User talk:Lao Wai

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just so you don't find this a surprise, I wanted to let you know that I am moving Chinese box to Chinese box (torture) so that Chinese box itself can become a disambiguation page for 5 different meanings of the phrase. Thanks. --Tabor 20:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your top-notch recasting. Actually that's a translated article, and I would translate the rest if time allows...:) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's either vandalism or extreme POV; it's often hard to tell the difference. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

I was completely unaware that you were a Spice Girls fan... Or is it just Melanie Brown? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes you are making to the article, help is needed to make sure some of the editors do not gloss over the "less positive" aspects of his conquest. At the same time, though, I would ask that you not understate the nature of your changes in the comments that go with them. For example, while I agree with this change, it alters the entirel meaning of the paragraph, rather than "Correcting slight mistake." I would happily defend your changes, but it helps to make it clearer when you are alterning the article in a significant way. --Goodoldpolonius2 7 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Hello Lao Wai,

I was just wondering, what proof do you have for the fact that the Dalai Lama's parents were moderately wealthy and lived with some ethnic Chinese? Also, you said that the Dalai Lama traditionally claims to be Tibet's Head of State. I thought the Dalai Lamas were always the head of state, I could be wrong though. You also said, "He also claims to believe that modern science takes precendence over ancient religions", but that doesn't really make sense because no one really "claims to believe something" Finally, the part about the Dalai Lama's suggestion for Tibet to not have to be independent but at least get to manage its own personal affairs while China manages foreign affairs, you changed that to "some aspects of Tibet's defense and foreign affairs" What proof do you have about this? Oh, by the way, thanks for correcting all those other errors in the article. Please reply on my talk page. --Hottentot

Hi, and welcome.

In an edit summary, you made a wry observation:

there is a world beyond America you know

I'm not sure this is correct. I saw a map recently, which shows the Upper West Side as the center of the world, with The Hamptons and Hollywood at the furthest borders - and all those Red States in between. Everything beyond the borders of the civilized world is unexplored territory, probably very dangerous and certainly uninhabited. We are "the only people who are people", as Pocahontas sang in Colors of the Wind

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, I was writing ironically. Uncle Ed 15:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Can you recommend a good, authentic, inexpensive Malaysian restaurant in SG? Not tiny/cramped, and relatively easy to find would be a plus. Thanks for your time and help!! Viva Singapura :) ~ Dpr 20:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work at Jews in China. Would you mind sifting through Kaifeng Jews? Particularly, I see that the Jews in China says that the Kaifeng Jews are not registered as a minority in China, but the Kaifeng Jews article seems to say exactly the opposite. Also, with respect to the Jews in China article, I note that there synagogues in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing, yet it says in that article that Judaism is "functionally extinct" in China. Tomer ^TALK 22:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I only just now saw that you are still working on it... go ahead, I'll wait til you're done... Try this template and I'll wait til you move it:

(inuse) {{inuse}}

Regards,Codex Sinaiticus 21:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in improving the article about Sandy Lam, but most of the text in the article is copied from the website [1]. We can't legally accept copyrighted text. If you are interested in adding to the article in your own words, that would be great! Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 20:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the article! And, how annoying that someone has decided to work against you. The key things are to be patient and avoid revert warring. Getting some other people to look in on the article will help a lot -- Wikipedia runs on community consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Sandy Lam except what I read on Wikipedia :-) so I can't help you too much with the content. I've labeled the article with Category:Hong Kong musicians and

This Hong Kong biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

which might bring some more people in. The anonymous editor is very close to violating the three-revert rule. If they do violate it, you can report them at the admin's noticeboard, and an admin will investigate. I've left a stern note on the editor's User_talk page, too. Finally, if this continues, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Whew. Anyway, thanks again for your work, and I hope this problem goes away soon. FreplySpang (talk) 17:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the politcial side of things, but the article does seem odd (and the contents are very misleadingly written). I've done some work on it, added an "NPOV" template, and left a note on the Talk page. The title needs to be NPoVed too; I'd have moved it, but I thought I'd ask your opinion first; would Allegations of Australian cover-up in East Timor do, or is that too unwieldy? Can you think of a better title? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Foreword: If anyone has a reply to this, please send it to my talk section. Thanks.

--Shultz 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

What do you mean removing the irrelevance??? C'mon! Why do you consider that "irrelevant"?? It's true: laughing while tickling ISN'T ALWAYS INVOLUNTARY. I went out of my way to PROVE that.

