User talk:Instantnood/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Members wishing to enjoin with Instantnood in this case are encouraged to contact his advocates, Wgfinley or Wally so that we can best present the evidence and argument. --Wgfinley 05:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

notifier

Let me know if you have replied my message at your discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me at this discussion page. Thanks.

notifier                           to edit →

/Archive 1 (January to March 2005, 58kb)

Hello. Enjoy the discussion.

re:Your arbitration

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#re:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood
• Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance#re:User:Instantnood

AsylumInmate 09:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Hong Kong surnames

I've noticed you've been making/changing links to Category:Hong Kong surnames. Is this even necessary? Doesn't Category:Chinese family names cover it adequately? Not to mention that Category:Hong Kong surnames doesn't even exist yet. If you don't want people to remove the links to the category, you should at least create it. Perhaps put it as a sub-category of Category:Chinese family names. --Umofomia 07:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I will have to agree with them this time. I was not that fond of the category in the first place, since it's not completely Hong Kong specific. --Umofomia 18:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

I don't exactly know what to say about the matter currently, but I'll post something once I've had time to think about it. --Umofomia 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao in PD-China

• reference

I wish I knew the answer to that. Sorry. I found out about copyright in the PRC and ROC by leaving a message (in English) in the village pump of the Chinese Wikipedia, so you might try that. Hope this helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 11:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Re: Category:Foreign banks of Hong Kong

• reference

Yes, and I've voted to delete both. JuntungWu 15:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

CfD

I had to revert your last update to CfD to remove the many duplicate sections. Perhaps something went wrong when you posted? -Kbdank71 16:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

you said something

• reference

User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat (22:38, Apr 5, 2005)

• replied

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Airport categories

• reference

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully, this will get sorted and we will have a consistent system we can apply across the board. Cheers. Burgundavia 10:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Naming Conventions (Taiwan vs ROC)

• reference

Quote from the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

I think that says it pretty well. =] LG-犬夜叉 18:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, okay, but both the people as well as the government of Taiwan refer to themselves as Taiwan. You do not hear the term the Republic of China on the news by Western counties at all.

I understand that ROC it is the official name of the island state since KMT fled in 1949. However, my vote against that is simply because the majority of the world will recognize Taiwan much better than ROC, especially with the current situation across the Straight, Taiwan does not have formal diplomatic relations with most countries in the world.

Plus, a vote is a vote, you can't tell me NOT to vote for something. LG-犬夜叉 19:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• After my second reply I looked at the page more closely. I must point out that, if this must be enforced then why is there a poll with 'support' and 'oppose'??? LG-犬夜叉 19:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Also, UN does not have Taiwan as a memeber. If ROC was to be the name used on wikipedia, then Wikipedia is assuming that ROC is a legitimate country.
• I must also make it clear that I am not an anti-Taiwanese-independence, nor am I pro-Taiwanese independence. I choose a neutral stance because both sides are at fault on this issue.
• However since most of the world does not have relations with ROC politically, may I suggest that Taiwan is the better choice for most related article titles. LG-犬夜叉 19:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but that's a lot of stuff to read.

To be honest, I won't read it. I guess I voted on that thing a little bit too early. I don't have a problem with ROC or anything, it's just that I think Taiwan is much more commonly used than ROC. You have my permission to remove my vote from that page. LG-犬夜叉 19:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

CfD restruct

Hi there! You voted on #4, but that's rather pointless unless #3 passes, so you may want to consider voting on #3. Yours, Radiant_* 15:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy Policy on votes

Dear Instantnood, The articles involved in the vote initiated by You have been voted exactly one month ago. I belive 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)

• replied

China airports CFD

• reference

Hi there! I may have been mistaken in xref'ing this to the entire China debate, I wasn't entirely sure but it felt safer to mention it anyway. Yours, Radiant_* 12:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

China - again

You have raised your case many, many times - and have failed to obtain a majority, let alone the required consensus, for your proposals. Please accept this. Continuing to re-raise the points in forum after forum is disruptive to Wikipedia. You are now proposing having another 25!!! votes. This shouldn't be a battle of attrition - and I'm sure we've all got more constructive things to do than argue this point on an ongoing basis.

