User talk:Docboat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

Archive
Archives
1/Archive index 1


Contents

[edit] Turks/Bulgarians

Dear Docboat,

i imagine you are busy, so i will as briefly as possible describe my problem (tho it's turned out longer...):

i write in reference to the Turks in Bulgaria and the Turkish Diaspora articles.

i saw you had edudicated on a dispute on it so am writing to you. if you are not mediating it any more, please pass this letter on to the competent editor.

it is more the Turkish Diaspora article i am writing about, however.

There, someone, a user named "ilhanli", who has removed the figures for Bulgaria from the table on several occasions, saying on the talk page that "Turks in Bulgaria are not Turkish Diaspora". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_diaspora&action=history [notably on 9 Oct, 27 Oct and 28 Dec]

Several users have undone his changes but he's kept removing them with angry comments and incomplete explanations.

Now Bulgaria is back in the list (for how long???), but again, someone keeps putting it LOW down on the list Originally, the Bulgaria figures ranked high (there is a large Turkish population in Bulgaria), but someone keeps writing 300,000 for the population, while the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria says 746,000: http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm [& click on "Population by districts and ethnic group"]

if you have time, you can read a (rather long) comment i wrote in which i outline my arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_diaspora it begins "i don't often write in wikipedia".

i am Bulgarian, and i want the truth to be presented, and if the truth is a large Turkish population, that needs to be stated.

please,

  • 1. put the correct figure for Turks in Bulgaria, placing the country 2nd, behind Germany [& giving the nsi.bg as a footnote]
  • 2. explain to everyone what you have done and why you have done it
  • 3. and, if you are competent, block the page from editing until the dispute is resolved.

(sorry, hope that dint sound too order-you-about, like, it's just a suggestion...)

Thank you

nic

ps. i am not registered in Wiki as the company system we use does not allow us to enter registration pages without special

permission. i do not therefore want to change the article as people will accuse me of doing it anonymously and revert my

changes. (also, i apologise if this is not where i was supposed to post my question; i looked for other ways to write you but couldn't find any.)

thank you. 62.176.111.71 (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for the information. I am not adjudicating the article, as I saw little chance of successful voluntary mediation. This seems to be a recurring issue throughout Turkish communities, that of Turkish nationalism in foreign countries. Under such circumstances, passion plays more of a role than facts. I had commented that this needs to be taken to a more formal level if resolution is sought, but (of course) it would be much better if the participants themselves would take some time to review the facts dispassionately, probably get the help of a trained historian in the matter, and let things cool down. I hope they took the advice. I suspect they will not. And I hope you are well and happy! Thanks again for dropping by docboat (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to sort it, anyway. take care! 62.176.111.71 (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Docboat: I am neither Turkish nor Balkan, nor a registered editor, but I disagree that the item in question primarily relates to Turkish nationalism.

Rather I think the issue is a series of major human rights crisis in Bulgaria in relatively recent times related to the Turkish minority that are little known in the outside world and which many Bulgarians seek to deny or under play.

It is unfortunate, but perhaps true, that if Wikipedia existed in the 1930s and the dispute concerned Jews in Germany, the verdict here would be similarly "little chance of successful mediation."

Perhaps that is acceptable and necessary within the scope and limitations of Wikipedia. If so, this would raise some interesting hypothetical questions about the project's true viability.

JS.

