User talk:Colipon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. I will generally respond to your messages here for the purpose of linking threads, but will respond on your talk page if you prefer.


Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Mikhail Khodorkovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chita (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Hey, I filed a Request for Comment on the He / Luo issue. It's probably way too long, but I don't want uninformed editors offering casual input without considering who the sources are and what they actually say. I hope that I have adequately represented the objections to inclusion as well. This seemed like the only fair (ie. random) way to solicit the opinions of fully uninvolved editors.Homunculus (duihua) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai[edit]

Apparently someone doesn't like the linking. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review my article Quadrilateral Security Dialogue?[edit]

Hi Colipon, I'm trying to find somebody working on Wikiproject China (like you) who would be willing to re-rate my article Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. You can make comments on this review page. Any help would be much appreciated! best, -Darouet (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary! Will work along the lines you've suggested. All best, -Darouet (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Just began looking at it. Will be happy to contribute more! Thanks for the suggestion (and for your help with QSD). -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mali edits[edit]

Hi there Colipon. Looking at the fast approaching edits on Mali-related articles, I noticed this edit by you. Could you explain to me precisely what you meant by using "regime" with caution, why we have to do this and where it states that this is so. There is a reason I ask and I'll explain it to you after your reply. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I replied on that talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. It is quite a relevant discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a mistake, right?[edit]

The Bo Xilai page says that Bo failed to get elected to the Central Committee in 2003. That has to be a mistake, right?

On another note, I was just reviewing this edit [1]. I had started preparing something similar offline. My thought is to break out distinct sections on his tenure as mayor of Dalian, followed by a section on the 15th Party Congress (with would include content similar to what you wrote), then governor of Liaoning, followed by 16th party congress, and so on. Any thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good catch. He definitely got elected to the CC in 2003 - so it would seem his 'failed election' actually took place sometime in 1997-8... Generally as a mayor of a large city like Dalian one would be on the CC ex officio. Bo's omission from the CC is extremely significant. I believe what actually happened was that upon his installation as Mayor (or governor), he was to be 'alternated' into the CC, i.e, as an 'additional' member. These alternates need to go through an election process among existing CC members, and I believe that is where he failed the vote. I wish sources were a little clearer on this. Colipon+(Talk) 21:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
His failed nomination in 1997 was a pretty big deal; the family ran a national publicity campaign touting his achievement, and he wasn't even chosen as part of the Liaoning delegation. Maybe tomorrow I'll have finished pulling something together on it. As to 2003, I was also referring to the year. Don't these selections take place during the party congress (in this case, the 16th congress held in 2002)? Homunculus (duihua) 22:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let me know if you find anything. WRT the idea of separating out the Congresses as their own sections, I'm not sure if I like this idea. Because aside from the political jockeying there's little else that can act as standalone content for those sections. I would be much more comfortable trying to integrate those into their adjacent sections. Colipon+(Talk) 01:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at what I've done. I turned "Work in Liaoning" into three sections: Mayor of Dalian, 15th Party Congress, and Governor of Liaoning. The section on the 15th Party Congress a bit long. If you think it's overkill, you're welcome to rein it in. I'm inclined to think of these things as the single-party system equivalent of an election campaign, and to end, I think they're notable enough. I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Regarding the 16th party congress, I haven't put anything on the page yet, but there might be some notable stuff there as well; Bo's name was considered alongside Li and Xi's to lead the fifth generation of leaders. Granted, he was never a very serious contender, but was probably third in line...Homunculus (duihua) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite good. And very interesting. Li Cheng is one of my favourite China analysts. He has the background and isn't so clouded with his own perceptions of how the system 'should' be - unlike Willy Lam. Bruce Gilley is another expert on this topic. Maybe see if he has anything interesting on the subject (although some of his analysis is regrettably inaccurate). For the 17th congress, I think there was some serious jockeying for Bo to go to Chongqing. He was initially very reluctant and apparently protested to the Org. department, saying that it was a demotion and an insult. It took him 15 days from the close of the congress to his first day on the job as party secretary in Chongqing. Perhaps that's when he was devising his proto-"Chongqing model". It'd be great if we could find some background on the 16th. Colipon+(Talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny, about Cheng Li. I've found him, like nearly all the top DC China scholars (Shambaugh, Lampton, Bader, Pei, etc.), to be extremely politic; their organizations and careers rely on maintaining optimal access to the Chinese leadership. I don't think that means he lacks aspirations for political reform, though. Anyways, Gilley and Andy Nathan have written a bit on Bo in the 16th party congress. I'll try to find more.Homunculus (duihua) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of candor and cooperation[edit]

Colipon, I know I haven't stated it clearly yet, but I do hope that we can work together now and in the future. There are not many editors on this encyclopedia who are knowledgeable and active on topics related to Chinese politics, and I prefer to be on cooperative (if not friendly) terms with those who are. So, in the spirit of cooperation, I am going to be candid, and I hope that you will reciprocate.

