User talk:Colipon/archive4

Archive 4 is an archive.

Sources

Like I hope you have some sources/references for the mainland China article. You are adding alot. Benjwong (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks "right enough". Except it is lacking sources even more than before. I thought we repaired that article at one time to clean out the tags. Now the tags have come back. Benjwong (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Jiabao

Please check my talk page. Arilang ^talk 06:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPC 2009

Hi Colipon, thank you for your comments. I would love to contribute to NPC 2009. However, I am still trying to read the news and digest what the government intends to do in 2009. I will contribute when I do see something I can. Hope you have a good day.--Visik (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yu Quan (pop duet)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Yu Quan (pop duet), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. tedder (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese people

Was there a reason for this removal of the Pinyin pronunciation? I thought it might have been an accident, but in case there was a legitimate concern, you should know I restored it because the page was displaying {{P}}. Recognizance (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I thought it might be a good idea to run a contest or two through the Countries WikiProject to attract editors to improve country coverage on Wikipedia, especially the country outlines.

I noticed you are a member of the WikiProject, and was wondering if you could help.

I've posted a message at Countries WikiProject talk page to get discussion started on what the awards programs should be and how they should be run.

Your ideas and feedback would be greatly appreciated.

The Transhumanist 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Deng Funeral.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Deng Funeral.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The agenda

Please fill me in .--Asdfg12345 04:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChinaHistorian

Don't worry about ChinaHistorian; he is a useless editor and will soon be blocked for a long time. I can't block him myself because of my role in the dispute, but I will report him at WP:AN3 very soon (I just have to run a quick errand first) and then he will be blocked quickly; his violation of the image use rules, edit warring rules, and civility rules is so blatant that no admin in their right mind would hesitate to take away his editing privileges. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked now, albeit only for 24 hours. We'll have to keep an eye out for things to start up again at this time tomorrow night... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Ürümqi Barn"star"
		Thanks for all your work maintaining the article July 2009 Ürümqi riots during its time on the main page. This has been a difficult and thankless task, working at a frenetic pace for 4 days straight so far (I, for one, have been getting very little sleep), and it's only been thanks to coordinated efforts and discussion from numerous editors that the article has been kept as neutral and informative as possible. This is the most collaboration I've done, with the largest number of editors once, since I have joined Wikipedia, and I think the results are showing; while it's not perfect, when my friends and family ask me about what's going on in Urumqi, I have been more comfortable recommending this article than any other source. The work is far from over, but now that this article is off the main page I think it's finally time to thank the editors Seb az86556, Colipon, Jim101, Ohconfucius, Benlisquare, Simonm223, and Jinhuili for all their contributions; while we had disagreements, I think each of these editors has been particularly active and has made real efforts to improve the article.rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ürümqi riots

Hi thanks for that! :) I've only just seen your comment from a while back, I apologise for not replying sooner - I should check my talk page more. Anyway, I'm quite happy with the background section as it stands, the article has come along well. Midway (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft accident question

Hi, I saw your comment about "a local Continental aircraft suffering decompression" on the deletion debate for the aircraft accidents templates. Were you referring to Southwest Airlines Flight 2294 by any chance? That incident was a structural failure of the airframe, and thus notable. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Councilor

Howdy! Thanks for your work on the article. I was wondering if you have any details on previous State Councilors. Perhaps you can create a history of them similar to the Premier or Vice-Premier articles. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poliphile (talk • contribs) 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic views on Falun Gong

Hi Colipon! Academic views on Falun Gong is currently up for an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). I noticed your comments on the talk page. Would you please give your view on the AFD discussion. It was relisted to "generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached".--Edward130603 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLG disputes

Do it's more productive to move the discussion to formal mediation or arbitration?--PCPP (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Is there any reason why don't you have email enabled, dude? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

I think uploading the files would actually be a copyright violation in a lot of cases. What you can be done is to go to their website and see which articles you want, let me know their titles and I can then e-mail copies of them to you. But if I were you I would ignore the book reviews, because like I said I've already printed out all of those for my own early reviews. I don't doubt that they are somewhat useful, but they probably aren't the best sources of information in and of themselves.

