The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kady Malloy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was just wondering if you still wanted to explore the options that are available with fixing the FLG article. I read your rant and liked it. Colipon+(T) 18:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I temporarily undid this because it linked to a redlink... not sure if it was just because of a spelling error or something, but I figured I'd remove it until it's fixed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it appears the photo included in the article does not fit any of the criteria in WP:NONFREE at this time, but I don't want to edit war over it. Let me know if you think otherwise and tell me what part of the policy you think complies. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this revert. You have probably noticed already, but this user has been edit warring with this image across multiple pages and trolling this article's talk page (especially at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Image). I reported him for edit warring here, if you'd like to comment; normally I don't mind waiting a bit, but now I'm hoping we can get him blocked quickly because he's being disruptive across a number of pages that all have many thousands of eyes on them. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
what's "trolling"?Seb az86556 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) nevermind. found it. But the troll is back it seems Seb az86556 (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Archived. I haven't used MiszaBot before so I don't know if this is a problem, but you might want to check since you're the one who set up the auto-archiving. (Also, if we do keep this manual archive, we should probably add an archive navbox at the top of the talk page.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The Ürümqi Barn"star" | ||
Thanks for all your work maintaining the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots during its time on the main page. This has been a difficult and thankless task, working at a frenetic pace for 4 days straight so far (I, for one, have been getting very little sleep), and it's only been thanks to coordinated efforts and discussion from numerous editors that the article has been kept as neutral and informative as possible. This is the most collaboration I've done, with the largest number of editors at once, since I have joined Wikipedia, and I think the results are showing; while it's not perfect, when my friends and family ask me about what's going on in Urumqi, I have been more comfortable recommending this article than any other source. The work is far from over, but now that this article is off the main page I think it's finally time to thank the editors Seb az86556, Colipon, Jim101, Ohconfucius, Benlisquare, Simonm223, and Jinhuili for all their contributions; while we had disagreements, I think each of these editors has been particularly active and has made real efforts to improve the article.rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC) |
please give your input on Qiuzheyun's edits, specifically continued insertion of the word "terrorism" ino July 5 Urumqi riots article. Seb az86556 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Pls give me your definition of "event", since I personally believe that since Reuters have made formal response on official blog and NYT changed the caption of a published picture, it eligible to be called a "event".Helloterran (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
[[1]] < Quick question: why does this name need to be in sinograms when no other name in the article is given in Chinese? thanks. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The two pieces of news seems important for one indicate the roits are prepared and another tells the robs came from places outside Urumqi, although the reports may not necessarily be true. -Sofoes (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
if that photo-thing really gets into an edit-war, could you initiate the proper procedure, I'm not familiar with that yet. Thanks! Seb az86556 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ohconfucius,
You recently changed the susan boyle article citing Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Actually the fact that she is a virgin is not a point of view but a fact that she has herself admitted to the world's media. For that reason I have reverted the article to include the information that I added yesterday.
Regards, Peter Shipton Petershipton (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Jean-Claude Mézières/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how doing something you know I disagree with [2] is drama minimisation? Kevin (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that PMAnderson has supplied three diffs concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement by Septentrionalis (PMAnderson). Looking at them, I can see that you were taking articles that had mixed dmy and mdy formats and selecting one to make a consistent format. Could I ask you to reconsider your choice of dmy for those three articles, since (imvho) they have no strong ties to an English-speaking nation, and the earliest version of all three is written in mdy format? I know it's an utterly trivial point, but avoiding any semblance of controversy - just as we are starting to show that the date-wars are over - seems to be in everybody's best interest. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If you have about ten minutes of time, I would certainly urge you to give your two cents in the recent discussion, or at least look at it. Your expertise would be invaluable here. Colipon+(T) 17:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't work. You could use {BirthDeathAge|B|1962|4|10|1983|4|10|df=y} Rich Farmbrough 18:37 3 August 2009 (UTC).
