User talk:Patiwat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives /Feb 2006 - 19 Sep 2006 (pre-coup) /20 Sep 2006 - 30 Sep 2006 (post-coup)

Contents 1 Transliteration of Thai names 2 For Thai writers 3 Transliteration of Thai names 4 I give up (again) 5 What is a wat? 6 Bloody May 7 Sirikitiya → Sirikitiya Jensen vote 8 Nitya Pibulsongkram 9 Re: Thanks for restoring good edit in Thaksin Shinawatra 10 Thai culture poster.PNG 11 New airport 12 Creator of banknotes and stamps? 13 Anand Panyarchum 14 CNS 15 Did You Vandalize The C++ Page? 16 Khun Chang Khun Phaen 17 Hi 18 ?Sepha? Khun Chang Khun Phaen 19 Greetings 20 Misunderstanding 21 License tagging for Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg 22 I survived the Bangkok bombings 23 Thaksin, the South and Prem 24 Pattani 25 Proposed template 26 a further reading 27 Fair use image use 28 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Goshu 3.jpg) 29 Policies of the Surayud government 30 Alexandru Lungu 31 2006 Bangkok bombings GA on hold 32 hurting people's feelings for no reason 33 Need Assistance 34 Your take on numeric format

[edit] Transliteration of Thai names

As a farang in Thailand I find the pronunciation additions extremely helpful (e.g. King Bhumibol Adulyadej/pʰu:mipʰon adunjadeːt; & Suvarnabhumi (pronounced su-wan-na-poom)). Please don't stop doing this, otherwise I will never know how to pronounce Nitya Pibulsongkram. Perhaps, pronunciation could be extended to all Wik articles, as in the Oxford dictionary?? Regardless, keep up the good work of making the current political situation comprehensible for foreigners. Rive 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer to show the names in Thai, because pronunciation in written Thai is much less ambiguous. The Foreign Minister's name is pronounced "Nit Pi-boon-song-kram". I'm not proficient enough in the IPA. And I'll leave it to someone else to make audio recordings of name pronunciations. Patiwat 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Thai writers

Hi there! I speak and can read Thai, but my keyboard doesn't have Thai characters. If you want, you can post Thai language messeges, but I'll have to respond in English. Patiwat 06:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of Thai names

You might well be right. I thought that the transliteration section was somewhat justified in this case, since the pronunciation of King Bhumibol Adulyadej's name is so very different from that which the transliteration suggests. However, I'm not in the habit of adding such sections to articles, and in this case, I was merely making an edit requested by an anonymous user on the talk page, so you might want to pursue this discussion there. Personally, I think the transliteration section spoils the flow of the article, but I also think that cramming so much information into the header makes it very difficult to read; I would therefore favour the box system which you illustrated in your postscript. TheMadBaron 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird transliterations are extremely common in Thailand: "Shinawatra" should be "Chinawat", "Nyanasamvara" should be "Yanasangworn", "Paripatra" should be "Boriphat", "Vejjajiva" should be "Wetchachiwa", etc. How about we try to get input from others in Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej or Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board? That way, whatever the consensus is can be applied to all Thai bio articles. Patiwat 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I give up (again)

Practically all my important contributions to the coup have been completely deleted, mostly by Roger_jg. Even in the subarticle on public disapproval. The wiki has a clear policy on verifiability and NPOV. My additions to the articles were in accordace with those policies. I had reliable sources referenced. And the NPOV policy clearly states that all sides deserve to be heard. As it stands, in the subarticle, the section on reactions from common people (and poor) was completely deleted. They are the most numerous in the country, yet they are not mentioned at all in the subarticle. And there is only one paragraph (at the moment) left in the main article about the poor's disapproval. Since you're the only other major contributor there besides Roger_jg, and you're not biased, I am hoping/requesting that you can do something about the poor people's voices not being heard. As for me, I don't see the point of contributing anymore when all my most important contributions keep getting deleted by Roger_jg. I have a lot of work to do outside of wikipedia, and when my wikipedia work has resulted in absolutely no progress (being completely deleted), I have little reason to think that further contributions to the article will make any difference. So I am giving up again. I don't think I'll contribute to the wikipedia articles on the coup in Thailand again until I see that Roger_jg is not involved anymore. Humanoid 22:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up yet. Lemme have a looksie. Patiwat 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue with the article right now is that its title proclaims that its coverage is the "public", but its actual coverage is focused on the views of organized groups and the intellectual/academic elite.

The one data point we have that includes the "common man", the opinion poll, gives the reader a quantitative picture about what people think of it. But it doesn't give any insight at all into why the common man, who has been the focus of Thaksin's government, either supports the coup or doesn't. For that we need either deep and objective analysis, which nobody has been able to provide yet, or a very selected, balanced, and referenced selection of quotes that provide insight on both sides of the fence.

The quote that you provided is a very powerful and sincere statement that digs deep into the driving factors behind supporters of Thaksin who are against the coup. I particularly like it because it can stand on its own, without any commentary.

