User talk:Ohconfucius/archive07

Please click here to leave me a message. To keep all discussions coherent, I will reply on the same page where messages are left for me. Thanks for stopping by.

Taking action on PCPP's disruptive editing
I think the first thing necessary will be to do a Request for Comment on PCPP's editing. Here is some info on that; it requires at least two editors to ask him to desist disruptive editing before an RFC can be lodged. I understand that he needs to have disobeyed the exhortations. I am going to post a comment on his page now explaining this and asking him to stop deleting sourced content from the pages and leaving spurious explanations. I thought you should be made aware of this, since you are indirectly involved in what I perceive as his disruptive editing. It isn't clear to me whether I am allowed to canvass for this--do you know? I assume I am not breaking any rules here. If so I would strike this through and apologise. I can't find that on the page though. Thanks.--Asdfg12345 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. He's getting a bit brazen, and needs to be kept at bay. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier
Hi, I put all of the refs in this article at the end of the punctuation, per your request. Hopefully this helps pass the article... Let me know if there's anything else (altho, I know nothing about the topic...hehe)

Lazulilasher (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left further notes on the talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. You may place this on your userpage:
 * D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anson Chan
Even though it's already been a while on the edit on Anson Chan about knighthoods (The GCMC), the word 'damehood' is used for a female who receive a 'knighthood'. --Cahk (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5865.asp
 * Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Header
I like you header and was wondering if it was ok to borrow/copy it for my userpage/talkpage, but thought I would ask first in case there was a way to remake it so it knows what user it is on?

Yours

Barry Carlyon (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I myself copied the basic structure, but no longer recall from where, but have made some customisations (for example, I found some similar looking logos more appropriate for the subjects I wanted, and renamed the pages). Doing this is easy enough, and I will be pleased to help if you just give me a shout. I have taken the liberty of creating the header in your userspace. It should now be correctly pointing to your own links. All you have to do to put it on your articles is put the tag ' ' on the page. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Barry Carlyon (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I shall be sure to give you a shout if I need any help :-)

Falun Gong articles
I've just began to take a look at these articles and I'm simply shocked at the attitudes of the so-called "pro-FG" contributors, notably Asdfg and HappyInGeneral. Their hastiness to make blatant accusations and personal attacks and yet cite Wikipedia policies, such as randomly calling users "[probably] a CCP agent" without even knowing who they are referring to, defies even the most basic of Wikipedia principles. What is even more shocking was that an Arbcom case was filed and yet none of them received any warnings over it; instead, who I believe was a reasonable editor was banned from the article for being a so-called "activist" - while these users openly admit practising Falun Dafa and voices their intention to promote it? Frankly, as a contributor who edited thousands of different articles in all categories, I have never been more concerned than at the situation in these articles. I'm willing to attempt to reason with these users now and hope to make it clear for them that they must leave their personal opinions and attacks out of the discussion, but it's hard to be optimistic given the history of the articles. I believe a serious admin or ArbCom intervention is needed, soon, but since I'm relatively new in this dispute, I would like your advice on this matter. Thanks. Herunar (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tough problem, I know - the 'Falun Gong' article is pretty pro-FG - what criticisms there are are buried in Third party views on Falun Gong, a pretty dry, academic and boring thesis. It would pay you to search through the archives of the FG talk page if you want to know what you are getting into - it elevates my wikistress levels when I go "Falun-gonging". I distain at their tactics. This bunch of devotees insist that there must be detailed mentions of how FG are persecuted in China in almost any article where they get the opportunity, not happy with it being led to by the main article. I think the only way was to play the game their way, and try to introduce more sourced information and not to delete without reason; Increasing the transparency of the edits made; fact tagging unsourced assertions and later deleting them if not addressed. While FGers will happily put "sourced" material into articles, some is virulent propaganda from WOIPFG; much is dubious allegation dressed up as fact by the Epoch Times. The ET is not considered a reliable source, and should always be challenged within the confines as to what may be quoted from primary sources. In addition, always challenge the fidelity of assertions from sources. There can be no letup in scrutinising the edits because FG devotees or apologists will misrepresent what sources say if neutral editors are not watchful. Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident article was littered with examples of this when I started to attack it. Now it's a "good article". I believe that I may give the FG editors a lot of leeway, but this collaboration has resulted in the above 'good article'. As there is a shortage of neutral editors around in these murky waters, I hope you will stick around, but make sure that the changes you make are capable of being backed up. There is no quick fixing the violations of WP:NPOV, in particular there are plenty of violations of WP:UNDUE, so trying to making the series into "good articles" may be one way of enlisting neutral editors. I will end my rant here. There are more of my thoughts and frustrations here Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just into this dispute but with my humble opinions, I completely disagree. Playing it their way is not a solution. Any such collaboration formed is pointless and any "good article" is moot, given the incredible amounts of biases present in the articles behind the seemingly-honest citations. Already, plenty of users, including you, have spoken out against the behavior and decided to leave the article. This I discourage. This is a problem in Wikipedia we have to face together. Instead of giving up and playing it their way, the problem must be solved right in its roots; otherwise, where would Wikipedia find its integrity when such corruption lies deep in its community, when certain activists dominate the articles? How ever could Wikipedia claim to be a free, neutral encyclopedia? The situation must be tackled right now. Too long have users been suppressed under this regime of pro-FG editors. Users like Asdfg12345 have good intentions, but their serious misunderstanding with the core of Wikipedia policies and their immense self-interest far exceeds any good they may have done.
 * Remember in Wikipedia that we are a community. We not only have the ability to appeal to the community in cases like this, but as experienced users, we have the duty to do so. I will not let such unforgivable behaviors past under my eyes in a Wikipedia community. Herunar (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 这些人叫“下焦虚冷”. 说别人说得头头是道， 不照照镜子看看自个儿. Herunar (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Dilip
Friend,

