User talk:Multivariable

Just wanted to say "nice work" on updating the TRTS articles and adding more detail. Keep it up!

Taiwantaffy (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'll have to say thanks to you for creating many of the articles in the first place. :P -Multivariable (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Multivariable. Hope you get read note. I'm the one who's been editing Jay Chou's wikipedia page. Let me first say that I really like Jay Chou's music; he is one of my favorite artists. However, this is also why I've been changing his album sales. If you look at the top-selling artists of all time, the list with 175 million album sales would include people like Madonna, Elton John, Mariah Carey, The Rolling Stones, all people who are considered "legends" in the music industry.

I understand your intentions, and trust me, I too would like to get people to appreciate Jay Chou more because he is a phenomenal artist. However, although your intentions may be right, your method of doing so is wrong.

To equate Jay Chou's album sales with these artists not only diminishes the credentials of wikipedia, but also Jay Chou as an artist. Some people will read the page and go ,"Of course he didn't sell 175 million albums!" and automatically feel much of the other information is falsified by some die-hard fan. To exaggerate or falsify any information would in the opposite efect, make Jay Chou look cheap. And because the albums sales changed from 175 million to 30 million, this gives me a very strong indication that the total sale numbers are vague and inconclusive. And, logically, wouldn't you agree that if there is information as inconclusive as this, it shouldn't even be mentioned? Thus, I suggest we keep the album sales blank b/c (1) There is currently no citation indicating his total album sales (2) Adding anything because it "sounds right" would be equivalent to "nit-picking", diminishing this website's credibility and (3) respecting Jay Chou and other artists by not adding falsified/exaggerated information.

Hope you understand this with the best of intentions. Take care. -75.22.141.96 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that needs a citation, but it was uncited and nobody bothered to question it until two days ago. That's why I added the ^{[citation needed]} tag (which, if anyone sees it, is a sure sign that it may not be true). I also started a discussion, where I mentioned that Asia sales alone are (probably - yeah, need to get a better source) in the range of 21+ million.

That's fine, we'll keep it blank for now, but I think 30 million may be already be more in the ballpark. Of course, we'll need citations, if you're willing to help look for them. -Multivariable (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok go ahead and reupload the CKS photo 10:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denglong (talk • contribs)

Why did you reverse my edits? Formosa Betrayed is a Pan-Green film and you obviously know that (it even says it on the website). People need to know that its biased. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.75.22 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how you describe a film, regardless of how biased it is (see reverted edit [1]). It's clear where you're coming from, and although I agree with you, you can't just add stuff like that without sources (the source you provided said it might affect the 2008 elections, not that the film was made to affect the elections). The fact that it wasn't even allowed to be shot in Taiwan and (correct me if I'm wrong) it was never released in Taiwan goes completely against that. -Multivariable (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film was shot in Thailand as Taiwan in 2009 was too distinct from Taiwan in 1980. Freetaiwanblog (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your goodwill to adjust this file, but it's really TOO BRIGHT. As the original uploader of this photo, I think it would be better to replace your work (sorry= =") by the previous version so that it'll conform to the actual illumination in the station. Thank again.

ps: You really speak fluent Chinese! Not until visiting your user page did I learn that you were a native English speaker. Are you from the US? (or Britain? )--howard61313 (talk) 11:23, December 5 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let you know that there is a discussion at Talk:Samsung Group that you may be interested in.--5 albert square (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You removed my addition to the list (KL Monorail and KTM Komuter) on the grounds that those systems are not technically "metro" system per se. I think you are right (thanks for pointing that out). However, i noticed the inclusion of the S-Bahn systems of Europe which appears to be of a suburban/commuter systems in nature. What do u think? There is a discussion on this here Talk:Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides#Berlin_S_Bahn. Thanks. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 04:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of this has already been discussed on the List of metro systems article, especially on the talk page and the archives. I kind of use that article as a guide for what goes on the Metro systems by annual passenger rides article, since that one has much more discussion for individual systems. The Berlin S-Bahn is included on that list currently, but from the archives it was clear that many people have disagreed in the past. Perhaps you would like to bring it up on the talk page? -Multivariable (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, there seem to be a lot of discussions on this. I'll have a read of the discussions and maybe i'll bring it up on the talk page. Cheers. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the translation of Taipei Metro EMU C371! --Perseus, Son of Zeus 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've each done 2 revisions on the GiE article. We do anymore and it's 3RR violation. Liu Tao (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye on it. -Multivariable (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably noticed that Taiwan High Speed Rail finally made GA. Since both the fourth reviewer on first try and the reviewer on second try said that the article could be elevated to featured article status with some polishing (and you did quite some polishing in the meantime), I immediately requested a WP:PR to move on towards FA nomination. But, based on how long it took for replies to the twosecond GA requests, it might be difficult to get reviewers. What I did so far:

