This user is a native of Hong Kong. |
This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom. |
This user lives in France. |
...
Case and spelled-out abbreviations
Incorrect (not a proper noun): We used Digital Scanning (DS) technology Correct: We used digital scanning (DS) technology Correct (a proper noun): The film was produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Add this to your user page by typing in ((Styletips)) |
|
I think the first thing necessary will be to do a Request for Comment on PCPP's editing. Here is some info on that; it requires at least two editors to ask him to desist disruptive editing before an RFC can be lodged. I understand that he needs to have disobeyed the exhortations. I am going to post a comment on his page now explaining this and asking him to stop deleting sourced content from the pages and leaving spurious explanations. I thought you should be made aware of this, since you are indirectly involved in what I perceive as his disruptive editing. It isn't clear to me whether I am allowed to canvass for this--do you know? I assume I am not breaking any rules here. If so I would strike this through and apologise. I can't find that on the page though. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I put all of the refs in this article at the end of the punctuation, per your request. Hopefully this helps pass the article... Let me know if there's anything else (altho, I know nothing about the topic...hehe)
Lazulilasher (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This user helped promote Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier to good article status. |
Even though it's already been a while on the edit on Anson Chan about knighthoods (The GCMC), the word 'damehood' is used for a female who receive a 'knighthood'.
--Cahk (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I like you header and was wondering if it was ok to borrow/copy it for my userpage/talkpage, but thought I would ask first in case there was a way to remake it so it knows what user it is on?
Yours
Barry Carlyon (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Barry Carlyon (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just began to take a look at these articles and I'm simply shocked at the attitudes of the so-called "pro-FG" contributors, notably Asdfg and HappyInGeneral. Their hastiness to make blatant accusations and personal attacks and yet cite Wikipedia policies, such as randomly calling users "[probably] a CCP agent" without even knowing who they are referring to, defies even the most basic of Wikipedia principles. What is even more shocking was that an Arbcom case was filed and yet none of them received any warnings over it; instead, who I believe was a reasonable editor was banned from the article for being a so-called "activist" - while these users openly admit practising Falun Dafa and voices their intention to promote it? Frankly, as a contributor who edited thousands of different articles in all categories, I have never been more concerned than at the situation in these articles. I'm willing to attempt to reason with these users now and hope to make it clear for them that they must leave their personal opinions and attacks out of the discussion, but it's hard to be optimistic given the history of the articles. I believe a serious admin or ArbCom intervention is needed, soon, but since I'm relatively new in this dispute, I would like your advice on this matter. Thanks. Herunar (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Friend,
You are making the same mistake you are accussing me of - "unilateral reverts" as you put it. I believe that there were a lot of content in the recent version that is very relevant to the topic.
I understand that the gif of slow motion deconstruct analysis would, perhaps, better fit into the reports and analysis section rather than the intro and their might have been other factors that needed improvement too - but overall the article, I believe, was far more factual than the previous version which presented many things in a very misleading manner.
These are things that can easily be fixed through edits - please do not bluntly revert like this. It becomes very difficult to contribute when you keep doing that.
Dilip
Dilip please, it's been nominated a good article and confucius put that thing on the talk page notifying anyone of that concept. Also, your edits weren't really improvements to the article as far as I could tell. At least those sentences tacked onto intro and the huge gif just didn't help. Anyway, simply discuss edits on talk page.
