User talk:Xiong

Archive: 2005 March 29 [1] 2005 April 7 [2] 2005 April 16 [3] 2005 April 27 [4]

Xiong in younger days, c. 1994 (note lack of gray hairs)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I watch everybody's Talk page. — Xiong熊talk 05:21, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Wow... that's a heck-a-lota watchin'. (I've replied). Kevin Rector (talk) 05:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Charter Convention

The Wikipedian Community is now in a state of Convention. Members wishing to caucus are asked to send email to me (click the Chinese character in my sig) or to any other member. — Xiong熊talk 03:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

{tfd} tags

Please stop removing TFD tags from templates up for deletion. Consensus, as you are well aware, is that those tags should not be on the talk pages, but on the template itself. Knowingly removing them is intentional disruption to prove a point, and is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Consensus is that it is vandalism to place tags within template bodies. They destroy the effective functioning of otherwise properly-constructed templates. You insist on tagging templates in this fashion, and manipulate TfD process to support your single-minded, self-centered desire to attract attention to your every cause. I shall remove TfD tags whenever I find them objectionable, and place them, as recommended by the process you butchered, on nominated templates' Talk pages. — Xiong熊talk 04:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Your position is meritless. The TfD page, notwithstanding your clever attempt to delete it, plainly states that the tag is supposed to be inserted into the template itself, and otherwise its text would make absolutely no sense ("The text or formatting below is generated by a template..."). I will block you without hesitation if I catch you removing any TfD tags. Postdlf 06:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My position is just fine. The page has been hacked by many users in an attempt to support their own views of proper process. The text of {tfd} has been hacked many times in an attempt to justify its placement. The placement is itself hotly debated -- and, in the case of functional template, dammned foolish. Go ahead and block me; I will appeal, and it will only serve to emphasize Netoholic's manipulations. I am only too happy to see one of his cat's paws thus exposed. — Xiong熊talk 13:14, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

"Hacked"? Huh? I did notice everyone reverting your attempts to screw with it. So instead of you having positions that are at odds with the whole community, you're somehow the only legitimate editor and everyone else who disagrees with you are a bunch of "hackers", or worse, unwitting pawns of your nefarious enemies? Manage to persuade anyone of that perspective? Postdlf 17:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's all how you look at it. When there is a revert war, who is in the right? "Everyone" is not involved -- not at all. It is a very small clique of users centered around Netoholic; and opposed to them, another number of users who, by virtue of our greater integrity and sense of independence, cannot be labeled as a clique centered around anyone -- nobody takes my orders, in any case. Several members have removed destructive {tfd} tags, and spoken well on Talk.

• It is obvious that the flexibility of transclusion and the variety of pages in Templatespace makes any fooling around with them a Bad Idea. The tag, {tfd}, is especially ill-worded and destructive; those who apply it indiscriminantly do not have any idea of the scope of the havoc they wreak -- or, worse, apply it in bad faith, to destroy the usefulness of the nominated template at the very start of the TfD process. This is a clear violation of the principle of due process.

• Netoholic himself has spoken vehemently against double transclusion; so has the developer Jamesday. Netoholic seems oblivious to the fact that transcluding {tfd} within a template body creates an instance of double transclusion wherever the nominated template is used.

• Furthermore, tagging templates that are commonly substituted is just plain idiotic. The {tfd} tag remains on the target page, the template content remains on the page even if the template itself is deleted, and future visitors to the page are confronted with a meaningless, annoying little box.

If you are willing to do the dog work -- and it is considerable -- you will uncover all the background on the issue to which you so lately arrive. The last version of the TfD process stood for a week without question from anyone until the deletionists found it inconvenient, and arbitrarily altered it to suit their own ends.

Note that the same member who is now most vocally demanding {tfd} be placed on every nominated template repeatedly, and without any justification whatever, removed {tfd} from a template nominated for deletion -- Template:Tfd itself, in fact. While you may or may not agree with the nomination, process must apply equally to all -- or else it is a sham, a fraud, and a parasite on the body politic.