1. I checked the volunteers' list as per the PR nomination procedure, but I didn't see any transport specialist.
2. I thought of Wikiproject Trains, but its reviewing task forces (three in all) seem all dead.
3. Also as per the PR nomination procedure, I checked the list of on-going peer reviews, thinking of doing a review and requesting one in return. I found just one of interest, and began taking part in Wikipedia:Peer review/SS Edmund Fitzgerald/archive1. However, now I'm not sure that those guys could be of much help with (or even be interested in) our rather different-themed article.

So can you think of anyone to invite (including whole WikiProjects)? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never looked too much into FA nomination either. I was going to say Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit, but that isn't entirely relevant and appears to be a "child project" of Wikproject Trains. I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head at the moment though. Maybe review an article and requesting one in return might be the way to go; I'll look into that, too. I will stay on top of it, so that a second round of reviewing won't be needed due to neglecting the page again (oops!). Thanks for all your hard work, and I'll definitely continue to work on improving the article as well. -Multivariable (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan, but it seems pretty much dead, too, and the WP:PR for THSR was listed on the project page already by a bot. --Rontombontom (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Judging by the posting times of other peer reviews, this could take a couple weeks... XD -Multivariable (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Regarding improvements of the article before or after a reviewer comes along, the one field where I fear reviewer criticism and am rather unsure what should or should not be changed is WP:WORDS. In particular WP:CLAIM is giving me a headache. --Rontombontom (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, of the words on the list, the only ones of note are "claim" and "denies", which I think are both accurately used in their respective contexts. Are there specifics in particular that you think will be a problem? To be honest, I don't see it to be much of a problem, since you've been fairly diligent to avoid words that introduce bias. I think almost every sentence is sourced to accurately reflect the source it uses, and word choice is fairly straightforward. That being said, I think some sentences/sections could use a slight rewording/rephrasing (nothing major, though); I'll be working on that over the next few days (while trying to retain the same meaning). If we're down to worrying about word choices, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

Also, a section that I think is still missing from the article would be one covering station construction/design. I've already looked up some sources, but haven't really found enough of note to introduce a new section yet, nor have I had the time to do anything with it. It would most likely be a subsection under "Construction". I'm also looking to add info regarding the construction of the HSR tunnel in Taipei in conjunction with projects to move all railway lines underground in the city. [2][3][4] Thoughts? -Multivariable (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the words, while it's mostly "claimed", the Controversy section is full of it. There is "accused" too (WP:ALLEGED). In contrast to the guideline, I feel that the use of "said" can imply that the claim is true.

Station construction is currently covered by a single sentence in the Civil works section on the awarding of contracts. If you have sources on station design, as a first stage, I think that sentence could be expanded into a paragraph. I'll check those sources on the Taipei section before commenting. --Rontombontom (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read them, it looks like there are enough sources on the urban tunnel project to start a separate article (perhaps titled TRUPO). IMO the project has more to do with TRA than THSRC (more stations, removal of maintenance yards, capacity issues), that's why I think a separate article linked from the THSR one is better than adding more than a couple details to the THSR article.

In addition, there is a connected question that kept nagging me, and even more now: what was the original plan for the four tracks? This has a major impact on the seriousness of the TRA-THSRC dispute regarding capacity constraints. From the RRB pages, it's clear that the tunneling project started much earier than the THSR project, yet they consistently talk as if one tunnel with two tracks was for the THSR from the beginning. But that is in conflict with the sources I used for the TRA-THSRC controversy, which imply some re-designation of tracks (either all four tracks were for the TRA originally, or, as I interpret the sources now, TRA swapped tunnels during construction). Do you have or can you find something on this, maybe in contemporary Chinese-language sources on the controversy? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure. please go ahead and do it. I was in a rush for other things so I didn't manage to re-size it. But certainly do it and I will really appreciate that! Tsungyenlee (converse) 05:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pictures of the rolling stock? (fair use, of course!) --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, at the moment. The only photos I've seen are ones taken from the factory in Japan. -Multivariable (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created a Taipei Railway Underground Project article. What I did was to adapt the parts of the THSR article on the tunnel, use the sources you provided upthread, and add two more sources I came across but didn't use for the THSR article last year. There is no infobox, no track map, no portal or commons or external links, no nifty station table, and just a single photo. Please feel free to correct, copyedit, expand, edit, re-order however you want.

