Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Donations!

Look at the amount of donations Wiki receives every week (on top of the page)! They are making a good money on the back of our hard work! Kiumars

• The Foundation is not-for-profit. To discuss matters relating to the foundation, you are welcome to participate in discussions at Foundation-l, the mailing list for announcements, cross-project matters and Wikimedia Foundation issues.Steve block Talk 17:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

4000metres = ?

On several different airport pages, 4000 metres mean several different things. It sometimes states 13120ft, 13123ft, yet i've gotten 13124 on my calulator using 1*3.281. Which is the most correct? It is very confusing...

The actual conversion from meters to feet is 1 foot = .3048 meters [1]. Multiplying meters by 3.281 is an approximation to this (1/.3048 is actually 3.280839895013, more or less). Using this as the conversion factor, I get 13123.359580052 (which rounds to 13123). However, if we're counting significant digits, 4000 only has 4, so using only 4 digits for the answer yields 13120. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, 4000 only has one significant digit. It depends on the context, if someone is talking about a 4000m race, for example, then we know that it's 'exactly' 4000m and so an accurate conversion is more appropriate, whereas if 4000m means "nearer to 4000m than it is to 3000m or 5000m" then something more crude would be OK. On an airport page I would expect 4000m to meane "at least 4000m" as it's probably talking about runway length and you wouldn't want to be overestimating their length! You could always remove the imperial measurement. MikesPlant 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Beware - there is more than one definition for 'foot'. In the US, there is a "surveyors foot" which is still in common use - and a different definition of the foot prior to 1959(!). From the GNU 'units' program data file:

"The US Metric Law of 1866 gave the exact relation 1 meter = 39.37 inches. From 1893 until 1959, the foot was exactly 1200|3937 meters. In 1959 the definition was changed to bring the US into agreement with other countries. Since then, the foot has been exactly 0.3048 meters. At the same time it was decided that any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the US would continue to use the old definition."

Notice that last bit...*MANY* existing US GIS data sources (maps and airport runway data) are still using the surveyor's foot - and lots of references pre-date the 1959 (or even the 1866) laws and have "non-metric" feet (isn't that an odd phrase!). Then of course in non-US countries, the laws changed at different times with differing intermediate definitions. Hence it should come as no surprise that everything is a horrible mess! SteveBaker 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is small - 1 200 / 3 937 = 0.30480061 So for a 4000 m runway, that is either 13,123.3333 ft for the old definition or 13,123.3596 for the new definition, ignoring sig. digits. For most applications this is within measurement uncertainty. --BenBurch 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

you can use google search to convert. but i just tried it. it didn't work this time. how strange. i used to be able to enter a number, then it will convert it to metric system. anyone knows the proper way to use google search to convert? SummerThunder 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Type your query in the search box so it looks like this: 4000 metres in feet. Tra (Talk) 13:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, yes. that is good. i didn't know that. i don't know the standard way to do it. so once in a while, google will give me the result, other times, it won't. SummerThunder 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas or Pirates?

There is a big discussion going on about ninjas and pirates. the disscusion topic is "which is more popular, Pirates or Ninjas?". Everybody has a lot to say about this question so please say what you think and don't be afraid because you need to speak to be heard.

Gogoboi662 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Anthony Schade

Pirate all the way! yo ho! yo ho! A Pirates life for me! also people love Caption Jack Sparrow and how many famous ninjas can you list? hmmmmmmmmm? ШнΨ ʃǏĜĤ†¿ ĞІνΣ ÎИ тФ ΤĦƏ ɖĄГĶ Ѕǀɠё фʃ ʈНę ʃФŖĆÉǃ 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see. The Ninja Turtles? That makes five for starters? Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

pirates spend alot of time so drunk they can't move, the ninja would have no trouble. by theonlysmartoneherelol

Pirates, naturally. ;)--The Corsair 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas, clearly. Deco 07:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pirates. The fact that I'm former Navy has absolutely nothing to do with it. ;) Durova 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pirates will own ninjas any day :P --Kar_the_Everburning 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think ninjas may be better disciplined than pirates, but then after watching a docu-drama on the BBC about Blackbeard, I think they might be evenly matched.

Also pirates have cannons. Do ninjas have cannons? I don't think so. :P--Kar_the_Everburning 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then again, do pirates have weapons which can barely be pronounced? I don't think so. --Joti 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Are they fighting on land or at sea? I'd go with ninjas if on land and pirates if they were fighting on different ships. If they were fighting on the same ship, I'd still go with pirates since they might be better in a melee and would be accustomed to fighting on a ship.

If it were cavemen versus astronauts, I'd go with cavemen as long as there were no weapons, or only primitive weapons like sticks. I think all of the hard work that the cavemen do would make them stronger and they'd probably have experience from fighting with other cavemen. -- Kjkolb 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is going to change into a whole different subject because of your post, Kjkolb o.O

If a caveman took somthing from an astronaut, lets say... a laser sword(I'm so immature xD), I think you would run 'cause I don't think an astronaut would have any use for a wooden/bone club.--Kar_the_Everburning 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas pwn j00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laelius1031 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pirates, of course. (Oh, and the fact that my username, minus the numbers, is a synonym for pirate is completely coincedental!) Picaroon9288 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ROBOTS ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR — Omegatron 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

INDEED. SUPERIOR TO BOTH PIRATES AND NINJAS (WHILE STILL INFERIOR TO ROBOTS) WOULD BE THE PIRATE NINJA. - Robovski 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer is perfectly obvious: given that ninjas and pirates are both good, it surely follows that pirate ninjas (such as Chris) are better than either one. -- AJR | Talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Puh-lease. Just picture the Pirate/Ninja stealthily sneaking into the bedroom under cover of darkness - clinging to the ceiling with tiny bamboo-leaf sucker cups attached to fingertips and toes - and assasinating your enemy with a single drop of lethal poison by trickling it down a fine thread lowered into his mouth....with an eye patch, one wooden leg, a hook for a hand and a damn great red and blue parrot on his shoulder incessantly yelling "PIECES OF EIGHT!! PIECES OF EIGHT!!" ??? I didn't think so. SteveBaker 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Pirates, DUH!A7X 900 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that there are likely far more actual pirates than real ninjas in the world today, I'd say pirates are more popular, even though I personally find ninjas more interesting. But piracy a more popular occupation, judging by acquaintances I have who sail in tropical seas. I've met more people who have encountered real pirates than people who have encountered real ninjas. =Axlq 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because nobody who meets a ninja lives to tell about it! Deco 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost pirates!(i've posted too many times here >.<)--Kar_the_Everburning 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is a need for more practice of Piracy. Ninjitsu is an overrated and loathesome past time that need not be afflicted upon the peoples of the world. Someday the pirates wil be up in arms and all the Ninja will do is a pretty backflip onto some roof in the horizon, then prance about with flashy stars and I will be in my house laughing and consuming the maids latest affrontary on the consumable medium. May Satan save us all.--R.A Huston 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dude! Ninjas all the way! Kyo cat^meow! 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjas Clearly way cooler than pirates --Fittysix 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ninjas...for obvious reasons... ;) --さくら木 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• 20 legit reasons that pirates are better (from a Facebook group; I'm not responsible for any contraversial points as I didn't make them):

1. Ninjas don’t choose to be sneaky, they have to be. The only way that they can kill anyone is if they sneak up and stab them in the back and then run away. Pirates basically announce that they are coming because they know that no one can stop them.
2. Ninjas have poor social skills. That is why they are such loners. Do you ever see a loner pirate? No.
3. Pirates get all the booty.
4. Famous pirate movie: Pirates of the Caribbean (Johnny Depp is a pimp)... Famous ninja movie: 3 Ninjas (enough said) (What? did you say "what about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?" Well see #10 below duh.)
5. Pirates get pet monkeys and parrots. Ninjas get nothing.
6. Pirates eat meat off the bone. Ninjas eat low fat yogurt (it’s the only thing that is transportable enough for them to carry in their black clothes or whatever the heck they wear).
7. Pirates get to use cool words such as “Yo Ho,” “wench,” and “argh.” Ninjas don’t talk (poor social skills, remember?).
8. 84% of ninjas are homosexual. Look it up. It’s a fact.
9. Pirates speak English. People who speak English are BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Plus, they have cool accents.
10. One might say, “Well, what about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?” Now, I will admit that the Ninja Turtles are awesome. Unfortunately, they are NOT ninjas. According to TheFreeDictionary.com, The definition of a ninja is “a person skilled in ninjitsu.” The definition of a person is “a living human.” Therefore, a ninja is “a living human skilled in ninjitsu.” Since they are turtles, they are not ninjas.
11. George Washington was a pirate.
12. Pirates have been known to eat up to 70 pancakes in one sitting. Can a ninja do that? No sir.
13. Pirates have a universal symbol: the Jolly Roger.
14. Ninjas have no famous Disney characters. Pirates have Captain Hook.
15. Pirates sing pirate songs. Ninjas just read Cosmo.
16. No one can make artificial limbs look cool like pirates can.
17. Pirates get to pillage. Pillage...what a freaking cool word.
18. Shakespeare prefers pirates. There are pirates in The Tempest. Are there ninjas in any of Shakespeare's works!? No!
19. In the song "That's Life", Frank Sinatra sings, "I've been a puppet, a pauper, A PIRATE, a poet, a pawn and a king." Frank Sinatra is a pirate, FRANK SINATRA. Beat that, ninjas.
20. Ninjas don't get to keep the stuff that they steal, they give it to their government. You know what that means?, Ninjas work for the man, that's right, THE MAN. Nobody likes the man.

--Vic226 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vic226 make's a great point.A7X 900 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dural: has everyone forgotten about pirate ninja mimes? they are the best thing imaginalbe! not only can they do everything pirates and ninjas can, they can also use invisible weapons, deflect anything with their glass boxes, and "fly" using invisible staircases! :poseted by Dural (who is currently NOT a member... but that will change within a week)

Kim Arhee: Now lets stay on task here- this is a popularity contest. The constant bickering over these two classic predatorial archetypes has emerged in recent years due to a combination of media campaigns. Notice how the two most popular Shonen Jump (tm) titles, One piece to piracy as Naruto is to Ninjitsu, and their relatively recent introduction to western popular culture. Admittedly One piece does conincide with the fanatical following of Pirates of the Carribean in a very timely fashion, but Ninja have been supremely popular with the youth of the past generation- Power Rangers, the 3 Ninjas franchise et al. Of course we could go into lots of petty disputes over the romanticizing of oriental assassination in various literary texts and how pirates dress not for practice,but how well the aparell catches the fellow sailors' amourous attention, however im sure we can come to an agreemnt on the "more important" facts like who Frank Sinatra referenced in an obscure song. Focus people, this is not a Johnny Depp character portrayal popularity contest, this is to decide which career is the best for toy companies to market as a fad for all 6 year old children in 1st world countries.

Hey everybody, please stick to my topic question because me and probably every one else are getting confused about what this discussion is really about. I would really appreciate it.Gogoboi662 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a Pirate, trained in Ninjutsu. Gilgamesh Rex 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ninjas, arrrr. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who has read Real Ultimate Power would know that Ninjas own everything. MadHistorian 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its always pirates this, pirates that, heres one: pirates drunk! A ninja would basically need to walk up to any comatose pirate and throw the away with the rest of the trash! It not just that I dont like drinking, its that pirates suck -Charlie34

God gave ninjas the power of flipping out and of being totally sweet. Pirates are just clumsy swashbuckling imitations who wouldn't know a good assassination if it sliced open their jugular or poisoned them in their sleep. --Gwern (contribs) 04:12 22 December 2006 (GMT)

As amusing as pirates and ninjas are, the Village Pump is not for non-Wikipedia-related discussions. If you wish to converse on this matter, please discuss it on a forum website. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 16:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point Porpoise. Is there a Wikipedia page dealing with the pirate/ninja controversy? We are obviously in need of some solid facts to help us make this decision. TimVickers 20:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Pirates versus Ninjas --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 02:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Wikipedia editors

[2] What horrifying appeasers.

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the actual article Chinese Wikipedia and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. feel free to add your part of contribution. SummerThunder 01:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of zhwiki seems to be "what a horrifyingly bad article", for what it's worth... Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets just condem communism in general, as a load of bullshit

†he Bread 08:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The IHT was inaccurate and misleading. We've been discussing it on the Chinese Wikipedia, and frankly most people are disappointed at this complete misrepresentation of what the Chinese Wikipedia really stands for. After all, we've been blocked three times by the Chinese government, but have never made any concessions to them. zh:User:R.O.C has sent an email to the foundation-l mailing list: [3], listing the inaccuracies in the IHT report. -- ran (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The IHT did a poor job in research, which could have revealed more corrupted entries, more damning facts of zhwiki, and how it gets where it is. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This can be partly due to zh.wiki's small number of active contributors. Not every wikipedia has the luck that en.wiki has enjoyed having so many contributor from all over the world (or, at least, most parts of the world) to make sure NPOV is achieved. On the contrary, zh.wiki does not enjoy such a luxury of a diverse backgrounds of contributors, especially since the PRC's been blocking zh.wiki for such a long time. In fact, only some very controversial articles (which IMO is very few) can receive adequate discussion/editing to achieve NPOV while the majority of articles are mainly done by one person. In that case, I think a certain degree of nonadherence to NPOV policy is expected since NO ONE can have absolute NPOV (IMHO, a person w/ NPOV does not exist), and no one can avoid that and thus are guilty of not adhering to NPOV to some degree. However, finding a non-NPOV point and not changing it is just as bad as writing something that's non-NPOV. In the end, a wikipedia won't be a wikipedia if its contributors which includes everyone, active members or just passers, stops caring about righting the wrong (or alleged non-NPOV, in this case).-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the blog entries by Chinese Wikipedia editor Roadrunner, who was interviewed and then found his remarks misrepresented: [4]. -- ran (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a picture wouldn't hurt. brought to you by the Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ran, you can still entertain other fellow wikipedians with this misleading report. Admirable. China (that's the PRC in the "western" context) contributes much more to the world than a reminiscence of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. :) Ktsquare (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You bet. Now they even have African's blood on their hand, through Janjaweed militia - a fact you won't see in zhwiki (because of their editorial policy). Meanwhile, they insist Slobodan Milosevic never died, but 'passed away', to show their respect, in NPOV style (Chinese context).--Uponsnow 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, what do you know about zh.wp's editorial policy? Saying "they" don't follow the standard NPOV is a serious accusation, and you better to have plenty of evidence on your hands to back yourself up (FYI the link is http://zh.wikipedia.org).

And who's this "they" anyway? Attributing one single opinion to all of the zh Wikipedians is so convenient. --Lorenzarius 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow: what zh.wiki editorial policies are you talking about? Currently the Chinese Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia to have begun a translation of the Nangpa La killings article that you've been working on; does that conform to what you believe are zh.wiki's editorial policies? As for Darfur, if you or anyone else wants to write something on the zh.wiki, conforming to the same standards of NPOV as the English Wikipedia, please go ahead, no one will mind. -- ran (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I merely want to bring a point across. It's one thing for the IHT to publish a misleading article, which Slashdot promptly spun out of proportion in its discussions. At least you can say that they don't know how Wikipedia works. It's another thing for fellow Wikipedians to misunderstand our community as well. We're already been blocked for over a year, and yet we didn't yield... it's horrible to be accused of doing exactly what we've refused to do all this time. -- ran (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you folks already did a good job to appease Chinese Communists. Look at the entry "Hu Jintao": "His modesty impressed 2 Chinese leaders. ... After assuming the post of Secretary-in-general of the Communist Party politburo, Hu visits economically challenged central and west provinces for quite a many times, showing a more open minded and equal-footing image and more concerned with those have-not in reform era." What a eulogy! Need to read further? --Uponsnow 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow, I believe u have misunderstood my point. I meant China becomes or is becoming a nation of global influence, not a global bloodaxe, which IMO your interpretation was. Ktsquare (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wished your way, but reality beats me, squarely. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow: If you want to NPOVize those please go ahead. -- ran (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Leave it as is, as an epitome of Chinese Wikipedia under Shizhao and other fanatics in disguise of wikipedians. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's especially scary how Shizhao, being the crazy commie puppet that you think he is, would nominate a supporter of the Taiwanese Pan-Green Coalition for adminship. -- ran (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To Uponsnow: Since you've translated and quoted the Hu JinTao article on zh.wiki so well, why didn't you just change the sentence where you consider it is not NPOV. Isn't it also one of wikipedia's basic function that EVERYONE CAN EDIT; therefore, if you didn't like it, you should've changed it or bring it up to its discussion page so that other people can change it. As of your comment on zh.wiki's NPOV policy, I can guarantee you that most people on zh.wiki adheres to this policy strictly. As a contributor to Chinese Wikipedia, I take this policy seriously whenever I'm editing an article. BTW, I have slightly changed those sentences in "Hu Jintao" article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention ALL THE WAY here at En.Wiki.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. There are 2 reason: 1.Don't you think I have tried, not once, but twice? You just can't beat a determined oxymoron. 2. How many Chinese-speaking people would try to get to know who is Hu by reading Wikipedia? For readers it can result no harms. But it harms Wikipedia! In case you are really concerned. --Uponsnow 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to NPOVize it. First of all, I'm glad that you actually did try to change it , and it's unfortunate that you met a determined editor on zh.wiki. Nonetheless, it shouldn't have stopped you from NPOVize it. Changing it directly isn't the only way. There is always other routes, and you just need to give it a try. Second of all, I agree with you that non-NPOV can definitely harm Wikipedia, and that's why we need to change it. Wikipedia is about accumulating any knowledge that all people share. In this case, it does not matter the number of readers for Hu's article now, because, if not now, someday there will be someone who's unfamiliar with Hu JinTao and decided to find out some more about him. By then, that will be the true value of Wikipedia.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikopoley: Thanks for changing it.

