User talk:Colipon/archive6

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Colipon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Thebiographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPsarticle backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Daniel Johnson, Jr. -
 * 2) Edmund Ho -
 * 3) Li Xuejian -
 * 4) Tang Guoqiang -
 * 5) Liang Baohua -
 * 6) Zhang Wenyue -
 * 7) Yang Jing -

help needed
Hi. As one of the editors involved in the article in the recent past, can you please come back and help to solve in issue that is ongoing right now? I think more editors would be helpful to reach a consensus about what is the right thing to do to make the article the best it can be. The article in question is Mao The Unknown Story. Thanks.76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on an arbitration enforcement discussion.
Please refer here. 

Hi
You have got to be kidding me. First of all there should be a definate emphisis on the president's denial of the Holocaust becuase it shows how big a wackjob he is. Not including this would be a crime. Please have a look and add content:War of Internet Addiction  Arilang  talk 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done a brief copyedit. Very interesting. You just need to link the article from other pages and maybe nominate it for DYK. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Corruption in the PRC
Hello, I did a bunch of work on the article of that title. I would appreciate your thoughts on what you think it would take to get it to GA.--Asdfg12345 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

COI edits
Thanks for your kind notes. Many of the China related articles in wikipedia are so ridiculously biased that it ultimately reduces the credibility of the site. Especially the FG related articles are nothing but FG propaganda. Compare the article Falun gong in wikipedia with that ofBritannica. The pro-FG bias of wikipedia will be clear. I am not sure how to deal with the problematic SPA users as they are quick to revert any edit made to NPOVize these article. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, that britannica entry contains a number of elementary factual errors regarding the timeline of repression and about Falun Gong itself. --Asdfg12345 15:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP
Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of.--Asdfg12345 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI on Dilip rajeev
Note that I've made an outline of Dilip's recent editing behavior.--PCPP (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Qigong Grandmasters
Hello Colipon. I wonder if you would be able to help me with some research for a couple of articles that I would like to create, on Zhang Baosheng and Yan Xin. They currently have no articles of their own, but certainly there must be good information available in Chinese. In English, the only sources I have on these individuals are Ownby and Palmer. I know you are busy, and there is obviously no real timeline in the great Wiki-Present. I will create the documents and add some information from the aforementioned sources. If you would like to supplement that with research from credible Chinese sources, that would be delightful. The reason I think it would be acceptable to use Chinese sources here, and not with the Falun Gong, is mostly because of the sparsity of detailed information on these figures available in English and the relative abundance of good English material available on FLG; and of course, anything after 7/20, and some before it, only serves as historical "primary source material" given the ideological-political imperatives and context. Please advise me of your intentions, or just jump straight in.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sound-Fury, I would love to join you, but recently I have been swamped with work. As my schedule looks right now I don't think I will be able to do substantial editing for much of next week. I will look into the topics, though, and once I am less busy, I will actively contribute. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I created the article: (and saved it from being deleted).--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to also look at Xu Mingtang. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I will check it out. Strange that his name is not mentioned in any of the books I have here (I just checked). I would be pleased to pitch in with a bit of a clean up over there though.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought reform?
Yo. You may want to help out building this article into a FAC. Best. --Asdfg12345 08:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I read your remark over at the Dilip AE thing. I don't think what you said is fair. We are trying to improve this encyclopedia. You never even engaged in real discussion or added anything to the article. You just dismissed it as Falun Gong advocacy and threw some accusations at us. I don't think that's fair. All the information in the propaganda article is from the best sources, including scholars who have studied the subject for a long time. People like Shambaugh, Brady, etc. are major figures in contemporary China studies. Their work is well recognised. All we did was add such material to the article. If you don't like it, you should find some other stuff to include, to present a wider range of views rather than just attacking us. I