However, it must be balanced by an equally powerful statement from a supporter of Thaksin who is for the coup. They exist, and in my opinion, they are the majority of the nation now. Why don't we both try to find a quote from one of them that's been published in the press; a quote that can also stand on its own in clearly illustrating why somebody who has benefit from Thaksin's policies and voted him back in 2005 and 2006 is now supporting the coup.

So far, I have only come across three kinds of people (a) anti-thaskin, anti-coup, (b) anti-thaksin, pro-coup, (c) pro-thaksin anti-coup. I have not seen anybody of the (d) pro-thaksin, pro-coup kind. I also don't think we need to find a (d) to balance my inclusion of voices from (c). The inclusion of (c) is more than balanced by all the inclusion of (b), which is the direct opposite of (c). The opposite of (c) is (b), not (d). Humanoid 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, if information is available, there is no policy that we need to find contradictory information (for balance) before we can add it to an article. If 99.99% of people think the sky is blue, are we not allowed to claim that the sky is blue in wikipedia until we can balance it by finding a claim by somebody who thinks the sky is red? The thing is, wiki policy says that all views should be given a chance to be heard. The wiki policy does not say that a particular view cannot be heard until we first find a contradictory view to balance it. Humanoid 02:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very good selection of views from pro-thaksin supporters from Bangkok Pundit: http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/where-did-all-his-supporters-go.html . Humanoid 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I think there are a lot more of (d) out there. Recent pre-coup opinion polls put the nationwide % of people that would vote for TRT as 50% to 60%. Nobody ever suggested that he might loose his majority, and some even suggested he might win as many seats as 2005. But after the coup, 85% supported the coup. Thus, it stands to believe that unless if people's fundamental views towards Thaksin have changed over night, that there are between 35% (if the 15% of the population that is against the coup is composed completely of Thaksin-supporters) of to 60% (if everybody that supported Thaksin now also supports the coup) of the population who support both Thaksin and the coup. Assume what you will, a purely analytical approach suggests that (d), the pro-Thaksin pro-coup is a significant portion of the electorate.

Now to practical matters, you've suggested a excellent quote that illustrates the views of (c). The complete article should contain illustrations of the views of (a), (b), (c), and (d) if any can be found. As a matter of diplomacy and practiality, I think we should start by adding at least one other alternative view. Why?

Here's a slightly differing analogy of an issue equally controversial: "Views among the public about the invasion of Iraq varied considerably. Miss X, whos husband died in the WTC attacks and was an avid supporter of Bush, noted 'Osama had help from Saddam, and we gotta get them both." If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion. That is not true, so we'd have to round it out by saying "But Mr Y, whos son died in the Bali bombings and is a life-long conservative, disagreed with the invasion, 'I want to trust Bush, but I can't.' Dr Z, a New England liberal, noted 'Invading Iraq will make terrorists hate America even more.' However, Mrs A, a California Democrat housewife, noted 'I don't like Bush, but I like Saddam even less. He's mean, and we should take him down...."

I was planning on searching through some interviews to illustrate (a) or (b), but was busy today. I'll have another look at the issue tomorrow morning (that'll be evening, Bangkok time).

-- Patiwat 06:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm suprised that you believe that 84% claim from that dusit poll. That poll is crude and unscientific. No self-respecting peer-reviewed journal would've ever published those results. Here are some of the problems, 1- They don't mention how many people refused to answer the poll. 2- They don't give us the method of data collection. 3- They don't explain how they believe they managed to get a random sample of the population. 4- Bangkok population represents about 10% of thailand's population, but the dusit poll calculates the combined result for the country with the assumption that Bangkok contains 50% of the country's population. 5- Other small discrepencies like for example a rounding error in one of the numbers they printed. Can you see why these points are important? For example, the first point is that they need to mention how many people refused to answer, we already know that many thaksin supporters are afraid of speaking out because they are afraid of getting arrested or "killed". If only 50% of the people asked, accepted to answer the poll's questions, then it is still possible that only 43% of people in thailand support the coup. 61% of voters chose thaksin in the last (april 2006) election. If we are to believe the 84% claim, then it means that a minimum of 74% of pro-thaksin people supported the coup. Even after taking all the preceding points into account, common sense would suggest that most pro-thaksin people would be against the coup, yet according to the poll, a minimum of 74% of thaksin supporters switched sides, and preferred thaksin ousted by a military coup! And that poll was taken even before the junta claimed endorsement by the king. Plus, shortly after that poll, the junta imposed a ban on publishing results of polls. This means that until the junta is gone and gives people the freedom to conduct scientifically acceptable polls, and gives people the freedom to answer polls without fear or intimidation, we are never going to know exactly how many people really supported the coup. After all this, and reading comments from thaksin supporters, are you still surprised that all you can find are those who oppose the coup? Have you found a thaksin supporter who switched sides just after the coup, supporting the claims of the poll? Do you still believe the poll properly represents the views of the 60+ million people living in thailand? Humanoid 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Now to reply to your example from iraq. You said: "If that is all that the article said, the reader might assume that all pro-Bush people hurt by terrorism supported the invasion." Only a stupid reader would assume that. And besides, the wiki policy makes it clear to let the readers make their own conclusions. If a dumb reader makes a stupid conclusion, then, for goodness sake, let him. Do you have any idea how many stupid conclusions readers can make from the current article on the coup? Do you have any idea how many additional notes you have to make in order to reduce the amount of dumb conclusions made by readers? You might as well delete every quote you have in the article, because dumb readers might interpret every quote as being the truth. Or maybe delete every statement from the article cause dumb readers might interpret every statement as being the truth. Maybe we should put a disclaimer at the top of the article: "not everything in this article is absolutely true". Humanoid 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a wat?