I maintain the TfD process no longer has any legitimacy at all; thus I have nominated Wikipedia:Templates for deletion itself for deletion. If you wish to address this matter, please do not pick on me. Go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 April 19#Wikipedia:Templates for deletion; read the arguments there; comment if you like; and if the page passes VfD, then come to the TfD process, root out the bad elements, put a halt to the railroading and the vandalism of functioning templates, and do what you can to improve the process. — Xiong熊talk 00:47, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

{doctl}

This template is now fixed; please use it to document other templates. — Xiong熊talk 09:51, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Request for comment

FP

Hello Xiong. I am just dropping you a note to let you know that a RfC has been instituted against you regarding your recent behaviour. -- FP 01:15, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have responded at length in the appropriate forum. — Xiong熊talk 02:41, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I have also replied to you on my talk page. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 08:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant

Hi there! You asked me to get Netoholic off your back... while I'd prefer not to become involved in any kind of conflict between the two of you, it did seem to me that the RFC about you was based mainly on Netoholic's comments. Therefore, I've thought it best to archive it and start from scratch. I've notified the contributors; if any of them do have an issue they wish to discuss with you, I'm sure they'll address it there. If not, the RFC should be closed. I hope you find this agreeable. Yours, Radiant_* 08:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your comment is mendacious. Now you take up Netoholic's vendetta and carefully leave him in the background. Let me be; I've given you no cause. Or will you not rest until you've polarized the entire community and dragged the cat into the fight? — Xiong熊talk 08:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Excuse me? You ask me to get Netoholic off your back. I go through some trouble and effort to do exactly that and you respond by insulting me? Radiant_* 10:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you have taken offense, I am heartily sorry. I have insulted your actions, perhaps, but I believe I've refrained from attacking you. Mend your ways, and I shall cease to insult your actions as well. I speak not merely to you, Radiant, but to Netoholic and all his sparewheels and hangers-on.

What is it about this little group, that you have nothing to do in this project except play these petty games of spite? What do you think is at stake? Do you protect the project against my depradations, my unrestrained vandalism? Are you terrified that I shall again nominate TfD -- that O! -- someone might see the light and vote it out? Do you fear I may inject some note of sanity into some dim corner? Does my nose get yours out of joint?

Shall I bring down your green hero? I assure you, he will go without my aid, though I give it willingly. I do not have a little gang about me, but many community members were already quite upset, long before I arrived.

You are flogging a dead horse, because you simply cannot think how to stop, once started. Can you find nothing productive to do? Nothing that excites you, interests you, amuses you? Nothing more entertaining than peeing on my head?

What pound of flesh do you require? What is the object of this circus? Do you imagine you can eliminate me in this way? Tire me? Force me out in a huff? Roust out the angry peasants-with-pitchforks? Arouse the ire of the community at large?

News to you: There are thousands of active members of this community, most of whom have never heard of you or I, or even the green-skinned one. If you dragged them to my public burning at the stake, and held them there at gunpoint while I incinerated, they would leave no more interested in your view of the world, and forget the incident within the week.

Now: You, Netty, Korath, and the whole crew: Buzz off. Find someone else to pester. I promise not to delete you. Now run along. Have fun. Play in the street, but watch out for cars. I've got work to do. — Xiong熊talk 16:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• Insulting people is not very nice, Xiong, nor is removing their questions without responding. Radiant_* 19:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Don't dare to lecture me. You did not even take the trouble to look over this page to see if the topic is already under discussion; you did not look to see that I moved your comment to the appropriate location, and replied -- as I have your latest bit of twaddle.

If you expect people to behave in a civil fashion, behave civilly yourself. Don't play foolish games where you annoy people, then convene a tribunal to complain that your victim is annoyed. I care nothing for wabi-sabi; not only am I not Japanese, I am not even Chinese. I was raised to speak my mind and call things what they are. Be an ass, be called a nuisance; be reasonable, be called a man of sense; be a hindrance, be called an obstacle; be helpful, be called a friend. — Xiong熊talk 02:47, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

RfC Etch-a-sketch

"Restarting" the RFC was positively disruptive, and unnecessary, as others have pointed out. This isn't the first somewhat odd thing you've done, so I'd ask you to consult others before making any sort of major alteration to any projects pages in the future. Your good intentions are getting lost when you do things like this. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