I have listed your proposed new voting page for deletion. I would also ask you to remove it yoursel (you can mark it as a speedy delete), and to leave all these proposals alone for a while. Otherwise, it will end up with an ArbCom ban for you, jguk 13:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• responded at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

RfAr

Just to let you know that, frustrated at your new escalation of his arguments by opening 25 more votes on the same issue, I am enjoining myself to SchmuckyTheCat's ArbCom request on your behaviour. Kind regards, jguk 13:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• responded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Mediation

• reference

I took a look at the RFAr between you and the two other users. If this gets thrown out by the ArbCom I will take a look at this more closely and decide if I can be of any assistance, but until then, I will let the normal process happen. I realize that this might not be the answer you are looking for, but in cases where the ArbCom has been involved, I want things to be proper.

Again, if it gets thrown out, I'll have a look. Inter\^Echo 01:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

I see that you have people who are willing to assist you through the proceedings. If the case has been accepted, I would advise you to take up their offer. Inter\^Echo 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category: Religion in China | Category:Religion in the People's Republic of China

The second exists. The first doesn't. Why are you changing the category in Protestantism in China DDerby 08:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your NPOV position and it is consistent DDerby 08:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Arbitration

On behalf of User:jguk, I have filed a second arbcom case against you. Snowspinner 19:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

• reference

I am inclined to accept; however, before I do, please leave at my talk page the following:

1) A brief (<500 words) synopsis of the dispute thus far, its nature, the primary players, and the efforts to solve it — you may assume passing familiarity with not only the nature of the dispute itself but also its historical background;

2) Your opinion on whether you want to oppose arbitration or accept it as a mechanism to conclude the situation;

and 3) A statement of your willingness to work with me, answer all queries completely and truthfully, maintain civility towards other users during the course of arbitration on all pages (this would seem like a given, but I've had some people...), and your guarantee that you will refrain from editing any pages in contention (talk pages are okay, insofar as the conversation is kept civil per the aforesaid). Wally 20:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

In light of your reply, I would be happy to accept your case.

Please drop me your e-mail address so we might speak further in some privacy. I especially want to discuss my thoughts on the arbitration.

For clarification, you are, of course, the beginning and end of my involvement to the case. I am obligated to honesty and integrity first, your interests second, and any other consideration is not on the map. I serve at your pleasure, act at your whim, and am available for dismissal or recall as you like. In practice, the more leeway you can give me on any given issue the better, and as my past and present clients will attest I take significant store in appraising you of any action I take or propose to take. I, obviously, will not at any time withhold any information — pertinent or no, important or no — that relates to this case, and will alert you at any point a conflict-of-interest presents itself. I also will make no statements about the issue to anyone you do not specifically authorize, nor will I consider myself at liberty to discuss anything about the case to anyone but you. I figure that if I ask guarantees to you, the least I can do is offer some of my own.

I look forward to speaking soon. Yours, Wally 21:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to meddle, but I just noticed that you said over at User talk:Wally: "I will refrain to edit the pages in contention, given that all parties do not make further controversial edit that is in contradiction with the current set of naming conventions." Just want to assure you that the contentious pages are usually closely watched and edits that run counter to the naming conventions quickly reverted. I know, because I have several such pages on my watchlist and basically never need to revert anything – by the time I notice something, it's usually already been reverted. What I'm getting at is this: try to stay away from the contentious pages for now, including talk pages if at all possible, no matter what your opponents may do. Don't allow yourself to be drawn/baited/sucked into further debates. It may work against you, and as far as preserving the status quo is concerned, we've pretty much got that part covered. --MarkSweep 22:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work with him. Have him drop me a line, would you? Also, I have set up a comments page for your case specifically: direct further stuff to User_talk:Wally\Instantnood_advocacy. Wally 22:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

• reference

You should write a short, simple, straightforward statement of your position, keeping very calm. If you want to show it to me before placing it on the page, I'd be hapy to advise you on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ogh, I've just seen that you have an excellent person to assist you. If you want my help, I'll be happy to give it, but I think that you're in safe hands. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

RFAr

• reference

If you would like me to serve as your advocate I would be happy to, let me know and I'll take a look at the case and get back to you so we can discuss further. --Wgfinley 21:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, just saw that you asked for Wally's help as well. Wally is also an exceptional advocate and my caveats would be the same as his (other than the explanation, I'll gather some info myself and then we can chat online) but particularly the last requirement he has is VERY important for me being able to best serve you as an advocate, we have to be on the same page. --Wgfinley 22:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

