Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:41, 27 March 2012

where did the rest of my talk page go, I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunculus (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Your suggestions / edits are welcome

Homunculus, when you are ready to reemerge, I suggest you head over to History of Falun Gong, where I have implemented the sweeping changes previously discussed. I imagine you may have some good ideas on how to make the timeline there more complete and well balanced.—Zujine|talk 05:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. I've been back for a while, but have been reluctant to get back into editing; I'm working on a conference paper, and the deadline approaches. In any case, I'll take a look now.Homunculus (duihua) 03:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you're back. What are you researching these days? —Zujine|talk 04:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at Chinese protest and dissident movement, and focusing on the intersection of religion and dissent. It's forced me to become somewhat better acquainted with Christian Weiquan lawyers and Falun Gong. Homunculus (duihua) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rightful resistance

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rightful resistance, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/OBrienK/WP1996.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you robot. I took one sentence from the abstract of the article. It was in quotations, and was cited, and therefore I can't imagine that it would be in contravention of copyright policies. In any case, I'm happy to paraphrase. Homunculus (duihua) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good work resolving a sock puppet issue! Noleander (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Propaganda in PRC

Why did you remove the section on non-political propaganda? I was the one that contributed to the material and it was fully sourced. It provided link to the monthly agenda to a local propaganda department. The website is in Chinese but does not invalidate it being a legit source. In fact, it is authoritative, because it came directly from the government on a subject matter that involves the conduct of a government.

The use of specific example is very important to this article because it help the viewers understand how the propaganda is system works in practice. And it is also a process not very well understood by many English readers. 70.50.203.5 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope I didn't offend you with that edit, and I'm not going to assert that mine was necessarily the right decision. But I'll explain my rationale, and if you don't find it compelling, you can add the content back in and I will not fight you on it. As I read through the article, I noticed some redundancies between the section on 'terminology' and 'non-political promotions.' I consolidated the repetitive content into the 'terminology' section, and also added there that there are some propaganda functions related to mundane public service issues. After doing this consolidation, the section on 'non-political promotions' ceased to serve much of a distinct purpose. It consisted of two examples of local-level websites which contained information on weather, job postings, etc., followed by a (sorry to say) rather poorly written, unsourced summary paragraph. I felt that the latter did not add much at this point. Now, as to the two examples provided, they seemed to be unrelated to the purpose of the article. Information on weather is not propaganda; it is not what a user expects to find on this page, nor is the dissemination of weather-related information part of the propaganda system (if you can find directives from the central propaganda department on how to report the weather, I will retract that statement, and laugh bemusedly). If you wish to argue that the CPC's propaganda department executes these functions (ie. carrying information on geography, weather, job postings, and the like), you might want to try to make your case on the page Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China.Homunculus (duihua) 21:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your contribution to 'List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll'

Hello Homunculus. Thanks for the feedback. I will research for a reliable source regarding the subject and, as soon as I find it, I will let you know. Best regards, Aerolitz —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Falun Gong practitioner?

Dear Homonculus, your recent edits to the Tuidang movement article suggest that you are a Falun Gong practitioner or sympathiser. If so, then please do not edit the articles related to that movement further. We have had endless edit wars involving Falun Gong's practitioners and enemies, with the former showing a frankly tiresome tendency to describe FG's persecution in graphic & verbose detail at every opportunity here on Misplaced Pages. Best, Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My recent edits involved turning a page that had hitherto consisted of no references, and that made unqualified, unverifiable statements into one that at is well sourced, at least modestly well written, and that synthesizes virtually all the available scholarly and journalistic research on the topic in a coherent, concise manner. I am well aware of the edit wars that have plagued Falun Gong-related pages in the past, and claim no allegiance to the pro- or anti-Falun Gong camps and reject the notion that edits should be evaluated against an erroneous pro- or anti-Falun Gong dichotomy, rather than on their objective merit (indeed, the childish tendency to reduce everything to pro- or anti-FG seems to be the source of much of the problem on these pages). I suggest you review my latest edit more carefully, for it was neither graphic or verbose. I was seeking to correct another editor's rather odd decision to describe the suppression in China as being merely the allegation of Falun Gong, which it is not.Homunculus (duihua) 22:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