I don't appreciate the tone you use to describe my editing when you disagree with it (eg. "alarming," "concerning," etc. There was also your recent comment, where you—perhaps unwittingly—implied that I am not a "rational" editor.) If I were slightly more thin-skinned or conflict averse, I might interpret these repeated insinuations as a form of intimidation. I hold myself to high standards, and while I am by no means above reproach, I make every attempt to be judicious in my judgement, scrupulous in adhering to policies, and welcoming of dissenting views and opinions. If you have a problem with something I have written, you can plainly describe the content issues as you see them, and I will seek to address it. If you have a question about me or my position on a topic, I would appreciate if you ask me directly, rather than making indirect insinuations about my motivations. For professional reasons I need to guard my privacy, so I don't disclose more than I wish, but I do not lie. I hope that's reasonable.

I also want to discuss with you the He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan issue. I'm interested in talking with you here because, honestly, I feel I can speak more freely. Not about Wikipedia policies and such, but just about our views on the subject. This is an issue you've been battling for a long time, and it seems like an inordinate amount of effort for such a small point. Could you explain why you see this as so important? If this conversation is agreeable to you, I will share my thoughts in turn. (what I'm really asking, I guess, is whether you truly believe that He Zuoxiu was acting in a vacuum, writing and publishing completely of his own accord, and that the surrounding circumstances and chain of events with the MPS was just coincidence).Homunculus (duihua) 22:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel like I need to state my opinion on the He/Luo issue itself. Quite simply, my opinion does not matter when it comes to building this encyclopedia based on verifiability, reliable sources, and due weight.

User Homunculus, I find working with you a very pleasant experience, unless the subject matter deals with Falun Gong. Thus, I try to avoid even having discussions with you about these matters unless I feel extremely strongly that Wiki policy has been violated. As you know, my experience with editing Falun Gong has not been pleasant. I have all but stopped editing those articles. If I do comment on them, I do my utmost to keep my comments focused on content, and avoid personal remarks.

I want to thank you for this message. I, too, would like to extend a hand in furthering our trust and cooperation, and I think our joint efforts over at Bo Xilai is a testament that this can be done in a civil, cooperative, even friendly manner. I intend to continue this relationship. Colipon+(Talk) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't press you further. I look forward to working with you more elsewhere. I may even seek to recruit your help on a few big projects that require rewriting. Homunculus (duihua) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


I have nominated Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bo Xilai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


Hey Gord. What's a "sticky"?VR talk 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is basically a bare-link to the article that would appear beside "Recent Deaths", without a blurb attached. Colipon+(Talk) 03:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Danielle Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firestone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Li Yang (Crazy English)[edit]

Thanks for the BLP removal! Not sure how I missed it. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I just find it ironic that IP editor was editing the page of an English teacher (probably one of his fans) and had no grasp of the language whatsoever. Colipon+(Talk) 15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:ITNRSCE[edit]

Re your message: I think I will leave it deleted. Wikipedia:ITNRSCE does not exist, so CSD G8 applies. You also set it to a redirect to a particular section of a discussion and a closed section at that, which is highly unusual. Looking at the links to WT:ITNRSCE, they appear to be all of your posts and not in use by anybody else. If your intention was to use WT:ITNRSCE to link to a particular discussion, that is not the usual practice for Wikipedia Talk namespace links. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response... would a good compromise solution to be to create at least a redirect to that discussion? I don't really see this as being a huge issue. Colipon+(Talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You already had such an unusual redirect as that was what I deleted. My recommendation is that if you need to link to a particular archived discussion, just link it the "long" way instead of trying to have a shortcut. Such a short cut can infer a guideline or project that does not exist and I do not believe that would be proper. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cake theory[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Hu Chunhua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Our recent interaction[edit]

I thought you might find this interesting. I hope that I can earn your forgiveness for my conduct during that affair, even if you weren't aware of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have always tried to assume good faith in fellow users, and my experiences on this encyclopedia has been overwhelmingly positive with only a few exceptions. I was not offended in any way, but I appreciate you coming forward and explaining everything. Colipon+(Talk) 02:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum[edit]

Hi Colipon, Across multiple fora related to Falun Gong, you have used talk pages to register your general dislike of the subject and of the editors who contribute. You have been asked before to comment on content, not contributors, and have consistently failed to do so. You would be well advised to note that the two editors whose sentiments you recently echoed at Talk:Falun Gong were summarily banned for using talk pages as a forum. I think leniency has been applied to you (at least by me) because, apart from this name space, you're a constructive editor. From another perspective, as a veteran editor, you should know better.Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors can voice their frustration about the state of an article that s/he believes cannot be constructively remedied through the normal editorial process due to tendentious behavior by others. If you really believe I am engaging in behavior that warrants disciplinary action, you can file a complaint against me, report me to an admin, or seek some other sanction. I reserve my right to speak my mind when I think the interests of this encyclopedia have been damaged or threatened, as they have been over at Falun Gong-related articles over the years.