  • Well you see, JS, this is just why I think there is no chance of mediation. Knowing from first hand (from Turkish citizens in Germany) just how the diaspora can behave (some truly excellent, some truly disastrous) and seeing the rather outrageous claim you made - in good faith, I am sure, and heartfelt - I strongly feel that there is no chance of bringing the two sides into alignment. That is the purpose of such mediation, and I deemed it doomed to fail. Now, we do have further avenues of mediation, using rather more stern measures, and it is to these measures that I feel you must turn. I wish you well in the attempt. BTW, please do register and become a regular editor - we would welcome that! docboat (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that wiki allows people who don't even know the meaning of diaspora to act as administrators and/or mediators. So you think that the Turks in Bulgaria are a diaspora as the ones in Germany? No wonder. By accepting my informal mediation request and then quickly closing it you did perform a service. Did you have your "first hand knowledge" from Germany when you did that?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, yes. My knowledge is first hand. But there should be no original research here, right? But many thanks for underlining how little chance there will be of informal mediation, hence the recommendation for more formal action. docboat (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not question your fist hand knowledge. What I am asking is why you would volunteer to mediate a case given your above-expressed opinions about the Turks. You keep emphasizing that there is no hope in meditation. If you do not have the time and the patiance why don't (and did not) stay out of the case. Perhaps, someone else would have given it a more serious try. Also, could you clarify what you meant by asking "there should be no original research here, right?"? I am really curious about that one.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nostradamus1, you are now just being an obstreperous pain, and proving to others exactly why you are having problems on that page - and therefore also the reasons why simple informal mediation will not work. Now get a life, work supportively and co-operatively with your fellow editors, and if you really have a problem that requires mediation, I suggest you go to a more formal approach. In the meantime, peace. docboat (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not ask you for an advice but to elaborate on a few points;
You are simply saying "Because I know these Turks from first hand experience (in Germany), I knew that there was no chance for a successful mediation." You are generalizing and insulting people. How dare you? You also did not elaborate as to why you volunteered to mediate the dispute since you knew its outcome in advance. Were you doing a favor to the rest of the mediatios since you know better?
You accused me with "original research" but did not say how. Also you are saying that I was having problems because of my behavior. So according to you the whole dispute with those Bulgarian users was my doing. Instead of asking for mediation, perhaps, I was to yield to their POV and accept everything they claim about Turks in Bulgaria. I guess that's a way to resolve diputes.
It seems to me you have this style to hit and ask for peace. It does not work like that. You insult people then ask them to "get a life" and finaly say "peace". Do not bother to answer. You've already shown your colors.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, you are demonstrating on my talk page very efficiently why you are having problems on that page. Good. Now please go away and play somewhere else. docboat (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc I've taken your advise and registered. I was merely speculating on an interesting hypothetical situation, rather than claiming that you'd have been personally unable to mediate the holocaust.

But the state of the article in question, given its rather serious subject matter, points to some potentially important shortcomings in the Wikipedia format.--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I would agree. Great to see you registered! I look forward to working with you (when my real life permits me time!) docboat (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] New Problem

Dear Docboat,

I contacted you with a question a while back about a problem with the Turkish diaspora article. I agreed with you when you said to better leave it and i did - after all, why argue with people who are clearly going to do what they want to anyway?

but now i am concerned :

A very right-wing user of the english wikipedia is now messing with the french wikipedia:

user darkhorn has "contributed" to the "fr:diaspora turque" article (cf May 13 entry):

but he is clearly a sock puppet for Ilhanli (or possibly for nostradamus1...unless they are both the same person anyway):

he has had problems with his views in the english wikipedia in the past.

The darkhorn page was clearly created ONLY for this reason...he's not content with the English wiki article (which IS the way he wants it, and has been for some time) so now he's messing with the FRENCH wiki article...yet he says on his user page that he does not even understand french:

his only goal is clearly just to mess with Wikipedia and to even stop people from other countries from playing happily :-(

The French article is interesting because it is DIFFERENT from the English article in that it does NOT propose any political views (and therefore interestingly in a way AGREES with darkhorn/ilhanli's own political views!) as it places a DASH in the left-hand column for all the countries where there is a NATIVE Turkish polulation, to distinguish it from countries with a DIASPORA, which are given a NUMBER.

He has clearly not understood this but SIMPLY wanted to stamp his opinion on people he's got nothing to do with!

Please explain this to the user Ilhanli and stop him from ruining all other wikipedias! (i dont wana argue with him as i've got no status on wikipedia - like i said, i cant register)

Thank You.

PS. i know it's hard to believe, but it is not for any political reason that i am continuing with this topic - proof of this is that i stopped with my arguing when you asked me to, even tho i could see that you agreed with my opinion...BUT i just get so angry when some people go around with the ONLY goal of making others unhappy...and never give it a rest! i feel that this user is a bully :-(

62.176.111.68 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

pps. i dont wat him blocked - i just want him to UNDERSTAND! he clearly knows much about the subject and could contribute positively if he only learnt to COOPERATE! also, if he understands, then he mite stop causing problems for others (and for you) cos if he's blocked, he'll just keep re-registering, no?

