User talk:Homunculus

/Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good work resolving a sock puppet issue! Noleander (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Weiquan movement is now a Good Article!

Congratulations! Thank you for bringing this interesting article to English Wikipedia. I would like to encourage you to review an article from the backlog at WP:GAN that seems interesting to you to ensure future GA reviews are as quick as possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Homunculus for helping to promote Weiquan movement to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:JournalofContemporaryChina.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JournalofContemporaryChina.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Undo the previous move

A move request has been submited here. [1] 219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Miao Rebellion (1854–73), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han (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) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes". Thank you. --PCPP (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Blumenthal (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) 10:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Homunculus. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Freedom of religion in the People's Republic of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur (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) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For "actually reading books," as you say. —Zujine|talk 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Thank you for pinging me on my talk page. I do not care about Falung Gong, I'm just a casual bystander who reviews the sources. I've contributed in the past to Ahimsa which might appear as close by topic. Religions and its influence on society are interesting to me. I'd appreciate source sharing. We are required to base Wikipedia material on high quality scholar secondary reliable sources, though I find an idea of hierarchy of authority among sources as partially contradicting npov principle. I do not consider any source, even high quality one as "authoritative". Skepticism is healthy. You do appear as knowledgeable about Falun Dafa, why do you find the topic as interesting? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree that no one source is authoritative, but some are certainly better than others. The topic of Falun Gong attracts scholars in several different fields, including political science, religious studies (both from a NRM and Eastern religion point of view), history, anthropology, human rights, and so on. I believe in using the sources in accordance with their individual expertise, so I wouldn't take the word of a political scientist on the interpretation of religious doctrine, nor the word of an anthropologist on Chinese politics. I also think that, when describing contentious aspects of Falun Gong, it is both possible and desirable to distinguish which sources are more authoritative than others in different areas. This is less subjective than one would think; at least in the case of professional academics, it can be measured pretty reliably by the scholar's credentials and the relevance of their field of study, the amount they have published on this subject, where they have published, the nature of their methodology, and how they are regarded by top scholars on the subject of Falun Gong. So, for example, Maria Hsia Chang would seem to fare pretty well by several of these measures, but fails when it comes to how well she is regarded by other top Falun Gong scholars, who either ignore her research or deride it. Also, as I mentioned on the talk page, she is a political scientist, so can't be assumed to be an expert on interpreting complex religious theology. David Ownby is an excellent source on many facets of Falun Gong's history and beliefs, but not on the human rights dimensions. James Tong knows a lot about the background and inner workings of the suppression (particularly from the Communist Party's end, having based his research almost entirely on official documents), but knows nothing about Falun Gong as a religious belief system. And so on. Anyways, I'll send you an email at some point with my recommendations. I've been meaning to put something together for a while.

As to my interest, my background is in comparative politics with a focus on China. Chinese religion is a personal, casual interest of mine, but my professional expertise concerns contemporary Chinese politics, democratization, social movements, and so on. Falun Gong has always been on my radar, but a year or two ago I started presenting and publishing some papers on Falun Gong and topics related to it, so had to become more familiar with all the literature overall.Homunculus (duihua) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Penny

You referred here to a new Penny source. I'm just wondering how you could have obtained s review copy? Are you a member of the press, or are you an otherwise interested party? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a member of the press, no. Academic books are often circulated for review and comment to others with an expertise in the field. I didn’t receive a copy directly from Penny or the publisher, but from another colleague who knew I was researching the subject. I apologize that I didn't check the month of publication. If you have an ongoing interest in the topic, you should order it; it's perhaps the first really serious attempt to put FG teachings into the context of Buddhist / Daoist cultivation tradition, rather than just speculating on a lineage connection to millennial or secret societies of imperial China (some of it is still highly speculative, which is unfortunate, but it's still good.)Homunculus (duihua) 18:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red Guards, Han people and Dao (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) 09:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Absence of terrorosm in Tibet

I think this edit of yours introduces a pretty horrendous example of editorialisation to the article. Without meaning to insult you in any way, this text seems to be the sort of style of the Epoch Times. I have therefore removed it. If you disagree, perhaps you ought to consider gathering more third party sources about how there is also an absence of terrorism in, say, Guangdong, or Yunnan, or indeed anywhere else in China except Xinjiang or the big cities that are targets. In addition, there is the explicit reference to actions being perpetrated by a very small 'hard core' of extremists – seems to me that this is the case for terrorist acts almost everywhere else in the world ... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My edit adhered extremely closely to what the reliable source said. The source is available online, so I suggest you read it, and then tell me if you think that I editorialized or took liberties. I don't believe I have.

I agree that I need more sources to flesh out a more complete discussion of the topic, though the one I used was a good survey of the subject. I intended to add more sources. Maybe you should give me more than twelve hours to build out a section of the article? Or, better yet, maybe you could do some research and help flesh out the section yourself. That seems like more a constructive approach than deleting sourced and relevant information.

