User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Re: About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2

Afd is a discussion, not a vote, the tally doesn't really matter in the end. In this case, there were convincing arguments made for keeping, which weren't countered by anyone. And now that you mention it, I probably should've closed it as a keep, since everyone arguing for the deletion were basing their "vote" on a proposed guideline, without addressing the points already brought up in the discussion. - Bobet 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I personally commented on every vote/argument to keep. I would like to ask you to review the discussion again. The biggest argument to keep was basically the number of Google hits, but that's already been determined to be an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars. And yes, the votes were based on a proposed guideline. So how about the official WP:BIO? This person definitely fails that, and the article should be deleted based on that then, if you would not like to validate WP:PORN BIO. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Edipedia

This is getting out of hand. 3 sockpuppets, 2 of which broke the 3RR? We need a very, very hard punishment here for Edipedia: For breaking 3RR 6 times, for personal attacks, for disruption in Administrators' noticeboard, for illegitimate warnings, for very long edit warring, for pure vandalism, for trolling (his recent edits are obvious trolling, see their edit summaries), and, of course, for 3 sockpuppets. Think we should take it to Arbcom or somewhere? At least a one month block for Edipedia and an indef for all his sockpuppets, I say. I have reported him in 3RR, Incidents, and Sockpuppets, none of which seemed to be getting attention from important admins. Any suggestions of how to stop Edipedia? Perhaps leave a note on an admin's talk page? This is pure vandalism, no longer a content dispute. Aran|heru|nar 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can contact an admin directly. I've found that sometimes, stuff that's reported on the Incidents board often get ignored. Honestly, I'm not sure. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted the admin who blocked Edipedia for 3RR and requested a longer block for two more violations of 3RR. I did not mention the dozens of other rules he broke, though. Aran|heru|nar 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've left a comment on User:Robdurbar's talk page as well. Maybe we can contact other editors who have had run-ins with Edipedia. User:Nat Krause, for example. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably User:Sumple. It was I who invited him to the Han Chinese discussion after Edipedia started his "content dispute". Aran|heru|nar 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's disgusting. You need to have hard evidence, not just your imaginations! Edipedia 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the user page, as these tags shouldn't be removed without conclusion of the discussion. I'm afraid that I'm not really a good person to ask about sockpuppets, as its not a policy I'm very familiar with. However, I have re-warned Edipedia about his general behaviour and how that may lead to afull block if he doesn't sort himself out. --Robdurbar 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's one more violation of the rules. I suggest immediate and harsh actions to be taken against Edipedia. He seems determined to cause disruption now. Aran|heru|nar 04:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3RRR (re: Eurasian (mixed ancestry))

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. 69.170.35.211 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Edipedia

I'll keep an eye on him; I've noticed that in addition to the 3RR violations he has also been repeatedly incivil. He's been here since July and has over 500 edits, so an indefinite block might be too controversial at this point. If he continues to cause problems, you can request a Checkuser to see if the other accounts are really him. RFCU is down for the weekend because of Labor Day (there aren't a lot of people here with Checkuser permissions), but it should be back by Tuesday. You can also use the Incidents page of the administrators' noticeboard. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already a report on him in the Incidents board[1]. But sockpuppetry aside, he has been removing the sockpuppet tag from the User:Yepre user page[2]. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've protected User:Yepre for now. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fork (re: June 2006 in Hong Kong and July 2006 in Hong Kong)

