User talk:Homunculus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A barnstar for you!

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

Weiquan movement is now a Good Article!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Non-free rationale for File:JournalofContemporaryChina.jpg

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

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

Undo the previous move

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

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Miao Rebellion (1854–73), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

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

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Blumenthal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Freedom of religion in the People's Republic of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Falun Gong

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

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

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

Penny

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red Guards, Han people and Dao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Absence of terrorosm in Tibet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chat

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

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

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

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

Request for Rating of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

Hi Homunculus, I'm trying to find somebody working on Wikiproject China (like you) who would be willing to re-rate my article Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. You can make comments on this review page. Any help would be much appreciated! best, -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bo Xilai

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

Bo Guagua

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Barefood lawyer

Thanks - and apologies for not discussing the matter more thoroughly beforehand. In the interest of accuracy (especially in a BLP article), I think it's important not to label him a "lawyer" as that would be technically inaccurate, but at the same time it is appropriate to note that he has been called a "barefoot lawyer" or even "self taught lawyer" in various articles. (Today's Telegraph article uses the latter.) Happy to contribute to a future "barefoot lawyer" article, though if you find that there is not enough material to warrant a full article, I suggest making it a section under "barefood doctor" since that's what the phrase is intended to reference. Thanks again! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, here's a start: Barefoot lawyer. I think there's enough written on the topic that it merits it own article. While the term is a play on the "barefoot doctor," they arose out of very different historical circumstances. Barefoot lawyers came about in the post-reform context, as Chinese citizens' rights consciousness was rising but the growth of the legal profession was unable to keep up (or, as is more often the case, professional lawyers were unwilling to take on the cases of rural citizens). Unlike the officially sanctioned the barefoot doctors of the Mao era, barefoot lawyers are tolerated at best. Anyway, I would appreciate any thoughts you might have on further development. Best, Homunculus (duihua) 17:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The American officials went out of their way to praise the Chinese negotiators. They described them as working “intensely and with humanity.”

User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I suggest quoting that, with proper attribution. Homunculus (duihua) 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Secular Islam Summit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Secular Islam Summit. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LaRouche movement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LaRouche movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Re this, removal of sourced content should be discussed on the article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agada, you wrote a sentence that had no discernible value. It was badly composed, out of place, and redundant. I deleted one sentence, and provided an explanation in the edit summary. I have nothing further to say, and have already spent an inordinate amount of time on the talk page discussing this very paragraph with you. My patience for these shenanigans is finite, you know.Homunculus (duihua) 04:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, one does not need a reason to be bold, and it was given: "adding balance". See WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, if you need a wikilink. However reversions should be discussed on the talk page, especially when administrators are permitted to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing the page. Please raise a discussion on the article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being especially bold. The sentence you wrote did not add "balance;" it was repetitive. It contained neither new information nor an alternative perspective or opinion. If you so desperately want a talk page discussion, then you can start one. Perhaps you can try to convince other editors of how redundancy equates to balance. Homunculus (duihua) 23:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The material balances previous sentence in the section ... official estimates ... rivaling membership in the Communist Party Remember not to remove sourced content without discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you to explain more specifically. The paragraph begins by stating that official estimates on membership circa 1998 stood at 60 - 70 million, rivaling membership in the CCP. This is impeccably sourced. It then goes on to state that Falun Gong's own estimates in this period were 70 - 80 million. You added a sentence which states that Falun Gong's membership estimates also rivaled the size of the CCP. To me, this is plainly redundant. The paragraph already notes the comparison to CCP numbers. And, of course, if 60 - 70 million rivals party membership, then it goes without saying that 70 - 80 million also rivals party membership. We don't need to repeat this. Am I missing something? Can you please clearly explain why you feel that restating the comparison to party membership is adding balance? Homunculus (duihua) 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai Review

Absolutely! Please notify me when these changes have taken place. 感谢支持! Oakley77 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I made some edits to Bo Xilai, nothing huge, but some critical edits nonetheless. I was wondering when you were ready for me to pass the article to GA?Oakley77 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Should just be a couple days, but I'll let you know. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the agreement with the Falun Gong issues, is it safe to say I can make this article a GA?Oakley77 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's agreement on the issue, do you? Homunculus (duihua) 13:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR

It appears that you may also in violation of the three revert rule. Yes I did remove a block of text. It was a signal that I found the block problematic, as I had on a previous occasion. I reintegrated most of it, whilst giving it some copyediting to comply with policies on neutrality and close paraphrasing. I had found on going to verify against the sources that there were other problems, like copyright violations. Anyways, I believe I clearly stated the reasons in the edit summaries. Were you expecting me to pinpoint the exact word that I object to? ;-) This version is close to my bottom line. I can't speak for the others. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I violated the 3RR. Or came close to a copyright infringement. Homunculus (duihua) 13:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I Appreciate it. I got the drift of it now...use
but must it also be in the caption part? Is there any way to make the infobox bigger so the actual characters are readable? And also the pinyin didn't show up but is included in your edit, so whats wrong with the format? So complicated whooshWhoisgalt (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: mail!

Weird, nothing came through. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If somebody broke 3RR I'd suggest reporting them at WP:ANI/3RR, and if you want to be nice, tell them to self-revert and note in the report you did so. The reviewing admin may be merciful if they do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

China Pabst Blue Ribbon

Pictures

Thanks for the ownership info; I took one look and my brain got frozen from the complexity of the structures and then I didn't get back to it. I will be uploading pictures from inside the Zhaoqing brewery from 1999 to the page.. Is it ok to include ones I took will on a tour and tasting of the brewery? My first goal will be to just get them on the page!!! (first time doing pics) Could I ask you to help a tad bit more (than I'll owe you one on the subject of your choice)? I wanted the kind that would have a 100kb on the page and then about 500 when clicking on it than another click will give a 1-2mb pic..This seems to be what I've found on other sites. I will choose the main one for the info box (I will crop one that has the PBR logo but is affixed to the side of a building). Than one of the main gate and bottling facility..I also have ones of the vats and a very large machine which might be involved in bottling but I'm not sure. Is there anyone that's good at reading traditional and simplified characters in that calligraphy style font? Because the pic of the front gate is in traditional I think and it says the name of the facility and name of the company? I have trouble reading past a low intermediate (spoken and typing is mid to hight intermed ) unless I have my perakun, and this can't be done on pictures. Sorry for the long blurb but I'm just so exicted to see this brewery and china pbr have its own page Whoisgalt (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the help...I can get stuck sometimes in the mud and need a good push. Whoisgalt (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

