User talk:SchmuckyTheCat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

My welcome[edit]

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

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)

DON'T MAKE FUN ON HONGKONG!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]



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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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)

don't be stupid!

List of city listings by country[edit]

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)


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 Wikipedia 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"[edit]

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). Wikipedia: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[edit]

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)

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)


Hi SchmuckyTheCat - you wrote: I'm referring to the pages of Sar and SAR. The wiki policy on 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 Wikipedia: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|hello? Grutness.jpg 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.


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)


Please let me know if there is any convention or Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. — 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

User-space reverts[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia content and derivative works are generally allowed, and licenses that restrict those uses are deemed non-free for purposes of Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. We don't want to restrict the rights of third parties beyond those rights granted to (the publishers of) Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)


Could you please kindly do Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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

Your accusation[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Subpages and redirects[edit]

Hi, redirects such as Peoples Republic of China/Economy are leftovers from the old organization of topics in Wikipedia, 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[edit]

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)


I'd welcome your comment on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. -- BD2412 thimk 04:17, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

The {{twoversions}} template[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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


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)

Please format you WP:RM move on the talk page. Please read the instructions on the WP:RM page and see Talk:NO where I have done it for you. If you do not do this it is likely that you request will be discounted by the administrator who makes decision after five days on the move--Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA concern[edit]

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[edit]

I am coming to you because you voted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alessandra. Following the listing of Alessandra for deletion, some users are now going through first name disambiguation pages throughout Wikipedia, seeking to either delete them or to remove names. These users cite the following text in the Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alessandra. To elaborate further, I believe this policy is inherently contradictory to the policy on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Disambiguation, the disambiguation page that solves this problem should be deleted!

This is why the policy stated above on Wikipedia:Disambiguation is poorly-thought out and unacceptable. Would you be willing to join me in pointing out these concerns on the talk page for Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Your comments would be appreciated! —Lowellian (talk) 17:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

100 Greatest Cartoons/Temp[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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


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

Blank user pages[edit]

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[edit]

Hi - thanks for your comments about deletions - I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia 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[edit]

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 I suggest that you do, it is all referenced.

Hong Kong and Macao section of Economy of the PRC[edit]

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[edit]

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

Edit summary[edit]

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)


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

Google Earth[edit]

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[edit]

I am looking at the evidence you present, for example [1]. 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 [[Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party]] and the [[State Council]]" to "as stipulated by the [[Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party|Central Committee]] of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] and the [[State Council]]" 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)


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)


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

ROC infobox[edit]

[2] 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 [3]. — 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)

[4] "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[edit]

Instantnood has nominated me for 3RR for the third time in recent memory, although I dont think this nomination makes much sense at all. Wikipedia: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)


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 [5], 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) 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?[edit]

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[edit]

Hi, SchmuckyTheCat (and Ji). Instantnood informed me of your edit to list of cities by country [6], 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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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)


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


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[edit]

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

Wikipedia: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)


Updated DYK query 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[edit]

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 [7]. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


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)

  • [8] 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 [9], 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[edit]

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![edit]

You-know-who just nominated me for the five time in [10]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

An apology...[edit]

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[edit]

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

Value added tax[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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? wonder is seems to be falling apart. Anyway, here are more to pages to note:

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[edit]

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)


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)

Re: Add chinese, s'il-vous plait?[edit]

Pleasure. :-P — Instantnood 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact there's a little trick. Go to Google and switch to the Chinese-language layout, and type the Pinyin of the characters that you're looking for in the query box. The engine will ask you if you're looking for certain characters (for example: [11]). :-D — Instantnood 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I have an IME to do it, but my written chinese is so poor I'm never sure which characters are right. I've fallen behind in my cantonese lessons to the point I'm just going to start over again. SchmuckyTheCat 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR nomination...this time from the other direction :D[edit]

If you may be interested, refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Instantnood. I have nominated our friend for 3RR violation for reinstating an edit you once removed, and which he then tried to restore a further 3 times in Economy of Hong Kong.--Huaiwei 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Macao/Macau[edit]

Well, frankly.. nobody wants it. But Huaiwei keeps getting around after my edits and changes Macau as Macao, like insisting it has to be standardised as Macau all over Wikipedia. :-\ — Instantnood 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh noes!? Is it the end of the world if someone changes an o to a u when nobody, including the place itself, seems to be all that consistent anyways? SchmuckyTheCat 18:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.

