that you use your vaunted command of English to read what went before and work it out. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I am very sorry to have to say this, but because of Mr Tan's repeated actions, the Zanskar article, which started as a perfectly well shaped and informative article (albeit with some grammatical mistakes), has now turned in parts into an unintelligible mess.
The article for instance now contains broken sentences like this
Not only do the campsites along the trekking routes look more and more like junkyards at the end of the tourist season.
This is due to the fact that despite the best efforts of the other contributors (myself included) to clean-up after Mr Tan's edits, his "contributions" are so numerous and messy that things could only get broken at some stage (and this also valid for many other articles that Mr Tan decided to "improve").
I really start to believe that Mr tan is much worse than your typical "off the shelf" vandals who are at least easy to spot and whose vandalism are easy to revert.
And now the Zanskar article is protected again which means that it will stay in this borked form for some time...
Moumine 18:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you to cleanup the Zanskar article, for I have spotted so much defects in the article, and here you all are trying to reverts all of my edits? This is attacking! I thought all of you want to edit collaboratively?
I don't see why you are accusing me of typing that sentence either; in fact, it was you who written the broken sentences. That is why I say copy-editing has to be done!
One of the bad atrocious sentences of yours include
Trekking is the best method to gain full access to Zanskar, although one may hire a jeep or take a bus to drive from Kargil to Padum over the Pensi-La mountain pass.
Taking a bus to drive to Kargil? Are you trying to say that you can drive a bus or get onto a bus that is driven by another person? Your sentence is very vague, very unclear. Therefore, I assume that you are trying to mean that one can hire to drive to Kargil.
I don't see why the "Tourism" section needs to go to wikitravel. A little content concerning tourism add colours to the article if it is written in an encyclopedic, rather than a "tourist guide book" manner.
I have decided to start copy-editing. Especialyy for Mel, please do not revert my edits (though you may try to help out a little). I have stated why the english used is wrong.
Ah yes, I have just found out that there is a definition that may help in explaining why the article is unacceptable: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. There are a lot of "peacock terms", I'm afraid. An example of such kind of phrases include: Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest,....
It seems more like your own personal journal than an article paragraph to me!
I do not understand why you are treating this page as an advertising page, not sticking to discussions related to Zanskar. You have not explained on your reverts on Zanskar. In fact, you changed to another topic. And you, while accusing me as rude in my messages, is actually rude in yourself here.
I feel that the article needs thorough restructuring. There is little problems with the grammar. Thus, cleanup is more appropriate for Zanskar, as in Joseon dynasty. See [4] for case review.
As I have promised, I will put up the cleanup tag today, as the article throughly needs content restructuring--no information will be removed, unless otherwise stated. Do note that the article at is current standard is gramatically correct.
Feel free to contribute to Zanskar or ask questions, but please elaborate your reasons if anybody wants to revert(it is strongly discouraged), or it will be merely treated as vandalism. Tan 21:32, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
I did not say that I did not like it, but if you notice much of the content is not clearly classified. I also stated that there are no gramatical errors. If you want me to explain where it is not properly structured, then please frankly ask me; I do not want reservations concerning this matter.
Feel free to ask that admin to speak to me, but it seems that your behaviour is not acceptable to me--I don't see that hard with getting along with other users.
That is because I have yet to explain on my view of conduct; and I done it a little too late. I posted my response very long after they wrote the comments. Come back to the point; it seems that you have no questions concerning the cleanup, and I will put up the tag soon.
I have already read and knew them, and I am planning to do in accordance to the cleanup guidelines. I am also aware of the comments of the other editors above, but that doesn't warrant you to revert unconditionally before I complete the whole process. If you can, try calling back JMBell and Moumine, but it seems that both have disappeared completely. Do you have anymore comments on that?
Can you please give me a brief explanation why I am not warrant to put up the cleanup tag then? Or can you please tell me on what other tag can I put up concerning this restructuring activity?
Also, I want you, not to mention any "bad" things on my past edits on this article, and my intentions is all based on restructuring.
You haven't reply your questions, I have no choice but to go ahead with my plan. Tan 00:37, 5 June 2005 (UTC) (This message in fact added at 17:36, 4 Jun 2005 , together with one of the questions that he says I haven't answered [5] -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC))
What I'm doing is by looking at my Singapore time of my clock; unless you show me how am I going to gage it with wikipedia time.