As an aside, I read some of your recent contributions - such as those over at barefoot lawyers. They are well-written and very constructive. Credit should be given where it is due. Colipon+(Talk) 02:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nucai[edit]

To answer your question, a GA reviewer might think it's too short as it is. But, it's well written, and if you can expand it further, it may pass a GA review. In fact, if you can expand it 5x more than you already have, it can get to DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it might be able to pass at this size. For a comparably sized article, see Commissioner's Trophy (MLB). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right. I guess there is no absolute measure of article size that is good or bad, given the subject that you would be dealing with. I've only recently begun the GA business. What does getting an article to GA mean apart from brownie points? Colipon+(Talk) 02:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hu Chunhua[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Hu Chunhua 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! Thelmadatter (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Its great to have someone working on China-related articles but expansions can be tough. The 5x rule is pretty rigid.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN Ticker[edit]

FYI, I think the tweaks you made at ITNC made it much better. I still have some questions (or questions) about the change though and would like to see it brought to a larger discussion. Hot Stop 11:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with wider discussion, though most of the time it gets derailed because editors are quick to criticize and do not suggest any solutions in its place. So I'm feeling a little disillusioned; but if the ticker does not work, then I will default to removing elections from ITNR altogether. Colipon+(Talk) 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN Elections[edit]

TGhis is ridiculous, no one wants to partak ein discussion when we coe with somethign yet everyone jumps to opposing any chage. Now we have 3 elections on there (with armenia should be posted (better than serbias article) and syria do up. That would be ALL elections on ITN. (and that snooke thingLihaas (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is patently ridiculous. I think it really highlights some weaknesses in the ITN decision making system - every other part of the main page, FA, DYK, OTD, etc has to go through layers of scrutiny but ITN can be the work of a few camped editors (or in this case, opposition from a few editors). As a side note, are you typing on a tablet? It really needs a spell checker. Colipon+(Talk) 13:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Back at you![edit]

Double imaginary barnstar... working in Asian topics is even harder to do well in!!! Spanish is relatively easy to learn as its a related language. But any Asian language for English speakers and vice versa is a much bigger challenge.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi -- Now I've cooled off a bit, I wanted to apologize for misinterpreting some of your remarks and for being needlessly disruptive. Sorry about that. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tyrannus. I do have to offer my own apologies. I was more aggressive than I should have, and made the debate more personal than I would have liked. It is undeniable that I am frustrated over the state of ITN. I find you to be a thoughtful, nuanced, and intelligent contributor to these discussions, and I am optimistic that we can work collaboratively in the future. Thank you for leaving this friendly note, and see you around. Currently, this discussion might interest you! Colipon+(Talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Why you delete all my edits? (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Response to you comment on my talk page. Cossaxx (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello stranger[edit]

I don't know who you are but I'm already falling in love with you :-) Don't worry, since were online we're both considered Eunuchs, no awkwardness possible.

Most all of your chinese interests match up with mine. I'm interested in Qing on forwards but not any further back. Is it me or does the china project page seem very light on activity and contributions. There aren't many proposals or active talk subjects. So do you speak/read Chinese or have you ever been to China? I had to ask that but you don't need to answer; not sure how much people like their privacy on wiki. And I think you're being too humble about your english level, it seems native to me. Or did you let wikipedians edit it for you #$%?. So do you believe in collaboration with others who share your interests or do you like to go it alone? I look forward to reading your articles and I will click that little star on the top right to prove it. Oh,just realized that will only follow your talk page. Can I follow you more generally to see your edits and articles in real time fashion? I'm new so I'd like to learn the process from the stands. 好的-再见一路顺风-我希望我可以常常碰到你在维基百科Whoisgalt (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the friendly note. You can see some of my contributions at User:Colipon/Contributions. You can always help improve them. If you have any questions about Wiki let me know. I would be happy to help you get oriented here. Colipon+(Talk) 18:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your friendly note. Although I do disagree with you on many things, I definitely agree with your message! Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Replying to your comment on my talk page, I'd like to analyse the response to Jayron32's proposal before taking the idea lab stuff any further. I think understanding what the community is looking for and tweaking the message accordingly is the way to go here: proposing before we know what we're "up against" is an approach that often kills off fantastic ideas. —WFC— 11:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


Please see here.[2] I'm sorry about this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the shout-out.[3] Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought your comment about attracting users to update articles was great. It stuck with me, evidently. :) Colipon+(Talk) 04:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Colipon. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

David Levy 03:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Toulouse and Montauban shootings[edit]