If anyone's curious as to what I'm talking about, it was this entry that Lao Wai removed:

When someone gets tickled when they don't want to, it may cause discomfort, even anger. Laughing from it also turns out not to be totally involuntary after all. Some people also prefer to get tickled only by those they approve of, so they consider anyone else tickling them to be an annoyance, even an act of torture.

In fact, a song has been thought up that reflects this:

---

(To the tune of Feliz Navidad)

instrumental intro

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet, and I don't laugh when YOU do it.

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet, and I don't laugh when YOU do it.

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach because I only let friends tickle me.

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach because I only let friends tickle me.

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet, and I don't laugh when YOU do it.

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet, and I don't laugh when YOU do it.

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach because I only let friends tickle me.

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach!

And don't you dare tickle my stomach because I only let friends tickle me.

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet!

Stop tickling my feet, and I don't laugh when YOU do it.

---

--Shultz 16:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lao Wai - I appreciated your changes also to the turkic peoples page. Kennethtennyson 21:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Take it is a compliment. Oh, somebody seems to like to change your discussion page. I just reverted. Kennethtennyson 02:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverting someone's reign of terror" Nice edit summary. Oddly enough my user page says my Reign of terror is over... Please do not make attacks in your edit summaries. Redwolf24 04:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry this isn't my field and I can't really debate the issues - but looking over the article, it has good refs from Qu'ran etc, but it also has some major problems. I've removed the verifiability tag (that was a little hasty, I'll admit) -but what caught my eye was the 60% Iranian Universities - that certainly needs a citation in evidence. I'll post a note on the talk page with a couple of other comments. --Doc (?) 22:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hun is a word in Mongolian language, spelled with three words. Look up you don't know Mongolian and I do. Hun is mongolian. idiot

what do u want from huns?--hakozen 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently in the process of totally rewriting the polygamy page. I invite you to participate in the Talk:Polygamy discussion so that your contributions can be taken into account in the redesign of the entire polygamy article tree. Dunkelza 17:30, August 27 2005 (EDT)

Hi, I left you a message on that talk page... remember "Islam says" is an inccorect statement. Islam is diverse and has many views... when we overgeneralize about it we create problems. I made a comment about your dispute with the anonymous IP. Please, tell me what you think about it. gren グレン 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no interest in making an issue of it, I wish to point out that your username is in violation of Wikipedia policy against "names which are recognised as racial/ethnic/national/religious/homophobic slurs".

Peace — Pekinensis 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the policy I linked to is quite explicit that ethnic slurs are not allowed as usernames. Are you questioning whether it is an ethnic slur? With no agreed-upon definition or standard of evidence, I can only imagine the most muddled and contentious discussion, so if we disagree on this, I'd rather drop the topic, if you don't mind.

Peace — Pekinensis 15:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the copy editing you did in Moroccan Arabic my English is not that good and I tend to use translated French idiomatic expressions. I have done some new editing would you please care to see if there is no new balatant inconsitencies ;), cheers --Khalid hassani 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 老外, I blocked one of the repeated vandals for 3 months and semi-protected that page. Let me know if there are further problems. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got here too late (I was at a book launch which I intended to leave early, but which I didn't...). Anyway, I'm glad that things are sorted out. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your | edit...

First, I want to assure you that no offense was taken at your removal of my own edit (Since you stated "No offense, but this serves no useful purpose"). You handled it in a courteous, polite manner, which I thank you for.

As to why I did the edit in the first place, I am simply a fan of the Flashman books and found the retelling of the Opium Wars in a fictional setting very interesting. Fraser's works are heavily annotated - I believe "Flashman and the Dragon" has over thirty pages of endnotes in eight point type. In retrospect I agree that calling it a "reference" is inappropriate since it is a work of fiction, but I only wish there were some way to tie this very well written novel into the factual article about the events.

Would you consider a new section such as "The Opium Wars In Popular Culture," listing portrayals in fiction, movies, etc? An example of this can be seen in the Taiping Rebellion article.

If you think there would be value added, I would be happy to do this. Otherwise, I have problem leaving the topic alone.

Again, thank you for your very courteous handling of my edit.

==Flashman==

Sorry about the delay getting back to you - I am a little confused by your page. I think that there is a great deal of merit in a Popular Culture section. I don't mind putting Flashman in there at all. I like GMF much more when he doesn't deal with subjects I know anything about, but I see no objection. In fact I think it would be a good idea and I think you deserve credit for the idea. Lao Wai 09:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the addition of the new section and Flashman reference. I hope you like it. --KNHaw 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your last edit.