Also, the cleanup tag says that This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of article quality. And content restructuring necessarily fits into this category.
Unlike copyediting, cleanup offers a wider span of activities in addition to copyediting. And restructuring--falls almost exactly into the description of this page--- Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/proposal. This article has much of the content not in appropriate section, and has peacock terms, although gramatically correct. All the links above are tributaries of Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory, so I find why the tag should not be put up, but giving a clear-cut definition would be difficult.
Do you still have any objections concerning {cleanup}? Feel free to post them here.
Mr Tan 11:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Tan
Nobody agrees doesn't mean that the article does not mean that it does noneed restructuring in the actual case. I never stated that the grammar is bad anymore, and I don't see why Mr Bell is still saying that the article is broken (in what way?). Furthermore, I have not done anything to the article yet, how can you predict what I will have done? This is causing in the increasing number of articles needing attention, and consensus, to me, is not perfectly reliable. I want your attention, and stop all those irritation.
I have already explained that there are peacock terms or weasel terms, Mr Bell, for it seems that you still do not get my point. The use of cleanup template is very wide, and the standard of this article is comparable to Joseon dynasty, which has a cleanup tag. Opinions?
Mr Tan 15:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about English here. I'm talking about the structure of the article, and it can be comparable. (Not amounting to insult you), I'm sorry, but your behaviour has been shown traits of hypocrisy.
In Kinnaur, "where they can see orchards of fruits and the exquisite designs of the local temples." is a peacock term, and it seems that you removed it. This ignites my logical thinking, and how is this sentence Even though Padum, the administrative capital of Zanskar, is not of great interest is directly related to Tourism? It seems more like showing one's opinion that describing the scenic views of Zanskar, and thus it is a peacock/weasel term.
More cleanup to be done: Although gramatically correct, I would like to hint out another fact how is
"Zanskari houses, though otherwise well built, are not adapted to the recently increasing rainfall, as their roofs leak, catching their surprised inhabitants unprepared. Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period. These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water."
is it directly related to the topic climate? Much of the content needs restructuring for what it states is not relavant to the point. You can see [6] that a annoyomus user has tried to cleanup, but the fact that obliterating necessary content isn't exactly my style. There is more that I have yet to mention.
Mr Tan Mr Tan 07:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Tan Mr Tan 12:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First, no-one agrees with you; leave it. Secondly, you're simply not in a position to judge the "strangeness" of the use of English. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The no one you stated is just a community of a few people, not a large population. And it is not for you to say whether you should block me of my own rights to edit or revert as and wish you like, or say that I'm not fit to judge people. Wikipedia is a free, caring, open but bold society.
My edits, so long if it is within wikipedia legal limits, there should be no reason for you to revert, for I have done little to the article. In any case--I would allow you to do anything to this article except reverts--I have already lost my trust in you. There should be no reason why I should be your dog.
I have to work. I'm serious on this article, and I'm not leaving it, irrespective whether you are going to block me or not. This is my duty to serve wikipedia--I'm going to restructure, and whether you like it or not, I accept all edits from you except reverts, and removal of templates without giving reasons. Opinions?
Tan 12:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Opinions?
User:Mr Tan Mr Tan 14:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you please explain what do you mean?
Mr Tan 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In a few days time (if there are no more messages on objections), I shall work the article in accordance to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, along with a blend of my own ideas, and a cleanup temp. Please do not revert the changes without explaining, for it looks very offensive to many. The explanations and links stated above may also serve as a guidebook to my edits.
Mr Tan 16:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is silly; even leaving aside what you know the response will be to most of your edits, the template is for when you see problems but can't fix them immediately — it isn't for use when you're actually editing the article. You've already received a list of our objections; we don't have to repeat them every time you post another incomprehensible and/or repetitive question. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed; I have no time now, so I would put up the template, and need a few days of rehabiliation. However, I do not want to have this article is such a mess, and I have made myself fully understood in your statements. Much of your statements are bleak; especially in the case of the peacock/weasel terms.