About censorship

THanks for all the good links. Looks like a lot of reading so I hope I'm up for it. I was interested in how technology such as software and hardware (cysco and the like) has been adapted for use in censorship in china. Also I wanted to talk about how international companies who operate in china must censor their content or abide by unjust and authoritarian laws. The other topic is how China collaborates (helps teach the techniques) with countries such as Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian governments to censor their own citizens. Yes I agree it will be a big topic and I've already taken on the SEZ's (and kinda the treaty ports) one as well. I found the SEZ jackpot article at SEZ summary for past 30 years so if you're interested in that please take a look. So how do I follow users again? I want to follow you're work :-) Whoisgalt (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You interested?

See my last post to you. I can't find it though. Wiki still confuses me a little. It's about the censorship in China. So, do you have any interest in the chinese not really violent black market or the more violent aggressive 黑社会? I worked on a survey project for the wto/mpaa in china for researching the prevalence of pirated material (verdict=everywhere :-) ) so I know it first hand. I think the black market plays such a big role in china that it might be 25-40% of the real economy but I'm not sure that is just a guess. Nobody pays taxes, nobody gives receipts (doesn't pay taxes) and everything is at risk of being counterfeited, from eggs to cokes (I drank one of these and it was obvious) to women's virginities. I could easily get fascinatingly lost in this topic. I read on your page you like collaboration, so do I, would you be interested in this?Whoisgalt (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...interesting idea. It looks like there are a couple articles related to Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China, as well as one dedicated to Music copyright infringement in the People's Republic of China. There is also a general article on the black market / Informal sector. If you think that you could pull together sufficient material, it may be quite interesting to have an article dedicated to the informal sector of the Chinese economy. If you're up for the task, I would be willing to pitch in from t ime to time and help you out, though I have a couple other projects on my list as well.Homunculus (duihua) 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese PBR doesn't suit you (too watered down), how about a nice German Dunkleweizen

Sounds good. Imagine an article solely about the chinese black market, I'm getting goosebumps already. I'm also nervous because it's such a big task. That's one of the points that so many western countries bring up as being the biggest problem in relations (at least they say that)... I will put the SEZ and treaty ports a little further back on the burner. Nix that, no treaty ports and not SEZ's yet (except Hainan). Only the 黑市场 and maybe some about corporate censorship and collaborations。But I'm still lost in the whole wikipedia experience so its good to know there's someone that's willing to help out once in awhile. I'm interested in so many things yet have limited time and energy. What's more, I'm not a good multitasker. Do you have strategies to keep oneself focused on one topic and not go frenetically between different ones, never making any of them truly good? I'm afraid of this happening to me because my attention span isn't that great. Or is that normal on wiki? 一路顺风Whoisgalt (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

On the informal economy page it lists China as being 13.1% of GNP. Canada is 16.4 and Germany is 16.3. So I think these numbers are an absolute joke because there's no way China is less than those modernized countries where the majority of people are all "registered" and pay taxes. Thailand is 52% and Korea 27.5% and when's the last time you heard a story of counterfeiting and piracy come out of these two countries. In China this phenomenon probably contributes a great share to its informal economy numbers. Are the numbers provided by China itself or who actually estimates these numbers? They need to take a second look I think. Is there a way for a laymen in economics to estimate a more realistic number? I'd be willing but wouldn't know how to go about it. Whoisgalt (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to fill up your talk page so much but my brain is on a roll recently :-) I wrote up a rough outline, would you mind taking a look at it and see how my organization is and if I'm missing anything. It is very rough but I'm am already invested in this article so I want to have a good outline to guide me in my research. after the outline I promise to not bug you anymore about helping me out, because I imagine you've got a lot of stuff to work on But from what I've been reading, you seem to be quite the conceptualizer and researcher so I just wanted to get your thoughts because I'm just an amateur hobbyist who has OCD for China :-)Whoisgalt (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisgalt (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary/Synopsis

Real estimate of black market (informal economy page lists as only 13%)

Shanzai culture in depth and explanation/estimates

Summary of who is producing and who is buying, rates, regions, culture,

Ties of "less criminal" black market to the "more criminal" violent one of drugs, prostiitues,violence

Grey market (produced by same factories as real ones but sold/produced without permission)

Music, Movies, Software

     Summary & History & current situation
     markets/prices
     laws/enforcement
     foreign reactions/criticisms

Counterfeited consumer products

     Summary & History & current situation
     For domestic consumption 
     For export
        

Counterfeit medicines and other chemicals

     Summary & History & current situation
     domestic
     export

Organs and medical procedures

Black market/faking of statistics and measuring things for business and local/regional/national governments

Businesses not paying taxes or benefits to employees (unregistered)

Individuals not paying taxes and working/living off the official grid

Black/unregistered children (due to breaking the one child policy)

THERE MUST BE MOREWhoisgalt (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Whoisgalt (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about bothering me. It's refreshing to deal with editors who are bright-eyed and optimistic about this project, though I apologize if I'm not always able to respond in a timely manner. This looks like quote a thorough outline. Do you feel that you have enough reliably sourced material already assembled to begin the article? If not, I would be happy to put some basic information together and get something started in the next several days. You could then populate the article incrementally. Let me know what you'd like to do.

As a title, I would recommend "Informal economy of China." "Black market in China" is also an option, and while these are similar concepts, there are some subtle differences. Were you thinking more of the latter? Homunculus (duihua) 05:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear I'm not bugging you :-). Don't worry, I'm a newbie so I'm on wikipedia too often. If I was on as long as you I'd probably be on a lot less frequent as well.

