User talk:Ohconfucius/archive13

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.

---

Deletion review for Kady Malloy

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)

FLG

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 would if it were like Urumqi riots. I held the fort on my own there for months. It's no fun, fighting that lonely fight. After I stopped I felt my stress levels decreased noticeably. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a mediator there now. It might turn out interesting. See if you want to join in at Talk:Falun Gong.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise would be more than necessary at that talk page right now. You are certainly not alone this time. Colipon+(T) 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Urumqi riots

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)

Oh, I see you just created 2009 Xinjiang civil unrest. Are you planning on expanding it? As it is, it's a word-for-word copy of what Susan L and I wrote at East Turkestan independence movement, which is generally discouraged; furthermore, there's not much use linking to it as a "main article" if it doesn't say anything beyond what's already in the ETim article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally unexplained revert, not even an edit summary. Why did you do this? Please don't edit war. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal here for solving the dispute and preserving your article. Please comment if you have a moment. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, it's been so busy there this morning there, and we have been talking cross-purposes. You will have gathered by now that you said "no point having a {{main}} link when the so-called "main" article has no more information than this one. you can re-add if that article is ever expanded, but ther eis no reason for it now", and I put it back after I had finished creating the relevant article. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

On 6 July, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Urumqi photo

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)

• I am aware that FAIRUSE does not equal NONFREE. However, fair use is often justifiable when there are no non-free alternatives, which I believe to be the case here. Additionally, it seems you were correct about the image -it was misattributed to the wrong incident by the source, and I have since put it up for deletion. I appreciate your cool head. :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I deleted the image per your tagging...I assume what you meant is that it wasn't actually a photo of the Jul 5 riots, but of something else? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, thankyou Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 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)

Archiving Urumqi riots talk page

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)

Barnstar

		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)

help/mediate

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)

sinograms for name?

[[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)

• Usually for subjects which have an article, I would pass on the sinograms and let the link do the talking. For an individual without a WP article, it is often nigh impossible to know the actual name of the person without resorting to the source. Chinese names are so ambiguous even in pinyin with accents, is not infallible. For that reason, I believe it is useful to have sinograms in the first appearance, mirroring the practice for linking. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kadeer edit warring

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)

I have sent you an e-mail about an academic article dealing with the Urumqi riots. I think you will enjoy it. Looking to hear your input on the issue. Colipon+(Talk) 03:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

susan boyle article

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)

• How you put that in reminds me of the tabloid style that I try very carefully to avoid in the context of an encyclopaedia. I feel that her virginity, self-confessed or otherwise, is not relevant to her biography. To include it therefore, would be inappropriate. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Jean-Claude Mézières

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)

Drama minimisation?

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'll have a go. We are concerned that there was no rationale for doing the action in the first place. We are trying to stop this becoming a drama by returning to the status quo. Let's start a discussion on whether the page should be blanked. To help with that, could you please provide the diff to the original request to blank the page. Thanks.  HWV258  05:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. Can't be bother arguing this any further. Kevin (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In general and although there are exceptions, if something concerning our users happens off-wiki, it stays off-wiki. What you did probably falls within WP:BOLD, but there is no rule to say that such an article should be archived. Thus, your 'archiving' the page "for courtesy" does not seem to be properly justified, as there was no request I could find, and quite what this has to do with Kelly Martin remains a mystery to me. Therefore, in view of the brouhaha on your talk page, I thought that unarchiving it would give rise to the least drama, although you seem to want to prove me wrong on that. If you want to revert me, fine, but at least let's have a proper discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree (of course). I would also like to draw attention to the difference between "archiving" and "blanking".  HWV258  05:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Requests for Amendment

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. I have made a statement at 'Amendments'. I should have been more careful knowing I have made some enemies over the last few months. I will certainly reconsider the date formats. However, it will have to wait, as I am on holiday from tonight for the next couple of weeks. Hasta la luego! Ohconfucius (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted my changes. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

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)

Celebrations for 2^nd Anniversary of Wikimedia Hong Kong

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

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:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FLG

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)

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Academic views on Falun Gong. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

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)

You may wish to comment here.

Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth date and age

It doesn't work. You could use {BirthDeathAge|B|1962|4|10|1983|4|10|df=y} (1962-04-10)April 10, 1962 Rich Farmbrough 18:37 3 August 2009 (UTC).

If it wasn't broken. Rich Farmbrough 18:41 3 August 2009 (UTC).

So instead use {age|1962|4|10|1983|4|10} 21 Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

you're good at this

we 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)

• Thanks. I have lapses myself, but this was easy that I already had it in the riots article, where there are eyeballs on it. So I copied it over. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Seb. I really think you are probably the best candidate to make those god-forsaken Falun Gong related articles balanced, because you seem quite skeptical of both the CCP and FLG, which I think is the most logical position to take on the matter. Sadly, "improving" the articles in that environment just doesn't seem like a good use of time. Colipon+(T) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to be a lot more pro-FG before I started here. Then, with a few nasty experiences (as detailed in my essay) and despite a few positive experiences dealing with asdfg12345, another practitioner, added to what I read when working on the articles, changed my opinion This is the diff of the 'Persecution' article, and this is a diff of the 'Self-immolation' article, both of which were worked on by asdfg12345 and I worked together concertedly and collegiately until Rajeev appeared from one of his sabbaticals with his ball-and-chain. Rajeev radically changed over the course of a few short months after I abandoned them, leaving him to it (Basically, he browbeat me away). The baseline versions are the last versions I feel vaguely confident about neutrality (they still need a lot of work). I'm still reluctant to get back into FG - I was working alone for well over 8 months 'on my own', and it's not something I care to do in that fashion anytime soon. Please have a look at these, and if you see it worthwhile, it could be the starting point. If we can find consensus ;-), we could possibly revert to this version and start from there. I haven't looked at either of these since September 2008, so heaven knows what has happened to these since. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

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)

• Email me. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism"

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)

Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital

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)

Jumping in... I don't know about the full history of the article, but the version that was more or less the one in place before today's edit warring started was from this edit (and minor edits around it), which I apparently did—although I forgot I did that, I had always just thought I only copyedited this article! Anyway, that edit is a lot to look through, but as far as I remember most of it was adding sources about the investigation, and trying to temper the POV of what was already there. After that, in late March there was some revert warring over some Malaysia stuff but I don't really remember what that was all about and the diffs are too messy; then in April there was some revert warring over a long quotation. Other than that, I think the version that is being discussed now is more or less the one I did back in October, so I guess I can be called the culprit :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the editor who started the article - he is not a known FG devotee. I suspect that it was created by an editor who read something in the news about the FG allegations of organ harvesting re this hospital. I'm not interested at pointing fingers except to keep the FG cabal at bay. All I can say is that it has turned into another battleground for them. I see the ongoing discussions at Talk:Falun Gong, and it looks like the Olaf is a rabid fervent FG supporter. His edit history indicates that he is effectively a WP:SPA. I also note that he is a party to the Arbcom ruling about Falun Gong. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not "rabid", Mr. WP:NPA. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dileep rajeev

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Public housing in Hong Kong

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)

Consistency

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)

• Thanks for your note. I see it has provoked an edit war and protection for the article. I apologise for upsetting you re the above edits. I did not mean to shift the bias of the article, and I apologise if that happened. I have replied in greater detail in the relevant talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Okay, I'll check it out. Thanks. Thing is, about your (I am sad to say, for more than one reason, hostile) remark on Olaf's recent AE case, for Falun Gong articles, Falun Gong SPSs are treated differently to, for example, CCP SPSs; this is in the policy. SPSs are reliable when they are commenting about themselves, along with a series of other conditions which shouldn't be violated. The problem is when they are quoted as facts or whatever. I guess you knew this, so I don't get it.--Asdfg12345 17:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

and just to clarify, the 'more-than-one-reason-I-am-sorry-your-remarks-were-hostile' refers to my own process of reflection on whether or not I could have behaved better in our dealings such that you would not find cause for complaint (were this possible). yep...--Asdfg12345 17:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request check for consistency

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)

Rebiya Kadeer

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)

