User talk:Kent Wang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the CFR, it considers itself a "non-partisan organization" and people from both parties belong to it. I too wouldn't say that it has a stated political position, it really works as more of a forum if anything. You may want to try reading Foreign Affairs (a political journal published by the CFR) or seeing their website to see other works by the organization. You might also want to avoid using talk pages of articles to talk about these things, we have a pretty well-established policy that talk pages should be used only to talk about improvements to the article of which they belong. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tiananmen Square Self Immolation

Hi there! Thanks for the help. Unfortunately I'm on a trip so probably couldn't post often. I'l join in whenever I can. --Yenchin 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How recently did you add the tag? There's five minutes of rest time between each of the edits. MessedRocker (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, the bot is indeed down. I cannot do anything about it as the bot's hosted on the toolserver. MessedRocker (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYN

There is still the tendency to overegg the FG claims in some cases, as FG practitioners live the day-to-day prejudices and this is a natural reaction. Whilst we agree that the ZFL quote is coming close to synthesis, and that I am uncomfortable to allow the phrase to sit together with the newspaper citation, I think we should go easy on asdfg. He is intelligent, not impetuous, and sincere in his cooperation, unlike quite a few others I have come across. The article has progressed to a degree where it is quite respectable in content and neutrality, and I am not sure that "another side from FG" is necessarily called for, but I am keeping an open mind. Anyway, I appreciate your input and would applaud your perseverence with the FG articles. Now that most of the articles are in a reasonable shape, I may well work less on this and more on other stuff. Thankfully, there have not been any major warfares recently - like the one which resulted in the FG article being protected - all the street battles, reverts etc are taking their toll, and I feel I am beginning to lose the objectivity which I feel is necessary to edit articles properly. Ohconfucius 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your all points. I've very much enjoyed working with you on this article. I'll keep an eye on your contributions and see if I can continue to work along your side. Kent Wang 03:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)