User talk:Ohconfucius/archive07

DEFENDER OF HONG KONG

5:26 PM, Saturday June 22, 2024

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 5 months and 23 days.

... Including Introduce a complete list with comprising, consisting of, or composed of rather than including (which would indicate that the list is incomplete): Incorrect: The English alphabet includes 26 letters (are there more than 26?) Correct: The English alphabet comprises 26 letters Correct: The English alphabet is composed of 26 letters Woeful: The English alphabet is comprised of 26 letters Correct: The English alphabet consists of 26 letters Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Please click here to leave me a message.
I prefer to keep all discussions coherent, so I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me. Thanks for stopping by.

Fair use rationale for Image:Popraspberries.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Popraspberries.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More templates deleted

I noted that you chimed in on the recent "colourized" templates deletion. Just an FYI that I have nominated another bunch if you're interested in reviewing this TfD bunch. SkierRMH 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zouzou.jpg

I have tagged Image:Zouzou.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. 218.217.184.124 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

Noticed youve made large-scale changed to alot of school articles (you are mentioned so many times on my watchlist it is mindboggling). I personally dislike the renaming of "Notable Alumni" sections to "Alumni". By having it as notable alumni, you are restricting it to people who are notable. By having the section entitled alumni you are leaving the door open to all 1000 kids from every school to be added. Then again, Alumni seems neater. Can you please clarify your edits. Thanks. Twenty Years 09:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think now I may have cited the wrong policy/guideline. It says somewhere that to be listed, it is assumed that one is notable, and therefore, when naming an article or a list, there is no need to explicitly state "notable". Ohconfucius 10:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't use the term "Notable" in section headings, then many people feel like they have license to add their non-notable friend to the list. There is too much of that going on even when the word notable is there! Royalbroil 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Marmion PS

There is a small issue with your AfD[1]. It is its second nomination. see WP:AfD on how to fix the issue. Thanks. Twenty Years 09:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, now fixed. Ohconfucius 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

St Peter's College, Adelaide - rem per WP:SCH#WNTI

I eventually identified "WP:SCH#WNTI" as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Structure#What not to include". (The shortcut link didn't seem to work - it took me to the top of the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools" page.) I gather you are referring to the sentence: "School articles should specifically not include: Lists of current teachers, pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, etc."? And I gather you consider a list of the available choices of sports to fall into the "etc." category? If I have all of the above correct, then it seems to me that whether a list of sports falls into the "etc." category (or not) is a POV. I assume that you would not agree with my conclusion? Thus, could you please explain to me why you think it does fall into that category, and why you think this is not a POV? Thanks (in anticipation of your reply). Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it would seem to me like common sense, and the discussion forum of WP:SCH appears to agree, although I note it has removed specific reference I placed in the guideline. It is already explicitly stated that "lists should be kept to a minimum". It was only after navigating through quite a few school articles that I noticed there were often pretty blatant cases (to me, of course) of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY violations, where editors have listed every subject under the sun. Please, consider this: What is the point in listing traditional "core subjects" studied at a school, such as history, geography, science, mathematics, [native] language, [foreign] language, PE; or "traditional" ECA such as swimming, athletics, martial arts, scouts, Duke of Edinburgh Award group? Surely, these are what defines "school". If we were to use the biography of a person as an analogy: this would be akin to saying the subject was a bipedal mammal capable of speech born in [Place] on [date] with fingers toes, arms, legs, ears, eyes, nose head. If however, say, the person had 20/10 vision, that fact may warrant inclusion, although that may be considered trivia in some cases - I see that it appears nowhere in Tiger Woods' biography. ;-) Ohconfucius 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, or start an edit war, but I don't entirely agree with your POV ...
Well, it would seem to me like common sense - That immediately sounds like POV to me ...
It is already explicitly stated that "lists should be kept to a minimum". - Well yes, but so what? (I think I might have missed something ...)
It was only ... - I'm not surprised to "hear" you say this!!

But, (as far as I'm concerned), now we get to the interesting bits ...