Fair enough. I didn't know his mother was part Indian. It's still doubtful he qualifies as an Anglo-Indian per the definitions in the Indian Constitution and by recognised AI associations... but his part-Indian ancestry damages my case, so I won't revert. Poweroid 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you question on Turkic peoples, "do anons count to the 3R rule?" These anons are most certainly sockpuppets that TuzsuzDeliBekir is using to avoid the 3RR. I'm pretty sure of this. --15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid commentary such as this. It is extremely unbecoming for a wikipedian to use language such as 'looney'. Additionally, there is no evidence of which I am aware that Mr. Schwartz is associated in any way with "Green" politics.--216.143.234.58 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey, some folks are preparing an RfC against me, and I'm guessing they'd appreciate your additions, for there are several - User:Dbiv/RFC on Irishpunktom --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Odd how Irishpunktom is inclined to assist in his own RfC but regardless, Lao Wai you should see this as well. Netscott 15:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my revised definition of punishment claiming it was a moral judgement. You are wrong. Evil need not be a moral judgement.

Evil (n): That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction

Evil is far more precise than "something unpleasant." Typos 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might do well to look up a dictionary as far as the meaning of vanity.

Grace Portolesi is an incoming member of parliament, having won her seat at a highly publicised election. She is, by Wikipedia standards, very much notable. Which is why, I, more than a thousand miles away from her electorate, find her notable enough to write an article, and why I take a great deal of offence when you call it a "vanity article" (implying she'd written it herself). Ambi 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell did that come from? It is longstanding precedent that all MPs are notable and deserve articles, and no article has successfully been nominated for deletion (or indeed, had anything but a strong consensus to keep) in as long as I can remember. I actually entirely agree with you about that ruining the Labor Party, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the article. And for the record, I'm a student - but at the Australian National University in Canberra. Ambi 11:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been roaming around WP removing 'poop' (the word) and ended up at Chicken sexing only to find that the 'poop' had already been removed. An interesting article, I read to the end, where you'd made the note about John Kerin. It is ... interesting. Using Google I can find that he was a chicken farmer, which is a good background for mixing politics and agriculture. However, I couldn't easily find any boasting about him being able to discern the well-nigh impossible. Are you sure? (It would seem a really good vote-getting claim for the electorate to appreciate, fer shur!) Shenme 01:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it (for future reference it's the "Move" tab, up at the top of the page, by "Watch/Unwatch"). See you around. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lao Wai, I have asked the mediators to have a look our case on the Politics of Chomsky page. I wondered if you cared to comment here [2]. --Zleitzen 00:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give reason when you revert stuff and it's not considered "minor" to revert it. Give explanation. 71.196.154.224 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could have a look at Sima Qian, and the argument at Talk:Sima Qian. It may be that the anon. is right, but the reasons given so far are inadequate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its funny, because people like you had even a poorer grammar on your discuss page, anyway Thank you for the changes. 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why the fact Zhang means a chapter in a book has any relevance with the actress? Then could you do the grace of explaining what Tony Leung, Zhang Yimou and Chen Kaige's surname mean? Mandel 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because one's surnames' meaning are acquired independently from the usual dictionary meaning of a book. One cannot and does not choose one's surname, unlike one's given name. Hence Zhang Ziyi's Zhang has nothing to do with chapters in a book or essay, nor does Zhang Yimou's Zhang with "opening". Chinese characters evolve through thousands of years. If you want to explain really what those surnames mean, you would go back to the time when surnames are incepted. Mandel 12:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing this article! I have announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements and on Portal:Germany. If you write more articles about Germany, please add them to the announcement page. Thank you, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about her but according to her article, her mother is of French-Irish descent. Tintin (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her Mother may have been of French and Irish descent, but what else? Her name was Yackjee after all. Strikes me as more Bengali than Gaelic. She is widely said to be AI and I could probably dig up a source if you liked. Lao Wai 11:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all necessary if you are sure about it. Just wanted to be certain that you did it not do it accidentally. Thanks. Tintin (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, on one hand you says that the article Dhimmi represent Quran/Sunnah see your talk [3] and on the other hand you support something that has nothing to do with Quran and Sunnah see your revert [4]. It is even against Muhammad (PBUH) teaching to abuse any human being. I want to know that what is exactly your stand? The article should be right according to Quran and Sunnah. Or it is giving incident of history where there may be any abuse (and ignoring those incidences when there were good treatment). Tell me that Will you support me if I delete historical things nothing to do with Islam/Quran/Sunnah/Hadith?? --- Faisal 13:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you do not want to stand on [5], where you want to make this article correct according to Quran and Muhammad (PBUH) teaching. But history example is okay when it come to abuse Muslims and one should ignore history when muslims had treated non-Muslim with respact. See no one called them pigs in front of Muhammad (PBUH) but the article says that they are called pigs after 1000 or so years. But sir, why you want to keep that in the article? Your stand were different at [6] talk. For the moment, forget about everything else. Lets concentrate on this only paragraph. Did [User:Pecher] quoted any source which says that Muhammad (PBUH) told them to called non-muslim pigs? No. Then it is against your stand in this talk. --- Faisal 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use Hanyu pinyin. It uses the most common English spelling of individual words. I'd like to get rid of "Confucius" as much as the next educated person, but... elvenscout742 22:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small reminder to be a little more civil in your edits. Some users may deem that as a personal attack and if done repeatedly could result in a ban. Thanks in advance - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 10:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lao Wai,