You are making the same mistake you are accussing me of - "unilateral reverts" as you put it. I believe that there were a lot of content in the recent version that is very relevant to the topic.

I understand that the gif of slow motion deconstruct analysis would, perhaps, better fit into the reports and analysis section rather than the intro and their might have been other factors that needed improvement too - but overall the article, I believe, was far more factual than the previous version which presented many things in a very misleading manner.

These are things that can easily be fixed through edits - please do not bluntly revert like this. It becomes very difficult to contribute when you keep doing that.

Dilip

Dilip please, it's been nominated a good article and confucius put that thing on the talk page notifying anyone of that concept. Also, your edits weren't really improvements to the article as far as I could tell. At least those sentences tacked onto intro and the huge gif just didn't help. Anyway, simply discuss edits on talk page.

Confucius the other thing I meant to tell you was that I recently found out that when Rahn wrote those two Falun Gong articles in the pseudo journals she was just a college student at UCLA. Those weren't even a Phd thesis. She was a failed soap actress who went back to school. That's the sad truth. Thought you should know.--Asdfg12345 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. I think I must have said in the context of Porter that, in time, he may be a credible scholar, but I don't think he's there yet. Rahn is now "credible" in some camps, and that credibility can be applied to retrospective works. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

hah, where please? The fact is we have a failed soap actress publishing two articles in a couple of pseudo-journals--that's it. ?--Asdfg12345 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe her credentials deserve closer scrutiny! Ohconfucius (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FDH in Hong Kong
I left a comment on the talk page of the article, let me know if you need a further explanation or anything else. Thanks for alerting me to it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Edison Chen photo scandal
I have restored my edits. Please discuss on article's talk page. JSIN (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People can Google up the links if they want, but they are clearly unencyclopaedic and do not belong here on wikipedia. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanna use this space here to also point out that the page (photo scandal) needs semi-protection from IP Edits. What do you think? TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not manifestly a problem yet, as disruptive or vandal edits there have not been sufficiently frequently. and no administrator will protect it. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Penn Singers
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Penn Singers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Penn Singers. Deb (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

long sentences
Which one? If you're referring to "in Hong Kong", in my defence an adjectival phrase has more effect when placed as near as possible to its antecedent. I wrote that it is an unambiguous location for the following reason. Let's say you have a sentence: "Bob thinks that important foods are bread and peanuts in England." This would imply that he shows preference for "peanuts in England" but not "peanuts" in general. Of course, that's a bit absurd because peanuts are peanuts. If you slid "in England" in a position that preceded "important foods", it would indicate clearly that both foods are important in this place called England. "Bob thinks that, in England, important foods include bread and peanuts." Pandacomics (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bush, China, democracy
In response to your post on my talk page (from Dec 11 2007) First point: Since Wikipedia is not judgmental and has an explicit policy to strive to be objective, we ought to leave a country as it claims to be first, then introduce the opposing view later and NOT the other way round. The US claims itself to be a federal republic and should be called that; should one re-label it the Liberal Democracy of the USA? There are official versions of facts and what you view as the 'real' facts. You are entitled to opinions of your own (incl political opinions) and you are fully entitled to file that under 'criticisms' or a similar section to that. It is not acceptable, for example, to declare the PRC a fascist state, the DAB as a 'Tiananmen Square apologist trademark' party, as much as it is unacceptable to declare the USA a 'dictatorship', the Democratic Party (HK) as a 'treacherous sell-out, oppose-everything trademark' party. You are entitled to be a strong left-liberal person if you want to and I fully respect that. However, when you start placing politically-colored opinions as facts then you have crossed the line.

Second point: Hu Jintao I think was talking about democracy in the original meaning, as in people power, not liberal democracy. 'Min Zhu' only means democracy in its most general term, right? And have you forgotten that communism/socialism is called a 'people's democracy'? Remember, much like the US labelling itself a 'liberal democracy', I'm not saying whether I agree with this label or not - I'm just saying that's what it calls itself. Unlike you, it seems (from Asdfg's Yahoo article link with you being on the news strongly supporting Anson Chan, etc.) I have no personal political agenda on here (I am qualified to vote in HK Island FYI but I didn't vote for either Anson Chan or Regina Ip as I found them both too biased), nor am I a spokesperson for any nation, country or organization. Instead of always thinking you are fighting for some just cause, all about 'free speech', if you really value such a 'freedom', you have to first practice it yourself. How do you do that? Apply it to everyone. Listen to their opinions with an open mind, not a parochial attitude where you have decided before you listen or read.