I by no means have enough sources to start any of the sub topics. I do have tons for the Western censorship contributions however so I will be writing on that too. Honestly, I was thinking more black economy or underground economy(and their accompanying feelings), because I would also be including many of the darker things that go on like wife-selling, prostitution, drugs, child-selling, informal money lending to factories, bribery and corruption at the corporate and individual level, child abductions then using them to beg and steal on the streets. Informal economy to me just means bartering for services/products and seems too innocent for my purposes. I hate to say it, but I want to write on all the illegal and unpublicized things that go on in China that no one wants to admit and which many times the police don't enforce. Ones that you will never see in a Chinese newspaper and most likely not a foreign one either. I might be mixing topics when putting together all the "dark" things with the black market so maybe you could give your ideas on that. But I want a little of the tone to be how the modern culture is very counterfeit and corruption prone on all levels and how the above ground economy is somewhat of a facade while the underground one is where the real action takes place; also, how a lot of criminal or moral darkness lies underneath the bright and shiny exterior.

Isn't there a zone on wiki that allows articles to be posted before they're ready for full distribution? Couldn't I put the outline there, work on it and hope that others might come along and contribute while I'm researching it?

Any ideas would be warmly accepted and appreciated, but if so no hurryWhoisgalt (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a place where you can work on things before publishing. Along the menu at the top right of your browser, click "My sandbox."
• Let me think more about the title. I started putting together some material on the informal economy[2] I started with the boring stuff, as I am prone to do. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is editing from a neutral point of view, and we're also encouraged to avoid point of view forks. This is why my inclination would be to create one article that addresses everything from the illicit to the mostly-legitimate. This is probably not what you had in mind, however, and it's possible that you're simply thinking of a different topic than me. "Black market in China" or even "illicit economy of China" may well be the better title. Again, let me think more. Homunculus (duihua) 14:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand the neutral point of view. What I meant by tone was the direction and content matter of the article. And if someone was reading it they would probably realize they were reading about the dark side but it would be done in the most objective sense. I actually love china (the average people that is) and by no means am I a china-basher. I would do everything to keep neutral while at the same time trying to write about things that aren't widely discussed. Things that I noticed or heard about in China and would be able to expand on. How about the "The modern Chinese Underworld or Undergound" or cultural undergound? If it just had the word "economy" in it it wouldn't give justice to all the content. Or is "underworld/undergound" itself a judgement? I didn't realize the naming of it was such an important matter :-) But the more I think about it I suppose it is.Whoisgalt (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is to stop filling up your page. Here is the outline for the untitled black market underground culture (both criminal and cultural) idea. I've got a lot of it done already but not sure of what else I might be missing. So if you have some time please take a look

Ok, looking at the outline you put together, I think these are sufficiently separate topics. I think you may well be justified in creating an article "Black market in China," and I will go forward with the comparatively staid "informal economy of China." Your outline looks ambitious. That's a good thing, if you're up to the task. At first glance, there are a couple categories that look like they may not belong or might be a little redundant (for instance, homelessness. I don't yet see the relevance, but maybe you know something I don't). One of the main tasks ahead of you will be to find reliable sources on this subject. If possible, look for some sources that provide surveys of the black market / underground economy of China as a whole. Books or reports of that nature are also useful in that they can assist in determining how much weight to assign to different topics. I don't want to make this sound too complicated, though. Start by writing the introduction. Use reliable sources to support the statements being made, then start populating the rest from there. It's okay to do things incrementally, and you make mistakes along the way, that's fine. Ping me when you need help / have questions. By the way, have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines yet? If not, they're worth a read. A daunting list can be found here,[3] but some of the main things to note are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR. The guideline WP:RS is also good. It is not mandatory that you read these before editing, but they are quite useful. Oh, and then there's this one WP:IAR ;) Homunculus (duihua) 01:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I myself realized I might be combining too many topics. Homelessness is strange I know but it is an unspoken about phenomenon that I think needs to be discussed. Maybe that could be a separate page. Because that really broke my heart while I was there and there not being any social security net made it worse. I am starting to realize most of the things I want to write about have a negative connotations or will illicit negative feelings and I'm having second and a half thoughts if I want to delve into such dark things. But I think they are important to modern China so I will likely still go ahead. I'll just have to temper those with contributions to more innocent things :-) Like this Gutter oil. This is my first full creation (without help) so when you have a minute please let me know how I did in terms of style, references,point of view and maybe if it sounds too journalistic or long-winded (I'm famous for that). I don't know you very well but I trust your opinion for some reason.Whoisgalt (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Gutter oil - yikes! Interesting topic, and a good start. The easiest way for me to give you style pointers is to make the changes myself. I hope that's alright. Do you know how to compare revisions to the pages to see what I've changed? You'll go into "View History" (here [4]), and use the buttons to compare different versions side-by-side. I'll get to a few things now...give me a minute. Homunculus (duihua) 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Made a few edits. I also left a note for you on the article talk page suggesting areas for further improvement. Homunculus (duihua) 03:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I learned how to compare changes about half-way through my wiki experience..And it's a very useful function. Now it's time to get to the nitty gritty, the non-exciting part of the article it seems. I don't mind you changing it because this is wiki afterall and my expertise and research capabilities are still somewhat limited. If I was a gutter oil expert I might be offended :-) All though I'm sure I've consumed it during my many years of eating at street vendor stalls $%&*#! While I'm a moderate Galt fan it is kind of cold so please call me by Scott. Not sure if this is normal on wiki but I don't care. I'll be bold like they say..heheWhoisgalt (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

After my recent and ongoing experience with gutter oil I've decided to break up and individualize my black market article. For one, it would be too intimidating to do a whole article and it would take months if not years. It also wouldn't give me any feelings of progress or satisfaction to keep me going each day. More importantly, it won't feel like I'm doing some kind of anti-china manifesto. Then I can switch between more positive and negative topics depending on my mood. My next one will be Homelessness in China if I can find the sources because I don't see anything devoted to that on the China project. 又感谢您的帮助Whoisgalt (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know if using reports from the MPAA on China and the U.S China business council (uschina.org) are considered objective or reputable? They've got some good stuff so thought I would check. ThanksWhoisgalt (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scott, I think Homelessness in China would be an excellent addition to the encyclopedia, and there is certainly precedent (ie. Homelessness in the United States, Homelessness in Japan, Homelessness in Canada, Homelessness in India, etc.) It might be helpful if you looked at these other articles as a guide. Also check out Poverty in China.
• By MPAA, is that the Motion Picture Association, or is there another acronym I'm not familiar with? If the former, I wouldn't consider it a great source for much, but it would really depend on the context in which it's being used. As to the U.S. China business council, there are some circumstances where it may be acceptable, but I would regard it with considerable caution. The USCBC is largely a lobbying group, and its goal is to promote trade policies that advance the interests of its member corporations. It does have a research arm that's a registered 501(c)6 organization, though I'm not familiar with the research products it produces. Again, much depends on the specific context.
• Can I ask—what are your main areas of interest with China, or your academic field of study? You are under no obligation to tell me. I'm just curious. Homunculus (duihua) 23:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can now call me by Scott or Dounai (my chinese nickname). Should I call you by Homunculus or can I call you Professor :-) ?

