User talk:NULL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:TechnoSymbiosis)
Jump to: navigation, search

Nice work on Fukuoka, Thank you.[edit]

No reply necessary. I like red links, at least on my own pages! --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Iyo-farm. The article is starting to look a lot better, I think. Keep up the good work. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads up as you've taken interest before, Macropneuma is back at Masanobu Fukuoka. --Iyo-farm (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on the article over the last month or two, thanks for the heads up. NULL talk
21:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

Thanks for giving your input. There is a follow-up question which you may wish to address. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Good Ol'factory. I've replied to the followup questions as best I can. I can't help establish notability for the site owner though, that's something you might need to help the other editor with. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Input on Commodore 128[edit]

Thanks for your input, TechnoSymbiosis - highly appreciated! -- Zac67 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem Zac. I hope it was of some help to you guys. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U on Paralympiakos‎[edit]

As an editor who has interacted with Paralympiakos‎ at the WikiProject Mixed martial arts, I would like to inform you that I have filled a request for comment on user conduct of Paralympiakos. You may read that RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paralympiakos and are welcome to comment on it as explained at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 once it has been certified. Jfgslo (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Roland Doe[edit]

What I want to know is why, though, when citing this, Roland Doe works but The Exorcism of Roland Doe obviously does not! (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) - a quote from Roland Doe discussion page, can you come over and answer that? It will help dummies like me, I tried citing it on Wikipedia one time under its new title, but only Roland Doe works. You'll see this under the newest discussion heading. THANKS! (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! - could you also explain how I can nominate this article? Or would you be willing to nominate it after a review? It requires cleaning up for appearance, clearly, but the content is splendid. Vespine deserves a great deal of credit for the advances in this article and its content. (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry! Stupid me ... I see Exorcism of Roland Doe is the answer. Feel foolish, very. Apologies. I'd still like a set of eyes on this for nomination, like the one that was awarded to Anna Anderson. (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Anna Anderson is a featured article, which has a very rigorous set of criteria to satisfy. If you're interested in climbing the ladder with Exorcism of Roland Doe, you'll want to start by looking at the Good Article criteria and working from there, then submitting it for assessment. I'll post this on the article talk as well since I don't know if you'll check here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

TechSym, I dropped in because I can be an oaf - I just wanted to ask whether you protected The Exorcism of Roland Doe. I ask this not knowing, but it angers me that these things are done and no one posts on the talk page. There's work yet to be done on that article, as you pointed out to me! By the way, before an admin hogged the credit for Anna Anderson, I am the one who wrote about 88% of that article as it stands! (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't protected the page, and it doesn't seem to be protected. Are you sure you can't edit it? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ross a question[edit]

Hi TechSym, I see you are at the Bob Ross page. Can you explain why the William "Bill" Alexander page would be deleted without further ado?

Ross basically stole Alexander's methods and even the equipment. Couldn't there be an Alexander page of some sort? I may have sufficient sources to do a skeletal outline of an article which would be better than nothing.

Not being a big-time editor, I do not know how we get photos or that type of thing ... but I think I can get Alexander's business to allow me to compose his bio and add info about his TV shows.

Will you reply at the talk page, Bob Ross discussion page? (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)



sorry, I have been consumed by other issues over the last few weeks and the whole quake/tsunami/nuke business has really shaken folk up, even though it did not directly effect us in Ehime.

I see the problem.

The only way forward I can suggest is choosing to take it all to the right place to put in a complaint. I remember when I looked last, it said we needed two people, well I am your number two.

From my point of view, this guy is an obsessive crank who is infatuated with Fukuoka and wants to turn the page back into his own personal website about the man. Great, he knows his details but he lack a simple, clear, perspective required to write a sufficiently good topic. There is no beating about the bush. I do not see why anyone needs to have to deal with that in a voluntary project. I am pretty sure that any sober individuals taking a look at his contributions on the talk page is going to see it straight away, and if they don't - and people like this are allowed to run amok - then the Wikipedia is doomed.

From my own point of view, I posted those photographs to prove what I said was true. My home is nearby, I have met the family, I am friends of friends, I have worked on the farm and if you want phone numbers to confirm it, I can give them. Of course, none of that is a "reliable source" but it does give a good foundation to keep matters grounded in reality. Take, for example, his re-write on the hill and pagoda. It is crap. The land is roped off and neglected. The buildings are falling down and composting. The family is sort of embarrassed by it and does not show it to strangers. The family don't follow his method any more.

Macropneuma is basically filling it full of the same unnecessary cruft, like multiple repetitions of Japanese alternatives "(shizen nōhō)" etc as it was before.

Where do we go and who do we have to speak to? He needs to be kept away from it.

I am in. Iyo-farm (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Which date/time is the best version in your opinion? Iyo-farm (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Iyo-farm. The article is in an interesting state at the moment, in my opinion. I think I've been able to ward against some of the more drastic edits that Macropneuma has been making, though the debates on the talk page have felt quite futile at times. I think the article at the moment is most definitely in the best basis state to improve from. I think the Chronology section should still be reworked into the main biography portion. The number of people listed as 'influenced' by Fukuoka should be cut down, which Macropneuma seems to agree with in edit summaries (but has not yet discussed on the talk page). I still dislike the way he's done side-by-side English and Japanese in the videos section as it isn't consistent with any other bio I've seen but I don't know enough about the material to make any meaningful changes to it.
I'm cautiously optimistic that Macropneuma might have toned down his aggressive editing over time in the face of persistent reasonable objection. I'd certainly advocate a diplomatic approach as much as possible, but it's important to also maintain the standards of the encyclopaedia. Both claims - yours and his - need sources to be included in the article, otherwise we have to resort to fairly bland obvious descriptions for things like the photos. I'm certainly curious to see where this article will go and I do think it needs more eyes on it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Could you please comment on the following:

RfC: Is Polukhov's statement worth being kept in the article?