April 10, 1962we should call on you whenever neutrality is required. the children-write-letter story on Rebiya Kadeer is now really NPOV. I will defend that wording. thanks!Seb az86556 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reported that user you spoke of on the Persecution of Falun Gong article here with our ever helpful fellow editor Rjanag. I've tried to gather some solid evidence as to why he should be banned. If you can help, it would be great! Colipon+(T) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, take a look at the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Falun_Gong_work_group#Criticism_of_Falun_Gong. Ongoing debate about whether or not to rename "Academic Views on Falun Gong" to "Criticism of Falun Gong". As I expected, Olaf, asdfg, and Happy all oppose the move, while all level-headed editors are either supporting "Criticism of Falun Gong" or leaning towards supporting it. The discussion hasn't come this far for a while now. If you just put in your two cents I feel we will be this much closer to getting the article to where it belongs. Colipon+(Talk) 23:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
OhConfucius, please help me here to file an arbitration enforcement request if you have time. I wish to put out this request in the next few hours. Any solid diff's would be great! Colipon+(Talk) 15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was asleep. I fought myself through the entire edit-history, starting with the edit you asked me to comment on. you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"...
There's just one general question: Who started this article in the first place??? Compared to other articles about hospitals, this is quite peculiar. Usually, articles about hospitals should talk about number of patients, research, capacity, staff and all that. This one sound like "This hospital is a hospital, we give you that in one sentence in case you couldn't guess, and let's move on to what this is actually about, namely people being butchered"...
I see that as a problem. And that problem hasn't been solved, I'm afraid. Seb az86556 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! olivier (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have always considered you a fairly responsible editor, and have always respected your views and edits. I made this clear several times last year (or was it the year before?!) when you edited the Falun Gong pages. You emphasised consensus, discussion, transparency, etc.. Recently you deleted 20kb of text from the Falun Gong article, saying that it was a "bold" edit. Presumably you meant "bold" in the same sense as the BRD cycle. In this cycle, when bold edits are reverted, the process is to discuss them. In this case they were actually just reverted, several times. That one action completely undermines the process of discussion and consensus building. It then becomes one group of editors forcing changes on the article without discussing them. Since you were part of that process, even though you didn't participate much in the discussion, you are partly responsible for that. You hold a large amount of the responsibility, actually, because Seb's suggestions were just suggestions, until you suddenly decided to act on them, deleting a third of the article. So I just want to tell you about this dynamic. I actually thought I wouldn't bother saying this to you, thinking that appealing to your rationality and desire to uphold principles of transparency, consensus, etc., was useless. That is, I'm asking myself whether I should consider that you just have an anti-Falun Gong agenda now, and not bother taking you to task for transgressions of policy? I wouldn't bother writing a personal message like this on the pages of some other editors involved in the dispute, for example, because I know they would not acknowledge any wrongdoing. But anyway, I really believe in the principles of WP:AFG, and want to practice this myself. So please consider your role in this affair and decide whether you are satisfied with what has resulted after your deletions. If you are happy with it, then I guess that is that. If you believe that what transpired after you deletions violates the spirit of wikipedia's consensus-building process, then you should speak up. This is not a content issue, but a wider issue of how we are responsible to the collaborative spirit of wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
A disscussion started here on the Ürümqi riots about the events happened on June 2009 Shaoguan incident. Since I believe you originially wrote that passage, can you check the consistency of the events please? Jim101 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As I have mentioned on the Talk page of Rebiya Kadeer, I certainly don't want to get in an edit war with you about her nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I would like to see this subject discussed. Have you got any ideas as to how we might resolve this without continually reversing changes or taking it to arbitration? I hope and feel pretty confident we can work this out together. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 03:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a wonderful idea to have something like this, I was thinking today to have something similar. Could you please tell me where it is the one you are currently having? HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it's at User:Ohconfucius/FG repository, although I'm contemplating moving the contents to Talk:Falun_Gong/diffs
I saw the remark you removed, what line did I cross? Should I just forget it?--Asdfg12345 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
