Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Smith's (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 6 August 2007 (→Chinese editors & "apartheid" article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• If you leave a message here, I will reply here.
• If I leave a message at your Talk page, please reply there - I'll have it on my watchlist.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs)

Archives

Archive 1: 2006-02-26 - 2006-08-29 Archive 2: 2006-08-30 - 2006-12-28 Archive 3: 2006-12-28 - 2007-02-26 Archive 4: 2007-02-26 - 2007-05-07 Archive 5: 2007-05-11 - 2007-07-20

Manzanar

Please drop by Talk:Manzanar and add your two cents on the "raging" terminology debate. Thanks. Gmatsuda 04:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hongkonger or Hong Konger

Do you read the South China Morning Post or The Standard? Wasabian 21:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I read The Standard, and the term is not used that often. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the term "Hong Kong resident". There was actually an article called specifically Hong Konger, but after some discussion, it was decided that the term is not an established term and it was merged into another article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your expert help!

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. --Siva1979 15:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like somebody else already fixed it. Let me know if there's still a problem with it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Warning

Just a friendly note. If the IP continues, just let it drop. It's not worth it to get block just for 3 words. Nat Tang 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR (Re: Hong Kong)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hong Kong. 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. Nat Tang 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR (Re: Macau)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Macau. 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. Nat Tang 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

picture for deletion

Hiya, I've listed this picture ] for deletion. I've noticed that it looks different from this . Essentially the uploader is using a made up picture with dotted lines to discredit a real picture, which can be confusing if one doesn't look closely. So I think there's absolutely no reason for the picture to be here and should be deleted. Blueshirts 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanking Massacre. 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. John Smith's 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

John Smith's filed a 3RR report regarding your recent edits to the page Nanking Massacre. If you reverted edits to that page four or more times within a period of 24 hours then you have violated Misplaced Pages's three revert rule. The best course of action to take in this case is to self-revert to the previous version of the page and discuss the editing dispute on the article talkpage. If you feel you did not violate the 3RR rule then you may post here. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talkpage. Perspicacite 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

This block was carried out by another Administrator - Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If you have any questions over this block, please contact him.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, HQG

It's really unfortunate that in defending an incredibly valid point (i.e. that the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, because they focussed on the killing of one race), you got reported by the wronged party! What nerve! When you get back, I will personally treat you to a Wiki...thing. Coffee. A Wikicoffee. Because you deal with too much of this stuff much too often. Pandacomics 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in the Talk page, there was already a long discussion about the subject matter, and sources were provided. It's unfortunate that some people edits against what reliable sources say. Just keep a watch on that article and make sure it reflects the sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anna He

Hi,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll read the article in detail first, but I suspect I'll be speedy-deleting it as a G4, on account of the DRV's endorsement. There is, however, room for an article about the legal case involving Ms. He, so long as it is not in her name, as her biography. You may begin composition of that article (in your userspace is probably best) whenever you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanking Massacre. 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. John Smith's 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Please vote to agree to mediation here. We would have got it last time, but Vsion refused. John Smith's 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case please leave a brief comment on the RfC below. John Smith's 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:Nanking Massacre. 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. John Smith's 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If you and John Smith's edit war on one more page, I'm blocking you both. I'm not protecting three pages because of the same dispute. Two is stupid already. --Deskana (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that allowing the RfC to work its course would be recommended, but it seems John Smith's started editing related pages before RfC has had a chance to resolve our dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did that require you to revert them back? You don't have to revert an edit - it's your choice. John Smith's 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that my comment above would have already answered your question - I would think that allowing the RfC to work its course would be recommended. You are essentially pursuing the same edit that you were pursuing in Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you might say, none of that requires you to revert back. John Smith's 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a dodgy argument. Nothing required you to make the edits that he would want to revert, either. --Deskana (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC

Hong, FYI, I've left a comment. Cheers, --Folic Acid 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre 2. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

