User talk:TheSoundAndTheFury/1

Welcome!

Hello, TheSoundAndTheFury, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -Classicfilms (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to write this I just want to let you know I responded to your opening comment on my talk page, please reply there. Thanks. MarsPyramid2012 (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your question about refs
A good method is simply to write   Or for a newspaper article,   The latter ends up as

If you know you're going to use them multiple times in the same article, add ref names to them, ''' Smith, John. Name of Book, Publisher 2010, p. 1.  and thereafter all you need to write is  . Hope this helps. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 05:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit your discussion page, apparently. This method seems nice and quick. However, when there are books, it may get more complicated. In most academic texts I read there are footnotes then a bibliography. Sometimes the footnotes give the full bibliographical information on the first mention. With the method you suggest, if in later references to the same footnote you just put  , does that preclude being able to add other relevant information, such as an excerpt of the part referred to, or a page number, or a note about the background or credibility of the source? If it's a book, it will be referred to many times, right? Each time needs the page, I would think. Do you know what I mean?--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you want to add more information each time, you can't use ref name. But you don't have to keep repeating the full ref. You can either write it out in full the first time, then thereafter "Smith 2010, p. 1", or you can always use the shortened form in the text, and place the full citation in a References section. See the Notes and References sections in Muhammad al-Durrah incident as an example.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you have any advice for a fast-track way to learn the intricacies of Wikipedia in a short space of time? Is there a mentoring system, or some organised way to get more experienced editors to check your work and give you feedback? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are mentors, but I know nothing about them. There might be useful information at Mentorship. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be more thank happy to adopt you.
Hello TheSoundAndTheFury, I am Aaron Reis A.K.A. clarince63. I am heavely involved in the Counter-Vandalism Unit on wikipedia. I am fairly experienced on wikipedia and I will be more than glad to help you out on wikipedia. Respond on my talk page if you would like for me to adopt you or not, thank you. --Clarince63 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you want me to adopt you and the thing that you said about learning from others mistakes and not making them yourself, I thought that was very smart. I will be more than delighted to teach you everything that I know about wikipedia, editing pages, and more importatly article creation. Anyway do you think it would be possible for us to communicate through email, the reason for that it is much better and it is is faster. Could you give me your email and I will add you to my contacts. --Clarince63 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, what's the etiquette for where one should respond? On the user talk page where the comment was first made? I'm not sure if there is a community expectation on this matter. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

please do me the courtesy of a reply
I wish you had named it Yijing. It took me quite some time respond to your post, please do me the courtesy of a reply on the talk page for Book of Changes. Thank you—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an email
Hello and good day! I just wanted to make sure that you got my email, because I sent it a couple of days ago, to see it log into your email and it should be there. --Clarince63 (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a reply to your message
Hi, I wanted to make sure you noticed the whisper back tag that indicates you should check the other user's talk page for the reply. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Derrida
I am hesitant only because my knowledge of that page is limited, however feel free to direct me to your edits and I will be glad to give you my opinionCoffeepusher (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring
I'm not sure what this involves, but fell free to ask me for advice.--Grahame (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zhang Baosheng
A tag has been placed on Zhang Baosheng requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete this page. He is a notable figure of the qigong milieu. I will place the "hangon" tag now and work at expanding the information in the document. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Post...
While I am not tied to either idea, you better make sure they are the same concept (there may be some changes in meaning if you turn it over, not sure though). The best check is to see who is using the phrase. Is there a consensus among recognized scholars as opposed to popular usage? how is it formated when used specifically with Foucault? just my 2 cents.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I will do a bit more searching. They mean the same thing, it's just a question of whether there should or should not be a hyphen in the term. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