If you would not like to take this on, please pass the matter onto an administrator who would be, as you know them better (i wouldnt know who to ask). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if any french editors would like to sort it out on that side (if they choose to), so as to not extend the work you've gotta do - if you choose to, of course, it has been a long-drawn-out debate. If no-one wants to, then i'll leave it myself - you're all more experienced so i'll take heed from you.

Thanx again, and sorry that i'm only cntacting you with problems - i'll try and contribute something positive next time :-)

  • * * *

Dear Docboat,

Having had time to sleep on the issue, i think i have come to a realization:

reading many of Ilhanli's comments, i believe that by erasing the "diaspora" issue, he perhaps does not mean to deny the existence of Turks in Bulgaria (after all, he seems pretty happy with the Turks in Bulgaria article), but rather is contending that they are not a diaspora (in the sense of immigrants who have moved into a foreign land) but instead native-born Turks, who are living in their native lands (which no-one is denying).

If this is the case, i have a constructive compromise :

[edit] Suggestion

Have a single table, as before, but at the top of the page, write this :

"Note: Countries where the Turkish communities have lived for several centuries (and are therefore native to that country) are shown in bold":


Country Population of ethnic Turks etc - other data
Turkey 55,000,000 ...
Germany 1,977,000 ...
Iraq 2,500,000 ...
Syria 1,500,000 ...
Bulgaria 750,000 ...
France 500,000 ...
Netherlands 420,000 ...
etc...


So, Docboat, PLEASE ask Ilhanli to come here and read my proposition (i write my request here so that i can be sure that an experienced user like yourself can be sure to mediate the situation).

I feel that if this (or some similar) compromise is not accepted, then i think it would prove that this user has absolutely no intention of educating anyone, but simply of propagating his own (personal - no-one else's) views. because...


To Ilhanli:

you see, fella, by insisting on erasing info, you alienated a lot of people; whereas if you had merely suggested some stuff on improving the article - such as this here, with the bold text (which is actually what the French article did), then we could have come to this conclusion long ago and would have been able to improve much on it since, instead of being bogged down in arguments for so long, no? Again, from your discussions, you clearly know a lot on Turkish facts and history, so it is a shame to have missed out on your potential contributions due to the time you have spent reverting the same piece of data a million times!

For, Ilhanli, think about it - why would you like to deny the existence of three-quarters of a million Turks living in Bulgaria? Try this on for size: some foreign person, who has no knowledge of Balkan demographics, comes and reads the "Turkish diaspora" article...how is he meant to know that there are so many Turks living in Bulgaria?! He wouldn't know to especially look for the "Turks in Bulgaria" article, would he? So, really, you are doing all of them an injustice by not adding the figures to the article - of course you can add them as "native Turks" like i suggest above, by all means - it would improve the article! - but allow them the dignity to be recognized as existing.

Or, instead, think about it from this standpoint: so many Bulgarians - people i know - already hate the Turks in Bulgaria, (you know this!): they gather in front of the central mosque, insult them at political rallies [1]...etc... These Turks in Bulgaria - like yourself, i presume (for, i imagine you are not a Bulgarian who is both fluent in Turkish and yet who at the same time wants to suppress the Turkish figures!) - these Turks in Bulgaria have it so hard already, that what good does it do them to have one of their own wanting to prevent the rest of the world from knowing of their very existence? I am sure that you agree that these native Turks in Bulgaria have a right to live here, as they have done for hundreds of years.

So, therefore, mention this in the article!!! It is a good thing! Do not see this as a sort of negative piece of information! Be proud of the facts!: a diaspora - which, i agree with you, can have the narrower meaning you are attributing to it - is a positive thing for a nation to have - since it also has the broader meaning of simply meaning how spread out over the world a certain nation is.

