User talk:Goodposts

Regarding Galileo: https://www.gsc-europa.eu/system-status/Constellation-Information

Maybe you missed the word NOT in front of USABLE, but its clearly there for 22 satellites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.26.252 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• @79.239.26.252: This appears to be a temporary service outage, and not something that would render all 22 sattelites unusable. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Goodposts, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Goodposts! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

HalabToday

Halab Today is it a good knowed biased anti government source and no any other proof. So need confirmation from the credible sources. This source has been involved in the publication of false information too many times.Mehmedsons (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mehmedsons: You are correct that Halab Today is an anti-government source, and a twitter one at that. To address this, I have added four new citations from published sources, including two foreign publications, one local publication that does not have anti-government leanings and lastly a publication from the government's official news agency, the Syrian Arab News Agency. I hope this addresses your concerns. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree But I was mean that claim of Halab Today about the situation at the village Hasatiyah uncrediable. And nothing more.Mehmedsons (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mehmedsons: Ahh, I see. So far I'm only seeing some statements by anonymous rebel commanders, nothing concrete. Won't add anything unless confirmation comes up. The two sides still appear to be at eachother's throats, despite the truce. Goodposts (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop make a biased and intentional incorrect edits! Why you noted that another one ceasefire deal is it a strategic rebel victory. Rebels lost two major strongholds the Kafr Nabudah and Qalaat al-Madiq and more than 20 villages and several hills. And this ceasefire deal will be broken as the previous three deals. Your need know that the POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of data is strictly prohibited. If you are not sure about correctness of your edits, post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. In conclusion, I want to say that if you continue to distort the articles and make biased changes, I will inform the administration about your actions.Mehmedsons (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mehmedsons: I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Nowhere did I ever note that the ceasefire deal was a "strategic rebel victory", nor a rebel victory of any kind. I even edited the infobox to increase the number of government-captured villages by three to reflect recent events, which if anything is something that makes the result of the offensive look to have ended more in the government's favour. Double-check who you are accusing before you make any accusations. Goodposts (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! this was intended for another editor. I'm really sorry dude.Mehmedsons (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mehmedsons: No problem, accidents happen. Thank you for the Barnstar! :)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your significant contribution on improvement articles about Syrian Civil War Thanks!!! Mehmedsons (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Ecuadorian protests

On 10 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Ecuadorian protests, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Continuation

Discussion with Alcibiades979

@Goodposts:I think one of the most striking parts of Vox's ascendancy in to the norm has been the geographic location. PP wouldn't have a prayer down in Andalucía and yet Murcia and parts of Andalusia have jumped straight over PP and Cs and gone straight from PSOE(Socialism) to Vox (far right); which is kind of like Medellín voting for Gustavo Petro, or San Francisco voting for Donald Trump. I think that's really explained by the Catalan thing and Spanish... self perception. I think part of the reason that the Catalan situation cuts so deep, and this is my personal perception, is that there's a real insecurity in Spain over its place in the continent, its reputation, and its national pride. So many young people have gone to central Europe, and it has a reputation in central Europe for being lazy and needing to be bailed out, ie: "remember that hardwork comes before the siesta." So when Catalunya says it's not Spain it's different, it works hard, and then follows it up with how they're having to subsidize the south and they don't want to be part of Spain I think that's what's turbo charged Vox to have such success particularly in the south is that plays heavily to problems with self-confidence, especially in the south which is one of the less developed regions of Spain. And I'm not going after the independence movement just saying how it has affected Spanish politics. What's also interesting about it is that to me a purely linear point of view, ie increased radicalization moving further right also doesn't really explain it. One of the provinces that Vox has had the least success in the past election was Galicia, a strong hold of conservatism and PP. Traditional conservative provinces having low traction and socialist provinces having tons of traction for a far-right party is a bit counter intuitive. As