I also mention here that I failed to find a good image of a THSR viaduct in Flickr that is sufficiently copyright-free - but I imported the first image on the right, more as a test of the Flickr upload bot. So I tried to tinker with that dark photo (you may need a reload if the original is in your cache), but am not sure that the result is much better.

Regarding the additions on station construction/design, and any additional copyedit of the THSR article, do you plan to work on that in the near future? Because I'd move on to FAC: the peer review page attracted comments from three peer reviewers, but it will be inactive for two weeks by tomorrow, meaning it may be closed without further notice.

On a related issue: don't you think Taipei Station should be named Taipei Main Station? --Rontombontom (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I also tried to find a good photo on Flickr, but the licenses necessary for Wikimedia Commons are really strict and did not turn up many photos. The photo you cropped/adjusted looks fine, but I'll see if I can help out with that. :)

Yes, I do plan on working on the station part in the near future (thanks for the reminder). So regarding station design/construction, while I was able to find many sources on who built what, it doesn't seem like a lot of the information is fit for an article. In addition, many of the construction companies' pages just have renders or photos of the project, but have otherwise little information on actual design or construction. I'll work on that today. Sorry for making you wait, and thanks for all your hard work!

Regarding "Taipei Station" and "Taipei Main Station", "Taipei Main Station" is only used with the metro system, whereas it both TRA and THSR use Taipei Station. Just based on convention, the TRA name tends to win out (e.g. Xinzuoying Station over Zuoying Station, Banqiao Station over Banciao Station, etc.). If I remember correctly, "Taipei Main Station" was only introduced with the opening of the metro system, but I may be wrong. -Multivariable (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because the RRB pages wrote "Taipei Main Station", and it turned up on TRA's pages too back when it had an English news section. Not in the timetable search, however. Now I thought of checking station signs -- but I'm not cleverer: above the entrance, I read "TAIPEI", but on the identification tower, it's "TAIPEI MAIN STATION". --Rontombontom (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, that is interesting. The platform signs read "Taipei" as well File:Taipei_platform2.jpg. I would just keep the station the way it is, even with all the alternate namings, because there is no other "Taipei Station", so the naming seems at best redundant. I guess it doesn't help that in Chinese, they are all called "台北車站" or "Taipei Railway Station". -Multivariable (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped that other editors would come out of the woodwork and join in the discussion, but no luck. What do you think about asking some editors directly? I am thinking of asking User:Jpatokal and User:Taiwantaffy, for example. --Rontombontom (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also surprised that other editors haven't joined in the discussion. Those two sound good for additional input, for sure. -Multivariable (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various things held me up; but now I posted requests on the Discussion pages of both. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the table critic's tone—for the record: ugh. The only point in WP:IINFO remotely relevant to the THSR article (in parts other than the now removed fare table) is 3. Excessive listing of statistics, except IMHO diagrams aren't lists by any standard and those in don't break text, only the stations table is long and sprawling, explanatory text for stats isn't missing... but I chose to leave it be. --Rontombontom (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the editor's tone to be critical, that's for sure, but not unfounded. I think the graphs are fine, but the editor might be referring to the table under "Revenues and Costs", which admittedly does contain a lot of data. Thanks for staying on top of this again; I mostly refrained from answering/posing questions since I knew you were more knowledgeable about what the text is supposed to mean in context. -Multivariable (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion with the other user he referred to in an edit summary, he brings up the stopping patterns in the stations table as example of "rail-trivia" not of interest to general readers. He says though he doesn't understand the term as it isn't explained. He could have asked about that on the THSR Discussion page; but, if he doesn't think everyone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, that is less surprising.

(For now I added a short caption at the bottom of the table. Maybe adding "A", "B" etc. in a second header line, in line with the designation of the patterns in the JRTR source, would be useful. I think the grey color for the empty cells doesn't violate rules as it doesn't bear additional information. As for the trivia quip, do you think not being able to get off at a station is not of interest to the general reader?)