Now consider Wiki. It promotes itself to be informative and objective, so you have to give proportional treatment to everything. However, it seems that you have re-interpreted remarks by people you don't like (e.g. Hu Jintao, CCP) and twisted it to suit your anti-Chinese government agenda. How about stepping back for a second and consider the value that you are trying to promote, instead of getting lost in the craze of excess adherence to one ideology? You appear to demand more freedoms only for those who share your political opinions. Such inflexibility leads to great intolerance in society, polarizing the pro- and anti-government camps. This should not happen. Now, while I know Falun Gong seems like a lost cause already, you should reconsider your political position in Hong Kong on Wikipedia. I'm not saying you should change your political position when campaigning in HK - I would never dream of inhibiting your right to exercise freedom of speech providing it is within the law. I'm just saying that in an objective environment such as Wikipedia, you need to be writing (in the main entries) the objective facts as presented by the 'official' side, write the criticisms in the next section, let the reader decide, but feel completely free to express your real opinions in the discussion pages.

Don't confuse the function of the main entries and their discussion pages. Ever wonder why I talk so much more on talk / discussion pages rather than blindly edit main entries? Jsw663 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A P.S. to my post above: if you don't think a (in this case, third-party FG) link is sufficiently relevant and delete it because YOU don't think it's appropriate, does that make you the authority figure on Wikipedia? I hope this isn't the 'democracy' you are talking about in your strong anti-government, anti-police politics that are reflected in every article you appear to be involved in, such as the Edison photo scandal. Jsw663 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be confusing me with someone else: I am not a public figure, and never did come out in support of Anson Chan. I think Anson is too cold blunt and not at all diplomatic, and Regina is now too slimy and insincere (although she was pretty much "let them eat cake" when she was a minister). It is already on record that I am not a FG supporter, but I believe that the Chinese leadership and FG deserve one another. Politically, I am probably closest to the Liberal Party in terms of their overall platform, except I believe they are too vested against electoral reform to increase government accountability and transparency. Of course, I have my views and defend my right to have those views, but I do try to be neutral when it comes to wikipedia. Editing the FG articles has worn me out, so I have been keeping a distance of late. While I may occasionally be guilty of WP:UNDUE, you are now accusing me of being overtly partisan and parochial in everything I have done, which I take as a pretty nasty swipe. You may not think it is a big deal that famous landmarks are knocked down to fill the pockets or property developers, or that somebody (in the Edison case) arrested be denied bail simply because the court reckons his heavy indebtedness makes him a flight risk, but a significant number of people seem to share my view that these are important issues, and much of the publicity generated is because of those collective views and actions. I don't think I have pretended any of my views are mainstream when they are not. In addition, I have so far found a dearth of cited text in defense of the police, but look forward to citing it as and when it surfaces. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Preview button
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edison photo scandal
Opps, that was an edit conflict mistake. Please add that section back, thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added them back. Thanks again for pointing it out. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW
Oh I replied on my talk page. Benjwong (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You tell me
Once again FLG propagandists has edited large chunks of text without discussion, masquerading their unsourced opinons as fact, yet when I try to reverse their damage I have to gain their approval. What a joke.--PCPP (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to find sources that won't be a problem. I wouldn't have thought that was necessary though, because they are abundant across the persecution page. I can dig them up for you though and paste them there. I don't think that's the problem though. You just don't like any of this stuff, sourced or not. You've repeatedly deleted sourced content in the past. I have to apologise very frankly and sincerely to you though, for just reverting your edits even when some parts or all of them are appropriate, like when you change CCP to PRC, etc.. I won't do that again. From now on, we should do like this: where the sources dictate CCP or PRC, go with that, otherwise default to something like "Chinese authorities". Also, while I right here acknowledge that you make some legitimate edits, I must also urge you to stop the destructive ones, like redirecting the CIPFG page continually, and blanking negative stuff on the CCP. I'm definitely open to discuss any changes, I would welcome that. If there is undue weight on certain points or you want to talk about how we can work better together, rephrase things, restructure things, add in different sources to balance opinions, I'm really all for that. Those would all be good things. But I wish you would stop elevating differences, making recriminations, accusations, and not building a constructive atmosphere. As I say, I have definitely not been good enough in this regard, and often blanket reverted you. Where your edits clearly have no merit (such as simply blanking sourced stuff with no discussion, or doing that redirect) I will revert, but in all other cases seek discussion. If we both do like this there will be no problem. I think it should not be difficult to just keep a fairly civil and neutral tone in our discussion, defer to wikipedia policies and reliable sources, and just do things methodically and by the books. If you want to do that I will welcome it! (sorry to put all this on your page confucius!) --Asdfg12345</b> 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have gone and looked at the two articles concerned, and note there are huge problems. I have removed some of the more blatant misrepresentations of sources, bearing in mind I do not have access to some of the source materials (Sutherland). I have also tagged them where there are appearance of weasel words, and put html notes to indicate specifically what my concerns are (instead of using the talk pages). Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're not burnt out or something, I do not enjoy giving you a hard time, but if you would like, please see the "revamped" organ harvesting page and leave your comments for improvement, or get your hands dirty.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, editing these pages was elevating my stress levels, so I have been enjoying life, and the peace and quiet going to the gym a lot, and doing some yoga. I have been watching from the sidelines: Seems like a new bunch of editors has waded in to the Falun Gong article, and I am just enjoying watching the heated discussions and occasionally throwing in a few firecrackers. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

