User talk:Novacatz/Archive1

HKD

" and did a secret scissors and paste job." => what is this mean???? (仙 on observe side and => observe side of what????

The one who contributed to that is in a better position to explain in details. I keep it there because the removal was unexplained. 仙 is written on the observe side of the one-cent coin. — Insta ntnood 17:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'and paste job' - I don't know who contributed it (and I don't care?) -- that phrase doesn't really have meaning at all (which is why i removed it and had the edit summary 'removed slang'.

There is no one-cent coin! 仙 can't be on the obverse side of a non-existant coin.

novacatz 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC) (who really should be sleeping)[reply]

Wikipedia does not talk only the presently existing coins. As far as I know coins and banknotes that have ceased to be issued are still legal tender. — Insta ntnood 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I would like to thank you for your support of my recent successful RfA. If you have any further comments or feedback for me, my door's open - don't hesistate to drop a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Enochlau 11:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Selina Ren

commented at Talk:Selina Ren--Jiang 04:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Sorry, my intention was to remove the welcome notice, not put it back. Some where in there I got the pages mixed up and reverted back to the original. Agian I am sorry, I did not intend to do that.

Thanks for telling me. Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Palm

Why not debate before cutting out a portion of the article. You probably think hand conditioning is a pseudo-science also The Warrior

"Also note that Iron Palm is rendered useless when a glove is used. So do not think that Iron Palm will help you in the ring, other than overall hand and wrist conditioning." Maybe you should disbute the who Iron Palm article as a whole.

I can see that you enjoy edit wars: Occasionally, Wikipedians lose their minds and get into edit wars over the most petty things. This is to document that phenomenon. Please note: edit warring itself is lame. This page is dedicated to edit wars with lame or silly causes, not to exhaustively documenting all the real and contentious edit wars.

Did you do the math calculations to see if I multiplied incorrectly? Did you google Iron Palm, or participate in boxing so that you know that a gloved hand doesn't nullify a hard conditioned hand or the power generated from it? The Warrior

Hi Warrior, I do not do edit wars -- I removed the section with the numerical calculations in the Iron Palm article because the physics numbers are completely misleading - the precision (so many decimal places!) is totally out of line with input assumptions. I am not opposed to a qualitative description of the power of the 'move' in question. But having such precise numbers is just not good science.

I have no position on whether Iron Palm is a valid marial art technique.

novacatz 10:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can somewhat see your point on how the calculations can be misleading, and agree that maybe that portion should be on another page, but one of the questions that comes up when talking about hand conditioning is the effect it has on a gloved hand. Some people want to know if it will work with a glove on. Green Dragon Studios in Akron Ohio, and China Hand Kung Fu both say "no", that a glove (in their words) stops the chi flow between the hand and the object. So I added this statement, "Also note that Iron Palm is rendered useless when a glove is used. So do not think that Iron Palm will help you in the ring, other than overall hand and wrist conditioning." Maybe you should disbute the who Iron Palm article as a whole," to be helpful to the reader who might ask this question. Just like the table set up, there was nothing scientific about that. I was adding what I have learned from experience.

I cannot argue the merits of "chi". All I know is that when I hit a hard object my knuckles do not sting and that my hands feel like I am holding a roll of quarters whenever I hit something. I was told that heavy feeling is the start of chi flow???

I thought that we were suppose to debate the issue before deleting content. I have read other articles and if I see something I think needs to be added, I add my comments to the dicussion page. With respect! The Warrior

What the...?

Something weird seems to be happening with edit conflicts there! sjorford (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novacatz

Hello,

I just wanted to remind you that it's not nice to edit people's (Aidepolcycne's) ~~talk~~ user page. :D Chooserr 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, obviously it was meant to be for the talk page -- thanks for moving it for me. novacatz 03:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:San Paolese

Yes, it was accidental and has happened to us all as I see from your talk page. I appreciate you moving it for me. It's easy for it to happen when the vandalism is flying fast and furious and you are trying to keep up :) -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 14:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:WTO

O...i wasnt' there, i was on a tram but forced to get off. :-c --K.C. Tang 12:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for reverting my User page, and I'm sorry that yours was also vandalised. We have a troublesome anon in the Operation Wisła article.--SylwiaS | talk 14:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acetic Acid/Esperanza

Acetic Acid moved his user name to the inactive members section at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members. Hopefully he will move his name back to the current members section when he returns from wiki-break. --Tantalum T e lluride 05:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Esperanza

Oh, :P. I didn't resign from Esperanza, I only resigned from the Advisory Council. I didn't think it was fair for me (who has been so inactive lately) to hold an office I wasn't living up to. Acetic Acid 06:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Benon

oops sorry, was looking at the irc vandal bot and clicked the wrong one very sorry (Benon 17:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:Kung hei fat choi

Hey novacatz. I too have been getting frustrated at how the discussion there has degenerated into Huaiwei throwing nonsensical arguments around. He really ticked me off with his claims of "provincial pride"; I let that pass because he should be able to claim sources of bias in Wikipedia articles, even though I felt that it was more like him having a mainlander rant. Then he dug into the personal attacks; I've seen many attacks before and I usually ignore them, but in this case, it was affecting our ability to have a proper conversation, because Huaiwei's participation was far from constructive.

So, really, I don't think you're too sensitive, and you're most certainly not out of line, and I think you've been doing a really good job at trying to reign in the convo :) Usually, we would be able to reason some sense into the other party, and it's always good to give it our best shot, but seeing that has failed, the only way forward now, (unfortunately) is to bring external parties in, through Wikipedia:Request for comment. That should solve it, and I hope we don't have to go down further the road towards the WP:ArbCom.

