Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:40, 5 October 2005

Just to let you know, I have monkeys flying out of my butt.

Hello, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dori 18:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving the "Social networking" section that I added to LiveJournal. It seems that you did a great job of identifying and handling POV issues without removing useful information. I had a hard time cutting down on POV without removing content, something that I sometimes find difficult when dealing with my own work. Again, thanks for your efforts. --L33tminion | (talk) 16:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

E-Mail from Hong Kong Government

Would you mind telling which department did you write to? Thank you. — Instantnood 19:10 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

The one that answered queries sent to the www.info.gov.hk web page.

SchmuckyTheCat 19:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it a form to fill in, or an e-mail address? — Instantnood 20:35 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

List of countries that only border one other country

Please remove Hong Kong and Macao, and all other dependent territories, from all listing of countries if you insist they are not countries. — Instantnood 22:51 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

• If I come across things that are obviously wrong, I correct them. I don't intend to be a completist. SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of city listings by country

Please remove all the "the"s if you consider they are not necessary, for consistence. — Instantnood 22:55 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

• I strive to be correct, not complete. SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Misplaced Pages will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:15 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

• I do hope it goes positive in all regards. I did note before anything else that I believe you want to contribute. I just got tired of the revert wars. SchmuckyTheCat 03:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"China" and "Mainland China"

I noticed you have made several edits that involve these two terms (e.g. Beijing and TCM). Please note the naming conventions regarding the use of these terms. — Instantnood 22:41, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• yes, i looked at several and changed two where it didn't make sense. beijing, for example, listed railways to everywhere, including hong kong, so it made little sense to use your term "mainland china" when that term excludes hong kong. SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beijing serves as a rail hub for mainland China, but not the PRC. — Instantnood 23:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• what? your definition of mainland China is the PRC - the two SAR. The article saID that Beijing was the rail hub for mainland China + the SAR. Which part of that ISN'T the PRC? So, um... what? please discuss this in the article talk page, kthx. SchmuckyTheCat 03:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that you are removing references to mainland China on a mass scale. While a number of these edits are improvements such as at Red Imported Fire Ant and have made the text more concise or accurate, many of these edits have either drastically altered the meaning of the text (e.g. Demographics of Brazil) or have violated NPOV and accuracy (e.g. U.S. 7th Fleet). Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese) specifically states that it is preferable to use the neutral wording "Mainland China and Taiwan" rather than "China and Taiwan" because the latter suggests Taiwan is not part of China and the People's Republic of China is synonymous with China. Please respect the guidelines. If you believe they are inadequate, then please gain consensus to have them changed first. --Jiang 10:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dependent Territories

Hi SchmuckyTheCat,

I've seen your comments on the compromise deal. The point of a compromise is for both sides to have some form of give-and-take, rather than a winner-loser mentality where "winner takes all". I'll see what changes I can make accordingly. In that case I may put them under Cat:Special territories instead of Cat:Dependant territories. "Disclaimers" are there to seal up any ambiguous, or so-called "grey-areas" that is actually causing the conflict/potentially causing more conflict, and hence nessecery.

I think it'll be best to leave the subcategories as it is rather than upmerging them. At first before you all were involved, the two categories Airports of Hong Kong and Macau are then completely separated and unrelated to Airports of PRC. To upmerge them outright is a bit like annexing countries, and something Instantnood and a few others (who voted on CfD) will not agree to and would not help ressolve the dispute.

- Mailer Diablo 06:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• this is an encyclopedia, remember. Fact trumps "user compromise" everytime. They aren't dependent territories. I've previously been ok with "special territories". I don't like the term much but it works.

• My problem with the categories is not with the politics. It's with the categories only containing a single real article. That isn't the point of a category. There is a major proposal to limit category creation to admins for this very reason of too many useless categories. Here are some other alternatives "Airports of Hong Kong and Macau" as a single category, kind of icky combining them. Upmerging them to "Transportation in xx" which is a fine solution. There is no problem with "Transportation in xx" being a sub-category of "Airports in PRC". If there must be a compromise between just stickin them in "Airports of the PRC" then putting them in "Transportation in xx" is my preferred compromise.

SchmuckyTheCat 15:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello SchmuckyTheCat. I noticed you have left the following words at Mailer diablo's talk page, and I would like to say something about that.

" I'd love to see him try to convince American editors that the US belongs in some minor category like "lower 48" because of Puerto Rico. :) "

Puerto Rico does not form part of the United States, but a commonwealth and an unincorporated organised territory which sovereignty is held by the United States. It is the same way the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do not form part of the United Kingdom.

A more comparable example of the special administrative regions is the Kingdom of the Netherlands, where the government of the Netherlands assume some of the duties for the government of the Kingdom. I am pretty sure if topics of Aruba were categorised under the Netherlands, there would be vigorous debate. — Instantnood 16:56, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

• yawn. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know you yawned. Now I know I have lost the confidence in reaching any consensus with you. Compromise is meaningless. — Instantnood 21:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Words from Felix Wan's discussion page: " I think you are out fishing for support of your agenda. SchmuckyTheCat 23:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) "

Please respect other people. They have their own thinking, and if they do not agree with me, fishing for support wouldn't help. It is not my agenda, but actions that must be taken to somebody else's agenda. — Instantnood 09:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

VfD/Sar

Hi SchmuckyTheCat - you wrote: I'm referring to the pages of Sar and SAR. The wiki policy on disambiguation and abbreviations (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disambiguation_and_abbreviations) is pretty clear that disambiguation pages and acronym pages should be merged to be case-insensitive. They only exist for user convenience. In this case, neither article contains any content at all. Could I ask you to go back to Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Sar and vote to merge?

