User talk:Colipon

Welcome to my talk page. I will generally respond to your messages here for the purpose of linking threads, but will respond on your talk page if you prefer.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mikhail Khodorkovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chita (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) 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hey, I filed a Request for Comment on the He / Luo issue. It's probably way too long, but I don't want uninformed editors offering casual input without considering who the sources are and what they actually say. I hope that I have adequately represented the objections to inclusion as well. This seemed like the only fair (ie. random) way to solicit the opinions of fully uninvolved editors.Homunculus (duihua) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai

Apparently someone doesn't like the linking. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please review my article Quadrilateral Security Dialogue?

Hi Colipon, 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) 00:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary! Will work along the lines you've suggested. All best, -Darouet (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Just began looking at it. Will be happy to contribute more! Thanks for the suggestion (and for your help with QSD). -Darouet (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mali edits

Hi there Colipon. Looking at the fast approaching edits on Mali-related articles, I noticed this edit by you. Could you explain to me precisely what you meant by using "regime" with caution, why we have to do this and where it states that this is so. There is a reason I ask and I'll explain it to you after your reply. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I replied on that talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. It is quite a relevant discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a mistake, right?

The Bo Xilai page says that Bo failed to get elected to the Central Committee in 2003. That has to be a mistake, right?

On another note, I was just reviewing this edit [1]. I had started preparing something similar offline. My thought is to break out distinct sections on his tenure as mayor of Dalian, followed by a section on the 15th Party Congress (with would include content similar to what you wrote), then governor of Liaoning, followed by 16th party congress, and so on. Any thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good catch. He definitely got elected to the CC in 2003 - so it would seem his 'failed election' actually took place sometime in 1997-8... Generally as a mayor of a large city like Dalian one would be on the CC ex officio. Bo's omission from the CC is extremely significant. I believe what actually happened was that upon his installation as Mayor (or governor), he was to be 'alternated' into the CC, i.e, as an 'additional' member. These alternates need to go through an election process among existing CC members, and I believe that is where he failed the vote. I wish sources were a little clearer on this. Colipon+(Talk) 21:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

His failed nomination in 1997 was a pretty big deal; the family ran a national publicity campaign touting his achievement, and he wasn't even chosen as part of the Liaoning delegation. Maybe tomorrow I'll have finished pulling something together on it. As to 2003, I was also referring to the year. Don't these selections take place during the party congress (in this case, the 16th congress held in 2002)? Homunculus (duihua) 22:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let me know if you find anything. WRT the idea of separating out the Congresses as their own sections, I'm not sure if I like this idea. Because aside from the political jockeying there's little else that can act as standalone content for those sections. I would be much more comfortable trying to integrate those into their adjacent sections. Colipon+(Talk) 01:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at what I've done. I turned "Work in Liaoning" into three sections: Mayor of Dalian, 15th Party Congress, and Governor of Liaoning. The section on the 15th Party Congress a bit long. If you think it's overkill, you're welcome to rein it in. I'm inclined to think of these things as the single-party system equivalent of an election campaign, and to end, I think they're notable enough. I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Regarding the 16th party congress, I haven't put anything on the page yet, but there might be some notable stuff there as well; Bo's name was considered alongside Li and Xi's to lead the fifth generation of leaders. Granted, he was never a very serious contender, but was probably third in line...Homunculus (duihua) 14:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite good. And very interesting. Li Cheng is one of my favourite China analysts. He has the background and isn't so clouded with his own perceptions of how the system 'should' be - unlike Willy Lam. Bruce Gilley is another expert on this topic. Maybe see if he has anything interesting on the subject (although some of his analysis is regrettably inaccurate). For the 17th congress, I think there was some serious jockeying for Bo to go to Chongqing. He was initially very reluctant and apparently protested to the Org. department, saying that it was a demotion and an insult. It took him 15 days from the close of the congress to his first day on the job as party secretary in Chongqing. Perhaps that's when he was devising his proto-"Chongqing model". It'd be great if we could find some background on the 16th. Colipon+(Talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny, about Cheng Li. I've found him, like nearly all the top DC China scholars (Shambaugh, Lampton, Bader, Pei, etc.), to be extremely politic; their organizations and careers rely on maintaining optimal access to the Chinese leadership. I don't think that means he lacks aspirations for political reform, though. Anyways, Gilley and Andy Nathan have written a bit on Bo in the 16th party congress. I'll try to find more.Homunculus (duihua) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of candor and cooperation

Colipon, I know I haven't stated it clearly yet, but I do hope that we can work together now and in the future. There are not many editors on this encyclopedia who are knowledgeable and active on topics related to Chinese politics, and I prefer to be on cooperative (if not friendly) terms with those who are. So, in the spirit of cooperation, I am going to be candid, and I hope that you will reciprocate.

