User talk:Guanxi

Kurdistan
Hopefully we can come to a compromise, but just keep in mind that Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, which menas that you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Adios, Khoikhoi 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also a rule that you shouldn't revert without comment, and shouldn't revert at all without trying to improve the article. See here. Instead of making this into an issue of rules, let's try to improve the article. Guanxi

Ty Cobb
Thanks for the compliment about my work on Ty Cobb. Thank you also for improving the lead and meticulously checking the article. The lead was on my to do list in the lead-up to a peer-review and eventual FA review.

No worries
No worries about moving my comments; not a big deal. I think I may stay out of the discussion in the future as I can see the validity of the points on both sides; and it's escalating in tension. I like to stay out of situations like those ;) I've definitely seen worse, though, and it's not that bad yet, but the foundation is there for it to get there.  Maybe I'll try to provide a level-headed response if I feel the urge.  Anyways, have a good day! -Bluedog423Talk 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I tried to convey a calm message to everybody since tensions were getting too absurdly high. In the end, I agree that the image should be deleted because fair use cannot be claimed since it doesn't add any new information that can be extrapolated from reliable sources.  I don't know what your statement of "I have no idea what happened that night, but I think it should be decided by a judge and jury" has to do with anything about including the image.  It was not supposed to be if we included the image that means she clearly lied. It should be a decision independent of our opinion.  Maybe you were just talking about that issue without it relating to the inclusion of the image, I don't know.  Also, there's no need to call the accuser "a prostitute," (although you were probably trying to imitate others who phrase it in such a way, which I do not support), while guessing that the defendants have "connections on the highest levels" (I have no idea if that statements is true or not).  Although I certainly agree with you that those with power and money can defend themselves much more easily, and there is a horrid inequity in our legal system.  But that's in no way related to this discussion.  It seems to be clear that the defendants have spent a lot of money on their lawyers.  It is obvious that if they were poor and Nifong acted in the same manner, there is no way that the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence would have surfaced.  The defendants had hired DNA experts to read through the thousands of pages of documents, obviously something many people cannot afford.  Also, note that while certain lacrosse players have admitted that some racial slurs were made (apparently on both sides with the second dancer starting it), the three indicted individuals apparently were not part of that, according to the second dancer.  Reade Seligmann specifically chastised his teammates for that in an interview, although that could obviously have been a PR move.  Anyways, I am trying to reserve judgment on the case until the newly appointed attorney general's office makes a decision and it does/does not go to trial and a verdict is met, but either way, Nifong has clearly acted like an idiot, and the defendants' innocence or guilt shouldn't be the reasoning behind the inclusion of the picture, in my opinion.  Thanks for acting civilly in the discussion as clearly that was too difficult to ask of others.  Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Random comment, and you may call me a stalker, but I was just checking your contributions b/c you didn't respond, although my statement didn't necessarily merit a response. In any event, the "blue" is my name is completely unrelated to Duke.  It comes the artist George Rodrigue and his frequent depictions of a bluedog.  It's also completely unrelated to bluedog democrats.  Anyways, just thought I'd clear that up! Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points, no worries about not responding. In regards to her being a "prostitute" or not, all I meant to say is that it has not been 100% verified that she indeed served as a "prostitute."  Rather, she technically is an "escort" who has served clients one-on-one.  There's no way to validate the fact that she actually had sex with these clients for money, although statistics may show that this is probably likely.  Either way, it's still something that has not been 100% substantiated and thus is not NPOV. -Bluedog423Talk

Duke rape complainant
Kudos. The one thing you might want to also consider is where it says in the fair use rationale that this shows her at a significant time. That might be true, or it might not be. I think it's part of the POV issue. It's fair to still say this case is the reason for her notability, but stating why this particular picture is notable is still pushing it. Wahkeenah 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If you mean the description on the image page, I already changed it. Anyway, one hot issue at a time. (I hope you don't mind if I changed the section header -- I prefer not to user her name, even if it may still be all over Wikipedia). Thanks again. Guanxi 23:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I now see what you were referring to, regarding the Fair Use rationale. First I'm trying to determine what policies/guidelines apply, then we can apply them. Guanxi 13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Duke rape compainant
Why are you insisting that we don't know when this photo was taken? The information is right there on the image's page:.