When you open your mind to other ideas, then you can both learn more, and at the same time you have a better chance of passing on your own knowledge to others and, more importantly, of it being accepted. But to blatantly take away a fact which is undisputed [1] is unconstructive, at the very least but, more importantly, even someone completely unconnected to the issue would be angered (as was i - i had nothing to do with this or any other ethnic/political issue until i saw your and nostradamus's unfair behaviour towards the article and towards others).

You see, people might be unhappy at your actions for many reasons, but mine was this: because i saw a major reference point - wikipedia - being reduced: a big no-no. An encyclo should always only ever increase (especially wikipedia - there is no shortage of space here!): even pieces of info which become outdated or that some people perhaps see as "wrong" should simply be further explained - as being "an unorthodox but existing opinion", for example - but never removed - yes, Docboat?

And that's all i wanted to say.

In short: be constructive, not destructive - anadın :-) [2]

So let's compromise, eh?

N.


  1. ^ It is the Turks themselves who have defined themselves as such in the census! Why deny it?! Would those 750,000 people be happy with you if they knew you were erasing them from existence?!
  2. ^ Doc: that means "capisce?!"; "comprende?!"; "panymayesh?!" :-)

----Unsigned  ??:??, ?? ??? 2008 (UTC)


What means diaspora in French? --Ilhanli (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I will assume that "ain't means "isn't" and "Bulgarian Turks" mean "the Turks in Bulgaria. But I do not know what is "Ottoman Turkey".

Can we say that Palestinians in Israel are diaspora? What if all the Palestine become 1 km2? What we will say to them Palestinian Diaspora (away from their main country)? What we will say to them if Palestine become 0 km2?

Diaspora does not mean dispersed group of their "original country" but it is dispersed group of their homeland, more exactly. OK?. The definition was not provided to the Turks in Bulgaria, so it is enough that it is not a diaspora. It is wrong to add irrelevant information into the "Turkish Diaspora". Moreover it says "The existence of contacts in various forms - real or imaginary, with the territory of the country of origin", and you mean it today's Turkey? Ooo, I do not have contacts - real or imaginary - with/related with Turkey. It is not my homeland. It is foreign country for me. Just, their language is almost same as my language. Nothing related with them.

"now i know what youll say - in no.2 it says "of the dispersed group" - and in Bulgaria they aint dispersed, but always lived there;" As you say it. Is not enough to say that these Turks are diaspora. If the definitions is not provided comlitely then we connaot say that these people are diaspora. There are special words for them like "minorities", use them. And I can say that my so called "origin of country" is not Turkey but Republic of Gumuljina, [2],[3],[4].--Ilhanli (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


reply:

it's a bit weird carrying on this conv on two separate pages: this one here and your one. since you've insisted on staying here - ok, unless the Doc kiks us off, i'll stay here :-) This time i'll keep it relatively short.

dont take it the wrong way - i didnt mean to say you, personally, have links to Turkey but that, culturally, i assume that the Turkish community in Bulgaria does - so i hope you understand, no offence of any sort meant here - sweet?

What i'll do is this (cause we're just going around in circles) I'll just ask you for a one-by-one answer to the questions i've posed you, that you've kept avoiding :

  • why deny the 750,000 Turks in Bulgaria the right to be recognised as existing [whether you want to call them "diaspora" or any other word]
  • why do you feel it's justified to reduce an encyclopedia, rather than simply adding the info and specifying? (again - dont call them diaspora - call them "natives" etc)
  • why would you rather deny a foreigner with no knowledge of Balkan demographics to find out about your people?!
  • what is your actual argument??? - you keep removing and repeating "not diaspora!"...but you do not explain what you think that they are...they are something !!! no???
  • why do you oppose the split table i propose, or some other compromise, such as :

--Unsigmed ????.... ??:?? ???? (UTC) ???...