re:Thanks
lol :-) No problem. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Courage
I just noticed that you have started editing Falun Gong articles. Shame our paths didn't cross earlier, or we might have made a formidable team. Je te souhaite bon courage! Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev
Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notices. You could say I am just dipping my toe in the water of the FLG-verse for now. Trying to keep clear of logomachy. I hope the proceedings above yield a positive result for the project. And what you write about Ms. Ching Hai is insightful, too - I thought much the same and deleted Rick Ross right off the page.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving your article
Thanks a lot. Responded on your discussion page. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Xu Mingtang
I've noticed several problems with the article, as most of the article content was sourced directly from their website. I think the "image medicine" sections, with claims about curing Hepatitis and Diabetes, really sound suspicious.--PCPP (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject appears to be non-notable. I am currently finding out how to have the article deleted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to delete it but don't know if I did it properly. If you know about this, please take a look. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to generate an immediate deletion discussion, use the template here here--PCPP (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Falungong
TheSoundAndTheFury, please consider finding some time to look at the History of Falun Gong article. A (partisan) editor raised some concerns about the content. I wrote a response and examined the page. I noticed the thorough research you did for the Falungong article, and I think that perhaps the History page would benefit from a magnifying glass on certain points. There is more on the discussion page. I'm not comfortable enough with my grasp of the material to deal with some of the issues raised, which is where I thought you could help. Homunculus (strange tales) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It may have some of the problems of inaccurately researched information as the main page. I will certainly read the article and make changes later. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's a good idea to merge the contents of the History of FLG article with the Persecution of FLG article?--PCPP (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think it's so much of a good idea. The article would be too long. They're sufficiently separate topics, too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in Tibet
I noticed your contributions to the Falun Gong articles; I wonder if you are also interested in HR issues in Tibet. I have recently created the article and listed many sources on the discussion page. Feel free to work on the article. Zujine (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this article didn't exist before. When I get some time I would love to work on that. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Please have a look and give some comments:User:Arilang1234/Comparison between written English and written Chinese Draft  Arilang  talk  06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When I get some time I will take a look. That's not my exact area of expertise, but I could help on copyediting or structure. It is an interesting subject area. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you stopped editing? I thought you added a welcome perspective to the Falun Gong issue. Not that I necessarily agree with all your edits, but you attempted balance at least. It would be a loss to the articles for informed and balanced editors to leave them. --Asdfg12345 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy archive talk
Regarding your edit to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 11, you probably will want to start a new secition at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy referencing the archived discussion. Archive pages aren't supposed to change, or not much. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China
I have posted a GA reassessment at Talk:Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. Please feel free to comment. Axl ¤  [Talk]  09:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though this should be a community thing, right? I will spend a bit more time looking at the available information. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please comment here. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Have done so. This is separate from assessing the content or merits of the article, though. I think the article is quite good. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

New Criterion
Upon looking more closely, I agree with you - New Criterion is a reliable source, at least as we use the term here. I have to say, though, that as a piece of scholarship (as opposed to a polemic) the piece cited is thoroughly bad. Although the authors may be "perspicacious", their evidence seems to consist of a highly selective interpretation of a cherrypicking of events at a conference which they freely admit they have little interest in. The writing is tendentious and plays to the worst prejudices of its audience. I do not believe it is attempting to find truth, rather to find fault only.

My field is not language and literature (nor am I American), and I have no particular interest in either the MLA or any external viewpoints of it. I will leave the paragraph to stand on the basis that it's properly cited, only slightly editing it to reflect that it is the opinion of the New Citation's writers, and not a universally accepted truth.

Regards, Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Harris (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it must be made clear that it is simply strong opinion on the MLA. Incidentally, I find what Kimball and Kramer are critiquing to be several times more offensive than the style they adopt to carry out the critique. The Chinese have a saying: "When talking to dogs, use dog talk." The Sound and the Fury (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Social constructionism
Social theory is already linked to in Template:Sociology (Theory), but maybe I'm being a nitpick :) --Wikiloop (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