Hi

I'm here now. Do you still need me?--Edward130603 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked PCPP yet?--Edward130603 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colipon, I like how the page is going. If I get a chance, I might give some input in the other editors section. Also, see if PCPP, Ohconfucius, Bobby Fletcher, PerEdman, and Mrund have any diffs/comments to provide.--Edward130603 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong Workgroup

Colipon, would you like to add yourself to the list of participants?--Edward130603 (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to have as many of the parties who do deal with the content listed there as possible, if for no other reason than to make it easier to know who to contact if questions arise regarding something or other that they might not have seen. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colipon. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

btw...

this is surreal.. the IP who wants to push the Photo-controversy at length into the Rebiya Kadeer- article just sent me a vandalism level 1 warning for reverting it. just letting you know... this one's aggressive... Seb az86556 (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ;) Seb az86556 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was naive

Falun Gong... we should re-name the article "hornet's nest"... what on earth is going on? Seb az86556 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading... Here's my main problem: Does wikipedia have a policy against filibustering? The tactic seems to be to claim "no changes before consensus" and then keep the discussion going ad infinitum so that no consensus will ever be there and thus no changes will ever be made... is filibustering allowed on wiki? Seb az86556 (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filibustering? It is somebody else who's "filibustering" here, considering that in controversial cases, the community supports what is said in WP:Criticism: "Criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation, but actually includes positive and negative evaluation. Despite this, it is recommended that in article headings one uses the title "Reception" to indicate criticism sections." I take this to mean that if the 'Criticism' title is disputed, especially when the article is going to be renamed anyway, "Reception" is the best alternative. What is your interpretation of these exact words? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

poke

[1] <-- two of these are actually re-directs. Seb az86556 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what you mean... did I make a mistake? if so, mind helping me fix it? :) Colipon+(Talk) 04:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just get rid of two of'em.. they all lead to the same page... or did you want to link to three different pages?Seb az86556 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no. They all redirect to the same page. That was intended. Some users remember one acronym, others remember another. It's pretty common to have three shortcut redirects for these WP pages. Colipon+(Talk) 05:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Hi, you were involved in the discussion at Talk:Ron Paul. A straw poll is currently being conducted to discern concensus.Chhe (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colipon. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement Amendment

Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the sanction imposed by administrator User:Shell Kinney. See [2]. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New comments

I think you're only supposed to respond in your own section, acthurly. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I decided to self-revert. Not much use in back-and-forth bickering and Asdfg's case was frivolous and weak anyhow. The "Colipon is not neutral! get him instead of Olaf." argument seems quite playground if you ask me. Colipon+(Talk) 21:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean it to sound like that; just kind of trying to establish the context. Everyone needs a kick up the butt and to know there are eyes on them; banning Olaf for six months for being a smart-arse seems to miss the point. You show me how I need to be more aware of what I write, however, and that I need to approach such conversations more maturely, both in thought and deed [text].--Asdfg12345 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks asdfg. The issue certainly isn't just about "a few comments". Saying that it is would be a mischaracterization of the entire situation. It doesn't help to write walls of text when this basic idea doesn't hold. Colipon+(Talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less of a fan of my walls of text than you, let me assure you of that. It wasn't just a few comments, it is that Olaf approached this topic in an overall haughty, know-it-all, and arrogant way, and tried to win arguments all the time, etc.. Point is that his edits are not the real problem--he's a strong editor--but his remarks and attitude. Fixing that up would be as simple as warning a ban if he kept being a smart-arse (and saying that applied to everyone). I'm sure he never even realised, because he was basically doing the same thing as everyone else, just way better (as I see it). maybe we have to agree to disagree, and I really don't want to erect another textwall over here. (fingers getting tired) --Asdfg12345 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FG repository

I've started a repository of potentially useful links for use in the Falun Gong articles. Please feel free to paste links there with a description of what they refer to, for easy relocation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? Where is this repository? Colipon+(Talk) 05:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius/FG repository‎ Seb az86556 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that TV-thing

I don't even know why you're "proposing" a merger.. it's a clear POV fork, written one person who's not neutral. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Redirect it is then. Colipon+(Talk)

Deleting My Comments

Why are you constantly deleting my comments? Are you scared of something?--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only content-related matters should be posted on my page. Personal attacks do not belong here. If you do not stop this behavior you will be reported. This is not a playground. Colipon+(Talk) 16:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content related, eh? Ok, factual information on Falun Gong is content. Why do you keep trying to change the CONTENT of Falun Gong to make it look bad?--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your post @ Rjanag