Patiwat, I think it would do you good to think about something other than Thai politics for a while. The article wat says that a wat is a Buddhist or Hindu temple, but in the next line it says that a wat must have resident Buddhist monks. One of these statements must be wrong. Is a Hindu temple a wat? I don't think so, but I'm sure you will know. Also, if you don't archive this page I will. Adam 04:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! It looks ugly without a TOC though. Any idea how to force a TOC?

I'm sure there is a formal definition for what a 'wat' is, but informally, it just means any place of worship. Thus 'wat cheen' is a chinese temple (whether it is a buddhist or taoist temple is not relevant), a 'wat khaek' is a hindu temple, 'wat kris'/'wat krit' is a church. Even the ruins of a wat that doesn't have any monks in it any more is still informally called a wat. The exceptions to this rule are 'misyit'/'masayit' (masjid/mosque) which are never called 'wat'. Most churches outside of Thailand are not referred to as 'wat' but as 'bot' (โบสถ์) which is a term for an ordination hall within the confines of a 'wat'. Thus St. Peter's Cathedral is called Bot Saint Peter. Patiwat 06:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will amend the article to say that strictly speaking a wat is a Buddhist temple and school with resident monks, but in everyday language it is any place of worship except a mosque.

I'm not exactly sure what the strict definition of a wat is, and off the top of my head, I don't know any references, either. There are some 'wat pa' (forest temples) that don't have schools, although I'm not sure whether they are formal 'wat' or not. Patiwat 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• A TOC appears automatically once a minimum number of entries are made, unless you suppress it. Personally I find them very ugly and I don't have them at my talk page. Adam 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, a TOC looks good as long as there aren't too many items in it, i.e., it isn't more than screen long. Otherwise, its harder to use. Patiwat 07:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody May

I see you've started a new article called Bloody May. Are you aware that there was already an article called Black May? Google searches suggest that the most popular name for the event is Black May, not Bloody May, but the original article has very little info compared to the new one you wrote. I suggest that you move over all the info to the Black May page, and redirect users from Bloody May to Black May, and mention both names. Humanoid 12:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't realized that Black May was more popular. I'll merge contents and redirect. Patiwat 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sirikitiya → Sirikitiya Jensen vote

Hello Patiwat. Please come and vote about the page move at Talk:Sirikitiya#Requested move. An official move resquest has begun. -- Lerdsuwa 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nitya Pibulsongkram

Is the new Foreign Minister a descendant of Marshal Phibun? Adam 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nit (นิตย์ พิบูลสงคราม) is Marshal Plaek's son. Patiwat 05:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He must be a fine old age, since Plaek would be 110 by now. Does he share his father's political views? Adam 07:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Plaek died in the 1960's, I believe, not long after he was banished by Sarit and the palace. Plaek's political views were very complex. When I was at Thammasat, I followed the standard "progressive" line that Plaek, Sarit, and Thanom were the bad guys, and that Pridi, Puay, and Sanya were the good guys. I thought of him as a collaborationist fascist military dictator, a twisted hybrid of Franco, Salazar, and Tojo.

But as my understanding of the role of the palace in political history increased, I came to think that his nationalist policies combined the best and worst aspects of the concept. Despite the many conflicts he had with Pridi, he was more of a friend of Pridi than the palace was. In hindsight, I believe his policy of limiting the power of the palace was a wise one. Especially since 50 years of unchecked power has basically crippled Thailand's political development, to the extend that we see today. Patiwat 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with you about the last bit, but I think I will stick with the progressive line that Plaek was a fascist, or at least saw fascism as model of westernisation most appropriate to Siam at the time (particularly since it legitimised his strong-man rule), while Pridi favoured the british liberal or social-democratic model. in the long run i think Pridi was right and Plaek was wrong. And as i understand it was the military regimes of the 1950s that built up the current cult of the King which now has such a grip on Thai politics. Which reminds me that i must get back to my Cult of Thai monarchy article. Adam 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but there were two military regimes during the 1950's. First was the Plaek regime, which seized power in 1952, which was as much an anti-palace coup as it was an anti-Pridi coup. The junta replaced the pro-palace 1949 constitution with the anti-palace 1932 constitution. Plaek severely reduced the power of the King and delegated him to playing a ceremonial role. When Thais see images of the King playing in a jazz band, on a sail boat, or doing other playboy pursuits, those pictures nearly all came from the Plaek regime. The second military regime of the 1950's started in 1957, when Sarit - with the support of the palace - overthrew Plaek. Sarit used the King to build the cult of the "development king," which fit well with his agenda for the nation. When you see pictures of the King touring the provinces in a military uniform, you're seeing pictures from the Sarit era. So each regime played a role in developing differing aspects of the cult.