don't think it's fair to make the comments you have made and call for a topic ban when all we've done is add research. I would be very pleased to collaborate on that topic, if there is research and views you can bring to the table. --Asdfg12345 14:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi ASDFG, thanks for the remarks. I am willing to work with you on non-political topics. You have always struck me as reasonable and civil when it comes to discussions, and I appreciate that. But I will not be working with you on anything to do with Falun Gong or the Chinese Communist Party or Chinese political issues. There's just 'too much water under the bridge', so to say, and I believe you are too emotionally invested in the issue to edit objectively. That said, I have full faith that you will be able to contribute fairly in articles that do not spill into these contentious political issues, and encourage you to take on more of those topical areas, and I will be willing to lend you a helping hand. But not Falun Gong. Absolutely not. I will not be discussing about Falun Gong or Chinese politics with you. I hope that is clear.Colipon+ (Talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, but my investment really has been along the lines of research rather than emotion. That's my input. I just find good sources and add them to the articles. There's nothing wrong with that. And in terms of which sources get prominence etc., that can also be worked out objectively much of the time. You have consistently relied on subjective arguments, minority views, primary sources, and so on, and when you don't get your way you get upset. Sorry, but that's just how it appears to me. We've all got our views on all these subjects. I think the key is just to represent all the majority views from scholarship as majority views. --Asdfg12345 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop kidding yourself. If what you said is really true then you wouldn't have been topic banned for six months. I don't think you quite understand the gravity of the situation at all.Colipon+ (Talk) 12:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the banning is far more complex than that. Basically it's because I have only edited Falun Gong articles, and broadly speaking, from a pro-ish perspective for the last four or so years. That looks really bad. It looks like I'm here to just push a point. It's not true that I'm blindly pushing a point though, and I have always discussed, compromised, done research--and most of the time it has been trying to get balance for the negative views etc. But wiki is understandably intolerant to the idea, and it's simpler to ban all those identified as SPAs wholesale. The details of the issue, or which specific rule you broke doesn't matter. The idea that I'm disruptive was sold to them, and they bought it. You're allowed to push the most rabid anti-Falun Gong stuff (far less compromising than me, using far lower-grade sources, including primary sources etc.) just because you edit other articles, so it gives the impression you're more integrated, whereas I'm posited as the outsider. It's a complex dynamic. anyway, my final point would bethis. Seriously. --Asdfg12345 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of being 'bought' and 'sold'. It's that your actions speak louder than your words. I had no initial interest in editing Falun Gong articles whatsoever, and if you recall, I voluntarily withdrew myself for about two years, when I refused to touch Falun Gong articles despite various requests from editors. As for us becoming friends, I have no problems with that at all. Like I said, if we met in person I'm sure we would get along just fine, so long as we do not discuss Falun Gong. If you wanted to collaborate on an article for Chow Mein or Daylight Savings Time I would love to work with you. But I will not be working with you on 6-10 Office or Li Hongzhi, nor will I be even entertaining any sort of thinly veiled attempts at 'discussion' on any Falun Gong related item, because I have had enough of abuse from the Falun Gong cabal. Please respect that. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you have felt that I have ever abused you in any way. I have attempted to express my views openly and honestly, and treat everyone I interact with with respect. I apologise if I have not treated you respectfully. I will be mindful of this and endeavour to do so in future. The many content issues still remain. It's yet to be seen how they will be resolved. --Asdfg12345</b> 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the reason I think you are hypocritical is the way you turn a blind eye to the outrageous behaviour of PCPP (for example), but are happy to marginalise editors you consider "pro-FLG." It's that kind of obvious double-standard in favour of a POV that makes me question someone's integrity. On the other hand, if you treated everyone with the same standards, I would admire that. Another side is that bias itself can alter perception, so where I see a massive problem you simply may not see it. Then... that's tough. anyway.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki reforms
在你的userpage上我看见了你写的这句： Wikipedia needs to find a way to lock 'lede' sections. These get prominently vandalized and attract too much POV-warring. Do something about it. 作为WP的用户，我觉得你的主意特别好. 你有没有在discussion page上(比如Village Pump)提起这个建议？我目前从没用过这些论坛但是我估计这样是最好的方法. 这就是我的看法. 下次再谈！