It's funny how they claim that it's a dicdef when I clearly see a page on Merry Christmas! I'll revert the Kung hei fat choi page to what it was, and start up a request for comment discussion later today (I'll try and get these done after my lunch break, unless you want to have a go at these yourself). Happy editing, and speaking of Christmas, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. enochlau (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure let's do the RfC together, I'll look over the RfC policy stuff and mull over what we could write... later today though, I'm at work atm :) enochlau (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, you're probably right :) I probably shouldn't spend any more time on that talk page; it really is pointless. But I'll browse around and see if, God forbid, he's actually right. Perhaps we could both start jotting notes for any future RfC on a subpage of our respective user pages; that'll get our thoughts together. Speaking of an RfC, do you think we should start that some time soon, or should we lay it for a few days? It's just that I'll be away to Hong Kong from 28/12 to 3/1, so I won't be able to comment then. enochlau (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Enforcement. Both SmuckyTheCat and Huaiwei are on probation on China-related articles. So, for the sake of this particular article, there's probably not a need to take to RfC; I'll just tell them to bugger off :) enochlau (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Huaiwei_and_User:SchmuckyTheCat_violating_probation_order. enochlau (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must say the word "troll" has popped into my mind more than once recently, although I really do hope that he's not just trolling otherwise this is just a complete waste of time; a good outcome would be to re-educate this dude, however unlikely. I was actually quite surprised he didn't know I was an admin; the first thing I usually do when I disagree with someone is read their user page. But thanks again. :) enochlau (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, your email didn't arrive. You aren't the first though, hotmail doesn't seem to like emails sent from WP. I've changed my email in prefs to something else now, could you try again now? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may also like to try another option for contacting me as listed here. Sorry about the mess. enochlau (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the RfC right now. Thanks for the effort you've put in. enochlau (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a user conduct RfC, the only outcome would be words of advice for Huaiwei. If we still want to move the article back to Kung hei fat choi, then we might need to file an article RfC as well? Let me know if you think that's necessary :) enochlau (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort Novacatz. I'm afraid I cannot follow closely with what's going on, but do keep me informed, and I'm most happy to help as long as time allows. :-) — Insta ntnood 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A poll! Talk:Chinese_New_Years_greetings/Poll. enochlau (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be attacking your examples left right and centre. Do you think it would help the case if we removed those and relied solely on the further examples I've given (which have been quoted so as to focus on the objectionable parts)? I dont want to stomp over your work, so I would ask you to do it yourself... enochlau (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Huaiwei RfC

Yes, at someone else's expense. Doesn't sound like good faith to me. Wanna have a light-hearted moment? Fine, but don't be facetious and claim it's also "good faith". -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not. Please refer to Wikipedia:Assume good faith to understand what assuming good faith is. The self-revert that he did is not even remotely connected to "good faith". It'd have been a lot better if you didn't mention it at all. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be good. Sorry if I came out a little gruffy. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better if you made additional comments in another section. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei again

Huaiwei and Alanmak is trying to fragmentise Hong Kong Special Administrative Region into Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Would it be nice to break PRC into People's Republic of China in other sense?! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Enochlau#Huaiwei_again.--Huaiwei 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chinese New Year greetings

Sorry for the terribly late reply. Perhaps we can create a list of Chinese New Year greetings.. but frankly, kung hei fat choi is the only one that I can recall to have entered English. It may not be the community interest to have such a list, that many people may support its deletion. — Insta ntnood 20:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've cast my vote there. Actually after all these months I no longer agree polls on Wikipedia can truly resolve disputes. — Insta ntnood 10:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea? — Insta ntnood 11:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfC Huaiwei

I don't know. I'm not following the RfC closely, but I do think it would help the community who're giving their comments decide. — Insta ntnood 13:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok then. novacatz 14:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central and Western District

See [1]. Instantnood and I are agreeing to disagree; your comments would be appreciated. enochlau (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on talk page) novacatz 09:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Capitalisation

Well I believe Enoch wanted to see how it is translated in a respectable source. — Insta ntnood 09:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha

Actually, the reason why those are semi protected is because after they are warned, vandals will often vandalize their own talk pages. I'll go through the list though to make sure that's the case. Thanks for the clarification. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Looking through just a couple, I see what you mean. Looks like User:OwenX is the one who moved the pages from full to semi protected. I'll ask him about it, but we might just keep them SP as it's preferable to the full protection state they were in before. I'll let you know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this is the protection log. I would bookmark it. You can look up when articles have been protected, semi protected, etc. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, OwenX did make a note of the semi protected IP talk pages here, which I didn't even see until just now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops me neither. I didn't even know to look there. Does anyone actually clean out that list from time to time? it looks like once a user talk (esp. anon) is protected it is summarily forgotten about (on the scale of things -- not too important but I like things tidy...) novacatz 02:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I haven't been through it yet because I've been busy with keeping people in line with the SP policy. :) It's new, so it's not being always used correctly. I'll go through the list tonight. The thing is, though, that at least for the registered users whose pages are protected, they were protected because the users are banned and they tried to continue their vandalizing on their talk pages. When people are banned, they can still edit their user and talk pages. So those might have to stay at full protection. But yeah I can look through the list and see if any are now unprotected or should be unprotected. And you aren't a "nazi" on it. If you are, then so am I! :) I've just been so busy keeping people in line with the new SP policy. I'll take a look at the user pages list tonight. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]