About this edit: actually, there are a couple sources for this statement lower in the article; I didn't give a source in the intro since the info is repeated later (although in retrospect, since it's controversial, a source wouldn't have hurt). And I agree with you that it's not necessary in the intro, especially for a probably unreliable statistic, so I think your edit was the right move. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone seems really keen on screaming out about the Human Rights Torch Relay. Despite being told numerous times that such a minor event is irrelevant to the article, which is based on the events which occurred during the 2008 Relay, stubbornness prevails. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:
- (1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
- (2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
- (3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
- (4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a novice editor who has vastly expanded several articles -- I've been told I have a tendency to put too much stuff in? But I reference everything as best I can. I've worked on Statistics New Zealand and BMC Software and Dana Delany and Sassa Jimenez. I think these articles are good candidates for cleaning up, like, I think the material is good, but it needs fresh eyes, and I can't see how to improve these articles any more. By the way, THANK YOU for finding the template -- I had hunted quite a bit but I couldn't find the template. I'll use it in the New Zealand article and elsewhere. Thanks for pointing this out to me! Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Falun Gong workgroup progress cookie! Enjoy! (Merger of Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy into New Tang Dynasty TV) |
Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is nothing more than baiting and kicking Tennis expert while he's down, especially considering that he'd just made it clear you weren't welcome at his talk. Please note that the banning policy makes it clear this behaviour is unacceptable (I could mention our civility policy as well). Please don't do this again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There's also Criticism of falun gong (w/o capitalization), another redirect. Nuke it? Seb az86556 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's keep it frank and cordial. I think that's an important quality of communication. I've struck my hasty remarks and thank you for understanding. I misunderstood.--Asdfg12345 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Forgive my boorishness. You obviously meant Test Verification Matrix, as I've just discovered here!--Asdfg12345 06:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed your speedy request from this article as I can find no consensus for such a move. Given the issues surrounding this subject and the comments at this AfD I think such a move is likely to be contreversial and so should have the widest possible discussion as such I'd recommend WP:RM. Dpmuk (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your great and lightning fast responses on the Li Hongzhi talk page. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
There is some disagreement about whether the skeptical movement opposes cults in any notable way. Diff here. Discussion here. I would value your input. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
need your comment here ! Seb az86556 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Kwai Fong Estate, Kwai Chung Estate, Kwai Shing East Estate, Kwai Shing West Estate, Cheung Ching Estate, Cheung Hong Estate, Cheung On Estate should have independent articles. They have enough population to support their independent existance. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Irbisgreif (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please add Long Bin Interim Housing to Yuen Long tag, together with Long Ping Estate, Shui Pin Wai Estate, Yuen Long Estate and thanks! Ricky@36 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
For thoes estates in Sham Shui Po District, please consider to allow So Uk Estate, Un Chau Estate, Shek Kip Mei Estate, Pak Tin Estate, Tai Hang Tung Estate and Tai Hang Sai Estate to be independent. Other estates can be merged to form a single article. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I'm next on the hitlist, am I?--Asdfg12345 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really stressed, I am taking the long term view. One thing you need to be careful about is staying consistent, though. PCPP's editing behaviour has been, in the past, highly disruptive, and you said nothing--in fact, it was justified, you said, as he nobly battled it out against a large propaganda mongering Falun Gong consortium. The AE game may be new, so we didn't know about that, but just make sure you apply the same rules to everyone. I've wondered whether AE cases along the same lines that you guys are running would be viable, too; I think Colipon vs. Olaf basically could have been the reverse if you swapped "keeping out criticism" to "keeping out praise," and "inserting positive remarks" to "inserting negative remarks," etc..--Asdfg12345 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out - I'm always watching out for that. The last thing U want is a bunch of identikit editors spouting the same rhetoric (both pro- and anti-), which is another reason it was helpful editing alonside you. You have known all along that, I was fed up of being squeezed between both sides (but particularly more so by Dilip) so I stopped editing in the FGverse. Since my return, Dilip has remained as objectionable as before. I may have kept quiet about PCPP, but I don't believe I have ever endorsed his disruption and warring (although having those his crude, superficial and jingoistical changes alone did little to attack the more deep-seated bias of the articles). I think that he will be less frustrated now that some semblance of balance comes back to the articles. Anyway, don't take us all for CCP stooges either. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