Thank you for actually breaking some kind of unspoken ice there seems to be on wiki for becoming personable with others. Or maybe it's like living in a big city where everyone somewhat justifiably keeps a little distance. Anyways, yeah I don't mind sharing things about myself. Like I said before I am an amateur hobbyist for now. I majored in china studies in college and then was planning on doing my masters in china studies. Then I got sidetracked (in a good way) working in China for 4 years but got hit with the bad economy. So now I'm trying to get my brain back in shape and ready to hopefully finally do my masters in china studies (pacific studies or a China focused MBA or a International policy/relations degree). Just trying to see if I still have what it takes to write papers, do research and to have the job of thinking. One can lose some mental confidence over the years when not thinking abstractly and not having to conceive of complicated ideas. I'm pretty much interested in everything about China as long as it relates to modern times. The older stuff just doesn't stimulate me that much. Years 49-78 I'm fairly interested and after 78 I'm really interested. Current day I am very very interested.Dounai (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm not a professor, so best not to call me that. Some editors have taken to calling me "Hom" or just "H", which you are welcome to use. I try to be friendly, but also mindful that Wikipedia is not a social network. An editor whom I respect once mentioned to me that he tried explicitly not to forge close personal relationships, as it could hinder his objectivity (for instance, during content disputes). I think there is great wisdom in this idea—the perils of cognitive filters are to be avoided. With all that said, it's nice to "meet" you, and really nice to see enthusiastic editors contributing in substantial ways to the China project. Let me know when you get going on homelessness. Homunculus (duihua) 03:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay good to explain the part about not becoming too personable. I realize it's not a social network I just had a different idea of wiki before I started editing. Now I know there is actually a reason for it instead of some kind of purposeful frigidness. Sorry about calling you professor I thought I read some where that you were a professor, my mistake; I will call you Hom then.

Yes I meant the Motion picture association. They have a country report regarding piracy that is very useful for my piracy/counterfeiting intended article. And since I also indirectly worked for them (it was contracted out so I was anonymous to them) on a project in China I thought I would have some good insight on the topic and would know if what they are saying is hooey or not. Since they do the research themselves how could I verify it though? Also there is a dearth of information (that I could find) of homelessness in china and I didn't realize there already was a "poverty in China" before bringing that up. I might just add to that one since I can't find much info.

Question about sources for you. What about using published symposiums from very professional organizations (not lobbyist or business types), are they okay? And do you know of any more sites like this Public periodical database? It is a think tank/periodical database that's open to the public and aggregates tons of articles. Because I'm really getting sick of only being able to find these "internet sources" that are only one page long. I really like periodicals,think tank and foundation articles as they are more specific and detailed..But also I can read about topics without having to spend the month it would take to read a book. Books are good too though if I'm really interested in the topic.Dounai (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Hom, when I read "my best wishes" it sounded like a farewell so just a misunderstanding. Anyways, thanks for getting me on the right track with the gutter oil..It's not a very important article but it's good practice for me in order to do more significant articles.Dounai (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point

Yes, indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, note that the term you probably meant is TLDR, as in, Too Long, Didn't Read. It seems you thought it to mean "Too Long to Read." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hom, not sure of the meaning of the stuff you wrote but it seems like you want it to be a farewell. So, Thanks for your help and giving me a good introduction to wikipedia. Besides Teahouse you were the only one to really be helpful and welcoming. Take careDounai (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all! But it's the weekend. Time to go sailing and stop thinking for a while. I'll be back to help you out more with whatever pages you're developing. Homunculus (duihua) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Homunculus. Yes, I agree that no one will read and assess AE request by The Sound and the Fury. You guys simply do not know how to prepare an AE request. Please read this example. Read not the comments, but the original request. It goes like this: a very short claim, diff, diff, diff. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I won't ever have to utilize this advice, but thanks.Homunculus (duihua) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you should. It follows exactly the same path. There is nothing new under the sun.My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The AE request was waaay too long. Just a few points here. One, I more or less decided to "pull out" from the FG content when it occurred to me that, unfortunately, there was on all sides too obvious of an attempt to get too much into too few articles. Secondly, and I say this with very serious reservations, some of the material I have read has led me to believe that perhaps a few Western governments are playing a bit more active of a role in the FG movement in its various forms than may in fact be acknowledged, and may have been doing so for some time now. As a citizen of the US, I am not sure that I want to stick myself into the middle of an international incident. Lastly, I do believe both FG and the PRC have been actively involved in the content for some time. Maybe others too - there's an old joke around here that the CIA provides some of our best editors regarding international matters. And today it is very easy to "stage" interviews and other press material. I have almost no doubt both sides have been very actively involved in spin control, almost maniacally perhaps.

Also, and this sounds strange even to me, it occurred to me that some of the material related to this subject is more universal than might be acknowledged by those who are heavily involved. I notice the "Encyclopedia of Religion" has a substantial article on "Play" and much of that material seems to me possibly directly relevant to all sorts of nonconformist behavior under repressive regimes. However, I'm not sure whether anyone has explicitly mentioned that directly regarding FG, and, even if they have, many editors might not catch the meaning. Partially for that reason, I am now primarily involved in trying to make sure that we have a solid a "foundation" for all religion related content, which might make it easier for all involved to develop all sort of related content. And, yeah, I do think that producing content which is supported by highly regarded external reference sources is probably the best way in general to go around here.