• Thank you for your message. I noticed that you did not revert me. If you had, I would not have continued reverting either. You see, we have this perennial problem by partisan individuals who insist on using the Nobel Peace Prize nominations as some sort of distinguishing criteria, where in fact it is not. It is misused by some journalists who misunderstand the looseness of the nomination process whilst equating it with the importance of the award itself. It is a tool which is constantly used for political ends but whose real meaning is shallow. Actually, there are a number of sound editors who are watching the Kadeer article, and I was expecting them to chime in at any point, but they have not yet. I am certain they will. In the meantime, I would refer you to talk:Li Hongzhi, where we are also having that problem. Do hang around, your efforts are appreciated. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly note and very sensible suggestion. Am certainly happy to watch and wait awhile. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• From the lack of response from the talk page of Kadeer, I would assume there is no objection to my removal, except from you. That is not to dismiss your views. I have taken the discussion to Talk:Nobel_Peace_Prize#Mentions_of_nominations_in_WP_in_general, hopefully for a wider discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

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)

Talkback

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at HappyInGeneral's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

• I kind of feel that, however you felt about Simon's actions, creating a page called "objectionable edits", creating a heading with his name was inappropriate. I said as much in my MfD of the page. We all occasionally have complaints about each other's edits, and we resolve these through better understanding of the objections expressed. I cannot see anything good coming out of the use of the page, only drama. Before you know, it will become yet another battleground for 'pro' vs 'anti' (as if there were not enough already), you will get Dilip, Bobby Fletcher, FalunGongDisciple and PCPP posting all the diffs they find objectionable from the 'other side'. I think it's best deleted. Of course, it would be better if you reconsidered, and have it deleted yourself. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for supporting the deletion. Case closed. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RTL

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)

POV pushing on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

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)

• Falun Gong devotees, if they had any sense, will be taking a low profile with their point-pushing. One of their luminaries, User:Olaf Stephanos has been topic banned for mean-spirited POV-pushing. I am sure Happy knows he is on his second revert, and that he will meet a fate similar to his fellow practitioner if he carries on. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

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)

Discuss this

About cleanups

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

• You are welcome. I drew your attention to the templates, as well as to the discussions in the hope that you will come to your own judgement about their use. Although they may seemingly be useful, I have misgivings about using such currency/inflation conversions other than as a very soft 'rule of thumb' because of the arguments already contained on those discussion pages. I am not in favour of using same in articles because the calculations are inherently wrong, and I consider such use to be tantamount to original research. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Credit to Happy and asdfg for seeing the merger is not detrimental – made for an uncontested merge! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments to Tennis expert

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)

• I guess I'm just a bit sore he reacted with such hostility to my sincere 'Welcome back' message. I was merely making an observation, and I'm sorry you considered it "baiting". As for respect, I guess that might have been possible before he removed my post with that inflammatory comment, but everyone on WP knows that sockpuppeteers are the one biggest scourge after page-move vandals, and no respect, real or illusory, is accorded to them. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not trying to say anything good about Tennis expert's behaviour. You may notice that I made a comment on his talk recently rebutting something he said; I bothered with this comment largely because I felt he was being very rude and unfair to Ryan, and it's not the only time I've seen him do that. And that doesn't even consider his obviously inexcusable sockpuppetry. But none of that means it's OK to bait him. After what he did, it's unlikely anyone would unblock him, so he's most likely community banned. Just let him go away if he's willing to do this the proper way, that is, if he doesn't sock again. If he does sock again, revert, block, ignore (I know you can't block him personally, so obviously I mean to make appropriate reports to admins). Other than that, ignore him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advice. You have confirmed that he's about as easy to ignore as a full frontal. It should be a lot easier to ignore him now, though. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

more to nuke...

There's also Criticism of falun gong (w/o capitalization), another redirect. Nuke it? Seb az86556 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it should be redirected to Criticism of Falun Gong. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Done. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:13, 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)

• tvm Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) tvm?--Asdfg12345 06:15, 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)

Obviously ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy from Criticism of Falun Gong

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!

Does the skeptical movement oppose cults?