Confucius the other thing I meant to tell you was that I recently found out that when Rahn wrote those two Falun Gong articles in the pseudo journals she was just a college student at UCLA. Those weren't even a Phd thesis. She was a failed soap actress who went back to school. That's the sad truth. Thought you should know.--Asdfg12345 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
hah, where please? The fact is we have a failed soap actress publishing two articles in a couple of pseudo-journals--that's it. ?--Asdfg12345 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I left a comment on the talk page of the article, let me know if you need a further explanation or anything else. Thanks for alerting me to it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have restored my edits. Please discuss on article's talk page. JSIN (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanna use this space here to also point out that the page (photo scandal) needs semi-protection from IP Edits. What do you think? TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Penn Singers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add ((db-author))
to the top of Penn Singers. Deb (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Which one? If you're referring to "in Hong Kong", in my defence an adjectival phrase has more effect when placed as near as possible to its antecedent. I wrote that it is an unambiguous location for the following reason. Let's say you have a sentence: "Bob thinks that important foods are bread and peanuts in England." This would imply that he shows preference for "peanuts in England" but not "peanuts" in general. Of course, that's a bit absurd because peanuts are peanuts. If you slid "in England" in a position that preceded "important foods", it would indicate clearly that both foods are important in this place called England. "Bob thinks that, in England, important foods include bread and peanuts." Pandacomics (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In response to your post on my talk page (from Dec 11 2007) First point: Since Wikipedia is not judgmental and has an explicit policy to strive to be objective, we ought to leave a country as it claims to be first, then introduce the opposing view later and NOT the other way round. The US claims itself to be a federal republic and should be called that; should one re-label it the Liberal Democracy of the USA? There are official versions of facts and what you view as the 'real' facts. You are entitled to opinions of your own (incl political opinions) and you are fully entitled to file that under 'criticisms' or a similar section to that. It is not acceptable, for example, to declare the PRC a fascist state, the DAB as a 'Tiananmen Square apologist trademark' party, as much as it is unacceptable to declare the USA a 'dictatorship', the Democratic Party (HK) as a 'treacherous sell-out, oppose-everything trademark' party. You are entitled to be a strong left-liberal person if you want to and I fully respect that. However, when you start placing politically-colored opinions as facts then you have crossed the line.
Second point: Hu Jintao I think was talking about democracy in the original meaning, as in people power, not liberal democracy. 'Min Zhu' only means democracy in its most general term, right? And have you forgotten that communism/socialism is called a 'people's democracy'? Remember, much like the US labelling itself a 'liberal democracy', I'm not saying whether I agree with this label or not - I'm just saying that's what it calls itself. Unlike you, it seems (from Asdfg's Yahoo article link with you being on the news strongly supporting Anson Chan, etc.) I have no personal political agenda on here (I am qualified to vote in HK Island FYI but I didn't vote for either Anson Chan or Regina Ip as I found them both too biased), nor am I a spokesperson for any nation, country or organization. Instead of always thinking you are fighting for some just cause, all about 'free speech', if you really value such a 'freedom', you have to first practice it yourself. How do you do that? Apply it to everyone. Listen to their opinions with an open mind, not a parochial attitude where you have decided before you listen or read.
Now consider Wiki. It promotes itself to be informative and objective, so you have to give proportional treatment to everything. However, it seems that you have re-interpreted remarks by people you don't like (e.g. Hu Jintao, CCP) and twisted it to suit your anti-Chinese government agenda. How about stepping back for a second and consider the value that you are trying to promote, instead of getting lost in the craze of excess adherence to one ideology? You appear to demand more freedoms only for those who share your political opinions. Such inflexibility leads to great intolerance in society, polarizing the pro- and anti-government camps. This should not happen. Now, while I know Falun Gong seems like a lost cause already, you should reconsider your political position in Hong Kong on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you should change your political position when campaigning in HK - I would never dream of inhibiting your right to exercise freedom of speech providing it is within the law. I'm just saying that in an objective environment such as Wikipedia, you need to be writing (in the main entries) the objective facts as presented by the 'official' side, write the criticisms in the next section, let the reader decide, but feel completely free to express your real opinions in the discussion pages.