And, yeah, some of the old hands in FG have gotten a bit touchy as well. Understandably, I think. Very few people would gladly suffer Olaf's conduct for long, at least during the time since I started. I think that has to be taken into account as well. Colipon might be another matter, I don't know. And, yeah, God help us, I do think that many people think that one or more of the other editors involved are active PRC, FG, or other forms of plants. That kinda comes with the territory, I think. (I'm not one - I'm too pigheaded to fit in the government.)

In general, though, as a starting point, I think producing articles on the relevant books, particularly addressing their strengths and weaknesses, might be the best way to start. I'm hoping to get together a review article on the ER above myself over the next few days. Once we know what material from which books is counted as best, that will help a lot I think. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm not really comfortable talking on Wikipedia about my own opinions or knowledge on these matters (eg. the role of the CIA, or about the nature of cognitive biases that may influence western scholarship). I try to make a point of basing my on-Wikipedia comments on published reliable sources. With that said, I'm happy to discuss these things offline, and I might be able to shed some light on some of the points you've raised (or anything else). As an aside, some time ago I started working on an annotated bibliography on FG. Maybe someday I'll finish, and put it up as part of my user page or something.Homunculus (duihua) 00:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I comfortable in discussing my opinions here. And, for what it's worth, I think you will notice that I had earlier made a list of articles at the FG work group page, which I tried to make available to anyone who asked for them. I received few if any responses, and several clearly failed to assume good faith even of my attempt to do so. I do think that, in general, as I indicated there earlier, the best way to go is to maybe first start with the published materials, particularly the books, and look at the reviews for the perceived strengths and weaknesses of them. Doing so would significantly reduce the amount of disputation about the weight to give such material. I don't think I have yet seen anyone show any interest in doing so. The almost complete disregard for the Jennifer Zeng page, which I started as an attempt to get others to maybe edit other pages, shows this. This also causes me to question the motivation of some of the editors involved, particularly given the comparative lack of regard for anything but the controversial China-related content. The almost obsessive interest in promoting or denigrating the major players has, basically, caused me to basically think that my time might be better spent elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you referring to our conversation here[5]? I hope I wasn't one who assumed bad faith (I sure didn't mean to!) I found that conversation healthy, and actually did set about creating some of the pages you described (a couple are still in progress offline, as I'm compiling materials. You already commented on my work to Tuidang movement). Then it kind of petered off.

By the way, I can't remember if I asked you this before, but do you have any sources on FG refugees or asylum seekers (in particular, any statistical data)?Homunculus (duihua) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to you there, I think it was some of the other editors like HiG who indicated that they wanted me to post all the articles I was willing to e-mail people in a place everyone could see them, which I don't think the terms of JSTOR allow, and which showed at least to me a bit of a clear suspicion of others, not trusting that they would refer to them accurately. And, in general, I think you are probably one of the few who might not be driven about the "China controversy" matter. I honestly do think that the content would be more sympathetic to FG if there were more articles detailing the abuses of individuals in greater length. Certainly, from what I saw of the reviews of Zeng's book, there were a lot of them in her case. Unfortunately, the reviews don't provide any sort of chronology, so I would have trouble adding material on that basis alone.

I think Ownby mentioned someething about FG refugees and asylum seekers. Unfortunately, I also remember a case in I think the UK where I believe several gang members sought asylum as FG practicioners, and were later found to have lied on the applications about that. I seem to remember the lawyer being disbarred?, and indications that he might have done the same thing before with others. If true, that would raise questions about the validity of any such application numbers. But there have been a few books out since Ownby, and I can try to see if they have anything. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Phew, good to know ;) Yes, you're referring to snakehead gangs. That's part of the reason I ask. See Zujine's comment here, near the bottom. I tried researching it a while ago, found some isolated articles, but hoped for more. Same on the funding question. Send whatever you have my way. I'm off for today — thanks for breaking the ice (again). Homunculus (duihua) 19:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Falun Gong 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Homunculus. You have new messages at My very best wishes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have filed an AE request

To notify you: [6]. Colipon+(Talk) 15:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. "Beneath his unwavering adherence to civility, H is, in my view, a much greater threat to this encyclopedia than his predecessors." I like that (the civility part, not the threat bit). Though I'm not sure who my predecessors are supposed to be. Also, since you have opted to make this quite personal, I suppose you should start using the right pronoun (she). See you at Arbcom. Homunculus (duihua) 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My pronoun use was indeed incorrect, though there was no way for me to tell prior to your note above. I will begin to use 'she' from this point on. Also note my use of "in my view". I generally qualify the stronger opinions as coming out of my own mouth rather than citing a "reliable source"... Colipon+(Talk) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess my suggestion was already defeated. La Comédie humaine ... My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I saw your question. You and others have no obligation whatsoever to provide any evidence or make any comments on arbitration or other similar pages (AE,ANI,etc.). And remember that everything you say can and will be used against you (please check diffs used by arbitrator to justify sanctions in this case). My very best wishes (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Tsang

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Donald Tsang. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 16, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

question for you

I realized what I did..I thought a username "my best wishes" was a message from you..hehe...I'm not too bright sometimes...Anyways, I was thinking of doing an article "doing business in modern china" starting from 1978 until the present day; mostly focusing on present day methods, strategies, rules of thumb, rules, laws, investments. Particularly how business has evolved for foreigners investing and doing business in china. Does this sound too much like a thesis? I have ordered about 10 books on the subject and think I'll be able to do it in an objective and thorough way. But from your experience is this the kind of article that will survive deletion on wiki and one which others will collaborate on if I start it? Thanks muchDounai (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is bright all of the time. You're on a very steep learning curve that most people don't attempt to scale.