Sorry, but I disagree with the idea that Sar and SAR should have one article just because they use the same letters in their name. There should be a disambiguation link between them (as there is) for people who have typed the wrong thing, but combining the two is like having an article on cats of which half is dedicated to Computerised Axial Tomography. It's unlikely anyone typing Sar would mean SAR or vice versa, but if they do, there's a link to it on the page anyway. Grutness| 00:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• While I'm not opposed to merging (people make capitalization errors all the time, qv U.S. or u.s.), VfD is really not the place to decide that. Also, regardless of my vote there, there's no plain consensus either way. Instead, you should talk about it on the relevant talk page, and if for whatever reason you are unable to decide it, list it on RfC. Radiant_* 09:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I really don't understand what you're doing here. I know why I care about SAR, but I don't understand why you care.

Re:Sovereignty

You have a point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Perhaps a better solution is to edit out the term altogether? But then the ROC's stance on HK and MO isnt really clear. The laws seem to refer to the "Hong Kong Area" separate from the "Taiwan Area" but then the ROC never claimed HK... --Jiang 06:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked at removing it, but it's pretty clear in context. The article just uses the two Chinas as an example in an article that isn't about China at all. No need to muddy a simple example with the dirty details and politics. SchmuckyTheCat 13:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Please let me know if there is any convention or Misplaced Pages law that forbids placing articles in user space into categories. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Don't remove categories from my userpages unless you have found that it is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. — Instantnood 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please revert your edit, and please don't remove them until you have got the answer at Wikipedia_talk:User_page. — Instantnood 21:56, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Moving pages

Please use the "move" function to move pages. This is outlined at wikipedia:how to move a page. Copy and paste moves are not fine because under GFDL, the primary authors need to be credited.--Jiang 01:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chinese characters

You're welcome. Let me know if you need my help. :-D — Instantnood 15:24, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

User-space reverts

If you had included the other info up front you might have gotten more of a response. I'm not an admin, couldn't have done anything even if I wanted to, but this issue of the 3RR in user space is iffy at best. If he is categorising material in his user space, that's another matter, and should be brought up, but I don't think on the 3RR page. Guettarda 22:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That info wasn't there when he started. It's pretty clear from a few other articles that it shouldn't be done but none said "DON'T DO THAT" in non-subtle plain english. Even after it was added he's still trying to say "but these were articles in my user space, not my user page, does that still count." It's very frustrating. I purposefully revert warred him in his user space because it's the fastest way to get admin attention. SchmuckyTheCat 22:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You probably would have been better off on the /Incidents page. And you probably shouldn't admit that too widely, since some people might consider it an instance of "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point". You might want to try an RfC. Regardless, it's generally most effective to lay out the whole argument clearly, and possibly contact an admin directly. I appreciate that what you are doing is important - that article should not be categorised, and probably should not have interwiki links (though AFAIK they only go one way, so they're probably not a problem). Nonetheless, even if he were blocked, it wouldn't solve the problem. I think an RfC is probably the best way to proceed. Guettarda 22:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• He's already got an RfC. RfC is supposed to be limited to a single issue. If every "single issue" goes to RfC it'd be filled with him. If RfC goes beyond a single issue, the discussion gets too murky. And yeah, the interwiki links currently are one way, they weren't at the time, and even after being listed at incidents he said "oh, I'll put them back then!" geeps. in any case, thx. SchmuckyTheCat 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see your point then. I'd say something needs doing. I'm going have a look at the RfC and at the whole issue. Should have kept my mouth shut on the 3RR page. Guettarda 23:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Hi Schmucky, I noticed that you tagged your recently uploaded images (Image:Yung Shue Ha from Tung O ferry pier.jpg, Image:Yung Shue Wan - Sunset Bastards Boulevard.JPG, Image:Yung Shue Wan from the ferry pier.jpg) as {{PermissionAndFairUse}}. This is highly unusual: since you took the pictures, you are the copyright holder and have the power to grant any and all permissions. This means that fair use does not really apply – the "fair use" tags are generally used under narrowly defined circumstances where we're using images without permission, under the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. If you want to retain copyright and grant anyone permission to use your images for any purpose at all, you could simply tag them as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. The default license tag is {{GFDL}}, which is more restrictive, and many images are also licensed under a Creative Commons license or released into the public domain. For general information on copyright tags, see WP:ICT. Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mark, I'd love to have a conversation about this. I'm not willing to release copyright, so I don't know that the GFDL applies. I'm glad to contribute them to Misplaced Pages. I don't care if a kid uses them in a book report. But for instance: I do not want them to be used in a commercial publication. Also important: if the sites that clone wikipedia content honor the tags, I'd rather my images DID NOT follow to those sites. I would also prefer that they not be edited and used in a derivative work. My goal is that Misplaced Pages has permission, and other users have (US style) fair use. SchmuckyTheCat 02:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless you explicitly release your work into the public domain, you retain the copyright. For example, if you put a {{GFDL}} tag on an image description page, you're specifying the terms under which you permit others to use that image (namley the GFDL). You don't need to explicitly grant "fair use" to third parties: everyone already has the right to use copyrighted works without permission under the "fair use" provisions in certain circumstances (e.g., we do it for pictures on articles about 20th century history, many of which are still under copyright). For your specific requirements (non-commercial, no derivative works), the closest license I can think of is cc-nd-nc. This is considered to be a non-free license here: commercial use of Misplaced Pages content and derivative works are generally allowed, and licenses that restrict those uses are deemed non-free for purposes of Misplaced Pages. The GFDL and some Creative Commons licenses try to be open while requiring others to do the same: creation of derivative works is allowed, but the authors of the derived work may be required to license it under a similarly free license. Do you think you'd consider releasing your images under one of the free licenses listed on WP:ICT? Cheers, --MarkSweep 03:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey SchmuckyTheCat perhaps this is the licence that you have been looking for. Take a look at Image:Alm.arp.600pix.jpg for how the contributor reserve her/his copyright. — Instantnood 21:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