Sanya Thammasak during the period from 1973-1976 built up the image of the democracy-promoting King. And Prem during the 1980's built the image of the dam-building farmer-helping genius-of-environmental-engineering King. See an interesting discusson on the New Mandala blog for some details that might be insightful on what happens when the King's environmental abatement schemes don't turn out as planned. Patiwat 09:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Economist says that TRT will crumble away without Thaksin, and describes Abhisit as "well-liked but ineffectual" and the Democrats' performance as "lamentable." It predicts a return to weak parties and crony politics after the next election. Adam 09:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see two potential scenarios:

1) The military drafts a constitution that, relative to the 1997 Constitution, establishes a weaker executive and legislature. Less than 2/5's of the Parliament is needed for a vote of no confidence. MPs will be allowed to shift parties whenever they like. The Senate becomes directly appointed by the junta. The judiciary alone appoints members to the Constitutional Court, NCCC, Office of the Auditor General, and the Electoral Commission. Active military officials will be allowed to be members of the Senate. The draft constitution passes a referendum without any controversy. Elections occur and a shaky coalition government results. The military junta stays discretely in the background. The government is in a perpetual state of imbalance, as MPs are bought and sold like whores. Some time later, maybe 5-10-15 years, Thailand sees a major transition that it hasn't seen for the past 60 years, and a few years after that, a belated process of constitutional reform occurs.

2) Similar to above, but the process leading to the referendum is controversial. The junta intervenes one time too many. The Surayud government annoys the PAD, and they come out protesting, this time against the junta. Weird shit happens, and violence erupts. The military looses a lot of legitimacy. The King steps in to calm people down and smack people on the wrist. He is hailed as the supreme enforcer of harmony. But what happens after that, I have no idea.

Based on the bloody record of every coup for the past 30 years, I believe that 2) will occur. But I have no idea what the final outcome will be.

- Patiwat 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that this will be the last coup-reform-coup cycle in which R9 will be around to be the accepted umpire. I can't imagine R10 playing nearly the same role. Adam 10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for restoring good edit in Thaksin Shinawatra

No problem. It was worth it to get rid of the rest of the stuff, which wasn't simple vandalism, but definitely extreme POV. I'm a bit chagrined I didn't catch that essay etc. for 5 days.

Thank you for your generous "meat" contributions to the article too. Your user page indicates many of your edits belong to Thaksin's article. TransUtopian 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thai culture poster.PNG

Couldn't you have asked for my permission first before uploading the picture onto Wikipedia? I know, I know, the picture doesn't belong to me but to the public, blah blah blah, but I was the dude who did the book-searching (scrounging about in badly-lit second hand bookstores is not what I'd call fun) and the scanning. P. Klykoom

• Sorry if I didn't ask for your permission. Your work in finding such an old image is much appreciated. If you give me some details (your name, bookstore you got the image from, scanning details) I will definately include it in the image description.

[edit] New airport

The article says: "The name Suvarnabhumi (pronounced su-wan-na-poom) was chosen by HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej which means "the golden land", specifically referring to the continental Indochina." I asked: Why on earth would the King name the airport after Indochina? Thailand is not part of Indochina. Can someone produce a source for this assertion? No-one has responded. Perhaps you can fix this if you agree with me that it doesn't make much sense.

Also, is the thai name Suvarnabhumi cognate with the Lao name Suvanna Phuma, the former Prime Minister? Adam 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• See the Suwannaphum article. Not sure about the Laos prince, but probably so. The ancient/quasi-legendary kingdom was located somewhere in Southeast Asia. It has nothing to do with the French colonial entity of Indochina. Like the kingdom of Srivijaya, people dispute where exactly it was located, and some say that it is located within the borders of the former Indochina. The modern Thais, of course, claim that it was somewhere in Thailand. Patiwat 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be ariving at the new airport on December 27 and will see how golden it really is. What reports have you had so far? Adam 07:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Haven't been there yet, but the Finance Minister is really angry that it doesn't have enough toilets. Ordered some duty-free space to be converted to toilet space. Patiwat 07:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creator of banknotes and stamps?

Patiwat, You are correct. I have improperly tagged the stamps and paper money scans I made. I've only recently begun making image contributions, and am not as versed on the correct tagging as I should be. I've endeavored to improve that, but haven't gone back to some of the images I uploaded a couple/few months ago. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe I can knock that out tonight.