The idea as you've proposed it present some challenges. Wikipedia is not guidebook or instruction manual, so anything that is structured or presented as a "how-to" is a bit of a nonstarter. However, there are a number of existing article (including some very important but badly neglected ones) that are related to the topics you've proposed. If you're reading ten books on the subject, I'm sure you could offer valuable contributions to pages like Law of the People's Republic of China or Economy of the People's Republic of China, Banking in the People's Republic of China, Industrial espionage, History of trade of the People's Republic of China, etc. Is that helpful? Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that helps...I did have the feeling that it might be construed as a "guide" and that's what I myself am learning it for :-) But I will learn a lot of stuff that can be added to categories like you mentioned. I got that book you recommended "losing the new china"..Looks really good, like a personal expose of someone who has actually lived and worked in China and seen the many different sides...Any other ones like this that you really enjoyed and which brought light on otherwise untalked about subjects? Take careDounai (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that an article along the lines of Experiences of ex-patriots doing business in the People's Republic of China would not be out of place, would it? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ex-patriot?  ;) Still, I would say probably not. Homunculus (duihua) 18:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would want to do..but also include Hongkongers and Taiwanese...I will be going to school for this in about a year so I want to polish up on my business knowledge on China and I thought why not do it at the same time as wiki so I remember it and process it better...But I do agree with Hom, it would be hard to make it not a "guide".

Couple of books for anyone interested in the process of china going from a planned to a semi-capitalist economy from 79 until present...These were the books used in a college Chinese economics class so they are very good...First is "The China Miracle:Development strategy and economic reform" second is "Growing out of the plan:Chinese economic reform 1978-1993..They're not for beginners (like I was at that time) but they are very very good for people deeply interested in Chinese economics and its market.Dounai (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for Wikipedia to have an article about what foreigners (yes, expats) have written about the business environment in China for foreigners and the issues associated with foreigners trying to do business in the country. It would not be a guide. It would be a summary of the topic based on the information available. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I like your opinion soundandfury :-)..Because I really want to do it..I guess I will create an outline and see what it looks like..But I will keep Hom's thoughts in mind when doing the outline to make sure it doesn't become a guide. There are just tons of books out there about foreigners doing business in China that aren't really written as guides but more as biographies..But many of them are also guides for doing buiness. Hopefully it will be easy to distinguish them. I was thinking of doing regional sections too, about which geographical and industrial areas certain nationalities tend to invest in..ie, taiwanese, south koreans, hong kongers,japanese,americans..So that kind of thing would definitely not be a guide but more of an encyclopedia of business informationDounai (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott, you might also want to consider creating articles about the books themselves, or about their authors. I've done created a couple of these (Life and Death are Wearing Me Out and The Age of Openness). Let me know when you have an outline if you'd like me to offer more advice. Homunculus (duihua) 17:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea on that...So is it somewhat like a book report from our High school days? Just write the main points and describe what the book is about? That would be a great way to permanently digest the info and not forget it and also good for my studies. Then I could also book by book integrate that into existing articles or create new ones based on the topics. You're sharp Hom :-)Dounai (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I just checked out your book reviews. Could I do it much more in-depth going into each topic or even chapter? Or at least put several chapters together and organize them into sections/categories. I was thinking at least quadruple the size that you have...Really detailed and full...I wouldn't copy chapter by chapter to one category but reorganize things...Is this okay to do on wiki or will I have to be bold :-) ? Or are "book reports" frowned upon in this forum? Dounai (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling like my answers in this thread are disappointing. Take a look at this recommended template for non-fiction books, which might help answer your questions. This is still just a recommendation, of course. I've seen some articles that do read a bit like high school book reports, though that's not the approach I would adopt. I might draw conservatively from my own knowledge of the book and its arguments, and cite these statements to the book itself as a primary source, but this would be supplemented heavily with published, secondary-source book reviews. You might get a different answer from another editor, of course. ps, there is also a page on Chinese economic reform that you might want to help with.Homunculus (duihua) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're very helpful Hom...Don't worry I'm not relying on you too much I take others and myself into account as well...It's just that I'm new and semi-ignorant.. That Chinese economic one looks darn good. The two college books I have talk exactly about this topic from 79 until late 90's..Then I'll have to find different books for 2000's.. You're answers are not disappointing, I'm just anal and am obsessed with asking questions :-) And you're the only one that will answer them so I bug you a lot...Don't worry, I'm gaining some wiki confidence and knowledge so the questions will be lessening bit by bit..Dounai (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 evidence submissions

Please note this supplementary information regarding evidence submissions from drafting arbitrator Elen of the Roads. All parties submitting evidence are reminded that claims must be supported by diffs at all times. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why?

What would be the point of this? [7] What would it achieve? What are you concerned about specifically? I think that since arbitration is ongoing, everyone is going to be on their best behavior anyway, don't you? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I may have less faith than you that everyone is on their best behavior. People should adhere to the talking and editing policy regardless.Homunculus (duihua) 13:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

you have a message

Hello, Homunculus. You have new messages at Happy monsoon day's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Chongqing model

Hi, I just proposed Did You Know nomination for recently article you have created. Template:Did you know nominations/Chongqing model. Please help to solve problem that maybe raise there. Regards. *Annas* (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 evidence phase deadline

This is a reminder that all evidence in the Falung Gong 2 case should be submitted here by Saturday the 16th of June. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Your comment on evidence presented in the Falung Gong 2 arbitration case

You have commented on AgadaUrbanit's evidence on the associated talkpage. Firstly, I have requested that AgadaUrbanit refactor their evidence to focus purely on conduct, rather than content issues. Secondly, if you have comments about evidence, could you enter them as your own counter-evidence, and/or provide analysis of the evidence on the workshop page? Thanks --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Homunculus (duihua) 21:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You can not bypass space limitations by creating links to subpages in your user space according to existing rules. Make it short and place directly in Evidence section if that is what you want. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I'm already at my word limit in the evidence space. Other users also linked out to external evidence pages—either in their sandbox or to a 5,000-word AE against me that I didn't have an opportunity to respond to before it was closed. I guess I'll let the clerks or arbitrators decide on the propriety of this. It's just there for reference; no one has to read it. Thanks for the note. Homunculus (duihua) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental removal from noticeboard

In case you haven't checked back at my talk page where you asked about my removal of a claim made at the incidents noticeboard, it was a complete accident. As I was going to shut down the page, must have accidentally hit the rollback button as that page is on my watchlist and not noticed it. I have no interest or stake in the matter presented. Sorry! NJZombie (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A small note

Hi Homunculus. I'm very sad, because, truth be told, I actually agree with many of your personal views. For example, I am against the suppression of Falun Gong in China, I am against the regime's coercive 're-education' practices, I am critical of the CCP's ideological hypocrisy, and I particularly deteste Chinese censorship, which is counterproductive, stupid, and also a serious nuisance. I am also a believer in universal values and increased human rights, particularly for China's disaffected population. What made me disillusioned is that despite these personal beliefs of mine, many of which seem consistent with your own, I still find your editing patterns extremely politicized, disconcerting, and counter to the encyclopedia's goals. Even so, I wanted to avoid arbitration drama and kept my distance from Falun Gong; but I found Falun Gong-related edits on "Bo Xilai" to be the 'straw that broke the camel's back', and I am unable to continue to assume good faith under the weight of the circumstances. Those are my earnest views. You may not share them, and you are free to disagree by refuting any of my diffs, arguments, assertions, etc.