Uponsnow: Please don't let one edit war mar your opinion of Wikipedia. Shizhao may come off as being confrontational sometimes, but he would never intentionally dig up the NPOV policy. Nor is zh.Wikipedia ruled by one person: out of 83 sysops, just 29 are from Mainland China, and a quick glance through their user pages reveal diverse political stances. As for the Hu Jintao article on the Chinese Wikipedia, I'll help keep an eye on it, if you prefer. -- ran (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ran, I fear that you could be easily overloaded. For instance, Chinese Wikipedia claims that Tibet was peacefully liberated by Chinese in 50s. Yet the opinion of how peaceful it was from those on the receiving end of the liberation, is conspicuously missing, as a result of dodged edit war. Like in almost every time, the Russian-speaking Zhwiki Czar won the battle, by design. You can insist that Tibet was peacefully liberated, like your fellow Chinese do, but it's shame for silencing others who do not subscribe to your version of truth and still claim that Chinese Wiki adheres to high standard of NPOV. Shizhao cannot fool all the people all the time.
  --Uponsnow 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that you say:"Chinese Wikipedia claims that Tibet was peacefully liberated ". The only mentioning of word "peacefully liberated" 和平解放 in the article zh:西藏, is the title of the agreement signed by Chinese central government and Tibet Authority, which reads:"Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet ". About the military conflict prior to that agreement, comparing to the English version, Chinese version actually has lot more words to say :" 1950年10月7日，由军官王其美率领的解放军四万余人分八路向康区首府昌都发起进攻，很快就打败了只有八千余人的西藏军队。两天后攻克昌都。俘去多麦总管阿沛　阿旺晋美和其随行人员，打死四千余西藏军人。1950年10月7日，西藏政府呈交联合国秘书长的报告：“西藏人民已清楚无力阻当中国军队的前进，西藏人已应允与中国政府进行和谈。虽然长久热爱和平的西藏人民欲要战胜熟练于战争的中国军队的希望并不大，但是，我们相信在世界的任何地方，只要发生侵略行为，联合国是必定会帮助予以抗击的." Roughly translate as: Oct. 7, 1950, 40K PLA troops attacked Changdu, easily defeated 8000 Tibetan army, captured governor, killed 4000 Tibetan combatant. Oct 7 1950, Tibetan government submited a report to UN secretary general saying:"Tibetan people can no longer resist chinese troops' advance. Tibetan has agreed to hold peace negotiation with chinese goverment. although peace loving tibetan people is no rival with chinese army, we believe UN would step in to help once agression happens"." Other than this paragraph, there is no mentioning of peace/peaceful elsewhere in the article. I'm curious to understand how you came to you conclusion. - munford 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---I ADDED THIS PART above, it was me who ADDED THAT PART!!!!! and now they are shamelessly using that part which was previously deleted by a moderator to prove that they are innocent?! This is sick!!!! I got that from this link. [5] In the original article, there was NOTHING, absolutly NOTHING about how Chinese took over tibet. So I did a little search, and found that link. it was me who re-wrote the history after 1949 in that article. Even today, the actual reference link was DELETED by the chinnese spy moderators even though they actually somehow kept my part of contribution. how contradiction that is. how can they keep something without a reference?

And before that, after I added that part, It was immediatly deleted by true chinese communist spy moderater Louer who have constantly been deleting my part of articles, then put them into protection!!! for example, in the aricle of People's republic of China, there is not a single word about human rights or falun gong, i added those in, communist spy Louer immediatly deleted them. one month later, there is still no word about human rights or flg in that article, and that article is still in protection. Because of the things that i have added, those chinese spy moderatoers banned me forever, and deleted all my comments, accused me "vandalism!!!" they are totally no different than the chinese communist government themselves. this is totally making me very sick to see that now they are using this to prove that they are not on the communist side!!! this is no different as if the Chinese government using the same Tank man pic to prove how good they are. And even today, several of the links that I have added for that articles are still missing because they are deleted by those chinese communist spy moderators!!!! this is just too sick! how can they act like they are being fair and equal?!!!!

The article from that newspaper is not biased at all. that is indeed what is happening on the chinese site everyday! the moderators even constantly delete people's comments and votes in the same chinese version of "village pump."

SummerThunder 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, I never suggest that the bias came from sysops' national origin. The most senior sysop from Taiwan once claims that Taiwan has 'no legal ground to be independent from China'(sic). That ends the story. He played a key role to delete dissenting views to ensure his interpretation of NPOV. You need to imagine what it is? --Uponsnow 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I went and read this discussion. Anyone who reads Chinese can read the same discussion here at zh:Talk:西藏问题. For those who can't read Chinese, here's a rough summary:

Shizhao: A lot of Chinese people feel that Tibet is the way it is only because it depends on the central government for financial support.

Theodoranian: So are you saying that since Taiwan doesn't depend on China for financial support, therefore it has the right to independence?

Theodoranian (the Taiwanese sysop you speak of) was using Reductio ad absurdum. He took Shizhao's point, extended it logically and arrived at a conclusion that Shizhao may not agree with, thereby showing the inconsistency in Shizhao's original point. In other words, Theodoranian was not arguing that Taiwan has no right to independence, in fact Theodoranian just rebutted one of the main reasons why people say Tibet can't be independent. In addition, his edits and comments elsewhere on Wikipedia show a consistent loyalty to his country, the Republic of China on Taiwan.

So not only have you twisted Theodoranian's point around, not only did you push away someone who was supporting your point of view (Tibetan Independence), you also insulted his loyalty to Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You were so close to reveal the real mindset of Theodoranian! Yes, I was referring to the same quote of him. But you missed in how Reductio ad absurdum is employed in debate. The logic extention part is supposed to reach a conclusion which is obviously absurd to everyone! So Theodoranian, a Taiwanese, seems to think Taiwan's independence is absurd, and he thinks it's agreed by all. He is not alone (in Taiwan). He is certainly entitled to his belief, but he should not let this mindset unduely influence his edit decision. That's my concern. --Uponsnow 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Theodoranian arrived at a conclusion that may be absurd to Shizhao. In other words, he presents Shizhao with a choice:

• Either continue to hold on to the link between independence and economic dependence, and admit that Taiwan can be independent;
• Or admit that there is no link between independence and economic dependence, and lose a major point in arguing against Tibetan Independence.

This does not mean that Theodoranian himself rejects Taiwanese independence, in fact his actions and words elsewhere speak strongly of his patriotism towards the Republic of China (Taiwan); all it means is that Theodoranian is showing Shizhao the contradiction in Shizhao's POV. After all, if Theodoranian were so hostile to independence movements, then why would he be arguing against Shizhao here? Why did Theodoranian begin his point by saying: "There is no link between independence and economic dependence?"

I also fail to see how pushing away Theodoranian, who is clearly arguing for Tibetan Independence here, helps you or the international Tibetan Independence movement. Not only did you deprive yourself of a potential ally in future debates, you're also depriving the Chinese Wikipedia of a potential advocate of Tibetan freedom.

Ever since you started insinuating on the Village Pump of the Chinese Wikipedia that Theodoranian is somehow a PRC lackey, Theodoranian has been asking for an apology from you, for publicly attacking his loyalty to his own country. I suggest that you apologize to him. -- ran (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this thread is still running, I'd just like to say how honored I felt the day I discovered that a Chinese language editor translated my work at Joan of Arc. Thank you. I'd love to see more Chinese biographies become featured articles in English. I'm an admirer of Chinese poetry (which must lose a great deal in the versions I'm able to read). I realize we're all volunteers, yet may I make a request for Li Bai? Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did this in zh.wikipedia

• A photo depicting Chinese soldiers' killing of defenseless Tibetan refugees has been promptly deleted, after it was voted down out of 'copyright concerns', though it's properly credited under 'fair use' clause. A similar one from the same source stays fine in en.wikipedia. --Uponsnow 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to an Admin on Zh.wiki[6], this photo was deleted because it was submitted under "fair use" licensing and someone submitted it to vfd. Because no one voted to oppose deletion of the photo during the 7 days period of voting, it was deleted by an admin after 7 days. Everything was done according to procedure. If you believe it was a mistake, it will be nice if you upload it again, and vote to oppose deletion in case it's submited for vfd again. Btw, is the similar photo on en.wiki fair use also? or is it under free license? If it's under free license, why don't you upload it to commons. It's always nice to put free licnese stuff in commons.. :) -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I've already explained on the Chinese Wikipedia, the sysops deleted the picture because it did not meet the requirements for fair use. They did not remove any wording from the article Nangpa La killings, nor did they remove any of the numerous links at the bottom of the article to various news reports, photos, and videos. In other words, the picture was deleted according to Wikipedia's copyright policies, not what you perceive to be politically motivated censorship. -- ran (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, why is that picture there in the English version of Nangpa La killings? It might be nice for someone to email the photographer and ask for permission to use his Nangpa La-related pictures on all Wikimedia projects. This way you'll be able to upload to both English and Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, we all know what's happening in Chinese Wiki. These selective enforcement of 'policy' can take many forms, and we all know what those sysops are really targeting. Since when those Chinese suddenly start to respect other's copyright? Come on, give me a break! You must be joking to yourself if you believe they are not trying to appease the Chinese communists. --Uponsnow 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

an extra comment.

the chinese communist moderators deleted my COMMENT on that same topic in the Chinese site!! they then somehow made that "deletion" totally disappeared as if I have never left a comment on that topic at all!!! that is what they are doing on that site everyday. the communist spies are obviously taking over the whole Chinese site. and it is making me VERY VERY SICK to know that those are the same moderators who now came to this site and trying to tell the whole english world that they are innocent, they are just doing their job. i had my doubts, but i firmly 100% believe that among those chinese moderators, many of them are the true chinese government spies or have been converted by the chinese government. all those things are not individual incidents, they are all linked one to another. SummerThunder 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Chinese Wikipedia is trying to "appease the communists", then why haven't they tried to remove the entire article about the Nangpa La killings altogether? Why haven't they tried to remove the numerous links to eyewitness accounts, photographs, and videos found at the bottom of the article? What is wrong with deleting an image that violates the copyright policy shared by all versions of Wikipedia, English or Chinese? And doesn't the fact that I suggested a way to ask for permission from the original author to use the photo on Wikipedia, mean anything to you? Honestly, why do you look for motives when there is none?

--well, that site is still supposed to be free of the chinese government rules. so if you chinese spies delete every articles that are offensive to the PRC government, then it will be too obvious to the whole world. you obviously can't do that. therefore, you can only try to do those things secretly. you are trying to do the damage control as much as you can without being too obvious. That is how the Chinese communist spies worked before 1949. SummerThunder 10:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

We've always taken copyright just as seriously on the Chinese Wikipedia as the English Wikipedia. The Chinese Wikipedia is not a reflection of the government of the People's Republic of China, whether in copyright policy or political slant. -- ran (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To Uponsnow:I don't think this photo has a correct license template. According to Explorersweb's policy, everything on its website should be All Rights Reserved. I don't konw who put the {{cc-by-2.0}} license there but it still does not make it OK to put it on wikipedia. Therefore, I think the Admins on zh.wiki did a legitimate deletion of the photo. Btw, I will submit this photo for deletion here, too, and this has nothing to do with the content. It's just because incorrectly licensed photo, especially unfree content, cannot be used on wikipedia. -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 06:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for and received permission to use the photographs on the English and Chinese Wikipedias. The Chinese Wikipedia currently displays a photograph depicting the body of the Tibetan nun who was shot and killed by Chinese border guards. -- ran (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A real article from the Chinese Wikipedia

This article alone is enough to get us blocked, forever, by the Chinese government. And it's merely one of many such articles. We have been blocked since October 2005. We have appealed to no effect. But we have not changed our policies in any way, unlike say Google or Yahoo.

From zh:囊帕拉槍殺事件

Intro

囊帕拉槍殺事件是指2006年9月30日中國邊防武警向企圖穿越西藏與尼泊爾邊境上的囊帕拉山口（海拔5700米，一譯朗喀巴山口）、出境前往尼泊爾的75名西藏逃亡者開槍射擊並至少打死兩人的流血事件。

The Nangpa La killings refer to a deadly incident on September 30, 2006, in which Chinese border military police fired on 75 Tibetan refugees attempting to cross Nangpa La Pass (altitude 5700m) between Tibet and Nepal and head to Nepal, killing at least two.

逃亡者中包括年幼的兒童和兩名帶路的嚮導。2006年9月30日，據目擊者和逃亡者稱，中國西藏邊防武警總隊日喀則大隊定日中隊在沒有預警的情況下，向這些試圖徒步穿越山口的藏人開槍射擊，17歲（有報導稱23歲）的Kelsang Namtso（女）被子彈當場擊中，在山口前死亡。另一名23歲藏人Kunsang Namgyal（男）被兩次擊中腿部後倒下，由武警帶走，事後中國當局承認Kunsang Namgyal死亡。

Among the refugees were young children and two guides. On Sept 30, 2006, the Tingri squadron of the Shigatse brigade of the Tibet border military police detachment, China, fired without any warning on these Tibetans who were attempting to cross the pass on foot, according to eyewitnesses and refugees. Kelsang Namtso, female, 17 (some reports say 23) was hit by gunfire, and died in front of the pass. Another 23-year-old Tibetan, Kunsang Namgyal (male) was hit on the leg twice and fell, and taken away by military police. The Chinese regime later admitted that Kunsang Namgyal had died.

中國當局聲稱，士兵開槍是出於「自衛」。這一聲稱與現場西方目擊者的陳詞有矛盾。事後，41名幸存者抵達位於尼泊爾首都加德滿都的「西藏難民中轉中心」。兩周以後，幸存者抵達目的地印度達蘭薩拉。

The Chinese regime claims that the soldiers fired out of "self-defense". This claim contradicts the testimony of Western witnesses at the scene. Afterwards, 41 survivors arrived at the "Tibetan Refugee Reception Center" in the Nepali capital Kathmandu. Two weeks later, the survivors arrived in Dharamsala, India.

Excerpts

一些外國登山者向外界發佈了照片和視頻，私下或者公開提供了目擊者證詞。這些圖像包括中國士兵押送未能逃脫的幸存者（包括未成年的藏人）列隊經過卓奧友峰先頭大本營的情形。視頻片段包括武警戰士對正在遠去的非武裝藏人平民進行長距離狙擊式射擊。

Some foreign mountaineers sent their photos and videos to the outside world, and gave witness testimony either publicly or privately. These images include Chinese soldiers escorting under custody survivors who could not escape (including Tibetan children) in file through the Cho Oyo forward base camp. Videos depict military police sniping, at a great distance, unarmed Tibetan civilians moving away from them.

我看到一隊西藏人向山口進發，這是司空見慣的，因為每一年的這段時間是通商時節。然後，毫無預警地，槍聲大作，一輪，一輪，又一輪。隊伍開始朝山上逃散，這裡海拔是19000英尺。看起來，中國軍隊得到密報說有人逃亡，於是帶槍出現了。目睹隊伍在雪地上蜿蜒奔命，槍聲四起，我們注意到兩個人形仆倒。望遠鏡下就清楚了：兩人倒下，沒有再起來。

The above is a direction translation from anonymous testimony in English:
I saw a line of Tibetans heading towards the start of the [Nangpa La] pass - a common sight. Then, without warning, shots rang out. Over, and over and over. Then the line of people started to run uphill. Watching the line snake off through the snow, as the shots rang out, we saw two shapes fall. The binoculars confirmed it: two people were down, and they weren’t getting up.