Thanks in advance. -- Ashot  (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Luther" redirect move discussion re-opened at new page[edit]

I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NULL. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie 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—

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Persian dialects[edit]

Sorry, but see the article of Persian language, especially the section about the Persian dialects and varieties. The Tajik and Dari language also the (separate) dialects of the Persian. The facts are similar in the Slovene dialects: two dialects in the peripherial regions is territorial languages, Slovene sources from Prekmurje confirm this statement and also my studys from the University. Doncsecztalk 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NULL. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


He reverts it back to his previous version with the excessive "may" usage here, and ignores the three man consensus for Eomund's version. Pass a Method talk 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NULL. You have new messages at Worm That Turned's talk page.
Message added 13:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WormTT · (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please see my comments here for further information. Thanks, Swarm X 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. I've made one single revert to that page, per WP:BRD. How other people are treating the page is not my concern, and certainly not my responsibility. Thanks for looking into the matter though, I do think it could use some attention. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I completely understand if you didn't notice it, but the last sentence of the above warning directs you to an expanded explanation which should clarify things. Bottom line: the problem is a long-term edit war that I would advise you to stop taking part in (I assume it was completely unintentional). Swarm X 02:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate you bringing the edit war to my attention before I participate in it, I just think it's jumping the gun a little to give me a warning that I have already participated in it. It's just not my understanding of WP:EW that a single revert by a previously uninvolved editor could be construed as participating in edit warring. In any case, as you see I left a message on the talk page after my revert, and I'm more than happy to discuss the matter to come to a consensus. Congratulations on your new mop, by the way :) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the template message was probably not necessary, and due to the unique circumstances a hand-written notification would probably have been best, and it obviously created a misperception of my intentions, so I apologize for that. But seriously, don't take it as a hostile gesture, block threat, accusation of bad faith or anything like that; just take it as a friendly notification that you're inadvertently getting involved in something you may not be aware of (which, again, would have been better conveyed with a non-templated message). Thanks, Techno. Regards, Swarm X 03:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think you have to apologise, you just took me a little by surprise. It's not a big deal, and your intention was well received. Good luck, Swarm. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For saying what had to be said very well.. Crossmr (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory[edit]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

DJ OZMA[edit]

A new move request has been started suggesting that it be moved to "DJ Ozma". You are welcome to contribute, once more.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


At Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Move_request could you at least agree to get the island article out of the way? So in a first step the opinion that the island is the primary topic is downgraded. If you don't want to move the dab page, you could say so. Then Taiwan could become a redirect. And if at any point in the future a majority votes for ROC as primary it can be done very easily. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN mention[edit]

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.


I was asked to delete some redirects related to {{Rescue}}, so I just spent some time looking through its deletion debate, in which you commented about the blackout. Thank you for your words — they're exactly what I felt. I was gone for a few days at a place without Internet access and got back only to find that the encyclopedia was about to go down after a discussion that hadn't even really started when I left. Perhaps more than anything else, I'm bothered by the speed with which this was rammed through — the bigtime WP:POINT and WP:NPOV violations are huge, but those already happen systematically with some topics and I've learned to live with them; I've never seen anything happen like this, especially since we were so careful to add multiple days to the prescribed five-day PROD and AFD process for the sake of editors who can only edit on the weekends. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, I appreciate you saying such. I really do have deep concerns about the precedent that this protest has set, and the message that it has sent to every activist group out there who wouldn't have any qualms with manipulating the appearance of widespread support. If it only takes 1200 odd people to drastically impact Wikipedia like this, it really wouldn't be difficult for a group to set up a few hundred accounts, run them in a normalish fashion for a few months to give the illusion of legitimacy, then start a vote on whatever they felt like protesting.
But aside from that, what I really find unfortunate is the effect that Wikipedia's blackout has had on our reputation for neutrality. There have already been articles criticising Wikipedia for taking a side, questioning our ability to write neutrally about topics on the opposite side of the one we've taken. It took us years to build a reputation for usability amongst academics, and already I've heard professors saying that the protest is another nail in the coffin of Wikipedia's efforts to be regarded as a respectable publication.
And for what? To protest a bill that other high profile sites without such reputation concerns were protesting anyway? There was enough grass-roots opposition to the bills to cause them to fail without Wikipedia's participation anyway. We've sacrificed more than the people who wanted this blackout realise, and the real gain we achieved is hazy and questionable. Very sad. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing patterns[edit]