There's a disputed sentence in this article:

Turkic nationalists have claimed that the expansion of proto-Turkic peoples across Eurasia involved the Scythians, Xiongnu, Huns, Sarmatians, Khazars, Pechenegs, Alans, Cimmerians, Massagetae and other steppe populations.

I checked the history of the article, and it was apparently you who added it. Would you be able to provide sources for the above claim? Also see Talk:Turkic peoples. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this edit you appear to have added it. See the "Turkic roots seciton" in the diff? Heh. —Khoikhoi 03:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Well basically because SS reads it, is a pain and has threatened to sue. Lao Wai" This is a personal attack, please do not engage in personal attacks. ALL articles should be carefully sourced, including this one, and the reason it should be treated specially is that people have used it to attack Mr. Schwartz. Please assume good faith... our objective is a high quality, neutral encyclopedia, with solid sourcing on any aspect which is controversial in any way. This attitude of blaming the subject of a biography is not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !!

Sorry if I have made any serious problem in th Indian Army page. But I think I have given an explanation there. I don't know whether you are an Indian or not. But I am. And I said exactly what I feel about this issue. Hope This explains my action.

Thank you.

There are many ideas about where Huns came from...

I ll write some scientists saying they were Turks:

they were Turks =>J. De Guignes, 1757; J. Klaproth, 1825; F. Hirth, 1899; J. Marquart, 1903; P. Pelliot, 1920; 0. Franke, 1930; Gy. Nemeth, 1930; McGovern, 1939; R. Grousset, 1942; W. Eberhard, 1942; B. Szasz, 1943; L. Bazin, 1949; F. Altheim, 1953; H.V. Haussig, 1954; W. Samolin, 1958; 0. Pritsak, 1959; G. Clauson, 1960

There are some scientists saying they were a mix of Turks and Mongols

In Chinese annuals the words which taken from Huns (TANRI, KUT, börü, il (el), ordu, tuğ, kılıç etc.) are Turkish words.

Hun means tribe in Turkish.

The language which spoken in dynasty were Turkish.

Mongols got the Tanrı word from Turks(Tanrı means God)(Mongols were belieiving in totems)

Huns were a big empire,there are no doubt there were many tribes in empire but Turks were the rulers and in majority.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Khosrow II 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just protected Criticism of Islam from edition, in hopes that this will make editors come around and discuss the matter properly. Please avoid characterizing other editors' views in offensive terms, and don't revert changes repeatedly. The editors' opinion on external sources is not important, but only the quality of those sources, however disgusting you find them to be. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I mixed up some of your comments with those of the previous (anonymous) user. I've struck off those things that don't apply to you. The rest is just to notify you, since you were involved in the latest changes to the page. I protected the page to avoid further revert/restore cycles but also to prompt discussion, since I think the section in question probably does belong, though maybe in another form, and that it shouldn't've been deleted like that. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of pension payment is given to every single politician in Australia (varying due to position and time in office). It doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, and is only in there because someone noticed a news story making a big deal of the amount (which was in line with regulations and not exorbitant for a politican of her tenure). michael ^talk 13:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Prussian Blue (duo)#Name regarding the blue dye/residue of Zyklon B. Can you provide a specific source/reference for the information you provided (namely that the color was the result of a warning dye not present in the materials used in the gas chambers)? From what I've gathered from Zyklon B, it was an odorant that was omitted, rather than a colorant.