test verification matrix.--Asdfg12345 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Asdfg you're wasting your time attacking me. Following the admin warning, I've engaged in discussion attempts, and it was I who brought the FLG case to mediation. Since then, I've only made like what, 5 edits to the FLG articles? (which were quickly reverted, mind you).--PCPP (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
didn't mean to attack you mate, sorry.--Asdfg12345 18:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
is that comments like this be rephrased to something like "making the wording more neutral," which would not contain an implicit assumption of the motivation of other editors, whoever they may be, and may also be a simply more relevant and accurate edit summary. For all we know those may have been the precise words of the source in question, or some other academic source, in which case the claim that it was promotion on the part of Falun Gong "devotees" (I have to ironicise that term) would also be inaccurate anyway. Just a thought. --Asdfg12345 03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
lol, indeed.--Asdfg12345 04:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think that is irrelevant, except for the ironic devotees remark, because I think what you actually meant was that the source in question (Lowe) was quoting Falun Gong "devotees", not that such devotees had added the information into wikipedia in that way. It's confusing, isn't it... --Asdfg12345 03:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have requested clarification regarding the ArbCom ruling on Falun Gong at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone recently made some bold changes to the Xinjiang-article with regards to the meaning of the name, and an IP pointed it out as incorrect on the talkpage. I have no way of checking it. Here is the 3edits-diff. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I treated Yau Lai Estate as an independent article because it will be the largest estate in Yau Long. Yau Tong Estate has a long history and worths to be independent. I prefer to create an article about something like Public housing estates in Sai Kung rather than just merging with Sai Kung Town, because the article needs to emphasize the "public housing estate" rather than the district. Therefore, I create another topic of Public housing estates in Sze Shun, instead of merging them with Shun Lee. By the way, I don't find the contents of Sha Tau Kok Chuen in [[[Sha Tau Kok]] article. Is Sha Tau Kok Chuen article really "merged" with Sha Tau Kok article?! Ricky@36 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I would advise you to hold off on that phs in Sai Kung - all we are talking about are two very small housing estates ( a small cluster of 'houses') which are not notable, and insignificant so it isn't worth creating a separate article on it. It would be wrong terminologically to use the word 'house' here to mean the same as a towerblock (re 'house' used in the other estates). As for Sha Tau Kok Chuen, there was not much there, you can check for yourself that all of it was merged. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you implemented the Wahaha - Hangzhou Wahaha Group reshuffle back in 2007. What would you think about turning Wahaha into a disambiguation page and locating the joint venture article at Wahaha Joint Venture Company? I don't know anything about the stocks/business side of thing, but as an ordinary person I typed in "Wahaha" looking for the bottled water company, not the joint venture...I think, if anything, there is no "primary topic" (since I imagine for people who follow stocks and stuff, they might have the opposite expectation as me—they might search "Wahaha" looking for the larger, more recent joint venture). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think people get into bad editing patterns on topics like FG. That is why they end up in arbitration ... an escalation of warring perpetuated by reactionary editing. I'll try not to say too much because I really need to take a break from the Wiki in general but also because too much involvement can lead to being placed in one camp or another. My main piece of advice is to trim these entries considerably if possible. There is so much excess in them as a result of POV pushing and reactions of POV pushing.PelleSmith (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Kai Yip Estate will be merged to Public housing estates in Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay later. I just create it before my merging job. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion is that you undo the merge and follow through with discussion, addressing the problems that I have raised. I think it's appalling that one group of editors just forces vast changes on pages without proper discussion. Only two other editors uninvolved in this dispute were able to give input, and the insanely outstanding questions about the whole reason in policy behind the merge were ignored. That's terrible, I think it's unacceptable. What am I supposed to do? You just blank the page, ignore discussion, and then when I protest other guys just blank it again? What a joke.