History of Falun Gong
I have updated the History of Falun Gong page per our previous discussion on its utility. Should you feel so inclined, your thoughts on these changes would be appreciated. — Zujine |talk 05:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been terribly busy for the last several months. It's great to see stuff happening on the pages. I would indeed like to contribute. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll think about it. Why me? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good User Name
Best American Modernist Novel. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, _one_ of the best! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is one of the best, it's also the best! Which did you have in mind that would give it a running?  Absolom? East of Eden? Golden Apples? Eh, not one I can think of I liked more. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Qigong article
When you get a chance could you please see how you feel the Qigong article is progressing? I have tried to provide solid structure, clean neutral text, and reputable references. Vitalforce (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I was all gung-ho but then real life crept up on me. I think it needs more history and background in the main page, to have proper context and so forth. If I spend 30 minutes on it every couple of days, we should make progress. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Please look at at the separate Qigong history article and the brief excerpts on the Talk:Qigong page. Perhaps you could also offer your assessment of the article's neutrality. Thanks, Vitalforce (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the history section of the main qigong article a bit. Please let me know what you think. Vitalforce (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. Yes, i will look this week. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward to receiving your opinion. Vitalforce (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes". Thank you. --PCPP (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might like this
Ian Buruma on reading Zhang Xianliang's Grass Soup:

''Zhang describes [forced labor's] effect on intellectuals, who, often useless at hard physical tasks, were the most despised prisoners in the labour camps. In the more cerebral work of denunciation and ideological hair-splitting, however, the intellectuals came to the fore and it was the peasants and common criminals who were out of their depth during these sessions. They failed to understand that everything, literally everything, was political.

''A peasant named Su Xiaosu was punished for picking up and eating a discarded ear of corn. His excuse for this crime - hunger - was not good enough; what was his thinking behind it? He must have been aiming 'to blacken the name of socialism'.... "'Peasants did not understand a socialism that told people to endure famine. They were even less able to understand what socialist slogans had to do with gnawing an ear of corn. They would blink their tiny eyes furiously as they begged for mercy. 'I'll work harder from now on, from now on I'll work much harder . . . ]'

Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I read Zhang's book. It is grim. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita
see talk page. CO2Northeast (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * see talk page again. CO2Northeast (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

glad it's resolved. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor adding all sorts of Shaman stuff to Shramana article
Editor adding all sorts of Shaman stuff to Shramana article in the "Etymology and Origin" section. Can you do something about it?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Not sure why I was tagged? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you take care of this?
I am not sure if you've kept up with the editing behavior of 220.245.207.26. For my part, I've issued several warnings, and user's slow-motion edit war has exhausted my patience. I was planning on pursuing sanctions, but am supposed to be going out of town. Can you take care of this? If not, I'll get to it in a couple days. Homunculus (duihua) 07:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

re: NPA
My statement on the Bo Xilai page was a didactic reminder that Homunculus should not cast aspersions, such as he did in the same breath of discussing my edits. ("I'm seriously tired of editors (always the same ones) deleting credible reports of human rights abuses.") In context, it was no more of an attack than your indirectly calling me a 'paid Communist Party agent, or a "50 center"' on my talk page.

Furthermore, like Homunculus, who assumed that I was speaking about the IP that apparently added the disputed material, you are wrong to assume that I was speaking about Homunculus himself in my example. My post specifically linked to a section where User:Asdfg12345, a banned activist and self-identified FLG practitioner, defended the sort of edits of which I said I tire.

Considering your behavior across the Falun Gong namespace, I don't think anything I say can dissuade you from gathering diffs and presenting them to AE or ANI, as you threaten. I regret the battleground mentality in this area and don't share it. Shrigley (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy
In Talk:Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy you wrote "We see that the attitudes toward inclusionism or deletionism do not exist in a vacuum." Perhaps you would like to offer your opinion on that talk page as to whether you believe there should be a "Sandra Fluke" section at all, and if so, what it should include. The Red Pen of Doom recently removed the Sandra Fluke section from the article. I welcome your opinion regardless of what it may be.—Anomalocaris (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I threw my hat in the ring.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * Phew, I'm glad I'm not involved this time. What a disaster (and an ill-timed one, at that). From a brief look through the page history and talk page, it looks to me like this is more a behavioral issue, rather than a content issue (it may be both). My understanding is that mediation is a long-term solution to content issues.Homunculus (duihua) 05:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yah, this wouldn't work because it was a featured article on the main page recently. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems that way; save this for Friday. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
I mentioned your name here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