Rjanag's away until August 24. So that might take a while :P Seb az86556 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can offer your two cents then. These linguistic debates are endless. Colipon+(Talk) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My studies in linguistics focused on African Linguistics. Sorry :P No matter who "wins," you need a dab-page to Languages of Taiwan. Right now, Taiwanese Language redirects straight to Minnan. I'll make one right now, it shouldn't be an issue. Seb az86556 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (Taiwanese language). That's for the uninvolved who look up the term, and should resolve the fight over the dab/redirect. Now you guys can keep arguing over each of those articles. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Yellow Templates

Now, please don't blame me for creating the red and yellow templates - I didn't. In fact most templates for the administrative divisions of PRC provinces/autonmous regions had the red and yellow scheme already - I was acting in good faith trying to standardize the presentation by changing all the province/autonomous regions/municipalities to the same format and color. Now if you don't like how it looks, don't blame me please cos I was using a template that was already there. It looks even worse when some templates eg Chongqing is in red and yellow and others like Shanghai or Yunnan are not. (Kraj35 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Taiwanese/Luxembourgish

I didn't want to raise this on the talkpage since it would inevitably have people freak out, but just to give you the full picture: the only time people in Luxembourg were forced (by decree, I believe) to refer to the language as "Luxembourgian dialect" was when the Nazis invaded during WWII. I suspect something totalitarian here... just a guess. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong workgroup progress cookie! Enjoy!
(Merger of Eutelsat-NTDTV censorship controversy‎ into New Tang Dynasty TV‎)

Seb az86556 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

Someone seems really keen on screaming out about the Human Rights Torch Relay. Despite being told numerous times that such a minor event is irrelevant to the article, which is based on the events which occurred during the 2008 Relay, stubbornness prevails. Just check out Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay#Human Rights Torch Relay - User:HappyInGeneral seems to be stubbornly bent on adding it, and has a pro-Falun Gong sentiment. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Colipon. You have new messages at Talk:Falun_Gong.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

...at Talk:Republic of China#Proposing Article Title Change. Thanks! -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all the big editors of July 2009 Ürümqi riots: invitation for comment

I'm thinking the article is probably ready now to get a nice copyedit and go in for GAN, per the plan I laid out in [[Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots/Archive3#Time to remove {current}?]], as the article has become stable. I've started going through a copyediting and cleanup sweep, focusing mainly on rewording things now that we have a couple months' perspective (for example, listing only the final "official" casualty count, rather than all the temporary numbers that were being published right and left while the news was still unfolding), and am leaving my comments/concerns at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Editing notes. If you have any time, I would welcome your input there (particularly on the section about videos within the External links, which has left me scratching my head). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your harassment and unethical behaviour

Colipon, you sneak behind my back and asked people to "watch me very closely"? I edit with respect to reference and NPOV, don't you dare to smear my reputation. You seems have strong POV and have tried to cover up facts that regards Hong Kong's long existing presence on international community with identity on its own right. You even have problem when people mentioned Hong Kong is autonomous. You have already misrepresented me and personally attracked me in more than one occasions. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia:Stalking#Wikihounding is an offensive behaviour and not accepted in wikipedia. Da Vynci (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Next time you have problem with my edit, talk to ME on my talk page. A pround Chinese wouldn't sneak behind to other editors page to badmouth a person instead of directly talking to him/her. Da Vynci (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your disruptive editing has quite a long history, I'm afraid. I do not wish to make a moral judgment on your motives or anything else, and I am sure you make many useful contributions to non-HK articles. I attempt to assume good faith whenever I can and we have come to some agreements in the past. But your current changes to "Hong Kong" have just broken that consensus from three months earlier and I was very disappointed. Colipon+(Talk) 01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making serious accusation without showing any evidence nor providing elaboration. Which exactly my edits has been disruptive? For long time I have been editing with respect to reference and reliable source. I am aware that I have corrected a lot of your biased edits and u have failed frequently to find proper reference to support your claim, but using false accusation and sneaking behind people's back to badmouth people are not acts of good faith . Da Vynci (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]