His latest reply on the THSR page, though at least quoting a guideline, did so seemingly out of context, and his violation of WP:MOSNUM when editing date formats didn't reinforce my confidence in his advice, either. Maybe I'll ask that other user to weigh in, he seems to be even more of a table and accessibility expert yet less of a WP:BITE violator. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see an issue with the table with stopping patterns either; it's fairly easy to understand and fits much better in a table format than text format. Unless there is a good reason to not keep it (e.g. text format is better, it doesn't illustrate anything relevant, etc.), I don't see a good reason to remove it. Not understanding something is a poor reason to remove something. I actually thought the term was self-explanatory, even though I have no background in rail systems myself. The user Diannaa initially contacted him about table structure, despite being heavily involved with copyediting him/herself. Thus, I would only assume good faith with tables unless other areas are supported as well. I also don't quite understand how something that's allowed for Wikipedia formatting (tables) can be considered detrimental or "non-standard", though. In my experience, tables on Wikipedia are harder to customize and inline styling definitely provides a good way to go about doing that.

Thanks for looking more into table structures and usage on Wikipedia. It always seems there are guidelines for everything, but nobody seems to know about them. :P -Multivariable (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a editor who has made edits at The Green Hornet (2011 film), this is a neutral request for you to visit that page, where edit-warring appears to be occurring, and weighing in with your thoughts on the matter. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I will take a look. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me... I just realized I've been pronouncing her name (as well as these guys') wrong for years! rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem! When you made that edit, I thought I had been pronouncing it wrong for years! :P -Multivariable (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[5] [6] Tamsui Line and Tamsui Station

Thanks, that settles it. I'll undo my changes. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your report of this IP address at WP:AIV. We generally give some sort of warning after a block is made, and the IP hadn't been warned at all in connexion with this spate of edits, so I left one of the "this is your only warning" messages. Feel free to come back to AIV if the IP makes even one more unsourced change. I've rolled back all of the IP's recent edits, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand the need for warnings from your point of view. It just gets irritating having to revert the same edits each time he/she gets unblocked. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your creating Template:Infobox Taiwan station. I placed a request at its talk page, asking whether the automatic wikilinks to administrative divisions can be removed. If you can replay it at Template talk:Infobox Taiwan station, that will be great. Thank you so much. --Pengyanan (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the template talk page. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your great work! --Pengyanan (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience and for catching the disambiguation issue! -Multivariable (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bbtregervdfv - You made my day heaven for a case that could have taken me 1/2 hour to an hour to go through. Enjoy this batch of brownies and my thanks :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, this made my day as well! Thanks for all your hard work with what I can only imagine to be a very tedious job. :) -Multivariable (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MultiVariable, would you not agree that "Britain" was part of the Opium war? Also, in times(and after) wars, are people not effected by propaganda and newspapers? "Brown" is the ex-Prime Ministers name and also colloquial term for Heroin in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.11.134.217 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Britain was part of the Opium Wars, but calling it "post Opium War Britain" is analogous to calling it "post Vietnam War United States" or "post Afghanistan War United States" (not yet, of course) -- it's unnecessary in the context it's being used. What does former Prime Minister Brown have to do with the topic? -Multivariable (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thNks for your contributions in Taiwan related articles.我 (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thNks for your contributions in Taiwan related articles.我 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The Station Number Jiang O19 think. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_ (Taipei_Metro) and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongan_Market_Station this station number: O18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faczan (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were all recently edited by someone (check the article history) within the course of a few months and are not cited by any sources. Official construction reports list it as O18 [7]. Station numbers do not inexplicably change 15 years after they are open. -Multivariable (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look Thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 16:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

125.213.235.27 vandalized Articles about Taipei Metro in Chinese, English, Japanese Wikipedia. He was blocked at Chinese Wikipedia, but not in English and Japanese. My English is so poor that I cannot make admins realize that 125.213.235.27 is vandalizing. Could you help me to let admins know 125.213.235.27 is vandalizing?--Bhenry1990 (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the IP was blocked. -Multivariable (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only for a day. I'll check if he do that again or change another IP. Thanks.--Bhenry1990 (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Taiwan station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Huanbei Station, Multivariable!

Wikipedia editor Dps04 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Dps04's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dps04 (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wenshan Line (Taipei Metro) RDT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFR lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFR stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/AFR left/Main has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-line/AFR right/Main has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:THSR ridership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banqiao Line (Taipei Metro) RDT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]