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)

dilip

need your comment here ! Seb az86556 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• just done it. Did you see what he did at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident‎? I've posted an angry response to him on that article's talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

saw it. completely unacceptable Seb az86556 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Public housing estates in Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi

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)

• While population may be a strong indicator of notability, is not in itself a prima facie demonstration of same. I would have no objections to a separate article if there is sufficient additional sourced material to assert its notability and take it past the level of a stub. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Then leave them at this moment. In fact, there are still two estates to be added in Kwai Chung. I will finish them soon. By the way, thanks for your effort! Ricky@36 (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks. I look forward to your updating the pages. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Irbisgreif's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Add Long Bin Interim Housing to Yuen Long Tag

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)

• • Finish! Refer to Public housing estates in Yuen Long Ricky@36 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sham Shui Po District estate articles suggestions

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)

• I agree. Most of them are rather well known. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I next?

Wow. I'm next on the hitlist, am I?--Asdfg12345 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your actions are no doubt under scrutiny, but I am not aware there is anything you have done which merits being taken to AE. This is quite unlike Dilip, who has been very disruptive all around for as long as I have known him. I know that all the action must be getting you quite stressed, and I can only advise you to keep cool. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:47, 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)

a humble suggestion

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)

• Yeh, I took a look at the abstract, and found that it was the result of a survey of FG practitioners, so I figured to use it to say it "enjoys excellent credibility" without mentioning the context would clearly be biased because of the sample. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 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)

• I actually dislike the word 'devotee' (and incidentally, 'adherent') too, but my dislike for reader fatigue is stronger. A similar reasoning goes for 'Persecution' vs 'ban', 'suppression', 'crackdown'. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

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)

One of the people expressing reservations was an admin who I guess is one of those who often enact such requests, and that's why I went ahead with the request for clarification. Oh, and Olaf was topic banned for 6 months, not 3. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Xinjiang

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)

• OK, I'll have a look at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply for public housing

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 agree with you on Yau Tong Estate, if we were talking about the original one. However, we are not. The new one is clearly no more notable than the others we are redirecting. The two (new and old estates) are quite separate subjects although they share the same name (a bit like the Volkswagen Golf Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, etc.) One could easily imagine the text regarding the new estate would form a section within the article about the original estate (not the case now). Yau Lai Estate may be the largest in Yau Tong, but it is only a small area in which there are only four housing estates,none of which are consequential. I frankly don't see any sense in keeping it separate, because it will suffer more deletion attempts.

  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 think Yau Lai Estate and Yau Tong Estate have enough sources to support their existance. No need to worried about them. Ricky@36 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wahaha

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 actually wrote all those pages, but I have never gotten a handle of how the lay reader sees this - Wahaha is a well known brand in China whose ownership has been in dispute, which essentially took place at the JV level. The JV is co-owned by HWG and Danone, but the whole thing is a tangled mess - which reminds me I need to go back and maybe clarify. I initially concluded that for the western audience, the brand is only a marginal player. It is clear to me that the dispute with Danone is what made Wahaha notable, thus the JV got front billing with the naming. Having said that, I have no objections to making Wahaha a dab page. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, which is why I figured I should compromise with a dab rather than trying to make Wahaha redirect to HWG. I guess I'll try out doing the dab and see if it gets anyone riled up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I just copied our exchange to the WHH talk page. cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I created the dab page to the best of my knowledge, but you might want to check it to make sure I described the difference correctly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem

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

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)

A suggestion

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)