You recently removed wording from the lead stating from the sentence: he attacked the Jewish school to avenge Palestinian children, stating, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine." This formulation was agreed upon at the Dispute resolution notice board by all involved parties as well as uninvolved editors and I request that this content is restored. Thank you.Ankh.Morpork 23:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of the previous consensus on this matter, and please accept my apologies. You may restore the content as you see fit; though I would still prefer it in the article body... I think we will need to hold another RfC to alter the current composition. Colipon+(Talk) 23:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue was that the current version did not accurately reflect Merah's exact words so the compromise was to present them hand in hand. Thank you for your reasonableness.Ankh.Morpork 00:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Falun Gong 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not repeat mistakes by other people [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Was that supposed to be a threat? Colipon+(Talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I will assume you meant well, but still, I think if I will demonstrate nothing else at this arbitration, one point that I will stick to is that this is not a 'two-sided' conflict. Colipon+(Talk) 22:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I only suggested for you and Homunculus to examine a couple of diffs provided by an arbitrator to justify an indefinite topic-ban for a user [5]. I suggested that others should not repeat mistakes by this user by presenting a seemingly valid evidence, which was interpreted by arbs as a proof of his "battleground mentality" (diff 20). Of course this example is well-intended. If you find this example not particularly helpful, this is fine, you are more than welcome to ignore it. Sorry for misunderstanding.My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Basically your point was that what you say in an arb case can be used against you in that very arb case. Fair enough. I don't have much attachment to Falun Gong, it was never my primary interest, unlike the other 'side', so I am willing to take greater risks with my statements. But thank you nonetheless. Colipon+(Talk) 02:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, after quick check, it seems that you might be in a better shape than others. But speaking about all others, none of them did anything more than a few reverts here and there. And of course all of you have some POV, but that's OK; everyone has POV. So, this is not really about taking risks, but about letting other contributors down, and at least some of them are very good contributors (would not you agree?). My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, once you see the evidence, I think you will take on a different perspective. But we can wait and see. Colipon+(Talk) 21:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's exactly the problem. After looking (quickly) at AE requests, I did not see any good evidence on anyone's side, except occasional edit warring by several people and blatant topic ban violations by PCPP. That's why I think that all of you would be better off by simply dropping all issues. Of course Abcom can see this very differently and topic-ban everyone for a couple of reverts or for making statements I would consider very much normal, just like in this case. As about your question (biased articles), I would not tell too much during active arbitration. But probably the most obvious are subjects related to Tibet. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Personally, I think the constant drama at AE and now ArbCom makes the editing environment very difficult for everyone. Nonetheless, you and I obviously disagree on the nature of the evidence, and that's fine. I personally think that editors only begin to understand the problems at FLG when they begin editing themselves. I respect your opinion though. ArbCom will have their hands full on this one.

Regardless, I haven't been too involved in the Tibet articles. Understand it's fertile grounds for POV-pushing, but which 'side' does it favour more, in your opinion? Colipon+(Talk) 19:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you are! Discussing something in terms of sides ("us" and "they") can be a ground for sanctions by Arbcom as a "proof" of your or my alleged "battleground mentality". And I do not use my email for any wikipedia-related purposes since the incident when it was stolen by unknown "hackers" and sent as "evidence" to Arbcom. Let's stop right now because someone can submit this conversation as another "evidence". Thank you for discussion.My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hope you understood that I used the word 'side' loosely and went as far to make sure I added scare quotes around it, so as to prevent a sort of reaction as yours above. Also, I think there is a legitimate case to be made that there are 'sides' at Tibet articles, just as there is a legitimate case to be made at Israel-Palestine. But I do not think this description is appropriate for Falun Gong; Tibet discussion is totally independent of Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 04:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, under the circumstances, considering that there are, apparently, groups on both sides which seem to consistently take similar positions, I find it rather difficult to imagine that using "us" and "them" would be an indicator of battleground mentality. It seems to me, based on my own recent, admittedly quick, review of the situation that there are two fairly consistent positions, and that they are taken fairly consistently by the same individuals. Whether that is evidence of a battleground mentality or collusion, possibly on both sides, is another matter entirely. It might be a good idea to start getting your evidence together though. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence. Here is something Colipon calls "The most egregious piece of Homunculus' advocacy work" in his AE request. Is that something self-evident? No, this is not even a revert, but mostly addition of new material. Most of that is sourced, and if something was not, why not discuss it? There is nothing sanctionable here. But I can see at the top of the diff: "9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown". So that was not even Homunculus? What kind of "evidence" is that? My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into this discussion now. People can read through my case and make what they will out of it. Some people will see things the same way I do. Others won't. Such is life. Personally I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously and need to step back a little. There are a lot of enjoyable things to do around here, and Arbitration certainly is not one of them. But we'll cope. Colipon+(Talk) 04:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 16, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 evidence submissions[edit]

Please note this supplementary information regarding evidence submissions from drafting arbitrator Elen of the Roads. All parties submitting evidence are reminded that claims must be supported by diffs at all times. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Colipon+(Talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 evidence phase deadline[edit]

This is a reminder that all evidence in the Falung Gong 2 case should be submitted here by Saturday the 16th of June. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I submitted an AE case, and an admin posted on the FLG2 case that it can be used as evidence, do I need to repeat or summarize what I had already wrote at that AE case under the 'evidence' section? Or is the existing AE case fine? Colipon+(Talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this might answer your question[6].Homunculus (duihua) 15:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

I'm a Falun Goner[edit]

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.