An addendum: you partially reverted my most recent edit, writing in your edit summary that it consisted of "florid pro-FG prose." The florid prose you're referring to was 1) an account of how many people practiced FG in the 1990s, and 2) a short and rather sterilized description of the nature of the suppression. Both of these points had references, and both are very well established facts. Now, if the inclusion of a single sentence that is factual, well sourced, and relevant counts as "pro-FG," what do you propose the solution is? Is it to introduce ambiguity, as your edit suggests? That is not, in my view, much of a contribution. I suggest you read up on the principles of False balance and Argument to moderation. Respectfully, Homunculus (duihua) 22:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• "rather odd decision"?? One such instance is that you replaced an objective fact – that it was banned in the PRC in July 1999 – with an unattributed assertion of persecution, torture and propaganda. Fair enough if you attribute it, but to leave it hanging simply with a reference implying that it is objective fact falls foul of WP:NPOV. --Ohconfucius 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you viewing the right diff? See this one:. You will notice that I did not remove anything, and kept in place the July 1999 date. Are objecting because I removed the word "banned"? It's an ambiguous term, and given the questions concerning the legality of this ban and the chain of command used in enacting it, it's possible that it obscures more than it illuminates. In any case, it's a trivial change. I added a characterization of the persecution that was attributed to two sources—one recent, and one historical. I could add dozens more, but that would seem like overkill. The references given provide numerous examples of the use of propaganda, extralegal detention, and coercive methods, including torture, so I am not sure why you would say it was unattributed. Would you care to account for your edit? Perhaps I am misreading it, but it seemed as though you went out of your way to make a change that is implicitly misleading. That is odd indeed, in my opinion.Homunculus (duihua) 14:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are indeed talking about the same edit; my comment stands. It is fairly well documented that human rights organisations' reports rely on Falun Gong as a primary source. And yes, I did "go out of my way", considering my vow of not ever editing a Falun Gong article. You could consider my edits there a one-off visit. I dare not look at the state of other FLG articles, for the ambience seems to have hardly changed. I shan't be back to any FLG article in a hurry. --Ohconfucius 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not too interested in debating with either of you, and I don't expect or seek a response, but for posterity's sake I felt it was important to address your notion that all allegations of persecution come from Falun Gong sources. Many (though not all) accounts of torture and death in custody do come from Falun Gong victims or their families, because in most cases they are the only witnesses, aside from their torturers. The reason some organizations rely on these sources is because their claims, though not always verifiable, are consistent with all other information that can be gleaned from official literature, other prisoners, legal records, etc. In a lot of the early journalistic coverage of the persecution, such as John Pomfret’s "Torture is Breaking Falun Gong" or Ian Johnson’s Pulitzer Prize winning "A Deadly Exercise," the reporters did depend largely on the testimonies of Falun Gong practitioners and their families. They interviewed multiple people independently of each other, and sometimes in geographically disparate regions, yet the stories told by the Falun Gong victims were consistent. This led the reporters to the conclusion that they were telling the truth, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. For all other forms of abuse — the use of propaganda, clear infringements on religious liberty, hermetic censorship, extralegal detention in prisons, labor camps, psychiatric facilities and brainwashing facilities, and the denial of fair and open trials — all these allegations are supported in abundance by official Communist Party or government literature.

Consider, as one example among thousands, this collection of official Chinese documents from 2010 describing a three-year campaign to use brainwashing centers and forced labor camps to "transform" up to 75 % of known Falun Gong practitioners, through coercion if necessary. The documents compel authorities in different locales to forcefully bring Falun Gong practitioners — no matter how old or infirm, no matter if they have children or other family to support — into brainwashing sessions. If they fail to renounce their beliefs, they are to be sent to forced labor camps.

