User talk:Jimknock

I also noticed that you have been editing articles on Tibet-related topics. You may be interested in joining WikiProject Tibet, a group of editors working to improve coverage of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism on Wikipedia. Again, welcome! --Gimme danger (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

== Gimme danger, Thanks for suggesting the WikiProject Tibet. I was quite concerned that some articles were being biased for partisan political purposes and that nobody was paying much attention. I know there are cadres of state sponsored hackers in China. Some of them are working 24x7 to spin public perceptions to China's point of view. Now I can see there are quite a few mechanisms introduced into Wikipedia that people can use to keep some of these things under control. I feel better about it but I am still uncomfortable.

Maybe I'll go look at articles involving Falun Dafa or Scientology. These are both subjects that would be magnets for information Nazis. I'm just trying to get comfortable with the idea that I can trust the Wikipedia information. It was quite a shock to me to read the Wikipedia article about the boarder incident. I started thinking about New Speak, Brave New World, and certain US political administrations. 24.255.124.160 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your violation on the rule of Liancourt Rocks
Judging by your sporadic and scarce edits, and I assume good faith in your edit on Liancourt Rocks which violated our rules supervised by ARBCOM committee, I let you know the rules for the article. You should read the rule written on the talk page, because you could've been blocked for your violation of the naming lameness if somebody spot it and reported it to the admins in charge. Altering the current name of the title and Sea of Japan/East Sea are all strictly forbidden without any discussion. So use the talk page first with plausible rationale and sources when you really feel like the naming is not right. Take care.--Appletrees (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)