zh.wikipedia.org and Holopedia
How are you doing? Wanna join the discussion about the zh-tw.wikipedia.org problem? http://wiki.newzilla.org/index.php?page=zh-tw.wikipedia.org --Pektiong = pc
- Sorry, but zh-tw.wikipedia.org is wrong. Why should I write twice for every article??? --Kaihsu 06:55 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
I have been also thinking about the possibility of Hō-ló-oē Wiki and investigating the opentype font technique to deal to POJ script --pc
- I plan to ask the people in the Hō-ló-oē community if a wikipedia like stuff can help the community. I think it would be helpful. So, let's start it? --pc
- basically, no progress. There is plan to apply for right dot above this year in Octerber. I don't know the detail. It is like they will try to push POJ into CNS, and ask people in CNS to apply the right dot above. After studying the opentype, I come to understand more or less how ALL POJ can be implemened within current unicode with opentype font and the unicode consortium might turn the proposal down based on this. But you never know, if the government is backing up the proposal, there might be larger chance. I think the font technique is a bigger problem than encoding. --pc
- Let's go to email on this, please. --Kaihsu 08:00 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
What is the motive of writing any encyclopedia? Is it writing for later reading of oneself? Or is it for writing for others to read? What is the philosophy?
Volumes titled the Encyclopedia of the Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan might not have been motivated by a collective desire of the people to capture a descriptive snapshot of the life of themselves and the understanding of the world at the moment for later reference -- instead, it may very well be a prescription of what the life of the people and what the understanding of the world should be.
This is the difference of zh-CN.wikipedia.org and zh-TW.wikipedia.org.
And just in case you are wondering, I think there should only be one zh.wikipedia.org, with an automatic conversion to deal with script issues. (That is, I am against zh-TW.wikipedia.org)
--Kaihsu 07:36 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
- I did investigate this idea. Autrijus tells me his program can do most of the conversion, not just the trad/simp script but be able to translate some language variants. I don't know if this program can be incoperated into current wikipedia. I think the problem is it might be diffcult to agree on content sometime. But this might be the problem of the idea of encyclopedia itself. --pc
General strike article
Nice of you to correct my capitalization on General Strike. There are many areas of the English language, which I perceive as complicated. This is unfortunately one of them. -- Ruhrjung 15:18, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I suppose if it is a one-time incident (UK General Strike 1926 for example) then it is capitalized. Otherwise, if you want to say, for example, in plural, general strikes, then it is lowercase. --Kaihsu 15:24, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What's the reason for adding "thus styled" on the Taiwan article? --Jiang 23:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I wrote 'State', but then thought that is not entirely NPOV, since some views at international law says the Republic of China (or Taiwan) is not a State, but is sui generis. Remove it if you would like--Kaihsu 06:35, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think it's very difficult to argue that the ROC is not a state. The controversy is over whether it is de jure or de facto. --Jiang 04:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
My photographs are copyrighted, and licensed under GFDL.
Are you releasing your pictures under our GFDL, etc. It isn't clear from the text on the picture pages? Rmhermen 18:06, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, of course! I ticked the box on the upload form, did I not? Making explicit copyright statement makes GFDL stronger, not weaker, and should be no cause for alarm or paranoia, I hope. --Kaihsu 18:11, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
United Nations article
Kaihsu, Adam here
As far as I can see there is no legal distinction between the Holy See and the Vatican City State. The official name of the country is (says the CIA) The Holy See (State of the Vatican City) / Santa Sede (Stato della Citta del Vaticano). What is your source on this question?
With respect, what does the Tuvalu link add to the article?
Dr Adam Carr 10:53, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The legal distinction is laid out in the article Holy See. The .tv link adds a bit of history (and trivia/perspective) on Taiwan's attempt in getting back to the United Nations. Feel free to change things. Thank you very much. --Kaihsu 11:07, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- It seems from that article that the distinction is that the Vatican is the name of the territory, and the Holy See is the name used by the Papacy in its capacity as the government of that territory. This seems to me to be a very fine distinction, and since the UN article is not an article to which that fine distinction is germane, we should not distract the reader with it. I will use a wording which reflects the distinction but does not elaborate on it.
- I will also think of a sentence which explains the Tuvalu link. Cheers Dr Adam Carr 11:25, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
University alliances in Taiwan article
- I made them into stubs. You may want to add more. --Jiang 21:05, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sudden attack at requested articles, 2003-09-28
My, aren't we fast :) Might as well go through Wikipedia:Requested articles, one by one!
Keep it up :) Dysprosia 15:03, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I should let someone else do it for a wee while and myself start doing something that will contribute to my own career development.... Thanks though. --Kaihsu Tai 15:08, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi. You moved an image of JM Coetzee from the korean wikipedia over to the english one, but didn't give any copyright information. Is the image (media:JMCoetzee.jpg) OK? Thanks, snoyes 00:17, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Moving Hakka etc.
not yet!!! --Jiang 08:19, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Can you fix the double redirects of all the pages you move? Click on "what links here" to figure out where they are.
--Jiang 20:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No particular harm done since [[as of 2003] redirects to 2003, but I don't understand why you did it.
Dpbsmith 15:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I use as of 2003 when (and only when) there is a danger that the (con)text will get out of date soon enough, and when this happens (say, in 2005) one can use the 'what links here' function for as of 2003 to search and update. Simply using 2003 is not as useful. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid statements that will date quickly. --Kaihsu Tai 16:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)