Please, consider this: What is the point in listing traditional "core subjects" studied at a school, ...
I'm afraid you've hit a raw nerve of mine here that has absolutely nothing to do with you personally.
In theory, I agree with you. But in practice, the point is not so much to list those that are studied, as to point out those that are not studied. For example, (much to my disgust), many schools no longer teach Geography; Kids have no idea what to answer when playing "Where in the world is Carmen Miranda?"; they just guess until they hit the right answer, and they pay no attention to which of the options is the right option, and they learn nothing.
Re: ECA, similar arguement - i.e. It's what they do not do, (rather than what they do), that is of interest.

• You have a valid concern about Geography. It is an indictment of the education system where you live, but this type of problem is unfortunately common all over the world, so it is probably a matter for discussion in education standards, which may otherwise violate WP:NPOV, or Education in Australia, or Standards-based education reform. I do not believe it belongs in individual school articles. Ohconfucius 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely, these are what defines "school". - Well, as I've implied above, it really isn't quite that simple. If we were to ... - Again, yes and no. It really isn't quite that simple.

• There are always exceptions which prove the rule, but there is firstly the overall framework in each country, and I am surprised just how infrequently these are mentioned in school articles, where editors leap straight in and list all and sundry subjects, a tendency which I find terribly annoying and uninformative. Where my concern is addressed, I would generally see no problem that these exceptions are mentioned provided it is explained in clear prose. Ohconfucius 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is my reply useful? If you wish me to clarify/expand anything, please ask.

So where does that leave us? Here's my summary - please correct me if I've got something wrong.

• You're saying: "These things are obvious and implicit".
• I'm saying: "Well, not quite - It's the omissions that are important/interesting. Similarly, the "extras" are also of interest."

So what? Well really, I don't know. What do you think? Pdfpdf 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Awaiting your feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to engage me in discussion. My reply to you is interspersed above. I have indeed learned something, which is that perhaps my views are overly simplistic and I take too much for granted. I will try and think more about the subject at hand when I do further school editing. As I have not involved myself in the formulation of WP:SCH, and perhaps should spend more time there in view of my tendency of working on school articles. Thanks again! Ohconfucius 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinity_Grammar_School NSW

In a similar vein, (to St Peter's College, Adelaide - rem per WP:SCH#WNTI above), I am reverting your edit [2] to Trinity Grammar School (New South Wales), because the category directly above "WP:SCH#WNTI", WP:SCH#Sections_of_the_article, explicitly suggests that a section should be dedicated to: "Extracurricular activities — Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them." Now I agree that the notability of those teams has not been detailed, but I disagree with your basis for removal of that info. 99of9 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• As for reverting Trinity, the notability of the teams is not what bothers me, as such. I will perhaps expand what I stated above: AFAICT, there are no "teams" explicitly mentioned, unlike what you appear to contend, and there is nothing distinguishing about any of them. If, for example, you had listed that the school soccer team has won the Australian inter-school soccer tournament five years in a row, I would say that would be a pretty obvious keep per common sense and per guideline, but what you restored was a mere "laundry list" of activities available almost anywhere. Ohconfucius 01:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Invesco.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Invesco.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mark clifford1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mark clifford1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hkf logo1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hkf logo1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ma lik.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ma lik.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Idw-pui

I notice that you accidentally changed the template. I have reverted your edit, then I looked through what linked to the image and undid the problems it caused. Royalbroil 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• It was indeed an error. I don't really know what happened, so thanks for clearing up my mess. ;-) Ohconfucius 15:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your User page

I've just finished reading your user page. I found it entertaining and enjoyable. Thanks. Pdfpdf 10:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Cheers, have a good day! Ohconfucius 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of overseas alumni association links in St. Paul's Co-educational College Wikipedia article

I noted that you have removed from the Wikipedia article references to the links of the Web sites to the overseas alumni chapters (British Columbia and Ontario) of St. Paul's Co-educational College, citing WP:EL.

The one thing that I would like to bring up is that the link to the Hong Kong alumni web site (www.spccaa.org) was retained, giving the impression that

Wikipedia's policy on WP:EL explicitly stated this:

"What should be linked 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."