• Do you honestly think it would be reasonable to ever expect more than a small handful of editors to dare to come to the FG articles to comment? The whole FG setup has been historically far too adversarial and intimidating to encourage a community discussion. So, under the circumstances, and as is pretty much universal in WP, two outside opinions is usually judged sufficient to settle a dispute, if you value outside opinions, that is. You keep going on about WP:N, but please note that it is not one of the pillars of wikipedia, while WP:NPOV is. The whole thing is about whether it is a topic in its own right or whether it forms an integral part of a wider picture. Two outside opinions have already said that it is part of a wider picture, and it is obviously something you do not want to hear, and I feel perhaps you may not be wholly respectful of those outside views. I don't believe that there has not been a substantive discussion on this, I only accept that it is not a discussion on your terms. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to make "my terms" the terms of wikipedia. It's a basic question of policy. The reason in policy has not even been established. You cite NPOV, but how is that relevant? It's biased just to have an article on this topic? Since when? What kind of logic is that? As I say, the content issues keep getting dragged into it when they are not particularly relevant. Whether it's a topic in its own right or part of a wider picture--isn't that a matter of notability? The allegations say that Falun Gong prisoners make up the vast majority of all organ transplants. It's an argument without logic, in my view. The logic is akin to saying that the article on Antisemitism be integrated into Racism (racism against Jewish people is just one kind of racism, right?), or saying that Sexism should be merged to Discrimination (it's a subtype of discrimination, right?)--or please explain how it's any different. The criteria is notability, whether these subtypes of whatever--abuse in this case--are sufficiently notable on their own. If they weren't notable they wouldn't be split off. That's the issue. Is it not?--Asdfg12345 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• By the way, your procedure for counting "outside opinion" is highly dubious... I'm counting three... at least Seb az86556 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm drafting a poll which will be launched in 24 hours' time. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:57, 2 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)

• Pffff! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:12, 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)

Human Rights Torch Relay

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)

Adding categories to redirected articles

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)

Beijing Television Cultural Center fire

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)

Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China

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)

• Thanks. Good call, I was going to do that after logging on this morning, but you beat me to it. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RMB

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)

• I have not educated myself about this, but was acting more from practical instinct. I did it because the Chinese yuan is not freely convertible, and is not a world reserve currency, such a reference is often useful to readers as a benchmark. I suppose I could use the Euro, but it is more closely tied to the US dollar in terms of exchange rate fluctuations. Please also note that I also changed the link from Renminbi to Chinese yuan in the same edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I restored the link fix you made... I'm not sure yet what to do about the conversions. Maybe I should leave a comment on the talk page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed

...at Talk:Republic of China#Proposing Article Title Change. Thanks! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To all the big editors of July 2009 Ürümqi riots: invitation for comment

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)

Hilarious

What can I say? 哭笑不得!--Asdfg12345 02:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't get. You said "argument be thesis - antithesis, logically moving through different points", so I thought logically this should work for you. If it doesn't, I still have no problem with having Time come in at the end. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:41, 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)

• The issues are polarised, so we are talking about the two extreme points, with the middle point sandwiched in between, so am I. The extreme points should be able to stand either way in the article. I have already said that if it doesn't work for you, I still have no problem with having Time come in at the end (after the government's assertion). Ohconfucius (talk) 05:02, 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)

• I understand your logic, and your consistent arguing for it. Although I went along with your thesis/antithesis model, I would say the doesn't apply to the same degree as if you were to make a conclusion on one side or another. According to WP:NPOV, we need to represent all 'significant points of view', so there cannot really be any thesis/antithesis anymore. It's actually thesis1, thesis2, thesis3, thesis4...

  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)

Neutral opinion needed

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)

Thanks for the heads up

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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

antilived^{T | 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.

• To think I've been battling these SPAs for over a year, with only elevated stress levels to show for it. It seems that the holdup in the Enforcement case has something to do with another case (see here), so little will happen until it's decided. It looks imminent, though. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Urumchi riots

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)

• While I agree it seems a bit much in terms of volume, I didn't see how it fit in the 'long term aftermath' section. I'll have a look at it again, maybe even move the later riot sub-section. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not even totally sure how the later riots fit into this article, I just couldn't think of anywhere else to put them at the time. The only real connection is that some sources say the later riots were partially because of discontentment over the fallout of the first riots (not enough people arrested and tried, not enough security, etc.). Of course, the other connection is navigational--people who just search for "Urumqi riots" might end up at this page but be curious about those riots too. One option would always be to split that into its own article and link it here with {{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)

• Agreed. I'd say it was much like an earthquake. After the main quake come the aftershocks. That's where we are with this now. Looking at Xinjiang now, this tense stand-off/bubbling state could last for months. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong Persecution Article

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)

• My bad. My sincerest apologies. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jean Shepherd

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)

Re:Dilip rajeev arbcom case

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)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temesgen

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)

• I have no objections to your proposal. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I like your name. Thank you, the article has been moved and userfied. The original link will appear as a redlink soon. You deserve the following, I appreciate you efforts.

