Contents

User talk:Eric Corbett: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:40, 8 January 2009

I am outraged that the AdminWatch initiative to level the playing field between the standards of behaviour expected of administrators and non-administrators was taken to MFD It may work, it may not, but the defensive attitudes being displayed by some administrators leave a bad taste in the mouth. No wonder that so many editors simply walk away from the project in the face of unchecked administrator abuse.

Archives

2007 April • May • June •July • August • September • October • November • December 2008 January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We've been through a lot and accomplished a lot. Here's to a good rest, recovery, and starting the new year right. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ottava. Much more for us to do yet though. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 07:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And same from me Malleus; you're an interesting and funny (funny ha ha, I don't mean that you are bonkers) guy to have around. I dont always agree with what you have to say, but usually, I do. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've quite come to terms with the fact that my views and opinions are at odds with the overwhelming majority of twelve-year-olds wikipedians; to be perfectly honest, I'm rather surprised to find myself still here. Anyway, Happy New Year to you, Ceoil! --Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the fact that you are a minority bother you, for god sake! Voices of sanity are badly needed if this thing is going to work. Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to have a look at this list which I have just re-formatted, and suggest any improvements, etc. I'm thinking of submitting it for peer review and then as a FLC (if people think that it is appropriate). I should welcome your comments on its talk page (I am asking some more Wikifriends to contribute and would like all the comments to be together). Happy New Year. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've expanded the lead and submitted it as a FLC (the lead might need a bit of a ce). Now, how about Arley Hall as a GAC - I've expanded it a bit. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Malleus Fatuorum,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Majorly. All the best to you as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Malleus, I hope you have a really great 2009! Thanks for stopping by my talk page to say hello! NancyHeise ^talk 22:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entering 2009 with dread, for reasons I won't bore you with. It'll be a win if it turns out not to be as bad as I think it's going to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your c/e efforts on Banker horse. I think I have stared at the article for so long that the words are now swimming about on the screen... --Yohmom (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know how that feels. I see that you haven't nominated the article for GA yet though, any reason why not? It seems pretty close to me. Go on, go for it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Before you do, you need to expand the lead by a factor of two or three. It's supposed to be a short summary of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I'm working on it. I saved the lead for last, just seemed easier that way. I'll nominate for GA eventually, perhaps in the next twenty years or so... :) --Yohmom (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, would you say that you were someone Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute who tried and failed to resolve things? I am not fussed if you don't feel you qualify, I am just fed up and tired of her being told. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything to resolve between Mattisse and me. She's made her opinion of me abundantly clear, and I've made it clear that I don't agree with her assessment, or her general attitude, but there's no ongoing difficulty between us that I'm aware of. Mattisse does sometimes seem to do her best to be hurtful, but that's just "sticks and stones ..." as far as I'm concerned.

That an editor makes the atmosphere here less pleasant than it might otherwise be is probably a charge that could be levelled against a great many of us. My only real concern about Mattisse's recent behaviour centres on the repeated accusations of impropriety at FAC in particular, which I see you've already given an example of from this page. I may add a statement on that subject later. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I guess the wording is funny; my take on tried and failed.. is more about folks who have told her to stop her pattern of ongoing niggling comments, slurs etc. which she has ignored, rather than dispute with person X as such. I don't see where to go with this otherwise (well I do really, but hoped it can/could be looked at by more eyes in the community.) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Mattisse's defense, she runs about 50/50, meaning that 50% of those she fights with are difficult people that help provoke the conflict, but the other 50% are just people who get caught in the cross fires or were neutral. I can sympathize with her in situations similar to Blueboar, but not in regards to Sandy. Part of her problem is that she connects an individual with all of their associates instead of differentiating. Sometimes, people do work together and should be treated as a group. However, other times do not have such things. I don't care for Mattisse, but I wouldn't support an RfC. Her faults are the same faults that most of us have, and an RfC would only push her further into a corner, which is where all the problems start to begin with. Mattisse needs people to be more encouraging, to take her lack of good faith or minor attacks without attacking back and maybe she can begin to figure out who are really the bad people and who are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably fair comment Ottava. We're none of us perfect, and I've no wish to provoke Mattisse into anything. In fact I think that she does a great deal of good work that it would be a shame to lose. For myself, I've go no problem with anyone elses's opinion of me; I'm quite happy to ignore it if it doesn't match with own opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Malleus! I feel we might have got off on the wrong foot at Suntag's RFA, what with my overly defensive comments about Columbia Park, Torrance, California's GAN. I'd agree that a trip to GAR was in order; how "grassy expanse recreational area" got past me twice is a mystery and perhaps endemic of a wider problem with the rest of the article. I'll probably even initiate the GAR, partly for the novelty of being a GAN reviewer initiating a GAR of the same article and partly because I want to get this ironed out before I review any more. I'd appreciate your comments there. I'll give Suntag a longer grace period after failing an RFA before nomming !his GA, because I feel like a nice person at the moment. Don't know why.