I want to come back to the question;"Zanskari houses, though otherwise well built, are not adapted to the recently increasing rainfall, as their roofs leak, catching their surprised inhabitants unprepared. Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period. These winter snowfalls are of vital importance, since they feed the glaciers which melt in the summer and provide most of the irrigation water."
and your answer is: yes, the section that you quote is directly related to the climate.
Asking you, how do you define that this is related to the climate section; I half-agree, especially in the case of "Most of the precipitation occurs as snowfall during the harsh and extremely long winter period", but not in the case of the other parts. It is, at least, a borderline case.
I would also like to elaborate further: This paragraph talks about how the houses are constructed as well, and I don't see where's the significance of the house in respect to the climate section. That is the best that I can explain; and it needs cleanup in my view, and let me do it at my own accord, but do not revert without leaving messages.
Mr Tan 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about me? While you are losing patience, did you consider my side? I have already stated that I have understood the situation, but that is not what I favour. And neither do I want you to say the wor "permission", for I see no reason why that I should be banned from editing this article. Time and again, I have already explained the state of the article but either you are defiant, or you are merely making life difficult for other people by mere ignorance, and both of you are behaving like dictators. Three against one in such a consensus against a discussion? I don't believe it a consensus within such a small group of people, when there is the potential to call in more people.
Nor my soul can rest just like this without even having a chance to give a revision. You want edit war? Go ahead. You play your own game, but I myself is equally fed up as well. Look here, to be honest with you, my blood is already boiling. And having users like this is really making other users like me going to hell. And if I--have the heart to help out on this article, you people should not give me such kind of face like this. I do not like that. Many questions have been ignored in this article, sometimes deviating the discussion into another topic especially by your good freind Mel. Is it a fair discussion? The consensus is a fraud in the first place because of this! And the deviated discussions ended up in a hostile approach without giving any proper reasons! Your comments is really putting me in a difficlut position whether to edit, or not to edit.
Otherwise, I have an alternative. I"ll write out a draft in accordance to my plan, and you then look into it. What do you think? Otherwise I have to take the old, risky way if anybody thinks he is a King and is too hard-up not to discuss this matter slowly and patiently so that we can reach a stable aggrement or consensus. How can you simply imagine that my revision will be full of nonsensical information?
For the convincence of everybody, I will revise in accordance to Mel Etitis' Flowers of life attitude and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. There is no reason why I can't, but I'm sure that you do not agree, and it would be hopeless to repeat this question again and again.
Mr Tan 09:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If only---I doubt you do---If only you can cooperate with me---we have already reached to such a extent that you need and have to to listen to me--not the reverse in editing the article. I have already, time and again, stated that I WILL REFRAINfrom editing the grammar and sentences, but rather the content. And that is my point.
What I want is your co-operation and your trust. And not giving me the permission to edit the article is the wrong thing, for wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everybody is free to edit as long as it does not amount to vandalism.
The outcome is always poor--yes, I have done that months ago, but not now! As one of the Users have said, a person with poor grammar will think his grammar is the best--I apologise, and the topic of discussion was initially grammar--I was targeting at the content, actually, but I could not elaborate my points well, thus leading to misunderstanding. Again, I apologise.
In the first place, who wants you to spur emotions on your edits? Why did you do that first? And it is you who mentioned the edit war. Why? Had not you been so harsh, I would not have retaliated. I do not tolerate such attitude. I see the person first, then consequences, especially you and your colleagues.
Also, my intention to edit in my namespace is to show you on my style. However, I have already seen what Mel has done to me, twice, and I do not want to encounter the same "attack" from him again.
I do not want the article in such a state. Neither do you think that I'm so childish that I am writing a draft in my name space and just stop there. Do you think that editing a article is child's play? If you say like this, there will be a lot of unproductive users in wikipedia! And that is not my motive, and all I want is to gain trust. I do not like that matter, for I have already witnessed difficulty in Wee Kim Wee/temp, and I am fed up of editing that article with so much involvements.
Again, go and see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, and compare the style and structure of the article. To test your trust in me, I will make two minor edits, one of which is adding the cleanup template. If you disagree, you might as well remove it. If you do, or Mel, it is an expected phenomenon, for I believe that after months of discussion, they are merely sing-songs. It's useless.
That is all I have to say. Opinions?
Mr Tan 14:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{cleanup}}
I shift the template here to discuss about the status of the article standard. Do not remove it, please.