--Asdfg12345 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that asdfg attempted to delete and move Communist Party of China to "Chinese Communist Party" with little discussion. [3]--PCPP (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Two things: the first is, please consider familiarising yourself with the argument before saying things like (or making noises like?) "pfff." The second is that the move to create a poll and allow time for argumentation is a gesture of good will that I will not forget.--Asdfg12345 04:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And just to be clear, since this is being done with time, in an open forum, and with room for discussion, I will gladly accept the final decision. I would like more people to be involved, too, the more the better. And I'm also going on the assumption that there will actually be a proper discussion--actually, my remarks are predicated on the idea that people will defend their opinions and they will respond to the points I have raised from policy.--Asdfg12345 04:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
When you add the categories to the redirected articles, please also add the categories of year of architecture, the district/places to such articles. You can do this by finding the histories of the articles. Thanks! For the articles you have editted, I have added the categories to them. Ricky@36 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I was going through the list of Mandarin Oriental articles and adding the existing Category:Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and you reversed this cat for this article. Despite the official name of the building: - Mandarin Oriental is the primary tenant which is referenced in the article. - The fire is referenced in the main Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group article by other contributurs. - There is an existing redirect from Great Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire of February, 2009 Based on those three items, I'm reinserting the cat. If you still disagree, let's cut and paste this discussion into the article and see if other contributors can help us reach a decision.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the above article for the duration of the Poll. If you have any questions about this, please get in touch with me. SilkTork *YES! 21:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I might have accidentally undone this edit of yours in an edit conflict, but I wanted to ask before restoring it... is there any consensus or standard behind giving monetary amounts in dollar (or other) equivalents? Since I'm a United Statesian, I was often tempted to add dollar exchange rates to certain bits of this article, but then I reminded myself that not all readers use the US dollar. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
...at Talk:Republic of China#Proposing Article Title Change. Thanks! -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the article is probably ready now to get a nice copyedit and go in for GAN, per the plan I laid out in [[Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive3#Time to remove {current}?]], as the article has become stable. I've started going through a copyediting and cleanup sweep, focusing mainly on rewording things now that we have a couple months' perspective (for example, listing only the final "official" casualty count, rather than all the temporary numbers that were being published right and left while the news was still unfolding), and am leaving my comments/concerns at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Editing notes. If you have any time, I would welcome your input there (particularly on the section about videos within the External links, which has left me scratching my head). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
What can I say? 哭笑不得!--Asdfg12345 02:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
the thesis is that they were practitioners. the antithesis is that they were not. the first is a statement of something. the latter is a statement of not-something. the first is the claim, the second is the counter-claim. I don't understand why this should be twisted the other way around? (sorry, not sure how else to put it. you may actually have a good reason that I never thought of. I studied maths once.)--Asdfg12345 04:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yah, two poles and stuff in between. The thesis (one pole) is that they were FLG. The antithesis is that they were not. That's the start to finish. Time is somewhere in the middle ("misguided"). How does it work to put that at the end? I'm just talking about logic. In my view it should be "they were practitioners and FLG is bad. they were "misguided practitionres" (or whatever). they weren't practitioners and it was a setup." -- this is the logical, thesis antithesis. No?--Asdfg12345 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I actually subscribe to the Barend ter Haar hypothesis that they were practitioners, but that the Chinese authorities gave themselves a week, closed off TAM square, and refilmed the incident but without covering the bases. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Would like your NPOV insight into Talk:Hong_Kong#Lead_paragraph.2C_again. There is a disagreement on calling Hong Kong "largely self-governing" or "highly autonomous". Thanks. Colipon+(Talk) 09:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think I'd say this but I'm actually enjoying this - it's something they hold dear but I don't really care about, so I don't really have anything to lose - makes for a fun debate without getting to involved. But it does feel like a death-match - how can there be consensus if some opinions are set in stone? - and it's an advantage they know they have, to stall things, to maintain the status quo. BTW, what's happening with the Arb Enforcement case? It hasn't seen activity for quite some time now.