an aside I think a 2D view of politics isn't correct, theoretically conservatism is an aversion of new or radical policies a preference for what's been proven to work ie Economic Liberalism, and a slightly more conservative social outlook, I don't mind that, but what's often termed as the far right today advocates radical changes, in the case of Donald Trump upending world trade, attacking traditional alliances, and government agencies these things aren't conservative at all, they're liberal in that they're centered on change. Now I'm not saying that the far right is liberal, but neither that it's conservative rather just populist. Which is one of my biggest criticisms when it comes to the far right, I don't think they're conservative at all. Alcibiades979 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @Alcibiades979: - I think that this could be looked at as a societal crisis. When most people feel that society is doing well and prospering, they tend not to want to shake things up, and subsequently vote for centrist parties. However, in times of national crisis - they stop seeing centrism as a force which could achieve a balance, and instead prefer to choose sides between conflicting worldviews in an attempt to find an exit from the crisis, thus voting further to the left or right. Spain has, in a very short amount of time, undergone several crisis. An economic crisis, and now a national crisis, spurred on by the Catalan Independence Movement. What's important to note is that the vast majority of people aren't really very ideological. They may have some vague preferences, but they will generally just vote for whomever they think will represent their interests. Despite it's radical-sounding name, and it's rich history with the Spanish Republican tradition of old, the PSOE is mostly a centrist party. Centre-left, but still fairly close to the centre, definitely not revolutionary. Of course, this led to to be one of the traditional two parties - along with the mostly centre-right PP, which dominated Spanish politics when things were going well. But now, in times of trouble, people's belief that these parties can find solutions for the problems facing Spain is waning. Podemos rose mostly along with the financial crisis - it's program, further to the left than PSOE's, appealed to many who felt wronged or disenfranchised by the financial and economic crisis that recently gripped Spain. However, Podemos doesn't really have an answer to the issue of Catalan separatism. Their support for "a referendum" fails to resonate with either crowd - the separatists feeling as though that party doesn't support their cause for 'freedom', while on the other - the unionists feeling outrage that a Pan-Spanish party could even suggest that Spain could be divided. Vox is essentially the right-wing answer to what the left did with the financial crisis. They focus their efforts on maintaining Spanish Unity and hold that, if done, this would lead to a new and reinvigorated Spain. To many people, who feel that PSOE let them down, this could be the new way forward. Then we get to the issue of conservatism. You've noted how several conservative constituencies have refused to switch in favour of VOX. But then we get to an issue with conservatism itself - how do you define it? Do you define it as support for the status quo in a society, the rejection of radical changes in favour of either only gradual change or no change at all? Or do you define it as preset of mostly right-wing values - respect for hirearchy and authority, emphasis on the family unit, support for the enlargement of organized religion's role in society and state, reverence of traditionalism and strict enforcement of property rights? Let's make a thought experiment - say a person, let's call him Comrade Daskalov, lives in the 1980s Soviet Union and is a strong supporter of the Communist Party, staunchly rejecting efforts to reduce it's role in society? If going by the first definition of conservatism, Comrade Daskalov is definitely a conservative - as he is opposed to changes, or at least radical changes, to the status quo within the society in which he lives. Under the second - he has nothing to do with conservatism, as his Marxist-Leninist ideology is far away from the right-wing values mentioned earlier. So, in this case, should we say that voters are trying to protect the status quo of a unified spain, or are they enticed by the idea of right-wing conservative values? It is actually not unprecedented for centre-left and left-wing voters to vote quite far on the right - as in Italy, where major, previously left-voting industrial cities started voting for the arguably far-right Lega Nord. So why? One of the big issues is immigration. Typically support for immigration comes from the left-wing, while opposition comes from the right. But if we take the typical explanation that the left is more concerned with the common folk and the right more with the bouregoisie and aristocracy - that's the wrong way around! The average worker might be economically disadvantaged from immigration - immigrants push wages down, as they agree to work for less. They also lessen the impact of unions, as most of them are non-unionized. On the other hand, if you're a businessman - immigration is great! You get to hire both unqualified labourers and qualified specialists that are happy to work for you for a fraction of what the local labour is. They don't usually unionize and they don't complain much. So, if we look at it in that perspective - working-class, industrial voters can be