I was also wondering if you were planning on commenting further at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Japanese Grand Prix. I'm getting myself into an unfortunate argument with Ling.Nut about this "context" issue and feel a wider set of eyes (?) could help sort it out. See you somewhere, Apterygial 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ling.Nut makes a valid point about context that could be addressed by a little bit of rewriting. I'll take another look later. Don't beat yourself up about Columbia Park, Torrance, California. We're none of us perfect. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apterygial. I am so sorry that your efforts to review Columbia Park, Torrance, California were disparaged in my RfA. I learned a lot from you and you should not have been treated the way you were. This "grassy expanse recreational area" matter seemed to have gotten out of control. Google define states that a park is "a piece of open land for recreational use in an urban area." "place or area set aside for recreation or preservation of a cultural or natural resource" "Open space lands whose primary purpose is recreation or passive enjoyment by the public." I posted "grassy expanse recreational area" because the reference called it a "grassy expanse" and "a park", I thought "grassy expanse recreational area" sounded better than the redundant "Columbia Park is a park," and the basic definitions of a park seem to support my wording. Before my RfA, Columbia Park, Torrance, California had been viewed 731 times[1][2] and no one had challenged that material. During and after my RfA, the page was viewed another 232 times for a total of 963 view by the end of December.[3] Despite the scrutiny, no one has saw fit to remove the material. I strive to be accurate but I ain't perfect. I would be happy to make any changes you, Malleus, or anyone else suggests. Again, I am so sorry for the way you were treated. -- Suntag ☼ 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond here despite the cross-posting to my talk page. I was vaguely disappointed, not with the criticism of the article, which everyone is entitled to do in a public collaboration such as this, but that no-one attempted to improve it to a point where everyone agreed that it was a GA. It is unfortunate that an RFA can do this; it becomes more of a witch hunt - a way to sink the candidate's contributions to the project - than an effort to identify what problems, if any, need resolving. Ideally, the article does not need to go to GAR, I'm sure Malleus will agree with me here, because addressing the concerns of those who opposed on that basis should occur through a simple copyediting process. Suntag, there is really no need to apologise. Despite what I might have said in your RFA, I am confident in my reviewing abilities, and will ensure that this blip is not indicative of my future reviewing efforts. Apterygial 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RfA is what it is, and I'm likely to be the last person to defend it. My own oppose was simply down to the candidate claiming credit for a couple of GAs one of which in particular I felt was wide of the mark. That's not a criticism of the reviewer though; articles get edited, and we're none of us perfect. I fairly recently let Gulf Stream through a GA sweeps review when I probably shouldn't have done, so I'm no more perfect than anyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I yet have the ability of determining whether something I write is GA quality and I relied on others who rated the articles as GA for their judgment. For the most part, I've been a start/B class article contributor. There is value in the amount of time that passes after an article is rate GA, particularly where the article is improve by several editors. Thanks for the feedback. -- Suntag ☼ 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is no reflection on you that I did not share the reviewer's opinion that the Columbia Park article met the GA criteria. It's a pity that came out at your RfA though, which I know from personal experience can be a pretty bruising affair without that kind of thing. Who knows, it may be me that's wrong anyway, not Apterygial. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue XIII - January 2009 December issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News December has been a very successful month, with lots of article promoted, and hopefully more to come in January: Promoted articles: Scout Moor Wind Farm is England's largest onshore wind farm. Although it was opposed by environmentalists, the wind farm was opened on 26 September 2008 and provides enough power for 40,000 homes. North Road Stadium was the first home of Manchester United F.C., back when it was called Newton Heath F.C., and was the club's home until 1893. The B of the Bang is the sculpture that was erected to commemorate the 2002 Commonwealth Games and for a while was the largest sculpture in the UK. And because of safety concerns, it may be dismantled. The Bridgewater Canal was built in the second half of the 18th century to transport coal to Manchester from the Duke of Bridgewater's mines in Worsley Radcliffe is best known as a mill town, but was mentioned in the Domesday Book and features the medieval Radcliffe Tower. Current nominations: January looks set to be very busy, with Chadderton, Cine City, Withington, and Nico Ditch at WP:GAN, the Greater Manchester portal up for Featured Portal status, and Sale a Featured Article Candidate. Please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them. The Belle Vue Zoological Gardens is being prepared for GA, and Abram, Whitefield, and Wigan are approaching a good standard, while Radcliffe is already being improved, ready for its next FAC. Abram featured in the DYK section of the front page last month. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know? The project has a new tool, a watchlist of all our project's articles. This should help us keep an eye on them and spot new editors who might want to join our project. Also, Jza84 has developed a map of WP:GM's GAs and FAs. It shows a gap in coverage in the north west of the county, something we should try to change. WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as Featured and Good content goes, our lead is extending, with 10 and 16 more FAs than Yorkshire and London respectively, and 13 and 14 more GAs than Yorkshire and London! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC! WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff. Written by Nev1, based on a template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Aims Our extant short-term project aims: Obtain GA status for Salford. Obtain GA status for Kersal Moor. Obtain GA status for Manchester city centre. Obtain GA status for Congestion charging in Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF). Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county. Two of our aims were crossed off as Scout Moor Wind Farm became an FA, and Radcliffe, Greater Manchester a GA. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable. Member News There are now 46 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 14 members inactive since 1 July 2008) as 1 new member joined the project in December: Sitush Welcome from everyone, and let's remember to make new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}. Thanks A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. Reminders... Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images. Articles needing attention Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the list of articles needing cleanup are in permanent need of attention. Hopefully everyone had a fun Christmas and new year and is looking forward to a good 2009.