JMBell:To revise the point on the edit war, it is you who mentioned it first. I take it as a threat, I'm afraid. I hope you reply on my previous message soon.
Mel Etitis: How do you define my edits as useful? In nearly every edit that I made, it is always that you reverted it. I assume that you took my edits as nonsense, and I have already thus developed an impression in a way that I see you as an element of suspicion and threat. I am very sorry to say that.
I still do not fully comprehend why you reject the idea of cleanup. If you have already explained, then I would appreciate if you can take the trouble to summarise your points again.
How you want me to paste my text here? I'm reworking on the entire article! If you still reject the idea of cleanup, for it is good enough, then let's work it the other way: Is the article fit enough to be on FAC?
I do not see why you are unable to comprehend the conversation between Mr Bell and me. It is your own curiosity, so I will not take the trouble to elaborate it unnecessarily. For your own interest, I believe that my handwriting is not illegible, so read over it carefully again (If you are curious).
Mr Tan 04:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have, as usual, little idea what Mr Tan is talking about, but I have no-wikied the cleanup tag. Why Mr Tan wanted it on this page I find difficult to say. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bell: In the first place, it was you who hinted an edit war. Although you and your friend had suggested collaborative edits, but to me, I do not see the element well. I have already stated that my cleanup is not targeted at grammar.
Now, let's look at the styling you are refering to. What styling, may I ask? Is it related to content re-structuring? If yes, you must note that Zanskar, using your concience, that it is a bit off-line and unusual from other article in this aspect. While you say that matching the style of other articles is "totally unnecessary", it makes one article very unusual. You must note that Zanskar will stand no where in the social factor. For your information, the most awkward feature is how the pictures on this article is structured. They should be either placed in a "Gallery" section as in Kangra, for shift some of the images to commons.
Let's come around the other way. If you think that the article can be left untouched, then can you put it on FAC? And also, I have noticed that much of the facts, much of it distantly related, are collobarated together. Again, see what your colleagues have done on Kinnaur and Lahul and Spiti. Can you spot the difference in style? This is why the intention of cleaning up this article is very strong. And just because of your passion stating that it is unnecessary to revise, I do not see any policy where I cannot contribute on my part.
Not withstanding the intention of retaliation, I want to do it in a way that it looks like a standard article in accordance to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.
Last but not least, I have noted that a draft is meant for a major edit. I am doing it for the social factor. However, I believe that a draft is totally waste of time, for I have already experienced bitter rejects from your friend Mel. Also, I feel that content restructuring does not need to go to such an extent of writing a new draft.
Mel:I am sorry, but I do not understand what you do not understand. Unless you state where you do not, I will not take the initiative to elaborate for the sake of your own interest. For the cleanup, see my reasons above. It is expected that you will merely reject it as a piece of rubbish, I believe. Opinions?
Mr Tan 13:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am currently not very sure of how much understanding do you have in retrospect to my very previous message while you pour out your message with your extreme sarcastic feelings. Whlist I am quite sure that you cannot get the FAC point right; but I do acknowledge that my attempts to revise Zanskar has damaged the article. I agree, but did you ever considered about my current condition?
I want to make it clear: Is there any policy page or guidelines concerning the draft articles? Concurrently, my plans towards this article will not be drastic, nor will it be miniscule. Instead, it is the midway. Is content restructuring necessary to be in a draft article?
Did you not realise that I am also equally fed up of this bloody discussion? To be honest, your attitude towards this article, but much more worse for Mel Etitis, has been very radical and negatively conservative. Is there anything wrong with putting up the cleanup template? Or at least cleanups?
I want to make this point clear. Be reasonable. I know that working in a draft article is hopeless because of your, and to a greater extent, Mel's attitude. Thus, can't I just go ahead with my plans smmothly? Why is there such great difficulty in working on Zanskar but not on other articles? Why? I'm telling you and Mel: Don't interfere and make harrasing reverts.
Just let me go ahead with my work. We have already come to a stage where you have to obey me, not the reverse in this article. So, why can't you and Mel sit back and stop those harassing reverts? I will tell you when I'm finished. In fact, I'm never able to finish my work in Zanskar in the past. Not even once. Can't I even prove my own capabilities? I am not not using my brains, but it is you two who don't let me use it!