		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)

• • • Many thanks to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

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)

• Flattery will get you everywhere! ;-) I thought I put in some better wording but perhaps it's still not there. I'll see what I can do. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cantonese

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)

Epoch Times tags

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)

Voting

As they say, "vote early and often" ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jerry Simmons

Closed this for you. _Met^ty 15:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mishavonna Henson

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)

Steve Strome

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)

• cheers! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Public Rental Housing Completed

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)

Tiananmen

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 recognition!

Thanks for your award on my job Ricky@36 (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep up the good work! Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates

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)

• I lean towards deprecation, although I support the use in some limited circumstances, such as tables. I also don't like to see a mix of date formats in the refs sections, and I consciously align these to the prevailing format in articles when I see inconsistent ones. So, I guess my position is that although I feel that the use of yyyy-mm-dd date formats in the reference section is probably not conducive to good editing practices because it encourages sloppiness, I don't much care so long as consistency is observed (i.e. per the current text in WP:MOSNUM). I just don't want anyone complaining that I align if the formats are inconsistent. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think we actually agree. A) Best to not have YYYY-MM-DD in footnotes (this vote does not include tables). B) Whatever happens, consistency is important (though I take that a step further, and would prefer consistency between text and footnotes).

But perhaps I ended up supporting the suggestion (while you ended up not against or in favor) because my feelings about A were stronger? I btw would support you if you were to suggest an addition that militates in favor of consistency in date formats.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain...

This if you wouldn't mind. Just in normal language will be fine.--Asdfg12345 09:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I guess there are two issues:

• Firstly, Kavan said "The Western media get most of their information about Falun Gong from press releases disseminated by the Rachlin media group. This group is essentially a Public Relations firm for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin, who is one of Li’s inner circle.", so what you wrote completely changed that, even if it was wrong - so it is not allowed.
• Secondly, what Li Hongzhi says is often extremely esoteric, and incomprehensible to ordinary people. The paragraph I took out was just a horrific examples of that Li-gobbbledegook. He was rambling on about reporting the truth. Fine, it can be said more concisely - an unnecessarily detailed quote which makes the article look idiotic. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:30, 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:

While Chinese media has launched an unrelenting assault on Falun Gong since 1999, Falun Gong's response through its various media organizations has earned the practice considerable public relations clout in the West. In North America and Europe, where Falun Gong maintains a strong presence, media obtain much of their information about the spiritual group through Rachlin media group, which is essentially a public relations firm for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin, one of Li’s inner circle. Academics also note Falun Gong's similarities to the Communist Party in its media strategies: intolerance of criticism, issuing denials when accused, exaggerating and sensationalizing claims, and deflecting blame by charging the other of the same offense.

after:

While Chinese media has launched an unrelenting assault on Falun Gong since 1999, Falun Gong's response through its various media organizations has earned the practice considerable public relations clout in the West. In North America and Europe, where Falun Gong maintains a strong presence, media obtain much of their information about the spiritual group through Faluninfo.net, which Kavan claims to be a "public relations firm" for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin, part of what Kavan considers to be "Li’s inner circle," though such terminology is not used among adherents. Critics also claim that Falun Gong practitioners share similarities with the Chinese Communist Party's media strategies, such as intolerance of criticism, issuing denials when accused, exaggerating and sensationalizing claims, and deflecting blame by charging the other of the same offense. In 2009, in response to a practitioner raising related concerns, Li Hongzhi said to the practitioners who staff New Tang Dynasty Television "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."

....

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)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

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)

FYI, I tried to work some of your thinking regarding non-uniform reference formats into a re-work of the proposal that appears below the comment of supporter # 21.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-immolation articles

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)

• Wow, it looks like you've done a lot of work! I started a list of articles too, mainly of longer on-line articles which can potentially be used on all articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Action

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)

map

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)

milkshake

That link defies the imagination. Today, "milk" was my best (Victoria, Australia). Tony (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I sometimes get the impression that linking is done by brainless morons. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen

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)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

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)

File:HK 60 anniv stamps.jpg listed for deletion

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)

As your stamp image was tagged as being unacceptable, you might like to offer an opinion about changing their guidelines for stamps such as yours which would be considered commemorative stamps. Any opinions on this issue could be very helpful: It's discussed here.]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ohconfucius. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_October_6.
Message added 15:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HK 60 anniv stamps.jpg suggestion ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

List of overweight actors in United States cinema

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)

minor thing...