hah! Great to hear. Okay, I do not want to interrupt your respite, another day then. I'll go in for round two on the organ page another time.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with Asdfg's edit war/DE/blanking/moving
I understand the reason for AGF, but AGF also said good faith no longer apply if there are evidence otherwise.

Well, I'm asking what I should do about Asdfg. The past 2 month have given me ample evidence to not AGF.

All I'm doing is trying to add notable facts to articles that are so blatantly POV'd that they may as well be FLG promotional material. And I'm not the only one if you take a look what's happening in the Falun Gong page with other editors. His MO is pretty clear - anything he doesn't like he blank/move down the article(and hope people don't read it), dream up sucky reason to drag it out in Talk, hide for a week and comeback and DE all over again.

You decide.

BTW, Asdfg has recently been sent to timeout.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

POV problems at Persecution of Falun Gong
See, so do you think these paragraphs really falls within WP:NPOV? --PCPP (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

People Paddle
Hi. I removed the speedy tag you placed and trimmed the article somewhat. It may well still be deletable, but I think we should let the AfD run its course (ie generate a bit more input). I've commented there too. Best wishes, --John (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics torch relay
You might be interested in editing this article and participating in the discussion. Currently, there is an troubling deficiency of common sense in the article. Herunar (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfy
Done. :-) It's at User:Ohconfucius/Mak Man Kee Noodle Shop.  - <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Philippe  04:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong Canadian supreme court ruling
Hi, you said "You asserted that it is ground-breaking". Where did I assert this?

Now regarding whether we do or don't include this reference, your argument seems to be that it is only a relatively minor case, and leaving it in will only promote edit warring, as other minor cases are added to the article. If I've misunderstood you, then please correct me.

My response to this would be that while the case itself is relatively minor, it prompted the judge to make a broadly-stated comment about Falun Gong in general. The text quoted in the article refers not to the specific civil action, but to the Judge's summary of the Falun Gong movement in general. This quote is interesting, because it is an appraisal from an independent westerner who is (or should be) dispassionate and informed, and it is valuable, because it is one of the few distinctly negative appraisals from someone who (frankly) doesn't work for the Chinese government. I think it provides a valuable point of balance. Any sane person is going to waqnt to find better information than the rantings of the Chinese government, but once you take those out of the picture you're left with a very idealistic depiction of a movement without flaws. Statements like this judge's one, from independent sources, help balance that picture out and give the reader some sense of context. They understand that FG may be flawed (depending on the one's perspective), and if so those flaws largely come down to the fact that it promotes mysticism, and that it has a tendency not to accept criticism.

A little bit of bland criticism like that shows up China's extreme criticism for what it really is. It provides an independent perspective. Fuzzypeg★ 06:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You said "setting a legal precedent for Canada" which is pretty ground-breaking. But again, I have found no sources to back it up. By your own apparent admission, it is indeed a pretty minor case. As to summarising my reasoning, you missed the bit about it coming only from a primary source, as far as the comment is specifically concerned ;-). Your interpretation about the judge's comment about it being a "useful and interesting" general statement provided to give balance (third paragraph), relying only on a primary source and in the absence of a reliably published commentary to that effect, appears to me to be original research. I am arguing that, without context of the legal case and the deliberations of the judge, the stand-alone comment lacks pertinence. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm replying to this at Talk:Falun Gong, and copying our discussion there, in case other editors have an opinion. Fuzzypeg★ 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent tagging
The matter of size is a real one, and a real concern. For what it's worth, however, the articles in question were primarily tagged for the WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group, which has substantially smaller numbers of articles. In part they were tagged for that group because the portal related to that project has not a lot of content to date. They, like all the other articles I've recently tagged, have been tagged on the basis of the articles' categorization. I can and do understand that you might have reservations about the categories remaining, and I don't think anyone would necessarily revert the categorization, although I can't swear to that. I know I wouldn't do so consciously, although I can't swear that if they appear in other Christianity categories than I;ve already gone through that I might not tag for the other categories. Basically, your call as to whether the banner stays or not. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I won't remove the banner. Let's see how it goes for the project. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal eagle?
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080423_cir_china_bush_investigation/