Please--for heaven's sake, don't drop of the discussion if you still have grudges. Opinions?
Mr Tan 17:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I cannot understand what are you trying to say. Making this point very clear; cut all intention of reverts on this article. And your andswer is not directly answering my question. That's it. And if I see Mel doing those stubborn reverts again--I will not hesitate to revamp the discussion--It is very clear that both of you are doomed to be hard-headed, and immune to the outside world and positive outlooks.
I am starting work now, but it seems that my mood is already seriously injured by all the defiant whinings. And encouraging me to work in a draft--it is completely useless. You all want to remain here, but that is not the way things should work. All I know is that my draft will be a waste of work for it is sure to be rejected--despite following those guidelines. Just let me do I see fit first. See Wikipedia:Cleanup process and Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers.
Mr Tan 07:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did, time and again, but it is you yourself that you do not want to put in any effort in listening to me. I have already talked about the FAC, but you made no response concerning that point, neither did you respond to my advice; for I have told you that we have reached up to a stage where you have to listen to me, not the reverse. But if you do not co-operate, either I have to indulge in an edit war, or request for other dispute resolution means with you and/or Mel Etitis, sooner or later. How I wish if all this nonsencial reverts can stop. How I wish..If we could work together, resolve our differences, ignore all those previous bitter discussions, and work collaboratively. I really hope that, but you could not prove to me you can even co-operate by giving your attention by listening to me when we have already reached such a stage. If you are still so haddup not to provide attention, you are merely bringing me, and Zanskar to doom. Think about it carefully. If you think that I feel that this article is simply Okay, and I'm merely stubborn on making trouble, then why did I hang on, for so many months relentlessly?
I hope that you can give me an answer concerning this message alone in a few hours, or I will have to go on and do my own edits.
Mr Tan 13:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can still somehow tolerate your attitude by showing out your own contradictions in retorspect to this article, but I cannot tolerate people who shows no respect of people and those who takes discussion as a joke, and your attitude proves to me that your entire discussion is merely an act of you playing a joke?
Since you think that this discussion is not a serious affair, I better tell you straight in the face: Go and do your own sing-songs. Don't create anymore din here. I AM NOT WILLING AND DO NOT want to talk to people who thinks discussion is a joke. You better pack out in that case.
Mr Tan 05:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because of the ongoing revert war concerning this article, I've protected it for the time being. Ask for other opinions, request mediation or talk it out between yourself, but please stop reverting and start looking for a solution. - Mgm| (talk) 21:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate this remark is not particularly appropriate to a discussion page purporting to be for the article on Zanskar, but I'd just like the opportunity having read all the many comments on this page, to offer my congratulations to Mel Etitis, Moumine and JMBell for their handling of this issue. How you guys have managed to maintain so much patience is beyond me - for what it is worth I am most impressed by the way the three of you have taken so long to maintain a professional degree of communication and explain the problems to Mr Tan. With regards to the dispute itself, I doubt it will come as much of a surprise for me to say that I fully agree with the three of you. I think Mr Tan has made frequent changes, which could constitute vandalism. He writes with an appalling level of English, and then dare's to attempt correcting other users, in so-doing lowering the quality of the article. In addition, he seems to take ownership over the article, and of his contributions - totally against the ethos of Wikipedia. UkPaolo 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for the facts about increasing precipitation in recent decades? I ask becuase I've been working with some researchers in the region who are seeing extreme water shortages, albiet at very local scales. I'd be interested to know if the fact about increasing rainfall is true for the region as a whole. P.S. I second UkPaolo's comments above. Congratulations to the long term editors here for their admirable patience and Wiki manners! Coyote-37 10:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope nobody would mind my design; it improves the outlook of the page itself. Having the pictures all displayed in one row always made me mistook for Zanskar as a bad article, but with this design this changes its outlook and more friendly to read, and practical for articles with several images. In the near future, I hope that I can contribute more to Zanskar, but by no means engage information deletion on the article.
All the best, Mr Tan 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why? In the first place, why do the admins create such technical features such as <gallery> for us? Secondly, why do mind such the design overhaul? I would appreciate if you give a good reason. Thirdly, the article does not belong to you, and you are editing as if its yours in a way, to some extent. If you wanted to revert my overhaul, you should have done that in your previous contact with me, in which case I would not have suspected your intention of sabotage. Do you have any hatred on me or what?