That is also a non-free license for purposes of Misplaced Pages. We don't want to restrict the rights of third parties beyond those rights granted to (the publishers of) Misplaced Pages itself. --MarkSweep 22:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, what I like about PermissionandFairUse over Permission is that the fair use context is specific to "reusers" in the template text. And MarkSweep, I do want to restrict the rights of third parties beyond Misplaced Pages. SchmuckyTheCat 13:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, in that case I'm afraid someone might object and delete them as essentially unfree, which would be a shame. --MarkSweep 18:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please..

Could you please kindly do Misplaced Pages a favour, to stop depopulating a category currently listed on WP:CFD?

And by the way {{controversial}} is for the use of controversial topics, while {{disputed}} is for factual accuracy. — Instantnood 05:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• get a category added to the controversial template and I won't care. I still think disputed is a better description, but I won't care as long as the template has a tracking category.
• as to depopulating, no, that's a bit of a turnaround to have your rename rejected and then call it depopulting to move articles bck into the original category. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But you're moving articles that did not belong to category you are moving to, and that's depopulating. — Instantnood 17:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm moving them to the original and correctly named category from a duplicate and mistitled category that shouldn't exist in the first place. SchmuckyTheCat 17:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those pages did not exist before you started depopulating the category, and there was no original category which they belonged to. The "mainland" categories are not duplicate and mistitled, unless you only view things from your own point of view. — Instantnood 08:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects

Please be reminded you have to fix double redirects after you have moved a page to a new location. Thanks for your attention. — Instantnood 08:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Your edit to the Terri Schiavo article was inappropriate. Don't try something like that again or you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. RickK 06:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

I appreciate your efforts in creating disambiguation pages for the China articles, but as a common courtesy, please fix all the links that lead to the new disambiguation page to another page after you are done. Also, given that this is being done on a mass scale, it would help if this was announced/discussed somewhere. Thanks, --Jiang 05:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have been trying to fix some links as I do it and others will come along. I know this wasn't announced, but I decided to be bold. There is no naming convention problem if the country/territory is named the way it calls itself and if the squabbling sub-entities are removed from the nebulous "China" articles which tried (and failed) to be all inclusive. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop depopulating categories on CFD

SchmuckyTheCat did you read " Please do not remove this notice or empty the category while the question is being considered. " on the CFD template, which you placed at category:Laws of mainland China? — Instantnood 08:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese law

Regarding this edit, would you mind telling why Traditional Chinese law is qualified to be categorised under category:Laws of the People's Republic of China? — Instantnood 15:36, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• From what I have viewed previously, historical laws of a country are generally classified with other laws of the country. the articles explain it's irrelevance. It had no previous category at all, so that was the best fit. It's probably also relevant in a history cat. SchmuckyTheCat 15:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see. — Instantnood 15:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello SchmuckyTheCat. Thanks a lot for the messages at the various talk pages regarding Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC. — Instantnood 21:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Your accusation

I noticed you accused me for putting no link from any page to the poll, leaving the poll onesided and lack of publicity. I bet you did not read Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution over the some 20 days. Please take that sentence off from all the pages you have put up that piece of message, and add necessary clarifications. — Instantnood 22:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

• what? ~StC~

To repeat, please take out that accusation before I take further action. — Instantnood 06:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too thank you for supporting my adminship (even if Mel didn't!).  :) Helpful Dave 13:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy Policy on votes

I believe that there should be a limit on initiating similiar kind of votes for the sake of everybody's time and energy. Thus, I have posted a Double Jeopardy on votes discussion to see if we can come up something to curtail this type of frivolous votes in the future. Please kindly spend some time and participate in that discussion if you have any suggestion and opinion on in this regard. Best regards. --Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• thank you geebus! SchmuckyTheCat 01:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

Just to let you know that, frustrated at Instantnood's new escalation of his arguments by opening 25 more votes on the same issue, I am enjoining myself to your ArbCom request on Instantnood's behaviour. I will also be approaching the AMA for someone to represent me. Kind regards, jguk 13:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Great, well, not great, it'd be better if it wasn't necessary, but that thing has been stalled and I've been seeking ways to move it forward. SchmuckyTheCat 14:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I spoke to Grunt on IRC to see why they have not taken the case. He has since amended his comment on the Arbitration request. I think you need to express what the problem is using fewer words. IE We shouldn't be trying to throw the book at him now, but just express quickly what the problem is (illustrated by a select few, rather than all possible, diffs) and what we want done about it, jguk 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. I will see if I can make a short concentration of one or two things later today. The weather is too nice to let wikipedia take over my day. SchmuckyTheCat 18:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It must be hotter where you are than where I am. Mind you, I am half-thinking of going to Lord's tomorrow:) All the best, jguk 19:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 14:23, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Taipei American School

The unknown user has been persistenly trying to get his views back on the Taipei American School article. Every time we edit his stuff out he edits back in. And now he writes that the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump! Whether the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump sounds irrelevant. Allentchang 19:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My limited knowledge