Also, do you not think that terrorism in Tibet is a notable topic within this article? Given the frequency with which Chinese authorities decry Tibetan separatism as terrorism—not to mention that terrorism has occurred there—it seems that it should be included and explained. Moreover, most of the literature I've encountered thus far includes a discussion of Tibet alongside Xinjiang. But unless I'm reading you wrong, it seems you're saying that you don't think it's any more notable than anything else...? Homunculus (duihua) 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism in Tibet could possibly be a notable topic in the article, but recent instances are indeed rare as your text states; civil disobediences or disturbances seem to be a lot more common of late. I know the text was work in progress, but it was totally imbalanced. It seemingly downplayed historical instances of bombings etc, but these incidences probably need to be fleshed out a lot more; in that way, the evolution could be plotted and put into its correct context. I don't disagree that the PRC are definitely overboard on the rhetoric about "separatism = terrorism" there, but except for certain incidents, none or very few western sources refer to the acts as 'terrorist', just the fact that the PRC refers to them as 'acts of terrorism'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest moving this conversation to the relevant talk page, where I've posted a comparison between what I wrote and what the source said. I really would like to collaborate with someone (even you!) on this, so I am interested in your thoughts on how the section on Tibet could be made more comprehensive and balanced. The one condition, if I am in a position to stipulate conditions, is that I hope for constructive, good faith collaboration. To that end, I suggest that you consider redacting your characterization of my contribution as "horrendous." Seems needlessly divisive. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 02:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my knee-jerk response in that edit summary. I accept that "horrendous" was perhaps too strong a word by about two notches. Unfortunately, edit summaries cannot be redacted, but I do take that back in the interests of good faith collaboration. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Homunculus (duihua) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chat

OMG This is my very first time to see that English version of this poem, and it's on your userpage! 君不见 青海头 古来白骨无人收 新鬼烦冤旧鬼哭 天阴雨湿声啾啾！ I love this poem too, but the translation is not so good, did you make it yourself? or could you tell me where did you get this?---WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

No, it's not my own. I would never trust myself to devise an adequate translation of Du Fu (but then, no one can). I can't remember what it was that led me to use this poem. There are many happier things than the purgatory of Qinghai, but somehow it seems fitting.Homunculus (duihua) 05:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Um...fitting? In which aspect? You are a nice person. Chinese Wikipedia is lack of editors with professional background and cooperative. I sincerely hope you doing well in your further academic researching. I don't know you can understand Chinese or not, if I could be of some help just let me know.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but I just thought this is a antiwar poem. See, I really looks like a newcomer in Wikipedia. (Laugh~) Actually I edit wp for about 4 years, but mainly on Chinese version. So I know the basic editing rules like no original research, etc. I'm busy nowdays but I can connect to you later, your address is? --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 13:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Rating of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

Hi Homunculus, 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) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to help! Perhaps you might be able to give feedback on the layout of the article, and clarity of writing? I'm relatively confident in the analysis of the security issues, but one aspect of this article that has troubled me is the lack of an explicitly Chinese perspective, which I only reference. Perhaps I could develop this? While I've consulted plenty of Asian news sources, I'm not familiar with Chinese "think tanks," etc. Do you find this to be a problem with the article?

The criteria for good articles are here, and you can make comments on this page if you like. Ultimately, it'd be nice to have the article re-rated on the Wikiproject China article within the next 2 weeks, assuming that I have time to respond to your suggestions. Thanks again! -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem regarding QSD: in fact I've been very busy as well with the same "real world" problems, so I understand entirely. You and Colipon have provided enough commentary to allow me to proceed and improve the article once I have time. Also, I'll contribute more to Bo Xilai at that time.

One thing I'd love to do is contribute to wiki articles on Chinese Paleontological discoveries, which have been revolutionizing our understanding of tetrapod evolution over the last ten years. Perhaps in a little over a month I'll be free to do this! best, -Darouet (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai

Again, I'm really glad where our work over at Bo Xilai has taken us. I appreciate the spirit of cooperation and I am serious about taking it to GA - just need to do a bit more reference work. Colipon+(Talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Northern Ireland

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Northern Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

I mentioned your name here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Homunculus (duihua) 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norwegian Defence League

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Norwegian Defence League. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Guagua

Pardon me for speaking so bluntly, but I'm more than a little disappointed with you for this effort. The subject is only notable because of what his parents are going through. Then you write for Wikipedia in a tone that is a little less than encyclopaedia, including second-or third-hand tabloid gossip as fact although it's quite obvious from the tone of some reports that they are themselves based on gossip and speculation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Guagua has been the subject of numerous feature articles in newspapers of record, some of which date back to before the Wang Lijun affair. That establishes notability. It's not my fault he has few discernible virtues. If you don't like the article, you're welcome to improve it.Homunculus (duihua) 02:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)