Sergiu Matei對媒體表示：「我把他（槍擊幸存者）帶進帳篷，給了他極地保暖毯和一雙襪子。我沒拍下來，我不想再回去，只希望他穿越山口，不要成為那些嗜血的中國人的活靶子。我給了他一些牛奶和爆米花。然後我告訴他得儘快離開，因為中國軍人在搜捕兩名失蹤的藏人，很可能會搜查帳篷。我給他指了穿越冰川的捷徑，他就上路了。他穿越槽口的時間大約是凌晨兩點。」

The above is a direct translation from the English original of Sergiu Matei's testimony:
"I took him into our mess tent and gave him one polar fleece and a pair of socks that Cosmina had bought for me. I don't know why I didn't film the scene – I just didn’t seem relevant for me back then; all I could think of was to see that guy crossing Nangpa La without becoming a practice-target for the blood-thirsty Chinese boys. I went again in the tent and gave him some milk and cornflakes. Then I told him to leave as soon as possible, since the militia was on the prowl after two missing Tibetans and they might search the camps looking for him. Thirty minutes later I showed him the shortest way across the glacier, and off he went towards what they call their spiritual father. He crossed the col at around 2 am."

To Uponsnow (zh:User:澍子, who wrote this article and made it even more detailed than the English version, I express my gratitude and respect, for making the Chinese Wikipedia an avenue for freedom of expression. I also ask Uponsnow to reflect on the fact that to date, no sysop on the Chinese Wikipedia has tried to delete this article or compromise its truth or neutrality in any way. I understand that you're angry towards the policies of the Chinese government, censorship or worse, but this article alone should elucidate the fact that the Chinese Wikipedia is NO PART OF IT.

-- ran (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is why Wikipedia HAS been blocked by PRC government for a long long time. But who cares about what PRC gov't thinks, keep up the good work!!;) -- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 06:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: this article is now in the "Did you know" box in the main page of the Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ran, I believe what Chinese Wiki needs most to restore its credibility is NOT such a stunt show with limited PR value, but rudimentary change of altitute. Currently its editing policy is carried out in a way hostile to contributors who dare to differ from Beijing regime. This saddens me most. --Uponsnow 11:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

obviously, there are many contributors on that chinese sites who felt the same way as uponsnow and I did. the chinese communist moderators are constantly deleting people's comments, votes, etc. and they then magically make all those comments disappearing as if they have never existed. This is just exactly the same thing what the Chinese government is doing in mainland China. What happened in the summer of 1989 on Tiananmen Square has completely disappeared from the entire Chinese web site, not even those articles which the government itself published! as of today, those several links that I have added to the tibet articles are still missing even though they kept my article which i got from those several deleted links. it is totally making me SICK to see this communist spy Ran constantly promoting the chinese wikipedia as if it is not pro communist or biased. that is not the truth. people across the world has felt the same way. otherwise, that international hearld won't have published that article about it. I am certainly glad that there are many users who felt the need to expose those shady chinese spies. SummerThunder 10:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this "stunt show", so to speak, hostile to you? When you created the Nangpa La killings article on the Chinese Wikipedia, what hostility did you meet, other than the deletion of the image that you uploaded with no permission (and I should say that it is I who emailed the original author and obtained permission to use it on both the English and Chinese Wikipedias?) Why is it a user like 台灣少年, a declared Pan-Green supporter, can get nominated as sysop by none other than your scary commie bogeyman Shizhao (he would have been elected 9-0-0 had he not declined due to real life commitments)? The hostility you have met is the result of your own confrontational attitude, your own propensity for accusing people like Theodoranian of being PRC lackeys when nothing could be further from the truth, and not because of your political views. -- ran (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a typical, well-written Chinese Wikipedia article: History of Taiwan. Please tell me how this article, which claims the following things, panders to the Beijing Regime:

• As late as the Ming Dynasty, Taiwan was regarded as foreign territory;
• The Ming Dynasty did not object to the Dutch colonization of Taiwan, because it was foreign;
• The first time Taiwan became Chinese territory was in 1683, not the 3rd century as Chinese history books like to imply;
• The Qing Dynasty initially wanted to give up Taiwan after conquering it in 1683;
• Much of Taiwan's modernization can be attributed to Japanese colonization;
• The Republic of China continued to be the government of Taiwan after 1949 (and not the "Republic of China" with quotes, the "Kuomintang regime", the "Taiwan authority", or whatever other contrived name the People's Republic of China likes to use);
• That the Taiwanese population is generally hostile to the Anti-Secession Law passed by the PRC in 2005, and took to the streets to express their determination to protect Taiwanese sovereignty

-- ran (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of entries written on the assumption that Taiwan is ALREADY a part of the People's Republic of China. Users advocating 'using force when necessary' to invade the island often receive nice treatment on zh.wiki. BTW, Ran, you blocked me for another week on Chinese Wiki so I cannot write about the Chinese-sanctioned genocide going on in Darfur region. My perception is that your action is highly politically motivated and arbitrary, which disappoints me very much. --Uponsnow 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you because you are using sockpuppets to circumvent an existing block placed on you. The existing block was for an extended campaign of bigoted personal attacks that you carried out on a user talk page. Also, if I have political motives, why did I email Mr. Pavle Kozjek for permission to upload the photos for the Nangpa La killings? Are you going to accuse me of a split personality next?

As for those "tons of entries" that assume that Taiwan is a part of the PRC, go change them yourself if you see any. The main, well-watched articles about Taiwan, such as the Chinese Wikipedia versions of the Republic of China, Taiwan, History of Taiwan, Political status of Taiwan, etc., certainly do not assume such a thing.

I see that you haven't answered my question about the History of Taiwan article, nor explained how a pro-Green Taiwanese could be nominated as sysop, nor apologized to Theodoranian for the rumours that you have spread about him. Instead you've begun to make bizarre accusations against me... well, whatever, say what you want. Any English Wikipedian interested in the topic can wade through this long discussion and come to their own conclusion about what's going on at the Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a friend of Theodoranian and having a bi-weekly regular meeting with him, I can say that Theodoranian is not a PRC lackey. The rumor about him is not true and someone should give Theodoranian an apology.

Please, stop the rumor. I will let Theodoranian know what's going on here.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear, he himself is the one who spreads that 'rumor'. Read the referenced quote (Taiwan does not rely on China economically, but how can this become the basis of legitimacy of independence?) and ask him to explain. I hope he was out of his mind when he said that. --Uponsnow 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor translation. The original is:

許多中國人，包括我都認為，現在西藏都是政府每年大筆的財政支持才能由現在這個樣子的，也就是說，其實是中國在養著西藏，主要還是他的戰略地位太重要了。--百無一用是書生 (Talk) 03:19 2004年7月28日 (UTC)

Dear Shizhao，中國為西藏帶來了一定程度的進步，我想很多人都不能否認。但是誰養誰不代表(前)誰可以統治(後)誰，或是說誰靠誰養(前)誰就不可以獨立於(後)誰。如果照以上的邏輯，不靠中華人民共和國養的台灣，獨立的正當性是否就有了？--虎兒 03:58 2004年7月28日 (UTC)

Many Chinese, myself included, believe that Tibet can sustain itself only because of large financial support by the central government. In other words, China is sustaining Tibet, mainly because its strategic location is just too important. -- Shizhao

Dear Shizhao, China brought a certain level of progress to Tibet, I think many people can't deny this. But A sustaining B doesn't mean A can rule B, or in other words, B depending on A for sustenance doesn't mean B cannot be independent from A. If we go by the above logic, is it true that Taiwan, which doesn't depend on the People's Republic of China for sustenance, has the legitimacy to become independent? -- Theodoranian

As far as I can see, Theodoranian, a Taiwanese and avowed patriot to the Republic of China (Taiwan), not only rebutted Shizhao's justification for Chinese rule over Tibet, he also pushed, in a tongue-in-cheek way, for Shizhao to admit that yes, Taiwan can independent (either that, or concede the point about Tibet). -- ran (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

part 2

Yes, they did this. After a zh.wiki user added a few lines saying Zhao Ziyang was under house arrest, a well-known fact, he was not only permanently banned, but ALL his contributions deleted, by a majority vote of the Chinese sysops. You can imagine what kind of majority opinion will be. --Uponsnow 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very glad indeed! It was me!

I am very very glad that I found this page, and I was not being forgotten. Thank you, uponsnow!!! You are talking about me! Yes, that is right. It was me who put the subtitle "house arrest until death." I actually added same subtitle in the english version. even today, that title is still there! and I also added what he talked about on Tiananmen square on that fateful night on the Chinese version. however, that part was also immediatly DELETED by the chinese spy moderator Jasonzhoucn, then put that aritcle into protection. a month has passed now, there is still no change. After that, I added basically the same content in the English article. I translated his speech on that night. zhao ziyang still has everything that I contributed.

So it is clearly the chinese moderators are spies who are working for the chinese government now. there is simply no way that they can explain to me why they deleted my part of the article while the English version kept all of my contribution on the exact same subject. So far, I have chinese communist spies as "ran, louer, jasonzhoucn." Thank you very much, uponsnow, for talking about what I did! SummerThunder 11:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article on Zhao Ziyang states: 趙紫陽一直是中國國內官方報道中忌諱的話題，網上的搜索引擎、社區、聊天軟體亦以此為「關鍵字」處理；但趙近況始終是歐美等西方媒體關注的焦點。趙紫陽下臺後一直被軟禁在家，軟禁的其中一個標誌是有公安站崗俯視向小巷的牆上和門前，但在後期官方對其行動的管制明顯放鬆，如偶爾打高爾夫球，甚至被允許在中國內陸省份旅行，但是被禁止進入容易被國際媒體曝光的沿海地區。"Zhao Ziyang was always a taboo article in official media in China, with search engines, online communities and chats treating his name as sensitive; but recently Zhao has always been the focus of Western media. After losing power Zhao was held under house arrest, one symbol of which being a police post looking over the walls and gates of the alley [where he lived]; but in later years official control over his movement loosened, and he was able to play golf occasionally, and even travel through interior provinces in China, though he was banned from going to the coastal regions where there was greater risk of international exposure."

Oh, and I must add that the aforementioned user was banned for repeatedly spamming all pages of the Village Pump on the Chinese Wikipedia with personal attacks. In one attack, he accused Taiwanese Wikipedian Jasonzhuocn of being a commie spy, because "cn" means China (as opposed to, say, his initials). -- ran (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did this. Radio Free Asia is dismissed as a questionable source of news, before its affiliation with the state department. Xinhua News Agency, a Chinese government mouthpiece, however, is never questioned. In fact, on one day in this December, it was the sole source of wiki news. --Uponsnow 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article on RFA states: 自由亞洲電臺(Radio Free Asia,RFA)是根據1994年通過的美國國際廣播法案而在1996年由美國國會出資創建的一家非盈利性私營廣播電臺,它歸美國廣播理事會管轄.廣播委員會的職責是"向海外聽眾提供準確客觀公正的美國和世界新聞及相關信息廣播,以促進和加強自由民主事業". Radio Free Asia is a nonprofit private broadcasting station created in 1996 by the US Congress according to the 1994 International Broadcast Act. It is managed by the US Broadcasting Committee [translation?] and its role is to "provide accurate, objective, and balanced US and world news to listeners overseas, and facilitate the development of freedom and democracy". The second external link on the page is a guide to bypassing governmental jamming of the station. -- ran (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they can do this. BTW, if I had said any of the above in Chinese Wikipedia, I would have been banned for 3 days, for 7 days, for one week more, for 'violating wiki policy' and 'personal attack'. That's the ugly reality of Chinese Wiki. --Uponsnow 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow was banned for making the following attacks on the user talk page of zh:User talk:真實事求是, a Chinese Malaysian. In these attacks, Uponsnow insulted 真實事求是's accent, intelligence, country of origin, and parents; made racist remarks about Malaysian Chinese, Malays, and Tamils; used traditional economic livelihoods of Malaysia as tools of personal attack; accused 真實事求是 of providing pornographic material online; and advised 真實事求是 to go into prostitution for a low price so that he "won't need to worry about lack of business":

華文學校的劣等品，中英文皆爛，講國語前後鼻韻不分翹不翹舌不懂，令人噁心，想投靠大陸找份工作根本不成。在大陸誰不知道最不講道德只講錢的華人就是這些天朝棄民？請不要再唧唧歪歪了（聽得懂嗎？） Inferior product of Chinese schools, you suck in both Chinese and English, your Mandarin doesn't distinguish final -n and -ng, or between alveolars and retroflexes; utterly disgusting, you want to find a job in Mainland China but you can't. But in Mainland China, who doesn't know that the most immoral, the most money-minded, are these abandoned people of the heavenly dynasty [referring to overseas Chinese]? Please stop with your weird squeaking ( do you understand my words? )

你儘管意淫，你這種熱帶智商，給馬來人、泰米爾人做奴才人家看不上，又想投靠中共混點「中國崛起」的殘羹冷炙，老實說現在中共也不稀罕，找100條純種狗有難度，找1000個失業的「南洋華僑」，不難！ Although you twist meanings, your tropical IQ is not enough to satisfy Malays and Tamils when you want to be their servants; and so you want to join the Chinese Communists to get some table scraps of "China's Rise". Honestly, the Chinese Communists aren't going to treat you as hard to find; it's somewhat hard to find 100 purebred dogs, but it's easy to find 1000 unemployed "Southeast Asian Chinese"!

不要把我教訓教訓你跟我反共扯在一起，以為你自己儼然就是共了，你別做夢。你的IQ，給共產黨提鞋都不配！你要入黨，可能要 。。。算了，沒指望，遺傳太差勁。其實你困在馬來西亞出不去也不是死路一條了，可以和從大陸來賣的競爭啊！只要你出價低，不愁沒有生意，好歹強過你在網上幫共產黨打手槍那麼無聊。有些事你也不要強求了，基因不好，你爹媽給的，否則怎麼會流落南蠻之地做二、三等公民呢！你要有自知之明的話，還是做體力活吧，不要上維基了，對維基有害處，你也不配。Don't link my chastisement of you with my anti-communist sentiments, you think you're a commie, stop dreaming! With your IQ, you aren't fit to carry shoes for the commies! If you want to join the party, maybe you need to ... never mind, forget it, your genes are too inferior. Actually it's not a dead end for you to be trapped in Malaysia, you can compete with those from Mainland China coming to sell!! As long as your prices are low, you don't need to worry about lack of business, it's a lot less boring than you helping commies j*rk off online! Some things you can't ask for, your genes are bad, but that's coz your parents gave them to you, otherwise why would you be in the Southern Barbarian lands as a second-, third-class citizen? If you truly know yourself, go do physical work, don't come to Wikipedia, it's bad for Wikipedia, and you don't deserve it!

你連這都想不通，馬來人沒教你吧？不是印證了你的熱帶智商嗎？人不認命不行，再割兩代橡膠、伐兩代木頭，說不定能想明白，到那時再來維基不遲。 You can't even figure this out, I suppose the Malays didn't teach you? Doesn't it prove your tropical IQ? You have to recognize your fate, why don't you spend two generations tapping rubber trees, and two generations chopping wood, maybe then you'll understand, and it won't be too late to come to Wikipedia.

這麼大的人了，居然還到處娘娘腔地告狀，怎麼一點羞恥感也不懂？我這叫攻擊討論頁？這是免費教訓你！你不聽勸，算了，本來就不是我的職責。你這樣的人還真不少，管不過來。最後的忠告：以後別自稱中華民族了啊，中國人丟不起這個臉。You're so old already, and you actually go around telling on other people like a sissy [this is referring to the user asking for a sysop's help with Uponsnow's personal attacks], don't you understand shame? You call this attacking your talk page? I'm educating you for free! If you don't listen to my advince, forget it, it's not my job. People like you are numerous, it's hard to get them all. A final piece of advice: Don't call yourself Chinese in the future, ok, coz Chinese people can't afford to lose this kind of face.

Uponsnow was banned by Wing for one week for making the above attacks. According to Uponsnow, this was politically motivated. Uponsnow then began to, by his own admission, use a variety of anonymous IPs to circumvent the block. As a result, I extended the block for another week. Of course, according to Uponsnow this was again politically motivated.