I've taken a look at the dispute, it appears the case that Jguk brought is going to go forward. I would be happy to serve as your advocate on this and I will coordinate efforts with Wally. Would like to hook up with you online sometime to discuss. You can usually find me in the Wikipedia IRC room, you can also reach me as progboatguy72 on AIM. If you use another messenger let me know, I pretty much use them all but have been trying to consolidate to AIM lately. --Wgfinley 23:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just completed a proposed response to the Arb case.[1] check out the link to review it and let me know if you agree and I will get it put up. --Wgfinley 00:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• reference

Several pieces of advice. First of all, stay calm. You've been quite good at that, your opponents have not. Second, it may be good to voluntarily limit your activities on these polls while the case is pending (you may not have a choice if the ArbCom issues a preliminary injunction). Third, the way I've seen these cases happening in the past is that the ArbCom first decides on findings of fact and findings of law before considering remedies. Your case is tied to the naming conventions, and even though the ArbCom was specifically asked not to rule on the conventions, it would IMHO still be appropriate for them to consider including certain aspects of those conventions into their findings of fact. For example, it would appear to me that many of the moves you proposed are in fact in accordance with (perhaps even required by) the naming conventions. If the ArbCom were to issue a finding of fact that (all/the majority of/a significant portion of) the moves you requested did in fact follow from the naming conventions, this would IMO strengthen your case. I think a carefully worded request regarding the facts that need to be established (limit it to no more than a handful) would be quite helpful. Let me know if I can help out in any way, though I don't have any specific experience handling ArbCom cases. --MarkSweep 21:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Ok, I'll try to stay informed about the ArbCom proceedings, but feel free to alert me if anything important is about to happen. --MarkSweep 22:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re:I need your help

• reference

I see you've already secured an advocate, so you should be in good hands. I've left my opinion on his advocacy page. --Umofomia 22:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

You need my help

• reference

Hi Instantnood, I would suggest securing your own AMA advocate (I hate the AMA), which you appear to have already done. If you need any support in voting or anything, please e-mail me ( something@something.com ) because I don't frequently check my talkpage. Also, after you read this message, please write my e-mail address down on a piece of paper or something and remove it from this page so it's not available to spam robots. --Node 23:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

arbitration

• reference

Hey Instantnood,

I don't think I've been following the issues closely enough to say all that much. I am terribly unsympathetic to jguk on this issue, since it seems to me like he's seeking to make his own ignorance into wikipedia policy. Furthermore, I remain somewhat confused about what exactly has been done that warrants Arbcom intervention. That said, I don't feel like I've followed it closely enough to make an intelligent comment on the arbitration page. For instance, Snowspinner refers to wanting to stop "edit wars." On the pages I've seen, I've not noticed anyone involved in an edit war, but I'm not sure I'm fully aware enough of what has been going on to say for sure. It seems to me that what should really be done is some hard work to figure out what the naming convention for these issues should be. And that this should be done in a way where it is explicitly made clear how different things should be referred to. I think that they way you've been going forward with this - with the multiple votes, and all, has not proved terribly successful. Votes, in general, rarely work out too well. Whenever I start a vote I just become more and more infuriated as it goes along...anyway, I hope things work out okay - I don't think you've done anything to warrant sanctions, certainly. john k 23:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Re : I need your help

• reference

Hi Instantnood,

Sorry to hear that you're going for arbitration, but I believe things shouldn't turn out as bad as it really seems. You should be in a relatively stable position with two advocates at your assistance, so for now I'll just watch the case closely. In the meantime, just stay calm, don't worry! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Arb Filing Response

Instantnood -- Wally and I got together with some other users and have completed the response to Jguk's filing. Please take a look at it and let us know of any changes you would like to make, nothing's sent in stone on it. Hope you are pleased with the result. Best regards. --Wgfinley 05:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad you were pleased. Thanks for the reference to that page where you've been compiling information, you're the easiest client yet!! Will make sure we go through it when it comes time for the evidence phase. I think there are many arbitrators away right now so things are a bit snagged at the moment, might not be for a few days yet until it is accepted. --Wgfinley 06:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

What names do you want?

The "case file" says:

Specifically, he advocates a name change where by the People's Republic of China would be referred to as "mainland China" whereas Taiwan would be called "ROC."