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)

Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking

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

For Good Works on Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Presented by SilkTork *^YES! 09:20, 14 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)

Our barnstars crossed in the post! Awesome! :-) SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:22, 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)

I have to agree with the above on all counts, even the self-critical ones, unfortunately. :) It's really a bloody shame that other people would perceive getting three awards for one article would be excessive, because you'd probably be getting a fourth from me now otherwise, counting Seb's third of course. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you both, and for all your help and encouragement! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Falun Gong

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)

• The consensus was plain as day, and an admin saw fit to delete the History redirect so that it could be moved. Just because you disagree doesn't mean consensus does not exist. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning! Page move of History of Falun Gong

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)

• How thoughtful of you to copy my message to you verbatim back to me. They WERE addressed on the talk page. yours is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is a process for renaming disputed pages, which is assessed and closed by an uninvolved administrator. So please don't rename disputed renames just because you feel like it. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of single purpose accounts. I know you've been busy accumulating edits numerically by gnoming, but you are to all intents and purposes still an SPA. It still does not give you the necessary objectivity or authority to lecture me. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are not single purpose accounts? How many edits do you have outside the PRC apologies? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a contemptible personal attack. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of neutral and non-involved editors have come to clean up Falun Gong related articles, and they have been doing a very commendable job. Please do not disrupt this any further, HappyInGeneral. OhConfucius is one of the most NPOV-minded editors I have ever come into contact with; I frequently go to him to consult on delicate issues involving China or Chinese things, and he has always shown a great ability to end disputes and neutralize articles. Attacking him as disruptive and then a PRC-apologist is complete nonsense, and only makes you seem more desperate. Colipon+(Talk) 17:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice of you to make a list of those neutral editors, just so we know who we are talking about. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cut the sarcasm or irony, failing that, please do not edit my talk page. T answer your question, it is unlikely that any single purpose accounts will be anywhere on that list. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'Uniformisation'

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)

There is certainly nothing wrong with adding a template or category to show the date format normally used in an article. You are not actually using a bot at this time, so that is not yet a problem. I believe creating a fully-automated bot to make date formats uniform without introducing any errors would be impossible for the general case. For one thing, it would be a non-starter to expect editors to protect oddball dates from the bot; the bot would have to distinguish non-Gregorian dates and dates within quotations all by itself.

It might be possible to use a bot on a date that is used as a parameter, such as an accessdate, because of things we know about the restricted range of the parameter (for example, accessdates must refer to a date after the Internet went into service). Jc3s5h (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the first pass to do this work needs to be manual. Bots can act on articles which are tagged, on the assumption that those 'oddball dates' have been somehow protected from bots. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept that assumption; editors cannot be relied on to notice the tag. Now, if the user interface noticed any attempt to edit a tagged article, and bugged the editor with a question like Are you sure you really want to enter "December 7, 1941" into an article that uses the day, month, year format? then I'd accept the assumption. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoenig v Isaacs

Hello Ohconfucius, this is what I was going to reply at a copyvio entry about the above page:

Court judgments are in the public domain. The law is public property, and there is no copyright on it. The only copyright that a reporting company (like Bailii, which you see asserts 'Crown Copyright') has is over the format. In fact, though this did not come from Bailii, and just because it is similar does not make it the same. There are many differences, eg the footnoting, the links. In fact, typed it this one from another extract from a book. Another official report such as the Queen's Bench, or Appeal Cases, or Weekly Law Reports or All England Law Reports include (beyond the judge's opinions themselves) a headnote, which summarises the case and the ratio in its own words is clearly the copyright of the report. I don't think anybody is claiming that should be copied. Wikidea 10:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

... 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)

I am just used to seeing stuff copied wholescale, which I have to remove. I'm glad that wasn't the case in the above, and I apologise. I have no problem with your explanation, and thank you for your message. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, all good! Wikidea 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citation