Thanks for this. There is only so much shit one can take. I never imagined that I would be making such a dramatic exit and in such circumstances. But truth be told, the writing has been on the wall; this move has been coming for a long time. Clearly, there has been a sea-change in the FLGverse since the November 2011 "retirements" and the "new guard" is now more forceful and ruthless than ever. My constitution just isn't strong enough for this. I'd better move on while I still enjoy working Wikipedia, in areas where my efforts are appreciated. I don't want to predict how I might react if I find her editing an article I happen to be working on, but I'll face that issue when I come to it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am furious, more than I have ever been, with these activists. It should not end like this. You can at least wait until you see the results from ArbCom. They will be making a fair decision there, and since the Falun Gong'ers relentless advocacy is very obvious, I trust that they will exonerate you with the mitigating circumstances. You have been a fair editor and you've done so many things that benefit this encyclopedia at large. This is really too great of a loss to all of us. Colipon+(Talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'll stick around. But just not around the FLG pages, which are definitely deleterious to one's sanity. I've taken the Arbcom case pages off my watch list. I think Biophys/MVBW has had it about right from the start. I regret even wasting a moment with this FLG editing. I thought I could make an improvement, but alas. And I'm definitely taking MVBW's advice not to fight any more. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
This is truly sad. Sad. Though, reflecting on it after I've calmed down somewhat, I think I can see your point of view. Like you, I am worn out. It takes much more energy combating POV-pushing edits than it takes to create it, and it's energy that neither of us have. I'm glad I will be seeing you around other articles, and hope to continue our working relationship in content unrelated to Falun Gong. Colipon+(Talk) 17:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I am deeply troubled to see that two users who have an encyclopedic knowledge of this topic's history on Wikipedia, and who are deeply read in the sources and familiar with the issues, are leaving because they feel harassed. A volunteer can only parry with an activist for so long until he either loses his principles and becomes an activist himself, or exits the space entirely. I respect your decision.
May I recommend to you the excellent essay, "How to get rid of POV crap". It seems that you are already adhering to some of its principles, by thinking about your own articles that you will develop. Part of the stress may be because the editors who strived for neutrality were too reactive. Some articles, like those which exist to document every "concern" and "controversy" about an organization, simply cannot be fixed with even the most rigorous application of our policies and guidelines.
Seek the respect and recognition you deserve, and continue to write stellar articles in the topics that interest you! Shrigley (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It is deeply troubling that the editor whose drive and determination were the primary reason for the high quality of the only FA related to FG is leaving the topic. That means you, Ohconfucius. It is honestly no less troubling that Colipon, who also has done good work on the topic, particularly in battling the POV pushers, has also indicated disgust with the material and the related behavior.
Having said that, I also know that there are any number of other articles and topics, some of which are at least as important as this one, and some maybe more important, which in some cases still don't have articles. It is my sincerest hope that both of you continue in some capacity, and, yeah, if either of you sees anything in red at User:John Carter/Religion articles, in which all the articles in the first section have separate articles in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, feel free to make them (Shameless advertisement ended).
More seriously, I got disgusted by both the broad harassment and regular attacks by a couple of really fringe cultists of legally questionable mental capacity on another article related to early Christianity, which lead to repeated requests to have me desysopped, topic banned, and such, often on the basis of outright lies from them, so I really can't complain about you two doing the same. But I do hope that you at least consider returning to the topic if asked in the future.
I am trying to get together a list of all the encyclopedias reviewed by journals on JSTOR, as a prelude of maybe getting a more objective idea as to what content should be in some contentious articles. I hope to finish doing so by the end of the month. Although a lot of them are somewhat dated, it will be much harder to argue reference books are biased. I hope it will help in a few areas, and I think, maybe, FG might be one of them. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all, and particularly to John for his support and encouragement all this time. I'm sorry to leave Shrigley and Colipon to continue fighting this arbcom case without me, but the desperate acts in the struggle for survival of activists was just too much for this meek soul to bear. I eat my words, the words that I uttered when asked to consider leaving Falun Gong aside, that I wouldn't leave just because a FLG meatpuppet said I ought to. I wasn't aware of John's trials and tribulations elsewhere, but now that I do, I understand that he is a kindred spirit. As I already stated, I take indefinite leave from all articles directly related to Falun Gong. I'm past caring what happens to those articles now. The activists can continue to make them into glossy Falun Gong brochures without having to worry about my "tendentious editing" and "disruption". If I return, and that's a big if, the conditions must be right. That much I learned this time around. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
