User talk:Bonafide.hustla/Archive3

User:Bonafide.hustla/Archive User talk:Bonafide.hustla/Archive2 User talk:Certified.Gangsta/Jiang-Research

Taiwanese (linguistics)

Please do not intentionally link to redirects. If you would like to move the page, then please propose a move and get consensus. Only after the page has been moved should you be editing the links.--Jiang 06:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're lack of good faith and POV pushing habits is ultimately going to destroy wikipedia. Mass re-adding illegitimate templates previously added by a troll/indef. blocked user is itself an act of vandalism and bad faith. There is also the issue of attempting to gang up on me with your fellow wikipedia project China "comrades". Therefore, you hardly have any credentials.--Certified.Gangsta 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wiki-stress

Self-imposed exile for a week.--Certified.Gangsta 06:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back--Certified.Gangsta 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:ROC

The naming conventions uses the word "state", not "country". There's a difference. Country connotes land while state connotes political entity. The geographical boundaries of the ROC are subject to dispute.

Just because a decent edit was made by a banned user does not mean that the edit is automatically bad. Your logic does not make sense. --Jiang 06:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROC and PRC should be treated as equal. We either classify them both as States or both as country. The inequality of the 2 articles shouldn't stand.--Certified.Gangsta 08:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they are both labelled "states".

Also, your removal of the China Wikiproject tag from articles such as Kinmen and Political status of Taiwan are bordering on absurd. Just think, would the latter article exist if there were no China? Pf course it's China related! If you have problem with the tag, discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject China instead of rverting across a whole bunch of pages.--Jiang 09:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm gonna back off a bit, so Political Status of Taiwan is kinda like an overlap article. But still the inclusion of all Taiwanese-related articles do not fall under that China project, doing so will be biased.--Certified.Gangsta 02:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the relevant talk page instead of reverting. The legal status of Taiwan has very much to do with the conflict too. Guess what the three major languages spoken in Taiwan are? Chinese. What is the largest ethnic group in Taiwan? Chinese. If an article mentions China or Chinese more than several times, then perhaps it belongs.--Jiang 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should repeat here once again, please discuss the matters on the relevant talk page and only change the content until consesus is reached. If you continue to change the consesus version without agreement among users, it's a violation of WP:3RR and could result a block.

I would like to assure you that none of us is advocating "Taiwan belongs to China". The Chinese WikiProject is aimed to improve Chinese-related articles, and the "Chinese" here is not Communist China, but the Chinese culture in general. AQu01rius (User | Talk) 02:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, putting "China=shame" in your user page does nothing but ridicules your repeative claim of WikiProject China being "POV-pushing" :) I strongly suggest you to review the WP:POV policy before you use this claim again. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at User:Jiang's userpage before making that statement. He has Taiwan=shame on his userpage, mines is a counterweight. As for the project, everyone's contribution speaks for themselves, so I'm not accusing anyone but the evidence definitely were there.--Certified.Gangsta 08:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese

Please check what you revert to and do not add inappropriate material as you did here. Kusma (討論) 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, I simply performed the revert, someone else added it. My point was to remove Taiwan in the article.--Certified.Gangsta 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You re-added it by your revert. You are responsible for what you add, no matter how you do it. Incidentally, do you do anything but revert these days? Kusma (討論) 08:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my contribution. I actually discuss on the relevant talkpage, unlike others who ain't making no attempt to communicate.--Certified.Gangsta 08:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the consensus reached though? Please refrain from reverting until everyone has come to an agreement. Take a quick look at WP:DR. Thank you. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same with List of Chinese Americans. Stop reverting unless you are backed by consensus - I think you are the only one around here that advocates that particular wording. enochlau (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I've been saying all along when y'all were adding that China project tag to every single Taiwan-related page. No one listened.--Certified.Gangsta 08:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Chinese Americans

Care to discuss? -- ran (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the relevant talkpage. A heated discussion was already there from a few months back. There is no need to re-visit it again.--Certified.Gangsta 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet of User:RevolverOcelotX

If so, please FEEL FREE to request a "CheckUser". BTW, please elaborate clearly what kind of POV I am pushing.