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)

• Many thanks. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:07, 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)

• Thanks. Interesting character. I am just now finding out about him. you are probably right. 'Conservative' label was unsourced (my own, base on a perception) The best one I found so was actually a qigong source, so it's normal there will be a qigong bias for now. I am milking each source, but will introduce more as I find more English sources. Later on, I will start on the Chinese sources. I'm just dying to know in what manner did he write supporting the democracy movement. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I made some small fixes to the lede and linked the Chinese Wikipedia article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:43, 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)

• Read the Reuters article in 'Further reading' section. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have previously only known of Sima's anti-pseudoscience rhetoric and general sceptic works but have not been in extensive contact with his political views. His battle with Wang Yang is highly representative of the new dichotomy of Chinese values vs. Western values that has seemingly emerged within the CCP. My best guess is that while Sima may not have explicit backing of senior party officials, both his and Wang Yang's views are currently subject to intense debate within the Communist Party itself and both are accorded some legitimacy. Therefore censors may not be so fast to jump on people like Sima because there are a large number of people within the party that share his views. Intensely nationalistic or pro-Communist rhetoric is generally censored on web pages. I don't know if his brand of thinking can be branded as "neo-conservative" or some such, but more research should be done before any labeling in the introduction. Colipon+(Talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sima Nan

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)

Hey!

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.

BNP/question time page

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)

• I'm please to hear that. I won't have time to look at it for another 24 hours. I'll be back at it on Tuesday. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:29, 26 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)

You have it wrong there, the D is for you, not me, to initiate, if you are the one being reverted - if you disagree with my edit summary in any revert type edit, of which I always ensure I include and make as clear as possible my objections, then you need to open a discussion. I am not obliged to assume you will object to every single revert whatever the exlanation and hence bring every single one up on the talk page - that would be a shocking example of bad faith, and a waste of time. You will see there are plenty of reverts of my edits that I do not subsequently dispute on reflection. And on this specific membership issue, I am not the only one who has reverted you, so you are innacurate on that point, and even if I were, you would now have reinstated it twice, making your suggestion that I should wait for other opinions rather pointless, because you are already into an edit war. I say again, please abide by BRD before knowingly repeating any edit that you know is disputed and has not been discussed on the talk page. As you seemed to be embarking on a series of re-reverts tonight, I have begun a section on your behalf to bring it quickly to attention, but I am not obliged to do it every time for you. MickMacNee (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do accept what you say, and will try to discuss more. I appreciate the hard work you are putting into the article, but I find your style a tad aggressive. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you. If I am getting angry and aggressive, it is probably more down to Astral's actions and comments than yours, but I still have an issue with the way you percieve all of your edits to be de-facto correct, when a lot of your changes are subjective, and not simply a case of black or white policy, and as such, when they are disputed, they absolutely require discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sima Nan

On October 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sima Nan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't reply on time; I was away for a few days. But I see that Sima Nan has made it onto DYK, which is great. Good work! Colipon+(Talk) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School

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)

• "賤格 李镜鎏 吃屎", approximates as "trash '李镜鎏(name)', eat shit". You will be aware it has been problematic for some time. The latest edit is, I assume, by the same vandal as before; xhe registered under Testhphp (talk · contribs). Knowing that the edit will be reversed, the editor is now toys with the edit summary whilst reverting himself. I wonder if semi-protection will be effective, as it is a registered user and single-purpose account. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Created October 26, they would not have been able to make those edits to Talk if it was semied. (The account was not autoconfirmed yet). This may be student vandalism, and since it's not readable by most readers of enwiki we might be tempted to let it go. I don't bother removing abuse from the edit history of my own talk page. If there was an OTRS request from somebody we would certainly do it. Or if it exposed the personal identity of an editor. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Understood. Thanks for the explanation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion policy discussion.

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)

DYK for 39 Conduit Road

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 39 Conduit Road, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Central Ordnance Munitions Depot

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)

• Thanks, I see that you went and undid those changes I made to the Heritage site lists too. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mildly offended

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)

• Your objection is noted. I will try harder. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.