One last request to all, maybe. There is, I think, one group of articles which would be both useful to readers, and editors too, which would not be particularly problematic for development. Given the comparatively few books on the subject of Falun Gong in English, I think it is not unreasonable to, maybe, try to build articles on them individually. Of those I have seen, the only one I don't think would fairly clearly qualify as notable might be Revenge of the Forbidden City. And I do think that it would be very useful if any future editors had information readily available regarding, for instance, Danny Schechter's fairly obvious bias toward human rights issues and personal ties to Falun Gong, which are mentioned rather clearly in the reviews of his books. As we all know, academic reviews are counted the best, and there really aren't that many books or reviews on these subjects which would be able to be spun. Any interest? John Carter (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why don't you think Revenge of the Forbidden City is notable? The methodology has its limits, but for what it is—an exhaustive review of official documents from 1999 to 2005—it's a pretty impressive tome, and represents an important part of the discourse. That holds true whether or not one agrees with some of the conclusions Tong draws about the continued primacy of the party-state and the overall trajectory of the campaign as of 2005. There are a couple reviews of it out now, including one in Nova Religio a month or two ago. Homunculus (duihua) 22:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, that is on the basis of the relevant notability guidelines, and it does not necessarily reflect on the quality or reliability of the book. I have reviewed all the relevant databanks I can find, and the few comments I have seen are not such as to lead me to think that it meets those guidelines. Admittedly, those databanks are not exhaustive, and some did not contain full text. It is very likely I have not seen all of them, but I based my statements on existing guidelines. I also think that perhaps more interesting is the Cultural Economy of Falun Gong, a more recent book, which apparently points out that the language used by FG during the early years could and possibly was seen by the CCP government as being directly threatening to the government. I would also more than a little question what caused you, all of a sudden, to decide to involve yourself in this discussion, considering that the previous comments have been by editors who have decided to leave the related content in large part due to your own editing patterns, but that is another question. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to take the discussion elsewhere. As to why I all of a sudden decided to get involved— I didn't care to comment on the personal stuff, but I do like talking about books, and it is unfortunately not often that the conversation centers on such things. Homunculus (duihua) 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to John's question about writing articles on books, I am for this idea, definitely, but I would have to re-read the books to get a better understanding before digging in. Schechter's 'pro-FLG' bias has been noted in numerous other scholarly accounts. I think a scholar that deserves greater coverage is Heather Kavan, though most of the stuff cited to her have been removed from the pages over the years as the SPAs were engaged in their lengthy scrubbing sessions. Also worthy of note, perhaps, are 'primary source' books such as "China Falun Gong" and "Zhuan Falun", the latter being something of a 'bible' for FLG. They could probably use separate articles. Colipon+(Talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Heather Kavan is a professor of speechwriting who gave a conference paper on Falun Gong in New Zealand. I have never seen her cited by any of the serious scholars on the topic. Homunculus (duihua) 03:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
With translation courtesy of kaiwind (according to her staff website [7]) ... TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
et alors? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Kaiwind is a Chinese government website. Heather Kavan is a professor of communications (specialty is speechwriting) with no peer-reviewed publications on Falun Gong, who has had no discernible impact on the discourse in serious literature, but whose conference paper is heavily promoted on a Chinese government website. And this is the scholar Colipon wants to give greater coverage to. Meanwhile, I promote the research of Ownby, Penny, Palmer, Tong—people who publish books on Falun Gong in the most prestigious academic presses—and I'm the partisan? It's just interesting. Homunculus (duihua) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I asked. You have a certain sense of humour that I don't find funny in the slightest. Some once told me I shouldn't go smear someone who doesn't have a Wikipedia account, and yet I'm seeing it happen here in front of my very eyes. Kavan is an expert on communications and religion who has mounted a detailed year-long study on the communications methods of the Falun Gong. I specifically asked her and she informed me that her work on Falun Gong delivered to the conference had indeed been peer reviewed. But then, some reliable sources are clearly more reliable than others. I expect you don't care and will find other objections to using her work. I knew I was right to get out. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Who smeared her? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it an amazing coincidence that your sense of humour doesn't tickle me either? <hint, you needn't bother answering> --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have smeared or misrepresented anyone. She doesn't have any peer-reviewed publications on Falun Gong (maybe her conference paper was vetted). Some sources are indeed more reliable than others, and are a variety of considerations that go into making these determinations: their expertise, the venues in which they publish (or, in this case, the prestige and selectiveness of the conferences where they present), whether their papers are peer-reviewed, the frequency and manner in which they are cited by other experts in the field, the kind of research methodology they employ, their impact on the discourse, and so on. These are all the kinds of considerations that should be discussed when determining how much weight and prominence to assign the views of different people. And, when measured against these criteria, Kavan does not seem to qualify as being very notable, except that she is heavily promoted on Chinese government-affiliated websites. Anyways, this got a little off-track. Homunculus (duihua) 17:02, 26 June 2012 (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.