I forget if you studied law. Either way, take a squiz. Coming to a wikipedia article near you!--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the substance of the allegations in question. The case is based upon what I consider complete legal nonsense which only the Americans are stupid enough to think up, believing they can solve all the world's problems. "Extra-territorialism", meaning giving your own courts jurisdiction over foreign nationals on foreign soil can never be used for anything good. The logic is about the same as provoking a regime change in Iraq based on flimsy evidence - even if there's firm evidence, action would not be justified IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Pinochet? When did you become so cynical?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a huge problem with the legal principle. I don't think any end justifies the means, however abhorrent the crime or criminal Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet included. If you want to talk about universal and reciprocal extradition, I would be in favour in principle, although some jurisdictions would have problems extraditing to certain other jurisdictions they believed to have "less fair" legal systems. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Malin to Mizen
You voted for a delete here: Articles for deletion/Malin to Mizen. However, evidence establishing the noteworthiness of the topic has since been given and you have not been heard from since. I'm requesting that you and the other early voters return to the discussion and reaffirm or refute your previous position. -- MQ <font color="#00B000">Duck 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dilip
I've warned him about reverting against consensus.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:


 * 1) Added    at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.  This creates the required template for you there.
 * 2) Added  NewName  to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
 * 3) Added  PageName  to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dilip and asdfg
I believe it is obvious by now that their political motivations are very strong, perhaps the most significant motivation for their edits, making it completely impossible for NPOV, so it is certainly time to change their NPOV edits with much greater vigorousness than before. We have been far nicer and civil and gave these firebrands the chance. Their pandering may actually harm the goals of FLG, despite their intent. It is my opinion that we much change what is NPOV immediately before giving them the benefit of the doubt as we have for so long.EgraS (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been quite civil in discussing all this, and I have kept well within the bounds of wikipedia policies in making edits. I have not made any recriminations against other editors, nor questioned their motives. Please refer to specific edits that are problematic on the Tiananmen Self-immolation Incident page, and explain why. Since you got back you deleted a few things on grounds that they were biased/unsourced--like deleting the Washington Post paragraph. But it was sourced, and it's very relevant. There has been discussion about the different points that were seen as problematic and how to get around them, but you have not participated in it. In fact, there is still an opportunity to simply write on the talk page the specific parts of the page that you find problematic, to explain why, and propose a remedy. It's quite simple, and no one is going to say mean things to you. It's just that general comments about how the page is biased without specifying how, and accusing other editors of ill intentions, that's not going to help us move forward and improve the pages.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have stood hand-in-hand with Dilip who has made it crystal clear that he has strong political motivations for the editing of the article. Dilip has

I will follow the rules of WP regardless of what outrageous attacks are used against WP and me. EgraS (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Said that he is editing the article for "the truth" to be revealed and stop the "persecution" of FLG.
 * Wanted to change the name of the article even though no matter how it is examined, it would make no sense. The immolation occurred from people who were either FLG or CCP followers. They burned themselves intentionally regardless of it was for the sake of CCP OR FLG. It was certainly willful, and they were not forced. For example, they may have burned themselves for the CCP, to wage a war against FLG, but even in that case it is still "self-immolation".
 * Used only sources which are pro-FLG. Questioned if Amnesty Intl is an advocacy despite their own website.
 * Added quotation marks to everything he disagrees with to make it seems as if they are fake.
 * Started a fake checkuser to try to stifle any opinions that are against his own. He has not "apologized" despite what he promised on that checkuser.
 * Made the article his soapbox.

I understand that you have problems with Dilip, but that is not the issue here. You haven't referred to anything specifically that you would like to see changed on the page, or pointed out in what way it's currently problematic. The quotation marks you refer to had already been removed. Please specify what, on the current page, is violating wikipedia content policies. Don't delete the WPost paragraph again. If you haven't read the core content policies yet, I WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, I would say it's a good time to do so. I am not aware of any outrageous attacks against you or wikipedia... --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any false accusation is in and of itself an unfair attack, and an RfCU is in and of itself an attack on my credibility and motives and probably an intentional way to divert attention from the debate since the evidence is flimsy as to be similar to the claim that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim. Both have used only false circumstantial evidence. EgraS (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PCPP at WP:ANI
Hello Ohconfucius. The editing of User:PCPP is being questioned at WP:ANI. I was trying to decide if any admin action was needed, so I looked on his User talk. I noticed that you had left messages for him a couple of times, which suggests you may be somewhat familiar with his editing. Maybe you would like to add a comment to the ANI item. What is being complained about specifically is that he persists in changing Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong into a redirect, over and over without consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice
Yeah I really think I should lay off editing FLG articles a bit, it's really not a sane environment to be editing in. It seems I've lost any desire to cooperate with FLG SPAs after the AFD of CIPFG was canvassed by Ave Caesar's buddies and I was accused of being a CCP spy. I'm still disturbed at what nobody take into consideration of the article probation of the FLG articles though.--PCPP (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that all this talk and no action makes a mockery of article probation. Truth is, nobody but FG practitioners and lobbyists care about the family of articles. On several occasions, I have been talked into staying after declaring my intention to duck out. I believe they understand that they need a counterweight to sanely appraise the articles to remove the more blatant FG propaganda to lend the articles legitimacy. Don't know how much longer I can stick this out: each day I stay, the more stressed out I become; my nerves are nearly in tatters. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