At a recent AN/I you commented "I think more than 35% odd combined article and article talk contributions would be less worrisome. " What is the nature of the "worry?" Is there an assumption that most "Wikipedia" edits are just participation in AN/I or some such site of bickering? Are we to avoid WP:AFD and Wikipedia:Reference desk? I wonder if there has been any broad discussion of what the pie chart should look like? My own pie chart at X!'s edit counter also shows a large percentage of edits outside articles and their talk pages, with about 29% at articles and talk pages and 52% at "Wikipedia." I note that if I am going along patrolling articles, and I find one which looks like it needs an AFD, nominating it for AFD adds one to the "Articles" total, one to user talk(to notify the article creator), and two to "Wikipedia" (The actual AFD and the AFD log.) If one participates in AFDs, the comments, "keeps" (often including the posting at AFD of references which can improve an article) or "deletes" only add to the "Wikipedia" total (thus "worrisome"). Ditto for answering questions at the Reference Desk. If an editor reverts vandalism and warns the vandal, there is one "User talk" edit along with the one "article" edit. Trying to achieve that goal of "lots of article and article talk" edits could mean avoiding AFD and Ref Desk, and avoiding warning vandals or PRODing and AFDing articles, while adding lots of comments on article talk pages. I'm not sure that really makes for a better Wikipedia. What do you think? Regards. Edison (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Edison! I'm in a hurry to get out the door but here's an initial reply. I think the bureaucratic pages of Wikipedia (yes, including the reference desk) have their uses and provide valuable services that are necessary for the smooth running of the encyclopedia, but as with any bureaucracy there's a real risk of that bureaucracy beginning to serve itself rather than the project. I think it was Oscar Wilde that said famously, "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". I wouldn't say that there's anything in particular the pie chart should look like - we are a volunteer project after all - but I think it's also important that we need to remember what the purpose of the project actually is. XFD, AN/*, etc. are all utilities to deal with the procedural underlay of what we're trying to accomplish. They exist to cater for the fact that the system is flawed. The risk comes in dedication to those areas for a few reasons. Firstly, spending too much time in the WP namespace means that one's breadth of experience is more limited - diversity comes from participating in everything, across the board, and diversity makes for a better contributor. Secondly, long-term consistent use of a system (like AN in particular) starts to make use of that system the purpose for some contributors being here. Continuing this when I get to work. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
So the noticeboards are basically a tool used to solve a problem (rather than to perform a task), with the problem being the flaws of the Wikipedia system. The correct way to use a problem-solving tool is 'when you need it'. You use a nail remover on a worksite when the problem of a misplaced or damaged nail arises, you don't use it all the time. If you make a problem-solving tool a person's raison d'être, you create a situation in which that person's objective is no longer the same as it was - in the worksite example, your worker's goal is no longer 'to build a house' but 'to remove nails'.
Those goals may align sometimes, but not always. Inevitably the real differences in those two goals become apparent. Your 'nail remover' worker might start removing nails that shouldn't really be removed because they're not completely perfect, and he thinks he's doing the right thing because he's lost sight of the bigger picture (to build a house) and has focused too intensely on the minutiae (to remove nails).
The noticeboards and the general bureaucratic elements of Wikipedia are the same. When people take on specialised tasks, they risk losing sight of the bigger picture in a well-intentioned, benevolent but nonetheless damaging way. You get people thinking they're helping when they're not, you get people trying to solve problems that aren't actually problems. The guy who focuses on wikilinking and goes around putting excessive links in articles or lawyering about the linking rules on particular words without taking the time to step back and ask why, or if it might really benefit the article even though it's 'technically wrong'. The guy who knows gardening inside out and writes really great gardening articles, but obsesses over little mistakes that don't matter in the grand scheme of things, and starts scaring people away from editing in that area because he comes across as elitist, possessive and aggressive. The guy who likes tagging articles with improvement templates, but ends up in edit wars with other editors who think he's being too liberal with their use. Bugs is one of these people. I'm sure he's well-intentioned but his nose has been against the canvas for so long he doesn't realise that he has lost sight of the painting as a whole. In fact, he seems to genuinely believe that what he's doing is for the greater good, just like the wikilinker thinks, just like the gardening expert thinks, just like the templater thinks. None of them can see that what they're doing is causing as many problems than it's solving.
The system underpinning the noticeboards, the way they're intended to work, doesn't really support the notion of a dedicated regular. The boards are at their best when they get a diversity of input from people who normally spend their time doing other things. They're at their worst when it's always the same people contributing, giving the same ingrained opinions all the time, with the same narrow-mindedness that comes from a lack of variety. It's really hard to encourage a consistently random flow of people through the noticeboards to achieve that sort of result, but at least you can get the input of people whose focus is on achieving things outside of the noticeboards, who spend their time gaining experience elsewhere so that they can share their insight when it's needed. You don't gain useful insight to share on the AN noticeboard from the AN noticeboard; when you try to do that, you end up recycling the same stuff over and over, and its quality degrades every time (like every time you photocopy a photocopy).
And that is where the toxic environment of AN/* is coming from at the moment, in my view. You've got 'photocopies of photocopies of photocopies' so much because certain regulars there don't have the diversity of experience to bring anything new to the boards, and the result is terrible quality, barely recognisable from the original and no longer in-line with the project's goals. The first step in actually fixing the noticeboards, in my opinion, is to kick out all of the regulars, get rid of all the 'bad photocopies' and bring in new views and opinions from people who don't (and won't) make the noticeboards their main purpose. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What I'm hearing is an assumption that "Wikipedia" edits are probably at noticeboards where people complain about other editors, like AN or AN/I. I have many times more edits at Ref Desk than at the AN/I and similar dramah boards. I do not see that Ref Desk is bureaucratic in the same way at all; it is simply the online version of a real life library reference desk, where people ask questions and (ideally) get referenced answers, with the offshoot of article improvement and article creation. You might find it worthwhile to look over some of the various ref desk topics that fall within your areas of interest. The mop and bucket work expected of admins, such as removing vandalism, also loads up the edit count with userpage and Wikipedia edits. Without AFD and other deletion processes, the quality of the encyclopedia would rapidly diminish, and it would be undistinguishable from Uncyclopedia, a mass of vandalized articles and vanispamcruftisements. If an editor has a few hundred edits, and wants to be selected as an admin or some such job, there might be more concern about whether they have breadth of experience than if they have many thousands of edits to articles, with references added where needed, and articles created when notable subject are found. When my RFA to become an admin took place, (approved 60 to 0) out of 12000 edits, only 31.8% were to articles and their talk pages, yet the support voters typically cited "strong project space edits" and also expressed approval of the AFD and Ref Desk contributions. Your comment at AN/I was the second such comment I have seen in recent weeks expressing disapproval of someone's pie chart. Has the philosophy shifted since 2007? Edison (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said, some of Wikipedia's bureaucracy is good/necessary/etc. (vandalism fighting, the XFD boards to an extent, etc.) and if there was a way to break down WP:useful-pages from WP:dramaboards in the soxred chart I'd be happy to make use of it. I'll point out that I'm not citing the chart and saying 'this is unacceptable', I'm citing it and saying 'this doesn't seem like the right distribution for someone doing what Bugs does'. My view was formed in combination of that chart, plus the 9500 odd ANI edits (triple that of the next highest non-bot contributor) and the general tone of Bugs' commentary that I've observed on ANI over the last few years of watching that board.
You mentioned the refereeing parent thing above (since refactored out), and if you'll allow me to reuse the pretty bad worksite analogy again, this could be likened to maintenance of the tools. Some maintenance is always required, but if you're finding yourself spending more time maintaining your tools than you are actually using them, it's probably time to look at getting better tools. The ANI side of the analogy would be to do a full revamp of the system.
One can have a good filter and never post things, or (almost as good) have a good redactor and remove thing better not said. Edison (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The refdesk is indeed a pretty benevolent WP:namespace board, I agree. But in a broader context, I'm not sure that people who dedicate themselves to that board to the detriment of the actual 'building' part of our project objective are the right people to be giving advice on the Wikipedia project as a whole. I'm sure that's going to sound insulting to someone that spends a lot of time at the refdesk and I want to assure you that it's not intended that way. I just think that the people best qualified to give advice, whether it be at the refdesk or at the admin noticeboards or anywhere else, are going to be the people with the broadest range of experience. You can't really get a feel for how the community works or what's acceptable and what's not from an article-building perspective, for instance, unless you're actually out there doing article-building.
The mop does encourage more WP:namespace edits, absolutely, and that's part of the job for admins. I am, however, a strong proponent that admins should be out there doing the same things they used to do before they got the bit: creating, editing and improving articles. Admins run the risk of falling into the same trap Bugs did if they focus too closely on the bureaucracy and the mechanics behind Wikipedia, and not enough on actually existing, living and breathing within the ecosystem itself.
I don't know if my comments reflect any particular shift or not, I can only speak for myself. I have some experience with the design and implementation of community governance systems at the small and medium levels (certainly nothing the size and unwieldiness of Wikipedia) so my views here come mostly from my (moderately useful) sense of what's likely to work and what isn't in trying to solve problems of this nature. Charts like Bugs' one kinda make me go 'ehhh...I'm not sure this is really a good thing' in part because the shift from productiveness to bureaucracy is something I've watched in-depth before and that chart registers in my mind as the top of the slippery slope. I don't know if I can explain it much better than that, but it does give me a bit of pause. I certainly don't suggest I know everything or that I'm even necessarily right, it's just the gut reaction that I have. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And I'll just add a short addendum here, I'm actually not happy about my own edit distribution on that chart either. I've allowed myself to get distracted by mechanics-based discussions which, while useful, should not be the main focus of my attention like they have been over the past few months. I need to get back to actually doing article-space edits. It's not that one can't do both, I just think one shouldn't focus for too long on any one thing. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If I can remember high school algebra, there was a "mixture problem" trick whereby one could determine how many main space Article edits (refraining from answering questions at Ref Desk, ignoring !=voting at AFD, ignoring dramah boards such as AN and AN/I, refraining from Speedy Deletes, from Prods, and creating from XFDs) I would have to do to raise the Article space component over 35% so as to be a worthy editor in the eyes of some. Edison (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not about worthiness and I don't think you should take the matter personally. In situations where an editor's conduct is called into question, it's not unreasonable to examine the broader context of their contributions to the project as a whole. In this case, an editor has a problem with excessive and often controversial contributions to ANI, and the surrounding context (triple the contributions of the next highest non-bot, 35% WP:namespace vs 35% article+articletalk, etc.) suggests to me, based on my own personal experience in other projects, that this is the beginning of a problem that will get much worse if it's not addressed now before it gains more momentum. Bugs' 'fingerprint' here is different from yours in a lot of ways (admin flag, ANI dominance, etc.); that you might have a common element in chart breakdown doesn't make any criticism of Bugs apply to you in the same way. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. Edison (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