  • It's not the end of the world, but that's a very bad precedence. — Instantnood 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:economies by country[edit]

I noticed you've kept removing economy of Hong Kong from the by country category. Since for most countries both the articles and the categories are included there, I don't see a point that Hong Kong is an exception. Shall we bring this to category talk:economies by country, and see if we shall keep only the categories? — Instantnood 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact in the past the convention was to keep both the article and the category of the same name in the parent category one level up, until very recently. The example given at Wikipedia:category used category:astronomy and astronomy as examples, which both are supposed to be found under category:science. — Instantnood 18:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the inconsistency. I say we just be bold, if the category for a country exists, remove the article. For those countries that aren't so lucky to have editors and only have the bot created articles, leave the article. As to preference, in this case, there are over 200 categories and articles which makes it unwieldy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
If the guidelines is to be enforced, we shall put up a [[wP:BR|bot request and move them all in one go. — Instantnood 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when an article is in one category, it should not appear in the mother category. This has been specified in Wikipedia:Categorization:

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

Unfortunately, quite a number of us didnt follow this rule to the book, sometimes allowing far too many articles to appear in too many categories almost as if they fear people wont see them. The entire hierachy system in Category:Hong Kong is one prime example which needs to be addressed. I myself usually follows it, while at other times, I make acceptions. In Category:Singapore, for example, I only allow major articles to remain on the main category page. Oh...looks like I got a few to remove now since I didnt visit that page often! :D--Huaiwei 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. that section of the guidelines actually was changed over time. In this version in mid-February [12], it was: " An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. Note: An exception would be an article that defines a category, and so is itself a parent article of subtopics as well as one in a series of like topics - for instance, placing Ohio in both Category:Political divisions of the United States and Category:Ohio. Another example would be cities for which there are categories: New York City belongs in both Category:Cities in New York and in Category:New York City. " (wikilinks were removed). Here are the relevant discussions: [13] [14]. (and relevant edits [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22])

As for category:Hong Kong, I've no idea why it keeps growing. Many other editors just categorise any Hong Kong-related articles into the root category, instead of placing it to the right subcategory. Perhaps the same is happening in other country categories too. :-) — Instantnood 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 11:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

RE:List of companies in the PRC[edit]

I know you weren't involved in this recent edit war, but I didn't want to come up with another heading. :) I firmly agree with your view on page protection (which is harmful) and I think I made much the same response to Instantnood earlier. Truth is I've actually preferred blocking to protection in a war, since it targets the offender, not the community. You may have noticed the notes I left for Instantnood and Huaiwei. I'm not bothering to research whether you've been involved in any edit wars, but if so, I also stronly encourage you to leave it be and try to work it out. Might want to read the note, as I think it's valuable advice I feel strongly about for anyone. I think we need some kind of dispute resolution here, and I think you need to be a part of it. This is not meant to be any sort of punishment to anyone, but a good resolution. I'd appreciate any input. Dmcdevit·t 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I know you expressed some pessimism about this, but if we really want it to work I think it is important that we all agree to stop reverting each other. It doesn't really get anyone anywhere if their revert is just, well, reverted. I think it would be a real step forward if all the parties made this well-intentioned gesture. So, basically I think we should just voluntarily leave all the articles (categories, templates, etc.) in contention in whatever state they are in now pending some kind of resolution. Huaiwei has just agreed, too. I'd like to hear your response as well. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I do respect your hesitancy, as I can see that the history behind this is not something to be easily forgotten. I guess what I'm trying to do is reestablish the assumption of good faith. If everyone multilaterally makes this effort out of good will then any negotiation will be much less strained. Yes lawyering is out of the question, but I'm willing to take the chance with Instantnood and you, and I have a hnch that it will work out. Sorry, but I'm alreay late to dinner, perhaps I'll expand when I get back. Dmcdevit·t 01:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, I don't know if you saw that Instantnood said yes as well. Anyway, I hope to see your response, and I'd also like to see what you think on my thoughts about categories, etc. here. And I want to know what you think is the biggest/most urgent issue here. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if this wasn't the best time for you, and I hope I'm not sounding impatient or anything. So I guess I was jumping to conclusions above about Instantnood, but now I'm coming here to prod you both. I think agreeing is crucial to foster good will. I also think that if you agree it would make Instantnood more likely to (imagine it vice versa, wouldn't you if he did?). I think we should just try it for a bit, I mean, even if it isn't perfect, it'll be better than before, right? About Huaiwei's comment: I had asked him about your role, mostly because it was pretty easy to figure out the relations between him and Instantnood, but less clear between you too. I'd like to pose the same question to you: It's pretty clear where you stand on Instantnood and that's the major part of this dispute, but I also wonder about your opinion of Huaiwei's role. The reason for this is that I want to be able to see all three individuals in this rather than just two opposing sides, especially with your lates (intriguing) remark about how you don't always agree. I think I'm going to go make the subpage now. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Instantnood is now on board and has even commented out a previous category edit showing good will. I've started a new section, User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes, where there is now a structure in place to begin discussion on the lists. Please fill in the requested info so we can get started. (Feel free to copy and paste parts from previous statements if this is getting redundant.) Thanks again! Dmcdevit·t 08:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