convinced to vote far-right trough their opposition to immigration. "They took our jobs!!!", justified or not, is usually a cry against immigration, and it doesn't typically come from the upper classes. Trump won on a similar platform, and he fared well in working-class districts. In the end of the day the word "conservatism" is very vague, ironically, much like "socialism". Many self-described "conservatives" would enact radical societal change if given the change, which is poetic for an ideology focus around preserving the status quo. Goodposts (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I'd agree with that characterization of PSOE, their policy when they took over from Rajoy was essentially to continue his policies, and of the problems facing Podemos. In Catalunya they've lost seats to the Republican Left, and in the rest of the country they've lost seats to all the other parties. They've gone from running neck and neck with PSOE and holding over 70 seats to less than half that. I'm not so sure conservatism is vague, however, the political ideology is that which was created by Hume, Burke, William Pitt the Younger, and Disraeli. Then there's a separate connotation derived which is to be adverse to change, which goes runs the whole political spectrum, for instance Gorbachev instituted liberal policies such as glasnost and perestroika, the perpetrators of the coup of 1991 in Russia were conservative hardliners devoted to the USSR, Deng was also viewed as liberal and a reformer where as the Gang of Four and to a lesser extent Hua conservative Maoists voices culminating in Seeking Truth from the Facts vs. The Two Whatevers. This is technically its definition as well: a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism Conservative : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: such as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE 2a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL conservative policies b : marked by moderation or caution a conservative estimate So I would make the distinction between the populism that is often seen today which self-characterizes itself as right or left, and actual conservatism. Lega Nord is a good example, it formed a coalition with 5Star. That said to your point, I do think politics in general are becoming more vague, and pragmatic and less philosophical and ideological(in that they lack a sort of guiding principle). Take China for instance, what kind of government does China have? It's an interesting question. The easiest answer is communist, but I have read some Marx and I never got to the chapter on taking a private jet to Macau to gamble and launder money on the weekends whilst miners work your coal mines. Haha, maybe Engels added that one in a later edition of Das Kapital. While political ideology has become considerably more fluid people increasingly shift the non-political parts of their identity, including ethnicity and religion to align to their political party. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC) @Alcibiades979: Correct! However, the thing is, it's difficult for a conservative party to rally support in the context of an economic crisis without resorting to populism. If left to just the standard conservative ideology in a nation facing economic crisis, it's very easy for the party to start being viewed as a supporter of the already priviliged, to the expense of those who aren't. A party declaring support for traditional institutions isn't going to be popular if people's faith in those institutions is being questioned, and large-scale unemployment, low wages or mass discrepencies in land ownership are at hand. The party would start being viewed as "the man", and as economic crisis pushes more people down the social ladder, the votes of the upper-middle and upper classes simply aren't enough to keep it in power. China is a very interesting example. It has gone a completely different way than it used to, although it is worth mentioning two peculiarities in the Chinese economic model - first is land ownership. Chinese law has no real concept of private property in the way that we understand it. When people "buy" land to build a house in China, what they're really buying is a 99-year lease, which allows them to more or less do as they please. While in large metropolitan areas the property market works in a way quite similar to that of western liberal market economies, land tenure is still something that's quite a large factor in poorer, more rural areas. The second is the idea of the "bird cage" - the Chinese 'conservative communists' answer to the market economy - it represents a system in which the State owns a majority of all key industrial sectors, or as Chinese economists dub it, the "commanding heights of the economy". A huge amount of companies in China are state-owned, and in being so, represent a significant governmental interference in the market. Estimates put state-owned corporations at between 33 and 50% of all Chinese corporations - that's huge! For these reasons, it wouldn't really be accurate to call China a true western capitalist market economy as we understand it. However, you did touch on a very important subject - Macao. Macao, much like Hong Kong, is a "Special administrative region", in which most Chinese laws don't apply, and which govern themselvs under a capitalist free-market economic system, under the "one nation, two systems" principle. In addition to them, China also has "special economic zones", which aren't nearly as autonomous, but still employ a market system far more