I don't appreciate the tone you use to describe my editing when you disagree with it (eg. "alarming," "concerning," etc. There was also your recent comment, where you—perhaps unwittingly—implied that I am not a "rational" editor.) If I were slightly more thin-skinned or conflict averse, I might interpret these repeated insinuations as a form of intimidation. I hold myself to high standards, and while I am by no means above reproach, I make every attempt to be judicious in my judgement, scrupulous in adhering to policies, and welcoming of dissenting views and opinions. If you have a problem with something I have written, you can plainly describe the content issues as you see them, and I will seek to address it. If you have a question about me or my position on a topic, I would appreciate if you ask me directly, rather than making indirect insinuations about my motivations. For professional reasons I need to guard my privacy, so I don't disclose more than I wish, but I do not lie. I hope that's reasonable.

I also want to discuss with you the He Zuoxiu and Luo Gan issue. I'm interested in talking with you here because, honestly, I feel I can speak more freely. Not about Wikipedia policies and such, but just about our views on the subject. This is an issue you've been battling for a long time, and it seems like an inordinate amount of effort for such a small point. Could you explain why you see this as so important? If this conversation is agreeable to you, I will share my thoughts in turn. (what I'm really asking, I guess, is whether you truly believe that He Zuoxiu was acting in a vacuum, writing and publishing completely of his own accord, and that the surrounding circumstances and chain of events with the MPS was just coincidence).Homunculus (duihua) 22:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel like I need to state my opinion on the He/Luo issue itself. Quite simply, my opinion does not matter when it comes to building this encyclopedia based on verifiability, reliable sources, and due weight.

User Homunculus, I find working with you a very pleasant experience, unless the subject matter deals with Falun Gong. Thus, I try to avoid even having discussions with you about these matters unless I feel extremely strongly that Wiki policy has been violated. As you know, my experience with editing Falun Gong has not been pleasant. I have all but stopped editing those articles. If I do comment on them, I do my utmost to keep my comments focused on content, and avoid personal remarks.

I want to thank you for this message. I, too, would like to extend a hand in furthering our trust and cooperation, and I think our joint efforts over at Bo Xilai is a testament that this can be done in a civil, cooperative, even friendly manner. I intend to continue this relationship. Colipon+(Talk) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't press you further. I look forward to working with you more elsewhere. I may even seek to recruit your help on a few big projects that require rewriting. Homunculus (duihua) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Bo Xilai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Party line (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) 10:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sticky?

Hey Gord. What's a "sticky"?VR _talk 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is basically a bare-link to the article that would appear beside "Recent Deaths", without a blurb attached. Colipon+(Talk) 03:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Danielle Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firestone (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) 09:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Li Yang (Crazy English)

Thanks for the BLP removal! Not sure how I missed it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I just find it ironic that IP editor was editing the page of an English teacher (probably one of his fans) and had no grasp of the language whatsoever. Colipon+(Talk) 15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:ITNRSCE

Re your message: I think I will leave it deleted. Wikipedia:ITNRSCE does not exist, so CSD G8 applies. You also set it to a redirect to a particular section of a discussion and a closed section at that, which is highly unusual. Looking at the links to WT:ITNRSCE, they appear to be all of your posts and not in use by anybody else. If your intention was to use WT:ITNRSCE to link to a particular discussion, that is not the usual practice for Wikipedia Talk namespace links. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response... would a good compromise solution to be to create at least a redirect to that discussion? I don't really see this as being a huge issue. Colipon+(Talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You already had such an unusual redirect as that was what I deleted. My recommendation is that if you need to link to a particular archived discussion, just link it the "long" way instead of trying to have a shortcut. Such a short cut can infer a guideline or project that does not exist and I do not believe that would be proper. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cake theory

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. When you recently edited Hu Chunhua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo (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) 10:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Our recent interaction

I thought you might find this interesting. I hope that I can earn your forgiveness for my conduct during that affair, even if you weren't aware of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have always tried to assume good faith in fellow users, and my experiences on this encyclopedia has been overwhelmingly positive with only a few exceptions. I was not offended in any way, but I appreciate you coming forward and explaining everything. Colipon+(Talk) 02:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum

Hi Colipon, Across multiple fora related to Falun Gong, you have used talk pages to register your general dislike of the subject and of the editors who contribute. You have been asked before to comment on content, not contributors, and have consistently failed to do so. You would be well advised to note that the two editors whose sentiments you recently echoed at Talk:Falun Gong were summarily banned for using talk pages as a forum. I think leniency has been applied to you (at least by me) because, apart from this name space, you're a constructive editor. From another perspective, as a veteran editor, you should know better.Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)