odd move for Itunes[edit]

You moved this to a spoofed title that used Cyrillic Byelorussian-Ukrainian I instead of ASCII I. I reverted. Why did you do this? -- Curps 22:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mistake. Thanks for fixing it. I thought I had found a lowercase i that the mediawiki software didn't resolve back to uppercase when it was the first character in a title. That'd be wrong. SchmuckyTheCat 23:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV on China locator maps[edit]

Schmucky, thanks for your comment - where can I follow up this matter? I asked Instantnood's opinion this morning, so may I conclude that you don't want the maps to be changed? (I can still change, because I made a few prototypes, and now I am waiting to see what happens). -- Herr Klugbeisser 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks. We all need some encourgement, and there's far too little appreciation until someone is gone. Yeah, I appreciate your quick response, and am a little mystified as to the silence from the other two. Can't mediate if they don't participate. In all honesty, I wouldn't mind if the arbcom remedies were passed, since they're really not restrictions on anything. Only thing they would restrict is edit warring, which no one should be doing in the first place. Do you have any suggestions on what I should do differently? Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey...where is your "nudge" in my talkpage? :D Well as I said about 5 days ago in [23], I did express wonder over the lack of contributions there, especially after so much effort in getting things to settle down to a "discussable" environment in the first place. I hadent added my contents into my section, but will do in due cause. Most of the contents are already in the talk page anyway. So I have been wondering whats behind the reluctance in the only person left who have yet to actually contribute anything to it.--Huaiwei 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao on lists by country[edit]

Please kindly note I have started a new section for Hong Kong on the list of road-rail bridges [24]. — Instantnood 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Another section has been started for Macao [25] . — Instantnood 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Welcome. :-D — Instantnood 06:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal experience[edit]

Well put. Courtland 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you misspelled my name![edit]

Here ;-) --tyomitch 12:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image sorting[edit]

Can't think of any at the time being. Which of those are already on Ifd? — Instantnood 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Following me everywhere[edit]

Just about everywhere I go, you go. I have reason to believe you're male, so I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm male too. Shadowing people everywhere appears to be rampant on Wikipedia for some reason... --Shultz 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes it is definitely rampant. It is a weird sickness which can be quite contagious too. :D--Huaiwei 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Schmucky.