The CECC's annual reports employ a great deal of research like this. Their reports, which are more extensive than other human rights organizations, rely overwhelmingly on the CCP’s own documents as evidence of a persecution that they characterize as being "unrivaled" in scope and intensity. The Duihua Foundation, like the CECC, also relies almost exclusively on Chinese government literature, and they have documented hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners being sentenced in show trials in the span of a day or two, in a single city. Now, we know these are show trials because official Communist Party documents say they are. For instance, some official directives stipulates that courts must defer to Communist Party authorities for decisions in Falun Gong cases, and others preclude lawyers from representing Falun Gong defendants. According to Amnesty International: "The official documents issued for the crackdown in themselves show that the judicial process was biassed from the outset against the defendants. This violates international standards in several respects, notably the right of detainees to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through a fair and open trial by an independent tribunal."

Chinese human rights lawyers would also back up these claims. These lawyers (a couple dozen have tried to defend Falun Gong) report being denied access to clients, barred from courtrooms, intimidated by security agents, disbarred, detained, sentenced, and tortured for their advocacy on behalf of Falun Gong. Gao Zhisheng, most notably, told of being stripped and brutally tortured with electric shock batons. His torturers told him that it was the same treatment they meted out to Falun Gong practitioners. Other prisoners in labor camps and detention facilities also back up Falun Gong practitioners' claims. In the 2005 Human Rights Watch report, several prisoners said that the Falun Gong practitioners in their labor camps received the longest sentences and the worst treatment; in some camps, Falun Gong comprised the majority population.

Finally, defectors from this system corroborate the claims. Hao Fengjun is the most prominent, but not the only one. He belonged to the 610 Office in Tianjin, and while he was on the job, he encountered an elderly woman who had been beaten brutally by one of his colleagues with a screw-tipped pipe, simply because she wouldn't renounce Falun Gong.

I do not know how a reasonable person could look at the mountain of evidence and still come away thinking that Falun Gong has invented the persecution against them. Moreover, if someone believes in such obvious nonsense, how could he ever imagine to come across as a neutral, impartial editor? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually believes the persecution is imagined. I'm happy to call this an aberration, and resume editing in good faith.Homunculus (duihua) 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1

Please note I've started the review of this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

GAs are suffering from a 2-3 months backlog. Feel free and even encouraged to review some other articles to relive it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Once I've become more familiar with GA criteria and review processes, I may be able to help.Homunculus (duihua) 17:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong RfC

I responded to your edit/suggestion at the RfC on Falun Gong. I think it's headed in the right direction. There are a number of other questionable things that have been recently added to the page. In addition, there are a few outstanding edits I had wanted to make a long time ago to have the page read less like a literature review and more like an article. When it comes time to review those changes, can I solicit your opinion again? Homunculus (duihua) 16:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded and expanded on my edit to include the source you mention. Yes, you can solicit my opinion. I am aware that the Falun Gong topic is problematic, and not enough neutral people are involved, so I do make myself (reluctantly!) available. SilkTork 17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong material

The majority of the information I have is from the various databanks quickly available to me, like NewsBank (newspapers), ProQuest and Gale, and JSTOR, which, unfortunately, has comparatively little at this point. Another public library in the region here contains additional databanks as well, and probably, on that basis, other articles not in the databanks mentioned above. I don't actually have a full list of the articles, but I suppose it might be possible to generate one.

I should also mention that I am referring basically to separate articles. I have found, particularly in news sources, that the same article is reproduced, sometimes with slight variations, in several papers. For the most part, I am only counting one of those, generally the longest one, in the 1000 or so separate articles.

Regarding the specific article you mention, "FG outside mainland China," there is at least one article in the journal Nova Religio by Susan Palmer (I think) about FG in North America, specifically Canada. However, regarding such things as the recent radio hijacking in Vietnam, I have some reason to think that some sources, like maybe country overviews, statistics, or other matters, might be sufficient to turn such into single articles themselves.

I do still have the rather massive collection of print-outs, and will over the next day or two try to group together the articles on the basic subject, and, where possible, provide indicators as to which might be sufficiently notable for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Weiquan movement is now a Good Article!