P.S. - You are not supposed to edit, or re-arrange article talk pages, either. Duke53 | Talk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please post about the photo on the photo's discussion page, and I'll respond there. Regarding the talk page, you posted in the middle of my post, effectively editing it, so I moved yours. Guanxi 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion with Johntex)
(It's in it's entirety on User talk:Johntex; fragments here were removed).

thanks
Hi Guanxi,

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. If I think of any other way to help illuminate the discussion on the Duke pages, I'll try to help. --Allen 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Cobb
Thanks for your comments. There are any number of ways to look at this situation. Unfortunately, I think these articles communicate the feelings of the editors rather than the information that should be delivered. These are not black and white situations, but I do agree with letting the facts speak for themselves. The Cobb intro was reworked because it was poorly done. It can and should be expanded upon. Rather than make any claims about what people may or may not think, you can effectively communicate the same idea by presenting factual information. The comment regarding the # of votes he received when he was elected into the HOF is just such an example. There are a number of people who think Cobb is one of the greatest players, there are a number that don't. //Tecmobowl 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to your continued attempts to get statements regarding an athlete's greatness into wikipedia, I would really like you to provide me with some examples from wiki guidelines (or procedures) that support your position. I am have a difficult time right now following all these different issues, but I will re-add this page to my watch list so we can discuss this. //Tecmobowl 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have already discussed this issue and I have already provided the example you are requesting, multiple times. Please review the previous discussions. There is no point in starting again: Please restore the content. Guanxi 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected?
No, I think that the article's protection has expired...the tag is still there, though. I will remove it. Sr13 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Plan II Honors nominated for deletion
As probably the leading contributor to the page, I thought I should notify you. Guanxi 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Return of the Son of Cobb
Sorry for not getting in touch with you sooner. When I edited the article, it was as a casual observer - one who knows Wikipedia, but who wouldn't consider himself a "regular" by any means. So, forgive me my "drive-by" - even though I still think that statement is positively ridiculous (Wikipedia has for a reason :)), I'll butt out and let the grizzled Cobbians work it out. Personally, I agree with whoever said "the greatest hitter", but baseball's like football - just like how you can't compare Jerry Rice to Emmitt Smith, it's dazzlingly difficult to compare a hitter to a pitcher and say one or the other is the "greatest ever" of any era. Really, though, "greatest anything" is a term to be avoided whenever possible :) --Badger Drink 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) - Redacting this. Upon closer examination of the talk page, your statement on June 5th is that you will change it to "baseball historians" or somesuch. It's been two months and the article still reads "knowledgable fans". I consider myself a knowledgable fan of baseball, and I wouldn't call Ty Cobb the greatest of his era. "One of" the greatest, sure - but what a stupid superlative. Even the proposed change - "many historians" - is, without a proper citation, a perfect example of a weasel phrase. Consider me butting back in. :) --Badger Drink 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited the article - let me know what you think. --Badger Drink 11:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Got your message on my talk page. Agree wholeheartedly. Baseball books geared at children might be a very good source for topics like this. Just make sure they're by reputable establishments and they should pass WP:RS - I remember growing up with two volumes of a Sports Illustrated for Kids series, the first volume of which was one of the most read books in my personal library. I'm not having much luck finding it on Amazon, I'll update you if I find my old copy. But, for a general sense of what I'm talking about, here's the sort of book I mean. --Badger Drink 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Geller
Very nice work, thanks. Sorry if I was a bit snappish re your view as to consensus, there. Part of that was probably a carryover due to my strong preference that article-related discussion should stay on the article talk page. I really dislike it when that spills over to user pages, but it's a common practice, of course, and there's no way you could have known of that. I should probably put something to that effect in my talk-page edit notice. I should probably also refrain from editing while feeling grumpy, as it appears from my last comment on the article talk page. ;-) Thanks again,  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate it, and I have no problem at all regarding your comments. I accepted that my slightly snappish comment got a slightly snappish response, and regretted the former. Frankly, I wish your general maturity and calm was the norm for everyone on Wikipedia, but it never seems to work that way! guanxi (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Winged Helmet
Somehow you can allow all the current references to Michigan, but all the following sources proving Michigan State also wore the winged helmets are thrown out?
 * 1) Constantine S. Demos and Steven S. Demos, M.D., The Tradition Continues: Spartan Football (Muskegon: Michigan State University Football Players Association, 2008) 515.
 * 2) Michigan State Football: They Are Spartans (Arcadia Publishing (January 11, 2004)
 * 3) Bentley Historical Library: University of Michigan Athletics History. “University of Michigan Football: Michigan’s Winged Helmet.” The Regents of the University of Michigan. Apr. 2006, 26 Mar. 2010
 * 4) http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2010/12/29/winging-it-helmet-history-reconsidered/
 * 5) http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/110113_bulwark_football_helmets
 * 6) MSU Archives: http://www.flickr.com/photos/msuarchives/4524022374/in/set-72157623632171779/

And that doesn't include SpartanJerseys.com. What are you protecting?