Thanks, –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Web page in question is Emperor Taizong of Tang. See what you think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a great job on William Dalrymple (historian), it was indeed sounding like a publisher's vanity piece, since I suspect most of the stuff was picked from publishing sites.--PremKudva^Talk 04:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lao Wai I have amended your intro to Dalrymple. Whatever you think of his work (and your comments on his White Mughals show you are not an admirer) to call him a "journalist and popular historian" is inaccurate and inadequate. I studied South Asian history to MA level and his specialist essays were set texts- and if he ever worked as a journo it was years ago. For better or worse, he was best known as a travel writer when he was young, and is a respected historian of the late mughals. I think "popular historian" is simply not accurate when his history work has won major academic awards such as the Wolfson Prize. You seem to be a specialist in Chinese not Indian history and so are probably unaware the reception his new book has had in India, Pak and the UK. It may not be to your taste (have you read it?) but it has changed the understanding of our First War of Independence. Why this attempt to cut him down when you seem to have posted nothing else that shows any interest on the history of South Asia? AZIZ

Lao I don't want to get into some sort of argument here, or ding dong back and forward with edits and counter-edits, but I do agree with Qp10qp that the term "popular historian" you insist on using by is unhelpful (Qp10qp calls is "breatakingly unfair") in this case since it is usually used about writers who rely on secondary sources while my copy of The Last Mughal sitting here has nearly one hundred pages of scholarly apparatus. Moreover the book has won a major history prize (the Duff Cooper) and has been widely praised for discovering a whole range of new primary sources in Urdu and Persian. How about we compromise with "narrative historian" a term which has been used about historians both in and out of academe ranging from Simon Schama and John Demos and Anthony Beevor? Lao Wai you are clearly a clever guy, and I take back my comments on South Asian history since you seem to know about George Michell and Ebba Koch and so on, but it seems to me that he has some sort of vendetta going here, as your contributions about Dalrymple have all been notably negative. I am new here, but I thought the idea was to attempt a voice of scholarly neutrality rather working off personal dislikes? So here is what I have done: 1. change pop historian to narrative historian 2. corrected the fact that all six books have won prizes. 3.add the names of the journals he reviews for 4. been more speciific about his broadcasting 5. Tie up the thematic links bewteen Holy Mountain and White Mughals and 6. replaced the Amartya Sen quote you removed. Can you live with these changes?--Aziz32 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Valrith 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add categories that do not follow from article text. The term unfree labor has a specific meaning that you have no rights to extend. In principle, all labor is unfree: if you don't work and earn for living, you will die (unless you live in a banana paradise or have millions). This is especially true for soviet Union, where not working was a criminal offense (called "social parasitism"). `'mikka 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kolkhoz/sovkhoz were not serfdom or "unfree labor": the workers were neither slaves nor prisoners: one could leave kolkhoz and work elsewhere. And let us not go into a discussion that the whole Soviet Union was not a free society. I strongly suggest you to edit things you are expert or can provide references from material published in reliable sources. `'mikka 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will not start reverting anything basing on your reasoning only. Passports and crops do not make it unfree labor. Please stop discussions and provide references into text. I don't see any your edits in these articles "about a year ago". `'mikka 16:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced claims into articles. `'mikka 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references or you will be blocked from editing. `'mikka 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot reasonably discuss you until you start complying with wikipedia policies. When you startt reading books carefully in order to provide references for wikipedia, you will probably notice that in some cases you write nosense. I will only happy to discuss with you the published material, but not your conclusions and thoughts about history.

As an example let me explain you your blunder "of nationalisation of individual land and labor into cooperatives." The labor cannot be nationalized. the land was nationalized right after revolution and given to toiling peasants for use. Later it was consolidated into kolkhozes. `'mikka 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since despite my requests no one else is interested in editing these topics, I have no further desire to waste my time on stubborn ignorants. `'mikka 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism on Business Plot will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RWV (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For administrative reference, I highly contest the addition of this template as an unreasonably overzealous response to an editorial dispute. -Rushyo (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the contention. Edits were made in good faith and in accordance with Wiki policies. --CandleInTheDark (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There are two kinds of people in this world, one who people are happy to see come, one who people are happy to see leave"

Based on the messages of anger above, it looks like your nasty attitude and inability to work with others on Business Plot is not an isolated problem. RWV (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If RWV continues to revert your edits without discussion do not get into an edit war with him. Instead, I would make a formal WP:Request for mediation. If the situation continues along the current path, I will be glad to back you up where your behaviour has been appropriate! -Rushyo (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation concerning you has been filed. Yours, Huon (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Business Plot. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lao Wai! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 389 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Chingmy Yau - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Romano-Chinese relations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ann Bridgewater has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing to suggest fully satisfying the actors notability guidelines and the best my searches found was only a passing mention from a "The Hong Kong Filmography, 1977-1997" at Books. IMDb shows nothing else to suggest better notability and improvement.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]