none taken[edit]

I don't have a problem with getting heated when it's just about me. I do get riled up when it's someone else that's getting bullied. Thanks though.VolunteerMarek 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Well the comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, just trying to lighten the mood a bit. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Clear divide"[edit]

I think the official source cited [1] actually points us in the other direction: the use of "Taiwan" in the first line to refer to the scope of the elections (the island and its people) is opposed to "ROC Central Election Commission", the official political entity overseeing the election, which uses ROC in its name. Deryck C. 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice that "Taiwan is a respectful country in the world" and "North Korea and Taiwan are the only nations that have not participated" both allude to a divorce of the country / nation from the political entity that represents it. In fact, the example "as the elected president of the Republic of China, I will continue to strive toward forging Taiwan into an exemplary democracy" makes it very clear that in official usage, "Taiwan" is used when only the territories and people are concerned, and ROC is used to refer to any official title, especially ones pertaining to the fact that ROC claims to be more than Taiwan. One must read such quotations with the historical context of the words in mind, rather than making sweeping generalisations based on WP:Recentism. Deryck C. 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I caused confusion - no, it's not a divorce of the political country Taiwan from ROC. It is a divorce of the country / nation (with geographical and population, rather than political, boundaries) from the political state that currently represents it. The separation between the country and the political entity is what the current state of the articles represent, and the move proposal isn't what you're describing. The proposed move chain is Taiwan -> Taiwan (island), ROC -> Taiwan, which is a marrying of the country with its political entity, and a subsequent divorce of the physical island from the people living on it. Deryck C. 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation certification[edit]

This message confirms that I am the owner of the NULL global account, and that I am seeking to usurp local accounts named NULL on arwiki, commonswiki, dawiki, frwikibooks, thwiki and zhwiki projects. NULL (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done on frwikibooks -- ◄ David L • discuter ► 23:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done on dawiki by da:User:Kaare. NULL talk
22:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done on thwiki --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done on arwiki and zhwiki by respective bureaucrats. NULL talk
00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC) usurp[edit]

Hello NULL , sure you can take this name , but please make a request here Mohamed Ouda (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Hello Null. Regarding [2], I'm not evading any ban. I am interested to know why you deleted my comment at 08:55, 13 March 2012, and modified another comment of mine with the 21:41, 10 March 2012 timestamp. You also altered HiLo48's comment. It was his intention to have a separate section header.[3][4] I hope your act can stick with your instructions to me. (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your first question was answered on your talk page. The edits made by that IP address were determined to belong to a block-evading editor. You must appeal that finding before the comments can be restored. Regarding HiLo48's edit, he's an experienced editor. If he intended a section header then he would have written one, and he's perfectly capable of altering his own comments if he feels he made a mistake. Given you were blocked previously for altering the comments of other editors, you most certainly should not be doing so again. NULL talk
09:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"The edits made by that IP address were determined to belong to a block-evading editor. You must appeal that finding before the comments can be restored." I'm afraid I'm talking specifically about my comments at 08:55, 13 March 2012 and 21:41, 10 March 2012. Regarding HiLo48's section header, he never removed the equal signs himself. It was Mlm42 who did it. Once again, please stick with what you lectured me. Thanks. (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed he did. Mlm42 did so to remove the section from the table of contents, in an effort to reduce the excess heat developing on the page, and I agree with his decision. There's no benefit in advertising a highly aggressive discussion in the table of contents itself, if people want to read it they can find it in the collapsed box. Given you object, I'll restore the section headers and move it to discussion, where I imagine your view will be unsupported by consensus. NULL talk
09:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he did as far as I've read. What about my comments at 08:55, 13 March 2012 and 21:41, 10 March 2012? You didn't even respond to that. (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll respond when I'm done with your last request. Part of the reason your contributions to the discussion are considered excessive is because you wikt:filibuster and create large numbers of edits and rhetoric that takes time to filter through. You're aware of this because you've been asked in the past to try to cut down on it. If you choose not to, then you can choose to wait for people to read what you've written, consider it appropriately and act accordingly. NULL talk
09:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a general problem with this particular talk page. The same commonname, contentfork and Iceland-Cuba-Madagascar arguments were brought up again and again, for example. They contributed large numbers of edits and rhetoric too. Paradoxically only IP editors were blamed for this. (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
'Other people are doing it too' has never been a valid explanation of one's own behaviour. NULL talk
10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the two edits that were removed, you made alterations to discussion contained within a collapse box. You typically should not continue conversation in an area collapsed in such a way, but that being said the removal of your two comments was an oversight, not a deliberate act. I see you've restored them, so no further action appears necessary. NULL talk
10:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a valid explanation, but it's natural for heated debates like this to end up like this since there are too many people participating and very often people of both sides have to clarify themselves again and again to go onto the next points. You are indeed attempting to get into a slippery slope here, Null. You first alleged me for burying my edits with changes to other people's comments. When you're told I didn't, you changed your stance and accused me for filibustering. Regarding the two comments, I disagreed with such an extensive collapse box. I tried to reduce its coverage so that the noteworthy and non-heated part can be displayed. You simply ignored it and didn't even bother to explain. (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You have been filibustering, and I stand by that remark. You did bury your edit with changes to other people's comments, as I've demonstrated on your talk page. My stance has not changed. NULL talk
10:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright please don't filibuster on your own and on my user talk page. (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I provided a link to wiktionary for the term 'filibuster' above, you may like to consult it before misusing it in a sentence as you have. There's nothing delaying nor long about my comments here or on your talk page. If you'd like to focus discussion on just one of the two pages, then state as much and concentrate your replies on that page. NULL talk
10:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine if you choose not to admit it. But please don't allege me for misusing this word. Thanks. Jeffrey ( (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to admit. There's nothing in the definition of filibuster that applies to any of my commentary thus far. My responses to you have all been reasonably concise and to the point. NULL talk
11:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Usurp request at[edit]

