User talk:Instantnood/Archive 9

notifier Let me know if you have messages for me on any discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me on this page. Thanks. notifier                      to edit →

Hello. Enjoy the discussion.

/Archive 1 (January to March 2005, 58kb)
/Archive 2 (April to June 2005, 82kb)
/Archive 3 (July to September 2005, 73kb)
/Archive 4 (October to December 2005, 150kb)
/Archive 5 (January to March 2006, 78kb)
/Archive 6 (April to June 2006, 93kb)
/Archive 7 (July to September 2006, 51kb)
/Archive 8 (October to December 2006, 19kb)

Hong Kong politician/poli-bio stubs

Hi IN - not sure about overturning the decision - a better thing to do would probably be to redefine the stubs and propose something at WP:WSS/P that would be a bit more clear-cut - perhaps a Hong Kong colonial administrator stub or similar? The trouble with gov-bio is that it doesn't make it clear whether it's for current politicians or for former administrators. Also the numbers may be a problem, though no doubt you could hunt down a few more stubs somewhere. The other possibility would be to propose combining the politicians and others into "political administrators" or similar, which would cover pre- and post- 1997. It's more a case of re-scoping the categories than re-creating ones that are a little ambiguous and ill-defined. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The ill-defined bit was trying to express simply that a category is for "all people involved in politics who aren't politicians", especially when there's a certain amount of ambiguity likely as to whether a colonial administrator is a political appointment and therefore the administrator himself is a politician. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because it's more a specialist area for you than for your standard stub-sorter. Happy new year to you, too (either now or in mid February or both :) Grutness...wha? 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Countries of..." templates

Hi Instantnood,
What do you make of the examples here as a means for these types of templates to be named "Countries of..." but also include areas that are not described as countries...?  If you approve, I'll format the templates accordingly (and rename those still called "Countries and territories of..."). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They should be listed in the same way, with no discrimination. Although some of them are not sovereign states, they are all countries. Happy new year. :-) — Instantnood 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I reckon we should find out whether or not there's any consensus to support this (fortunately straightforward!) view; maybe a survey thrown open via the Village Pump in which folk are asked to identify which of a small, selected number of places they'd identify as countries, or maybe which of a number of groups of places included places that aren't countries... (Any ideas...?)  Thinking ahead, if, given a decent response (20+?), the survey indicated no consensus, would you accept the inclusion of places such as Hong Kong, Macau, Christmas Island etc etc in these "Countries of" templates but identified as "special administrative regions", "territories", "dependencies" etc etc...?  Have to go now, but will follow-up later; thanks in advance for your thoughts. David (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Re new year: I hope it will be happier for everyone!

The above situation is certainly not that straightforward, considering the major edit warring and content disputes going on at Template:Countries of Europe and related templates for countries. It is apparant many are indeed equating a country with an independent state, as per common English language usage around the world. Instantnood's actions are actually advancing his POV over this affair, and should be evaluated with caution.--Huaiwei 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I did this: listed the page at WP:RFC/HIST. I thought you might be interested in that fact. Hope that works for you. :D -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

Hey, the debate about having unrecognized countries on the list seems to have started up again. Mind having a look on the talk page? Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A request

Hi IN - I'm involved in a dispute with another user who has accused me of being an anti-Asian racist. As an Asian editor who has had frequent dealings with me over the years, I was hoping you might be able to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Yugayuga and make some comment, even if you agree with what he said. It would be good to have some input from other Asian editors of long standing. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yugayuga created a series of templates for Sri Lankan Tamil articles, none of which were usable for different reasons, and none of which would have got close to even twenty stubs, let alone the 60 we normally use for splits. I explained this to him and also commented that stubs were split by country, and not by individual races within a country. Next thing I know there's an Association of Members Advocates case going on, with Yugayuga accusihng me of racism because of this last point. I apologised for any perception that what I had said was in any way racist, adding that it was standard stub splitting practice as could be seen from looking at WP:WSS and WP:SFD's archives. Yugayuga said he accepted my apology but added that it proved I was a racist. Which is why i took him to RfC. In the end the RfC failed to get enough comments from people who tried to mediate (surprisingly the person who mediated at AMA didn't sign as a mediator :(, so it didn't get anywhere. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation of single party state

Greetings. After speaking to a party of this case, I think it has pretty much faded into the background. For that reason, I will be closing the mediation soon unless you have any opposition to this. If so, please drop me a talk page note. Thanks. —Xyrael / 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot Road

This article is up for deletion. Please help me improve it, or find someone who can. Thank you! Laura1822 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! Wish you all the best in the year of the pig. Wish you a year full of knowledge and energy. As nurtured as a pig, as content as a pig. Greetings from Hong Kong. --Deryck C. 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert, hello?