Does this mean that you want the article about the PRC to be placed at Mainland China? Or that in some or all articles about China, you see a need to refer to the non-ROC-controlled parts as Mainland China? Or the non-ROC, non-SAR parts as Mainland China?

Are you doing this, and if so, why is this important to you?

I thought the rule was to follow the consensus of general English usage. And in the West, at least, the term "mainland China" generally refers informally to either the PRC or to the PRC + the SAR's

Oh, ... maybe now I get it! The PRC has two meanings:

1. it means the Communist government which claims all of China, and by extension it therefore means "China"
2. it means the Communist government (as above), but it refers only to the territory which the PRC actually controls, such as the "mainland" or mainland + SAR's

Thank God I'm a computer programmer and know about Boolean logic.

Look, I just want to clear up the confusion. I'm not on anyone's side; and I'm not against anyone. I only want the articles to describe the Chinese situation as accurately as possible. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

• replied

Archiving

Hi Instantnood. The usual way of archiving is to create a red /archive-example link to a sub-page, click on that link to edit the new sub-page, and then cut content from the original page and paste it into the archive page. That has the advantage of preserving the history of the original page. I believe that moving the page to its archive location, like you did, will have unintended side effects: since links to diffs are treated like external links with a full URL, previously created links to diffs on the original page will break, because its history is now gone. I'm not sure if there are such links in connection with your RfC and RfAr's (it's hard to check, because they are external links), but if there are, they will no longer work, I think. Just to avoid giving off the wrong impression here ("suppressing evidence"), it may be best to ask an admin to restore your talk page and its history, and then create another archive by cut-and-paste. Cheers, --MarkSweep 21:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Your ArbCom case

Just to let you know that I am closely following your case and I am considering involving myself further into your case. JuntungWu 14:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Meeting

I don't know if you're familiar with or ever make use of IRC, but if possible I would like to set-up a real-time meeting there between yourself, myself and WG to discuss the case and plan out how we're going to handle it. Also, I would like your e-mail (I'm requesting WG's too) so that we might communicate in private. Mine's Paintball5320@aol.com (trite name, I know, and it's AOL too, but I'm a l4m0rz ;] ). For the IRC meeting, I'm in the United States Eastern Time Zone (and we're also in Daylight Savings') so at the moment I believe I'm UTC -4. We've a lot to discuss, and there's no time to lose! Wally 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Written Cantonese

I have just written a message on User Talk:Yuje and noticed your conversation with Yuje. You might be interested in the Talk:Cantonese (linguistics) page where the Yuje's WP:RM request to move "Written Cantonese" is being discussed. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring

Please revisit this and vote on #2C and #6 (variations on earlier proposals). Yours, Radiant_* 15:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

A few questions

My friend Instantnood, I have posted my last few questions in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC page. Please stop by and take on your reponsibility to address people's concern. I would be looking forward to your comment. Thank you.  :) --Mababa 05:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• replied

• Reference

My friend Instantnood, Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I really apprecited it. However, I would like to remind you that your dispute and effort to initiate votes on Taiwan-related articles are the ones with the trait of repetitiveness. Your position on the currently voting regulation (which do not adhere to Wikipedia voting standard) in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC, contrary to your reply, is not clear to me.

I think you and your advocates probably have misunderstood the arbitration as the means to determine the outcome of your votes. However, to my understanding, arbitration process do not determine how the vote to be conducted and do not exonerate your responsibility loaded upon your shoulder either. I am not certain if your advocate's suggestion to ignore people's concern are wise and would actually help people understand your arguement or would actually produce adversary effect on the public impression on your neglecting move over this discussion.

The concerns over the fairness and justness of the voting rule applied by you are legitimate and genuine concerns, not contentious discussion at all, as you and your advocates worked hard to label them as such. I have already voiced my Wiki leave on that issue so that you would not mistake it as a contention you can opted to walking away. Please understand that your responsibility toward today's vote (which is very much still alive) is not linked to the arbitration between you and other Wikipedians. Please also demonstrate us your Wikiquette and your responsibility as a conscientious voting initiator. I am still looking forward to your answer on that page. :) --Mababa 02:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think your advocate has confused the arbitration case with the voting rule twist debate. Please take a look if you are interested. Reference Thanks.--Mababa 04:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

about hong kong dollar..

may we discuss the recent reverse of Hong Kong Dollar page? - 218.103.159.85 16:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• responded at talk:Hong Kong dollar