This is written on the official SPCC alumni association Web page in the "History" section:

"The Association currently has the following affiliated associations established outside Hong Kong: - St. Paul's Co-educational College Alumni Association British Columbia Chapter - St. Paul's Co-educational College Los Angeles Alumni Association - St. Paul's Co-educational College Alumni Association Greater New York Chapter - St. Paul's Co-educational College Alumni Association (Ontario) - St. Paul's Co-educational College San Francisco Bay Area Alumni Association"

www.spccaa-bc.org and www.spccaa-on.org are official sites for official overseas alumni chapters. If those links are to be removed, then I would suggest links to the Hong Kong alumni association www.spccaa.org also be removed from the article as well, citing WP:EL, for the sole purpose of fairness in representation. Alternatively, all official overseas alumni sites should be included in the article. I don't think it is right to treat those not in Hong Kong as second-class alumni.

• Thanks for your lengthy justification. I have posted a lengthier reply on the article's talk page Ohconfucius 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gary Forrester

Thanks to Ohconfucius Thanks. You're a good guy. I pushed the boundaries too far. I never was a very good lawyer. The only decent thing I really ever accomplished, as a lawyer, was getting those two tribes restored in Oregon. That was worthwhile. It's much nicer being a lawyer here in New Zealand, where virtually all litigation has been wiped out legislatively, so there is room left for idealism in the law instead of posturing and adversarialness. I wish you all the best, and thanks again for your kindness and thoughtfulness.--Forrestergaz 00:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)--Forrestergaz 04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's important to know what you are good at. If I had the restoration of "native american" tribes as an achievement, I too would be proud. Ohconfucius 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hukou

Really sorry. I disclosed the time of the mistake to help users easily compare the edit history. I knew that your edits were in good faith. In the future I will not disclose the good-faith user's name, but only point out the time when the mistake is made. Or I will clearly point out in edit summary that the mistake is made in good faith. Sorry again.--Neo-Jay 10:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

re: shaun the sheep

My apologies, I did not actually make that edit, it was my friend, who I believe was under the impression that it was the correct translation or something. I was watching a movie while he was over so I don't know what he did. Feel free to correct anything you feel is incorrect, I am not sure which is which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posom2 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox School

No problem regarding the header font-size; this is a wiki after all. I partially fixed the issue; there are still some comma issues when the two fields are merged like that. Bug User:Philip Stevens and he should be able to fix it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing... you may have to WP:PURGE the page to see the updated template. --MZMcBride 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quad edits last year

Just some comments on what you said re your edits to the Quad Electroacoustics article last year:

I agree - it was cloying in its uneven praise and the rewrite greatly addressed that.

However, you then go on to say:

Although QUAD was clearly a pioneer in UK ampifier circles, it has largely lost the leadership to more modern UK and US competitors. Its role is therefore strictly historical. Cost at launch of a product is meaningless without comparisons; the type of valve used is of dubious interest to anyone except the most fanatical tube enthusiast. I also removed the paragraphs dealing with the amplifier naming convention, as this would be of minor or no interest to those who merely wanted to learn about the company and its landmark products.

I think I would counter with the following:

• Cost at launch affords the possibility of comparison for the interested individual; eliminating that fact renders comparison impossible.
• Valve amplifier enthusiasts normally care about the type of valve; also - Walker's valve amplifier design was apparently pioneering - particularly in the use of these valves. Finally - around 10% of the hits for KT-66 or KT66 mention QUAD, and pretty much all the magazine articles do. I think this is elimination of a material fact.
• I too find the amplifier naming conventions largely irrelevant, but that does not mean I did not find it interesting.

Is Wikipedia to be the ultimate reference? I think so. Is it a dumping ground for uninterpreted facts? I think not. But elimination of key data is just that - elimination of key data. (D'oh. Forgot to sign in. User talk:Dugo) 194.125.57.213 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I was there. OK, I think what you said is fair. Glad to have your input. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Top Model interview!

Since you've edited the Top Model article, I figured you may be interested in contributing questions for this interview. Message me back and tell me what you think! Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 00:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

congratulations Chan!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071203/wl_afp/hongkongpoliticsvotenewseries_071203083354

and congratulations to you, too. Good luck with her; go freedom!--Asdfg12345 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Web.logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Web.logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Starferrylogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Starferrylogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Johnburdett.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnburdett.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Praise for your efforts on FG pages