Unrelated, I truly like the South Thailand insurgency work you've done. - Thaimoss 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. You did good work on the Phutthaloetla Naphalai as well. I saw that ship close up many times at Satthahip harbor. Patiwat 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anand Panyarchum

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to a personal site in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference was to a newspaper article that just happened to be reprinted on a Tripod page. The complete citation details (name of newspaper, title of article, date of publication) are included. Patiwat 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNS

Hi Pat, I added a section on people's reaction to the CNS in the Council for National Security article. Not fully happy with it but I though we needed to catch up with the latest (and I have been very busy these days...) Regards

Here's my thoughts:

• We have to distinguish Surayud Chulanont and his government with the CNS. Public opinion to Surayud is captured in the Surayud Chulanont#Popularity section. That poll that you noted in the CNS article didn't really ask anything about the CNS - it was all about the Surayud government.
• There has been much more criticism against the CNS that just the 10 December protests. Many many academics have criticized the CNS for their Interim Constitution and the powers it grants them over the next constitution. There has also been much criticism over censorship and the appointment of junta leaders to state enterprise directorships. It might be a good idea to 1) mention specific criticisms in specific sections, e.g., note criticisms about the junta constitution in the constitution article, 2) note general reactions in a section called "General popularity and public opinion", and 3) shortly summarize specific criticisms in both the intro to the CNS article as well as the "General popularity and public opinion" section.

Which is almost what you've done already. Just need to do some more editing. Your thoughts? Patiwat 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did You Vandalize The C++ Page?

Ok, if you did what has happened to the C++ page, I'm reporting you so better make things clear (Yes, that sounded hostile because it is hostile) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.176.2.143 (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

• Who the hell are you, an anonymous user, to be making accusations? Does that sound hostile? because it was. Check the article history page - it's obvious I never did any vandalism. Chill out and get a damn account before you go off being hostile. Patiwat 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khun Chang Khun Phaen

Thanks for the editing and advice. I've taken the two images off the page. I can't find out how to delete them.

I've recast the "Origins" section to make it clear that KCKP creates sepha as a genre.

I've converted those two sections into sub-sections, but called them "Characteristics" rather than "Criticism", which seems more accurate

All the works in the References section are mentioned in the text or footnotes. All the citations in the References section are in a standard and academically recognized style. I've cleaned up the mentions in the text so they seem less like citations. Chrispasuk 20:45 Tokyo time, 14 Dec 2006

[edit] Hi

Are you intending to be in Bkk during January? Adam 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Patiwat 02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?Sepha? Khun Chang Khun Phaen

Agree utterly. I put it up under this title because the (blank) page was already there with an invitation to fill it. I would much prefer it to be just KCKP. If you can move it, I'll redo the 'Origins and Sepha' section to suit the new title. Thanks again. Chrispasuk 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

from beautiful Silom. I am in Bkk for the next week or so. Let me know if there is anything you would like photographed for Thai articles. The new airport appears to be a wonder of efficiency. The only problem is when you get outside - someone has sold the taxi franchise to a limo company, so you can't get into town for under B850. Adam 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• No thanks. Happy holidays, by the way. Drive carefully. Patiwat 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• You all right? Patiwat 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding

The reversion was my mistake. I was on a 56k internet connection at the time (due to travels), and with the amount it had loaded, it looked like you were blanking. My apologies, and I'll try to be more patient next time. Tlim7882 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khom Chad Luek front page, 31 December 2006.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I survived the Bangkok bombings

Fortunately Silom wasn't on their list. It's amazing how thoroughly networked everyone now is. Within ten minutes of the bombs, mobiles were beeping and ringing all over the place and everyone knew what had happened. Within half an hour I had four calls from Australia checking that I was OK. At midnight the second set of bombs triggered another wave of mobile calls. On the dancefloor at DJ Station people were texting each other news and passing phones around.

I just checked over the article on the bombs. It seems to accept the view that the culprits were either Southern insurgents or disgruntled Thaksinistas. In fact it seems the most likely explanation is that rival elements in the army or police are trying to destablise Sondhi, and apparently succeeding. Did you know that the first thing the police did at the bomb scenes was order street-cleaners to sweep the area, thus destroying most of the forensic evidence? Are Bkk police really that stupid? Or were they covering their tracks? There is apparently long-standing rivalry between the army and police hierarchies (to do with money, mostly). There is a good commentary on all this in today's Nation (Thanong Khanthong, "Stakes at a deadly high in struggle between 'old' and 'new' powers.")

It appears that the English-language press here is not being censored - it is full of criticism of the regime and well-informed speculation about who is trying to bomb whom out of power and why. Do you know anything about this? Is the Thai-language press equally bold in its commentary? Cheers Adam 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good to hear you're all right. I couldn't imagine a more inviting place to be on New Year's eve than the clubs on Silom, although Speed (on Soi 4) is more to my taste. 70's Bar on Sarasin is also very very fun.
• I haven't seen the alternative theories for who is behind the bombings (the CNS, anti-Surayud factions in the CNS, anti-CNS factions in the police) move out of the blogosphere into the mainstream english-language press yet.