Don't confuse the function of the main entries and their discussion pages. Ever wonder why I talk so much more on talk / discussion pages rather than blindly edit main entries? Jsw663 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Edison Chen photo scandal, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Opps, that was an edit conflict mistake. Please add that section back, thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I replied on my talk page. Benjwong (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[1][2] Once again FLG propagandists has edited large chunks of text without discussion, masquerading their unsourced opinons as fact, yet when I try to reverse their damage I have to gain their approval. What a joke.--PCPP (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want me to find sources that won't be a problem. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary though, because they are abundant across the persecution page. I can dig them up for you though and paste them there. I don't think that's the problem though. You just don't like any of this stuff, sourced or not. You've repeatedly deleted sourced content in the past. I have to apologise very frankly and sincerely to you though, for just reverting your edits even when some parts or all of them are appropriate, like when you change CCP to PRC, etc.. I won't do that again. From now on, we should do like this: where the sources dictate CCP or PRC, go with that, otherwise default to something like "Chinese authorities". Also, while I right here acknowledge that you make some legitimate edits, I must also urge you to stop the destructive ones, like redirecting the CIPFG page continually, and blanking negative stuff on the CCP. I'm definitely open to discuss any changes, I would welcome that. If there is undue weight on certain points or you want to talk about how we can work better together, rephrase things, restructure things, add in different sources to balance opinions, I'm really all for that. Those would all be good things. But I wish you would stop elevating differences, making recriminations, accusations, and not building a constructive atmosphere. As I say, I have definitely not been good enough in this regard, and often blanket reverted you. Where your edits clearly have no merit (such as simply blanking sourced stuff with no discussion, or doing that redirect) I will revert, but in all other cases seek discussion. If we both do like this there will be no problem. I think it should not be difficult to just keep a fairly civil and neutral tone in our discussion, defer to wikipedia policies and reliable sources, and just do things methodically and by the books. If you want to do that I will welcome it! (sorry to put all this on your page confucius!) --Asdfg12345 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I have gone and looked at the two articles concerned, and note there are huge problems. I have removed some of the more blatant misrepresentations of sources, bearing in mind I do not have access to some of the source materials (Sutherland). I have also tagged them where there are appearance of weasel words, and put html notes to indicate specifically what my concerns are (instead of using the talk pages). Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hope you're not burnt out or something, I do not enjoy giving you a hard time, but if you would like, please see the "revamped" organ harvesting page and leave your comments for improvement, or get your hands dirty.--Asdfg12345 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, editing these pages was elevating my stress levels, so I have been enjoying life, and the peace and quiet going to the gym a lot, and doing some yoga. I have been watching from the sidelines: Seems like a new bunch of editors has waded in to the Falun Gong article, and I am just enjoying watching the heated discussions and occasionally throwing in a few firecrackers. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
hah! Great to hear. Okay, I do not want to interrupt your respite, another day then. I'll go in for round two on the organ page another time.--Asdfg12345 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand the reason for AGF, but AGF also said good faith no longer apply if there are evidence otherwise.
Well, I'm asking what I should do about Asdfg. The past 2 month have given me ample evidence to not AGF.
All I'm doing is trying to add notable facts to articles that are so blatantly POV'd that they may as well be FLG promotional material. And I'm not the only one if you take a look what's happening in the Falun Gong page with other editors. His MO is pretty clear - anything he doesn't like he blank/move down the article(and hope people don't read it), dream up sucky reason to drag it out in Talk, hide for a week and comeback and DE all over again.
You decide.
BTW, Asdfg has recently been sent to timeout.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
See [3], so do you think these paragraphs really falls within WP:NPOV? --PCPP (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the speedy tag you placed and trimmed the article somewhat. It may well still be deletable, but I think we should let the AfD run its course (ie generate a bit more input). I've commented there too. Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in editing this article and participating in the discussion. Currently, there is an troubling deficiency of common sense in the article. Herunar (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. :-) It's at User:Ohconfucius/Mak Man Kee Noodle Shop. - Philippe 04:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you said "You asserted that it is ground-breaking". Where did I assert this?
Now regarding whether we do or don't include this reference, your argument seems to be that it is only a relatively minor case, and leaving it in will only promote edit warring, as other minor cases are added to the article. If I've misunderstood you, then please correct me.
My response to this would be that while the case itself is relatively minor, it prompted the judge to make a broadly-stated comment about Falun Gong in general. The text quoted in the article refers not to the specific civil action, but to the Judge's summary of the Falun Gong movement in general. This quote is interesting, because it is an appraisal from an independent westerner who is (or should be) dispassionate and informed, and it is valuable, because it is one of the few distinctly negative appraisals from someone who (frankly) doesn't work for the Chinese government. I think it provides a valuable point of balance. Any sane person is going to waqnt to find better information than the rantings of the Chinese government, but once you take those out of the picture you're left with a very idealistic depiction of a movement without flaws. Statements like this judge's one, from independent sources, help balance that picture out and give the reader some sense of context. They understand that FG may be flawed (depending on the one's perspective), and if so those flaws largely come down to the fact that it promotes mysticism, and that it has a tendency not to accept criticism.