Chongqing model[edit]

Just a heads up: I left a question for you here concerning your recent edit this page.[8] Any further explanation would be appreciated. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


Did you ever get a positive response for your photo request? I'm planning on travelling through Shanghai at the end of this August. If you provide me with a list of interesting things to photograph, I can add this to my itinerary.Ferox Seneca (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I don't recall getting a positive response, and it's such a pain in the behind that we don't have too many 'prolific' wikipedians living there. Template:Shanghai would be a good place to start. For example, there are a lot of 'districts' that are missing pictures (those should be fairly easy to capture. you could just have to be passing through and snap something that you think is 'representative' of the district). Some of the sports venues lack pictures. Many of the articles in Template:Shanghai_Skyscrapers also do not have pictures. Surprisingly almost all the subway stations have pictures. Will you be going other places as well? Colipon+(Talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I am hoping to visit some old friends and see some things that I missed the last time that I was there. Right now I have definite plans to visit Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shantou, Xushui, and Beijing, before ending up in Taiwan. I might also go as far west as Sichuan and/or as far north as Heilongjiang, but it depends on who I can get ahold of and how busy they will be. I have a few friends living in Shanghai right now. One of them, who is working in R&D for a German chemical company, offered to show me around and to let me crash at his place, so I might be able to stay there for a few days.
The links that you provided are collectively too voluminous for me to interpret effectively. Can you give me a short list of especially important things that you would like to see photographed?Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I would say in order of priority: Shanghai Tower's latest construction picture, Shanghai Wheelock Square, One Lujiazui, Cloud Nine (Shanghai), International Ocean Shipping Building, Oasis Skyway Garden Hotel, The Regent Shanghai. I took all of that from the template of Shanghai skyscrapers. In addition, many prominent Shanghai "districts" do not have photos, such as Putuo district, Minhang district, Qingpu district, and Fengxian district. I don't quite know what would be considered an 'appropriate' image to represent these districts, and many of these are outlying regions, so I don't know if you'll actually have the time/energy to head out there just for the sake of taking a photo. Anyway, that's my preliminary list. Colipon+(Talk) 03:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to take photographs of a number of buildings in Shanghai, at least some of which were specifically requested by you. Please look here for the list of my recent uploads. I was able to shoot the Shanghai Tower, as it was last August 31, from a few different angles. I have already incorporated most of the files that I want to upload into their relevant articles, but I'd rather leave the incorporation of the Shanghai Tower pictures to someone more invested in that article. Perhaps I can leave it up to you?


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Colipon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision.
Message added 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Who Hates John Liu?[edit]

There is an interesting article by the above title written by Azi Paybarah in The New York Observer of May 12, 2009. If you don't have access to it, send me an e-mail and I can have the databank send you a copy. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
  2. Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
  3. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
    1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
    2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
    3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
  4. Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
  5. Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
  6. Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritics RfC[edit]

If you could make it explicit whether you support or oppose the proposal (to use non-diacritic spelling per Britannica, etc.), I'd appreciate it. Kauffner (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost[edit]

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PremierofChina[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:PremierofChina has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong[edit]

I was very interested in the essay you wrote. Are you available to discuss more? I am writing something about how Wikipedia works, and wanted to understand how it worked for this particular case. I know practically nothing about FG. (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can send me an email by clicking on "Email this user" in the "toolbox" tab to the left, I'd be happy to answer questions. Colipon+(Talk) 15:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2[edit]

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Operation Ten Marshals[edit]

On my talk page, I recently established a collaborative task force in which the sole objective is to progress all of the Ten Marshal articles onto GA status. I wondered if you might be interested in participating, as you recently helped promote Peng Dehuai to GA status. See my user page for more information, if you wish. I would love to see Operation Ten Marshals first additional member! Also, out of curiosity, do you presently live in the PRC? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Paramount leader[edit]

Hi, I've started a draft re-write at User:PalaceGuard008/Paramount leader. My aim is to cut the information down to what is verifiable and can be reliably sourced - so basically down to Deng Xiaoping and (depending on what sources can be found) Mao Zedong, with a small paragraph describing post-Deng evolution in state and party leadership, with an emphasis on collective decision-making. I've drafted a lead. The current draft still has that big table but I would prefer for it to go (subject to any verifiable and useful information being harvested). Your thoughts and input would be very welcome - please feel free to drop me a message or edit the draft directly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Colipon.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Colipon.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Colipon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

2009 Urumqi riot article[edit]

Hello, do you still want to uphold the no-off topic discussion consensus at that article? The Soapbox on the talk page is getting out of hand. Jim101 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Yes. Colipon+(Talk) 15:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CCTV New Year's Gala, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Little Tigers and Han Hong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Li Wei (mandarin), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feng County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Foo Dynasty" or "Foo dynasty"?[edit]

There's an RFC here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Kunming attack[edit]

Hi there, I'm writing to you because of your past involvement with the Urumqi riots in 2009. There was a major knife attack in Kunming. Death toll somewhere between 29 and 34, about 140 injuries as of most recent reports. It's looking likely that the attack is associated with the Uyghur independence movement although the situation is obviously cloudy. Editors with experience working on Han / Uyghur conflict would be appreciated to make sure we stick to WP:RS and avoid WP:RECENTISM while this situation unfolds. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xi Jinping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuping County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Li Daqiu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yulin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ITN Redesign[edit]

Heya, I just wanted to say I appreciate your efforts to shake up the main page / ITN, I've been thinking along similar lines. I don't think anyone is really satisfied with the current format.