Imacericg (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are referring to. I didn't remove those sources or anything cited to them, I only removed spartanjerseys.com. It would be great if you could provide additional material based on reliable sources; that's what Wikipedia is all about. Let's discuss what's a Reliable Source on the article's talk page. I'll start something over there. guanxi (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added a line to the article and cited a reliable source (published book). All of the other sources on that page are Michigan or Princeton websites or fansites and you would not allow any Michigan State websites. Lets start somewhere (with a book). Imacericg (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of the spurious accusations. If you want my cooperation, stop them now. guanxi (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No accusations. Just seems that its very, very difficult to get something about Michigan State on the page, when others got a free pass. I am starting fresh and instead of hitting "undo" I cited a reliable source per your recommendation. We are cool, no worries.Imacericg (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "No accusations" and then repeat them in the next sentence. Let's talk about the article, and reliable sources, on the article's talk page. guanxi (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I just responded on the talk page. Imacericg (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guanxi, I recommend that you not continue reverting at Winged football helmet. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. There is a possibility that both you and Imacericg might be blocked. Neither of you should revert again until consensus is reached on talk. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed, can you tell me what you object to? As far as I can see, what I've done is clearly in the interests of and within the rules of WP. Also, threatening me with a block is completely inappropriate; if you have some objection to what I'm doing, you could politely make a suggestion. Also, can you tell me where a complaint has been made? guanxi (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See my corresponding notice to Imacericg. It takes two to edit war. If you are correct, you should find that a proper talk discussion will end with support of your position. Now that this dispute has already been to WP:AN3, admins may take whatever action is needed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have acted without informing yourself of the facts and owe us both an apology. There is no edit war; as far as I know Imacericg and I are both satisfied with the article. Also, please specifically identify what I've done that is inappropriate -- perhaps a link to a diff? I've done only two things in the last 5 days: 1) I spent significant time improving, refining, and integrating Imacericg's edit into the article, giving it prominence; and 2) I reverted one edit by him, a move he partially agreed with because he made a compromise edit since. Furthermore, I've minimized conflict: Imacericg has publicly stated that his goal to promote his POV regarding this issue but other than discouraging him from editing, I've worked around it. I'm a mature adult, I've behaved maturely and effectively, and I do not value your uninformed, condescending criticism or threats. guanxi (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both you and Imacericg are continuing to use angry rhetoric towards the other person. (See his talk page, where he charges you with personal attacks). You have urged him to stop editing the article due to his crusade in favor of MSU. When looking at the edit history of the article I also see two edits today by each of you that appear to be reverts. Edit wars tend to be visible to everyone. Agreements on talk pages are also visible to everyone. Where is the agreement? You are welcome to open a WP:Request for comment and get it advertised. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please quote the angry rhetoric by either party; it simply doesn't exist. An accusation of personal attacks needs to be substantiated, and nobody has done that. I was critical of him in an appropriate manner, but I was not angry and neither was he. His last edit was not a revert, but a compromise that I support. I don't have to explicitly state that on the Talk page, though I subsequently have (and if you had been more patient, you would have seen it eventually). Again, you are ill-informed and your behavior is not warranted. guanxi (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Davis incident
You removed the following sentence which contains very important information to the article. All you had to do was rephrase it if it was not to your liking.

"It was not until February 11 that the US embassy in Pakistan began to refer to the arrested US citizen as "Raymond Davis" in its Press Releases. "

We had the US State Department and the US Embassy who referred to him as "the arrested US Diplomat" which is stated in the article. The Department of State even stated that "the name going around was wrong", which is also stated in the article.