And have a piece of chicken for all the work you've put in for this merger. --antilivedT | C | G 07:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
antilivedT | C | G has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding ((subst:GiveChicken)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Regarding this addition ... up until now, the "media coverage" section had been about coverage of the main riots, whereas this is about the new riots. Also, this seems to be less about the media coverage, and more just another incident in the riot (although the argument could be made that how reporters are treated is also part of media coverage). Perhaps it should be trimmed and moved down to the "Later riots" section? Since most of it seems to be developing news, it probably only needs 2-3 sentences to cover the main substance. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
((main))
, but in that case the new article would be rather sparse, and the 'summary' left behind here would probably be almost as long as the article itself. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Hi. I'm not sure what this edit is about but I wanted to clarify that I strongly oppose the move (and I think that's clear from all my comments). I will assume this was an innocent mistake, but I want to point out that it's critical to be accurate and sensitive in such a hot debate. Mistakes like this can contribute to paranoia in editors who might interpret the actions as deliberate. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I was a regular listener to Jean Shepherd's program on WOR in New York in the 1960s and I remember the head-thumping episodes. Shepherd would play tunes that way ... and if you think it's trivial then you don't really understand the context. An essential part of Shepherd's humor was his celebration of the trivial and the banal.
I'm not going to undo your deletion of this fact from Shepherd's page. I just want to give my side of the story. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There was no activity from the administrators, and the case seemed to be archived [4]. What gives?--PCPP (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely and move it to a subpage of the creators.
The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a longterm dedicated editor
Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.
This barnstar is awarded to Ohconfucius, for his willingness to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for your valiant efforts to the project. Ikip (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) |
Da Vynci (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on inserting the line "highly autonomous" into the first sentence (here again, and here at the PRC page, and even here at Jackie Chan, removing "Chinese" and replacing with "Hong Kong"), despite discussion on the talk pages that seem to indicate otherwise. I have reverted him once today and do not want to do it again. He also constantly throws a host of accusations towards me on the talk pages. As a user from Hong Kong and an NPOV guru, perhaps it is better that you talked to him about his disruptive editing. Colipon+(Talk) 11:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I just realized today that User:Kwami had unilaterally made sweeping changes to the articles dealing with Cantonese... the article formerly at Cantonese is now at "Yue Chinese", while "Cantonese" now is a disambiguation page. I opposed this move but it seems like I was too late into the discussion. If you have time please lend your opinion at Talk:Yue Chinese#Yue?. Colipon+(Talk) 14:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I left a message on Talk:The Epoch Times#Should we keep the tags? several months ago regarding the {restructure} tag. I haven't been paying close attention to the article since then so I'm not sure if my concerns still apply, but you might be interested in checking it. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As they say, "vote early and often" ;) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Closed this for you. Metty 15:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mishavonna Henson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aspects (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you please re-check out Steve Strome, I've put some work into it and your opinion is greatly appreciated. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Civility Award | ||
Thanks for being very civil and easy to work with you deserve this. Marcusmax(speak) 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
We have completed all the public rental housing articles. The next step is to add the Home Ownership Scheme estates into the original articles. Ricky@36 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Ohconfucius. I've been preoccupied with real life ... I'll look at the changes as soon as I can devote a decent amount of time to the article again. Thanks for taking the sources on board! Cheers, --JN466 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your award on my job Ricky@36 (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Just checking -- did you change your mind on the date format issue (or did I just misread your initial leaning)? If so, I'm curious what point you found to be most telling in leading you to shift (so I can consider it as well). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This if you wouldn't mind. Just in normal language will be fine.--Asdfg12345 09:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
{...and you can join us @ Talk:Falun Gong Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
Sorry, but I have to say this first. Please see the definition of "horrific": grossly offensive to decency or morality; causing horror... causing fear or dread or terror; "the awful war"; "an awful risk"; "dire news"; "a career or vengeance so direful that London was shocked" -- are you going a bit far in describing remarks like "Don’t be like the propaganda tools of the wicked Party. It’s not right to depart from the truth when you describe events in hopes of achieving some effect... Don’t knowingly bend the truth. You will lose credibility." -- as horrific? Also, I would struggle to believe you if you told me you didn't understand that. Is this gobbledegook? Are you serious? I don't get what's so hard to understand about those few lines.
About Kavan, I don't know if it's still in the article this way, but her remarks about "the Raichlan media group" (which I assume is just Faluninfo.net, right?) are unique to Kavan. Kavan's original research shouldn't be reported as fact. This whole "inner circle" thing, for example, all I tried to do was make clear that this is Kavan's language. It's the same for the others. I don't think this stuff is a problem, particularly, as long as it's clear about who's saying what. I made a series of changes to clarify what came out of whose mouth (or pen), and added a few sentences from Li. Here is the before and after:
before:
after:
....