We can agree to disagree on certain things, but I think the discussion at ArbCom should be addressed to the Committee, and we should both do our best to avoid the pronoun "you". Regards, Colipon+(Talk) 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not know what my personal beliefs are. You have attempted—in an extremely conspiratorial and insulting manner—to divine what they are, but you don't know. I just try to write based on my reading of the best reliable sources. You have written in many forums that my edits are "disconcerting" and politicized, but have never actually demonstrated—not once—that they are inconsistent with the literature. I will avoid referring to "you" in future arbcom proceedings. I may also delete this note. Homunculus (duihua) 16:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking a page

You continue to amaze me with your conduct. First, you removed the deletion template which I had placed, which you are not supposed to do. You did this by blanking the page. I am sorry that after two years you still are unaware that when an editor blanks a page in their own userspace that is considered a request to have the page deleted.

I am sorry that you acted inappropriately by removing the deletion template. I am sorry that you blanked the page without understanding the consequences of same. And, yes, I am sorry that you seemingly still seek to act in the way you do. But, frankly, it is not my responsibility that you did not understand the consequences of your own blanking the page, particularly after I placed the deletion tag on it. You did see you were not supposed to remove that template, right? Or did you simply believe you were above that? In any event, the seventh basis for speedy deletion of a userpage is when one editor has requested it or blanked the page, as you had done. I acted in accord with the guidelines. You apparently did not understand what it was you were doing by blanking it. That however, is your responsibility, and your responsibility alone.

Frankly, this seems to me to be a continuation of the conduct that got you banned from the Falun Gong content. If you want it restored, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review or ask some other administrator, and, if it isn't asking too much of you, could you please try to get a basic grip on basic policies and guidelines, so that you do not continue to act in the ill-informed, possibly irrational, and prejudicial way you are seemingly still acting? I realize you seem to have a habit of trying to dodge responsibility for your actions, but in this case I do not see that I myself am obligated to restore a page you blanked after I had nominated it for deletion. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You placed an nomination for deletion tag on my sandbox, which contained my responses to an AE that was linked to in evidence for an ArbCom case. You did not notify me of this or explain the nature of your concern, as you were expected to do. (The instruction for administrators at WP:MfD states that "If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page." You did not do this, or engage with me in any way while before deleting my page).

I blanked the page, as my understanding is that evidence pages of that nature should either be courtesy blanked or deleted after arbitration proceedings end. I did not realize that I was not allowed to do this on a page within my own userspace. Nor am I aware of any policy or guideline that stipulates that blanking a page in one's own userspace was tantamount to a deletion request. (Update: having reviewed the relevant policy, I see now that your interpretation of G7 was wrong. G7 states "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request" (emphasis mine). Blanking a page in my own userspace is not the equivalent of a deletion request.)

In either event, you have deleted my sandbox, and rendered my evidence submission to ArbCom inaccessible to posterity. I will take up this issue with another admin.Homunculus (duihua) 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The page has been restored. I trust this won't happen again. Homunculus (duihua) 16:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Homunculus, if you were to make an effort to discern the facts of the case, you would note that in fact, as I told AlexandrDmitri, I had tried to list the MfD for several hours, getting a timeout error every time, for reasons I cannot explain. As I was unable to list the MfD on the page, or, for that matter, even get the subpage created, it did not make sense to do so. In any event, you have now had your page restored. I trust that you will make an effort to abide by the restgrictions and no longer continue to discuss FG related material, broadly construed. I regret that some freak of the system did not allow me to actually create the page for some three hours, despite my regularly trying to do so. And that in no way justifies your own conduct of removing the MfD template, by the way. In any event, I trust you will from this point forward abide by the ruling yourself, and refrain from further discussion, which, according to the ruling, includes your own user space. But, yes, you are right. I regret that my personal disgust for what I perceived as your arrogant pontificating and your regularly telling other editors what to do, and other violations of basic conduct guidelines brought my disregard for your conduct to the point of outright contempt, and my apologies for allowing my disgust for the arrogance I believed you displayed regularly to color my decisions. I do hope that, when and if you return to the topic, or I encounter you elsewhere, that I will not see the same behavior from you which led you to have the strongest sanction of all those involved in the ArbCom case. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. You inappropriately deleted an important page in my userspace—in the process violating WP:INVOLVED, the procedural guidelines at WP:MfD, and misinterpreting the the relevant criteria for speedy deletion. I left you a note explaining that I did not request for it to be deleted, and asked "could you please undo that action."[8] You responded with the comment above.

For the record, I did not receive the strongest sanction in the ArbCom case.