Congratulations! Thank you for bringing this interesting article to English Misplaced Pages. I would like to encourage you to review an article from the backlog at WP:GAN that seems interesting to you to ensure future GA reviews are as quick as possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Homunculus for helping to promote Weiquan movement to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:JournalofContemporaryChina.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JournalofContemporaryChina.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Undo the previous move

A move request has been submited here.  219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Miao Rebellion (1854–73), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Han (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) 11:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Blumenthal (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) 10:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Homunculus. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Freedom of religion in the People's Republic of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur (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) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For "actually reading books," as you say. —Zujine|talk 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Thank you for pinging me on my talk page. I do not care about Falung Gong, I'm just a casual bystander who reviews the sources. I've contributed in the past to Ahimsa which might appear as close by topic. Religions and its influence on society are interesting to me. I'd appreciate source sharing. We are required to base Misplaced Pages material on high quality scholar secondary reliable sources, though I find an idea of hierarchy of authority among sources as partially contradicting npov principle. I do not consider any source, even high quality one as "authoritative". Skepticism is healthy. You do appear as knowledgeable about Falun Dafa, why do you find the topic as interesting? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree that no one source is authoritative, but some are certainly better than others. The topic of Falun Gong attracts scholars in several different fields, including political science, religious studies (both from a NRM and Eastern religion point of view), history, anthropology, human rights, and so on. I believe in using the sources in accordance with their individual expertise, so I wouldn't take the word of a political scientist on the interpretation of religious doctrine, nor the word of an anthropologist on Chinese politics. I also think that, when describing contentious aspects of Falun Gong, it is both possible and desirable to distinguish which sources are more authoritative than others in different areas. This is less subjective than one would think; at least in the case of professional academics, it can be measured pretty reliably by the scholar's credentials and the relevance of their field of study, the amount they have published on this subject, where they have published, the nature of their methodology, and how they are regarded by top scholars on the subject of Falun Gong. So, for example, Maria Hsia Chang would seem to fare pretty well by several of these measures, but fails when it comes to how well she is regarded by other top Falun Gong scholars, who either ignore her research or deride it. Also, as I mentioned on the talk page, she is a political scientist, so can't be assumed to be an expert on interpreting complex religious theology. David Ownby is an excellent source on many facets of Falun Gong's history and beliefs, but not on the human rights dimensions. James Tong knows a lot about the background and inner workings of the suppression (particularly from the Communist Party's end, having based his research almost entirely on official documents), but knows nothing about Falun Gong as a religious belief system. And so on. Anyways, I'll send you an email at some point with my recommendations. I've been meaning to put something together for a while.

As to my interest, my background is in comparative politics with a focus on China. Chinese religion is a personal, casual interest of mine, but my professional expertise concerns contemporary Chinese politics, democratization, social movements, and so on. Falun Gong has always been on my radar, but a year or two ago I started presenting and publishing some papers on Falun Gong and topics related to it, so had to become more familiar with all the literature overall.Homunculus (duihua) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Penny

You referred here to a new Penny source. I'm just wondering how you could have obtained s review copy? Are you a member of the press, or are you an otherwise interested party? --Ohconfucius 09:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a member of the press, no. Academic books are often circulated for review and comment to others with an expertise in the field. I didn’t receive a copy directly from Penny or the publisher, but from another colleague who knew I was researching the subject. I apologize that I didn't check the month of publication. If you have an ongoing interest in the topic, you should order it; it's perhaps the first really serious attempt to put FG teachings into the context of Buddhist / Daoist cultivation tradition, rather than just speculating on a lineage connection to millennial or secret societies of imperial China (some of it is still highly speculative, which is unfortunate, but it's still good.)Homunculus (duihua) 18:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Terrorism in the People's Republic of China, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red Guards, Han people and Dao (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) 09:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Absence of terrorosm in Tibet

I think this edit of yours introduces a pretty horrendous example of editorialisation to the article. Without meaning to insult you in any way, this text seems to be the sort of style of the Epoch Times. I have therefore removed it. If you disagree, perhaps you ought to consider gathering more third party sources about how there is also an absence of terrorism in, say, Guangdong, or Yunnan, or indeed anywhere else in China except Xinjiang or the big cities that are targets. In addition, there is the explicit reference to actions being perpetrated by a very small 'hard core' of extremists – seems to me that this is the case for terrorist acts almost everywhere else in the world ... --Ohconfucius 01:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My edit adhered extremely closely to what the reliable source said. The source is available online, so I suggest you read it, and then tell me if you think that I editorialized or took liberties. I don't believe I have.