A little bit of bland criticism like that shows up China's extreme criticism for what it really is. It provides an independent perspective. Fuzzypeg★ 06:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The matter of size is a real one, and a real concern. For what it's worth, however, the articles in question were primarily tagged for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group, which has substantially smaller numbers of articles. In part they were tagged for that group because the portal related to that project has not a lot of content to date. They, like all the other articles I've recently tagged, have been tagged on the basis of the articles' categorization. I can and do understand that you might have reservations about the categories remaining, and I don't think anyone would necessarily revert the categorization, although I can't swear to that. I know I wouldn't do so consciously, although I can't swear that if they appear in other Christianity categories than I;ve already gone through that I might not tag for the other categories. Basically, your call as to whether the banner stays or not. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080423_cir_china_bush_investigation/
I forget if you studied law. Either way, take a squiz. Coming to a wikipedia article near you!--Asdfg12345 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the substance of the allegations in question. The case is based upon what I consider complete legal nonsense which only the Americans are stupid enough to think up, believing they can solve all the world's problems. "Extra-territorialism", meaning giving your own courts jurisdiction over foreign nationals on foreign soil can never be used for anything good. The logic is about the same as provoking a regime change in Iraq based on flimsy evidence - even if there's firm evidence, action would not be justified IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What about Pinochet? When did you become so cynical?--Asdfg12345 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a huge problem with the legal principle. I don't think any end justifies the means, however abhorrent the crime or criminal Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet included. If you want to talk about universal and reciprocal extradition, I would be in favour in principle, although some jurisdictions would have problems extraditing to certain other jurisdictions they believed to have "less fair" legal systems. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You voted for a delete here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malin to Mizen. However, evidence establishing the noteworthiness of the topic has since been given and you have not been heard from since. I'm requesting that you and the other early voters return to the discussion and reaffirm or refute your previous position. --MQDuck 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've warned him about reverting against consensus. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is obvious by now that their political motivations are very strong, perhaps the most significant motivation for their edits, making it completely impossible for NPOV, so it is certainly time to change their NPOV edits with much greater vigorousness than before. We have been far nicer and civil and gave these firebrands the chance. Their pandering may actually harm the goals of FLG, despite their intent. It is my opinion that we much change what is NPOV immediately before giving them the benefit of the doubt as we have for so long.EgraS (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I will follow the rules of WP regardless of what outrageous attacks are used against WP and me. EgraS (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have problems with Dilip, but that is not the issue here. You haven't referred to anything specifically that you would like to see changed on the page, or pointed out in what way it's currently problematic. The quotation marks you refer to had already been removed. Please specify what, on the current page, is violating wikipedia content policies. Don't delete the WPost paragraph again. If you haven't read the core content policies yet, I WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, I would say it's a good time to do so. I am not aware of any outrageous attacks against you or wikipedia... --Asdfg12345 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ohconfucius. The editing of User:PCPP is being questioned at WP:ANI. I was trying to decide if any admin action was needed, so I looked on his User talk. I noticed that you had left messages for him a couple of times, which suggests you may be somewhat familiar with his editing. Maybe you would like to add a comment to the ANI item. What is being complained about specifically is that he persists in changing Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong into a redirect, over and over without consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I really think I should lay off editing FLG articles a bit, it's really not a sane environment to be editing in. It seems I've lost any desire to cooperate with FLG SPAs after the AFD of CIPFG was canvassed by Ave Caesar's buddies and I was accused of being a CCP spy. I'm still disturbed at what nobody take into consideration of the article probation of the FLG articles though.--PCPP (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
funny, I feel the same way. --Asdfg12345 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination)?--PCPP (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. It's always particularly awkward when one is addressing WP:N and WP:AUTO with the subject himself. That is one reason why WP:AUTO cautions against writing articles about oneself/defending oneself in deletion discussions. Do feel free to chime in on the AfD yourself, and thanks for your message. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Icarus (Hi!) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Did I really come across as being uncivil? I thought I was addressing things in a rather factual manner ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil, can you give your opinion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart? Tosqueira (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I, you said to delete article about ramsetcube.
Are you an expert of BI or just a superficial person ?
I think a person without BI culture must be in silent.