• I disagree, it was necessary, as others have pointed out. Xiong needs to realize that there are people unrelated to you, that have doubts about his behavior. Of course I can't guarantee that the 'new' RfC will go anywhere, but I'm convinced the old one wasn't. Radiant_* 15:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Now here is something Netoholic and I agree on completely. Maybe we can work together after all. I never said he was stupid. — Xiong熊talk 03:29, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Well, if you can now agree with Netoholic and are willing to discuss your differences, then I have done my good deed for the day. Radiant_* 05:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not willing to discuss very much of anything with Netoholic -- but if he leaves me and my work alone, I'll let him be. — Xiong熊talk 05:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have been blocked from editing because of this edit, which is total vandalism. ¸ 20:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind user's removal of the above bit of vandalism, but I have restored it, due perhaps to my overwhelming regard for the right of anyone to comment on me, however unpleasantly. I have removed the misleading reference to another user. Visitors are cautioned that the link leads to an external site containing possibly objectionable content. — Xiong熊talk 03:28, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Template:Pfd

Hello,

Joke templates don't belong in the main Template space. In some other TFDs, you have mentioned that you would gladly have removed certain templates if someone had dropped you a note on your talk page. Well, here I am. I know, it's unlikely ever to be used, and even less likely where it would be used in a context where it could scare a newbie, but still. It's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please blank it and mark it for speedy deletion. Thank you, FreplySpang (talk) 15:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- P.S. Sorry for the mess in your edit history; I thought it was my bad wikilinking syntax that was putting the PFD template at the top of the page. Did I mention embarrassing?

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. In any case, I'm always happy to comply with any reasonable request. The offending template has been moved and the redirect blanked with an appropriate comment on its Talk. — Xiong熊talk 19:24, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Thanks! That certainly was more pleasant than TFD. I'm glad I stopped to think before putting it there. FreplySpang (talk) 19:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping to think. Maybe we can start a trend. — Xiong熊talk 19:36, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Deckard

Fragmented discussion merged to: User talk:RoyBoy — Xiong熊talk 07:22, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Wikiproject Color

Hi. I just ran across the Wikiproject Color page and I'm interested in participating (though I'll be slow as molasses getting anything done -- lack of time). I have started an article on the "wiki" standard coordinates, with usage notes and conversion tables; with the idea that the coordinate headers (such as on template "Infobox Color") would link to this article rather than to all the technical color articles. Do you think this article is worth pursuing? Suggestions very welcome (still kind of a newbie). CoyneT ^talk 00:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you're off to a good start. Bear in mind that what you've written must end up as something like a subpage of Wikiproject Color -- no glory here. Please read my comment on CMYK normalization on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color#Normalisation of color values. Though the wired world may seem like the whole world, the truth is that huge quantities of printed matter roll off 4-color web offset presses every day. Standard CMYK normalization is over the range 0-100%.

Please add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Color#Participants. That way, when somebody wants something done, but doesn't want to do it, we know who to dump the job on. {grin}. — Xiong熊talk 04:28, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Orange

Fragmented discussion merged to: User talk:Patrick0Moran P0M — Xiong熊talk 17:26, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

William of Orange

Fragmented discussion merged to: User talk:Mel Etitis — Xiong熊talk 22:26, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Warning (a threat)

Threats of the sort that you left on Netoholic's talk page are not advisable, and are the sort of thing that will lead to being blocked. I would similarly advise against trying to delete established parts of the deletion process, which is rightly considered to be a violation of WP:POINT. Snowspinner 16:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No threats: promises. I will not be shoved out of this project. I go, we go. Clear? No threat at all. You'll note I've tried very hard to get this guy to stay on his own side of the bed. Why don't you work toward the same goal? — Xiong熊talk 17:23, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

My personal feelings towards Netoholic are immaterial - the way you are interacting with him is unacceptable behavior, and I encourage you to reflect on this during your 24 hour block. Snowspinner 19:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

. . . which I have just removed. Don't worry, you are far from the first user that Snowspinner has attempted to bully; as you can tell, he rather enjoys wielding his imaginary authority. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radiant