similar to western capitalism. So how should we classify China? The truth of the matter is, it's neither here nor there. Perhaps the closest analogy in the west would be the Scandinavian model, insofar as that also uses state intervention in the economy, but I'd say the two aren't really all that comperable - The Scandinavian model reserves state monopolies for few fewer sectors, and instead makes most of it's revenue trough taxation of the open market. The Chinese Model is quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with, and many economists deep that it may be the model chosen by many African nations, as they start their journey towards proper industrialisation. What the consequences will be, however, remains to be seen. Goodposts (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC) @Goodposts:I don't think that conservative economic policies only favour the rich, economic liberalism has been the way of the left, western left at any rate, for some time now as well. I just don't think they're very interesting, and that's one of the issues with it all when it comes to attracting voters. With the age of information, more now than ever the people are involved with politics. Where before they may have identified with a political party most likely due to family and geographic location, now they actually see what politicians are doing which is driving a change in governments. And let's face it, long complex economic arguments are better than a sleeping pill. So those start to get brushed aside. I'm curious to see how China goes as well. To make a broad generalization, Eastern Asia has this theory that the bigger a company is, the safer it is, so they strongly favour mergers and massive conglomerates and I just don't buy in to that model. Samsung, Sony, Softbank (which offers phone plans, wtf? what bank offers phone plans), Foxxconn, etc. I'm a capitalist at heart and the idea of massive conglomerates to me seems weird, it's just putting alot of eggs in one basket, and they've all gotten smashed for that, minus China but China's doing the same thing creating massive SEOs with the idea that they're more resilient. That and China's start to take on large amounts of debt in order to continue to increase GDP, not the central government, but provincial governments and SEOs which seems risky. I'll be honest with you, I've been following the events at Hong Kong Polytechnic and I was telling someone today that I find China to be a bit frightening, not necessarily the country but what it represents. After the Berlin wall fell there was this real belief that Democracy and Liberty are the way of the future, and people were thinking that China would fall too, but Deng was a brilliant leader, he focused on the economy not freedom and China hasn't, I wonder if in a way that is really a strong counter point to the idea of a future of open democracy and freedom. The interesting part about Macao though: Chinese citizens are only allowed to expatriate a certain amount of money each year, which isn't very much, but there are loop holes to that in Macao so theoretically Macao survives on its casinos, but in actuality it's a money laundering center which is done through the casinos to get the money out of China, so when Xi cracks down on people offshoring money it goes straight to the heart of the Casinos and Macao. Macao got hammered by the last corruption purge, and is finally starting to come out of it again now. I was there once before, it was a nightmare with all the tourists. What do you make of the Bolivia situation? Morales going for his fourth term I thought was in poor taste, I know all he's done to help the poor and the amerindians and I'm not debating that, but I think in a country with almost 11,000,000 people surely there's more than one person who's fit to be president, and 15 years is looking alot like President for life, not to mention 20. Some of his later term decisions were a bit iffy to, like a multi-million dollar museum of himself in his home town next to very poor housing, plus the new 29 story presidential palace. So I thought the protestors were right, that said, everything since reminds me of the Arab Spring. Maybe I'm wrong and she surprises but it doesn't look to me like Áñez is going to call elections any time soon, and it's not even entirely clear that she's really calling the shots anyhow. In the arab spring you have three parties, the military, the religious hardliners and the people who want democracy. Bolivia is looking a bit more messy than that but you still have three groups you can make out: the amerindians, the people from the lowlands who are trigueño and much more impacted by hispanic culture, and the military. Which is I guess also what you had more or less leading up to the French revolution the three estates clergy, aristocrats, and the commoners. I also hope you don't mind me continuing this conversation as I've done on your talk page. I work alot and the rest of the time I spend with my girl friend and she's not interested in such topics, hence me being on wiki. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC) @Alcibiades979: I certainly don't mind at all! From a purely corporate point of view, becoming a megaconglomerate has it's benefits - for one, their huge size allows them to effectively corner large markets and influence prices. Second, as companies such as Samsung form a considerable part of their host nation's GDP, this gives them huge political influence over the country. They can influence politicians and they can tie the economy's survival to their own. In many ways, this can create a situon in which any attack against the company could translate into an attack on the national economy - something which these companies leverage in order to get away with legal violations without severe reprecussions. In the past, some of these megaconglomerates only received a slap on the wrist for breaking the law, and that's probably the way they'd like to keep it. There is no real serious movement in these countries to break up these companies via anti-trust laws, and that is a status quo that definitely benefits them. As for the economy itself - while having these huge megaconglomerates does allow them to manufacture at really beneficial terms, having a monopolistic or oligopolistic market structure hampers competition, which is something that market economies need in order to survive. China today has, in a way, become the opposite of Iran. In Iran, you have a relatively open political class with competitive multi-party elections (though subject to supervision by the 'guardianship of the islamic jurist'), while at the same time there civil society remains mostly closed due to the country's pursuit of religious purity. Although China is not a true one-party state, (there are about eight legal political parties in mainland China) there really is only one party which effectively determines national policy. For something to go past China - it goes trough the Communist Party first. At the same time, though, the Chinese government maintains a mostly hands-off approach to civil life - there are few restrictions on the way somebody can live his or her life in China, in contrast to Iran, where civil life is under religious supervision. The economic liberalization helped to push this agenda of "hold the high, release the low", as it empowered ordinary chinese citizens to become fully fledged individual actors in the national economy. What's noteworthy about this is that the creation of this private sector did not really contribute to opposition against the Chinese government, as many western analysts deemed inevitable in such societies. I remember waching a western youtuber who lived in mainland China at the time phrased it quite elegantly - "The Chinese government has managed to convince the majority of China's population that the Communist Party is good for China. So long as that remains the case, it has nothing to fear". It's worth mentioning that while this may be odd from a western point of view, many Asian societies view this type of societal organization as acceptible, desirable or even natural. They tend to view a strong government as a strong country and in doing so focus their desire for freedom primarily on having leeway in their personal lives, as opposed to changing the ruling party every X number of years in order to prevent an entrenchment of power. Even in societies such as Singapore and Japan, you can see that parties tend to hold on to power for very long amounts of time and effectively dominate the political scene for decades, even if they lack the guaranteed constitutional role that the CPC enjoys in China. As for Bolivia, I can definitely see how Morales' new term might have rubbed the opposition the wrong way. Following the defeat (although narrow) of his referendum, his appeal to the courts for an extention definitely left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. I can definitely see them viewing it as a cynical political move, rather than a genuine interest for legal fairness. Anez doesn't appear to be much concerned with democracy, although she claims to. The fact that she stated that both Morales AND his deputy would not be permitted to stand for election was the first indication. Of course, she has the right to argue against Morales' new term, but what gave her in perticular the right to make that call - as opposed to the people or the court (which she had no trouble accepting backing from)? Furthermore, her issuance of a legal waiver to the soldiers which killed peaceful protesters makes her complicit in that crime. Actions such as her decree to withdraw from ALBA and swich the country's recognition of Maduro to that of Guaido also seem to conflict with her stated intention of being merely a placeholder technical government concerned entirely with the organization of new elections. The fact that she's more or less ruling by decree as Bolivian police and military block pro-Morales elected representatives from entering the nation's parliament is also quite alarming. She talks of democracy, but seems to attempt to entirely exclude her opponents from the democratic process. The fact that nothing was done to address the attacks on the households of Morales' supporters is also very concerning. Even if a new election is held, and said election is fair from a technical point of view, the actions she takes during the run-up to the election could have major consequences for it's legitimacy. If her opponents are harrassed, intimidated or disqualified, this could undermine the legitimacy of an otherwise transparent election. Of course, we will have to wait and see. Goodposts (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC) @Goodposts:The problem with the mega-conglomerates is that it's easy for them to get bogged down by the bureaucracy of it all. When you have such a big company keeping costs under control, and increasing efficiency becomes really problematic where as for the small ones costs are always on the forefront, and problems with efficiency are readily apparent and dealt with, and if not they go out of business. It's