-- ran (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ya, right. you are a communist spy, ran. just admit it. you don't respect people's freedom of speech. you and the rest of the spy moderators constantly ban people, delete people's comments that you don't like to read, and you people have deleted many of my contributions. you should feel ashamed of yourself. how can you live your life with so many lies? you need to go find a better job. everyone should read what I just wrote above. it is so easy to figure it out that there are many of you who are working for the chinese communist government now. SummerThunder 11:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Case in point ... -- ran (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they wrote this in zh.wikipedia

• Under zh:中国地质大学(China Geology University), zh.wikipedia goes: "In 1978 it restored its operation in Beijing on the approval of Comrade Deng Xiaoping... Its first president was Liu Xing, a Proletariat Revolutionary and Educator." --Uponsnow 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why this article has a NPOV template on the top of it. Once again, Please edit it as you see anything that is incorrect, and suport it with reference. I believe you can find something like this happening on any wikipedia. Such a thing is part of wikipedia's nature while edit out wrong info as you see it is how we build wikipedia up.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't you think it's just the tip of the iceberg? Such unscrupulous propaganda inundates Chinese Wiki, though it's against stated policy even from language style point of view. That's why I call Howard French's poorly researched essay newsworthy - it at least raises a legitimate issue. --Uponsnow 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This "tip of the iceberg" is currently tagged with an NPOV tag, which is an indication that the Chinese Wikipedia community in general finds that article to be of an unacceptable quality. There are plenty of such flawed articles on every version of Wikipedia. If you feel strongly about it, you should take the time to change it yourself. -- ran (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To Uponsnow: It is the tip of the iceberg, there are more out there that needs our attention, and they grow more and more everyday. Good thing someone has already smelled the iceberg by putting NPOV template on it; otherwise the wikiTANIC will soon hit the iceberg and sink. It is unfortunate that if wikiTANIC ever should sink, so many good people on it would die, too, just like poor Jack Dawson. It's always sad to see good people die.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里 ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is just so obvious that the Chinese site is almost under the control of the Chinese secret police or spies. I haven't seen anyone talking about any particular articles about pro taiwan indpendence articles at all. nothing. How can that be possible? most mainland chinese can't even read wiki. how come that chinese site is so pro chinese communist government? And there are SEVEN moderators who are from the capital city - beijing, total of 30 mainland chinese moderators!!! There are obviously more users from taiwan, but it only has 16 moderators. those moderators sold their souls to the chinese communist government. SummerThunder 12:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the English Wikipedia's Village Pump, or have I wandered onto the Chinese Wikipedia by mistake? *Dan T.* 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

well, this is the english site. however, this is one of the few places where peole can express themselves freely without being banned. I tried to voice my opinions on the Chinese site many times, they deleted all my votes, comments, accused me of "vandalism." finally they banned me. People have no choice but to come to here to express their concerns about the abusive behaviors those chinese moderators are having. Until that day when people can talk freely on the Chinese site, this seems to be the only way. SummerThunder 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We can't change anything about zh.wiki.

If you insist on calling other editors communist spies of course they're going to ban you for personal attacks. What do you expect? --tjstrf talk 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

At lease, people like me and uponsnow can have this place to express our concerns. I have listed plenty of evidence to support my idea. Most importantly, if they didn't delete every comments and votes that I have made, I certainly won't have called them the communist spies. SummerThunder 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see this discussion going on, because it will help to remind people that en.wiki is also rife with this stuff. There aren't as many topics affected (and the penalties for persistence only extend to loss of your health-care and beating up of your children at school), but there is rampant POV editting in favour of Israel. See: [7] for one example, where really good editors, asking for minor (yet probably urgent under WP:BLP) changes are driven to distraction by the obstruction they get. PalestineRemembered 16:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To their credit, Chinese sysops like Ran work efficiently and effectively through a sophisticated scheme, much more complex than just deleting something they don't like. It's teamwork, and it's carried out with a patiently executed, long-term agenda. Here are some of their techniques, though incomplete:

• Staffing: elect wikipedians with the same background to the admin postions;
  
• Role playing: some as agitator, some as arbitrator, work together to bombard and misled other;
  
• double standard: selectively enforcing copyright guideline to out materials they don't want;
  
• double standard: selectively demanding cites to kick out common sense
  
• quoting government sources as a credible, only information in written form
  
• Page protection only after their favored version in place
  

There are lot more. Only with first-hand life experience in China can land you on the conclusion that they are working for a ruthless regime to crush the dissents. I can smell it. --Uponsnow 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to my comment made below in the section "Arguing against flat-earthers", and explain how a Chinese Wikipedia filled with so many topics that fly in the face of the Communist government fits your description. -- ran (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia ripoffs?

So I found my userpage on some online prescription website, and now I know why I've seen the "This is a Wikipedia userpage. If you're seeing this on some other website..." template on some userpages. What's the name of that template? Xaxafrad 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, I found it, {{Userpage}}. Xaxafrad 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where? Patstuart^talk|edits 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Userpage}}; just type what Xaxafrad wrote above on your page. Xiner 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant, where's the rip off site? -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Angel Diaz Nieves

What do we do with this redirect?

—Nethac DIU, always would speak here—
17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to do anything with it. Is there a problem with it? Does something need to be done with it? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could nominate it for deletion. I don't see any reason why someone would switch those two words. Then again, it doesn't really take up that much space. Xiner 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Iberian naming customs leads me to believe that it would be very likely someone might switch the words.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A caution for people starting projects that will generate lots of edits.

When you notice something you consider a systemic problem, it is very tempting to immediately start a project to correct it. One common instance of this involved searching out all instances of this problem, listing them, and calling in people to make the edits or set up bots to make those edits.

It's important to act with caution when doing so. Wide spread editing across a lot of articles based on search results can cause disruption, upset and offence to the editors maintaining those articles. Especially when actioned by proceeding through a list by rote.

Advertise your intent somewhere that is appropriate, either here or in an appropriate talk page. You may be mistaken in your actions, and a timely warning from someone might save you embarrassment. Your actions might be achievable in a simpler way, which would save time and effort. There may be notable exceptions to your assumptions which need to be addressed. All of these may be brought up in discussion before you act.

It's important that your actions meet the consensus view on how something should be handled. --Barberio 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

see WP:OWN.Geni 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Would two threads in WP:AN and 3 conversations with highly respected admins/checkusers on IRC count as "Advertise your intent"? ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. WP:AN is not a place for advertising or discussing non-administration tasks and projects. Conversations on IRC do not equate to or replace consensus discussion on the wiki, no matter how highly respected the individuals involved may be. --Barberio 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have more sympathy for your point of view if a) you didn't come across as more concerned about process then you are about the problem and b) you actually did your research. Telling Dmcedvit to stop deleting links when he hasn't been deleting any only goes to show that you started complaining without actually researching what was actually going on. Secondly, AWB isn't a bot. All of my deletions have involved my making a personal decision in each case and the only automation is that AWB has been sorting the list and helping me find the links quickly. The deletions have been discussed on EL. There is screeds of the stuff there and WP:C is also relevant because its a policy and trumps a guideline. There is no perfect place to discuss this kind of undertaking and I would of thought asking 1000 admins to review activity was a damn fine way of checking that said activity was within the bounds of accepted activity. Remember that policy is what happens, not just what gets written down. You were aware of that weren't you? Finally, the RFC acknowledges that there are a lot of copyvios that need to be removed and also endorses the need to consider links in context. Well, I have been doing that and I know J.smith has as well because we have discussed borderline cases. So, where is the activity outside consensus? Spartaz 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You should have gained consensus support before starting.
2. Asking others to delete links is deleting links.
3. The amount of people who have complained at Wikipedia_talk:External_links over this 'project' and remain unconvinced that it should proceed as-is does not indicate to me that there is consensus on the issue.

To reiterate, the most important part is that projects of this sort should have consensus discussion and support before being acted on. These kinds of project are among the exceptions to 'Be Bold' because of their potential to disrupt.--Barberio 00:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your objections is very odd. I've repeatitdly asked for people to show me links I've removed in error and I have gotten only one example of such. 1 out of 500 seems to be a good trackrecord, if I don't say so myself. Feel free to dig though my contributions and see if you can find more.... but I assure you both spartaz and I have done an excelent job sorting out the "keeps" and "removes." I'll even reactive the project so you have something more recent to look though. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then Cindery was right, and the real source of the problem is one particular editor who has been persistently re-deleting YouTube links even after being informed that the links are not copyvio. Should I drop the RfC and all else, and just file a user-conduct RfC against that one editor? Argyriou (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links may not include links to copyright violations. This is policy. YouTube has lots of copyright violations. This is fact. Removal of YouTube links which link to copyright violations is not only allowable, but encouraged. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Gernika

In Bombing of Gernika and related articles (e.g. Guernica (painting)), we've been dealing with what I presume is one persistent anonyomous participant who keeps removing all but the lowest respectable estimates of fatalities (trimming the range from 250–1,600 to 250–300, and periodcally removing all citations except one rather vague citation that apparently supports his/her views). There is something of an exchange on this at Talk:Bombing of Gernika#It's a shame!!!. The current text is a reluctant compromise on my part.

This seems to be a content dispute—at worst, editing against consensus—rather than outright vandalism, so I don't think protection would be in order. But, to raise the issue to something slightly more general: how can we possibly resolve a matter where one party to a dispute has no identity, cites sources only vaguely, etc.? Its like wrestling something made of gelatin. - Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This person seems to use a variety of IP addresses so I've semi-protected both pages. Notify me when you think they're ready to unprotect. Durova^Charge! 14:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So you feel article protection is the best way to deal with this? I guess it's not the worst, but what's to stop someone just opening throwaway accounts? - Jmabel | Talk 08:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Most vandals don't have the patience to wait four days. Open up a request at WP:RFI if this one does. Durova^Charge! 13:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This one's been doing this on and off for three months. We are dealing with a POV-pusher, not a common vandal. - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New feature

What are these negative and positive red/green numbers that now appear next to edits on my watch page?--Deglr6328 06:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is a feature that shows how many characters were either removed (in red) or added (in green) to the article difference. I've just noticed this too, I'm sure there will be a detailed post on the notice board on the CP or some such. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Close, it's bytes, not characters. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Colored_numbers_in_Watchlist. (There's a big notice at the top of my watchlist telling me to go read that, I'm not sure why not everyone's seeing it.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

Could someone please help with Template:Baywatch Nav and make it look a bit better please. I have seen such things where they look nice and are a lot smaller and fit the page better. Thank You Samaster1991 17:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go with it. Does it look any better? Tra (Talk) 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better thanks Samaster1991 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinity hurts so much

If an infinite amount of monkeys are tapping on keyboards, will an infinite amount produce the works of Shakespeare be produced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gesiwuj (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, theoretically, see Infinite monkey theorem. If you have any further questions, please ask at the reference desk. Tra (Talk) 22:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, probably not. The keyboards would wear out first. Philip J. Rayment 00:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinity is a theoretical concept. We employ it; we don't know that it exists. If it exists, then it is improbable that those cute little devils would not produce Shakespeare's Hamlet. Bus stop 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't stop The Library of Babel from being a fascinating read, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how this is not vandalism?

This user altered the deletion result tag in Talk:Lolicon from this:

This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

to this:

This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep, ZOOOOOM. 8) An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

He then put a hidden comment that says "dude I put this here myself, it's not vandalism". Can someone make sense out of this? Because I can't =S AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an old story and edit war. It's even mentioned on WP:LAME. --Wildnox(talk) 01:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How Did the Wik Admins Get Away With Their Bullying and Lies over Gretaw Supposedly being a Sockpuppet?

How Did the Wik admins get away with their bullying and lies over Gretaw supposedly being a sockpuppet? If this is the standard wik runs at and on, then it isnt doing real flash - is it. Is wik a place where total bullies hang out to pounce on new editors, give them total grief, then form a larger bully gang when they cannot immediately bend new editors to their perverted dynamics,and tell lies and go on with a heap of other stuff (importing admins from the US for heavans sake, then pushing new people out. Wik is totally sick if this is how it continues to run. The little bully boy admin process is totally sick also. Poor show wik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.138 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

This Anon is banned from Wikipedia. "Gundagai editor" -- Bidgee 03:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a happy and safe Christmas season, and a blessed new year. Enjoy where you are, and who your with. Merry Christmas! From, Defrag and Jilly.

Thanks! --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 13:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What if an article needs to be rewritten from the beginning?

What do you do if you find an article which has been in time for some place and which is so completely off skew that the information in it needs to be renamed in a new article and the old article rewritten from scratch? The article Plant perception is obviously in need of being renamed Plant perception (paranormal). Plant perception is entirely unrelated to the article content as it is recognized, very mundane and very normal (even dull) science related to plant physiology. Trilobitealive 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You can just use the "move" button at the top of the page. However, you should probably leave a note on the current talk page to see if there are any objections and give people a few days to respond. - BanyanTree 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm amazed that so many of my newby questions have such obvious answers. I've been posting in the talk page, have just put up a statement of intent and will give it a few more days before moving.Trilobitealive 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Watch users?

As you may know, it's possible to watch certain pages. But is it possible to watch certain user's contributions? --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 13:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not by any automated process. You could keep a link to their contributions page and observe that from time to time, but beware of being considered a stalker. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've written a javascript tool to do this; you can see details at User:Tra#User watchlist. Tra (Talk) 17:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using it to stalk people. It's for a vandal I'm trying to take care of. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIAV is probably an easier way to go. Circeus 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like WP:RFI (sockpuppets included). --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Santa Claus Article

The article on Santa Claus is terrible! It's full of errors both grammatical and informational. There are so many, "Some say"s it's nauseating.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian's being notable

Here's a simple question that might lead to an interesting idle chat: How big does Wikipedia need to become for "high ranking" Wikipedians (stewards, crats, ArbCom, for example) to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article based on their position in Wikipedia alone? My personal opinion is that news coverage will be the main limiting factor - once Wikipedia is big enough for ArbCom cases to become newsworthy (occasionally, anyway - I doubt we'll ever be at a point where all cases are reported in external news sources), members of ArbCom can start being considered for articles. Similar conditions would apply to other Wikipedians. --Tango 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never be big enough for "high ranking" Wikipedians to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article based on their position in Wikipedia alone. The criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people) apply, specifically subject of multiple non-trivial published works. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Goyston/WikiQuiz

I have just put up Round One of WikiQuiz. Those who enjoy Wikifun may be interested, or anyone who likes puzzles. And Wikipedia. And riddles. And finding things. And userboxes for prizes. Whoo! Enjoy. And I apologize for posting similar messages to a few places. --Goyston (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Eid al adha

I am a frequent user of wikipedia. I do not mean to cause problems, but I read an error that may be offensive to other Muslims. Eid al Adha is the commeration of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, but that son was Ismail. The misprint on your site is a highly offensive comment that is used against Muslims to degrade their history. I do not think this was your intention, but I wanted to give you the oppurtunity to fix it before other Muslims read it.

It looks like the wording is already changed. I made a small change.Steve Dufour 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Scientology-sponsored"

In the article on Scientology critic Tilman Hausherr it mentions a website that is "Scientology-sponsored". That sounds a little odd to me. You wouldn't say a site was "Christianity-sponsored" or "liberalism-sponsored". I tried to change it to "sponsored by Scientologists" but it was changed back right away.Steve Dufour 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue may be that you are using too broad an analogy. While one would likely not use the examples you supply, one can easily come up with appropriate usages for, for example, "Presbyterian-sponsored", "Whig-sponsored", or "Kiwanis-sponsored". In response to the potential argument that there are Scientologists who are not part of the Church of Scientology -- and therefore not sponsors, even indirectly of the website in question, I would say that, equally, there are those who identify as Knox-descended Protestants, anti-Tories, and even lunchtime social/networking afficionados who do not identify with their respective representative institutions -- but that the overwhelming practice is still to refer generally to those institutions in terms parallel to using "Scientology" to refer to the church. Robertissimo 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case I think it would be more clear if the article said "sponsored by the Church of Scientology", if that is the case. Steve Dufour 06:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While the Church of Scientology International Inc is a major organization under the Scientology umbrella, it certainly isn't the only one, nor the most senior. The Religious Technology Center handles copyright and trademark legal cases, the International Association of Scientologists collects a large warchest of funds for many actions, there are a whole series of Church of Scientology incorporations at the continental and lower levels, there are unincorporated organizations such as the Sea Org, the Office of Special Affairs and the Scientology Parishioners Committee. The courts and organizations like the US IRS frequently lump this tangle under the name Scientology.

Non-Church of Scientology Scientologists (Free Zone and others) can informally call themselves that, but the RTC holds the trademark on the word Scientology and is quite dedicated to enforcing it, so they can't use the term formally for anything they do, especially offering services using the name. So Scientology not equivalent to Presbyterian or Whig. AndroidCat 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a person really into Scientology would know this. To most outsiders I think "Scientology-sponsored" sounds like jargon. Steve Dufour 16:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) But then again they might be too low on the vibrational scale to understand anyway. :-) Have a great 2007!!!