Malleus, we both had a rough patch last October, but recently I find myself agreeing with almost every comment you make. I commend your good taste :-), welcome you back to the fray, and I look forward to working with you to kick this encyclopedia (and one or two of its editors) into shape! Geometry guy 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The back end of last year seemed to get a little fraught. Not quite sure why that was, but a little distance since then has allowed me to put things into a better perspective. It's pleasing that we seem to share a common vision for GA in particular, even if it does sometimes seem like shouting in the wilderness. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit, but there are more than just the two of us, thankfully. I'm glad the break brought perspective. I blame the election for the intensity of October/November, and the rest is history. Geometry guy 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! I left my camera at home. :-P Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus tends to do that with people... he pisses them off, and then people start to see/appreciate him for what he is.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... which is someone who pisses people off? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. They tend to see you as someone who is correct. That pisses people off until they can come to terms with it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus is usually correct because he usually agrees with me, obviously! On the extremely rare occasions when he disagrees with me, I am merely disappointed in the momentary lapse of judgement, not pissed off :-) Geometry guy 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See esp. my very last comment. I'd be winding up to throw a hissy if this were at FAC, but perhaps you and/or G-guy may be in favor of a kinder, gentler GAN. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure G-guy and I would both agree that article needs an awful lot of work to meet the GA criteria. I've added my opinion to the review page. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a quick look at the lead and the first sentence which struck me as odd was "Born a peasant in 1916, Maga served as a schoolmaster from 1936 to 1946, giving him considerable influence among the uneducated." Maybe it is time to reveal that Malleus is a sock of mine :-)

  More seriously, the style of the lead is unencyclopedic. For instance there are poor tense choices that tell a story rather than present the facts:

  • "There was little foreign investment in the country, and unemployment was rising."
  • "Maga's minister-ship was not to last, as he soon was convicted of plotting to assassinate Soglo and corruption."

  On the other hand, these are things that could be fixed by an active reviewer. There's no requirement to do so, but the article does at least have decent print sources, more than many GAs can boast, so I would be in favour of a kinder gentler GAN, if you (Ling) have the energy. Geometry guy 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← This is the kind of article that I both love and hate to come across at GAN. Love, because there's more than enough to make a good article, but hate because I know that I'll have to do a lot of work to get it to the GA standard, and it would be a minor crime not to help out. No pressure on Ling, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malleus, As we discussed some time ago, I've put an individual reassessment template on the Gulf Stream article and so I'm informing you as the last assessor. I'm pasting the template below.

Gulf Stream has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Richerman (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the editors will be able to satisfactorily resolve the issues you've highlighted. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised one of the previous editors placed it up for reassessment rather than editing it himself (the references were easily found.) Nonetheless, all the various tags appear to have been fixed. It's amazing how much work I've put into an article I didn't even push through GA originally. I threw a comment about the reassessment on the original GA editor's talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it's been fixed, it's an important article. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been easily fixable, so far. Articles like water cycle need so much help that I've had to allow their failure. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Happy New Year' to you, Malleus! Nice to hear from you again. The shade of red for the funnel and flag was the best I could do. Putting Ted Gray's 'Manchester Liners' book cover next to the Wikipedia image shows little difference. Perhaps my attempt is a little 'pale' rather than too 'light'. Would be happy for a more artistic person than myself to improve on the image. Also - yes please do turn the rectangle into a flag - I just dont have the know how.

Have just bid on Ebay for a set of ML playing cards with the company flag on the reverse. Had thought of uploading an image if I succeed in the bid. This might also give a hint at the true shade of red. I have not been able to lay my hands on a colour image - the one you inserted is the only one I've yet seen.

When you're ready, would most appreciate guidance from you on what needs to be done to attain 'GA' status. I gather that improved 'quality' rather than 'quantity' is the key!