• Strike that - FT just had an article mentioning some alt theories, and saying outright that lots of people thought the junta was behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.105.76 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

• No indications that the vernacular press are holding back. Patiwat 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that "the junta" in a corporate sense was behind the bombs. It seems the most common theories are: anti-Sondhi elements in the army, anti-CNS elements in the police, or maybe the police leadership corporately. I am currently reading Duncan McCargo's book on South Thailand, which has lots I didn't know on the history of police/army rivalry. When I have finished it I will rewrite the South Thailand insurgency article, which I now understand much better. On Monday I am off to the South - Nakhon Si Thammarat, maybe as far as Songkhla. I will see if I can get bombed again. Adam 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nakhon is actually my home town - I was born in the Ampher Muang and spent several years growing up and going to school in Khlong Chang (one station after Chan Dee, one station before Nabon and two stations before Thung Song junction). Nothing much to see or do. But the food is great! I always stuff myself with Khanom Cheen. Make sure you try the sweet Nam Prik sauce as well as the spicy Nam Yaa curry. Have it with a soft-soft-boiled egg and lots of veggies for breakfast. Actually, everything tastes better in the South. All the roadside curry shops taste better than 90% of what you find in Bangkok. The Ampher Muang is quite boring. The Phra That temple is old and historic, but I found it a bit underwhelming. Lots of things to see in Surat. Songkhla (or Haad Yai, where I often went) is fun. When you're there, make sure you try Kai Kor-Lae, Malaysian BBQ chicken covered in sweet/spicy curry sauce. It's impossible to find in Bangkok, and really really good. Another Songkhla (or rather, Haad Yai) specialty is Haad Yai fried chicken, with lots of fried onions/garlic. Yum! The night-market in Haad Yai has lots of yummy stuff. Patiwat 07:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard another theory tonight, which is that the government did the bombings to drive down the baht and stop the economy overheating. Economic-management-by-terrorism is a new one for me, and although I am prepared to believe almost anything about Thailand, I don't think I believe this. Thanks for tips on southern cuisine. Adam 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from Nakhon Si Thammarat, where I arrived this afternoon. Very different to Bkk! No taxis, no tuk-tuks, no signs in Ingris, no-one trying to sell the falang this and that. I might have been in Ouagadougou. And no maps to be had anywhere. I had to get a motorbike from the bus terminal to the hotel, very scary. Plus it was raining - I have come 800km south and I am in a different climatic zone. An early night tonight - now I have left the fleshpots of Bkk I can get some sleep. Tomorrow I go to look at Wat Phra Mahathat and museums etc. Let me know anything else you recommend. Adam 13:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing much to see in the city besides the museum, the phra that, and the old city walls. Outside the city, there are some national parks. Nai Plao beach in Khanom isn't bad, and Khao Luang National Park has some very nice waterfalls. IMHO, you should eat a lot of local food, and exercise a lot so you can eat even more :-) Oh yeah, if you're into Muay Thai, Nakhon people are famed for their fierce fighting spirit. Patiwat 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thaksin, the South and Prem

I am now in Penang, after a long day's bus ride (several buse in fact) from Songkhla. I hate to cast aspersions on your hometown, but I liked Songkhla much more than NST. I realise it is a beach resort and thus more "touristy" than NST, but I did find the food better and the general aspect of the town more attractive. Also the NST museum was closed on Tuesday when I was there: annoying. Wat Phra Mahathat, however, is most impressive, and I will write an article about it when I get time.

• Food in Penang is supposed to be the best in penninsular Malaysia, South Thailand and Singapore included.

The most interesting thing I discovered about Songkhla is that it is Gen Prem's hometown - his face is on nearly as many billboards as the King's and you enter the town over the Tinsulanond Bridge. This explains a lot, I think. It fits into Duncan McCargo's theory in his new book (which I recommend), that the upsurge in the southern insurgency after 2004 and the events leading up to the 2006 coup all form part of a pattern. Thaksin, a former police general and a northerner, becomes PM. Since he is both a megalomaniac and a crook, he seeks to establish his personal control over everything. This entails challenging the power of the army and of the palace. One of his measures is to take personal control of the south, an area about which he knows nothing, breaking the tacit accommodation that had been established between the army and the Muslim leadership under the patronage of Prem, who regards the area as his backyard. In practice, power in the south is transferred from the army to the police, who are more violent, more highhanded and more corrupt. The result is an upsurge of resentment in the south, and for the first time in years the insurgency gathers popular support, particularly after Kru-Ze Mosque and Tak Bai. It also becomes more radical as foreign-trained jihadis move in. Accommodationist Muslim politicians like Wan Nor are discredited, allowing the radicals to move into the leadership of the Muslim community. Meanwhile, Prem waits his chance to strike back at Thaksin, which he gets after the Shin Corp deal makes Thaksin's corruption obvious to all. The protest movement in Bangkok is helpful, but not decisive, in destabilising Thaksin. Sondhi, as a Muslim, is the perfect instrument to strike at Thaksin. Once the King's jubilee is over, Prem tells Sondhi that the palace will support a "soft" coup.