  • I do not deny the 750 000 Turks in Bulgaria the right to be recognized as existing
  • I do not want to west time with the stupid "Wikipedia, The Free Propaganda"
  • It is not denying foreigner with no knowledge of Balkan demographics to find out about my people. He is entering to the page which has a BIIIIG title: Turkish Diaspora. So he is entering to a page to find information about the Turkish Diaspora, not for something else, like Blakan demographics, or Turkish minorities. It is (my aim) trying to give correct information, not wrong.
  • My argument: Diaspora is a word used for people who are outside of their homeland. But the Turks in Bulgaria are not outside of their homeland. So, we cannot say that they are diaspora.
  • Because it is irrelevant information, according to the title. It is about diaspora not something else.--Ilhanli (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] other suggestions

Make two separate tables if you want; even split the article into two with cross-references between themselves - i dont care - just dont hide the facts, man, how hard can it be to understand that?! semantics is a poor get-out clause, it does not change the nature of the facts

after all - you seem to be contributing to the turkish minorities article in the Turkish Wikipedia - which is separate from the turkish diaspora article there...so why dont you just do that here, too - simply create that article in English and separate the two like in the Turkish one? win-win! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.68 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

it's a shame - and incredulous to me - that you wana deny your own people an identity on the Internet! why?. [use whatever word you want - just leave them there!]

I'd like a 1-by-1 answer for my 5 questions, as well as an opinion on the suggestion, please. I've heard all your other arguments, repeated many times (over several months) - but i've not heard you reply to my direct questions. So, please, do so.

eagerly awaiting your repy :) 62.176.111.68 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who denies them, they were always listed here: Turkish_people--Ilhanli (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: remove the non-diaspora ones (they are removed, no problem)

Turkish minorities--Ilhanli (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Guys - I really like that you are talking to each other and looking at the other POV - this is really excellent. You might have to agree to disagree, but you seem to be finding consensus. docboat (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)



:-) :-) :-)
Dude, that's all you had to say!!!
i gota admit - i had not seen that page at all until now.
I'm with you now!
but how about cross-referencing the two articles? simply put this:
See also: Turkish people
at the top of the diaspora aricle, rather than having it in the text, where it is hard to see the link (as, clearly, it was for me, as i was just looking at the table - i do feel kinda silly rite now!)? And do the same at the top of the Turkish minorities article (i.e. cross-reference all three articles to each-other, esp. as the minorities one has no links to anything else anyway). That way people like me (and the others who've been arguing this without having realized the simplicity of the situation) won't be confused again - agree?
i'll leave that to you to do, since these articles are more your babies!
and i will suggest in the French wikipedia that the two may be split there, too, because the article for Turkish people does not appear to exist there yet, hence your removal is not yet reflected anywhere else. (i will return the figures for bulgaria in that one - dont get upset - temporarily until the articles are created; i shall add an explanation as to the fact that they are not "diaspora" until then, too - safe?)*(see p.s.)
i'm glad we got it sorted,
Thanx, N. 62.176.111.68 (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
ps. actually, instead, (since the French wikipedia is rather small and those articles probably won't be created any time soon) i shall ask for the article "diaspora turque" to be renamed to "peuple turque" or to "communautes turques" and leave it as is (because "people/communities" is more-encompassing than "diaspora")...then i shall add an explicit explanation that in the table all countries with a diaspora are numbered in the table, whereas native Turkish communities are given a dash. or do the bold type (native)/normal type (diaspora) thing that i suggested above. cool?
pps. and, Doc, thanks for not getting all upset that we hijacked your page for several days! Take care of yourself!

[edit] what i've done

ilhanli -

hold up for a while - i've left a message here, leading to the talk page, below your own comment, but it may take a while until someone reacts - especially since the user who created the page is on a wiki break until late June. leave the info there for now - the clarifications i've added are there, so no one will be misled. I will write to Runningfridgesrule after his exams are over (pioneer's honour!) so he's up to speed (i dont wanna bother him now, or he mite forget his revision - it's a long drawn-out topic, even though it is sorted). nice?

and anyway - you yourself can create the Peuple turc article in french and just redirect the links, no?

And, Doc - thanx again, mate, you're the best!

Take care of yourselves, the both of youse, i'm outa here for now! 62.176.111.68 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Real G-Unit BarnStar!