SC, my only knowledge of China is occasional skimming of magazine articles or converations with Chinese or Chinese-Americans (all in English, the only language I understand well). And a couple of years of watching Carradine in "Kung Fu" on TV. So please bear with me if I display my shocking ignorance. I only got involved with the government articles because as a Mediator I like to promote cooperation between writers - not because I think I know even half as much as anyone else. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:51, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• No bother to me. I don't consider myself a China expert by any means. I've said for quite awhile that I think people without pre-conceived biases need to be more involved there. It's my pleasure to try and explain if someone asks why I wrote or edited any article. SchmuckyTheCat 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration request now entitled Instantnood, et al. has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Subpages and redirects

Hi, redirects such as Peoples Republic of China/Economy are leftovers from the old organization of topics in Misplaced Pages, and current policy (which I do not favour, merely follow - I'd be happy to see someone work to get it changed) is to keep them.

Also, redirects shouldn't get speedy-deletion tags, since they have separate rules for speedy deletion from articles, and the admins doing speedies don't know them, so just list them on RfD, OK? Thanks. Noel (talk) 19:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I keep getting asked about the subpage stuff, so I replied at WT:RfD#Sub-page redirects, where it will be accessible to all. Noel (talk) 14:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thnak you

thank you for revising Happy Corner article. I do not know the term hazing so i did not make reference on it. thank you for putting that in. *now have more knowledge* SYSS Mouse 03:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

names/surnames

I'd welcome your comment on Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/names and surnames. -- BDAbramson 04:17, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

The {{twoversions}} template

Hello I guess you might have misunderstood. The template is not yet deleted, and you should not have proceeded to take it off from articles. For the Avenue of Stars article, the problem has not been solved, and in my opinion third-party input is necessary to help building consensus which of the two versions, or perhaps somewhere in between, should be adopted. — Instantnood 09:44, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• It unnecesarily uglifies the article. SchmuckyTheCat 13:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It is necessary unless it is settled. — Instantnood 14:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I really appreciate it. I spent a good deal of time familiarizing myself with some of the "rules and regs" of wikipedia.

I've just completed my first major contribution, editing the article on my favorite historian, Will Durant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Will_Durant

If it's not too much to ask and you have the time, I'd appreciate your opinion. As I've said, I do suffer from dyslexia, so I've painstakingly proofed it as thoroughly as I can. I also believe I've adhered to the spirit of wikipedia; if I haven't I would very much appreciate being told where I've gone wrong.

I've learned my lesson about delving into things I'm don't have the skills to tackle. (I've done tech support for Dell--I'll avoid giving my personal opinion in such a public forum anyone who wants to know how I feel can email me--and I think I can fairly be considered an "intermediate" level computer user and troubleshooter; but I know my limits and, as usual when I go past them, I made an ass out of myself. It's ok, I'm used to it. Like the man said, you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight. I got smacked and properly so. ;o)

Thanks.

Thanks

Thanks for the critique.

We learn by doing. I'm looking for a subject no one else's written on and I'm not having much luck finding one.

I see the advice about proposing the changes first--this would be an example of "wikiquette" (sp?), I assume? I'll mark that one down. It would help to avoid possible...tension. Though the words "mercilessly edited" appear frequently, some would not seem to take kindly to the practice. But that's the challenge and the discipline, isn't it?

Excellent advice.

I've been reading the Durants since I was eight, over 25 years. History is one of the areas in which I am something of an expert, though I have no degree. Nor am I likely to ever achieve one. The universities don't allow conservatives anymore, unless its a Christian school. There aren't any of those in Nevada I'm aware of.

So I'm self-educated. Not always well, ;0), as my feeble attempts at disputing 9x's history with you demonstrate.

Be bold--I like that. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Ironically enough, I just watched the classic Next Generation episode "Tapestry." It's on that very theme: boldness and the lack of it.

As aside--I read some of the, ah, issue with instantnood, and frankly found his position untenable. Much as I detest the Butchers of Beijing, they control China and we are forced to accept their name. "Mainland China" is an adjective, not a name. Sort of like Kwaung-ho, "The Middle Kingdom."

I don't envy the Hong Kongers. Were I suddenly forced to live under a totalitarian regime which murders people to sell their organs, I'd be unhappy as well. But farcical discussions about grammar and semantics help nothing. However, I am an American, we'd start shooting people who tried to enslave us. It's not in our nature to submit to tyranny (one of our best inheritances from the British) if sadly, but thankfully rarely, to impose it.

If I were allowed a vote, I would definitely side with you. Refusing to acknowledge facts helps no one--least of all ourselves.

Again, thank for your time. I shan't take up any more of it.

And I do apologize for the tenor of my earlier postings. Severe pain often makes a cheery disposition hard to maintain.

Good day.