RuthAS (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a boxed set of two packs of ML playing cards, made by Waddingtons. What information are you hoping to get from them? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you compare the reds in this graphic to the red used in the ML logo? Which is closer? Is either even close? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the image using my uncalibrated monitor to the cards under a 60W bulb, I'd say the top one wasn't far off. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. That's good enough for me, I'll get to work on the flag now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reds look quite different to me, but that's maybe because we've got our monitor displays set up differently. With your permission then, I'm going to make it look a closer match to this image on the front of Grey's book [4].

I think we should be thinking of a GA nomination sooner rather than later, so I'll have a look through and see what I think remains to be done. We should also ask at the GM project for any input from other members. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus - yes, please go ahead with improving the funnel colours and flag. Another GM project member has added some contributions earlier this afternoon. The more the better ...

Haws book on the Furness Withy Group including ML says on page 18 '. . . 1898 May; Acquired Manchester Trader; April 26 (sic) sailed Avonmouth-Montreal-Manchester. She brought the first cargo of grain to the city'. Elsewhere, he says the prospectus for ML was issued on May 10. I now conclude that April 26 should read May 26.

I now have an image of an earlier ML ship taken circa 1912. Unknown photographer. Whilst I am now able to upload my own photos, I still have not learned to steer round the more unusual Wiki licences. Would you mind if I emailed the image to you, please, for inserting in the pre WWI section? RuthAS (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing is one of wikipedia's tarpits. I'm no expert, but if you send me the image I'll do my best with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it's amazing, don't you think, the number of errors and discrepancies you find in published sources when you try to bring them all together in an encyclopedia article? When I was writing the Pendle witch trials I couldn't even find a consensus for how many witches there actually were, pretty fundamental! --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xin chào Malleus, my best wishes to you & your family towards a happy & properous 2009, as well as in the upcoming Lunar New Year starting from Jan 26 if it's being observed & celebrated in GM by the Asians over your side. I'm finally back (a bit reluctantly) in the Lion City for the time being, & so taking this opportunity to embark on some ad-hoc GAN tasks on behalf of the SGpedian folks once again. I would greatly appreciate if you, or other experienced GA reviewers of good standing, could review this nominated article. Thank you -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you again Aldwin. We have a very large Asian population here in Manchester, and a particularly large Chinese one, so there are big celebrations in Chinatown every year. Good to see you back in the harness working on more Singapore articles as well. I'm in the middle of another review right now, but if Poh Ern Shih Temple hasn't been picked up by the time I've finished that, I'll be glad to take a look at it next. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To aptly follow what the folks in Manchester's Chinatown will say to each other during the upcoming spring festival - Gong Hei Fatt Choy! (恭喜發財) Hmm, it bring to mind of a video (Ha Ha!) I saw of some enthusiatic non-Chinese New Yorkers singing a popular Chinese New Year song previously. No problem mate, old Staffy will wait with his trusty bone by his side then - there'll be a few more articles to go before I retires to my den again. Lastly, a suggestion here - u may want to consider to add this link or its template (well said indeed!) to your talkpage banner above. As you can see, you are not alone in having these sentiments too. Very bad karma indeed, in view of this growing groundswell of negative energies here. Sigh! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just one or two editors complaining about a few bad eggs, that could be dismissed as only to be expected. But there does appear to be an increasing groundswell of discontent with the present system of administration, and in particular the far higher standards of behaviour expected of non-administrators; Silensor has got it about right. Something needs to be done pdq, or else the admins will be left with only themselves to administrate.

Anyway, Gong Xi Fa Cai! (I'm hoping that means Happy New Year, I got it from here.) :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Xi Fa Cai (in Chinese) or Gong Hei Fatt Choy (in Cantonese) which means 'Wishing you good tidings/fortune' or its full version as seen in traditional Chinese couplet: Gong Xi Fa Cai, Xin Nian Kuai Le (恭喜發財, 新年快樂) which means 'Wishing you a happy & properous New Year!', are some of the common traditional greetings used during the CNY. Except for those that I've seen in Asia in countries like HK, Taiwan, China, Thailand, Vietnam etc to date, which are huge & electrifying in mood & celebrations all over, I've never experienced personally what the festivities are like in the West, esp where the Chinese are a minority there. According to our human history, CHANGE usually come in two forms - it may come from WITHIN aka 'Restructuring', or WITHOUT aka 'Revolution'. It's an inevitable reality whether we like it or not. Unless we have a visionary who can make inspiring 'Yes, we can!' speeches here (including equally inspiring MV too), just like what William Wilberforce similarly did against the House of Lords back in the 18th century, I believe the current status quo will remain more or less the same in the foreseeable future. Maybe we should keep our fingers crossed for the return of this legendary King, or maybe this King, for a CHANGE 8P. As for me, I go for this spiritual master's saying: 'Be water, my friend' -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]