I know you're an admin on Dramatica. I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell your buddies to a.) stop spamming me with their nonsense, and b.) remove the articles on Psychonaut and myself. I know Dramatica is used for trolling, but it's starting to get kind of childish. Contact me later. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. And you accuse me of NPOV! LOL. IMHO LJ Drama/Dramatica users should not be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia full stop, since all they do is spread lies and misinformation, troll people and vandalise pages. Your contributions to the LJ Drama and Encyclopaedia Dramatica pages verify this. Please stop vandalising them. Thank you. 09:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Thanks so much. Would be nice if the Macanese government finally sticks to either one. :-P — Instantnood 16:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. I would, however, like to express my hope, while adminship is no big deal, that is not your only standard. Seriously, thanks again. Jkelly 09:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Even though AfD can be quite heated, there is no need to engage in personal attacks such as this one. Please read WP:NPA and be more civil in the future. Titoxd(?!?) 06:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, please to be learning the difference between a personal attack and sarcasm. Spiro Agnew was one of the first of the modern conservatives to use flowery vitriol to attack the "liberal elite" that this VfD vote was about. That vote was pretty much a direct quote of him. SchmuckyTheCat 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Other people believed your comment to be an attack, not sarcasm, and I was confused about it myself. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-30 17:35
Then assume good faith. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case closed[edit]

The Arbitration case involving you, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, has closed. The Committee's decision is as follows:

You, Instantnood, and Huaiwei are all placed on Probation for topics relating to China for a year. This means that any sysop, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban you or them from any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing. In doing so, the sysop must notify the banned user on their talk page, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. You and they may post suggestions on the talk page of any article from which you or they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit you and them to continue to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. In addition to this, Instantnood is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week, and reminded to make useful edit summaries.


James F. (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Lo mai kai[edit]

I'm that sure, but from the google test result has shown that lo mai kai has a greater popularity. I thought it's the common rountine to use the more common name in Wikipedia. On the other hand, there're some problems I'd like to ask you. You would find that the Chinese phoenix is redirected to fenghuang. Is that legitimate? In the Japanese cuisine, they use Shabu-shabu instead of Japanese hotpot. Why can they do so? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Has a problem to know the differences between transliteration and direct translation. Is there a guideline used in wikipedia? I would like to know for reference. Thanks a lot. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Probation template[edit]

Shall we add the ending date of the ban (say, like {{{endingdate}}} or {{{2}}}) to the template, as per the decision? — Instantnood 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • yah, I'm pretty horrible with template code. That's actually why I made the foilsword thing to try stuff out... If you think it's helpful and in-line with the policy, well, then it's a wiki and go for it. SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    Here's the changes I've made [26]. — Instantnood 17:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
So, do parameters in templates just follow order with the pipe delimiter? I noticed you changed param 1 to param user and added probationenddate, so without any other reference to the params, I suppose that's how they are passed. SchmuckyTheCat 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You've made it already. :-) — Instantnood 11:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletes[edit]

Sorry, I always check that a tag has been placed on an article with reason, and in that case from what I saw it seemed legitimate. But I admit I was a little hasty - I seem to be the only admin who is patrolling CAT:CSD and trying to prevent a backlog. Cheers, FireFox 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kung hei fat choi[edit]

Hi Schmucky, regarding your comment on the Admin. Incident page. I am not assigning blame anywhere. I was merely summarising (in the most neutral way possible) the evidence available in the history pages. For your part, I think it was a bit unwise of you to rashly move the page in the way that you did. Perhaps some more participation in the discussion before making such a drastic move would be useful. novacatz 04:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Follwing the concerns of Ryan of cluttering up the Admin board, I have move the debate about Huaiwei and your behaviour to the RfC channel. The page is here [27].

Transportation articles[edit]

Hi Schmucky, thanks for keeping an eye on the transportation related articles. The basic issues there appeared to be settled and the articles had been stable for quite a while, but the recent edits by the anon upset the delicate balance. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RE:Don't bite the newbies[edit]

Fair enough. I didn't exactly mean to come off the way I did (and I didn't realize he/she was new). I'll apologize on his/her talk page. Jeff Silvers 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


I noted that you criticised the Arbitration Committee. In that light, go and have a look at my sub page: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Have the Arbitration Committee ever got it more wrong than that? Or is that kind of thing normal? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You criticised the ArbCom? Where? :D--Huaiwei 08:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