Image:Bowling Green Police Station.jpg

Would you mind getting here and tell why you added the {{copyvio}} and {{vfd}} tags to image:Bowling Green Police Station.jpg? Thank you. — Instantnood 15:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hello? — Instantnood 19:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lists of masts, lists of words

Hi there! I noticed your contribution to these discussions... are you aware of the fact that both were closed and concluded a couple of weeks ago? Says so right at the top :) HTH. Radiant_* 07:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Name policy

I don't think it does matter whether you've ever been involved or not. Don't be hestitant. Just get there and put up an invitation. :-D — Instantnood 19:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Respect

I noticed you have started Uncle G's user page with a dot. Would be nice if you can take a look at the notice at the top right corner on his talk page, and his statement. :-D — Instantnood 20:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:Uncle G

There are very few cases in which it is appropriate to edit another User's user page. Uncle G has stated on multiple occassions that he does not want a user page, so do not create one for him. I have gone ahead and deleted the page you created for him. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Feel the hate

How depressing. I haven't been trying hard enough. RickK 19:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

On requested moves WP:RM, comments and votes should not appear on the WP:RM page because they will be discounted. You must add them to the Talk page of the article of the proposed move. I have just moved your comments to Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Name_change from WP:RM but it was after the decision had already been made. Next time please add them to the talk page and not the WP:RM page Philip Baird Shearer 10:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

RFA concern

Hi there! You expressed concern about how I would react to my critics on RFA. In general, I've contacted them on their talk page to see what they find wrong about my behavior, and see what I can do to change that. In particular, some people fear I might do controversial deletes, so I have decided to stay away from CSD and VFD closure for the forseeable future.

For instance, see User_talk:Everyking#Controversy?, User_talk:Bluemoose#Deadend sorting, User_talk:Unfocused#Edit summaries, User_talk:Alkivar#A change and User_talk:TheCustomOfLife#Boldness.

Yours, Radiant_* 07:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

First name disambiguation pages

I am coming to you because you voted on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Alessandra. Following the listing of Alessandra for deletion, some users are now going through first name disambiguation pages throughout Misplaced Pages, seeking to either delete them or to remove names. These users cite the following text in the Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation policy:

• In most cases, do not list names of which Title is a part, unless the persons are very frequently referred to simply by their first or last name (e.g. Shakespeare, Galileo).

I believe that part of the policy should be changed. The reasons include those I've already stated in my comments on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Alessandra. To elaborate further, I believe this policy is inherently contradictory to the policy on Misplaced Pages:Redirect, which states that redirects should not be deleted if:

• They aid searches on certain terms.
• Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Misplaced Pages in different ways.

To see how this situation is similar to that for first-name disambiguation pages, we can consider the page Noam, which serves as a perfect example. Examining the page history of Noam, we see that the article started out as a redirect to Noam Chomsky (who is not commonly known by his first name). This page was then changed to a redirect to Noam Federman, at which point an edit war began between two users with the users changing the redirect back and forth between Noam Chomsky and Noam Federman. The obvious solution to this edit war, which I implemented, was to turn the redirect page into a disambiguation page for people named Noam.

By the logic of the policy quoted above on Misplaced Pages:Redirect, the redirect should not be deleted. But that leads to disputes over the most famous usage of a particular name. Disambiguations prevent exactly this problem, yet by the logic of the policy quoted above from Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, the disambiguation page that solves this problem should be deleted!

This is why the policy stated above on Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation is poorly-thought out and unacceptable. Would you be willing to join me in pointing out these concerns on the talk page for Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and working to change the policy so that first name disambiguation pages are acceptable? Please let me know. Thanks.

—Lowellian (talk) 13:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have started the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation. Your comments would be appreciated! —Lowellian (talk) 17:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

100 Greatest Cartoons/Temp

I think you put a vfd tag on this page and then forgot about it. Just letting you know so you can fix it. --Dmcdevit 21:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood and the MTR

Hello, I found your name on the arbitration committee briefing on Instantnood. I found the evidence presented disturbing, as a very similar situation is developing over on the MTR page. Instantnood has taken it upon himself to change the formatting for all the article names without discussion, and to also change the bolded name in the articles to create redundancy. I am attempting to engage him in discussion, although after reading the evidenece presented on the ArbCom page, it may perhaps be futile. Discussion over this is taking place at here, and any support you could lend would be appreciated, as I cannot seem to find what the final verdict of the ArbCom was. Thank you! Páll 09:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MANY Thanks!

So happy that you've been so devoted to HKD, another Hong Kong-related article of grave importance. Let's work together! Thanks again. Love ya! :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for supporting me! --Kbdank71 13:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your support!  Grue  07:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blank user pages

If the users choose to keep their user pages blank, please respect them and please don't create such pages with a dot. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't follow me around commenting on my edits. If these users have a problem, they can change it or come to me. You're making up objections to my edits in order to stir the shit, not because anyone actually has a problem. SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Hi - thanks for your comments about deletions - I'm still relatively new to Misplaced Pages so keen to learn the dos & don'ts from more experienced users like yourself. I was aware of the distinction between delete & speedy delete and re-read the criteria for the latter before flagging the pages I flagged yesterday. Although they clearly didn't meet the first definition of patent nonsense "random characters" they seemed to me to meet the second "stuff that no-one could be expected to make sense of". Can you tell me if this constitutes incorrect use of speedy delete as I can't seem to find anything in the criteria that says that only the first definition applies. If this is not the case, can you expand on your reasons for suggesting I shouldn't use speedy deletes in these circumstances? Thanks - SP-KP 28 June 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice in reply to the above. The article in question is, I think, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Walid al-Tartushi, which, now, following your edit, is clearly a non-SD-candidate, albeit a stub (but hey, I've written plenty of the latter myself!). I think your suggestion of checking Google to find out whether the article subject might actually be worth keeping, even when, as in this case, the article content clearly marked it out as an SD candidate, is a sensible one, and I'll do that in future (and I take your point about not biting the newcomers, fair comment). I see that you also removed the SD tag from Salman al-Farsi - given that we now know this editor is kosher (sorry, couldn't resist), and that Salman al-Farsi turns up on Google, I agree. However, the article content is still (to anyone reading it afresh) definition 2 patent nonsense - leaving it as just a stub seems a bit inappropriate, as that implies it has meaningful, but brief, content. Is there a way of marking an article as "great title, but content is poo" so that someone with an interest in the subject can spot it and sort it out? - SP-KP 28 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)

Horse Racing

Hello SchmuckyTheCat. Thanks for your editing of the horse racing article. However, reading your edit comments, it seems that you have not read the information at http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing. I suggest that you do, it is all referenced.