So, please take a look. You turned what was attributed opinion about Faluninfo.net as a public relations firm for Falun Gong, the inner circle comment, and Falun Gong's claimed similarity with the CCP in terms of media -- turned these from attributed opinions into facts. When you write "Academics also note Falun Gong's similarities to the Communist Party in its media strategies" -- you obviously realise that that is the voice of wikipedia, and using the term "note" means that what they are "noting" would presumably be true. It's not that they're "noting" the similarities, it's that Kavan is claiming that there are similarities. I don't believe that you don't understand the differences. Secondly, I don't understand why you undid these changes, which means opinions such as these appear as facts. Do I have cause for concern, or is this a misunderstanding? At the moment, I am just confused.--Asdfg12345 10:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If there's no problem here, should I assume it's fine to tidy things up a bit and reinsert this wording? Well, I'll make that assumption if nothing back here. --Asdfg12345 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, there is now an RfC under way on this issue at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday I e-mailed myself copies of every article relating to Falun Gong available on the various databases the local library subscribes to. I think at least several of them, including some Xinhua releases for what little they may be worth, deal with the incident. I'm still getting together the list of them, at User:John Carter/Falun Gong articles. When the list is finished, which should be no later than tomorrow I hope, I would be more than happy to send you any of them you might want. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My connection tonight is a bad one, and several longer edits have failed repeatedly. I don't think I can start anything today. Feel free to do so, considering you also know the subject better than I do. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I posted a first draft of a map for the Urumqi-riots article on Rjanag's talkpage. Comments appreciated. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That link defies the imagination. Today, "milk" was my best (Victoria, Australia). Tony (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea: In view of the number of changes to the article, it might be worth pinging one or two of the early opposes on their talk pages, asking them to reassess. --JN466 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note re. Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. I think it's great that the article is being developed, and I appreciate how challenging it has been - excellent work, well done. I'll try to look in on the FAC. Cheers. Chzz ► 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HK 60 anniv stamps.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
HK 60 anniv stamps.jpg suggestion ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
after this edit, I'd now expect the footnote to give me an FLG-source, when in fact it is AI... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As a potentially interested party, your attention is brought to a motion currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.
At the time this notice was posted the text of the motion read:
“ | Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their contructive work and consensus building. | ” |
This wording may have since changed; please see the above link for the current wording.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident is now a Featured Article. Your determination and patience and calmness has been an inspiration. Regards SilkTork *YES! 09:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For braving one of Wikipedia's most contested topic areas, and working with perseverance and professionalism to produce FA-quality, NPOV work, I award you this barnstar. JN466 10:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
Congratulations
This isn't simply an act of "joining the cheer-crowd" -- I have observed your excellent work on this in the background. If you had not received a star already, you'd get it now. Thank you for your persistence (which is one thing I could truly learn from you, I get frustrated and discouraged too easily). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, if you want to make an article of History of Falun Gong you are welcomed to do so. But the Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China is a WP:Notable topic in it self, don't move it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruption. Your revert is unacceptable disruption. You should address the comments to the talk page instead of warring. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates you wrote "The 'uniformisation' and maintenance job is important, but it is too big to be done manually to 3 million articles; bots cannot distinguish when/whether to change a date format in cases where they are not all uniform." Due to the size of that page, I'd like to discuss this here, at least until I understand your point. I hope you will respond on your own talk page to make the thread easier to read.