All the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That Deputy Minister scheme and undersecretaries new section at Politics of Hong Kong, would you be interested in moving it to a new article? Then it can expand and link to other pages etc. Benjwong (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The Hidden Page Barnstar | ||
I award you one for finding User:Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? Trekphiler (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (Yep, you do get one. BTW, what brought you to my page?) |
Hello, are you still editing the Falun Gong Articles? We need more people to keep them non-POV Intranetusa (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"And what is unorthodox about truthfulness, compassion and forbearance?" The Mormon branch of Christianity is a sect. Mormons believe in truthfulness, compassion, love, forbearance, and much more. That doesn't change the fact that Mormonism is a sect of Christianity. The Falun Gong is unorthodox in the way that it takes the teachings of eastern religions such as Buddhism and Daoism, and combines them with the personal beliefs of its founder, Li Hongzhi. That essentially puts it in the same category as the Mormon-sect, sub-branch of the Christian religion. Intranetusa (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"Actually, I think neutrality in the end is a method, not an aim."
In the end, the fact remains that with the repeated deletions of criticisms of Li Hongzhi on his wiki article, and the deletion of critical references on the FG main article, articles regarding the Falun Gong is not neutral and quite POV. Apparently the reason for removal of anything that might besmirch his reputation has been labeled "WP:NOR"
Intranetusa (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You have accused me of attacking B.Wind. Could you please cite diffs for that? Secondly, this
Is a very precise note by you. I think it sums perfectly the case, and explains why it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, in addition to other reasons cited by other editors including me. Nothing can change this, your note will always be relevant - the addition of sources from different newspapers (when the only thing they're doing is calling actresses QOBs, which by no means makes it notable) does not change your very well written reason as to why this is just a collection of journalists' POV, a clear fancruft and POV at its best. Shahid • Talk2me 12:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added a couple of sources (Reuter News came through for one or two of them) - the only one not sourced is Kajol. I've separated Lata Mangeshkar who has been repeatedly termed the Queen of Bollywood Music by Guinness Book of World Records each issue between 1974 and 1991 (I also included a cite from NPR which also used the term in its broadcast of an interview with her). I found a source for Rekha and added her to the list. But you might want to check the last paragraph before the list of references: ironically, I found it on a page that was repeatedly edited by Shahid/Shshshsh!... and it's sourced, too. At this stage of the game, there are now more than two reasons that there will always be a bluelink there - it's a case of reasonability now, and I hope that Shahid starts seeing that if the article dies (and with the "official" award of that name that I've found, it's looking less and less likely), it will be replaced by no less than a redirect to the CD article (the same will be true for the redirect The Queen of Bollywood, the discussion of which (at RfD) started all of this. Thank you for all your hard work on this, and thank you for keeping an open mind. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you changed all those food articles to redirects? The deletions are a bit much. You should talk to people involved with Food Wikiprojects first. Like user Chef Tanner or Badagnani before making those changes. It completely defeats the purpose of a food project if everything is identical. Benjwong (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Recently, you have nominated lots of articles about Chinese food for AfD. We're wondering if you have a bias against it. Can you reply? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to take another look at the article. But before I do so, I wanted to ask exactly what you were hoping to get from my opinion. I skimmed through the talk page and noticed there is still alot of controversy going on (but I think an article like this will always have some disputes raging). Do you want me to re-confirm its GA status? Or give my opinion on a specific content dispute? Or resolve a dispute? Anything like that? Is this kind of a pre-FAC thing? If you could give me some sort of direction, that would help me alot to hopefully help you alot. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar | ||
Although an administrator incorrectly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of Bollywood as a Delete, your heroic and valiant efforts at saving the article deserve, at the very least, a barnstar. Great work! ----brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks, the barnstar is much appreciated. You win some, you lose some. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I know we've had our differnces in the past, but I still would like to see your opinion on this matter - what your opinion matters not, just that you have an opportunity to vote. Some editors are asking for opinion on POV flag for the FLG organ article. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have notified Bobby fletcher that I will open an RfC on his conduct if he continues. I don't know if this is canvassing, as it's not my intention. Someone else needs to write on his talk page, asking him not to do any more incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, etc.. You may wish to do so. diffs:
--Asdfg12345 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, being of the slightly obsessive tendency, I do feel the very strong urge to get involved again despite having promised myself I would stay away from the FG articles for my own sanity. So I owe it to myself not to get drawn on this at this time. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Want to comment here? Thanks--PCPP (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8( --PCPP (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)