User talk:Jsw663

Welcome!

Hello, Jsw663, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Instantnood 01:59, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to some Hong Kong-related articles. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 01:59, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Party

Hi. I added my "centre-right" political spectrum statement back into the Liberal Party article. Calling the CCP and Liberal Party both "conservative" is comparing apples and oranges. They are both conservative parties, but the ideology of the LP and the CCP are still quite different, although the CCP has been slowly transitioning to a new ideology since the economic reforms had started. The LP's ideology is very consistant with the "centre-right" political spectrum. Additionally, another person already called this party "liberal-conservative" which is virtually the same thing as calling it a "centre-right" party as all "liberal-conservative" parties are classified as "centre-right" or "right". Finally, the left/right political spectrum is very much applicable to Hong Kong. As I'm sure you already know, under "one country, two systems" anyone can form a political party. Parties such as the Civic Party can be classified as "centre-left" and The Frontier can be classified even further left. As long as there are political freedoms, you will see parties on both the left and right spectrums and therefore it's quite applicable to Hong Kong. --Candid1982 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Re: [1] [2] - Thanks so much. :-) — Instantnood 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

TheFarix decided jumped into an argument that isn't his and is currently abusing me. I really need your help. Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 19:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Replied. Taken appropriate steps). Jsw663 04:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 Arbitration

I've followed your advice and requested arbitration. If you find it appropriate, please add a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. Thanks. — AKADriver ☎ 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

North Korea's System of Government?

We're currently trying to reach a consensus on what to put for North Korea's system of government in the North Korea article's infobox. The discussion is going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Korea#System_of_Government Please give us your input! crazyeddie 06:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong related

I'm terribly dissapointed that without any specific context you had come seemingly out of nowhere to criticize my recent comment on the Falun Gong talk pages. Had you read any of my comments previous you would understand my frustration with this Falun Gong "mediation". I am sorry if my hint of sarcasm did not reach the point of emphasis where everyone would be able to comprehend it, but essentially I made that last comment in an attempt to prove a point. I hope that once you realize the context of my comments you will withdraw your personal attacks, and (well, you being the first one on Wikipedia to ever attack the credibility of my "self-proclaimed" profession) your immediate doubts about what I do for a living.

Colipon+(T) 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, about archiving my talk page, you will notice that many other Wikipedians do the same.

Replied. Comments withdrawn in light of sarcasm. Jsw663 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We are actually on common grounds here in that we agree mediation is impossible. That was the point I was trying to prove throughout the past week or so. I am frankly tired of the constant western slant that Wikipedia voices, and the Western media's persistence on attempting to raise Falun Gong's status while ignoring its cultlike characteristics. Unfortunately I am the minority here in the West, and on disputed Wikipedia subjects like Falun Gong, the minority often has very little voice. Therefore I resorted to the last solution of sarcasm. Colipon+(T) 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Informal mediator WikieZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

I welcome your arguments and recommendations at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-06 Victim photo from 1981.--Patchouli 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

British Airways EL Section

I thank you for your assistance and support in the manner, and I do agree with you. That being said the user has restored his link once again and I have added another warning to his talk page in addition to removing the link. NcSchu 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this person, shortly after the 1 day ban was released s/he decided to post the link in the talk page instead. NcSchu 12:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted there because I a new user and was not aware that anyone other BA itself may have been removing my link. I was also not aware that anyone was leaving messages for me as I was not aware of Talk Pages. Once temporarily banned I found my talk page and the comments that were being left so I contacted the person who banned me, told him what I was going to do and asked him to unban me which I assume that he did. In my e-mail to the person who banned me I said the following: "I request that you unblock my IP address and I will 1) Take my current issue to the talk:British Airways page as was suggested by another user, and 2) Not post to the BA page until I have at least twenty other posting from my outsiders in my discussion forum in order to legitimize it. By the way the link on the page that provides for a discussion about BA, http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/brit_awys.htm, appears only permit happy speak about BA. I submitted my issue to them and they have not posted it. I know there are many others in my situation that are not getting an appropriate response from BA. Issues like these reflect on the management of the airline and I believe are a legitimate source of information regarding the airlines. I am not trying to make any money or sell anything on the site British-Airways-Complaints.com. My only purpose is to provide a forum for people to share their issues and discuss what is and is not working in order to get them resolved." Now if the BA Talk page is not the proper page, what are my options? Thank you.