Fragged discussion merged on this page. — Xiong熊talk 08:59, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Fragged discussion merged on this page. Be wise; pay attention. — Xiong熊talk 16:32, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

That makes four times I have moved a fragment from here to section "RfC". If I see another post from this same user, on the same topic, in this section, I will delete it out of hand without reply. I may not agree with this user, but I'm willing to talk -- but unwilling to do extra work to do so. Post in the appropriate section or go find another place to busy yourself. — Xiong熊talk 05:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Coolth (Userfied template)

Hello Xiong. I saw that you got an RFC filed against you...best of luck with that. You're a real nice guy, but you should really be careful to make sure that you're not disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Just a friendly suggestion for next time: If you disagree with the way things are done (i.e. with TFD), try raising your objections on the talk page, or propose a new policy in the policy thinktank.

Anyways, I'm not here to lecture you ;) I just wanted to let you know that I moved {{archist}} to User:Xiong/Archist. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to move the talk page or not. Sorry about the RFC, hope it all works out for you! -Frazzydee|✍ 20:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't imagine that I consider this a matter of great consequence or that I take any offense at your actions. I do suggest in future that you copy all userfied Talk pages, as they are part of the item itself, in my view. On another note, I think it is extremely poor form to delete any Talk page, even if the primary page is itself deleted -- thus I say "copy", and I think you are wise not to move the Talk to my user space.

I consider the RfC to be of exactly zero consequence. I took it seriously until Radiant flipped over the Etch-a-Sketch, shook, and started over. Now, it's simply become a joke, and I have Conan O'Brian for that if I want. But I appreciate your expression.

As for WP:POINT, that has become a foolish policy itself, honored in the breach, wielded as a weapon on any pretext -- like so much "policy". Half of the debate in this project is disruptive in some way; yet what I've done has destroyed nothing. I've exhaustively analyzed the disruptive effects of tagging templates, and Netoholic continues, like a sleepwalking graffiti artist, to tag every template I write.

(Note to the green-skinny: Go ahead and add that factual, albeit colorful, description of your ravages to your list of personal grievances. Be glad I don't post it elsewhere.)

If you want a real example of bottom-feeding, take a look at Netty's last edit to this Talk page. Some time ago, I substituted a template on this page, which he had previously peed on; thus this page got tagged, as a template, for deletion. A couple days ago, my nemesis decided the continued presence of {tfd} on my Talk page was an embarassment, and he attempted to remove it. Check out the smarmy edit summary.

But I came by that tag honestly, and I shall wear it as a badge of honor until wiser heads knock some sense into TfD and templates are no longer vandalized when nominated, presumed guilty until proven innocent.

I'm just about fed up with this sandlot of kids playing Senators-and-Commies. I have a full plate of work and if I did not think there was something worth saving under all this rubbish, I would not need to be asked to leave. — Xiong熊talk 03:16, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

More color stuff

I replied to you on my talk page. If you could moderate the tone a little, that would be nice: my head is still ringing. --Phil | Talk 07:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Deletedpage

I've made a suggestion for a new template at Template_talk:Deletedpage. Thanks for your message, I forgot about that template :-). I agree that the template should see more widespread use, so once we have something that'll work, we should replace pages with MediaWiki:Noarticletext with that notice...Noarticletext is very confusing, since it tells users to "edit this page", yet they won't be able to if it's protected! -Frazzydee|✍ 18:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done; thank you! — Xiong熊talk 10:02, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Wikipedian hierarchy

That hierarchy you show is most interesting. Wikipedia claims to be about freedom and power to the people and all that, yet it has more layers of hierarchy then many businesses and governments. Not that hierarchy is necessarily bad or unfree, but it's interesting that the wiki wound up with so many levels of hierarchy in spite of itself.

- Pioneer-12 15:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's another interpretation: m:Power structure - Omegatron 16:18, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

The hierarchy I put on my user page is not an analysis or a comment -- merely an ordering of the terms I've come across to describe community members with special privileges or duties of one sort or another.

I have yet to decide where ArbCom members fit in this list; I suspect they do not. This list should represent members with actual powers or status, enforced by law, physical access, or engine permissions. There is another hierarchy, less well-defined, based on community respect and moral force, in which ArbCom ranks near the top.

