User talk:Guanxi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Kurdistan

Hopefully we can come to a compromise, but just keep in mind that Wikipedia has a three-revert rule, which menas that you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Adios, Khoikhoi 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also a rule that you shouldn't revert without comment, and shouldn't revert at all without trying to improve the article. See here. Instead of making this into an issue of rules, let's try to improve the article. Guanxi

[edit] Ty Cobb

Thanks for the compliment about my work on Ty Cobb. Thank you also for improving the lead and meticulously checking the article. The lead was on my to do list in the lead-up to a peer-review and eventual FA review.

[edit] No worries

No worries about moving my comments; not a big deal. I think I may stay out of the discussion in the future as I can see the validity of the points on both sides; and it's escalating in tension. I like to stay out of situations like those ;) I've definitely seen worse, though, and it's not that bad yet, but the foundation is there for it to get there. Maybe I'll try to provide a level-headed response if I feel the urge. Anyways, have a good day! -Bluedog423Talk 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to convey a calm message to everybody since tensions were getting too absurdly high. In the end, I agree that the image should be deleted because fair use cannot be claimed since it doesn't add any new information that can be extrapolated from reliable sources. I don't know what your statement of "I have no idea what happened that night, but I think it should be decided by a judge and jury" has to do with anything about including the image. It was not supposed to be if we included the image that means she clearly lied. It should be a decision independent of our opinion. Maybe you were just talking about that issue without it relating to the inclusion of the image, I don't know. Also, there's no need to call the accuser "a prostitute," (although you were probably trying to imitate others who phrase it in such a way, which I do not support), while guessing that the defendants have "connections on the highest levels" (I have no idea if that statements is true or not). Although I certainly agree with you that those with power and money can defend themselves much more easily, and there is a horrid inequity in our legal system. But that's in no way related to this discussion. It seems to be clear that the defendants have spent a lot of money on their lawyers. It is obvious that if they were poor and Nifong acted in the same manner, there is no way that the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence would have surfaced. The defendants had hired DNA experts to read through the thousands of pages of documents, obviously something many people cannot afford. Also, note that while certain lacrosse players have admitted that some racial slurs were made (apparently on both sides with the second dancer starting it), the three indicted individuals apparently were not part of that, according to the second dancer. Reade Seligmann specifically chastised his teammates for that in an interview, although that could obviously have been a PR move. Anyways, I am trying to reserve judgment on the case until the newly appointed attorney general's office makes a decision and it does/does not go to trial and a verdict is met, but either way, Nifong has clearly acted like an idiot, and the defendants' innocence or guilt shouldn't be the reasoning behind the inclusion of the picture, in my opinion. Thanks for acting civilly in the discussion as clearly that was too difficult to ask of others. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Random comment, and you may call me a stalker, but I was just checking your contributions b/c you didn't respond, although my statement didn't necessarily merit a response. In any event, the "blue" is my name is completely unrelated to Duke. It comes the artist George Rodrigue and his frequent depictions of a bluedog.[1] It's also completely unrelated to bluedog democrats. Anyways, just thought I'd clear that up! Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 04:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Good points, no worries about not responding. In regards to her being a "prostitute" or not, all I meant to say is that it has not been 100% verified that she indeed served as a "prostitute." Rather, she technically is an "escort" who has served clients one-on-one. There's no way to validate the fact that she actually had sex with these clients for money, although statistics may show that this is probably likely. Either way, it's still something that has not been 100% substantiated and thus is not NPOV. -Bluedog423Talk

[edit] Duke rape complainant

Kudos. The one thing you might want to also consider is where it says in the fair use rationale that this shows her at a significant time. That might be true, or it might not be. I think it's part of the POV issue. It's fair to still say this case is the reason for her notability, but stating why this particular picture is notable is still pushing it. Wahkeenah 23:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If you mean the description on the image page, I already changed it. Anyway, one hot issue at a time. (I hope you don't mind if I changed the section header -- I prefer not to user her name, even if it may still be all over Wikipedia). Thanks again. Guanxi 23:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I now see what you were referring to, regarding the Fair Use rationale. First I'm trying to determine what policies/guidelines apply, then we can apply them. Guanxi 13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Duke rape compainant

Why are you insisting that we don't know when this photo was taken? The information is right there on the image's page: [Image:Crystal Headshot2 3.jpg].