Hey, just wanted to praise you for your efforts at keeping the FG page more neutral. Sorry I've been away for long but real-life stuff does take preference over Wikipedia for me! It's still infinitely worse now than when I last left it, because that is before all the FG ultra-radicals took over and brainwashed the page. I bid you lots of luck in keeping them at bay, but they just keep coming. After all, they are the Li Hongzhi fanatics, and we aren't, so it's hard to compete. Jsw663 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your encouragement. I noticed that you quit, and I was also close to quitting at one point due to the hostility, sniping, indiscriminate reverting and open edit warring. As you probably noticed, I have concentrated the bulk of my efforts on the self-immo page and the Persecution page. I hardly work on the FG main page, as it it appears to be the dug-in battleground. Although I had not intended to work on the organ harvesting article, I did some work to tidy it up, but it's still bad. Fortunately, although there have been ups and downs with my efforts (see here), a moderate practitioner has been of great help and encouragement. For the most part, he can be reasoned with, and is willing to learn about the requirements of wikipedia. Together, our work on the two above articles is bringing them close to good article standard. The self-immo article is close to attaining GA status, and I hope this will encourage a more moderate perspective from the more radical FG editors. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(Response to your query about fascism on my talk page)

Again, your political opinion sways you from looking at facts from absolute objectivity.

1. Fascism. Why isn't expansionism a key part of fascism? Don't you realize fascist countries see it as a 'need' to expand in order to subjugate the sub-humans to 'cleanse' the world?

2. Tibet. If anything this region was 'conquered' by the Qing dynasty under a monarch, not the Communists. Self-proclamation of independence does not mean that you have justified independence either (e.g. Chechenya for Russia). However, Tibet and (Outer) Mongolia 'wanted' to be independent because of support of outside powers (England/India for Tibet, Russia/Soviet Union for Mongolia). Since power played a big part in the politics of that time, and the Chinese Communist government was initially allied with their Soviet counterparts, the Mongolia 'buffer' state was created and accepted (Mongolia was of course created earlier, but its independence was recognized by the CCP/CPC as well, hence it has 'legitimacy'). Anyway, whether you view Tibet as independent or not again depends on your political opinion. It's a gray area that needs to be cleared up, and still hasn't been, and thus on Wiki we really should let the reader decide for themselves. However, as long as the United Nations recognizes Tibet as being a part of the PRC, this will be the most 'official' version of the political status of Tibet today. Notice I'm not making a right/wrong morality judgment here.

3. HK / Macau. HK has developed very differently from Macau post-'97. You only need to visit these two places to realize the difference - the former contains citizens who are inherently liberal in their ideas and many still are opposed to the Chinese government except for business, whereas for the latter, the city has almost totally become a proper PRC one, with widespread Putonghua media, de-colonization, etc. Saying HK has freedoms only because of Taiwan's lack of re-unification at present is an opinion, and has thus no place on any Wiki entry.

4. China's domestic race relations. Notice the Han majority isn't 'clamping down' on all races. It only targets the races which are most likely to be restless and seek to overthrow authority. It is because of the fear of being overthrown that they try to use different means to ensure peace will ensue. This is where the mistake lies - people assuming it's a race-witchhunt as supposed to a political move. After all, do you see China conquering other countries to destroy other races? Do you see China moving into Central Asia to deal with Uyghur Muslims, or into India to deal with Tibetans? Compare this with Nazi Germany.

5. Capitalism in China - the only accurate label for the economy in China will be a fairly vague label. One such label widely used by economists is a "mixed-market economy" for China. However, with the state loosening its ownership over companies, e.g. by listing them on the stock market (thus 100% control --> 70% control) means that the market can no longer be called state-controlled, i.e. traditionally communist.

6. Corruption in China - as with all countries, corruption exists, and even the CCP/CPC admits that this is especially bad in the PRC right now. However, does endemic corruption mean that the state ideology or system has changed?