Hong Kong and Macao section of Economy of the PRC

Hello Schmucky. I'd like to know why you reverted my edits to that section. Thanks. — Instantnood June 29, 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Pang uk

Hi there! If you want a page merged, you can be WP:BOLD and do so (see Misplaced Pages:Merge for details). Merging does not require a VFD vote. Enjoy! Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

Edit summary

Would you mind telling what you were trying to say in the following edit summary in this edit to the Overseas Chinese article? " disambiguate, this version is better than the 'Nood was reverting to. " — Instantnood 07:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Category

I think you needa fix the Chinese Misplaced Pages as well, where Hong Kong is regarded as a country. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Google Earth

Have people unlearned the significance of indentation in web forum-style discussion? I was saying you cannot upload pictures or kmz files from Google Earth, not that you can't link to Google Maps. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood evidence

I am looking at the evidence you present, for example . You say "Instantnood changes two lines renaming Taiwan and a PRC government agency - no edit summary, marked minor edit." Granted there is no edit summary, it does seem a minor edit. What policy did Instantnood violate? For example, the first part of the edit, changing from "as stipulated by the ] and the ]" to "as stipulated by the ] of the ] and the ]" seems to add an appropriate link to the Central Committee while preserving the link to the CP. The second part of the edit simply adds a link to the name of the country. That gives a link to both the informal and formal name of the country. Fred Bauder 16:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Just to let you know, dear comrade User:Instantnood has nominated me for flouting a 3RR rule yet again.--Huaiwei 09:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Motion

Please take note of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

ROC infobox

Those are not really PRC figures, but figures for the entirety of ROC's claim, which include Mongolia, Tuva and the northern corner of Burma. — Instantnood 14:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I know. At this point it's just persistent vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

  Just a friendly reminder that information provided in edit summary have to be equally accurate for convenience of other readers. As a matter of fact this infobox has gone through a history that the location map of ROC-claimed territories was mistaken as PRC . — Instantnood 17:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to make out? SchmuckyTheCat 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. That made my day. ;-) --MarkSweep 00:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"Entire China" ≠ the entire territories claimed by the ROC. — Instantnood 20:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• No? How about your mom? Quit bugging me, anyone following the edit history of that template knows what is being reverted. Unless your coming here to take me up on the offer of making out, quit coming to my talk page to quibble. SchmuckyTheCat 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The person who's been changing Template:Republic of China infobox and creating a POV fork at Template:Taiwan infobox is a persistent vandal/POV-pusher. At first I thought he might have a point (namely, should we report figures for the territories under the de facto effective control of the ROC, or for all territories that the ROC claims but has no control over?); however, there are plenty of precedents for reporting the reality of the situation first, and wishful thinking later or not at all. The people who keep changing the infoboxes, numbers, even maps do so against consensus and without contributing to the talk page of the ROC infobox, where the issue was discussed and quickly resolved. At this point, it's just plain old vandalism we're dealing with. --MarkSweep 22:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. But at the same time we have got to provide accurate but not misleading information in edit summary. Saying those are figures and maps of the PRC or of "entire China" is obviously incorrect. It was meant to be a friendly reminder, but SchmuckyTheCat saw it as picking on him. — Instantnood 10:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yet another 3rr

Instantnood has nominated me for 3RR for the third time in recent memory, although I dont think this nomination makes much sense at all. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Huaiwei_2 Feel free to do whatever is neccesary, including the obvious clue that he is gaming the 3RR rules yet again.--Huaiwei 12:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Alanmak

I should have listened to Huaiwei's advice to report Alan's misconduct to the admin (last time he stroked away my comments with no good reasons). Alanmak has made even worse personal attack , which did upset me a lot. :'-( You should know I'm a sensible discussor all the time, and I'm willing to make constructive feedback in the negotiation. Unfortunately, Alanmak has black-mouthed me, calling me master****, and my work c***. Originally I was determined to turn the other cheek (as Instandnodd (your persistent foe or what, please forget it at this moment), but now I think do something an eye for an eye. What should I do now? I was very dismayed. :( -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your lovely reply. I hope I can deal with him. I think I may need your further help if he, God forbids, continues with his black-mouth...:-( -- Jerry Crimson Mann 05:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I found you're not that "bad", or rather a quite amiable person :-D , as the Buddha story mentioned in your reply told me that. But I just wonder why you're using such a strange user name, and ,furthermore, you would occassionaly use bad words when condemning Instantnood. -- Jerry Crimson Mann

Well, it sure would be a pretty embarrassing question to reply. Just forget it if you mind spending a penny. Anyway, love ya!~ ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Muahaha...as we can see, STC can be quite a lovable person, if you dont trend on his tail that is. :D Anyway, what is the outcome over the above spat, actually? I am sorry I didnt do much about it since then.--Huaiwei 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well we've become friends again. :-D Actually you can check the discussion page, and there hides our ICQ messages of negotation with <! - - - > sign. --

Haha....wheres the page? Thats good to hear btw. :D--Huaiwei 15:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

ROC on Taiwan? or is it Taiwan?