T-square still need a mediator?
Just checking. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fu Yibin and Chen Fuzhao
Thank you for your comments on Chen Fuzhao and Fu Yibin. I see that both articles have been deleted, but perhaps another editor will bring those articles to deletion review. In my view, even if the murders in question did not occur, they are notable as notable falsehoods. For another example of a notable falsehood, see Blood libel. Some mention of the murder accusations as examples of Chinese state propaganda in the main Falun Gong article may be appropriate. And, if the alleged murderers were executed, BLP does not apply. Notability (people) is more relevant. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is helpful should this come up. I think at the very margins they might be useful case studies for the page that is about the campaign against the practice, but otherwise there is just so much other material that is more notable for the broad, overview article that is Falun Gong. The OP in this case appears to have been trolling. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. When you recently edited Pipeline Trading Systems LLC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Options (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apostrophe
In view of this, I would strongly urge you to study the proper use of the possessive form of nouns ending in 's', like my username. Thank you for your attention. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * '.' The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 16, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I quickly looked at some articles on recent Chinese history, and yes, some of them are poorly developed and/or highly biased. But articles on Falun Gong are relatively well developed and seem more or less neutral for someone like me. So, I do not really understand what these FG cases are about. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Behavior. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you realize that Arbcom will examine your mentality to decide if it was "battleground", and your Evidence statement will be used as a proof of your alleged "battlefield mentality", as in this case. And here is a former arbitrator who decided to leave the project rather than to go through the process himself. Something to think about. My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For sure. The simplest way to avoid that is to comment only on the content, sources, and policy under discussion, and don't say things about other people. I try very hard to do that. So I think I am OK. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But consider this: someone simply collects your reverts in various articles and presents them as "edit warring". And it does not matter if you did one revert per day (as in the case I linked you to). It also does not really matter if you were in "majority", because your supporters in reverts can be (mis)presented as "tag-teamers". My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume the arbs are sophisticated, careful, and judicious people not easily manipulated or swayed by propaganda and special pleading. We can deal with the specifics when they come up. There's nothing I can do about it at this point. But I believe I have generally behaved with probity, so I'm not particularly worried. It seems you are getting ready to open a bag of popcorn to watch this show. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am just interested to see if the drafting arbitrator would stick to her idea that a side engaged in COI (and there are indeed some assumptions of COI in this case ) is the side which does disservice to reader, for example, by removing sourced and relevant content from articles. Perhaps she is right. Then, thinking logically, if none of the sides does disservice to reader, none of them should be sanctioned. My point here is simple: while certain edits by these contributors can be a matter of concern , this is nothing compare to the massive removal of sourced and relevant information by people in other areas who where given their "last chance" by WP:BASC, for example here and here. I do not see any logic.My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had not seen those edits before (don't watch the 50 cent page). But they are not admissible evidence in this case because they do not relate specifically to Falun Gong. About the removals on the Putin page, some of those lines were unsourced. If you are still in that area, I would go and find the best Western scholarly works setting out these aspects of Putin's life, then adding them to the article one sentence at a time. Just a suggestion. So the deleting or whatever can be singled out to whichever one sourced sentence is objected to. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave Putin and FSB only as an example. Right now I have no intention to return to editing in this area because each my edit (however noncontroversial it might be) is immediately reverted without explanation . As about the scope of the case, some of arbs said they wanted to examine a wider subject area, so I believe the diffs can be actually relevant. But whatever. Good luck with your evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

MVBW, I'm glad you feel the Falun Gong articles are in relatively good shape. That has been the goal. I presume that, rather than getting ready to watch the show, you're trying to warn of an impending train wreck. I have no reason at this stage to assume the worst, but you're welcome to say "I told you so" later on.