funny, I feel the same way. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD
Want to express your opinion at Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination)?--PCPP (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pariah Burke
I know. It's always particularly awkward when one is addressing WP:N and WP:AUTO with the subject himself. That is one reason why WP:AUTO cautions against writing articles about oneself/defending oneself in deletion discussions. Do feel free to chime in on the AfD yourself, and thanks for your message. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Icarus (Hi!) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lumberjack AfD

 * Thread replied to on my talk page, as well as being cross-posted here.

Did I really come across as being uncivil? I thought I was addressing things in a rather factual manner ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were, just barely. I was more concerned that things looked to be heading in that direction. Maybe they wouldn't have, but I figured it would be better to play it safe and comment on it now rather than waiting to see if it did get to that point. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wise move. Having said that, I had had a chance to sleep on it. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Charts
Since you voted in Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil, can you give your opinion about Articles for deletion/United World Chart? Tosqueira (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest
An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I, you said to delete article about ramsetcube.

Are you an expert of BI or just a superficial person ?

I think a person without BI culture must be in silent.

All the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Section to new page
That Deputy Minister scheme and undersecretaries new section at Politics of Hong Kong, would you be interested in moving it to a new article? Then it can expand and link to other pages etc. Benjwong (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have no objections to a page creation where we could move the content. It's a row that has been in the media for three weeks, so it's certainly notable enough. I just wanted to be sure there to be enough material before we did that. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you added 100% of that section, it might be a good idea if you created the new page. It would seem more fair if the history of the new page begins with your name in the edit history. Of course, if you don't care I'll just move the section to the new page myself. Benjwong (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get on to it Monday, if you can wait. For some reason, I can't create new pages on my home machine. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your time. No hurries. Benjwong (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't quite decide what name to give the article, as the govt does not seem to have given it a name, but the 'Deputy Minister scheme' or 'Political appointments system' may fit. You're welcome to suggest an appropriate name for the article/scheme. It's here if you wan to have a look at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there
Hello, are you still editing the Falun Gong Articles? We need more people to keep them non-POV Intranetusa (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've grown very tired of editing FG articles. For some time, I felt like I was the Lone Ranger (sic). I was stressed out due to feeling squeezed by attacks from both sides, with no shoulder to cry on :-(. In particular, through my almost daily contact with practitioners editing these pages, my personal position on the sect has changed somewhat since I started some months ago. I am saddened that I no longer feel that I can objectively edit this series of articles. In the end, I came to the conclusion that whilst the state of the FG articles was a disgrace to Wikipedia, the pro-FG editors were doing themselves the biggest disservice, so I decided to give them plenty of rope. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum Important thing I've left out is that I perceive there is a rather large gap between what FG editors and I, and I believe most 'ordinary WP editors', feel as NPOV/indue importance. I feel this gap is not all that bridgeable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your use of the term "sect" to refer to Falun Gong quite insulting. Also, you should know that there is no "Falun Gong" as such, just heterogenous individuals anywhere in the world who can read the Li's teachings and do the exercises, when and where they wish (except mainland China). There is no Big Bad Falun Gong entity here, just autonomous individuals. I think it would be better, if you had a problem with some particular user's editing, to refer to that particular user. Creating a virtual nefarious cabal isn't going to help. By the way, if you have points for improvement on any of the articles I would be glad to hear them, on the talk pages or wherever; you know that's always been the case. --Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I think you are aware what my position was when I began editing Falun Gong. I just stated for the record that my views have changed, but I do not blame you for that. I feel that I have acquired a great understanding of FG without actually becoming a practitioner. I feel like I'm making the proverbial AA confession here by saying that in the brief period since I have ceased to be involved in FG, I have found a renewed purpose in life. I may come back to the FG pages at some stage, but you will forgive me for staying away for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would define 'sect' as a group which shares an unorthodox religious belief, and as such I don't think use of it was all that inappropriate, nor should be interpreted as derogatory. You'll note I didn't use the "c-word" ;-)