Hypothetical outsiders would never have heard of break-away groups from Scientology. 22:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The chinese wikipedia problem - the Chinese communist spies

Chinese Wikipedia and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China are the two main articles. feel free to add your part of contribution. SummerThunder 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"But on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." from Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history

The following was deleted by the 17-years-old user tjstrf. I am re-posting it again. seriously, what does a 17-years-old know about the Communist Party of China, what they have done, can do, and will do? You are just being too naive to think that the CCP doesn't want to take control of the Chinese site. Let me repeat it one more time, it is a KNOWN-FACT that China has spies in Taiwan. so sending a few secret police or spies to take over the Chinese wikipedia site is not false alarm.

--- I know, right now, those chinese spy moderators must be really hoping that they can delete this topic asap. I posted a similar comment on the chinese page, it was IMMEDIATLY deleted. and all my other comments which are not related to this topic, which are very relevant to those topics were also deleted, and somehow those chinese spy moderators also made them "disappeared" as if they did not delete anything at all. and then they banned me for "vandalism."

It is a known fact that China blocked its people's access to wikipedia. however, i checked the chinese page, they have total of 29 moderators that are in China! 6 from beijing, 6 from guangzhou, 6 from shanghai, etc. There are more moderators from China than from any other parts of the world. however, if the chinese are blocked from getting on here, how can those Chinese moderators still have time and resources to moderate the chinese wikipedia? isn't that odd?

you may have heard about Shi Tao, the chinese government put him in jail for 10 years because the government was able to find his location thru a single IP address which was reported by yahoo. those 29 moderators' are listed publicly on the chinese page. So it is quite obvious that the chinese government must have those 29 mainland chinese moderators' personal informaiton. I highly suspect that most of the chinese mainland moderators are spies sent by the Chinese communists. It is a banned web site, what kind of people are willing to edit a web site that is banned by his or her own government especially in china?!

I can probably safely say that there are more people using the chinese version from Hong Kong and Taiwan than people from mainland China. however, Hongkong only has 13, Taiwan has 17. isn't that odd? further, during my time on that site, as far as I know, no moderator from hong kong banned or deleted my contributions, and there are 13 of them. if I really did something wrong, shouldn't they also be able to ban or delete? and who can gurantee that those moderators who are listed under other country names are not really from mainland china?

Another thing, it is forbidden to gather without government permit in China. however, that chinese site recently even had two meetings in capital - Beijing and in city of guangzhou. there are constant reports about police harassing and spying on people who secretly gathered in churches which are not approved by the government, etc. so there is no way that the government doesn't spy on those wikipedia meetings. It is just shocking to see those moderators so "bravely" advertising on the public page. and when I posted a question about my doubt, it was immediatly deleted as usual. those comment pages were also put into protection.

i am not insance or crazy. It is also a known fact that china has spies in taiwan. it seems to me that the moderator from taiwan jasonzhoucn is also very "communistly" suspicious. one time, i added to only two extra links to an article of the chinese golden shield project, he immediatly deleted them without a reason. he also deleted the extra information that i have added for some of the articles.

i am not crazy, or delusional. however, think about it, the chinese have to use special programs, proxy servers in order to get on this page. and even if they have high speed, the speed won't be fast enough. who would have the patience even to edit those pages if the internet connection is not fast enough? there are 13 billion chinese, how many of them can actually get on here easily? so how is that possible that there are so many mainland chinese moderators?! and since the majority of Chinese can't get on this site, you would expect that there are lots of articles pro taiwan's independence, but there are not a lot. And the article about "Two Chinas" was actually deleted TWICE in just November. And one of the moderator later on said that he did not find any history about its delettion at all?!

The reason that i am suspecting is because of what happened to me recently. i tried to edit the page for the "peopel's republic of china". even today, that article does not have a single word about human rights and falun gong. i added those two items, immediatly a mainland chinese moderator deleted my contribution, then put that article into protection. i have added many similar contents in other articles. most of them have been deleted by those mainland chinese moderators.

when i tried to voice my suspision and my comments on those community forums, those moderators immediatly deleted them. then they banned me , accused me doing "vandalism?!"

with 29 chinese mainlander moderators, that site is basically controlled by the chinese spies sent by the communist party. they do not allow people to add anything that are bad about the chinese communist party. so here i am, I don't know if this is the proper place to voice my opinion. i seriously think that someone should take a look into this matter.

"But on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves." [1] This indeed confirmed my suspicion. someone should do something about those moderators. -- SummerThunder 09:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not our jurisdiction. Also, there's this lovely invention called a proxy that they are probably using. Finally, calling a large group of editors Communist spies without any reasonable evidence is highly uncivil and assumes bad faith. Going behind their backs by posting on another wiki doubly so. --tjstrf talk 10:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

you obviously do NOT know what the chinese government is capable of doing. just go read shi tao's artcile. they put him in jail for TEN years! ask yourself, will you be willing to risk your own life and freedom to edit a web site which is banned by your own government, and by doing so, you may be constantly followed, your emails, phone maybe to checked, etc. and you are not even getting paid for doing that. and not only that, there are SIX moderators directly located in Chinese capital beijing. China has recently spent sevral billion US dollars building their golden shield project. i would hope that i have gone crazy. but after what they have done to me and many other users, it is just 100% evident that there are plenty chinese moderators who are working for the chinese communist government right now on the chinese web site. SummerThunder 10:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, governments can use their power to trace internet connections. Yes, if they feel like it the Chinese government could have them all arrested. But the idea that they do such things routinely is silly. Shi Tao was thrown into prison for 10 years because he was releasing secret documents over the internet, not for editing Wikipedia. Believe it or not, even totalitarian states have to pick where to spend their money, and have far better things to do with it than arrest Wikipedia editors. They'll block the place, sure, but the website in no way warrants the expenditure of man hours to arrest its members, even just to make a point. Just because an organization is capable of something does not mean it is realistic to expect it of them. You give Wikipedia too much credit, we are not a threat to China's national security and are only blocked as a part of the same system that blocks Google on occasion.

You are saying that the existence of a free criminal means they must be an undercover government operator. Do you not see the absurdity of this claim? Please, think before you fling around accusations. --tjstrf talk 11:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

ok. now let's talk the chinese government. you truly honestly have no clue about the chinese government. you wrote "not for editing wikipedia." well, no one in China can write a blog, edit a web site about tiananmen square protest. you can't even find anything about it by using the chinese version of google, not even the government's own news articles! It seems as if the entire history in 1989 totally disappeared in the Chinese history from everywhere. there is nothing. if you think that it is ok to edit just a web page, then how come no one in China can even edit anything about June 4th, 1989?

you may think that they can't be that bad, they can't be worse than totalitarian states, but that is how bad they are right now! the government has spent several BILLION US dollars on the golden shield project. and there is a special police force throughout China who does nothing but to monitor people's activities on the internet. people simply has no freedom of speech on the internet or in real life.

If that site is not currently controlled by those chinese spies, then you would expect to see lots of "bad" articles about chinese government and those pro Chinese government arguments. there is few. 29 moderators are from China, that is just too suspicious.

there is simply no way to explain why they deleted my part about human rights and falun gong in the PRC article, and my part in zhao ziyan which the english version kept all, and my links to the exile Tibetan pages, there are just too many examples to support the solid idea that they are truly the chinese spies, secret police forces, etc. SummerThunder 12:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

the Chinese moderators are incapable of managing that chinese site.

main articles: Chinese Wikipedia and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. feel free to add your part of contribution. SummerThunder 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese in different parts of the world use some different chinese words, such as different translations for the same English words. It is similar to the differences between the American and British English, such as "soccer - football, flashlight - torch."

So currently, those moderators have three different pages for mainland chinese, for people from taiwan, for people from hong kong and macau, even though the contents are basically the same! and they ask people to vote to decide which pages they should add!!! how big is hongkong and macau?! and hk and macau are already a part of China. and those moderators made a special page just for those two tiny cities? Even people in beijing and shanghai don't use the same words.

I suggested that if the English page only has one page for all people who speak English whether they are from africa or europe or america. how come the chinese site needs to have so many different pages? And if people from hongkong and macau can have a page of their own, then maybe it is time to add more pages for the Chinese people from Sigapore, from thailand, vietnam, south america, etc, etc.

After I posted a message commenting their incapability of leading that site, they immediatly deleted my comment. That is how they are managing that page. I don't see any hope for those people and the Chinese site.

It is time for the wikipedia governing body to take control of the chinese page, ask them to stop making all those nonsense extra pages for different Chinese readers. There are plenty of softwares that can change all those necessary chinese fonts, etc. SummerThunder 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How does this fall under the English Wikipedia's jurisdiction? Let the Chinese sort it out for themselves, or take it to metawiki. The English Wikipedia has no authority over the Chinese Wikipedia, they are sister projects on the same level within the Wikimedia organization. --tjstrf talk 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OH. I don't know that. that is why i am writing it here. but you can see my point, right. however, those moderators are totally useless. they can't sort out anything. they can't even decide which page they should use. you know, i just checked on the talk page on meta, it seems that it doesn't have a lot of activities. SummerThunder 10:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Summer Thunder, please moderate the personal attacks. WP:NPA is official policy on the English Wikipedia, and you have repeatedly violated it. Stop, now. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

at least, you are not like those chinese moderators who deleted all my comments!!! and then banned me accusing me of "vandalism." If they think that they need to make pages for tiny cities Hongkong and macau, simply because they use slightly different Chinese, they obviously are not capable. This is clearly my personal opinion, it is not a "personal attack." I do not make personal attacks, but their disrespect of my freedom of speech make me very upset. Further, the way they are managing the chinese site is ruining its futuer for sure. SummerThunder 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. There is nothing we can do about your grievances on another project. I imagine the Chinese Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure. If you don't get an adaquate response there, your best bet is meta. --Tango 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

well, i did post it on meta discussion. and i was blocked due to "personal attack." I don't know what they are thinking. That is my personal opinion based of real facts. Just like when bush called those few countries axis of evil, no one banned him from the white house. at least, I am glad that no one deleted my comments opinions on here. and people from the world can read about it and make up their own mind. Unlike the chinese commnuist government which blocked many sites, they think that they can think for the people! SummerThunder 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If your comments on meta were the same as they are here, I'm not surprised you were blocked for personal attacks. Please calm down. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bigamy

In the article on former Scientology leader Mark Rathbun he seems to stand accused of bigamy by Barbara Schwarz. I have excused myself from editing the article. Steve Dufour 16:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to post your concerns at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done that. Steve Dufour 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• What is wrong with bigamy? I wish I could aford it!One to cook, one to look after the kids, one to do the housework and one for …. Well, you know!

Kiumars

Checking your spelling? - DavidWBrooks 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have spelled out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Rathbun why Mr. Dufour's report is false, but to briefly discuss it here: Barbara Schwarz says absolutely nothing about Mark Rathbun being a bigamist. She claims that she was married to Mark Rathbun and Mr. Dufour is combining that with his own beliefs that Mr. Rathbun was married to someone else to arrive at the (false) conclusion that Schwarz "seems to be" alleging Rathbun to be bigamous.

I think it goes without saying that this logic is shoddy. Under this logic, suddenly it's a WP:BLP matter to mention anything that is not agreed by any living person. "John Smith says he was born in 1965, but biographer Richard Roe says he was actually born in 1960." "Well, by saying something different from John Smith, Richard Roe seems to be calling John Smith a liar! I'm reporting it to WP:BLP as 'Richard Roe calls John Smith a liar!'" It is a fact of life that people sometimes have conflicting accounts of events. Wikipedia's policy, at least the last time I checked, was for editors to accurately report the various conflicting accounts -- not to decide their own way of resolving the conflicts (whether it be "Richard Roe is accusing John Smith of lying" or "Barbara Schwarz is accusing Mark Rathbun of bigamy") and trying to use WP:BLP to get rid of accurate reporting of the various conflicting accounts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In your example if Richard Roe could back up his claim that John Smith was really born in 1960 then that would imply that John was a lair. If it was just a random opinion then it shouldn't be in a WP article. Steve Dufour 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying that instead of accurately reporting the various conflicting accounts, it is the right and responsibility of editors to decide their own way of resolving the conflicts and then eliminating whatever doesn't fit their "resolution". Do you really actually believe things are that neat -- i.e., either Wikipedia editors can satisfy themselves that John Smith really was born in 1960 (through first-hand research, I suppose?) or no other possibility may be breathed of? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If Barbara could present some evidence that it might be possible that she and Mark were married then her theories could be included in Mark's article, otherwise it is just the opinion of one person out of the six billion in the world. BTW in her own article, Barbara Schwarz the theories are presented - which is fine with me if you think she is important enough to have a WP bio. Steve Dufour 17:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

jet stream

I am curious to know what they called the jet stream before we had jet airplanes? or is it the reverse? did we have jet streams -if so, why the word JET/

Thanks

Tom Brown —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.33.117 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

"High winds" or "high westerlies"; they were mostly an academic curiosity until the 1940s, when we finally got high-altitude aircraft encountering them. See Jet stream#Discovery. Shimgray | talk | 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

why is this called village pump?

yes?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Village pump#Where does the name "village pump" come from?. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Unite

Am I missing something or is there a copyrighted image within the fundraising template.. ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Virgin Unite site gives me a blank page when I try to go there. *Dan T.* 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Try [8]; that's where it should point to. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Cyde covers what's going on pretty damn well at Talk:Main Page in this edit. Steve block Talk 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the show of faith, I try :-P Cyde Weys 01:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome, although I think it's fair to point out I've heard it said you are very trying indeed. :-P Nah, in all honesty I thought you hit it on the head, and it would've been wrong to just steal your explanation. Anyways, I'm off to bed. Take it easy. Steve block Talk 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

I don't know precisely where this should go, so please feel free to move this request. I am formally requesting rollback privileges, so that I can use them to fight spam and vandalism. I feel there are many editors who can vouch for me, and seeing as how I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being promoted to admin, I would like to be granted rollback-specific admin privileges. As far as I know, this is technically possible, yet would require some configuration by the developers. Perhaps there are others who desire admin rollback without admin responsibilities that could benefit from a change. -- Jmax- (talk · contribs · count) 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is probably going to end up at perennial proposals. There was a request for this about a year ago, Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges, but it failed to gain consensus. However, there are some scripts which allow an effect similar to the rollback button, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts it appears User:Misza13 has a godmode-light.js. Hope that helps. Maybe you should have a crack at adminship anyway. You never know. Steve block Talk 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The version of godmode-light I found (by User:Olliminatore) does not work so well. I will note my request at VP (proposals). -- Jmax- 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Template windowHome

I created a new template based on an Italian Wikipedia template that I think it could be useful. You can see it in my own page User:Dejudicibus, whereas the tempalte itself is in Template:windowHome. Here is an example:

What is wrong with the people at the meta?

I tried to voice my concerns about the serious problems that are happening on the Chinese page on the meta page, and the babel page. my comments have been deleted several times. AT the same time, someone wrote something in Korea, it was still there even though none of them can understand it. someone even told me that I have no evidence, and I need to show him or her the logs, etc. I have listed total of five examples. and you think that I have the time to record, take pics of what happened on the chinese site?! don't be ridiculous.

What is the freedom of speech? When Bush called those countries axis of evil, I didn't see anyone tried to ban him from talking again. And I was only expressing my own personal opinion, and concern, they just deleted them one after another. What is wrong with that meta site? SummerThunder 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is privately owned, there is no freedom of speech here. You have two options - you can fork a version of Wikipedia on your own servers and attack other people as much as you want, or you can leave. However, if you continue with your bad mouthing of other people, zh Wikipedia, meta, or anywhere else, you will be blocked here. Consider this a last warning. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the government in Beijing has blocked Wikipedia. If I read your posts correctly, you contend that it follows by self-evident logic that this government also employs spies on the Chinese language Wikipedia whose main activities are to preserve overlapping articles about Hong Kong and Macau in slightly different versions of Chinese and to block you from participating. Well I suggest you send your complaint directly to Chinese state security because if I were a manager with that organization I'd chew out those jokers for wasting government resources and then transfer them to the important work of stealing United States military secrets. If you're absolutely right then it shouldn't take long before several mainland Chinese Wikipedia administrators disappear, at which point you could e-mail the others and get your editing privileges reinstated. Of course it might help if you provided a shred or two of evidence, but I wouldn't want to waste your time by being ridiculous. Durova^Charge! 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

what is "personal attack", what is complain about someone, and what is constructive suggestions?! this is ridiculous, i thought that this site was better, but i was wrong. I had great hope for this english site, now I see that it is the same everywhere. I spent time writing, hoping to make the Chinese site a better, open place which welcome all people's ideas and contribution. and now you are saying that I am making personal attack? and there is no freedom of speech here? how sad. why do you call yourself "free and neutral" then? SummerThunder 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is what happened to me when I tried to edit some articles in the Chinese site. you can be the judge for yourself.