Hi. You can make request at this page th:วิกิพีเดีย:เปลี่ยนชื่อผู้ใช้ for all rename and usurp requests. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Fitzpatrick etc.[edit]

Having seen this exchange I gave up any hope that the dispute can be mediated. Unfortunately the Greater China coverage and debates here are becoming more and more like that of the Chinese Wikipedia where stakeholders are divided into factions who refuse to talk to each other. Worse, everyone assumes bad faith in their counterparts, sees the speck in others' eyes but have no idea about the plank in their own eyes. Deryck C. 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Demographics of China[edit]

The reversion of the HIV/AIDS in China was an oversight by me. However, the bolded text in lead sections do not have to be identical to the article title. I see no harm in the long form. The move of the countries template has no bearing on this issue as WP:COMMONNAME (and its underlying rationale) deals with article titles, not article text. Just because the countries template has been moved does not mean that every instance of "People's Republic of China" should be rendered as "China". This is a point made in the draft decision for the Taiwan move.

I don't see how this edit is an improvement. The disambiguation is across historical periods. "People's Republic of China" represents an existing polity while "Republic of China" represents a historical period. Suggesting that "China" and "Republic of China" are separate concepts is just plain confusing. What purpose does shortening "People's Republic of China" to "China" serve there? I thought we agreed not to change these terms around unless there is a good reason to.--Jiang (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly confusing about 'China' and 'Republic of China' written together. Note the main article is at Special Administrative Region (China), not 'People's Republic of China'. NULL talk
05:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Under the Republic of China, special administrative region refers to a division that existed in mainland China only. I don't see how the recent move proposal is even relevant here. Taiwan is not relevant here. Even if it were relevant, the pending decision explicitly refuses to comment on similarly named articles, so the conclusion that we should go around pairing "China" and "Taiwan" does not exist there, and explicitly does not exist under the Manual of Style.--Jiang (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, I am responsible for the current article title. The reason I did not move the article to Special administrative region (People's Republic of China) is because the article serves as a primary topic. Disambiguation parentheticals should be a short as unambiguously possible. This has nothing to do with the recent article moves. Special administrative region (Republic of China) would fall under the title Special administrative region (China) and should be linked at the top of the article as disambiguation. But if we were strictly comparing the two articles, the long form is needed to distinguish them. (Yes, it's confusing, because it suggests that the Republic of China is not China.)--Jiang (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Republic of China isn't China in the English vernacular though. As for the SAR articles, Special administrative region (Republic of China) is a stub about divisions that don't exist any more since they've all been migrated to provinces. I'm not convinced there's enough material or difference in subject to justify a separate article. I think a better solution would be to merge it into Special administrative region (China), have that article discuss the special administrative regions of both governments (eg. 'In <1949, the Republic of China made these SARs. Later in >1949 the People's Republic of China made these SARs' or whatever timeline it happens to be). Then the article could be moved to simply Special administrative region as primary topic, with a hatnote about the Korean SARs. The separation into PRC and ROC articles is arbitrary, given both were implemented from almost identical blueprints, so to speak, and the only functional separation of the two is they were made by different governments within (what was at the time) the same country. NULL talk
05:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Republic of China is China in the English vernacular as much as People's Republic of China is. We are not speaking of the present tense, but about the period of time before the PRC's founding. Special administrative region (Republic of China) needs to exist as a separate article because they exist very differently in administrative form than the existing SARs. The existing SARs function with a degree of autonomy that was not experienced by the ROC SARs. Having a common name does not justify unifying these two into the same article. There is no historical continuity or political resemblance. Can you elaborate on how "both were implemented from almost identical blueprints"? It's hard for me to conceive that the Beiyang Government wanted to establish enclaves to allow the capitalist system to be practiced while the rest of the rest of would be socialist. The Communist Party didn't even exist yet!
I think Special administrative region (China) should be moved to Special administrative region as the primary topic with a hatnote about both the ROC and DPRK SARs.--Jiang (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
My source on the SAR comparison was a Chinese history lecturer friend of mine at Sydney University that I'd asked a cursory question of, but unfortunately I can't get in touch with her in the last day to get any more details. I suspect what she was referring to was the original purpose of the SARs at their respective establishments, particularly with respect to (semi-)autonomous governance; something that may have shifted over time. Without more info I won't advance the suggestion any further. That said, I agree with you that China's SARs are the primary topic and the (China) suffix should be dropped for that article. NULL talk
19:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello NULL. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia resolution on controversial images[edit]