I've unprotected the page again on his/her request, I still won't block him/her though. Could you please point me to the arbitration case. Thanks. Izehar 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - lets pretend I don't know it exists; it's full of things I don't want to know. Tell me, is there anything approximating sanity in your group? I've already blocked Huaiwei on a previous occasion, but the revert war continues. Please consider mediation. Izehar 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've already blocked 'nood for continuing to revert on that article. Izehar 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Guangshen Railway[edit]

I've proposed that you be banned from editing this article on AN/I [28]. I think it's ridiculous you continue to seek out Instantnood for edit wars endangering both of your abilities to edit with any credibility. Please stop. --Wgfinley 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians by religion[edit]

Hi! I think you should remove your categorization in the main page of the category "Wikipedians by religion" and put yourself in your religion's dedicated category. You are listed as the only article in the category so I doubt it's a Wikipedia policy to have users list themselves as such. Rdavout 14:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Based on how you've responded to me, you seem to hate me ad-hominem. You keep saying, "This has nothing to do with the article, This has nothing to do with the article, This has nothing to do with the article" over and over and over again.

You even keep following me into non-Chinese articles presumably to make me more miserable. (for example: driving under the influence). Saying things like the speak command from Urban Dead might be more interesting... you trying to imply that what I say is boring?

It's apparent that you come from China. What are you, a family planning officer? Or otherwise a Communist Party Member? Your occupation probably requires people not to have the kindest of hearts. --Shultz 19:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

history of windows support[edit]

Not sure where to ask, so I'll try this. On this page: you agree with me that it shouldn't be under "MS-DOS based". Mind adding some support to the talk page? Someone is reverting saying that it require dos to load. Page:

--Naelphin 16:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Non-sovereign territories[edit]

Precisely, those on the list of countries but not the list of sovereign states. — Instantnood 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seattle Meetup 3 reminder[edit]

Space Needle and logo.jpg   Seattle meetup 6     
  Date: April 8 and April 18, 2009
  Place: UW Seattle campus
  Seattle meetup 5 occurred June 19, 2008


Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I don't think that I'm being one-sided in this, if you go and look at what I've done I've banned Instant from every other article except Barbecued pork with rice. He did edit war that article on the 8th, 10th & 11th, I protected it on the 15th. I protected that page to give them an opportunity to knock it off instead of just banning them both. Instant said that he would work with the others to settle the differences, Huaiwei went on about how he had no intention to and what Instant did in two other articles that had nothing to do with that one, that is the essence of an edit war. So I banned Huaiwei and unprotected the page. Rest assured if Instant starts up with Alanmak again he will be banned from that page.

I have no doubts that Instant writes from his own POV, that's well documented. What Huaiwei needs to realize is it isn't his job to go around correcting what Instant does. He needs to let the community handle it because many times Huaiwei is just plain wrong about what he considers to be partisan edits because Huaiwei is equally partisan.

I do owe you an apology though about your probation, reviewing these it is clear to me you have stayed out of this which is commendable. I encourage you to convince Huaiwei that's what he needs to do. Eventually articles get worked out to where they should be and these "food fights" are plain ridiculous.. --Wgfinley 14:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Queensway, Hong Kong[edit]

I received your message on this. I took a look at the article history and Instant didn't create that article so I don't think there was intent on his part to make another stub, he added to one someone else created and several others edited before he got to it. Second, when you're going to redirect an article it's usually best to discuss it on that article's talk page before doing the redirect. That's what leads to edit wars -- someone does a major change (which a redirect of an existing article certainly is) without discussing it and then someone else gets upset. I see your point on the stub but the key would have been to get some input first, leave messages for the editors who had worked on it saying "hey, I saw this stub, I think it should redirect here".