1. I wrote a subtitle "house arrest until death" for Zhao ziyang in the chinese version, it was immediately deleted. however, the same thing that I wrote in the English page is still kept even today.

2. I added the Chinese Tibetan history after 1949. It was also immediatly deleted, and I was banned. And the links that I added which are from the current exile dalai lama, those links were also deleted. Isn't that ridiculous, how can they add my contribution without listing the references?! And strangely enough, somehow what I wrote now appeared all those Tibetan articles on the Chinese page so the moderators can say that they are not pro communists, even though the author - me is still banned because of what i wrote!

3. I added human rights and falun gong in the "people's republic of china" article, it was also immediately deleted, then it was put under protection. it has been over a month now. Even today, there is not single word about human rights or falun gong in that article.

4. the article about "two Chinas" which has been deleted twice in the month of November. Then one of the moderator claimed that it has never been deleted.

5. The chinese-russian border treaty, the entire article was also deleted not so long ago. now one of the moderator "ran" claimed that it was deleted due to "copyright" violation which is a total lie. it has several early versions, which has nothing to do with any sort of copyright violation at all. After my complain which was deleted, somehow now the same article reappeared with the same content.

6. the tiananmen square protest article, I added similar contents in both the Chinese and English version. The chinese moderator Louer immediatly deleted my contribution, and put that article under protection. AT the same time, whatever I wrote on the same subject in the English article did not got deleted at all. SummerThunder 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On a more serious note I've left a link to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user at your talk page. You look like you could use some help getting the hang of how Wikipedia works. I suspect a lot of the trouble you've seen has more to do with policy than content. A public forum at the English language edition can't resolve problems at other Wikimedia projects. Maybe once you become more adept at editing here the actions at the other projects will make more sense - and if you earn a good contribution history here the other projects might accept you back. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking, how come people can call George w. bush the idiot openly, and I didn't see any FBI or police forces put them in jail, etc, when people on here can't make so-called "personal attack?" SummerThunder 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Several distinctions make the difference there. As I stated before I don't have time to mentor you. Join the program I recommended and you'll get someone to answer that sort of question. Durova^Charge! 14:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well.... isn't that conveniently unfalsifiable?:

• When we revert content and ban people for policy reasons, that's because "we're politically motivated" and are "communist spies", etc.;
• When we don't revert content and ban people because they haven't broken policy, that's because "we want to present a good face to the world";
• When people write articles that are clearly contrary to the Communist government, and these articles are successfully put up for DYK/Featured status, that's because "there are still people who think like SummerThunder and UponSnow around on the Chinese Wikipedia" (interestingly, these people aren't spamming the Village Pump and getting themselves banned";
• Any Mainlander on the Chinese Wikipedia is a spy. Obviously!!
• When non-Mainlanders revert SummerThunder, "that's because they're actually mainland spies in disguise".

That's great... I think we can also conclude that the English Wikipedia is a conspiracy of [insert your favourite evil organization here] based on the same justifications. -- ran (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But in any case, regarding the above claims:

• All of your edits were reverted on SIGHT because you were identified as a vandal, for tirelessly spamming the Village Pump, and eventually, random pages; for your confrontational attitude and general refusal to participate in any civil discussion; for your baseless accusations of other contributors of being "communist spies" and so forth.
• When sysops are facing 50+ spamming edits by one single user to various pages in the space of 10 minutes, they do not have the time or patience to look at the content of each edit;
• Since you complained, I've looked at and reinstated your edit to the Chinese Wikipedia article on the History of Tibet. This was some time ago (And strangely enough, somehow what I wrote now appeared all those Tibetan articles on the Chinese page so the moderators can say that they are not pro communists, even though the author - me is still banned because of what i wrote! -- perhaps this indicates that it was your confrontational behaviour and your personal attacks that got you banned, as opposed to your political views?)
• The Chinese Wikipedia article on the People's Republic of China already mentions China's human rights situation. If you feel strongly that the article needs to mention Falun Gong as an example, I've added that just now;
• The Chinese Wikipedia article on Two Chinas was created on Nov 19, 2004 by Formulax and never deleted. I've checked the log several times, including just now.
• The Chinese Wikipedia article on the Tiananmen Square Massacre already mentions in its intro that "the government gathered the military and violently suppressed [the protests] resulting in several hundred to one thousand civilian casualties", plus a pretty long list of international reaction and condemnations, so I'm not sure what kind of political slant you are accusing the article of?
• The Chinese Wikipedia article of Zhao Ziyang already mentions that he was kept under house arrest until death.
• Your edit to the Sino-Russian treaty was a POV piece ripped directly from the Epoch Times, based on fringe Chinese irredentist claims on all of Outer Manchuria (for those unfamiliar with the topic, fringe nationalist Chinese groups want to re-annex 1.6 million sq km of now-Russian territory, including cities like Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. This view has found its voice in dissenting papers like Epoch Times, which SummerThunder then copied verbatim into the Chinese Wikipedia.)

-- ran (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

SummerThunder is currently pushing POV into the articles Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and Chinese Wikipedia. The same user has already been permanently banned in the Chinese Wikipedia for aggressive POV-pushing and personal attacks.

Please come take a look if you're interested. -- ran (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yea, don't you wish that you have the ability to "ban" me on here when I did nothing wrong? And why did you keep my part for the Tibet history when you banned me for writing it? --SummerThunder 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What? I'm a sysop on the English Wikipedia too. But I'm not going to block you because of an edit war I'm involved in.

Also, like I already said, we did not "ban you for writing the part on the History of Tibet". We blocked your permanently for spamming, for personal attacks, for a confrontational attitude that precluded all civil discussion. After we did that, we decided to revert all edits coming from you, because you were spamming on a massive scale, and no sysop has time to look through all of your edits. Does this mean that we're assuming that all edits coming from you are bad, unless proven otherwise? Yes, we are, but that's because of your confrontational attitude, not your political views.

As for your contribution to the History of Tibet, it's because I read your complaint on the Chinese Wikipedia, read your contribution myself, and thought it was well-written. So I restored it.

-- ran (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Summer, you simply cannot go around accusing people of being spies and conspirators. That's ban-worthy regardless of which wiki you're on. Your vitriolic tone is so severe that your most recent rant actually set off an antivandalbot to revert you. If you aren't willing to realize this, then you will be banned here as well. --tjstrf talk 02:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

tjstrf, you simply SHOULD NOT delete my comments and my contributions which are BASED on facts. if you are not willing to realize this, then you will be banned on here as well. --SummerThunder 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I did NOT vandalize the chinese page, instead it was you and your kind moderators deleted ALL my comments, and votes. You even deleted some of my comments that have nothing to do with your so-called pov, etc. just like the Chinese government made Tiananmen square protests of 1989 disappeared from the Internet, None of my comment can be found on any of the Chinese pages now! that is a FACT!

And why did you keep my part for the Tibet history when you banned me for writing it? ONE MORE TIME, if moderators on the Chinese Wikipedia did NOT delete my contributions, did not delete my comments, did NOT delete my votes, why would I go there, and try to post the same thing again? and there are lots, lots of people who have the same complains about those chinese moderators just read above. --SummerThunder 02:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts must be relevant to warrant inclusion. I could go add "1+1=2" to every article on the wiki and it would be true, but it wouldn't be fitting to include it. Adding random demographical information about the Chinese admins to pages only peripherally related to the subject has no merit whatsoever outside of the context of your paranoid conspiratorial fantasies. --tjstrf talk 02:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I explain already why I restored your edit to the History of Tibet? We banned you for your confrontational attitude, and reverted all of your edits by default. When you complained (a lot, very loudly, and in random articles), I looked through some of your edits and liked the ones you made in the History of Tibet. So I restored them.

As for those "lots, lots of people who have the same complains" you mention, there is only one other complainer, Uponsnow, who was last sighted on the Chinese Wikipedia accusing a Wikipedian from Malaysia of having a "tropical IQ" so low that even "Malays and Tamils" didn't want him for a servant, and advising him to become a prostitute. Naturally, Uponsnow was banned for personal attacks. Other anti-communist Chinese Wikipedians (there are A LOT OF THEM, especially now that the Wikipedia is blocked; just look at the 6/0/0 vote that drove the Nangpa La killings article to DYK status) are integral members of our community, a few of them are sysops, and they are NOT spamming the Village Pump of multiple wikipedias. -- ran (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

why did "restore" my edit, you just called them "vandalism"! how strange. And if you restored those things, how come the author - me is still banned? And what happened to those editors who randomly deleted my content, did they do a good job? Should they apologize to me? and you even deleted a comment that one of the user who wrote to support my action. this is so ridiculous.

you are just like the chinese communist party, you already banned many many users. now you are telling us that there are not many who have complains about the chinese site?! how can they voice opinions on that site, you banned them, deleted their comments? And some of them do not speak English, so they can't participate the discussion on here. that doesn't mean that they don't exist. --SummerThunder 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, you were blocked for your confrontational attitude, for your refusal to discuss, for your refusal to tone down the POV in your edits, for your refusal to stop original research, for your refusal to stop copyright infringements, for your refusal to engage in any kind of communication in general except conspiracy accusations.

As for banning "many many users"... yes, every Wikipedia has banned many many trolls and vandals, the Chinese Wikipedia likewise. But this is never because of political slant. If a nationalist arrives and starts trolling about nuking Taiwan and Japan, we would ban him just as we have banned you. -- ran (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the fourth time, if moderators on the Chinese Wikipedia did NOT delete many other users and my contributions, did not delete our comments, did NOT delete our votes, why would we go back and try to post the same thing again? yes, every Wikipedia has banned many many trolls and vandals, but none of them have disrespected other contributors, deleted contents, banned users like the chinese site did. I have edited many similar topics of articles on this English site, so far, I didn't see any moderators deleted my contents other than YOU! and none of the moderators on here has given me warnings for "copyright infringements." and how DARE you to accuse me doing all those nonsense, I dare you to give us examples of "copyright infringements!"

I am not the only one here, New York Times, International Heard Tribune have already openly published articles such as this one:"Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history." You can not hide the truth. the world already knew!--SummerThunder 04:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Right.... here's an example of copyright infringement by you: [9]. I believe this is you, trying to insert an article copied verbatim from the Epoch Times, advocating Chinese annexation of vast amounts of Russian territory.

And the NYT article has already been discussed and debunked to death in this very page.

And who's "we"? Who are these "many other users"? There are many anti-communist Chinese Wikipedians, some of whom are sysops. We have articles on the Tiananmen Massacre, etc. Have you tried asking yourself why it is you and not those other people who are banned? The six people who voted for Nangpa La Killings for DYK status -- why didn't we chase a few of them down and ban them too? At least one of them is a sysop, AFAIK. Those people who wrote our articles on the Republic of China on Taiwan, presenting its government, its people, its working democracy, why didn't we chase them down? The one who uploaded the picture of the Tank Man in Tiananmen, of pro-independence rallies in Taiwan, of pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong, why didn't we chase them down? I emailed a notable Slovenian mountaineer for permission to use a photograph of a Tibetan nun being killed by Chinese border guards on Nangpa La, and put it up on the Chinese Wikipedia, why wasn't I chased down and banned, like you were? Why is that photo still there? -- ran (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, who are we? you are lying. you tried to add your personal comment in Chinese Wikipedia as :"2) There is no such thing called "self-censorship" at Chinese Wikipedia; indeed any intention for such practice at Chinese Wikipedia will be denounced by most Chinese Wikipedians."

1. who gave you the rights to represent all "Chinese wikipedians?" for one thing, I was a "Chinese wikipedian", I and user uponsnow certainly did not agree with your censorship. you have censored many of my articles. and I have publically denounced it many times. you deleted all my articles, deleted my comments, deleted my votes, then banned me. So it is not the truth at all.
2. on 21:57 12 December 2006, Chinese Wikipedia user Hillgentleman reverted all my comments, it was immediatly reverted back by the moderator Jasonzhoucn who constantly deleted my articles, comments and votes.
3. On 13:35 22 December 2006, another Chinese Wikipedia user - 民國九十五年 wrote a comment supporting my position, it was also immediatly deleted without a trace by moderator Jasonzhoucn.
4. many people felt the same way. user Uponsnow has already commented the same thing on this same page, just read what he wrote above.
5. talking about Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989, I added many things which can be found in the English version right now, however, your moderator Louer immediately deleted those things that I wrote, and put that article for protection for over a month now. --SummerThunder 06:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic. Also, regarding your latest comment, I've already replied at Talk:Chinese Wikipedia. In short, I'm quoting someone else, and gave a source; it's not my personal comment. You were banned for spamming, Uponsnow was banned for racist personal attacks. You and Uponsnow constitute the entirety of this "many people" you mention. -- ran (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

SummerThunder is just banned for his keeping adding duplicate POV content and accusation that Chinese Wikipedia is occupied by Chinese governmental spies into Chinese Wikipedia Village pump. He is a troll and the Chinese Wikipedia community decided to ban him infinitely. Please don't be misunderstood by him. Thanks. --Theodoranian 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

well, New York Times stood on my side, they also thought that it is strange that Chinese Wikipedia self-censoring lots of the sensitive matierals. you can't explain that. how dare you to call me a troll!!

For the fifth time, if moderators on the Chinese Wikipedia did NOT delete many other users and my contributions, did not delete our comments, did NOT delete our votes, why would we go back and try to post the same thing again? you are no different than the Chinese government!

you think that you have the power, therefore, you can say anything you want just like the chinese government. LIke i have said before, no moderators on here has EVER deleted any of my contributions which are all deleted on the same topics on the chinese site. you can't hide the truth. just like the chinese government can't represent the whole Chinese people, you can't represent the whole chinese wikipedia people, either. and so far, there are 4 of us who felt the same way, and all the comments made by us have been deleted by the Chinese moderators. there are more. --SummerThunder 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are identified as a vandlizer. All comments you made will be removed from Chinese Wikipedia.--Theodoranian 08:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, how typical, why don't you call me a traitor, a spy, etc, then ask the Chinese government to put me in jail for "leaking out state secrets" just like what they did to a simply journalist Shi Tao or many other innocent Chinese people? you deleted all my comments, and you also deleted those comments made by other people who supported me. how do you explain that? --SummerThunder 08:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to explain to you. You should apologize for all your misleading accusation first.--Theodoranian 09:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary to explain to the wikipedia community, You should apologize for all your misleading accusations about me first. Most importantly, I am editing the same articles, and adding almost the same content, I didn't see any moderators deleted my contribs? how come most of my things were deleted in the Chinese site? so far, none of the moderators on here called me a 'vandalizer" other than you people in the Chinese wikipedia site. how strange, isn't it?--SummerThunder 10:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

why don't you call me a traitor, a spy, etc, then ask the Chinese government to put me in jail for "leaking out state secrets" -- I see you're putting words into other people's mouths again. A very unfortunate thing to accuse of someone who is a loyal citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan), who has contributed extensively to ROC-related topics and to present the working democracy of ROC. I note that any attempt to explain the Republic of China as a legitimacy entity, much less a functioning democracy, would be politically dangerous in the People's Republic of China; so wouldn't it be the entirety of the Chinese Wikipedia that's in danger? But again, such a thing is blissfully ignored by you.

Oh yes, Jasonzhoucn did delete 民國九十五年's comments in support of you after you were permanently banned. Those comments, in addition to agreeing with your identification of people as "communist spies", advised you, a permanently banned vandal, to create sockpuppets -- "the more the better". Why am I not surprised?

I should also remind you that it took two to three weeks on the Chinese Wikipedia between your first edits and the summary permanent block. In the beginning, people were reverting some of your edits, refactoring others, trying to talk to you on various talk pages ane explain things to you -- in other words, exactly what we're trying to do on the English Wikipedia right now.

-- ran (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ran deleted my comments once again

06:27, 30 December 2006 user Ran deleted this following part that I wrote which are all based on solid facts, and can be found on the Chinese site. so you can be the judge for yourself to see if I am lying or not.