 * And what is unorthodox about truthfulness, compassion and forbearance?--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I was under the impression that it was meant to be derogatory. I did not mean to misinterpret your intended meaning. Personally, I find the term insulting; I just wanted to point that out.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 03:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'd say that truthfulness, compassion and forbearance, which are philosophical principles, are not in themselves unorthodox, but the wholescale repackaging of qigong with Li Hongzhi's philisophy into something called Falun Gong is considered to be. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the principle is simple: One man's religion is another man's cult. Falun Gong was immensely popular in China for seven years, and totally mainstream. If you want to make a value judgement, the only criteria here is "truth", and since that's simply not something objectively accessible, the idea of freeedom of religion would dictate you just don't make those kind of judgement calls. Li Hongzhi says qigong is actually cultivation of Buddhahood, but the systems taught before were all at the lowest level of this enterprise. Is he right or wrong? If you want to approach this rationally, you basically have to secularise your approach, if you know what I mean. So you look at what these people actually do in the real world, not evaluate whether their beliefs are true or not. And what do Falun Gong practitioners do? Read books, do exercises, and since 1999 protest against their torture and murder in China (for reading and exercising). The use of vague concepts, and words that are pejorative but not actually descriptive, i.e. they convey an emotion but do not refer to an empirical fact or series of physical relations, is problematic, and it is what you do when you apply the word "sect" or "cult" or "unorthodox" to Falun Gong. You are expressing your personal displeasure with specific encounters you have had with particular people who identify themselves as practitioners of Falun Gong, and generalise this to the set of teachings and exercises themselves, or to all the people who engage in them. I'm sure you understand what I mean. I want to make my point clear, because I'm sure you will recognise what I want to say, but I do not mean to be aggressive. Oh, in the end, if confucian is your aspiration (i.e., to a "philosophy [that] emphasize[s] personal ... morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity") then you know you're responsible for your own feelings, and that your comments have sometimes been unfair. At least, I think so.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are actually now using an extremely loose meaning of 'orthodoxy'. Yes, it may have become mainstream in the few years before the clampdown, but mainstream is not traditional or orthodox. You must accept that FG is not buddhism, but is an amalgam of things. If it were orthodox, Li would not sought to have call it something other than buddhism or qigong. By calling it Falun Gong and building a whole new culture around it. It is no more orthodox than Socialism with Chinese characteristics is to socialism. I am actually agnostic, but do uphold certain Christian and traditional CHinese values. I don't deny my experience with the FG articles has been clouded by unfriendly contact with certain individual(s), but I do see the same evangelical (used in the very broadest sense, of course ;-) ) zeal in every FG person I have ever been in contact with. Actually, I find that you guys all see the world the same way, a way that is very different to everyone else, and that's what makes editing the FG articles such a challenge - a challenge I no longer feel capable of sustaining. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly regret you feel that way.--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 05:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I actually care about being good to people, treating them with respect, and trying to live my life in a dignified and upright way. That's why I didn't ignore your remark. If someone credible was to tell me that I have not done something properly I would hear them out, and learn from what they said. In terms of these wikipedia pages, I want to make them intelligent and of a high standard. On a topic like Falun Gong, people have different ideas of neutrality. Actually, I think neutrality in the end is a method, not an aim. In editing I have felt that I have sailed the winds of reason, and always sought frank and open discussion, and studiously avoided personal attacks or imputations. I think these issues are the key ones, and staying lighthearted is also important. Take a break, by all means--I might even welcome you back!--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"And what is unorthodox about truthfulness, compassion and forbearance?" The Mormon branch of Christianity is a sect. Mormons believe in truthfulness, compassion, love, forbearance, and much more. That doesn't change the fact that Mormonism is a sect of Christianity. The Falun Gong is unorthodox in the way that it takes the teachings of eastern religions such as Buddhism and Daoism, and combines them with the personal beliefs of its founder, Li Hongzhi. That essentially puts it in the same category as the Mormon-sect, sub-branch of the Christian religion. Intranetusa (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, I think neutrality in the end is a method, not an aim." In the end, the fact remains that with the repeated deletions of criticisms of Li Hongzhi on his wiki article, and the deletion of critical references on the FG main article, articles regarding the Falun Gong is not neutral and quite POV. Apparently the reason for removal of anything that might besmirch his reputation has been labeled "WP:NOR" Intranetusa (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
You have accused me of attacking B.Wind. Could you please cite diffs for that? Secondly, this
 * "Simply because there are so many 'Queens of Bollywood' must surely imply there isn't an 'acknowledged' one. That being the case, this would be no more than marketing hyperbole, or a mere personal opinion of a journalist - either way, it falls foul of WP:NPOV. It won't be long before devotees of one actress or another comes and adds their own WP:OR as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen."