The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar
For being apart of WikiProject Freemasonry! InvisibleDiplomat666 05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008 collaboration

Hi there. We need more votes again for our April 2008 collaboration. As of March 27, only 6 members have voted. Please do exercise your right to vote! Thanks! :-) White2020 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

You should have it now. You might want to practice with the tool and see how it works at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback, but it is fairly straightforward. John Carter (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Why did you do this? I added a scholarly reference - that's usually considered good?? -Malkinann (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - apologies if that is so - but it seemed to fit the pattern of vandalism ... if it is good for the article, please do revert, and accept my apologies. docboat (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Does it really seem like a vandalism pattern??? Sometimes I add a reference using the <ref></ref> format, and then realise that, whoops, that article doesn't have a {{reflist}} or whatever yet. So I have to go back and add in the syntax that lets the reference be seen. -Malkinann (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
At the time, yes - you come across it all the time when some vandal types in "asdfasdf" or similar patterns. Looking superficially at the article, a long string of "ssssss" appears. Read in context it is clear. Seen as part of the anti-vandal tools, it looks like vandalism. And I have learned a lesson from that, so I thank you for that, and apologise once again! docboat (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mismatch negativity robot

How come you are reverting any edits to the article Mismatch negativity? I tried tidying the prose and adding a reference, both which should be Good Things (certainly not vandalism), but they were undone immediately. I treid reverting the edits, but they were also undone immediately. I certainly do not have any sympathy for vandalism, but what you are doing seems to contravene the whole idea of Wikipedia. 11:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Choi kwang do

I am the author of the above article and it is still in progree, I am added refs, it is not vandaliscim, what are you on about. thanks for your comments.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 68.191.179.217 should get blocked

He has vandalized the list of HTF characters again. I already warned him before you did, so he should've been blocked at the mommet that you warned him. Please do it, I'm sick of all that. --Mr Alex (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, do something about it, he was supposed to be blocked three weeks ago, he did it again at this precise date: 00:04, 13 April 2008. Please block him immediately. --Mr Alex (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If he continues to vandalize after his block expires, he can be blocked again, but for a longer period. --Mr Alex (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Alex, I did tell you on your talk page that I am not an admin, and I cannot block him. But you will see from his talk page that he has been blocked for a second time, and it is to be assumed that when the nonsense starts again, the block will be lengthened. S/he will get no joy out of this, and the Wikipedia approach does work, albeit slowly. So be patient - you are understandably frustrated, but keep cool, it will be well. docboat (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I though you where an admin, I had a few clues that gave me that idea. But as you said erlier, he did continue to vandalize after his block expired. He also started to vandalize in South Park characters articles.

--Mr Alex (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Membership application for Wikimedia Hong Kong is now open


08:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear wikipedian:

I am glad to tell you that, out local chapter, Wikimedia Hong Kong is now open for membership applications. The Chapter will hold several Recruitment days in different locations in the territory.


Please check out the time, date and location of the recruitment days here, and please hand in your application in person in the one that is convenient to you. Please follow the instruction on that page, and better prepare all the documents needed before the recruitment day.


Please feel free to contact us via this email, whether you can or cannot attend recruitment days, for further details or special assistances.


Regards,
Sith lord darth vader (talk)

[edit] Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

Caution There is currently a backlog of 57 users at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Please consider offering adoption to one or more of these users. Don't forget to change their {{adoptme}} template to {{adoptoffer|Docboat}}. Thank you for your continued participating in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. xenocidic (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blueking12 Adoption yes i am


[edit] Have you seen Chungking Express

(cantikadam (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

No, thank you. D.Rockefeller's declarations should be studied on. What do you think for his speeches as a Mason?. (cantikadam (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)).

[edit] Seeking Adoption

Thank you for your interest in helping me. First off, how can I change my adoption userbox? petalglassjade 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have managed that just fine. If you have any questions, just ask! docboat (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! BTW, how do you get a timestamp without using 4 tildes --Petalglassjade (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
~~~~ gives you this docboat (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC). ~~~ gives you this: docboat (talk). But is there a problem with using 4 tildes? BTW is it also always good to add a small note in the edit summary. When I started out I rarely did. It makes it so much easier for another editor to see what is going on. docboat (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)