TSTF, I don't have plans right now to offer my own evidence against the named parties, though I may make some responses, and would be interested in helping craft proposed principles and the like. Thought I should let you know. Do with that knowledge what you will. Homunculus (duihua) 17:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am just going to present again roughly the same evidence I presented at AE, but in much shorter form and with less commentary. And I will include the ongoing battleground behavior witnessed in the AE. I think Colipon's FLG conspiracy theory (i.e. "explain[ing] an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization") will not be to his favor. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--5 albert square (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 evidence submissions
Please note this supplementary information regarding evidence submissions from drafting arbitrator Elen of the Roads. All parties submitting evidence are reminded that claims must be supported by diffs at all times. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

stop vandalizing Bo Guagua page
stop using lame excuse "original research", if any of those things are not facts, feel free to delete them, stop deleting the entire section, the entire page! that is called vandalizing.

I challenge you to show me anything that i wrote are not facts. if you need reference, go ahead, ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:953E:CF78:4C31:415F (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 evidence phase deadline
This is a reminder that all evidence in the Falung Gong 2 case should be submitted here by Saturday the 16th of June. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks so much for your contributions to Facebook IPO. I really appreciate your adding another dimension to the coverage!

CaseyPenk (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 

Thanks! Haha, it must get lonely over there (didn't even have a talk page!) I think these kind of articles are a massive blindspot for Wikipedia. I have some personal theories about why this is the case. I plan to do lots more work to that piece, because there has been so much great journalism and commentary on it. The kitten you present is adorable, of course. I will stow it safely.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Confucius Institutes DRN thread
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

?
I cannot see for the life of me how this diff constitutes a personal attack... I kindly ask that you revise it. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am wondering, when you slapped that AE together against myself and two other users, what remedies were you actually seeking? Revert parole? Topic ban? Site ban? "Admonishing" by admins? It was never clearly stated. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, to be honest. Interestingly, H just posted this which sort of reflects how I feel about this right now. I personally find the idea of calling for admins to site or topic ban people to be unpalatable and presumptuous. I felt that there was something deeply wrong going on across the namespace, however, and felt the matter should be presented to those whose job it is to assess such matters, look at the evidence, and decide how to deal with it. Sorry I can't give you more than that. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The other thing is that I'm happy to agree to disagree, and deal with things according to sources and civil discussion and argumentation as they come up. You do not tolerate me or what you perceive my views to be; you have labelled me, and you therefore want me banned. You've made no bones about it. That's another reason. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to avoid edit war on Feminazi
As a courtesy, I must of course let you know. See Neutral point of view/Noticeboard so that your point of view may be heard as well. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, let's not edit war. I never do it. I'm just saying that the claim needs a source. Not saying it's not eminently reasonable, or that I don't agree. It's just original research for us to assert things like that, according to my understanding of Wikipedia's content policies. That's why I reverted. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

reliable sources of Bo Guagua
all the sources are listed, did you spend the time to check them? if any of them are not reliable, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:ECA7:3C23:6540:5B08 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I challenge you to point out any "vandalisation" of that article.
go ahead, if you can show me anything that is not based on facts, anything that is "vandalisation", i will be happy to edit them. go ahead. show me what you get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:ECA7:3C23:6540:5B08 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Facebook IPO lead
It looks fantastic! I really appreciate the effort you put into making an encyclopedic lead section. It provides an appropriate summary. I made a few small changes like toning down the adjectives, but otherwise I'm very impressed. If you have any questions as to specific words or phrases, feel free to ask me. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * . Do not worry. All editors in this area are going to be effectively topic-banned through MER restriction, thanks to your AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hedge fund follow-up
Hi again, Sound. On Monday of this week I posted a follow-up suggestion about some simple future tense / past tense issues in the Hedge fund article. Since I aim to follow Jimbo's wishes that paid editors not directly edit the mainspace, I was wondering if you'd mind looking at the request and consider making the changes if you agree? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey! Sorry I have been really busy with some RL commitments, keeping me away from the fun of Wikipedia. Let me do that right now, and good on you for being so law-abiding! TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, not a problem in the slightest. I appreciate the assistance, and your courtesy as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk)