Conclusion: Don't let your opinions get in the way for Wiki's main entries. Of course everyone has their opinion on matters they know something about, but Wiki is not a battleground. As long as you stick to being objective when editing the Falun Gong entries, and AVOID GETTING DRAWN INTO OPINION DISCUSSION AT ALL COSTS, then you will be the perfect Wiki editor. This is why I was hated by both sides for being too pro-the other side, but Wiki arbitrators have basically backed up my stance, even if it is a bit blunt at times. If not for time, I'd spend more time editing Wiki for sure, but after this response it's unlikely I'll be making any big replies soon. Continue to keep up the good work editing, Ohconfucius! I'll definitely keep watching over the FG-related pages. Jsw663 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS It's of critical importance that you stay objective when reasoning with FG editors. They will try to play on your personal political opinion to justify bias on those pages. Don't get drawn into that, because I think you are capable for rising above such petiness, right? Jsw663 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For some time, I have been too deeply involved in these pages. From time to time I have been swayed, but there have been fortunate wake-up calls from time to time, albeit from editors who display behaviour which I occasionally find disruptive. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just what is that supposed to mean? Jsw663 11:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• IT means that I am not totally objective, but I try to be. Sometimes when I stray, somebody (usually someone who appears disruptive), will come along, and I will be reminded of the need to be objective. Ohconfucius 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your post on my talk page:

Uhh pardon me Ohconfucius/Forthesakeof, when or where did I say that there was no censorship in China, or that China was the shining beacon of individualistic human freedom? I was merely trying to reinforce Wikipedian rules for Wikipedia - not prejudging any government as evil or fascist if it doesn't claim to be. You may find many governments repugnant, or that its ruling style doesn't match its description, but that is opinion, not fact - we should let the reader judge for him/herself. If you're getting stressed about Wiki editing I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia. Jsw663 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can tell you that I was getting stressed when editing those FG articles, but not now. However, I think you may be on the verge of it. You are not me, so please don't make presumptions as to how well I know Mainland China. I just don't get what's bugging you. Not so long ago, you praised my efforts in cleaning up the FG pages, now you launch into this tirade about me making a passing remark or two in talk pages (note, there is no trace of it in any of the main articles). As I said, I try to leave my personal opinions at the door. Please, this is getting too personal for my liking. If you have comments for Forthesakeof, please post to the relevant talk page. I don't do sock-pupperty. Thanks. Ohconfucius 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious that I am praising your overall efforts on FG pages to keep it more neutral, but I was criticizing you on labeling the Chinese government as fascist (this in itself may not be wrong), but trying to pass it off as if it really was. That's like critics of the current US administration calling it a dictatorship justified in the name of terrorism. That is where the difference between fact and opinion lies. I'm not criticizing your opinion either - I just said it has no place on a Wiki entry. Conclusion? Still praise for you overall, because I derive more positives than negatives from your edits. And besides not answering my questions, what makes you think I'm stressed out (just consider the number of edits I make now, which is virtually nothing compared to before)? Jsw663 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

关于李洪志先生的照片

您好， Ohconfucius.很抱歉冒昧的打扰您。我是一名维基新人，目前在中文维基编辑。最近在编辑法轮功创始人李洪志先生的条目时，发现没有相关的照片，以前和最近有其他编辑上传的照片都被管理员以不符合生者传记的自由版权被由删除，但是我注意到英文维基同样是采用授权的照片，是您于近日上传的，请问有需要什么特殊的步骤么，愿向您请教。多谢Betrueman (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

在我的机器用中文文字不那么容易,请原谅。我请您参观这页, 我相信它对您将是有用的. 或许您可以使用这里或 这里当中一个图象。使用这个{{Attribution}},注明来源和这个明慧版权声明就行:「欢迎转载传阅本网所有内容，但请注明出处」. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your advice. you can reply in english to your convenience. but obviously some administrators are repeating wiki rules which i dont fully understand, please check the following link [3] are they sound reasons since I checked wiki policy but did not find particularly relevant rules.thank your for your help!Betrueman (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your help,but it was finally deleted. now i try to upload again and face the same problem, as they are claiming there is no statement about free use of the photo[4],i am wondering have you faced such problem before? if possible, please kindly offer some ideas. CheersBetrueman (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