P.S. - You are not supposed to edit, or re-arrange article talk pages, either.Duke53 | Talk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please post about the photo on the photo's discussion page, and I'll respond there. Regarding the talk page, you posted in the middle of my post, effectively editing it, so I moved yours. Guanxi 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Discussion with Johntex)

(It's in it's entirety on User talk:Johntex; fragments here were removed).

[edit] thanks

Hi Guanxi,

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. If I think of any other way to help illuminate the discussion on the Duke pages, I'll try to help. --Allen 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on Cobb

Thanks for your comments. There are any number of ways to look at this situation. Unfortunately, I think these articles communicate the feelings of the editors rather than the information that should be delivered. These are not black and white situations, but I do agree with letting the facts speak for themselves. The Cobb intro was reworked because it was poorly done. It can and should be expanded upon. Rather than make any claims about what people may or may not think, you can effectively communicate the same idea by presenting factual information. The comment regarding the # of votes he received when he was elected into the HOF is just such an example. There are a number of people who think Cobb is one of the greatest players, there are a number that don't. //Tecmobowl 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your continued attempts to get statements regarding an athlete's greatness into wikipedia, I would really like you to provide me with some examples from wiki guidelines (or procedures) that support your position. I am have a difficult time right now following all these different issues, but I will re-add this page to my watch list so we can discuss this. //Tecmobowl 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
We have already discussed this issue and I have already provided the example you are requesting, multiple times. Please review the previous discussions. There is no point in starting again: Please restore the content. Guanxi 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected?

No, I think that the article's protection has expired...the tag is still there, though. I will remove it. Sr13 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plan II Honors nominated for deletion

As probably the leading contributor to the page, I thought I should notify you. Guanxi 17:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Son of Cobb

Sorry for not getting in touch with you sooner. When I edited the article, it was as a casual observer - one who knows Wikipedia, but who wouldn't consider himself a "regular" by any means. So, forgive me my "drive-by" - even though I still think that statement is positively ridiculous (Wikipedia has [who?] for a reason :)), I'll butt out and let the grizzled Cobbians work it out. Personally, I agree with whoever said "the greatest hitter", but baseball's like football - just like how you can't compare Jerry Rice to Emmitt Smith, it's dazzlingly difficult to compare a hitter to a pitcher and say one or the other is the "greatest ever" of any era. Really, though, "greatest anything" is a term to be avoided whenever possible :) --Badger Drink 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) - Redacting this. Upon closer examination of the talk page, your statement on June 5th is that you will change it to "baseball historians" or somesuch. It's been two months and the article still reads "knowledgable fans". I consider myself a knowledgable fan of baseball, and I wouldn't call Ty Cobb the greatest of his era. "One of" the greatest, sure - but what a stupid superlative. Even the proposed change - "many historians" - is, without a proper citation, a perfect example of a weasel phrase. Consider me butting back in. :) --Badger Drink 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article - let me know what you think. --Badger Drink 11:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Got your message on my talk page. Agree wholeheartedly. Baseball books geared at children might be a very good source for topics like this. Just make sure they're by reputable establishments and they should pass WP:RS - I remember growing up with two volumes of a Sports Illustrated for Kids series, the first volume of which was one of the most read books in my personal library. I'm not having much luck finding it on Amazon, I'll update you if I find my old copy. But, for a general sense of what I'm talking about, here's the sort of book I mean. --Badger Drink 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Arrow740 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I got your email. User:Blnguyen blocked you, so you should contact him to discuss it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)