What annoys me so much is that there is no place I can go for even the sharply-defined hierarchy. I think there should be:

• An explicit list of titles, with a complete description of the powers and duties of each title;

• Lists of all members with their titles, sorted either by user name or by title; and

• A flag on each member's user page, showing his any title.

I'm sure many will be quite hostile to these requests -- but this is behaving like an ostrich. Members with special powers inevitably exercise them, whether you know who they are and what they do, or not. It's all very well to downplay hierarchy, or from some political ideology claim that it is unimportant -- but if so, then let me be granted root access and the keys to the rack room.

This ties in with the general denial that Wikipedia has or requires any form of government -- an insistence on "stable anarchy". This is at best Utopian daydreaming; at worst mendacious. Wikipedia does have a social structure, and we need to admit that in order to examine it.

If this kind of question sticks in your mind, you may want to discuss it with like-minded members. If so, please email me. {Click the link in my sig.) — Xiong熊talk 21:32, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al -- RfArb

Xiong is listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al.

Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong熊talk* 01:59, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested against you. Snowspinner 03:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Join the party. — Xiong熊talk* 03:42, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Reply

I've replied on my talk page. Alphax ^τεχ 06:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

And again. Alphax ^τεχ 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

(Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al -- RfArb

Replied on my talk again that is.

Kim Bruning 23:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

A Content Labeling System

You support having templates for indicating objectionable content, right?

There is a discussion going on at the Village Pump that might interest you. (--direct link--) A new content labeling system is being developed. Wikipedia:Content labeling proposal (new location)

- Pioneer-12 18:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to that statement. Rather, I feel that some sort of content labeling will be forced upon us, since our bias is not everyone's. I have solved the problem on the indicated page. — Xiong熊talk* 23:19, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Someone is impersonating you

Didn't Mark Twain once say that you know you're famous when people try to imitate you? In this case, however, the person isn't really trying. See Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#User:X.EDong. — Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Ha ha! -- Thank You for the tip. If he's imitating me, he must be a true menace -- don't expect him to last. I will have to lend him my impersonation of the Great Helmsman. — Xiong熊talk* 03:46, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

The user's chosen handle is User:Xíong -- now why didn't I think of that? — Xiong熊talk* 04:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

This user was permanently blocked hours ago (15:28 UTC) by Violetriga for impersonation (after only two edits), as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. And for what it's worth, the tone mark should be on the "o", not on the "i". -- Curps 04:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Good! Now i'm just curious: Is there a way to find out if that IP address coincides with another user name? Might be interesting in the context of the discussion about Xiong. — Sebastian (talk) 06:55, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Only developers can investigate that sort of thing, and they rarely do so except for requests by the Arbitration Committee. -- Curps 07:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I know why I never use the tone mark -- I can never be sure I've placed it properly. Besides, it's too hard to type. — Xiong熊talk* 04:48, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

(cc from WP:VIP)

• Um, FWIW (which may not be much) -- leaving aside the point that there is no such thing as Chinese spelling -- this is the correct transliteration of my Chinese name in pinyin; the accent indicates the rising tone. Why didn't I think of that? Delete him quick, so I can make him my sock. — Xiong熊talk* 04:09, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's a much better pinyin spelling because of the tone mark (but yeah, the placement of the tone mark is problematic), but it's too bad someone already made that account, because once an account is made, it cannot be "deleted" (due to limitations details of GFDL and its requirements for tracking contributions). I think the most you can do is make User:Xíong redirect to your User:Xiong page, but that might not be advisable, because I don't think you'd want to be associated with the contributions of this vandal user. --Deathphoenix 15:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I hope I can manage not to get my shorts in a bunch. :) — Xiong熊talk* 23:46, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you had to take a long time to recover from the disappointment. ;-) --Deathphoenix 06:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

transclusion

Hi, I read your piece on transclusion and like most of it; thanks for the efforts you've put into this (and sorry about your hassles with Neto — I know the feeling).

I thought you might be interested in this abuse of templates: Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies. — Davenbelle 20:16, May 4, 2005 (UTC)