1. on 21:57 12 December 2006, Chinese Wikipedia user Hillgentleman reverted all my comments, it was immediatly reverted back by the moderator Jasonzhoucn who constantly deleted my articles, comments and votes.
2. I was not alone. many people felt the same way. user Uponsnow has already commented the same thing, just read what he wrote above.
3. On 13:35 22 December 2006, another Chinese Wikipedia user - 民國九十五年 wrote a comment supporting my position, it was also immediatly deleted without a trace by moderator Jasonzhoucn. --SummerThunder 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit here because you removed my comment and replaced it with yours. -- ran (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

you are lying. anyone can click on "history" tab, then compare the one I made on 6:23 and yours on 6:27, the only thing was missing are the part that I just listed above. this is not the chinese wikipedia any more, you simply can't do it your way. you need to learn to respect others. --SummerThunder 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just click on the link I gave above. The following comment I left was removed by you: Please don't change the topic. Also, regarding your latest comment, I've already replied at Talk:Chinese Wikipedia. In short, I'm quoting someone else, and gave a source; it's not my personal comment. You were banned for spamming, Uponsnow was banned for racist personal attacks. You and Uponsnow constitute the entirety of this "many people" you mention. That's why I reverted. -- ran (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 'racist personal attacks', that's quite serious allegation. You are completely out of context when quoting my remarks. Mine was a sarcastic response to the person who repeatedly insults Taiwanese with racial slurs. It's a in-your-face retort. Racism is against my value. Please keep your typical, good'ole Chinese communist tricks to yourself. --Uponsnow 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to post your comments again?

Uponsnow posted comments like the following on the talk page of zh:User:真實事求是, and for this he was blocked for one week on the Chinese Wikipedia.

你儘管意淫，你這種熱帶智商，給馬來人、泰米爾人做奴才人家看不上，又想投靠中共混點「中國崛起」的殘羹冷炙，老實說現在中共也不稀罕，找100條純種狗有難度，找1000個失業的「南洋華僑」，不難！ Although you twist meanings, your tropical IQ is not enough to satisfy Malays and Tamils when you want to be their servants; and so you want to join the Chinese Communists to get some table scraps of "China's Rise". Honestly, the Chinese Communists aren't going to treat you as hard to find; it's somewhat hard to find 100 purebred dogs, but it's easy to find 1000 unemployed "Southeast Asian Chinese"!

不要把我教訓教訓你跟我反共扯在一起，以為你自己儼然就是共了，你別做夢。你的IQ，給共產黨提鞋都不配！你要入黨，可能要 。。。算了，沒指望，遺傳太差勁。其實你困在馬來西亞出不去也不是死路一條了，可以和從大陸來賣的競爭啊！只要你出價低，不愁沒有生意，好歹強過你在網上幫共產黨打手槍那麼無聊。有些事你也不要強求了，基因不好，你爹媽給的，否則怎麼會流落南蠻之地做二、三等公民呢！你要有自知之明的話，還是做體力活吧，不要上維基了，對維基有害處，你也不配。Don't link my chastisement of you with my anti-communist sentiments, you think you're a commie, stop dreaming! With your IQ, you aren't fit to carry shoes for the commies! If you want to join the party, maybe you need to ... never mind, forget it, your genes are too inferior. Actually it's not a dead end for you to be trapped in Malaysia, you can compete with those from Mainland China coming to sell!! As long as your prices are low, you don't need to worry about lack of business, it's a lot less boring than you helping commies j*rk off online! Some things you can't ask for, your genes are bad, but that's coz your parents gave them to you, otherwise why would you be in the Southern Barbarian lands as a second-, third-class citizen? If you truly know yourself, go do physical work, don't come to Wikipedia, it's bad for Wikipedia, and you don't deserve it!

-- ran (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikied world

We got alphabetical writing from India or the Middle East, then the Greek miracle, after that the Chinese empire where from most inventions came for 2000 years; somewhere in between we find Arabic math. Then the Renaissance, Enlightment and 3 industrial revolutions. And now we have WIKIPEDIA.

Special:Statistics

Not sure where to put this... The alexa link on Special:Statistics needs updated. Alexa changed their link structure and the current link does not display the traffic graph correct (correct link is here).

On a similar note- the challenges on Special:Recentchanges need updated to match the ones currently at Wikipedia:Challenges. --- RockMFR 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. —David Levy 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Currency Conversion Template

Template:NZDCurrencyConversion I was editing Lotteries in New Zealand and it occured to me that many English speakers (myself included) would not know the value of a New Zealand Dollar, and so would be hampered in their understanding of the article's content. I suspect there are many articles which frequently refer to amounts of currency not familiar to most English speakers.

I developed Template:CurrencyConversion, a template with parameters to quote the value of a currency unit in US$, GBP and AUS$, as well as a last update parameter. While probably not useful as an up-to-the-minute tool, it could be used to give a rough indication of the magnitude of values quoted in an article with reasonable accuracy.

To the right is the template in action for the New Zealand Dollar, from the Daughter Template Template:NZDCurrencyConversion. What do people think? I haven't added this to any articles, so please improve it mercilessly. -- LukeSurl 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Three thoughts: 1) It may have some usefulness and I encourage such innovation, so I suggest trying it out by being bold and putting it into a couple of medium-traffic articles and see what kind of reaction a road-test gets. 2) Such templates need to be as compact as possible and I think it might be possible to compact yours a bit more, perhaps by using a smaller image with a single line of currencies and compacting the text into fewer lines and fewer characters. There is a plethora of infoboxes and templates appearing on Wikipedia and pages risk being crowded. 3) In the long run it might be interesting for people to be able to set a currency preference and have automatic conversions appear beside the given currency in an article, analogous to the way date presentation is a preference iteme. Hu 09:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the actual data could be kept in the template somehow, and updated by a bot. -- Jmax- 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think I'll be on Wikipedia for about a week, so please take this on "without me" LukeSurl 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very useful in some articles that are generally about economics or finance. The graphic on top is distracting, though. It would be much more useful if updates could be made to the template itself. Does anyone know how to write such a thing?

Just speaking off of the top of my head, a time parameter would be awesome, so one could specify inputtime=1910 and outputtime=now, and actually see what a 1910 New Zealand dollar is in today's currency. (I read lines in historical biographies like "He was paid $2 an hour", and have no idea if that is good or bad.) The wiki may have all of this info somewhere; otherwise, it would have to be pulled by bot off Yahoo currency converter or somewhere with historical conversion charts. Cheers, BanyanTree 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this latter thing suggested before, but the problem is that historical conversions are an art, not a science - there are three or four ways of calculating "the equivalent value" of a historic sum, which can differ by well over an order of magnitude; the appropriate one to use depends heavily on the context, on the amount of the sum, and potentially what the original figure is referring to. It's a good-sounding idea, but I honestly believe it would end up giving us completely meaningless figures at least as often as it would give us useful ones, without any obvious way to tell users which it was putting out. Shimgray | talk | 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly podcast Digg

Please digg the WikipediaWeekly podcast here JACOPLANE • 2006-12-29 23:54

Dugg! JoeSmack ^Talk 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model

I don't know where this would go...so I decided to try it out here. My question is: This page, and all its "cycle" pages, have ridiculously large trivia sections. I was for deleting it, but then ran into the Survivor Trivia page, where its Afd discussion ended as "no consensus". The thing is, much of the trivia is not exactly verifiable, because it deals with things like "weight". How are we supposed to know the lightest contestant, or the tallest, when there are no sources saying so? Moreover, weight changes so frequently that the lightest contestant at time of measurement is not really the lightest contestant. Much of the trivia falls under "original research", and so I think most of this section is totally unnecessary. However, when trivia is deleted, it is put back in. Talking on the talk page does nothing. There are edit wars over certain "facts", because people just randomly insert who they think is correct. Therefore, I would like to know who to go to, and what to do. If this is not the place, please redirect me. :P SKS2K6 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't advice you want to hear, but I'd say just ignore it. The show's fad will pass and the article can be cleaned up in a few months, when nobody cares about it any more. Life is too short to fixate on such trivia; find some worthwhile articles to work on, and enjoy yourself that way. - DavidWBrooks 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Advice! :-) Happy New Year! Steve Dufour 06:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity

There are 3,000,000 registered users at Wikipedia. At Wikiversity there is almost five thousand. As an active Wikiversity user, I (officially) encourage Wikipedians to flood Wikiversity with their knowledge and good faith efforts.--Remi0o 06:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As soon as Single User Login comes through, you'll have 3 mil too. And that rhymes, lovely! ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 19:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein 'passed away', not died, insist Chinese Wikipedians

At least the former Iraqi dictator gets the tacit final salute from the 30+ zh.wiki sysops, who more than not just follow Beijing regime's tone. Saddam Hussein is now highlighted on the Chinese Wiki's home page as a 'passing away celebrity'.

This treatment also reflects the mood widely expressed in Chinese cyberspace and by CCTV, the state-run TV network.

Just hope Chinese sysops can somehow get over their 'loss' and get back to work. Hussein is dead, no matter how those crazy guys want to call it. --Uponsnow 14:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't play linguistic games. 逝世 (which you translate as "pass away") is used on the Chinese Wikipedia for ALL deaths. For example, the entire category of Category:2006 deaths is zh:Category:2006年逝世 in the Chinese Wikipedia. Hideki Tojo, the engineer of the Japanese invasion of China, is also filed under "1948年逝世" (passed away in 1948). -- ran (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of English Wikipedia, Uponsnow, just take back your empty useless appealing. --220.137.88.44 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

user 2220.137.88.44 is making a personal attack. we came to here to report this to the whole world, because the chinese site is strongly censored. they randomly deleted people's contribs, comments and votes. they won't allow many of us to post our comments freely in the chinese version of village pumps. we have left no choice, but to come to here. i am one of the victims. In the article of people's republic of China, there is not a single word about human rights and falun gong, when I tried to added those two, it was deleted. and that article has been put under for protection for more than a month. and the moderators from there called it "vandalism." yea, right. --SummerThunder 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't they just die a simple death? Why can't they just die? For example, one Chinese sysop (he is a card-bearing Communist Youth member) insisted that Slobodan Milosevic 'passed away', not died, and therefore deleted my editing about Slobodan's death. Now his wish is granted (mine too): Saddam Hussein passed away (died). Win-Win? --Uponsnow 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Uponsnow. We already know that you and your pal SummerThunder are just here to whine about the zh.wiki, so you can stop now. --tjstrf talk 15:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, tjstrf. first of all, stop reverting my contribs. people are already talking about you in the news section as the fed meatpuppets. and We already knew that you and your pal ran are just here to defend for Chinese Wikipedia as if it has no censorship at all, so you can stop now.--SummerThunder 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we lost the battle. It's true that I have neither time nor necessary networking to correct the sickness of zh.wiki. Now it perfectly reflects the ugly reality of Chinese world. You win, and it's sad for Wikipedia and its ideaology. --Uponsnow 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not losing this battle for an unbiased Chinese wikipedia. Not every Chinese users on there are capable of communicating in English. That is why we need to continue to expose those wrong things the Chinese moderators are doing. Otherwise, it will never be changed. They are standing on the wrong side of the history. --SummerThunder 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Uponsnow... you just completely ignored my comment. ALL deaths on the Chinese Wikipedia are filed under 逝世 ("passed away") by default. For example, Hideki Tojo, engineer of the Japanese invasion of China, is filed under zh:Category:1948年逝世, "passed away in 1948", the equivalent of Category:1948 deaths. Iwate Matsui, responsible for the Nanking Massacre, is also filed under "passed away in 1948". -- ran (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is like arguing against flat-earthers

Uponsnow and SummerThunder like to zero in on details (mostly their alleged mistreatment at the hands of Chinese Wikipedia sysops), and completely ignore (or choose to ignore) our vast and informative articles on topics that are taboo or controversial in Mainland China. This is just like arguing against flat-earthers, who like to point to weird details (the UN flag, no stars in the moon landing photos) and ignore other larger things, like the circumnavigation of the globe, gravity, electromagnetism, navigational technologies for the past 1000 years, or the Coriolis Effect.

I'd like to ask Uponsnow and SummerThunder to explain why:

• The Chinese Wikipedia has a whole series of articles on the Republic of China (Taiwan), presenting the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a separate, functioning democracy, with its own unique historical tract since 1949 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has long articles dedicated to anti-communist and pro-sovereignty demonstrations in Taiwan [18], pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong [19], and annual commemorations of the Tiananmen Massacre in Hong Kong [20]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has a 91kb article on a topic that doesn't "exist" in mainland China, the Tiananmen Massacre [21], in which we present the picture of the Tank Man [22], a picture of anti-government graffiti [23], and a picture of a memorial in Wroclaw, Poland [24]? And why is the Tiananmen Massacre found in our list of massacres [25]? Why does the Chinese Wikipedia have an article on the Tiananmen Mothers [26] and its founder, Ding Zilin [27]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on another incident that doesn't "exist" in mainland China, the 2005 Dongzhou Massacre [28], which is explained as an incident where "police used violent means against villagers, causing many deaths? And The Chinese Wikipedia has similar incidents that don't "exist" as well, like the 2006 Xiangyin Massacre [29] or the 2005 Taishi Village Incident [30]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the Falun Gong [31], in which all sides of the issue are explored, in which pro-Falun Gong external links are given before anti-Falun Gong external links; as well as Falun Gong's newspaper [32], and Falun Gong's scathing commentary on the Chinese Communist Party [33]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on Rebiya Kadeer [34], a famous Uyghur dissident and supporter of the East Turkestan sovereignty movement, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? (In this same article, everything that the Communist government said was put in scare quotes -- is that even NPOV?)
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on HH Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso [35], which follows his deeds after being exiled from Tibet, including his creation of a Tibetan Government-In-Exile in Dharamsala, his promotion of Tibetan education, and his proposals for peaceful coexistence with the People's Republic of China?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima [36], who was originally selected as the 11th Panchen Lama, but mysteriously disappeared after the Dalai Lama recognized him?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the Nangpa La Massacre [37], the only wikipedia other than English to do so, complete with a picture of the Tibetan nun who was shot by Chinese border guards [38]?

-- ran (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: this is the Village Pump of the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia and the Chinese Wikipedia are parallel -- one does not have jurisdiction over the other. So to Uponsnow and SummerThunder: it's not productive to spam the English Village Pump with complaints about the Chinese Wikipedia. If you want to discuss the Chinese Wikipedia, it's better to go to the Chinese Wikipedia or to Meta.

SummerThunder: yes, you are banned at the Chinese Wikipedia right now, but if you post on the Chinese Village Pump and agree to the following:

• that you will stop spamming all of the pages of the Village Pump;
• that you agree to go over articles one at a time, and discuss civilly;
• that you agree to follow the neutral-point-of-view policy as it stands on the English and Chinese Wikipedias;
• that you stop accusing others of being "communist spies";

I'm pretty sure the Chinese Wikipedia will welcome you back. -- ran (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

do you have the evidence to prove that you and the rest chinese moderators are not "communist spies?" and i have asked this very simple question on the chinese site which was immediately deleted, that is "tell us, how those mainland chinese moderators are able to bypass China's strict internet censorhip, and continue to work on the BLOCKED Chinese wikipedia site?"

and stop accusing me things that are not based on the truth just as if you are working the chinese government. you think that you have the power on that site, therefore, you ban me, so people of the world will not be able to hear my side of the story? many of us are sick of your censorship. even today, there is not a word about human rights and falun gong in the PR China site. when I tried to add those two parts, they were deleted. after a month, the biased article still is under protection. isn't that typical. --SummerThunder 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's explained quite clearly in the Internet censorship in mainland China article that technically adept users are able to circumvent the block through various means. Also,.... it is YOU who're accusing people of being communist spies simply because of their geographical origin, or because of their login name (e.g. your accusation that Jasonzhoucn was a spy, because of the letters CN, which according to you can only stand for China, which according to you must mean that he is a spy). In short, YOU are the ones making accusations based on these ... evidence ... and yet you push the burden of proof to me?

How about I do give you some evidence? Please explain how the 29 links to 29 Chinese Wikipedia articles / photographs on the Tiananmen Massacre, Falun Gong, Tibet, and Taiwan could continue to exist if the Chinese Wikipedia were run by "government spies"?

Also, the Chinese Wikipedia article on the People's Republic of China has an entire paragraph on human rights, in which Falun Gong is mentioned as well: [39]. Thus your claim is incorrect.

-- ran (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are lying again. you are a liar! On 22:50 2006-12-29, YOU YOURSELF added those three single word Falun Gong in the article And so far, there is still nothing about human rights. I tried to added falun gong and human rights on 2006-11-22 which was more than ONE MONTH AGO, it was immediately DELETED by the Chinese moderator Mongol. So clearly, you are LYING. this is just not right. someone should strip your rights of moderating. --SummerThunder 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I should be stripped of my sysop status, because I added Falun Gong as an example of an oppressed organization to the People's Republic of China article in the Chinese Wikipedia? Interesting logic there ... Also, I see that at least you're looking at the article now... that paragraph that you're looking at, the one that mentions Falun Gong, it is entirely about human rights. It also mentions Tibetan Independence as another oppressed movement in mainland China. -- ran (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

POV problems on WIkipedia and State intervention in the US and China

From reading the many discussions I've seen brought up about China on various venues throughout Wikipedia it seems that China and the US share the same problem: state intervention in Wikipedia. This type of state intervention is anathema to the Wiki concept. Clearly a government the size of China and the United States can afford to devote endless resources to game the wiki system. It's a problem that the wiki concept as it stands now is defenseless against. I think SummerThunder raises some important issues on this.