definitely true about their ability to sway politics, especially in smaller countries, for instance in Korea the new government vowed to go after the "chaebol" but as soon as they need those employment numbers its all down the tubes. I realize that the German economy is weak right now, but I much prefer its economic model of strongly encouraging small to midsize companies as a way to fuel competition, and having the large ones when they're actually needed for instance banks. It's kind of like the idea in physics with friction, a company starts off small, it either stops or it keeps going with speed, but eventually it gets bigger and bigger and slower and slower. It's a tricky question however, as I think the solution is regulation to encourage small businesses, not to punish large ones. Europe for instance has been very active in regulation, and it also noticeably lacks a real tech industry. I think their biggest tech company is Spotify, in an industry that is increasingly dominated by North America and East Asia. I liked your analogy of Iran and China, and I think it would have been spot on had you made it about 2,560 days ago, or the day before Xi took office. Xi's family purged like so many others, ironically regained its standing under Deng, and under Deng his father became a key figure in the SEZs. I say this is ironic because in a lot of ways Xi is more maoist than dengist. The clamp down on civil freedoms is constant in China whether it's the camps in Xinjiang, the increasing authoritarianism in Hong Kong, the social credit program which affects all aspects of life, or an instagram girl getting arrested for singing the national anthem in a cutesy way. One of the other interesting aspects is just how much this penetrates the populace, giving look backs to the cultural revolution. In Barcelona I had a number of Chinese friends, and knew quite a few more, and even there in Barcelona, Spain half a world a way I only ever heard one critique of China and in an incredibly oblique way something along the lines of, "When I first came here, I wanted to go back to China afterward, but there's a lot of stuff online here that isn't available, and I'm not so sure I want to go back anymore." Which I took as a reference to Tiananmen, the Cultural Revolution, and the purges. In contrary I had a friend from Iran and that guy you'd comment about the weather, and he'd launch in to a diatribe about how the Arabs destroying Persia by introducing Islam, haha. From a social stand point I might also make the analogy of Saudi Arabia. Both have a tremendous sense of social isolation. In Saudi you see the suburbs and every house has a family, and a high wall which keeps everyone else away, which is a perfect analogy for the social fabric of Saudi but it also translates to China, particularly Southern China which has many of the same dynamics. Between the mistrust instilled with the purges, and the shortages, to the new mentality of success in all aspects being centered on production ie money. Everything centers on the family and outside of that there is a lack of strong connection to a greater community. Leading to phrases like 没办法 mei ban fa nothing to be done. And social isolation, and lack of greater structures seem to be a wonderful way for more autocratic systems to exist. But I also don't think it's a fair assumption to say that Asia favors strong leaders, South Korea and Taiwan have incredibly active political systems, Japan's Abe is a bit authoritarian in nature, but Japan still has a strong democracy. Singapore has had the same political party for a long time but its founder Lee Kuan Yew was one of the best leaders of the 20th century, right up there with Deng and FDR. One of the things that Deng realized was that by turning away from socialism and going toward "socialism with chinese characteristics", a subject that's so difficult and counter intuitive that one must study it for a year in college, hehe, is that the party's mandate and ideology would be lost so under him a trend began to justify the rule of the communist party not along the lines of ideology but nationalism, which has had tremendous success due to the fractured state of China before, and unintended consequences as well. With all other social constructs destroyed in the north you were left with individualism, and the south the family, and from this an overarching idea of the greatness of China, and the injustices suffered by China through neglect, which has even lead to the re-imagination of Chinese history, Chang Kai Shek did lead the GMT, but he also fought the Japanese, so suddenly he gets cast in more sympathetic tones. I also think it's really difficult to get a good beat on domestic opinion in China. The first Tiananmen, with Zhuo Enlai's funeral was incredibly spontaneous and no one really predicted that there would be such an outpouring of emotion and simultaneous coming together. The second Tiananmen, the massacre, ostensibly happened because of a wall in Beijing, next to a bus stop, in which the people were allowed to freely express themselves, but the interesting point is the rapidity that people came together, not from a romantic standpoint, but once again it happened so quick. That's one of the reasons I think a trade deal with the US is unlikely, China's economy is slowing, and it has something to do with a trade war, but more to do with the fact that generally economies don't grow at 7-8% for ever, the US gives a common enemy. If you're interested in China and left-wing politics or just one of the two, there's a movie called A