Also, I would caution you from getting in a revert war with Alanmak on Queensway, discussion in edit summaries is rarely productive and goes right down the edit war road. --Wgfinley 02:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say Enochlau. --Wgfinley 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Blood sport (hunting) are vertebrate animals, not insects. Please create a separate article called Bloodsports (insects) SirIsaacBrock 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


I apologize for 3RR your articles, I got a little hot-headed. In addition, I like your name ! Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting![edit]

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3[edit]


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,


I've blocked him for two weeks, clear violations of his probation. This is the correct way to handle this as opposed to responding in kind. --Wgfinley 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Des Vœux Road[edit]

Would you please explain your rationale behind your moving Des Voeux Road to Des Vœux Road at its talk page? Thanks. --Pkchan 09:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't twist the knife[edit]

Regarding this comment on Instant's talk page, please don't twist the knife in him. I'm hopeful a few people are going to work cooperatively on this, I'm not going to remove the block unless I see something substantive in place to properly mentor him. Comments like that on his talk page don't help things and just inflame the situation. --Wgfinley 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I have banned you from editing this page for violating your probation with this edit, that change has been previously contested, you changed it without discussion and a misleading edit summary of "fix rdr" (implying something was broken when its merely contested). Previously contested changes to articles should be discussed and consensus achieved before you change them. --Wgfinley 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact: to be fair to STC, while Queensway itself has been a hotly contested page, STC's edit itself is not quite related to the previous round of debates. And the edit was only STC's second ever edit on that page.
I would, however, have no arguments with the other points put forward by you in the justification of the ban. --Pkchan 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names[edit]

Following a deletion review, the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). -- User:Docu

Re: Arbcom again[edit]

Thanks for bringing the matter there again - if it's gonna help. — Instantnood 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

/Hjalmar Riiser-Larsen[edit]

...(comment out templates that put user page in article namespace, fix when this article goes to main articles if this is a work in progress.)

It certainly is and my thanks for your amendment. I overlooked this consequence of adding the categories before finishing the draft and will try not to do so in future!  Best wishes, David Kernow 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

La Merika[edit]

See Talk:La Merika. Pydos 11:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I am curious why you are putting the page Sam's Dance Troupe up for deletion.

Ban and a few things[edit]

  1. Instant is not "my pet" and while I know you make a habit of being a smart ass it's not appreciated in this case. The flippant attitude isn't helping anything and I don't like it on my talk page.
  2. I've banned you from editing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) for violating your probation in edit warring with Instant on it, your comments on the talk page are also disconcerting.
  3. It's up to Instant to decide how he wants to participate in his arb case, ifi he chooses not to make comment there that's his decision, it has no bearing on anything outside of the case.
  4. I'll look into his other edits, I've been on a bit of a break because of other things but I will take a look.

--Wgfinley 02:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding [30]

You're on probation, you and Instant edit warred there before, one revert is all it takes to start it again. --Wgfinley 02:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFAr[edit]

As mentioned, procedurally the case should not have started. I've requested some time ago for a review of its opening, and possibly restart it by fulfilling the necessary procedures, or else justice of the mechanism would be in trouble. The burden to guarantee the legitimacy of the case, and the decisions and outcome, is not with me. — Instantnood 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Please DO NOT try to update the AFD Week at a glance pages, or start a new day yourself, as it will confuse the AFD Bot. Royboycrashfan Flag of Texas.svg 00:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned cats conundrum[edit]

Hi. As a party who contributed to the discussion on the Orphaned China cats recently, I wanted to see if I could get a comment from you at the unresolved discussion. I don't want to see this matter tossed back into the limbo of no consensus, so please vote under Agree with proposal or Disagree with proposal with the numbering and we'll see if this can be resolved. Thanks very much for your continued patience. --Syrthiss 22:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)



"mainland China"[edit]

David, I don't want to bring our editing disputes to your talk page, but nood when he says things like "mainland China is the official and standard nomenclature" - well, if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you... I'm sure if you wanted to know more, you'd ask, so I won't go into it. Cheers, SchmuckyTheCat 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Schmucky; all I know is that I don't know anywhere near enough to say I know something about the situation, so before I turn into Donald Rumsfeld, I'll leave it to folk like yourself, Instantnood (and hopefully others) to sort out. Just thought a passing vox pop might help. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RBBB Circus[edit]

Good changes. I changed one of the labels under external links which seemed deliberately misleading. I love animals and the circus, but that is not the point. We will need to watch this article to maintain NPOV. Vaoverland 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)