You're the only person commenting at the Muhammad images RfC that has grasped the above, as far as I can tell. I appreciate your sensible contributions there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I find that whole RFC disappointing. Editors seem more interested in saying 'fuck you I'll do what I want' instead of just being respectful. Very sad. NULL talk
06:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm speaking out loudly and clearly on every appropriate occasion against the ethos here. It is presently a generally accepted norm that offensiveness doesn't matter - to the reader, the subject or other editors. I think it's due to the likely higher preponderance of social misfits in any internet community. But that ethos is repelling people of normal sensibility, and responsible for the relative absence of scholars, so it must be addressed if this place is to fulfill its potential. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

JF and Instantnood[edit]

Hello NULL. I was looking over WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood and observe that you've previously submitted material to that case. From the March 2012 discussion, it looks as though the SPI clerk was not convinced that the editors from 202.189.* were the same as Instantnood. On behavior there is no problem identifying with Jeffrey Fitzpatrick. The hard part is showing Instantnood-like behavior from JF. Do you have any ideas? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed opinions, to be honest. Jeffrey is definitely a 202.189 address, so there's a definite connection that he's been blocked for disruptive behaviour in the past. I wasn't around for the Instantnood drama so I'm not sure on behavioural terms what similarities there are without going back through Instantnood's edit history for comparison. What we know thus far is that they're both from Hong Kong, they're both disruptive in the ROC/PRC area and they both have similar or identical political outlooks. They also both use the same ISPs. It's a lot of circumstantial evidence that will require some more in depth investigation but I don't have time to look into that right now. I'd say I've got Jeffrey's profile down pretty well so when I get some time I'll compare with Instantnood and see what I can come up with. In the meantime though, Jeffrey has certainly been disruptive in his own right and any comparisons with Instantnood shouldn't stop us from dealing with the present issue. NULL talk
04:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The answer is probably yes. It's not just the focus on PRC/ROC but within that a focus on presentation issues. The grammar usage is correct too, as is quibbling about minutae and filibustering. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Okay, well here's a first pass analysis. There are 48 pages of overlap between Instantnood and Jeffrey Fitzpatrick, meaning both of them have edited the same page. Excluding the Wikipedia and User_talk namespaces, this breaks down as follows. Jeffrey has edited:

  • 88 articles (29 overlap)
  • 22 talk pages (8 overlap)
  • 17 categories (3 overlap)
  • 4 templates (1 overlap)

In total, out of these four namespaces Jeffrey has edited 131 distinct pages, of which 41 overlap with Instantnood's edits. This gives an overlap of 31%. This seems high.

Individual analysis of some of the overlapping pages shows some very similar edits between the two editors:

  • At Highway system in Taiwan:
    • Jeffrey
    • Instantnood
    • Both editors object to use of the term 'Taiwan' to refer to the country. Instantnood proposes a rename of the article, while Jeffrey changes the link to the 'Taiwan (island)' article instead.
  • On creating articles on Hong Kong cable cars:
    • Ocean Park Cable Car, created by Jeffrey
    • Ngong Ping 360, created by Instantnood
    • Both editors have edited Hong Kong cable car articles, and both have specifically created Hong Kong cable car articles.

Other circumstantial similarities exist.

  • Jeffrey investigates why the Aland Islands are not included in the list of countries by area [5]. Previously, Instantnood had responded to a comment by another user explaining that the Aland Islands can't be classified as a country because they're a dependent territory [6].
  • Jeffrey seems to obsess over restoring struck comments that were made inappropriately, both on his account and on his IP address. Instantnood also had this behaviour, unstriking an improper duplicate vote here.
  • Instantnood made heavy use of bracketed 'reply to X' prefixes on some of his replies [7][8][9]. Jeffrey continued this trend at the bottom of this diff.
  • Instantnood made use of cite tags as anchors to his own comments so that he could refer back to them with #anchor links [10]. Jeffrey has made use of the {{anchor}} template instead [11]
  • Instantnood made several edits solely to correct the chronological order of a talk page [12][13]. Jeffrey also seems to have this obsession, both on his IP address (which was ultimately blocked for talk page refactoring) and his account.

We know that Jeffrey and Instantnood are both from Hong Kong. We know that they have edited from the same IP ranges in the past. We know that they both hold identical strong political views. We know they both have a marked interest in working on Taiwan articles. Their mannerisms, method of argument and WP:IDHT mentality are very similar to each other. They both refused to acknowledge when they're in the wrong and continued to edit disruptively in pursuit of their particular WP:POINT. They both showed signs of attempting to WP:GAME the system to support their cause, whether it be to avoid scrutiny or to cry foul when someone objected to their edits. These, combined with what I consider to be highly suggestive evidence above, leads me to believe there is a strong chance Jeffrey is Instantnood.