Touch of Sin by a director named Jia Zhangke which is about four different people struggling to live in a rapidly changing China. It's excellent, it was nominated for the Palme d'Or, and Jia won best Screenplay for it at Cannes. Sorry if this all was a bit rambling, drank a lot of coffee. @Alcibiades979: Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply, but I've been busy. You are correct that large corporations tend to get meyered down in administration. That is more or less a requirement of large organizations, as the personalist and bottom-up approach to company management simply isn't feasable once a company grows beyond a certain point. Small and midsize businesses are the backbone of just about any economy, and a market structure based largely around them is generally considered ideal for maintaining healthy market competition, which is a prerequisite for the proper functioning of any market-based economic model. At the same time, however, companies will naturally trend towards expansion under favourable conditions and that will inevitably lead to the rise of big business. While not a bad thing per se, large businesses can have the tendency to become monopolistic if given the opportunity. It simply is in their best financial interest to do so, and as the structure of private companies is centered all around generating revenue for their owners or shareholders, it's hardly surprising that it's something that happens. So, in order for these businesses to be socially beneficial, they must organize themselves alongside the principles of socially responsible management. In places like Europe, this is not only encouraged, but often legally mandated in many spheres - labour rights, consumer rights, environmental protection, protection of market competition, et cetera. Similar regulations exist in varying degrees across the world, but some are considerably more liberal than others, and some are considerably more strictly enforced than others. You've noted something very interesting - that Europe doesn't really hold tech companies. And here lies a very curious topic - to do the things that companies such as Google do - such as provide huge arrays of free services ranging from more or less unlimited free video streaming to DNS systems to cloud storage, it has to be a huge company. Small companies simply have neither the financial ability, nor the talent and manpower to realize projects on the scale of tech giants like Microsoft, Google or Amazon. At the same time, this raises large questions in regards to online privacy, market competition and social responsibility - as some of the top tech companies use dodgy means to avoid paying taxes. China is in many ways a country in transition. A transition between having almost nothing and having everything. A transition between localized village life and being the center of the world's economy. There are many opinions on China and China's history, as well as it's leaders and policies. At the moment, the country is before both major opportunities and major challenges. You're absolutely right that economies tend to not grow at very high rates forever. Hong Kong is a very important strategic position for China and the Chinese government must find a way to integrate it into it's country, while at the same time appeasing all the people that don't wish to have their way of life change. That will prove very difficult. At the same time, the clock on the special status as per the handover agreement is ticking down day by day. A harsh transition would probably lead to backlash. At the same time, China is not keen on having it's SAAs drift to the outer parts of it's national sphere. I wouldn't say that Asia prefers authoritarian leaders per, as many of these mentioned are not authoritarian. Although Asia is no stranger to dictators, especially in the twentieth century, the trend for even open political systems to be monopolized by single parties is something not usually seen in places like Europe. In practice there is little legally standing in the way for the unseating of the LDP in Japan, but in reality - it has all but dominated political life on the island nation for all but a handful of years since the peace treaty that ended it's part in WW2. That's what I was mostly getting at. In the west, there is usually a mentality of desiring to switch political leaders every so often. Hell, if we look at US Presidential Elections, we can see the same trend of two mandates Republican, two mandates Democrat starting from as far back as 30 years ago. But we musn't take mentalities for granted, as every person is, knowlingly or not, a byproduct of the culture and mentality with which he was raised. It is also very much worth mentioning that cultures are not hiveminds, and counter-cultures exist in just about every society. However, with all that said, it is still interesting to note how different cultures react with and to power in different ways. Goodposts (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note

Just a note that I filed an ANI thread asking for sanctions against Huasteca, and I mentioned you (in a good way!) not by name but as "another editor" - as you came around and have been met with abuse by this user as well, I figured you may wish to know so you could offer your opinion on whether a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines would be good for this user. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Goodposts, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Jonpatterns (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)