I think this explains just about everything. What do you think? Adam 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• "In practice, power in the south is transferred from the army to the police, who are more violent, more highhanded and more corrupt --> The result is an upsurge of resentment in the south, and for the first time in years the insurgency gathers popular support, particularly after Kru-Ze Mosque and Tak Bai."
  • There's where I don't see the link. During 2001-2002, where were the newspaper articles about villagers protesting police abuses? Where were the large-scale transfers and reorganizations? Where were the small sparks that preceeded the raging fire? I just don't see any causal link between Thaksin's alleged transfer of power from the police to the army and the rise of the insurgency. Don't forget that it was the Army (in fact, the ISOC) that was behind Krue Sea and Tak Bai, not the police, so if anything, the Army has just as much blame for making things worse. But what is the true cause? Beats me.... Patiwat 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pattani

Hi. There have been concerns in Thai Wikipedia relating to Pattani articles in English wikipedia. If you don't mind, I would like you to help take a look at these articles: Pattani (region) and Pattani Kingdom. Thanks --Jutiphan 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly are these concerns in the Thai Wikipedia stated? The อภิปราย page for the จังหวัดปัตตานี article is empty. Patiwat 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It actually not so much of what was stated, but I am just asking for a small help if you could just look at it and see what you think about it. Of course, there is no discussion is that article since it is not related to the province. The talk was started in here: th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ (หน้าที่ต้องตรวจสอบ) ~>< --Jutiphan | Talk - 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template

Hello. This is kind of rough at the moment, but please go here and let me know what you think of the basic idea. Feel free to work inside my sandbox if you'd like to make improvements. Biruitorul 07:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple question, really. If you don't like it, perhaps you could refer me to another Wikipedian interested in Thai issues who might be more disposed to answer me. Biruitorul 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• What's your source? Patiwat 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[1] Biruitorul 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK by me. But instead of using 1933 (1) and 1933 (2), I'd use June 1933 and October 1933. Patiwat 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks for your input; I will make the change. Biruitorul 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a further reading

Someone added the link [2] to The King Never Smiles article here. I've removed it since it is clearly unnecessary for English Wikipedia. But earlier an anonymous editor tried to add it to th wikipedia too, and got reverted and locked after continuous attempts. He also wrote in the article here that it got censorship in th wikipedia. I am not an experienced wikipedian, but I think that the page just doesn't deserve to be the "further reading" in any wikipedias. I'd like to hear your opinion as an experienced contributor about this. Regards, kinkku ● ananas 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The deleted text isn't very well written, but I do believe that the link is worthwhile. It's in the external readings section, which implies that although it wasn't used as a source for the article itself, it could be useful for some, but not all, readers. After all, the War and Peace article contains a link to the original Russian version, and nobody is deleting that link claiming that links to Russian pages don't belong in the English wikipedia. Patiwat 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It's okay then. I just thought that the original book (and text being translated) is already in English, and it is in English Wikipedia, so it's a bit irrevelant. I think it's worth to be in th wikipedia, though. By the way, it is the text from the inside cover, not the introduction. kinkku ● ananas 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Come to think of it, there are many valid reasons to put it in th wikipedia article, but putting it here still sounds ridiculous for me. As in War and Peace, the original work, though not in English, is undoubtedly a good further reading. But in The King Never Smiles case, the book and the text in question are both originally in English. Adding a link to an unrelated language translation makes no sense. If the blurb is important, I think this link is better. I do not deny that it might be helpful to some readers, but every page might be. I still don't see the point of adding link to a Thai translation of original English text in an English Wikipedia article. Regards, kinkku ● ananas 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my edit in th wikipedia. I assumed it was the same page. It was entirely my fault for not checking it. kinkku ● ananas 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. Don't believe what Manop says. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I am not the author of that website. Patiwat 07:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry krub. I misunderstood that you are 12.xxx.xxx.xxx :) --Manop - TH 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You made a lot of valuable changes to the Article (though most are centered on Gille's opinion). I wish I had more time to contribute but I am busy with my own wiki that I started recently and for which I may call upon your help later as I want a Thai version! Roger jg 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image use

Yesterday, I removed a fair use image (meaning, they are copyrighted and not available under a free license) from your userpage [3]. This was the MIT seal, which can be found at Image:MIT-seal.gif. Today, you added two more fair use tagged images to your userpage [4], those being Image:Tu(big).jpg and Image:MIT logo.svg. The policy on fair use image use here as described at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 forbids the use of fair use images on anything other than main namespace articles. This precludes their use on userpages. I am removing the latest two images. Please do not re-add these images, or any other fair use images to your userpage or any other non-main namespace article. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 13:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I hadn't realized that fair use images weren't allowed on the user space. Thanks for the cleanup. Patiwat 19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Goshu 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Goshu 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies of the Surayud government