At list of countries, you changed "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to "Republic of China on Taiwan" citing Chen Shui-bian. The form preferred by the Lee Teng-hui administration (back in the 1990s) was "Republic of China on Taiwan". However, the current Chen Shui-bian administration is using the form "Republic of China (Taiwan)". I think the decision on whether to adopt one form or another should be brought over to the Chinese naming conventions page. I think in wikipedia's articles on Taiwanese politics, "Republic of China on Taiwan" is more common, but I personally lean towards the other form because they're the guys in control. --Jiang 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Temporary truce

Hi, SchmuckyTheCat (and Ji). Instantnood informed me of your edit to list of cities by country , and based on my attempt to reach a truce pending the committee's decision, I was wandering if (both of) you would be willing to refrain from any further naming convention edits. Let me know if you object to this proposal (please place your comments here). In the case you do, no hard feelings, I know virtually nothing about this dispute and will simply withdraw. I'm only involved incidentally, as the admin who handled the recent 3RR notices. Thanks for your time, El_C 12:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Schmucky. Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I was especially touched by your vote (as well as Huaiwei's and Instantnood's votes). I hope I'm not reading too much into it, but I feel that this is a vote of confidence, and I'd like to repay you by trying to help the three of you come to a peaceful resolution regarding the China/Taiwan-related articles. I think you all got off to a bad start earlier this year, much of which can be attributed to genuine trolls/vandals. I'll try my best to help eradicate malicious vandalism and to work with genuine contributors like yourself to establish a new consensus based on mutual respect. Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

A fourth 3RR!

It does appear to me that instantnood is practically reaching the end of a cliff face and is now willing to do anything just to "retaliate" at others. He has decided to nominate me for the 4th time in recent memory in what looks like yet another absurd nomination. I think this is simply getting too far, and I would suggest pointing this out to the arbcom, if it has not already been done so.--Huaiwei 15:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

ROC / Taiwan

I agree the ROC should be sorted under T on lists of countries as most readers will look for it by its common name. Nevertheless I suppose a pointer should be added under C, like what was done under T before the relocations. Meanwhile, if you're serious with your position, mind help fixing the East Asia section of airline destinations, e.g. Singapore Airlines destinations#East Asia? — Instantnood 18:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to fix all the lists of destinations that linked to airports in the ROC, as you can check from this page, for instance. Let me know if you need a hand. Meanwhile you may have to think about how to handle the problem with your way of presentation that some places under ROC administration are not part of Taiwan, historically, culturally or politically. — Instantnood 08:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

DavidsCrusader

While I was doing RC Patrol, I came across something I don't understand. It said you created the page user:DavidsCrusader, but when I looked at the page, where the only edit according to the history is apparently you creating the page, it's totally blank. I'm confused. What was the point of creating someone else a blank user page? The Literate Engineer 23:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Barebacking dispute

If you remove this dispute tag again I will list you for comment. Exploding Boy 22:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• hurry up then SchmuckyTheCat 23:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RFC#General user conduct. Exploding Boy 23:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've withdrawn the RFC against you, not because I feel it was inappropriate, but because I doubt it'll do any good and I'd rather not waste everyone's time any further. However, I have a major problem with the way you've approached this dispute, and I think you really need to reexamine how you interact with other editors. Repeatedly removing dispute tags (traditionally, it's the user who posted the tags who gets to remove them) and reverting articles to your preferred version (far better to leave them as they are during a dispute) helps nothing. Exploding Boy 17:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Can we get along here? Can we all get along? I hope that the current revision, which drop all mention of the conflict on the disambig page, and make it clear that the majority usage is still for homosexual conduct, will satisfy everyone. If not, let's see what we can do to make it right without getting all angry at eachother. The article is better now than it was, and that's a good thing. Hipocrite 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Stalking Cat, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Point at the wrong version

Aside from disagreement over the choice of which version to be displayed, please be reminded to link to the updated version, after I've made changes to it . Thanks. — Instantnood 17:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Block

SchmuckyTheCat, you been blocked for 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Remember that WP:3RR is meant to prevent edit warring, and that you should not revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period (unless it's simple vandalism), regardless of who is "right" or "wrong". Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's a really fucked up decision if you took a few seconds to actually look at it. I'll honor the block by not editing in article space, but I'm still going to bitch about it elsewhere. ~StC~

Smucky, I did look at the edits. Per your request, I'll take another look at them. You can still edit this page, and I've blocked your IP address (either that, or it's someone impersonating you). Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Don't autoblock the IP, it's a proxy for a rather large multi-national company and other users do edit wikipedia. I could just connect to a different proxy to avoid it. Trust me in good faith I won't edit in article space as an anon while blocked. In the meantime , that's one of the only occurences when you should not only block, but inform Jimbo of the block. This isn't a race-baiting nazi to block, but the links to the employer are clear real-life harassment. SchmuckyTheCat 22:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Clear real-life harrasment? I don't see why the information about previous employers should go in the article (and my view on that is besides the point), but I don't view it as threatening. I will, however, post your comments on WP:AN and see what other admins have to say. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• That isn't former employment. When your HR department asks to speak to you about what some guy says on the Internet, that is real life trouble. SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• So you beleive that having information about one's employer is harrassment? In either case, I've posted the matter on WP:AN, to see what other admins think. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Awards

Lol~ Thanks so much Schmucky. You still owe me a scabbard. Where should I keep the sword? :-P — Instantnood 15:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sory for me butting in, but I had a good laugh. Anyway, what material would you like your scabbard to have, ms nood?--Huaiwei 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Its a high five!