You've made close to 100 reverts in under 24 hours. I realize you've probably built up a lot of pent energy while being missing for the last several weeks, but try to slow down, ok? SchmuckyTheCat 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask ArbCom to put you on a 0RR provision. SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Instantnood_4... and go! SchmuckyTheCat 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

IN, you have always known my position. While I can see where you're coming from, some of them, like the addition of mainland at here is probably not necessary. Talk to me at my talk page if you want to discuss. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

{{China-road-stub}}

What're you up to here? You didn't participate in the discussion about this template, and at no point has anyone so much as suggested that "Mainland China" would be an appropriate scope for it. Alai 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted templates by definition don't have to be rescoped. It was created at with the scope discussed. It corresponds to the permcat with that scope. You are the one carrying out a unilateral rescoping. Alai 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me slowly how the scope of a deleted template is determinative of anything at all. Your "supposition" that it should have the same scope as the old template has no foundation, and your tactic of alleging lack of consensus as a pretext for continued reversion to a version you favour, without doing anything to help establish a consensus is extremely unhelpful. I put it to you once more that you're ignoring the scope of the permanent categories. Alai 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Hi. I saw your note on the Requests for Arbitration page. By creating the heading "statement by Instantnood" I was just doing a clerk-type edit creating your section of the case request. The format used is that each party puts his or her comments in a separate section. If you want, you can re-insert your comment and call your section "Comment from Instantnood" and make a note that your full statement will appear later or tomorrow or whatever. I was just following the arbitrators' wish to avoid threaded discussion on arbitration pages. Of course, if you think it's dispensible, that's fine too, or you can work the opinion you had there into your statement when you make it. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in the People's Republic of China

It might be better if you discussed your proposed changes to this article before applying them. Another editor and myself seem to disagree with them.--Daveswagon 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong category

It is noticed that it is not the mainland china,it is the PRC which incorporates Hong Kong and Macau.If the PRC category goes only mainland china,it's no use to put hong kong in them,but it is PRC.--Ksyrie 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

just find me some instances for the just created for mainland china?--Ksyrie 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

see here[1],where Necrothesp try to add hong kong one into category by countries.And I am just correct this mistake.--Ksyrie 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

keep the idea of sovereignty for a country,hong kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China not even a Dependent territory.If you favored your definition of country,try to change those Dependent territory first.--Ksyrie 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with confirming image caption

Hi IN - I'm hoping you can help me. About a year ago I scanned an image of an old Chinese coin into WP, which was identified by User:Carlsmith (at the time I had no knowledge of Chinese at all). I've just scanned a couple more old coins and - though I've now learnt a little Chinese - I'm still not convinced I've identified them correctly, and Carl seems to be only sporadically on WP these days. So... I was looking for someone with better knowledge of traditional Zhong-wen who might be able to swing by Image:Shunzhicoin.jpg and Image:Qianlongcoin.jpg to double-check that I haven't got them completely wrong. Please? :) Grutness...wha? 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) I've been sporadically learning a few Chinese characters (both new and traditional) over the last nine monts or so - I probably know about 1000-1200 of them now, plus a number of useful phrases. Of course, individual characters don't always help very much, but it's a start. I've concentrated on just being able to read rather than speak Chinese, because the local community has both Cantonese and Mandarin speakers, so being able to read is at least a step on the way to both. Also, my brain doesn't seem to be able to get the hang of all the tonal inflections! As for the china-geo-stub business, it's a mess I'd rather not get overly involved in again - I'll keep an eye on it though. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration enforcement filing

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Huaiwei and User:Instantnood. Alai 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are hereby page-banned under your "probation" remedy for disruptive editing from {{China-geo-stub}}, {{China-road-stub}} and {{China-struct-stub}}. Alai 17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks and Bans Imposed

Following a complaint at WP:AE documenting extensive edit warring between Instantnood and Huaiwei on various articles, the following remedies are enacted under the terms of their previous arbitration case. [2]

1. Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one month for persistent edit warring, violating his 1RR parole, and wikistalking of Huaiwei's edits.
2. Instantnood is banned from editing any category page related to China, including but not limited to its history, culture, territories and disputed territories.
3. Instantnood is banned from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. He may be blocked without further warning for up to a week for each violation.
4. Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one week for edit warring.
5. Huaiwei is also banned from editing any category page related to China, and from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. Huaiwei may be blocked for up to one week per violation without further warning. Thatcher131 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to disagree. User:SchmuckyTheCat presented only one side of the fact, and the fact he has presented is not entirely correct. I receive no notification to respond to his allegations, nor did the administrators conduct any further investigation in addition to what user:SchmuckyTheCat has presented. And, as a matter of fact, many of these warring wouldn't have taken place if user:SchmuckyTheCat did not start them. He brought up the troubles, then abused the AE mechanism to protect the modifications he has made to the entries. It's hard to imagine and accept that administrators with AE are not aware that AE has become a tool for such abuses. Even worse is that I am now barred from participating in talk pages (or other locations for discussions). If you only want to bar me from editing anything in the main, template and category namespaces, instead of all sort of participation on Wikipedia, you should have proposed it and let me know. Such a block helps nothing, and it's not gonna help Wikipedia. — Instantnood 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed nearly every article in the list provided by SchmuckyTheCat, and in almost every case you were edit warring with Huaiwei. Here, here, and here, for example, you revert category changes made by Huaiwei weeks before, having nothing to do with Schmucky. Here you carry on a crusade that is two years old [3]. You have been conducting a crusade over naming conventions related to China/PRC/mainland China for years; whenever you get banned from one page (such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)), you take it somewhere else (such as recent edit warring over categories). Enough already. Thatcher131 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. By saying " I reviewed nearly every article in the list provided by SchmuckyTheCat " it seems like you've taken no further steps to collect any more information to assist your decision. There was neither any notification to me to request for response. It is also pretty apparrent that the background of the dispute around all these cases user:SchmuckyTheCat presented was not considered. (For example, user:SchmuckyTheCat labelled the rail transport case as a two-year crusade, and you don't even recognise the fact that most of these similar articles by then were focusing only on the mainland of the PRC, and were having such a notice. You don't recognise, too, that the current focus of the article is still rail transport in mainland China.) Not even who first brought up the troubles to these pages was considered. I wonder if you have ever considered barring people only from the main, template and category namespaces. You doesn't seem to understand that how discussion is important on Wikipedia, and how the dispute involving user:Huaiwei, user:SchmuckyTheCat and I could be best resolved. As a matter of fact, I have been requesting them to keep everything according to status quo ante, and discuss. Yet all efforts have been in vain - they even label efforts to adhere to status quo ante edit warring and POV-pushing. — Instantnood 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Instantnood (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Detailed below