I'm not sure what kind of bot activity you envision. Perhaps you are thinking of making date formats uniform in article text and footnotes, with the obvious exception of quotes, date discussions, and code snippets. Or, perhaps you are thinking of processing citations to check them for correctness, completeness, dead links, etc. Could you expand on what you had in mind? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
When I come across an article where the date formats are not in compliance with WP:MOSNUM, I often unify them (like here). Sometimes, it involves converting some ISO date formats into the prevailing dd mmm yyyy or mmm dd yyyy formats. Where all dates in footnotes are uniformly ISO, I tend not to change them, but if there's any mismatch, I usually change them all into the prevailing format for the article. Often, though, even when most of the dates are aligned, there are also the odd mis-formatted dates in the text. I usually have to somehow protect dates in quotes with non-breaking spaces. At the same time, I often also tag the article ((use dmy dates)) or ((use mdy dates)), so that in future, a bot could be sent around just for maintenance. This is fastidious work, and I've probably done a couple of thousand articles so far. For maintenence of already so-treated articles, this is where I think a bot can come in. As it cannot distinguish between desired and misformatted ISO dates, all date formats need to be made uniform. Once tagged, a bot can neutrally maintain the formats of newly inserted dates in articles. There is an embryonic discussion at Template talk:Dmy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ohconfucius, this is what I was going to reply at a copyvio entry about the above page:
... but then I realised one hadn't been put up. Hopefully you'll accept my explanation, and you're welcome to contact me directly about this. I put the article back, because there was no page to reply on for copyvio, as I said, and although an administrator, according to your tag is meant to resolve the issue, I don't think that one can unless one has been notified. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Wikidea 10:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and committed the citation fixes, plus applied various other bits of cleanup. In particular, I removed a line from the biography section that was virtually verbatim of a line in the lede. Ugh, that "online book" you used gave me a bit of heartburn, but I finally settled on using "cite book", since it allowed for the citation fields I needed to use. If you need any more help, let me know. (sleep calls for now) — Huntster (t @ c) 09:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ohc, nice work over at Sima Nan. I enjoyed reading the article. There are a few things I am unsure about. I think perhaps it gives too much weight to the qigong while Sima is actually more of a critic of anything "supernormal" or pseudoscientific; for example, he also exposes village doctors, psychics, street magicians, buddhist temple profit schemes etc. He is also intensely nationalistic, judging by some lectures of his that have been uploaded onto YouTube - so much that these videos are sure to be censored in China. But I don't know if he can be called "staunchly supportive of the Communist Party". I also don't know if the use of the word 'Conservative' is appropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 11:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this guy is a staunch supporter of the Communist Party after all. Colipon+(Talk) 09:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Sima Nan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ohconfucius, HappyInGeneral has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. I've averted a full-blown edit war by changing the title of the section: 'Change in BBC policy.' This is now 'Run up to the broadcast', which is neutral. I also used a direct quotation from the top BBC person which makes it clear exactly what the BBC's reasoning was. This avoids editorialisation. I'm glad I put forward this solution because we had a ludicrous stand-off with instantaneous reversion of all my edits until this point. It was all getting a bit obstructive.
And I've started cleaning up what I consider to be irrelevant or over-detailed sections. It will be quite a long process before completion. Some of the language is quirky and out-of-place (consistent use of the phrase 'X declared', instead of simply 'said,' for example.
Astral Highway (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop repeating changes that have already been reverted, and follow Bold, Revert, Discuss.
MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you please wait for somebody else to comment and revert if they thing appropriate, rather than just reverting me yourself - just to see if you are the only one who objects. I have noticed that you have undone quite a few of my edits, I reckon more than 50%, and I did check the talk pages for any comment, but there was zip. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell what is being said in the edit summaries, since it's in Chinese. Does it contain defamation of specific individuals? If so, perhaps a long-term semiprotection of the Talk page might be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your comment here. Are you saying that discussions should default to deletion when the subject has requested deletion? That's sort of what it sounds like. But that's not the issue that's being discussed. The policy already allows admins to close in that way. The change being discussed would make all BLP AfDs default to deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but your last edit has undone my last 2 revisions. You can check them. The most important one is about the fact that it is not a World Heritage Site. olivier (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This is strictly a personal note. Your characterization of this work as "the article's hardly been touched since the tage was placed" seems unkind. An edit summary of "hasn't been constructively edited in over 10 days" would have been true, a great reason to remove the flag, and neutral. I must tell you that such edit summaries drive editors away from WP, and from the articles and article types where they appear.- Sinneed 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)