Please stop recreating the fork. If you genuinely want to change the title of the entry, request to remove the fork and move the entry. Please stop making trouble. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already concensus to keep the article the way it is without your reverts. Please stop making trouble. Thanks in advance. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the consensus on the title of the entry, page move should not be done by cut-and-paste fork. You can request to remove the fork and move the entry, in order to retitle it in the proper way. Please stop recreating the fork. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop wikilawyering. Going through a request at this point would only be a waste of time. Thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not wikilawyering. It's not anything hard to do so. Put up a request, and administrators will take care of it. The whole thing can be done by a few clicks. Don't make any further trouble if you genuinely want to cooperate and be constructive. Don't waste time. — Instantnood 21:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you do it then? You are the only one who wants to do it that way for the particular articles/archives in question. I'm fine with the way it is, so are all other interested editors. I think you should request the move if you really want it to be done that way. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And that is precisely what I was thinking too. Action speaks louder then words. If Instantnood believes so much in the rule of law, then leave it to him to make sure it happens in a lawful manner. Wikiwarring in this case is, ironically, not much different from using criminal means to resolve a crime.--Huaiwei 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any difference between sentence of imprisonment and unlawful confinement? — Instantnood 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
(response to user:HongQiGong's remarks at 21:29, September 2) I don't agree with retitling that entry, and naturally I don't consider myself to be the suitable person to file the nomination. Nevertheless I have already tell you the proper procedures. You can't claim you don't know about them, and insist on recreating the fork. — Instantnood 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say I don't know how to file the request. I just think that at this point, it would be a waste of time, especially since all the interested editors agree to just leave it at that name without going through a request. The outcome is the same. I don't understand why you insist that I file a request when you are the only one who is interested in doing so. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The outcome is not the same. Everyone has the obligation to keep edit history of an entry at one place. Every single change to any entry has to be shown to readers, and all contributors of any entry have to be credited. We don't, therefore, retitle an entry by cut-and-paste the content. We do so by using the move button to actually relocate an entry. — Instantnood 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That's great. I disagree with the importance of keeping the history especially since it's been over a month and in light of the fact that all other editors prefer to keep it the way it currently is. Go ahead and file the request if you believe in its importance. If you're not interested in filing the request either, like the rest of us who are also not interested in filing the request, please kindly let the issue go and we can look forward to more fruitful editing. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit history is important. It tells readers all about the details of previous edits, and it credits previous contributors. By disagreeing with its importance you're in effect disregarding the core values, the principles, and the foundations of Wiki. — Instantnood 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, I'm a naughty editor. I got your message. Again, if you're not interested in filing a request to move the article either, can we just move on? --- Hong Qi Gong 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It could have been stopped long ago if the fork is not being recreated again and again. — Instantnood 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So we can move on now? You'll stop being the only one that insist on reverting the name back to "Hong Kong and Macao"? --- Hong Qi Gong 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I myself do not support your retitling proposal, and therefore I'm not in a position to file the nomination. I can provide all necessary assistance if you agree to file the nomination, and to give up your insistence to recreate the fork. — Instantnood 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I myself am also not in a position to file the nomination - because I don't feel it is necessary at all. So if you do not want to file the nomination either, please just stop your reverts. What's the point of your reverts if you do not want to file the nomination, and if nobody else wants to file the nomination either? --- Hong Qi Gong 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you're not filing the nomination, and you don't stop recreating the fork, you're challenging Wiki values, principles and foundations. No move should be done by creating cut-and-paste fork. — Instantnood 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a naughty, naughty editor. I think I've already apologised for the cut-and-paste move. But your reverts are pointless all the same, if you refuse to file the nomination. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done as much as I could to have the matter settled in proper manner, and I have already explained why I am not in a position to file the nomination. Please.. don't waste any more time, if you're genuinely serious with editing on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am serious about editing Wikipedia. And I'm not wasting any more time by filing a pointless move request. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You aren't contributing to making Wikipedia successful if you consider adhering to guidelines pointless and wasting of time. It's so pity you are still calling yourself serious. — Instantnood 19:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if there's only one editor objecting to the way those pages currently are, then yes, I believe it to be a waste of time. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sally Yoshino

Please do not speedy articles which have been through the AfD process. For example, the article Sally Yoshino went through the AfD process and was kept. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Yoshino. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that. However, the article still does not make an effort to establish notability and speedy delete should applicable. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this (re: [3])

Thanks for the message, HongQiGong. Yes, I agree, we're just going around in circles in the discussions. It's for the best of us to talk this thing out. I certainly agree with you that they don't all deserve stand-alone articles. That's why I complained so much about the deletion of the List of Japanese female porn stars. Listing individual names in the field, to my understanding, only requires a test of verifiability, not notability (assuming we agree the List itself is notable). Notability is required for a stand-alone article, and I have agreed with your nomination in deleting one that was clearly not notable. As for discussing with me before you nominate them, I'm honored you make the offer. But what I suggest is, if you have problems with an article's sources, notability, or whatever, tag the article for fixing. Simply tagging articles for deletion without any attempt at checking for sources or notability first seems intentionally provocative. If, after a resonable period of time, nothing constructive is done to improve the article, then we can start a discussion for deletion. I'll be happy to offer my input then, and I won't just say Keep on every nomination without real consideration of the subject. As for the two models you mention now: Japanese Amazon shows 23 videos, 20 DVDs, and 4 books for An Amazon search shows Manami Yoshii (吉井愛美). Google gives 230,000 hits (no, that's not proof of notability, I'm just saying that one of those 230,000 hits may very well give us a source of notability.) Personally, this amount of visibility at a mainstream site would lead me to consider her notable. What a consensus at a discussion would be, I cannot say. 澪花 has 7 books, 5 DVDs, 2 Videos. I'd say, while verifiable, that's pretty low for an article. Put it up for discussion, and unless someone can prove more notability, I'd agree with you on that one. Regards. Dekkappai 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll put the Template:Importance tag on the articles that I think have non-notable people. However, I see no point in keeping them indefinitely if the tag does not help. I will still nominate them if after a while the article still does not assert notability.
And I must point out that I do try to verify the notability of these actresses before I nominate them. However, if a particular article has been created for some time, and no effort was put into proving notability, I certainly am not interested in sitting here for days or even hours trying to prove their notability. At most I spent a few minutes on that task. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply I was unwilling to do the research. If you don't wish to invest much time in it, I understand. Not everyone is interested in every subject. But that doesn't mean someone else isn't. It also doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. So go ahead and send me the names, and I'll be happy to do some preliminary research on them when I can, and then we can proceed with our deletion discussion. My Internet access is limited at the moment, so it might take a day or two to reply, but surely the need to delete isn't so urgent it can't wait. Dekkappai 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia indefinite block (re: [4])