Then for the first time, they call him by the name "Raymond Davis" in a press release and you remove it as "original research". I edited it and re-inserted it like this :

"On February 11, the US embassy in Pakistan referred to the arrested US citizen as "Raymond Davis" in its Press Release. " which can no longer be called "original research"

You could have done that much without cutting it out. Hudicourt (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I seemed overly aggressive. I actually have the same complaint very often, that people lazily (or aggressively) revert when they could, and should, just improve it. But in this case I think the revised version doesn't belong in the article either. Taken at face value, it doesn't mean very much -- who cares what word they used on Feb 11? Taken as evidence for the argument that they were trying to cover his name, it's OR. It needs an RS that says they are covering up his name, not primary evidence for it. But while I don't agree, the version you inserted is inconsequential enough that I can live with it. If you could find some RS's, though, that would be a valuable addition to the article. It's an important point if it can be cited properly. guanxi (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guanxi. I agree with Hudicourt. A lot of work has been done on this page so it would be appreciated and more polite to suggest improvements on the discussion page first. Also a quick search on the net yourself would have revealed that this was not OR and then also you could have contributed by adding a link to the article instead of diminishing it by removing revealing and highly relevant information.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (I hope you don't mind that I removed the indent from your post, our edits collided and the indent made this thread hard to read.). I know it's a PITA when you work hard on an article and then someone drives by and blows up your work -- it's happened to me. Because you ask politely, I'll do you the courtesy of trying to check out the Discussion page before editing this page further, but I'm afraid that's the nature of Wikipedia -- nobody owns the article; don't get too attached to it. I certainly don't agree that I should submit all changes for approval beforehand, if that's what you meant.
 * In this case, I think my edits were appropriate without discussion. That text I removed was clearly OR. When you say you could have contributed by adding a link to the article, I'm not sure what "the article" is to which you refer. If you meant, I could have found "an" article and cited it; if an RS existed and if I had time, maybe I could, but I didn't.
 * Hi. I was suggesting that to know whether the sentence you deleted was backed by a RS you needed to do a search. If you then came across one then you could have added that source as a ref. and NOT deleted it. That would be how I would like WP to work; a collaborative effort for a common goal. Otherwise it just becomes so easy to descend to edit warring which I don't think anyone wants.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Then The editor who originally posted the OR could have done the same, but didn't. I believe it was still valuable to remove the OR. Wikipedia is collaborative; I don't have to do it all myself. guanxi (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement you deleted does not fit WP on OR. Maybe I got this wrong bit I assume you deleted it because it did not have a reference citation (I don't remember and haven't the inclination to go back and check;-). Is that correct? Did you therefore assume that it was OR because of that lack? I have been following this story closely in all english speaking media outlets so know all the angles on this saga quite thoroughly, (and its been a real roller-coaster ride;-) So I personally knew that addition was accurate and didn't notice if it didn't have a ref. Here's my suggestion for the future: if we see things that are not referenced the best, harmonious and least upsetting way to correct that is (if you are unfamiliar with the details of any addition) that you put a  request on it.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I agree that discussion on the talk page is needed in a rapidly-changing article (sometimes to my detriment), I would like to throw my support behind Guanxi's interpretation of OR in this case. Pointing out that the State Department used his name in an official capacity is OR unless that fact is reported on by RS's.   David Able 02:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The US Embassy's press statements webpage in Pakistan is a perfectly reliable source for quoting Embassy press statements. Its actually probably the most reliable source for that that there is.;-J Here is the criteria for judging "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has quite a few policy problems that seem to be manifesting slowly, yet surprisingly little attention is given by Admins and outside editors, despite numerous posts on the noticeboards. I wonder if an RFC is in order?  David Able 02:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree about the lack of attention, which seems odd for a well-known issue involving BLP. Also, it's a tough article to manage without experience, due the complexity of a rapidly changing events, many unusual sources, political controversy, and BLP. Unfortunately, I've just about reached my quota of WP editing for the week. RfC sounds good to me, but I'm afraid I don't have time to participate more than minimally. guanxi (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I left a response to your comment on my talk page here. I may have some time tonight and tomorrow morning to put together an RFC regarding the RS issues.  If not, Monday for sure.  I'll let you know when/if I post it, and after that we should probably keep any discussion of the article on the relevant page. Thanks for you concern about the BLP issues.  David Able 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mbuzi listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mbuzi. Since you had some involvement with the Mbuzi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)