Clearly any wiki is going to reflect the biases of the participants even if we follow the NPOV policy to a 'T'. However, what I think SummerThunder and ShoutToTheTop are raising is the issue of government intervention to even subvert the NPOV policies. If the government of the United States and China are hiring hundreds, dozens or even several full-time people to propagandize on a wiki, then there's not much normal editors can do to enforce the wiki's policies (such as NPOV). If those government agents also gain special privileges, they can abuse those privileges and even further control the Wiki. What's needed is a new set of policies to prohibit this sort of thing entirely. Perhaps we could make a contest of it: some friendly competition. Who can rid their Wiki of government authorities first: China or the United States. The first one gets a gold medal. And the second one gets a silver medal. --Stephen Bouchardi 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm surprised to see the China Wikipedia chastised for using the phrase 'passed away' when referring to the death of Sadaam Hussein rather than 'died'. Is that the extent of their government editorializing. Do we really want to chastise the Chinese Wikipedia for not being more callous and fascistic (these two concepts usually go hand in hand). If this is the extent of the Chinese government's editorializing, it looks like China already has the lead over the English language Wikipedia. --Stephen Bouchardi 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly glad that you understood those problems that I have presented here. mainland China has 29 moderators/administrators while the rest of the 13 billion Chinese cann't get connected to this site at all. It certainly makes one wonder why those moderators have the special ability and privilege to get on the Chinese site and moderate? and by now, I am sure that the government has every single one's personal information. why aren't they afraid of what they doing? in the capital city Beijing, there are total six of them.

And if there is nothing suspicious, why are the Chinese modrator "ran" and the other theod something continue to defend their positions? and why did they delete comments by other users who supporting me on the Chinese site? --SummerThunder 21:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Again.... for the SECOND TIME, on Internet censorship in mainland China it states clearly that technically adept people in mainland China can circumvent the block through many means. We have a page on the Chinese Wikipedia [40] teaching people how to break through government censorship. As for the 29 sysops in mainland China, the government may or may not have their information, yes. They run a certain level of risk coming onto Wikipedia through illicit means, and it is their choice (a brave one, which I respect) to do it anyways.

As for me and theodoranian defending our positions.... well, what did you expect? That we're going to sit back while you grossly misrepresent the Chinese Wikipedia to the English community? We didn't get ourselves banned by the Chinese government just so that you can badmouth us and accuse us of being 'with the Chinese government. -- ran (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright... thank you for these insights from this single-use account... (edit: this is in response to Stephen Bouchardi)

A few things:

• For the third time, the Chinese Wikipedia uses 逝世 (passed away) for everyone. As I have already pointed out above, this includes WW2-era Japanese leaders who conducted the invasion of China;
• If the government of the US or the PRC hires "hundreds of full-time people to propagandize on a wiki", they will be thrown out by the existing community, just as SummerThunder was thrown out of the Chinese Wikipedia.
• People who clearly and consistently ignore NPOV, NOR etc. will not "gain special privileges".
• Pray tell us what new set of policies you are proposing.

-- ran (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

what a lie. you can't represent the all users of Chinese wikipedia. just like the Chinese government can't represent all the people in China. tell us, why in the People's republic of China, there is not a single world of falun gong or human rights?--SummerThunder 21:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, go read that article itself, it does have an entire paragraph on human rights, and gives Falun Gong as an example of an oppressed organization. -- ran (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

for the fourth time, You are lying again. you are a liar! On 22:50 2006-12-29, YOU YOURSELF added those three single word Falun Gong in the article And so far, there is still nothing about human rights. I tried to added falun gong and human rights on 2006-11-22 which was more than ONE MONTH AGO, it was immediately DELETED by the Chinese moderator Mongol. So clearly, you are LYING. this is just not right. someone should strip your rights of moderating. --SummerThunder 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Already responded above, but alright, I'll copy-paste:

I should be stripped of my sysop status, because I added Falun Gong as an example of an oppressed organization to the People's Republic of China article in the Chinese Wikipedia? Interesting logic there ... Also, I see that at least you're looking at the article now... that paragraph that you're looking at, the one that mentions Falun Gong, it is entirely about human rights. It also mentions Tibetan Independence as another oppressed movement in mainland China. -- ran (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me set this up more clearly for you:

• SummerThunder tried to insert information about human rights in China and the history of Tibet. He also spams the Village Pump with personal attacks; accuses all mainland Chinese sysops of being "communist spies"; and refuses civil discussion. He is banned by zh.wiki after 2 weeks of failed attempts at communication, and all his edits reverted.
• Ran tries to insert information about human rights in China. He also restores SummerThunder's edits on Tibet, and uploads a picture of a Tibetan nun being shot by Chinese border guards. Ran does not spam, he does not accuse anything of being a spy, and he tries to communicate with everyone, SummerThunder included. Ran is not banned by the Chinese Wikipedia, nor are his edits reverted.

In science, I would be called a control experiment. Do you notice the pattern here? Do you see why you were blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia? -- ran (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

1. what is wrong of "inserting information about human rights in China and the history of Tibet?"
2. And why did you "restores SummerThunder's edits on Tibet," and what is the punishment for the moderator who reverted my contribution incorrectly?
3. what is your explanation of you inserting falun gong yesterday, when I tried to add the same thing more than one month ago, it was immediatly deleted by the moderator mongol?
4. banning me, deleting my comments on the Chinese site, deleting the supporting comments that other users wrote for me, you call that "communicate with everyone?"
5. why 13 billion Chinese can't get on wikipedia, and 29 mainland Chinese moderators have no problems of using it?
6. whether you and other moderators are spies or Chinese government agents, only you know. but all the moderators suspicious actions are exposed on here for the whole world to judge. --SummerThunder 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm. Go read the comparison again. I said that I'm a control experiment, the control being that I too made edits about China's human rights situation and the history of Tibet, but was not banned or even stripped of sysop status.

1. There is nothing wrong. That's why I, a sysop of the Chinese Wikipedia, am doing it on Chinese Wikipedia with no problems.
2. I restored your edit because I liked it. There is nothing wrong with sysops reverting your edits en masse if you had already been identified as a spammer and were spamming at an alarming rate across the Chinese Wikipedia.
3. Because I'm a Wikipedian. You mentioned a flaw, I saw it, and I corrected it. I don't launch into tirades about everyone else being a spy after that, however.
4. We tried communicating you for two weeks. Over ten Wikipedians tried to talk to you on your talk page. You ignored or attacked them. Then we banned you.
5. For the third time, it's because they use other means like proxy servers.
6. Right. I'm sure that my uploading of a picture of a Tibetan nun killed by Chinese border guards is one of those suspicious actions you speak of. -- ran (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A chart?

User on zh.wiki	Adds info about human rights, and Tibet?	Personal attacks and spamming?	Blocked on zh.wiki?
SummerThunder	Yes.	Yes.	Yes.
Ran	Yes.	No.	No.

Self-explanatory, yes? -- ran (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User on zh.wiki	Adds info about human rights, and Tibet?	Personal attacks and spamming?	abusing his moderator rights	Blocked on zh.wiki?
SummerThunder	Yes. deleted TWICE by the Chinese moderators	No.	n/a	Yes, due to injustice.
Ran	NO. reverted Summerthunder's edition only.	Yes	yes.	No, because he is a moderator.

Self-explanatory, yes? --SummerThunder 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PR China article on the Chinese site

Chinese Wikipedia, PR China did not have the word Falun Gong until 12-29-2006 when this moderator Ran added, when I tried to add it more than a month, it was deleted immediately. Even as for now, the phrase "Human rights" is only mentioned ONCE in that entire article under the name of "Organization for Human rights". That is it. yes, you read it right. "Human Rights" only appeared once in that entire article. when I tried to added more information about human rights in the article on 11-22-2006, it was immediatly deleted by the moderator Mongol. Then I was banned from editing and that article was put under protection. Even today, there is still not a direct link to Human rights in the People's Republic of China on the Chinese site, either. while on the English site People's Republic of China, there is an entire paragraph about it, and a direct link to Human rights in the People's Republic of China. now is that site biased or not. you will be the judge yourself. --SummerThunder 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your complaint. I have added a link to the zh.wiki article on Human rights in the People's Republic of China [41] to the article on the People's Republic of China [42]. There is already a paragraph on human rights in the zh article on the People's Republic of China, and while it mentions the exact words "human rights" (人權) once, the entire paragraph talks about 言論自由 (freedom of speech) as a basic 民主權利 (democratic right) according to the PRC Constitution, as well as criticisms that the PRC 壓制 (oppresses) this right in cases like Falun Gong and Tibetan Independence. But of course, the main article is Human Rights in the People's Republic of China, which mentions "human rights" (人權) exactly 12 times in the intro alone. The article begins by saying that the PRC's human rights record is controversial, and is widely condemned by governments, organizations, and individuals as below international norms. -- ran (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

this is not how you manage the site. there are thousands and thousands similar unbiased articles which are censored by the Chinese moderators which are still not being corrected. i have tried to add Human rights and falun gong in the same article MORE THAN ONE month ago. it is wrong to revert my original edition, then banned me for editing that article and put that article under protection for more than a month. Even now, the phrase "Human rights" are only used twice, and falun gong is only mentioned once in the entire Chinese article. and it is still not put under the religion section which I tried to add more than a month ago.

Everyone now knows that you and your moderator's so-called "vandalism" accusation against me is entirely incorrect.

It is lound and clear to the entire whole wikipedia community and the whole world that the Chinese Wikipedia site is very biased toward the Communist Party of China. Now it is upon the wikipedia foundation to do something about it. --SummerThunder 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate repeating myself but I suppose it can't be helped.

Please explain why:

• The Chinese Wikipedia has a whole series of articles on the Republic of China (Taiwan), presenting the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a separate, functioning democracy, with its own unique historical tract since 1949 [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has long articles dedicated to anti-communist and pro-sovereignty demonstrations in Taiwan [51], pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong [52], and annual commemorations of the Tiananmen Massacre in Hong Kong [53]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has a 91kb article on a topic that doesn't "exist" in mainland China, the Tiananmen Massacre [54], in which we present the picture of the Tank Man [55], a picture of anti-government graffiti [56], and a picture of a memorial in Wroclaw, Poland [57]? And why is the Tiananmen Massacre found in our list of massacres [58]? Why does the Chinese Wikipedia have an article on the Tiananmen Mothers [59] and its founder, Ding Zilin [60]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on another incident that doesn't "exist" in mainland China, the 2005 Dongzhou Massacre [61], which is explained as an incident where "police used violent means against villagers, causing many deaths? And The Chinese Wikipedia has similar incidents that don't "exist" as well, like the 2006 Xiangyin Massacre [62] or the 2005 Taishi Village Incident [63]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the human rights of the People's Republic of China [64], which begins by saying that the PRC's human rights record is controversial, and is widely condemned by governments, organizations, and individuals as below international norms?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the Falun Gong [65], in which all sides of the issue are explored, in which pro-Falun Gong external links are given before anti-Falun Gong external links; as well as Falun Gong's newspaper [66], and Falun Gong's scathing commentary on the Chinese Communist Party [67]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on Rebiya Kadeer [68], a famous Uyghur dissident and supporter of the East Turkestan sovereignty movement, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? (In this same article, everything that the Communist government said was put in scare quotes -- is that even NPOV?)
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on HH Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso [69], which follows his deeds after being exiled from Tibet, including his creation of a Tibetan Government-In-Exile in Dharamsala, his promotion of Tibetan education, and his proposals for peaceful coexistence with the People's Republic of China?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima [70], who was originally selected as the 11th Panchen Lama, but mysteriously disappeared after the Dalai Lama recognized him?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on the Nangpa La Massacre [71], the only wikipedia other than English to do so, complete with a picture of the Tibetan nun who was shot by Chinese border guards [72]?
• The Chinese Wikipedia has a project page (not in article space) teaching people how to circumvent internet censorship? [73]

-- ran (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

you can not do that, it would be too obvious. that would give away the true color of the Chinese moderators. however, just that one example is good enough. --SummerThunder 22:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one good example (which I prompted corrected) is better than the above 30+ high traffic examples I gave? -- ran (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, there are more than 30+ high traffice examples that are still being censored. you and other chinese moderstators continue accusing me "vandalizing" the chinese site, yet you continue to revert my contributions. you obviously contract yourself all the time. --SummerThunder 23:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tibet history page on the Chinese site

What happened in Tibet in 1950 was 56 years ago.

However, on the chinese wikipedia, before 11-23, 2006, there was nothing about how china took over tibet in 1950. it was written as "in 1950, the pr china government signed "peaceful liberation treaty" with the tibetan government, under the condition of respecting Tibetan's system and life style, the liberation army was allowed to enter tibet." That was all they have on that part of the history.

So on 11-23, 2006, I added that part of the history according to I read from the Dalai lama's exile government web site. [74]. my article and the links were immediately deleted by the chinese moderator Louer. I tried to add those once again on 12-6-2006, it was also immediately deleted by another Chinese moderator Jasonzhoucn. only on 12-11-2006, 56 years after what happened in Tibet, did the moderator Ran reverted my part of contribution. Before that day, those two moderators Louer and Jasonzhoucn accused my part of contribution as "vandalism," as they often call the contributions that i wrote on the Chinese site. very typical of them.

However, as for today, 12-30-2006, the link where I got my reference from is still not included in the article. This is just another good example to show you that how biased the Chinese site is, whethey they work for the Chinese communist government, you will be the judge for yourself. I am only listening the information here. --SummerThunder 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me, why have the Chinese Government blocked a site which works for them? (see Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China) Barring that, what are we meant to do about this? It's a different project, and the vast majority of people reading your complaints here can't read contribute to zh.wiki because we can't read/write Chinese.

Anyway, the "propaganda" Chinese Wikipedia already exists, its called Baidu Baike, where all contributions are individually checked for compliance, see the article for more details. It is not part of the wikimedia foundation, it far exceeds zh.wiki in terms of size, and, largely because it is not blocked by the PRC, is far more visited. There's the conspiracy.

Now please, stop filling this page with your experiences at zh. We have said, again and again, that there is nothing we can do. Believe me, freedom of information in China is something that many people here are passionate about. Please do not take the reaction your appeals are receiving here as a sign of a lack of concern. It's a topic that you undoubtedly feel strongly about, but:

Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.

See WP:TIGERS for a full explanation of this philosophy. LukeSurl 00:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

An improvement for Page Watchers

I'm unsure how this might be implemented, but it might be nice to have a way for all those "watching" a given page to communicate, or even to KNOW how many others are "watchers" of a particular page at any given time. Dec. 30, 2006 - frankatca

If you're watching a page, you're also watching its talk page, so simply posting on the talk page would get the relevant people's attention. As for knowing the number of watchers, I've asked this question before, and the answer given was that this would simply encourage vandals to vandalize less-watched pages. -- ran (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins can find out if a page has nobody watching it. Letting anyone have that info is giving vandals too much help. Perhaps it would help to let admins see how many watchers there are, rather than just if there are none, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. --Tango 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the majority of pages have a significant number of people watching them, and that a single line in the header (or at the foot of the page) like: XX people now maintain the quality of this page. would inspire greater confidence in the quality of the Wikipedia and would deter at least some vandals. I propose this changed be implemented first on, say, 10 or 50 (random) pages on a trial basis for, say 60 days, and see what happens. If it proves not to be a benefit, then scrub it. Frankatca 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

However, a lot of pages will say "0 people now maintain the quality of this page", and those will become vandal magnets very quickly. -- ran (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A simple trial on a few pages with a variety of watcher counts will soon show what works and what doesn't. Then we'll know, and can make an informed choice. Yes? Frankatca 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's possible, though I'm just a simple sysop and has no jurisdiction over this. =) I suggest asking at WP:VPP or WP:VPT where there might be more people involved in the technical aspect of things. Be sure to link back to this discussion as well. -- ran (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

are you really just a "simple sysop", i doubt that. --SummerThunder 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ran is an admin, see here. Tra (Talk) 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that knowing a page is unwatched encourages vandalism, knowing a page is watched doesn't give you much information on its quality. Not only are there many things on my watch list that I don't always keep careful track of, but there are many pages being watched only by inactive users. Just because a page is on someone's (or even many people's) watch list doesn't really tell you much about its accuracy. In the vain of getting information about active watcher of articles, the {{maintained}} template was created. I don't think it's being widely used, however. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)