在你的userpage上我看見了你寫的這句： Wikipedia needs to find a way to lock 'lede' sections. These get prominently vandalized and attract too much POV-warring. Do something about it. 作為WP的用戶，我覺得你的主意特別好. 你有沒有在discussion page上(比如Village Pump)提起這個建議？我目前從沒用過這些論壇但是我估計這樣是最好的方法. 這就是我的看法. 下次再談！--达伟 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dawei. I will do this when I have more time. Thanks for the input.Colipon+ (Talk) 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfied page
Hi, I have userfiedthe page you created since you created it in the mainspace and it is clearly an opinion piece, not an article. I have updated the link on your user page as well. If you want to create another page like it in the future, please use the format User:Colipon/PAGENAME so it is placed in your userspace. Feel free to leave a message on my talkpage if you have any questions.-- Terrillja talk  20:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. Thanks. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on Propaganda in China
You've raised some good points there, hope you can contribute further.--PCPP (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (with research). --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Falun Gong moderated discussion
If you have concerns please raise them directly with me.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Please have a look and give some comments:User:Arilang1234/Comparison between written English and written Chinese Draft <font style="color:white;background:#fe0000;"> Arilang  talk  06:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Work
I just wanted to personally commend you on your great work, please keep it up. In particular, I came across your excellent suggestions in the Chang and Halliday article, but can appreciate your balanced evaluations of countless controversial issues. I look forward to collaborating with you. Dio free (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Colipon, I didn't realize it had been taken down already. Zhou Enlai has been an interest of mine for some time and keeps coming up in my research. If i do ever get the chance to read some of the recent stuff about him, I'll look into the article! :) Dio free (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not used to this system, sorry, I hope I performed the correct email setup. DKF (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks
I'm glad we seem to be discussing this with each other, and perhaps respectfully disagreeing, rather than at each other. :) kwami (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad we've moved on from the personal swipes. Thanks for the conciliatory discussion, I really appreciate it. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Qinghai
Hello. I didn't realize that putting in material on the April 2010 earthquake into Qinghai was inappropriate -- since you edited it out anyway without discussion. Where does the material belong? In a orphaned article (2010 Yushu earthquake)? Hmm. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not orphaned. Wikipedia is not a news service, and it should not lendundue weight, especially to recent events. This is a problem all over Wikipedia. I can go back to the Qinghai article to place a note in the "See Also" section for now, and once the dust has settled, we can move back in and edit the main sections of the article. I hope that makes sense.Colipon+ (Talk) 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying and take your points. I wish WP were uniformly so consistent in this position. I considered the article nearly an orphan since very few real articles linked to it, instead, a lot of user pages and discussions linked to it. Thanks and best wishes. --- (Bob)Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Li Xiaolin


A tag has been placed on Li Xiaolin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Morenooso (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin Kwami
Hello, I was wondering if you are interested in starting a Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation (WP:RFC/U:Admin) on, seeing as Kwami again unilaterally moved the Cantonese article after a WP:RM without any notice or reason, on the 23rd, setting off another revert.

I myself cannot, since I am an IP user and do not have page creation rights.

I have also asked user:Ohconfucius on this issue.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the request. I'm a bit tight on time. Why don't you just start an account? It takes 20 seconds.Colipon+ (Talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Hi, I left an unnecessarily abrupt edit summary when reverting one of your edits to Choe Yong-rim; apologies. To explain my reversal: the addition is not really relevant to the family name notification it was appended to; it's not particularly relevant to that particular article (maybe relevant on Kim Yong-Il's); and in any case, it seemed to me to be too dumbing down (rather like having a note on the George Clinton page explaining that he's not related to Bill). But anyway, sorry for the summary. HenryFlower 10:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)