So the question then is, where do we go from here? NULL talk
09:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is very thorough. Your material is good enough to present in the sock case, in my opinion. The creation of articles on Hong Kong cable car lines is significant. Was JF active at the same time as any other Instantnood socks? Do you see them joining in the same edit war, for example? Perhaps you have time to ask one of the previous submitters to the Instantnood case for their opinion. For example, User:Mlm42. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
No, Jeffrey was created recently in response to his IP address being range blocked. That IP range block will need to be noted in an SPI since he'll no doubt try to return to using it if his account is blocked. I haven't compared with the other socks, the list of involved articles is fairly extensive and looking into a disruptive editor's history wasn't exactly the ideal way to spend a Monday night. Should I create an SPI case with this evidence, then? NULL talk
20:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually reached the gondola lift categories when I read about the Maokong Gondola in Taipei. From there I reached Category:Gondola lifts in Taiwan, then I went to Category:Gondola lifts in China. I found it funny that the category got only one Hong Kong system under it. I therefore moved it to Category:Gondola lifts in Hong Kong, created the category, and requested the China category for speedy deletion. Then I proceeded to create Ocean Park Cable Car by translation from Chinese Wikipedia, since the Ocean Park system is much older than, and at least as notable as Ngong Ping. I didn't even know the Ngong Ping article was created by Instantnood (possibly before Ngong Ping's opening!). Maokong was in fact the very first article about gondola lifts that I read on Wikipedia. Jeffrey (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the time to go through all the findings although they're interesting, amusing and fascinating. I suppose I got similar background with Instantnood and therefore we share similar views, just as Null and Schmucky do (they almost always vote in the same way). Anyhow I do find some mistakes in Null's findings. For instance, I learnt from others at Talk:Republic of China to use brackets to address a particular piece of comment. By then I didn't even know who Instantnood was. And I learnt the {{anchor}} tag recently from other editors too (I used to quote timestamps instead). For the demographics article, I was only acting to revert an edit made by Shrigley two days earlier.[14] For special administrative region, the word region, as opposed to division, is the actual word used in both basic laws. I don't think Instantnood had used that word in the diff links Null produced above. On the other hand, I've also found that Null and Schmucky got 65 pages of overlap.[15] Are they socks of each other? Jeffrey (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. My own view is that Instantnood was banned long enough ago that blocking Jeffrey for socking would be constantly questioned. On the other hand, if Jeffrey's own behaviour is disruptive, he should be blocked for that. If he ends up blocked and if socking starts, those socks can be blocked fairly uncontroversially at SPI. wctaiwan (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I advocated blocking Jeffrey on his own disruptive behaviour, evidenced by two edit warring reports at WP:AN3. He has already been blocked once on his IP address and once on his current account, both times for disruptive editing, and he resumed that same conduct after his block expired. It was suggested to me by a few editors that there was probably enough evidence to start an SPI case, so I've done that as well to cover bases.
I'm of the view that blocking him now for his current misconduct is the more appropriate step, and then if the SPI case determines a match, the block can be extended at the discretion of the assessing administrators. What matters at the moment is that there is clear, ongoing and increasing disruption from Jeffrey that needs to be dealt with whether he's a sock of Instantnood or not. NULL talk
03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. My main concern is that if his current disruption rises to the level of blocking, but a block ends up being enacted on the grounds of socking, the lack of technical evidence would make it possible for him to return in the future denying to be Instantnood, and starting the whole pattern of disruption again. wctaiwan (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm of the same thought, but unfortunately the AN3 report has been open for days and no admin seems to want to touch it. The admin who blocked him previously, EdJohnston, left his recommendation but recused himself and nobody else has stepped up. NULL talk
03:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bauhinia Foundation[edit]

"Article describes them as advocates of policy to the administration. This is the definition of a pressure group."[16] It doesn't identify itself with a particular policy ideology nor does it seek to influence public opinion. Its motives isn't based upon any shared political, faith, moral or commercial position. It's only a thinktank or a policy research institute. It isn't like other pressure groups in Hong Kong. Jeffrey (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Advocacy groups (also pressure groups, lobby groups and some interest groups and special interest groups) use various forms of advocacy to influence public opinion and/or policy", from Pressure group. They don't need to have an ideology, they simply have to use advocacy to influence policy, which they do. NULL talk
05:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Birth control in China[edit]

"Spans prior to creation of PRC" [17] All articles under this category are about topics after 1949. Although Ma Yinchu was born before 1949, his involvement in population policy was all after that year. The One-Child Policy was introduced in 1978. Both Heihaizi and Iron Fist Campaign are about the One-Child Policy. If it does span prior to the creation of the PRC, could you please elaborate? Thanks. Jeffrey (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two reasons China is more appropriate than PRC on that category. One, the bulk of Ma Yinchu's biography is set prior to 1949, particularly regarding his conflict with the KMT and his three year house arrest. His history and influence span China both before and after 1949. His paper was about the population of the country of China, independently of who ran it at the time, and advocated policy to control population to prevent a crisis. Which leads to reason two, China is the name of the country, both now and then, in English. Using the terms PRC and ROC are quite reasonable in context of politics and their respective governments, but China and Taiwan (the common names of each country in English) should be used in cases where the political distinction between the governments isn't necessary. On the topic of 'health in China', the distinction between the PRC government and the ROC government in control of mainland Chinese territory makes no difference to understanding the topic or finding related articles. If we were talking about a list of Presidents, sure, but health is not a sufficiently politicised topic to justify the distinction. NULL talk
22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The bulk on Ma's life prior to 1949 is irrelevant to birth control. In English 'China' wasn't the common name of the country except for the last decade of Ma's lifetime. Jeffrey (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Trial of Xiao Zhen[edit]

I'm afraid I have to undo your revert.[18] May I hear from you about the reason why you reverted my edit? Jeffrey (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Scouting in China RM[edit]

Null, I am reluctant to provide my rationale here because you (and others) probably won't like it. Yet, I will do so because you asked. Above all it was clear to me that there was no concensus to move to the suggested title among the participants. Additionally, no one for or against provided policy based arguments. The support arguments clung to the notion that the inclusion of Hong Kong and Macau in the content demanded a different name. If that content was removed, then would a new name be appropriate? The conflict between China, PRC, ROC and Taiwan nomenclature is complicated but recent RM decisions aren't binding on future and other RMs. WP:PRECEDENT. Thus, my decision was not to move the title based on the discussion as presented. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't wikilink to a policy but I believe I did give a policy-based argument when I supported 'based on consistency both with other similar articles and with the present country article at China'. To be more specific, this is one of the items at WP:CRITERIA, 'Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles'. The article Scouting and Guiding in Mainland China is the country-specific article for China (previously listed as PRC in the navbox but still referenced by country) in a series of 'Scouting and Guiding in X' articles and is referenced as such in articles and navboxes (such as {{Scout continent/Asia}}). I don't mind if I disagree with your rationale, I'm just unclear on what factor overrides our naming policy in this instance. I'd like to avoid making futile requests in future based on something I've misunderstood here. NULL talk
23:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
re: Policy based reasoning: This may have been a little too aggressive in moving everything to the Manual of Style from out of the naming conventions. Because in this case, the bullet item about the use of "mainland China" is useful advice to the title. Since the scouting article is standalone, and not being used in contrast, the term shouldn't be used. As far as I know, this is the only remnant article that still uses mainland China in the title anywhere in the project. It's archaic. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No worries[edit]

Don't worry about the duplicate ANI thing -- you were obviously editing in good faith; just wanted the conversation going forward to be easier to follow. Nobody Ent 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

RM at Bollinger Bands[edit]

Since you participated before, be aware that I am trying again to move this to lowercase bands. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