Decline reason:

You violated the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. If you want to appeal the provisions of that RfArb, I'd suggest emailing members of the arbitration committee. — alphachimp 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for the review. If you bother to take a look at what user:SchmuckyTheCat had selected to bring to AE, the way he presented it, and how the administrator who took user:SchmuckyTheCat's submission, it's pretty clear that some steps were missing. The decision to block was made based solely on user:SchmuckyTheCat selective submission. If one reads user:SchmuckyTheCat's recent edit history too (e.g. he tried to speedied two mainland China stub categories, and succeeded in one of them), it's obvious he is simply trying to have me disappeared, and muddle through with his agenda when I am absent. Even if he didn't have such intention, the effect is apparent.

As a matter of fact, I have spelt out clearly for many times that I won't make any provocative changes to all those entries with disputes, in order to discuss and resolve the matter, as long as user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei agree likewise. Nonetheless, it was they who never agree.. it was they who spread the dispute to more and more entries (articles, templates, categories, stub types) - that made so-called "warring" couldn't be paused.

Since many discussions have been started right after or shortly after I was blocked, and considering that it is neccessary for me to respond, I would like to request for permission to edit in the talk namespaces (and other locations where discussions take place). I won't make any major edit in the main, template and category namespaces during the block period. — Instantnood 11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop blaming everything on me. My "selective submission" was about 10% of your recent revert raid. In about three days you made about 200 reverts. That is revert warring! Stop it and the problem would not occur. Huaiwei is on similar probation to you, if he did something that was so offensive, you could have brought up an Arbitration Enforcement case - but you didn't. You revert warred on articles, over and over again.

You revert warred against me, Huaiwei, Alai, AlanMak, HongQiGong, and plenty of others. It's not a conspiracy of me, but I'm obviously willing to take up dispute resolution, particularly after the ArbCom cases are over and done with and you continue the exact same behavior.

The two stub categories were voted to be renamed in December. They were empty. Empty and orphaned stub categories with consensus to make them that way makes them speedy candidates. That it wasn't deleted before does not make it OK for you to single-handedly revert the December consensus and turn it back into a battleground.

"I won't make any provocative changes to all those entries with disputes" This is clearly untrue. Your discussions are so fraught with your restrictions on what things must look like during discussion that the discussion never starts. And once discussion does start, you never accept the results even when it is overwhelmingly against what you propose.

If you look at the restrictions I've proposed, it should be plainly obvious I have not asked for to have you disappeared as alleged. I didn't ask for a time based ban on your editing, I asked for page bans. At the ArbCom, I didn't ask for time based bans, I asked for a zero revert probation. I value your non-revert contributions. Your input in WP decisions, even though I usually disagree, is an interesting position. So stop with the blaming everything on SchmuckyTheCat. I've tried to salvage your editing ability out of overwhelming evidence that your behavior doesn't fit in with Wikipedia expectations, the rest is up to you. SchmuckyTheCat 17:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood, you truly need to learn something called self-control. You can't win every point in life, because nobody is 100% right. There is no one authoritative version for everything; that is why Wikipedia allows all articles to be mercilessly edited. If you can recognize that even if you feel wronged, you can control yourself and allow your ideas to be debated, you may be able to achieve more on Wikipedia. Learn to let things go - something that usually comes with maturity. Jsw663 18:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop editing as an IP. Respect your ban.

SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV

[[4]] - Privacy 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A message from Chinese Wikipedia

I confirm that you have more than 50 edits in Chinese Wikipedia, so your vote in zh:Category:中国大陆法律 is legal. Shizhao may be make mistake your are newcomer, because you sig in zhwp is interlinking to enwp. Thanks for your voting--Burning Flame 12:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

MFD

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Instantnood/Sandbox. Dragons flight 03:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

IN: Please reply here saying that it was you yourself making the edits to the sandbox, so that we know that it's not random IP editing them and vandalizing them. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)