I agree that I need more sources to flesh out a more complete discussion of the topic, though the one I used was a good survey of the subject. I intended to add more sources. Maybe you should give me more than twelve hours to build out a section of the article? Or, better yet, maybe you could do some research and help flesh out the section yourself. That seems like more a constructive approach than deleting sourced and relevant information.

Also, do you not think that terrorism in Tibet is a notable topic within this article? Given the frequency with which Chinese authorities decry Tibetan separatism as terrorism—not to mention that terrorism has occurred there—it seems that it should be included and explained. Moreover, most of the literature I've encountered thus far includes a discussion of Tibet alongside Xinjiang. But unless I'm reading you wrong, it seems you're saying that you don't think it's any more notable than anything else...? Homunculus (duihua) 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism in Tibet could possibly be a notable topic in the article, but recent instances are indeed rare as your text states; civil disobediences or disturbances seem to be a lot more common of late. I know the text was work in progress, but it was totally imbalanced. It seemingly downplayed historical instances of bombings etc, but these incidences probably need to be fleshed out a lot more; in that way, the evolution could be plotted and put into its correct context. I don't disagree that the PRC are definitely overboard on the rhetoric about "separatism = terrorism" there, but except for certain incidents, none or very few western sources refer to the acts as 'terrorist', just the fact that the PRC refers to them as 'acts of terrorism'. --Ohconfucius 02:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest moving this conversation to the relevant talk page, where I've posted a comparison between what I wrote and what the source said. I really would like to collaborate with someone (even you!) on this, so I am interested in your thoughts on how the section on Tibet could be made more comprehensive and balanced. The one condition, if I am in a position to stipulate conditions, is that I hope for constructive, good faith collaboration. To that end, I suggest that you consider redacting your characterization of my contribution as "horrendous." Seems needlessly divisive. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 02:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my knee-jerk response in that edit summary. I accept that "horrendous" was perhaps too strong a word by about two notches. Unfortunately, edit summaries cannot be redacted, but I do take that back in the interests of good faith collaboration. --Ohconfucius 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Homunculus (duihua) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chat

OMG This is my very first time to see that English version of this poem, and it's on your userpage! 君不见 青海头 古来白骨无人收 新鬼烦冤旧鬼哭 天阴雨湿声啾啾！ I love this poem too, but the translation is not so good, did you make it yourself? or could you tell me where did you get this?---WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

No, it's not my own. I would never trust myself to devise an adequate translation of Du Fu (but then, no one can). I can't remember what it was that led me to use this poem. There are many happier things than the purgatory of Qinghai, but somehow it seems fitting.Homunculus (duihua) 05:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Um...fitting? In which aspect? You are a nice person. Chinese Misplaced Pages is lack of editors with professional background and cooperative. I sincerely hope you doing well in your further academic researching. I don't know you can understand Chinese or not, if I could be of some help just let me know.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but I just thought this is a antiwar poem. See, I really looks like a newcomer in Misplaced Pages. (Laugh~) Actually I edit wp for about 4 years, but mainly on Chinese version. So I know the basic editing rules like no original research, etc. I'm busy nowdays but I can connect to you later, your address is? --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 13:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Rating of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

Hi Homunculus, I'm trying to find somebody working on Wikiproject China (like you) who would be willing to re-rate my article Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. You can make comments on this review page. Any help would be much appreciated! best, -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to help! Perhaps you might be able to give feedback on the layout of the article, and clarity of writing? I'm relatively confident in the analysis of the security issues, but one aspect of this article that has troubled me is the lack of an explicitly Chinese perspective, which I only reference. Perhaps I could develop this? While I've consulted plenty of Asian news sources, I'm not familiar with Chinese "think tanks," etc. Do you find this to be a problem with the article?

The criteria for good articles are here, and you can make comments on this page if you like. Ultimately, it'd be nice to have the article re-rated on the Wikiproject China article within the next 2 weeks, assuming that I have time to respond to your suggestions. Thanks again! -Darouet (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai

Again, I'm really glad where our work over at Bo Xilai has taken us. I appreciate the spirit of cooperation and I am serious about taking it to GA - just need to do a bit more reference work. Colipon+(Talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)