User talk:Happymonsoonday1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please click here to leave me a new message.


Explain how the following is a hit piece.[edit]

"His father, William Block, also runs W.A.B. Capital, where Carson Block worked previously before creating Muddy Waters Research. Carson Block's father, William Block, has been previously sued misleading shareholders while at the firm M.H. Myerson which has had a very questionable and fraudulent history.[7] This firm was shut down by the SEC and one of William's coworkers did significant jail for at stock scheme that cost investors millions[8]. In particular, Block and M.H. Meyerson issued false and misleading reports on the firm Quality Systems.[9]"


Let the facts stand for itself, man. It's not being neutral when you hide information about the man. His father was previously sued while working at M.H. Myerson & you can read the source as well.

Also, it is important for people to know what his success rate is/was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.118.174 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

hi. its questionable because it seeks to use the bad reputation of the father to imply that the son is also rotten. for that you'd need ANOTHER source saying 'the father taught the son everything he knows about the stock market game, including how to mislead shareholders'. Or at least saying 'the father had a strong influence on the son.' otherwise it's just original research and character assassination.Happy monsoon day 13:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

China relation to international politics and international law[edit]

Hi Happymonsoonday1, Your page seemed to indicate you have an interest in page development/improvement related to China geopolitics. Would you a related interest in page development related to its international politics and international law, with possible nomination for peer-review? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, i certainly would. what do you have in mind??Happy monsoon day 20:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Received your message, it looks like you were on-line when I sent my message. My interest is in the central role of China in the Security Council of the U.N. which was not included on the Hans Kelsen page by previous editors, even though he was among the best scholars in this field in the 20th century. Recently I did a short Lead section for the Page which was previously only one sentence long, and I noticed that a subsection on the U.N. with China's central role was also missing & is still missing. I have the refs which would be needed for the missing subsection on the U.N. and China's central role in the Security Council. If it looks interesting to develop the Page for a possible peer-review then let me know. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
ok, well let's see what you've got. do you have all this on a sandbox or something? my curiosity is piqued. china indeed has played a big and important role on the security council. so we're talking here about a page called "China's Role in the United Nations Security Council", right? i'm happy to work with you.Happy monsoon day 22:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all that sounds useful. My preliminary thoughts would be to approach this in three separate phases. Phase one would be to get the Hans Kelsen page into an upgraded shape first since he will be the international relations theory expert to rely on for guiding the development of the material for all of China's practical history on the Security Council. The Page for him currently completely lacks an International Relations section which maybe you could consider adding after I present some of the bibliography below. This missing subsection looks like a complete oversight which needs to be fixed. His four books on this subject touching on the theory and practice of the Security Council are the following which have various accessible summaries on google books and amazon:
  • The Law of the United Nations. First published under the auspices of The London Institute of World Affairs in 1950. With a supplement, Recent Trends in the Law of the United Nations [1951]. A critical, detailed, highly technical legal analysis of the United Nations charter and organization. Published a one volume by New York: Frederick A. Praeger, [1964].
  • Law and Peace in International Relations, Cambridge (Mass.) 1942, Union (N.J.) 1997.
  • Principles of International Law by Hans Kelsen (reprint Aug 16, 2012)
  • Peace Through Law, Chapel Hill 1944, Union (N.J.) reprinted 2000.
Phase two would involve upgrading/expanding both the United Nations Security Council page (its veto power section) and the China page (its foreign relations section). With these two phases done, then the third phase of the "China and the UN Security Council" Page could be estimated as 90% done by combining the results used in the first two phases. If this sounds like an approach, then developing and copyediting the Hans Kelsen page for upgrade would start to get phase one underway. First objective could be to do the three Pages for China, for the Security Council, and for Hans Kelsen; and then pull it together for the China and the UN Security Council page, or whatever alternations or variations of this approach you can suggest. These are just possible thoughts on how to get started and I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions. Do you have any thought on how easy or hard it would be for you to simplify/improve the narrative quality on the Kelsen page and its missing "International Relations" subsection? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
sounds well and good, but i should state up front that i'm a scholar of china and my interests here are limited to directly china-related topics. practically, this means that 1] i'd be happy to look over, copyedit, and whatever, content for the Hans Kelsen page and the UNSC page. 2] if you give me a dump of secondary sources, i would be happy to directly write or contribute content to the "China in the UN Security Council" page. that's what i'm good for.Happy monsoon day 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that all looks consistent. Regarding your item [1], I shall plan to gather the raw data on China and the security council. This information shall for the most part require going straight to the original data since there does not appear to be an explicit book on "China in the UN". As you likely already know the historical organization of that Page would need to be into three sections dealing respectively with first the Republic of China (Mainland), then Republic of China (Taiwan), and finally the Peoples Republic of China to the present day. I will organize the China material by the end of this week and send it to you at that time. Regarding your item [2], in the meantime you can start in on the proofing/copyedits/redrafting of the Kelsen page, and I look forward to hearing your assessment of how close or far it is from getting to an A-class article; the reference-bibliography section for example does not look like it is peer-quality. In addition to your last note, I likely need to also add the Eurasia page and the China page (Foreign affairs subsection) to what needs attention, since the Peoples Republic has been very closely aligned with modern Russia on Middle East issues of geopolitics and its activism in the UN. Separately, the "Pure Theory" subsection on the Kelsen page looks like it could be much reduced in organizational size by combining the first three prefatory subsections into a single subsection titled "Prefatory chapters", and the last three subsections there into "Concluding chapters", which would bring it to a total of 4 subsections rather than the current 8 sections (that is, half the number of subsections). You can also add the currently missing "International politics and international law" subsection elsewhere on that Page if you feel like it, or I could draft a version of it by the end of this week if you prefer. Either way is fine with me, while I am collecting the raw data and files for the direct "China" related sections. Let me know your thoughts and viewpoints, and if this approach sounds ok before my moving ahead further with the raw data files for the China material. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
you're thorough and careful. i like it. are you an academic or researcher by any chance? it's interesting. one issue however: what kind of material are we talking about regarding the china files? please take a look at the page WP:OR to ensure that it's not going to be original research. the general rule is that primary sources are treated more strictly than secondary sources. I am sure that we'll be able to find lots of secondary sources on this. we can use primary sources, but need to be a little circumspect in handling them, because we are not supposed to play the role of experts that explicate primary sources. we're mostly meant to just regurgitate what the 'real experts' have already said about them. you know what i mean?Happy monsoon day 19:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both your points are important. It would be nice to keep these plans at an academic level of thoroughness, and also that there be no original research included. My plan was to make sure that all the edits suggested here be consistent with the published writings of a significant international law scholar, and that is why I suggested that the Kelsen page serve here for purposes of thoroughly orientating all the subsequent edits. All of the direct raw data which I referred to was based on needing to piece the Chinese history together based on the publically available UN historical files on the Chinese voting record in the Security Council, and then needing to rely on the newspaper daily reports on the details of the voting as needed. The references to Kelsen and the daily newspaper reports (like the NY Times) should together suffice to satisfy the important requirement that no original research be included in these edits. The history of the voting record I should have in place by the end of the week, and maybe you could let me know when/if you have a chance to glance at the other pages that are a part of this. It would be good to hear your assessment of how close or how far the Kelsen page is to an upgrade level of "A" in terms of peer-review quality. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@LawrencePrincipe: yo dude ----- wtf happened here?Happy monsoon day 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liu Yazhou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhang Zhaozhong. 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) 09:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)