I really hope that your heart is pure. I had enough of Mel Etitis, whose reverts and edits are close to the extent to emotional abuse, for three long months, editing nearly every article that I edited, and I do not wish that you are like him, and I hope that I will not cross his path again. Anyway, for the gallery matter, please seek Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I really prefer the overhaul, it looks much better. People who want to see the picture would have click on it to see the enlarged version; it would be silly for you to do such a thing if that is your intention.
Also, I have provided some references on the Dard people on your userpage, why do you delete those edits? Please explain as well.
I do not like to drag on matters for too long, I want peace, not disputes, and for goodness sake please visit wikipedia more often to resolve this issue quickly. I happy you happy, and then there will be no dispute if everyone cooperates. Thanks.
Mr Tan 10:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, no. I am not talking anything about grammar, etc. I am talking a new topic, different from the old one together. There is nothing to do with English nor whatever he had added in the past, only the gallery design and his act of removal of my edit--a fact which I have added in on the local populace. I touched nothing on his old content. I have shown him examples for gallery design which all other articles have used-- snow, Thubten Gyatso. Furthermore, I am already very unhappy with the way Moumine expected me to wait for his reply---ten odd days since I last posted my message. So please don't go too far. I beg you. I have my own life to go on, and I don't want to be hampered emotionally. Mr Tan 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I know my English is not at its best. My focus is not at my English. My answers are straight to the point, no questions of very indirect intentions. Please follow suit as what i state and don't give deviating conclusions. That was probably the reason for the long-standing arguement with Mel Etits.
Moumine, I believe, might really has his problems, as what you said. But there are negative possibilities that he purposely does not want to log on because of me! There are plenty of reasons to it. Anyway, whatever the reason, I have waited his reply for a reasonable period of time, careless about his life or whatsoever. An impatient person would go on to do whatever he likes without telling the opposition his reasons, and wait for him to reply within a reasonable period of time. But I didn't, because I also know that the opposition will conduct reverts, which will not only develop chaos but worse emotional pain.
The emotional agony and impatience will automatically develop with time if the opposition member never replies, however patient the person himself may be. Patience has its own limits. It is just the matter of amount.
Life just can't stagnate there. You got to move on with time. You can't pull people up if they do not want to get up on their own.
For the grudges, Moumine only left me one reply on his feelings towards my gallery styling by saying that he does not like it. Personal tastes? Most likely. But, whatever it is, since he himself knew that he do not/can't come to wikipedia so often, he should have the consideration to put down his reasons first. Contradicting personal tastes must be resolved with reasoning through peaceful negotiations, preferably short-term.
I tell you why I want the gallery style. I explain my taste and official reasons to this as well. The main objective is to get to Moumine himself. (I will also post it on Zanskar). This analysis assignment has gone too far to e-mail this thing to Moumine. I got your opinion on this the first time, by the way.
You know that <gallery> this function is used for compiling images into a section for shorter articles with numerous images. Moumine wanted the original design, probably because of its size. If people wanted to get a detailed view of the image, they can merely click on it to enlarge, and whats the problem there? Also, this gallery function is designated by the adminstrators. Adminstrators will never, ever design wiki tools which would disbenefit wikipedia or dud tools.
That's all I have to say. Mr Tan 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Moumine 19:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The
Manual of style does not support my orientation, but it doesn't support yours either. Thus this is a neutral stand. I do not wish to make it into a battlefront, of which this will hamper our emotions on our daily lives. So this negotiation concerns moderation of opposition views.
Let's get to the main point. An article or chapter on a book can consist of many pages but an article on wikipedia only consist of one single page, however large. Your idea is that, to make the page look like the design layout of a book, based on the idea of the more expensive printing choice, while you think that I am opting the idea of the cheaper cost. Yes, there is no such thing about the problem of printing costs on wikipedia. That's not my intention, and I will elaborate later.
The thinking of wikipedia cannot be the same as those of a book. You can flip the pages of a book within the same article but you can't flip the pages of wikipedia of an article. Every page of wikipedia is of variable size but every page of a book is of a fixed size. So you can't really compare the situation of a book and a wikipedia article in this sense.