我们面对同样问题, 我不太了解原因, 没有办法- 请参见下面,另外请参见这儿和这儿. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

zh.wikipedia.org/法輪功

A monumental example of wikipedia's reputation being dragged through the mud, abused and raped for wicked political ends: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%95%E8%BD%AE%E5%8A%9F#.E9.82.AA.E6.95.99. I wish I knew Chinese, and could put some measly tags on this stuff, quote wiki policy about not being a vehicle for propaganda, about the importance of reliable sources, and then generally about wikipedia being, in this modern day, something like a bastion of freedom of knowledge and freedom from the tyranny of censorship. But alas, that, I think, is a task for someone who could say all this just as easily in Chinese. At the very least, hopefully this guy above can give it a try, and whether succeeding or failing, will be a historical testament to the eternal struggle. Who will bare witness?--Asdfg12345 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

also what's wrong with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting&diff=prev&oldid=176961477  ?? i dont get it. he's having a rant--can't we quote that?--Asdfg12345 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't much care for that article, but I came across that statement which I believe completely unencyclopaedic. I briefly mentioned the reason in the edit summary. The initial supposition is unproven and open ended, then it follows with a speculation as to what if true, without explicitly saying what if it isn't true. The inference there for is that he believe it may be true, but he isn't quoted as saying it. It seems to me that the quoted person wanted to cover his ass by making a potentially headline-grabbing statement by innuendo, without actually making any veritable accusation. Thus, I believe it breaches WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

of course it does. no bastard is neutral. i dont think it mattered too much anyway. the facts cut through rhetoric every time, and there's enough of them to fill the article with.--Asdfg12345 09:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Organ_transplant#Matas_.26_Kilgour

Please comment, thank you.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, at last an article which is not likely ever to be controlled by pro- or anti-Falun Gong editors! I'll let the others comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you think that there is anybody who would actually care ... anyway I feel the same way as you do, if more people not attached to the Falun Gong issue would show their interest we would have a better situation. However right now I think what scares away most of the people is just the amount of things that happened and references that are contradictory. It makes it really hard to paint an accurate picture from a by standing point of view. And as far as that is happening, I truly admire that you are trying to do just that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FG images

dude how can i stop all these pictures from being deleted? they are free to use just not to modify, and they can be used for whatever purpose.--Asdfg12345 09:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see that, like me, you have posted a message to the deleting admin. The problem is that nothing is clear about copyright status of pictures used. Even in Minghui, apart from the "package part" where it states photos may be used with attribution, there are photos elsewhere where there is no unambiguous declaration as to ownership and attributed use - in other words, the 'with-attribution' use is not universal for all pictures on Minghui. You would need FG to explicitly grant the rights to each and every image, knowing that some may be owned by other third parties (including the Chinese Govt), or get them to put clear declarations on all their websites where you want to source images from. I do not understand the why the right must include the ability to create derivatives, that part makes no sense to me and I have not seen that insistence elsewhere on wikipedia. For the moment, you could try making claims of fair use, but that would limit the number of images you can use per article. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, also, this only requires y/n, have you read the k/m report?--Asdfg12345 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not in its entirety. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Request to rename and redirect Far Western District (BHS)

Hello. I see that you, after discussion, redirected Dixie District to Barbershop Harmony Society earlier this year. I see that in July, someone added an article for another district of the Barbershop Harmony Society, the Far Western District. The article is titled Far Western District (BHS). Under the same rationale as the original decision, I believe that the article should be renamed Far Western District, dropping the "(BHS)", and redirect to Barbershop Harmony Society. I'm a newbie, so I'm not inclined to make such a change myself. One other thing—might it be appropriate for the redirects for Dixie District and Far Western District to be to the Districts of BHS section? I'm thinking of expanding that section to list all the districts and link to their respective web sites.

Lenoil (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! The redirect was the result of an AfD|. Whilst I would prefer outright deletion, the advantage of a redirect is that there would be less of a temptation to recreate the article on a non-notable entity. It probably does not need to be renamed, as there is only the one link into that namespace. For the moment, I have proposed its deletion, and we can take it from there if someone opposes. You may wish to create a list of the districts within the article, which may be acceptable, but I would not advise creating links from the list to the respective districts' websites, as I feel these would be in violation of WP:EL. Many editors feel strongly about this type of linkage, which is also known by the term "linkspam"Ohconfucius (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. And yes, I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate. Where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I do have to admit some concerns with some of your own comments, which I felt were veering a bit towards personal attacks, and I would encourage you to keep this in mind when you participate in RfAs in the future. It is possible to oppose someone's candidacy, without attacking them personally. Anyway, as regards my own adminship, I am going to take it slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier

The article Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier for things needed to be addressed. Davnel03 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

CIPFG

The article, which I find fails the notability test is up for AFD at[5]--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)