Is a very precise note by you. I think it sums perfectly the case, and explains why it is not appropriate for Wikipedia, in addition to other reasons cited by other editors including me. Nothing can change this, your note will always be relevant - the addition of sources from different newspapers (when the only thing they're doing is calling actresses QOBs, which by no means makes it notable) does not change your very well written reason as to why this is just a collection of journalists' POV, a clear fancruft and POV at its best. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that my opinion is still a Delete, albeit a softened stance. Nevertheless, I am still trying to see if something can exist which conforms to the consensus view as to the how the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies can be applied to this case. Secondly, referring to your attacks, I found this one to have been quite aggressive on your part. Also this one appears to be particularly harsh - you're an intelligent individual, and I am sure you don't need me to explain any further why I found it harsh. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at what I've found, sourced, and added to the QOB article!
I've added a couple of sources (Reuter News came through for one or two of them) - the only one not sourced is Kajol. I've separated Lata Mangeshkar who has been repeatedly termed the Queen of Bollywood Music by Guinness Book of World Records each issue between 1974 and 1991 (I also included a cite from NPR which also used the term in its broadcast of an interview with her). I found a source for Rekha and added her to the list. But you might want to check the last paragraph before the list of references: ironically, I found it on a page that was repeatedly edited by Shahid/Shshshsh!... and it's sourced, too. At this stage of the game, there are now more than two reasons that there will always be a bluelink there - it's a case of reasonability now, and I hope that Shahid starts seeing that if the article dies (and with the "official" award of that name that I've found, it's looking less and less likely), it will be replaced by no less than a redirect to the CD article (the same will be true for the redirect The Queen of Bollywood, the discussion of which (at RfD) started all of this. Thank you for all your hard work on this, and thank you for keeping an open mind. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bravo, hats off to you! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid the food articles
I don't know why you changed all those food articles to redirects? The deletions are a bit much. You should talk to people involved with Food Wikiprojects first. Like user Chef Tanner or Badagnani before making those changes. It completely defeats the purpose of a food project if everything is identical. Benjwong (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't much like seeing unsourced stub articles. Whilst I do admit that some of them were a knee-jerk to seeing the number of 'useless' (per my definition) Chinese food stubs, I put a merger proposal on some of them. If you disagree, comment by all means, but please do me the courtesy of not stifling discussion by removing the tags. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is already hurting from the lack of international editors (with real experience living in or near China). An unreferenced stub is better than nothing at this point. Benjwong (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Would you kindly discuss before attempting to delete articles on actual Chinese food items? I believe improving Wikipedia by adding sources is better than deleting content on actual foods. We can do this collaboratively, according to our level of skill in the language in which most of the sources are likely to be found (in this case, Cantonese and Mandarin). Badagnani (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfDs about food
Recently, you have nominated lots of articles about Chinese food for AfD. We're wondering if you have a bias against it. Can you reply? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I might open a RFC on you concerning this. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops, I seem to have ruffled up a few feathers! It certainly wasn't intentional to destroy specific food articles. I just happened to have been navigating the category. Please refer to my comments above, and rationales for the AfDs. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident once-over
I'd be happy to take another look at the article. But before I do so, I wanted to ask exactly what you were hoping to get from my opinion. I skimmed through the talk page and noticed there is still alot of controversy going on (but I think an article like this will always have some disputes raging). Do you want me to re-confirm its GA status? Or give my opinion on a specific content dispute? Or resolve a dispute? Anything like that? Is this kind of a pre-FAC thing? If you could give me some sort of direction, that would help me alot to hopefully help you alot. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have correctly pointed out there have been rather bitter content disputes. I took issue with some other editor(s) about the article's neutrality, particularly wrt undue weight of information from pro-FG sources, many of which are primary sources. I would ask you to confirm or otherwise whether in your opinion it still qualifies for GA status, for my personal curiosity and education. I feel I have seriously lost objectivity following my very long stint on FG articles, so I'm asking for this as a personal favour also as a 'reality check'. The changes since your last pass are probably not all for the worse, but I may have acquiesced over the political bias in this article (like exists for all articles related to Falun Gong) because I was tired of the fight. I would just like to know how you consider the article now fits in with your interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Right now, I do not intend to go for Featured Article. As it is essentially a private request, I won't mind if you posted your comments here. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

my condolences
Thanks, the barnstar is much appreciated. You win some, you lose some. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FLG organ article POV flag opinion needed in talk
I know we've had our differnces in the past, but I still would like to see your opinion on this matter - what your opinion matters not, just that you have an opportunity to vote. Some editors are asking for opinion on POV flag for the FLG organ article. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I no longer pay any attention to that article. I did edit it at one stage, but for some time, I have felt it is completely unsalvageable. Yes, it completely violates WP:NPOV in my view, but I want to give them plenty of rope. However, as for getting involved again, please refer to my comments above or below. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

rfc on bobby
I have notified Bobby fletcher that I will open an RfC on his conduct if he continues. I don't know if this is canvassing, as it's not my intention. Someone else needs to write on his talk page, asking him not to do any more incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, etc.. You may wish to do so. diffs:


 * personal attacks, some assuming bad faith:, , ,
 * attempt at "outing", sometimes with personal attacks mixed in:, , -- ''Please note, these are only a sample. Attempted "outing" goes back months, and Fred Bauder oversighted it. But the user has continued recently.
 * original research: -- Please note, the user has not aggressively reinserted this after it was pointed out

--Asdfg<b style="color:black;">12345</b> 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, being of the slightly obsessive tendency, I do feel the very strong urge to get involved again despite having promised myself I would stay away from the FG articles for my own sanity. So I owe it to myself not to get drawn on this at this time. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD for FLG Organ harvesting allegations
Want to comment here? Thanks--PCPP (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just give you the short answer here. I'm afraid I just don't care anymore. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

8( --PCPP (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)