My intetion is to enhance the outlook of the article in comparison to the current layout. In fact, you personally admitted that it looks weird and unique. And I believe you wrote this article out of love, so why don't enhance it to the maximise? The gallery function is widely accepted by the wikipedian community. Browse around wikipedia, and you will see many articles designed in accordance to my style. If your concern is on the image size or other related topics, please refer to previous messages on the same negotiation which I have evaluated with Igor during you absence.
Your description of the design layout of a book is equivalent to the wikipedia design layout of Hwang Woo-Suk. His story is a different thing because a large article can afford to displace many images all over. But Zanskar is not big enough to do that doing so like Hwang either, and scattering images all over would not look good. And our wikipedian motto is to edit and enhance the outlook of articles. Otherwise there is no reason for us to be here at all.
Any by the way, I beg you to visit wikipedia more often. I can't afford to spend too much time to wait for you to post the next message - 21 days since you posted the previous message. That's certainly atrocious. Anyway, I hope to hear from you as soon as possible. Mr Tan 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Look here, be fair. Consider my interests, for I am already very considerate with your interests. Don't be so blant as to take offence. What I want is to make an evaluation so that we can come to an agreement, on a way to state the problem in a way that both of us can accept. Did I make any reverts to your content in the first place? What I did was only just discussion. I did not harass you.
In fact, what I'm doing is to promote good faith. I can easily engage with you on an edit war if you are so hostile to me like this. And this is bad faith interaction.
I am not a stupid person who would do something for nothing. I would not ask for your opinions if I think is good. So please try to convince me, if you feel strongly for your edits. Please don't leave me high and dry like this and be so self-centered to consider only your own interests. I really hate that. Please don't hurt my feelings. I beg you.
Mr Tan 13:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I did acknowledge my poor english, and I am fed up of repeating this over and over again, over repeated messages. And I never boasted on my english for a long time. I have been trying to improvise it, and I must apologise for my bad skills. However, don't piss me off on by repeating this criticism over again and again. My temper is not as good as yours and I never took offence on you in the first place.
I only put you on the position as Moumine's representative. Moumine, as you can see, has some queer reasons which prompted him not to visit wikipedia so often in the past. I am only asking for your help as an evaluator. I did not say that you have a real part in this evaluation process. However, I must thank you for the initiative and heart you put in for our interests.
Last but not least I must also admit that I am a lazybone. I do not like to type out the full meaning, often typing part of what I want to say and believing that others can evaluate what I mean. Honestly, I am not a very straightfoward man on wikipedia due to the number of words which I have to type, and I don't really like to type.
I will not let you all guess anymore, and I shall try to explain what doubts you have highlighted to me.
I really hope that both of you can consider my interests. I really have done nothing to offend both of you in the first place, and I never like taking social offensive behaivour against anyone. This also applies that I am a highly sensitive person. If anyone of you tried to take social offense against me just because you feel pissed off, I will not hesitate to hit you back the same way you all did either. So please, be more pleasant and don't be so blunt in your words. I beg you. Mr Tan 13:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that. Please do not repeat that over and over again. I am really, really trying to improve my comprehension skills on english. And my school teacher Mr Tyrus Chua has been helping out on this. Honestly, I can comprehend more than I could speak, but my english is far from good even though I'm better than many of my other classmates. However, do appreciate the effort I put in to type my messages, and try to understand if you can.
What I am most angry is on Moumine's poor attitude towards me. Had I not took his comment seriously, I would not have attempted to give my arguements and dismissed it off so easily. And this is Moumine did to me, thinking that it is childish. Yes, I may not be an adult, but that doesn't warrant anyone of you to discriminate me just because of age differnces. A teacher, a mature adult, can always interact well with his pre-adult student. So chiding me blankly on my face and leaving my out high and dry without reasoning with me is certainly atrocious behaviour of a middle-aged man like him. I am not and never like to go onto emotionally-harmful grounds.
I really hope that after clarifications, you can give your opinions on the main topic-the image designations, which both of you have deviated off our discussions to social behaviour. Thanks. Mr Tan 06:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
For this talk page. It is urgent as this page is now 132 KB of size. Thanks. -- GDibyendu ( talk) 18:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)