• Replied to 68.4.25.97. Jsw663 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

Yeah, I abandoned the case long ago...-- Selmo ^(talk) 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I responded on my page. --evrik 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation cases / status box

I shall do so now. Thanks for advising me about this! -- Where 14:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Distinguishing China / mainland China / PRC

I am sure you know about the differences among them very well. Hong Kong and Macao have been part of the People's Republic of China since 1997 and 1999 respectively, and therefore it is always wrong to exclude them in any encyclopædic article when we're referring to People's Republic of China. Although they're constitutionally stated to be " inalienable part[s] of the People's Republic of China ", they remain separate economies, legal jurisdictions, custom territories, and so on and so forth. Since mainland China is an established term to refer to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded (it's used in laws and in many official purposes), the term is naturally the best option to describe the rest of the PRC in situations that Hong Kong and Macao are excluded. Wikipedia is written for everybody to read, that we cannot have any (pre-)assumptions that they already know about how political setup and the actual reality were like regarding the PRC, and Hong Kong and Macao. I did request for comment, and I did brought the matter to attention of sysop, but sadly obviously nobody would dare to get involved since nobody likes to get into troubles. What would you suggest we should do? — Instantnood 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied Jsw663 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been polls, and frankly, from my experience on Wikipedia polls are not helpful unless all participants actually are familiar with the subject matter. For example, many Washington, D.C. and District of Columbia categories were recently merged, since few people actually know the city of Washington did not in the pass cover the entire district. People just argue they're the same and coterminous. The term mainland China is in fact used formally, officially and frequently by the Hong Kong Government, in the LegCo, and by the courts too. It is also used in formal and official purposes by the PRC government itself (in English). Footnote may perhaps be an option, but then by having a like to the mainland China article readers can promptly tell what the term mainland China means in one click. Encyclopædic materials have to be, and must be accurate, clear, non-confusing and easy to read. — Instantnood 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jsw663&action=edit&section=17

Footnotes may work for some entries, but in quite a few entries in which China, People's Republic of China and mainland China have to be used to convey the different subjects under different contexts, I'm afraid footnotes could be confusing. — Instantnood 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower article, for instance. In that article we are referring to the economy, the demographics, etc., of mainland China, the diplomatic relations, the military, of the People's Republic of China, and the history and the culture of China. How should, in your opinion, the footnotes be placed if we're to use footnotes? — Instantnood 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Instantnood's user page (Example: [3]). Note to self: [4] : archived discussions on whether term 'mainland China' is appropriate. Discussion leans towards objecting changing PRC and China references be changed to mainland China. I personally object as well. Jsw663 15:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Instantnood is under probation from ArbCom for his constant edit-warring. I'm assuming since you suggested that he take up dispute resolution that you didn't already know that. SchmuckyTheCat 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that user:SchmuckyTheCat is under ArbCom probation as well, and the most recent case that I'm involved was opened when I was blocked from submitting a statement. — Instantnood 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only as a side effect of dealing with you, and only on certain topics where I'm likely to run into you. And, mine has never been extended and expires. You've run out your rope and have dozens of specific bans at this point. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Read carefully what those bans are about. The Hepatitis B in China article is an example on how bans were imposed. — Instantnood 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My page is NOT A PAGE FOR MUDSLINGING! Please maintain civility. I know both of your histories well, so please stop arguing here. I don't want to ban you both from my talk page, PLEASE!!!! Jsw663 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But I pressed the submit button before seeing your complaining - we were editing this page roughly at the same time. — Instantnood 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[5] It won't matter what 'friendly' resolution you use to try and get something positive out of him. He'll ignore concensus, create an article/category/template fork or whatever it is so that his way gets presented. SchmuckyTheCat 21:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever ignore consensus and create a fork? Don't just say something with no evidence. — Instantnood 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE, YOU TWO - I know you have both had a colorful history in dealing with each other but this is NOT the page for you to launch personal attacks. Please maintain civility, thanks. Jsw663 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood and "Mainland China"

I'm not at all sure how best to handle this issue. The most obvious courses of action are discussing it privately with IN, or raising it at AN/I. Past experiences suggest that the first of these is likely to lead to no change whatsoever (but lots of time spent with IN raising more and more minor counter-objections, while ignoring the substantiative issue, much less any recognition of consensus. The second is likely to lead, sooner or later, to a site-wide ban (temporary or otherwise) under his probation, and/or a general "exhausted the community's patience" determination. Both of these seem far from ideal, from my point of view. I'd personally settle for something that kept him out of the stub hierarchy for the time being, by his agreement or otherwise. Alai 14:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I replied on my talk page to your question(s). --Bjornar 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)