WPChina banner

Ok, so I want to create something of a double-standard, because what's High importance for C-pop is most definitely not High importance for ALL of WikiProject China. So I was wondering if you knew how to tweak the banner such that a second importance field pops up if {{.....|music=yes}}. As in you'd have a this article is rated...blahblahblah at the top, based on how WPChina sees it, then a second importance listing for how the workgroup sees it. Pandacomics 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a WikiProject Banner with more than one importance rating - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, it seems like you're looking for something that a full WikiProject could offer. If there are enough participants, you might consider making a full WikiProject out of it, with it's own banner. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...because it's really not fair for WPChina, really. Just because we feel that Jay Chou is High importance does not mean at all that it's high importance for China. I'll scrounge around for more participants then, ho hum. Pandacomics 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a full WikiProject will give you more flexibility and recognition anyway. If you're dedicated to organising a group of editors anyway, I say just go for a WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess...but man. I'm going to have to re-modify the banner again, and move all the pages to their new locations. Bahhh. This honestly feels like creating an independent country. Having to start everything up painfully slowly. Pandacomics 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you. If you want to just let it stay as a workgroup, then figure out how to add a second importance rating to the banner just for the Chinese Pop workgroup. It may be that you're the first one to do it, but that doesn't mean at all that you cannot do it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin

After the recent weekslong hit-and-run cases of the IP editor who insisted on putting pinyin everywhere, and which you spend hundreds of edits reverting, it's obvious we need more SE Asian admins. Why isn't that you? SchmuckyTheCat

Because dealing with WP bureaucracy makes me want to pull my hair out. And because I don't want every random person leaving a message on my Talk page every time he or she disagrees with how I enforced the rules. I have some experience moderating an internet platform, and I would rather not have that burden here on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood, especially that first sentence. Are there other users that might be good that pay attention to SE Asia? It just seems pointless going around and around with this pinyin troll. SchmuckyTheCat

User:Nat.tang has been tagging his IPs as sockpuppets. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can be done about him other than just reverting his edits. Technically what he's doing is not vandalism, and he's using a whole IP range to edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I stopped taging him with sock tags. Once I realized it was one of those rotating/switching IP adresses, I just tag them with ISP tags. Nat Tang 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw...the IP is registered to a UK ISP called ORANGE HOME UK PLC. Nat Tang 02:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Here's the IP WHOIS for one of his IPs. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nanking

Yeah, I don't think it's worth the time arguing with these people. John Smith's alright, at least he tries to outline his points. Hare-Yukai is just a fucktard, and the sad fact it that I'm pretty sure he's Taiwanese like me. A lot of Taiwanese people don't have backbones. Because they hate China or the KMT, they'd like to suck jap dicks, sad sad sad. Anyway, perhaps you could add a paragraph saying that the massacre's been called a genocide by various sources, without adding the category? Personally, I think other Japanese atrocities like the country cleansing campaigns were far more devastating than Nanking, as those killed tens of millions, not just 300K. Blueshirts 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too aware of Taiwanese sentiments toward Japan, so I'm not going to comment on that, but yeah, atrocities done by the Japanese military really happened all over China and the rest of Asia. It's just that topics like Nanjing and the comfort women are the most debated. I'll bet that if Iris Chang had not committed suicide and had completed her book on the Bataan Death March, that topic would have been given plenty of attention, too. Anyway, I did a little reading and searching for how we could add something to the article on how it's been called a genocide, so I may add that to the article when it comes out of protection. But it'll probably become another edit dispute, which would unfortunately take a lot of time away from my other editing efforts. I've got an article sitting in FAC, another one sitting in GAN, and I've been working on and off on getting yet another article up to GA quality. John Smith's and I are both pretty stubborn when it comes to edit disputes, but I just have to prioritise what I think is more important in this case. There're simply too many edit disputes on WP, and not that much real content contribution. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PinYins

Hi Hong. As you may have noticed, I am back from my wiki-break. I noticed that you have been reverting pinyin additions to articles that were added by other editors. I've looked briefly around WP for styles, policies and precedents with regards to pinyin but haven't found much. Contemplated restoring the pinyin additions but haven't yet. What is your rationale for reverting these additions? Luke! 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary clutter in the intro. I think just adding traditional characters to most HK-related articles is quite enough. We don't need to add different romanisations and simplified characters as well. I don't mind if all that are presented in the Chinese text template though. But it just looks way too cluttered when you put all that stuff right in the first sentence in the intro. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think I'm going to revert them back as I don't think they contribute to the quality of articles either. Thanks. Luke! 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. WP is not a Chinese-English dictionary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Venue suggestion needed for a meet-up in Yuen Long

Dear: HongQiGong ：

In the past meet-ups, we always had our meeting in the centre of Kowloon, either Kowloon Tong or Mong Kok. However, apart from these places, I am sure that alternative venues in other region would be suitable.