Please specify your stance. How are you defining a "support vote" and what leads you to believe my RfC was such? Zepppep (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your close rationale expressed your own opinion on the question without addressing consensus. This is called a supervote, and it's almost always grounds for an overturn on review if an admin does it. The role of the RFC closer is to assess consensus among the responses provided by participants independently of their own opinion. Your closure didn't address any of the substance or points other people raised and ignored the nuances actually being discussed. For example, participants had discussed whether quotation marks should be used or not on each term, while your response simply said 'both or none'. Lastly, the RFC hasn't yet run its 30 days and it should be left to do so before an attempt to close is made. NULL talk
05:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I can respect your opinion. Re: "Your closure didn't address any of the substance or points other people raised and ignored the nuances actually being discussed." I addressed the quotations and didn't see serious questions pertaining to the three different "known as" possibilities. Furthermore, I explained finding such a new term in an actual definition is not reasonable, considering the term is indeed a neologism. However, I also stated that the current lead may not necessarily be the same lead in a few years (implying quotations or wording may be changed all together). In my estimation all three "known as " choices give the reader the same information and didn't feel WP:NPOV issue for the editors involved on that article's talk page. The (non-neutral) RfC solicitation stated "if anyone else has suggestions, feel free to add" which is what I thought I did. The default RfC duration is 30 days -- however, keep in mind removing an RfC tag does not mean the discussion is closed (notice I did not use any wikimarkup to give the thread a "closed" look). Seeing as the request was made on 8 Aug and there were no RfCs after 3 weeks of posting, I made the executive decision to remove the RfC tag -- if you'd like to re-post it for any reason, you're more than welcome to do so. I decided to do so as typically if RfCs are to going to be commented, it's within the first few days of being solicited and if not, they often times go without RfC -- I certainly have no issue if you'd like to have another uninvolved editor close it, although that may require yet another RfC or admin intervention (to avoid being deemed guilty of canvassing). Zepppep (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, another RFC isn't required and admin intervention isn't necessary, though it may be welcome as they're generally in a trusted position when it comes to assessing consensus. Canvassing hasn't happened, the only issue is that you expressed your own view rather than assessing the consensus in the discussion. The RFC (which seems quite neutrally worded to me) asked three questions, with Jojalozzo adding a fourth consideration towards the end. People expressed their views on each of the three questions, and a proper closure would determine if there is consensus for an answer to each of those questions. NULL talk
06:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The editor who solicited an RfC did so with their personal vote and arguments presented. However, the "votes" and "arguments" of those different from the editor's were not presented -- thus, this would be in violation of include a brief, neutral statement per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues. (RfC editors typically don't mind the length as much, although as you can see this RfC was a lot longer than most other requests but it was not needed as the choices, arguments, etc. would all be available to the editor fulfilling the RfC when they went to the relevant talk page -- hence the reason why simply the question is all that's needed when posting to the RfC request board).
As an RfC editor (not an admin), my duty is to assess the question(s) posed on the request board: read the thread(s) on the relevant talk page, research the topic (independently or utilizing links provided) to have an idea whether claims being offered hold any weight or not, point out any clarification of policies being thrown around (or in the instance of a policy/guideline I know exists but not referenced in the discussion, point it out), and in instances where members are not being civil, get the group to once again focus on content (not each other). When I wrote "both terms shall be used," it was because when I analyzed the discussion, I found no compelling arguments one way or the other -- if the group ultimately decides to use one term over the other, that is a result of the group reaching a consensus (which is the idea behind a talk page). I was not addressing the group looking to make a verdict—that would be overstepping my bounds (unless, of course, it was clear one side of the argument was basing their argument on preference (i.e., WP:I DON'T LIKE IT).
We can agree to disagree on whether or not I expressed my own view -- what I did point out were a few policies and arguments which were in violation of such (or in the case of the exclusion on the grounds of a neologism not being found in a dictionary, related this would be a hefty expectation). As is common with controversial articles, it's typically best for the editors involved with the creation of the article or an admin to determine when it's time to move on (hence why I didn't issue a verdict or close the discussion). As you yourself have stated, Jojalozzo proposed a fourth option (not mentioned in the RfC request) so perhaps by giving some direction to the talk page, it will allow for other options to have their genesis. While it's not my view that compromising with editors who fail to produce reasonable arguments (i.e., those based on policies, guidelines, precedent, data, etc.), sometimes a compromise is what ensues during the beginning stages of a controversial article. (Take a look at the pink slime article, where the same substance is mentioned by no fewer than four terms). Lastly, keep your chin up: consensus can change. Zepppep (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The RFC description was a neutral listing, which the filing editor then followed with his own opinion, which he's entitled to do. The only thing he could have done to make it any better would have been to put his signature or some other divider between the 'question' portion and his 'answer' portion. I'm not sure where you get the distinction between 'RFC editor' and any other editor, honestly. An RFC is just an advertised discussion, as long as it makes at least a token effort to address the base cause, it doesn't need much guidance. They're often quite unstructured because they're the way to advertise generic discussions that don't fit into more specific processes like AFD or RM. For the most part, what you described above is simply adding your viewpoint, which is great because RFCs are intended to attract more participation. But you also removed the RFC tag, which removes it from the automatic listings, and that's something that's done when the RFC itself is being closed. This is why it appeared you were attempting to close the RFC (it's not overstepping your bounds to close RFCs, by the way; you don't have to be an admin, but you do have to be uninvolved, and it does have to be done in the right way), and that's what I objected to. I don't believe the RFC is ready to close yet, and I don't see any benefit in removing the tag while the discussion is still open. The tag is an advertising method, there's no benefit in reducing the RFC's exposure to others prematurely. NULL talk
12:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, NULL. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Just to let you know, that was my first ever ITN nomination, so you don't have to worry about me doing anything like that again. In all honesty, my post about it not being posted was a tactic, but not manipulation. I figured pointing that out would help, but I had no idea it would be posted so quickly or that it would inspire the venom that followed. I decided to have some fun and claim I knew it would happen to make the users that responded negatively feel foolish.

Although it wasn't my intention, I do hope that my shenanigans will help to stop that kind of stuff from happening again, because although I don't participate in ITN often, I do check the noms regularily, and I often see all kinds of manipulation and dirty tactics. From both admins and nominators. -- Scorpion0422 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate where you're coming from. There are a lot of things wrong with ITN across the board, from ignoring guidelines to rewarding votes based on emotive reasoning rather than rational or policy-based reasoning. But my view in general is that the best way to combat things like that is to go about things the way they're meant to be done, and to politely query people to expand on their rationale when they give reasons that shouldn't be given weight by assessing administrators. Or in short, I think setting an example is a better way than 'if you can't beat em, join em' =) Good luck. NULL talk
01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)