I am going to delete this thread, as the issue is resolved. I expect you will refrain from commenting on my talk page in this manner in the future. Homunculus (duihua) 23:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chongqing model

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What I think

[9]. There are wrong and right sides in many disputes, but an administrator must know the subject and be willing to spend a lot of time to make correct conclusion. They do not. All they can usually do is to check that there are two sides with opposite views who stuck in a long dispute. The solution is to ban them all for the sake of "fairness". Arguing with administrators (especially if you are right) only makes them to protect their views and to issue a more significant restriction to person(s) who argue. I saw it many times. For example, I received more significant sanctions because I argued about translation from Russian slang, even though I am a native speaker, but arbitrator was not. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a rather interesting process. In any case, I really do sympathize with the arbitrators—without thoroughly immersing themselves in the literature and really becoming familiar with the context, I think it can be very difficult to discern the correct approach. When I stop considering the implications for myself, I'm better able to recognize that this is difficult for them as well. Sometimes the only recourse is to take things more lightly, and then go and read the Apology, which serves to remind that worse things have befallen better people. Homunculus (duihua) 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw your recent questions. Please note the following. (1) FG was already under discretionary sanctions. MER means protecting all of you by Arbcom from more serious sanctions which could be issued by AE admins in the near future. (2) As worded, nothing probably prevents you from creating new articles. Just make sure to create good/final version of the article on your PC, not in your user space. (3) If you post suggested changes on article talk page and discuss them, nothing probably prevents third parties who are not under this editing restriction from making some compromise changes in the article (possibly based on your discussion), no matter if you agreed or not about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, this is a solution I'm fine with. I discuss most everything anyway, so while it may be an annoyance to be made to do this, it's not exactly overhauling my MO. All I've ever asked for on these pages was for editors to adhere to talking and editing policy and work based on a collegial, consensus-based model. So if people are made to do that—even if I'm made to do that—great. I'm a little concerned that the remedies don't address the behavioral issues that rendered this so difficult before, but since two of the parties have declared that they'll stop editing this space anyway, maybe the problem in that regard will also be mitigated. The real shame is that these proceedings seem to have a polarizing effect on people—people who had no previous animus or prejudice against each other. When I started editing these pages I wondered how it was that the battleground had been erected, and why generally reasonable and normal people seemed to view each other as adversaries. I'm starting to understand now how radicalization and entrenched animosity (or blind camaraderie) among editors occurs. I will try to resist its effects. Thanks again. Homunculus (duihua) 15:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice that arbs changed results at the last moment... Let's summarize. Not only this case was enormous waste of time, but it resulted in creating animosities and removal of two contributors, one of whom was most highly dedicated to the project and another who, unlike others, debated all content disagreements in the most civilized fashion. My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Chongqing Model subsection major addition

Dear Homunculus,

I added a large amount of text to the talk page of Chongqing Model about additions to the main article. Please let us discuss then and collaborate to make a good article with great cites. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a closer look when I have a little more time. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Homunculus,

I added the proposed text to the main artile space as discussed on the article's talk page. Also, I changed "red songs" to "singing red songs"(changhong) becasue the singing of that type of song is the action he promoted. Please see the cites. Please change or correct anything. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

your GAN Chongqing model

Hi,

This is an interesting and well written article. I've made a few comments about small points for you to address at Talk:Chongqing model/GA1

I look forward to passing the article.

MathewTownsend (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. When you recently edited Guangdong model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

request your opinion

Hi,

I recently reviewed your article Chongqing model for GA. I also reviewed fu (poetry). Both articles I thought were well done.

In the fu article, I suggested that the history be spun off, which was done: History of Fu Poetry. There was some disagreement from another editor about this:[10]

Would you be willing to look in on this and see if the spin off was done right. Also, do you know of editors who could advise the editor of fu, White whirlwind, on how to get the article to featured article status?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing the review, and for making it such a smooth process. I understand you're in the midst of a drive to clear up the GA nomination backlog—I'd like to help at some point, and hope I can call on you for second opinions on my first few reviews.

I'm more familiar with Tang, Song and Yuan-era poetry, but this is a good excuse to look into another style. I'm currently on the road and don't have much time, but when I get home I'll look through my Chinese poetry books. Hopefully I can offer some suggestions on the FA nomination and other questions. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 02:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
2. Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
3. At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
   1. Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
   2. Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
   3. When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
4. Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
5. Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
6. Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You are a great experienced editor to work with. I enjoyed working with you on the Chongqing model article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Chen Guangcheng

Hi there,

Just dropping by to say nice work expanding the early life at Chen Guangcheng in the GA  :) I've just spent a couple of hours having a google for much more in the way of early life sources and came up with almost nothing that isn't in article (although I'm limited to only english language sources) - any ideas where we might be able to find more? Fayedizard (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the literature on his early activism is, unfortunately, quite thin. I had to use LexisNexis to find what I did. There's a little more I could expand on based on those sources, but not too much. I can also do a search through Chinese-language sources and see what turns up, though I'm not super confident in my ability to find anything of value.

I think the major task ahead of us is still to clean up the recentism that occurred as the article was being written. I've volunteered to help with this before, but still haven't moved much on it yet. Maybe we could sort out some kind of division of labor? (Also, we might want to loop Khazar into this, though I understand he has real life priorities that take precedence.) Homunculus (duihua) 13:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fabulous - will go back and take another knock at the existing recent stuff. Thanks by the way for getting involved with this, I'm aware that the GA nomination might have come before some of you would normally have placed it :) Fayedizard (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Shifang protest

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

re

I see your point. However, given that the same user has been adding BLP-violating contents before (which resulted in his blocks and the protections of this page), and has been blocked by zh-wp admin because of the same reason as well as personal attacks, I don't think it's necessary to AGF. Besides, supposing you can read chinese, please have a look at his block log on zhwp.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is more likely a user who does not understand the relevant policies, rather than one who is deliberately trying to shirk them. In any event, it would be good if you could try to discuss the content issues at hand on the relevant talk page to see whether a compromise can be brokered.Homunculus (duihua) 15:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact other people has tried but utterly failed. He's been just accusing everyone of being a 50 Cent Party, including admins on en and zhwiki. He even said that User:TheSoundAndTheFury is User:Ohconfucius's sockpuppet (which is impossible and ridiculous from what I saw in WP:ARBFG2). If you are interested in communicating with him, you can try, but don't expect too much. And sorry I'm not interested in talking to someone who acted like red guards -- I'll just revert his edits instead.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arthur Waldron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Kennan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

• Mandated external review (MER) has been explicitly adopted as a form of discretionary sanctions. In brief, editors subject to MER are restricted from making more than minor changes to an article in the area of conflict without first gathering consensus on the article's talk page.
• Users Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and Colipon, who were subjected to MER in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2, may only appeal their sanctions to the Arbitration Committee. Editors who are sanctioned by individual administrators in the future may appeal the sanction as they would any discretionary sanction.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Archive 1

Archive 2