This is the time for your suggestion! According to some discussion on Chinese Misplaced Pages, from August of 2007, the Hong Kong Wikimedians’ meet-up would be held in all districts of Hong Kong in a circulation basis.

Here is the tentative information of the first meet-up：

Date：11, August, 2007 (Saturday)

Time：After 5:00pm

Proposed region：Yuen Long

The community would request for ideas of where we should hold the meet-up , in order to have a better decision. If you have any good ideas, don’t hesitate to give your opinions, million thanks!

Please don't hesitate to give your good suggestion to us

Regards,

colbegin

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep it in mind. Pandacomics 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Pier

In case you were not aware, I had rewritten the article yesterday and today, including updates of recent developments. In your last edit of the article, it appears that you have rolled back all the changes made since July 30. May I ask what the problem may be? Ohconfucius 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops that was a mistake. Sorry about that. I've self-reverted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ms. He

Hi,

While your proposed title has the virtue of precision, I think it sounds a tad "unencyclopedic." If this were just a custody dispute, it wouldn't belong on Misplaced Pages. It is the precedent-setting nature of the case, and its international implications, that make the article notable. The present title is patterned after Elian Gonzales. I recommend no further change, but you are always welcome to take your idea to the article talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. I am going to post a thread on WP:AN/I regarding this matter. Regards, IronGargoyle 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should warn User:91.104.1.169

I have been watching Hong Kong for quite some time and I see that you have reverted a number of User:91.104.1.169's edits. If consensus already decided on this issue, then you should warn him and remind hims about our 3rr rule and consensus. Reverting put you in danger of being block if you revert his edits 3 times. If you want, I can help you do that. Chris! _{my talk} 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He is aware that he is the only one that wants those edits and that concensus is against him. And I've been careful not to violate 3RR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But putting a warning tag might be more effective than revert. I can help you warn him if you want. Chris! _{my talk} 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a warning on his talk page. Hopefully he would stop. Chris! _{my talk} 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if warnings will help, but go ahead and warn him if you like. He never actually makes more than one or two edits a day on the same article with the same IP. The problem is that he's been using a whole range of IPs, and there's no absolute proof that it is the same person making those edits. Which also means he might not even get your warning if he gets another IP next time he comes on WP. But maybe there are admins out there who would be bold enough, ignore WP bureaucracy, and do something about him. Me, I don't mind reverting his edits. It only takes a few minutes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, he gets tire on editing already. Chris! _{my talk} 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

Hi HongQiGong, PericlesofAthens here. I just want to thank you for making some valuable copy-edits to Tang Dynasty. It is an enormous help, considering that it is up for FAC at the moment. --PericlesofAthens 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it at the FAC page, that's why I took a look. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong films

Please can you help add the films and details in Category:Hong Kong films to the List of Hong Kong films. It is ridiculous that the lists didn't even have Way of the Dragon or Enter the Dragon!!!. Why has nobody helped them? Isn't anybody interested in Hong Kong movies? I've begun gradually adding titles from Z in the categories working backwards. Your help in adding at least a decent coverage of titles already on wikipedia would be more than appreciated. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried leaving a note at WikiProject Hong Kong or WikiProject Films? People are interested in Bruce Lee and Hong Kong films - they just don't want to put in all the work necessary to improve articles. Mostly because they have other editing interests. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese editors & "apartheid" article

I don't know if there's an equivalent of the Community Portal in the Chinese Misplaced Pages. If there is, you might want to consider using it to mention the current discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid and inviting English-speaking Chinese editors to comment. It would certainly be useful to get more input from editors with local knowledge. -- ChrisO 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, and you know I think the article ought to be deleted, I think the issue would be better handled by English WP members instead. English WP is way ahead of WP in other languages, including Chinese, as far as how to apply WP policies. While all the different language versions of WP should have the same policies, we're much better at how to apply them here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This also applies to:

• Song Dynasty
• Ming Dynasty
• Han Dynasty
• Southern and Northern Dynasties
• Sui Dynasty John Smith's 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)