Have a nice day!--210.0.204.29 04:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A response to your 'accusation'

Dear 'User:Certified.Gangsta', if you want to accuse me of something, why don't you bring up some proper evidence instead of making veiled threats. In any case, I will not be intimidated by the likes of you. Also, do not be so quick to fault other of having 'a lack of good faith' especially when you refuse to show 'good faith' yourself. If you bothered to discuss and give evidence to your dear edits, then this situation need not have happened. Do follow your 'advice' you so proudly proclaim, and lets make things better. Have a nice day, kid. Life's short indeed. Nic tan33 09:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user, Nic tan33, and others have a lack of good faith in that they are clearly blanking edits and making accusations based on their ethnicity and/or nationalistic POV. Sad..

Sadly wikipedia have quite a lot of Chinese administrator who are constantly gang patrolling and making POV edits into Taiwan-China related articles. And I really can't help much, but I would suggest that you register an account, there are a lot of lingering issues on many articles that needs to be solved and I would appreciate if someone else can speak for the Taiwanese people.--Certified.Gangsta 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truly ironic bit is if this is so, they take the same barbaric actions that were done during the Cultural Revolution. In my opinion one of the, if not the darkest time in Chinese history. Going around in gangs trying to enforce a POV is just... well, not so surprising actually. I'd like to see someday a majority of Chinese who don't blindly pull the line. It may take a while.

Legal status of Taiwan

Please do not remove the Wikiproject China link on the talk page. In case you didn't know, the political status of Taiwan is a hotly contested issue with various conflicting POVs being pushed by people all over the world. To avoid taking any side, the link should remain if for nothing else than to cover the POV that Taiwan is Chinese territory. Thanks.Ngchen 05:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just think! Does the legal status of Taiwan involves China? Yes! Therefore, it's under the scope of WikiProject China. The assertion of the tag does not involve ownership, I don't know why you are refusing to acknowledge that. Nearly all of the people you are arguing with comes from Taiwan (Wikipedia is blocked in Mainland China, at least for most of the time), so none of us is asserting that Taiwan belongs to China, so would you stop the nonsense? AQu01rius (User  Talk) 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Taiwan

Please learn something about the history of Taiwan before you post nonsense like this. Your edit warring is bad enough by itself, but clueless edit warring such as yours is painful to watch. Kusma (討論) 09:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Wei (pilot)

Remove the fact tag one more time without supplying a source, and expect to be blocked. Last warning I will issue to anyone. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wang Wei (pilot)

As a participant in the debate, I invite you to comment on the straw poll I have set up. This straw poll has been listed at Wikipedia:Current surveys as well. enochlau (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Don't you find the list of hot chicks just sexist and inappropriate for your user page in an encyclopedia? enochlau (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think so or you're just being personal?--Certified.Gangsta 01:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I really think so. You're just the most insensitive person I've ever had the misfortune of talking to. No more from me on this matter though; nothing I say will change you. enochlau (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins have also questioned me about this; however, personal expression on userpages and talkpages is usually given leeway on wikipedia. Please lay off the personal attack. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 21:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are WikiProject tags "POV pushing" in any way?

They are not even in article space! Besides, they're just there to gather more interested participants, and there are both China and Taiwan WikiProject tags as a compromise anyways, and WikiProject Taiwan is in fact not treated as a daughter project of WikiProject China!

Rather than wasting your time on this tag, which is already a compromise, is found in talk space, and concerns only Wikipedia editors rather than readers, why not spend your time on improving and NPOVizing the article space?

-- ran (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. YOu shouldn't be posting on my talkpage instead you should be discussing in releveant talkpage in these articles. I find it extremely troubling of you calling this a "compromise" when it is all part of User:RevolverOcelotX anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign. Obviously, it wasn't there until he put them on there. Obviously, I'm not the one who started this, so I don't know who is the one who should spend their time on improving and NPOVizing the article space.--Certified.Gangsta 21:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever? This, together with veiled references to some kind of conspiracy against you, is your response to a discussion? And tell me, how is your version more NPOV? Having both tags is a way of showing deliberate ambiguity; having one tag is not.

-- ran (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] shows some of the evidence I gathered for that user's anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign. In fact, these are factual evidences rather than conspiracy theory. I have more examples if u want. Please don't make accusations unlesss you have proof.--Certified.Gangsta 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Wang Wei (pilot)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Certified.Gangsta! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I didn't realize that. Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant labeling of other person's good faith efforts as vandalism

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. An edit summary of "rvv" is a personal attack if you are not reverting vandalism. Kusma (討論) 08:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then take a look at this. [[2]] Your accusation and threat to block me seems to be out of personal vendetta. Other than that, I just want to point out that I did not realize the 2nd "V" refers to vandalism.--Certified.Gangsta 07:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]