As this piece appears to attack a living individual, and has no sources, I have requested its speedy deletion as an unsourced attack page. Please remember that any negative information about a living person is absolutely required to be reliably sourced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the speedy request, but left an NPOV tag-the article seems to be a POV fork, or at the very least only to cover one side's position, which would violate WP:NPOV. However, please note that any negative information posted about a living person or existing organization must be sourced when it's posted, not later on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It was all sourced - all controversial facts had reference tags. I just didn't have time to put up a <references /> section. Patiwat 18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandru Lungu

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have requested speedy deletion of the page Alexandru Lungu because it is a redirect to itself, and there does not appear to be any other page elsewhere on Wikipedia that refers to this individual. If you think the title should be redirected to an existing article, please feel free to correct it. --Russ (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Bangkok bombings GA on hold

On Hold — see talk page for details. --Nehrams2020 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hurting people's feelings for no reason

• Please do not erase the comments that both you and I made previously (as you did from 18:52-20:42, 15 March 2007). If this was someone else, he or she would be quite offended - they would call it vandalism. However, since I don't think our discussion is a bit trivial, I won't revert the thread. Next time, simply add your comments at the bottom of any previous comments.
• Neither you or I own articles. This is Wikipedia, not a personal website or blog - you can't ask that please not make changes to an article. It doesn't matter how much of an expert you or I might claim to be.
• I do not "stalk" people. Next to your User Name in the article History page is a link titled "contribs". Click on it and it shows all of the edits that you (and the person who stole your identity) have made.
• I'm not sure what country you're from, but if it were legally possible, I'd recommend criminal proceedings against the person who stole your identity. What he or she did was not only mean, but possibly illegal. Patiwat 13:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have bothered you and thank you for educating me more about wikipedia and the rules. Please let's end this. I would prefer if my username wasn't on your page, but if that offends you then I apologize. However, I don't think there should be a problem in changing what I have wrote, since it takes up so much of your page and it's in the history anyway. But again, thank you for educating me. I really mean no personal offense to you, I was just angry at the circumstances. However, please allow me to remove the my own words off of your page, and I have spoken to you respectfully. I regret replying to you in the first place and creating all this tension, and I hope that this will end here and that you will at least allow me to remove this argument of mine off your page. As I have only deleted my comments and they are still in the history, and as you said it has been a trivial complaint on my behalf anyway, I hope you do not mind and I greatly appreciate your time. Thank you.

[edit] Need Assistance

Hi Patiwat. It has been a while since you are at Thai Wikipedia. Right now there have been an increase in resume-like articles and I am not sure what's best to do with them nor whether they appropriate to be speedily deleted.

For examples, see this person's contributions: th:พิเศษ:Contributions/Sutip_Kowangoon. Your take/opinions on this would be appreciated. --Jutiphan | Talk - 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've responded on your talk page in th.wikipedia. Patiwat 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses. I have been searching for criterias in English Wikipedia that allows speedily delete for such cases but I haven't found any direct ones. If you could point me out on those concerned criterias would be appreciated. I got a complaint/comment recently about my Stringent deletion behaviors. --Jutiphan | Talk - 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your take on numeric format

Hi Patiwat. I am personally curious on what's your take about the numeric format in Thai Wikipedia regarding the use of Arabic numbering or use of Thai numbering (๑,๒,๓...) in the articles. --Jutiphan | Talk - 04:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this being debated somewhere? I'll post my comments here, but you can copy it elsewhere if you like.

My preference is Arabic. For a few reasons, ranked by importance:

1. In Thailand, arabic numeration is more common than thai numeration. Arabic numbers are used by the media (e.g., thairath.co.th), government (mict.go.th), business, etc. One of the primary naming conventions for setting the title of an article is most recognizable usage for readers. And since arabic usage is more common, arabic article titles are more recognizable.
2. Chinese/Japanese wikipedia use arabic numeration for article titles.
3. Thai scientific articles exclusively use arabic numeration - anything else would just be silly. It would be absurd to use arabic numeration for scientific articles and thai numeration for non-scientific articles. So it makes more sense to standardize on arabic numbers.
4. We can have a seperate article for ๑ (ตัวดเลข) which talks about the thai etymology, evolution of the thai glyph, and other thai specific topics.
5. Personal preference. I'll use arabic even if the concensus is to use thai numeration - I'll just let a bot do the changes. Patiwat 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It is currently being debated again. Also note: current Thai Wikipedia policy only states that Arabic numberic should be use when possible. (bascially almost all cases). You can post your comment on this issue here [5] if you wish --Jutiphan | Talk - 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)