You-know-who just nominated me for the five time in . I bet yeah when 24 hours is past, he will start his next round of three reverts, as always. By the rules of 3RR, anyone who does more than 3 edits, as well as those who are obviously and consistently "gaming the rules", are liable to be disciplined. Should anything happen, I would hope you may assist in making sure that a fair judgement is made, and that BOTH of us should be punished.--Huaiwei 20:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you think his gaming is going to do that, put a notice on my talk page before it goes to 3RR. Any third editor in the mix prevents the gaming. There is a home court advantage in making the first edit in 3RR with only two people. As stupid as the first edit may be, it isn't the one that counts as a revert. If a third editor comes along, even once, the burden goes to the person making the change to justify the change, rather than the reverter. I might play the game too if it's that obvious what he's doing.

SchmuckyTheCat 21:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for sticking my nose in, but I just noticed this. This whole business of reverting and citing each other for 3RR violations is extremely tedious and unproductive. I mean, I don't blame you or anyone else, since by now the atmosphere is probably poisoned to such an extent that the reverts and the finger pointing have become automatic reflexes. All of this is very unfortunate, and the best way out would be for all sides to discontinue this behavior (I know, easier said than done). At this point, not knowing anything further about the specifics, all I can say is that it takes at least two to play that game, so please don't let yourselves get dragged into this. I'll have a word with Instantnood and will try to find out what's behind all of this. --MarkSweep✍ 09:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I do actually take a look, it's not reflexive. And there have been several times I noticed the other two revert warring and I declined to intervene for lack of caring or lack of an idea of who was right. But to me, at this point, it's obvious to me that Instantnood is gaming the 3RR system. In such a case, I might be willing to make an edit I disagree with JUST so that he doesn't have the upper hand in a two sided 3RR. If my edit stuck, I could revert it myself if I really disagreed. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps all of you may also take a look at Talk:List_of_dependent_territories#China.2C_Russia. I do wonder why he displays a reluctance in open discussions in such a critical topic which has resulted in most cases of 3RR anyway. He calls himself amicable, reconciliary, and ever willing to discuss. Well, hardly, I have to say.--Huaiwei 10:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw, the latest round of revert warring is breaking out in Lists of country-related topics.--Huaiwei 10:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on Political status of Taiwan

Hi, there's a dispute going on regarding some of the wording used in the Political status of Taiwan article, as well as whether or not the ROC should be characterized as a de facto state. As I noticed your involvement in the formulation of some of the Chinese naming conventions, your comments and suggestions would be greatly appreceated. -Loren 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I may go on a self imposed WikiVacation after this dispute is over to cool off. Another reason why I normally try (unsuccessfully) to steer clear of political articles. -Loren 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen FAC

An apology...

I just re-read the AfD for "Professional victims" and I was surprised to see that my comments to you read as a lot more argumentative than I meant them. I'm still of the same opinion about the article, but I didn't mean to come across as harsh as I did. Hope you'll understand... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. android79 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Value added tax

Yes, another edit war is erupting in the above, again by the same fella who is practically asking for people to scrutinise his edits every day. Notice he would go back and rekindle old arguments with his prefered versions when no one has revisited them for ages? He is "lucky" that this time round, it took me 2 whole weeks to notice it. Perhaps all of us have to go review his entire edit history now for more of these "tactical" moves?! :D--Huaiwei 10:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

List of largest airlines

War #XXX is brewing here in the Asia section, due to what? The age-old Mainland vs PRC issue again as usual. For some reason, "Between Hong Kong and Mainland China" is considered better than "within the PRC"?--Huaiwei 15:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Pages to note

I further list relevant pages which you may like to review as part of the arbcom process. More pages may be listed should they require your attention later. Btw, who are the other relevant admins whom I may alert besides Marksweep? Who is acting on your behalf?

• Land borders--Huaiwei 09:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• User:Snowspinner but he's rather terse and uninterested in the whole thing. SchmuckyTheCat 16:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...no wonder is seems to be falling apart. Anyway, here are more to pages to note:

• East Asian Tigers
• List of official languages by state
• Char siew rice
• Char siu

You might also want to see the silly game going on in Talk:Newly industrialized countries. :D--Huaiwei 17:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's funny because I only glance at his edit history and don't actually look at the edits. I think "what do I care about a bunch of food?" SchmuckyTheCat 17:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You will be greatly surprised. I found myself opening up even the dullest articles to find objectional edits being made!--Huaiwei 21:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Macau copyrights

Since it is uncertain whether it is a government picture, what we can do is to see if we can use it for fair use in non-commercial purposes. Chapter II (specifically Article 61) of the Copyright Law – Decree-Law n.o 43/99/M may be relevant here. — Instantnood 10:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello do you think {{promotional}}, a fair use licence, would be appropriate? The poster looks like for promotional purpose. — Instantnood 16:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I considered that after {{poster}} was removed. I'm not quite sure it applies. I think the original poster was a promo for a gallery exhibit called "Birds Eye View of Macau". A strict reading of the promo template would mean the original poster (not my picture of the airport from part of the poster) would be {{promotional}} for an article on the exhibit, but not the airport. As they say here though, "close enough for government work". Thanks for the previous link to the Macau copyright law. SchmuckyTheCat 17:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalims

I would like to report, that User:Instantnood has taken to vandalism to archieve his aims. In Hong Kong national football team, he tried to speed delete it dispite the fact that it fails to meet any criteria for speedy deletion, and has taken to constantly reverting that notice after my removal of it.--Huaiwei 11:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)