Articles on Finance
I've been fairly surprised about the low quality of articles on finance and I was wondering what you think (as you acted on my comment in the section on "management buy-out" in the article "leveraged buyout") - I saw then on your user page that you have raised the same issue yourself. I am particularly surprised that no one seems to care - I have done a few rather far reaching changes to some articles in this sector and no one seems to mind or care. What is your conclusion from all that? Is it futile to attempt improvement? Or is Wikipedia just not the place that people interested in finance and economics turn to? Jaeljojo (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's weird, isn't it? I think it's as simple as this: the real finance guys are out making money; the people more inclined to spend hours on Wikipedia aren't all that turned on by finance. But precisely for that reason I think it is important to make the articles good and work on them. Also, I think that because there are less people editing the topic, a community around it hasn't formed, where editors bounce off each other and offer encouragement etc., as you'd find in other areas. There are lively communities around certain topics, for example, Internet topics, computer topics, science topics - but not for finance. It would be nice to help foster that on the finance topic in Wikipedia, but one only has so much time in the day. I have my head full of ideas for pages, but can't seem to knuckle down to get the writing done often enough. It doesn't mean we should give up though, not by any means! What do you think? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are right as to why finance is poorly represented here. However, this is a topic I understand and if articles on this topic are so poorly written, not sure what I should think of the other articles then when I truly turn to Wikipedia for information. Hm, might have just given myself a reason to try to improve the articles ... funnily some articles about very recent topics (e.g. ESM) are actually ok. But you are right with only so many hours a day. I will try. Maybe one just should be more bold about deleting rubbish (so far I tried to discuss and raise the issue first), maybe this would start to wake people up.... :-) Jaeljojo (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty brutal about that. Delete first and ask questions later. If someone has the temerity to raise issue with that, one might well want to know why they stood around while the cruft just sat there, clogging up the eyes of innocent readers? I'm taking it one topic at a time. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 closed
An arbitration case regarding Falun Gong has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Homunculus is banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces, for a period of one year.
 * 2) Ohconfucius is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing topics related to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed, across all namespaces.
 * 3) At the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, editors may be placed on mandated external review for all articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Editors on mandated external review must observe the following restrictions on editing within the designated subject area:
 * 4) Any major edit (defined as any edit that goes beyond simple and uncontroversial spelling, grammatical, and/or stylistic corrections to article content) must be proposed on the article's talk page. This proposal must be discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
 * 5) Once consensus has been reached in support of the edit, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor for neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
 * 6) When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external review may make the edit to the article. Violations of these restrictions may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement.
 * 7) Upon the expiry of the applicable ban, Homunculus is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
 * 8) Should the applicable ban be lifted, Ohconfucius is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.
 * 9) Colipon is subject to mandated external review as outlined in remedy 4, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Talkback
 Happy monsoon  day  00:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

More hedge fund
Hi there, TSATF. A few days ago I posted a proposed revised version of the remuneration paragraph we had been working through with Wildfowl, and we've been discussing this one a bit. I'd love to get your feedback about it, especially how you think it compares to what's currently there. As I've explained on the Hedge fund Talk page, I think the BBC quote in the article now is a problem per WP:QUOTE, however the discussion is going a bit slowly. Hope to see you back there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
''TheChampionMan1234 01:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, TheSoundAndTheFury. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Great Chinese Famine.The discussion is about the topic Great_Chinese_Famine. Thank you. Sorry for interruption. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 04:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)