EdSaperia (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi EdSaperia, I'm really glad you noticed, and I support your efforts in a Main Page revamp. I feel the current way of doing things at ITN is truly and utterly broken, and we need some bold action soon. I guess part of the problem is our consensus-based decision making model which is not conducive to making changes to a system that we all agree is bad but cannot agree on how to go about the change. Colipon+(Talk) 18:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just needs a strong proposal that people can get behind, I think. Previous discussions generally start with gathering lots of requirements and just end up with 10 conflicting goals so go nowhere. EdSaperia (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: Scientific Outlook on Development[edit]

Its nice that you are contributing to the discussion, but to make it clear, my problems with Dark Liberty are not personal. My problem with his version is threeford; first it is inaccurate, secondly he boils the article down too one interpretation of what the Scientific Outlook on Development is (that the party-state is technocratic, and this ideology reaffirms the party's technocracy) and third, he uses unreliable sources. To be clear, I have no problems including technocracy, or even giving it the dominant role, but his text removes all other interpretations of the ideology from the article. At last, he has got the idea in his head that he alone has the right to remove information from the article which he deems uneccessary (for instance Confucianism). Sincerely, --TIAYN (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this note. I have no doubt that his version is a big work of synthesis and I never backed his revisions. I don't think all of his points fail at face value, and like you I would say that Scientific Outlook is basically the Hu Administration's buzzword for being technocratic. In addition it is unclear how this philosophy continues to be applied by the current Chinese party-state (i.e. its relationship with the so-called "Chinese Dream"), which has become much more nationalist, aggressive, and market-oriented all at the same time. That said, if you are serious about improving the article, there are several sources which discuss this in depth. Willy Lam's book "Chinese politics in the Hu Jintao era" comes to mind, as does Joseph Fewsmith's essay "Promoting the Scientific Development Concept". The former is written in 2006 and latter in 2004, so again these are not the most up to date. But it does speak to why this policy was promoted in the first place - that it was essentially the Hu government's natural response to China's increasingly serious social problems as a result of unchecked focus on GDP growth. Colipon+(Talk) 12:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition, I would agree that this user has behavioral issues. He reverts things wholesale and does not answer any of my good-faith inquiries coherently, only rambling about his point of view. I would caution against your own use of foul language and urge you to use civil terms of discourse, though, as it could make you appear like the villain even though you are not. Colipon+(Talk) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Good, we agree. On another note, here; Kerry Brown's article "The Communist Party of China and Ideology". This article argues against characterizing the CPC as post-ideological and China as a post-ideological society, claiming that the party does have an ideology. While he doesn't call the ideology socialist (rather referring to the present belief system/era as post-socialist), he does admit that there is a link between Marxist theory and modern Chinese ideology... At last, an error, while its true that the party has become more market-driven under Xi, you forget that while he supports marketizing the economy he is in tandem opposed to any more privatization. Also under him, there seems to have been a more concerted drive to refocus on ideology and thought control/indoctrination (of course this shouldn't surprise anyone, the guy did study Marxism)... Cheers, --TIAYN (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I forgot, as for me expanding the article I don't know; been thinking about it, but I'll be honest, its neither a very interesting topic in itself and there are even fewer who have written about in detail (that is, what it means ideologically). At last, its really hard to know anything for sure, while the majority see technocrats, these authors claim that China and the CPC have never been more Marxist then what they are now. I'm been thinking about I while, but then I started working on the Ideology of the Communist Party of China article, the wrote the primary stage of socialism, and then I stopped working on the topic all together. However, a good thing as come out from my argument with Dark Liberty; I need to add a "Criticism" section (or something similar in the ideology article, so as to explain the position which sees the party as non-ideological. THe article at present explains the ideological concepts/theories presently used by the CPC, but don't ask the question if those ideologies really matters. Again, cheers. --TIAYN (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating new articles on China-related topics, such as Ji Dengkui and Gu Mu. Your contributions are greatly appreciated! Zanhe (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Colipon, I expanded Ji Dengkui and nominated it for DYK. See here. I'll try to work on Gu Mu in the next few days. Cheers! -Zanhe (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I saw, thanks so much. I'm glad you find these topics interesting enough to write about :). They were nice 'red-link' finds to be honest. easy to dig in. And thanks so much for the Barnstar! Colipon+(Talk) 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just nominated Gu Mu for DYK. See nomination page. -Zanhe (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)