I think it is better to use WP:AN/I to ask about this. Indefinite blocks to users with several hundred edits should probably be proposed to the community first. I am fine with the indefinite blocks to the sockpuppets, since they have been used disruptively. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually the indef block requests have the header "Request for community ban of (Username)", or something like that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China (re: China)

I am not going to revert to what I originally wrote, please feel proud of your edit. But explain to me why it is so incredibly important to you that we don't list the governemt of Taiwan under the name it actually uses, The Republic of China (Taiwan). --Niohe 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's POV. How can we, in the same paragraph, mention that the legitimacy of the ROC and the administration of Taiwan is contested, while at the same time, assign Taiwan to the ROC? Doesn't make sense. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Sumple has said all that is needed to this user. See Niohe's talk page. Aran|heru|nar 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hong, it would help our side of the argument if you could stop reverting for now. It's inappropriate, and is giving the other side cheap ammunition if they can invoke 3RR and things like that. --Sumple (Talk) 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've exhausted my 3 edits anyway. And we also have "cheap ammunition", too. I've already warned User:John Smith M.D., Ph on 3RR[5]. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts (re: China)

Welcome to the club of reverting three times. Now, should I block you or shall we ask User talk:John Smith M.D., Ph.D to do it? ;-) --Niohe 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Block me? I wasn't aware that you or him were admins. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and I have no idea about John Smith. It was more a joke. But admit it's a bit ironic that right after you accused someone else of reverting three times, you just did it yourself? --Niohe 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Happens all the time. Are you new to WP? If so, welcome. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So, it's OK if you do it, but not someone else? --Niohe 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I never said it's OK that I did it. I find it despicable and disgusting, and I will never forgive myself. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese msian vs msian chinese (re: Malaysian Chinese)

Please don't do redirection regarding chinese msian/msian chinese until the vote has been resolved. __earth (Talk) 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article name is Malaysian Chinese right now, so I'm fixing the wikilinks to skip the redirects. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the voting is ongoing. Please assume good faith and wait until the voting is done. __earth (Talk) 05:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm just fixing the wikilinks. Please assume good faith. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False warning (re: [6])

If you bothered to check, I have not made three reverts to the same version on the page yet. I have made several different edits in an attempt to resolve an issue. So please don't warn me when I'm nowhere near a 3RR. John Smith's 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so hostile. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't pretend you're not causing trouble by ignoring the fact I resolved the matter with other editors, warned me after the edits and filed an admin report without telling me. John Smith's 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't be hostile. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Template:User Manchu

Please be careful - I know it can be difficult dealing with users who contribute with sockpuppets but this Edipedia's (or whatever his name was on that day) edits do not appear to be vandalism here. Consider this a warning - in future, you will be banned if you break the rule again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdurbar (talk • contribs) 2006-09-08 14:13:52

I have semiprotected both userboxes, this should put an end to the sockpuppetry. -- Миборовский 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the protection really works against Edipedia. He just finds more articles to push his POV. First he revert wars in Han Chinese, which was protected, then in Overseas Chinese, which was protected, then in Chinese people, which was protected, et cetera...This user is WP:POINTing here. We should probably just leave an article free for him and indef ban any sockpuppet we see. In the meantime, HongQiGong, can you file an ArbCom case against him to put an end to this mess? I don't have the time now. Violations caused by his main account and his sockpuppets could be found here and here respectively. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Filing an ArbCom sounds like a lot of work. I've never done it before. But is that the only way to get his IP banned? --- Hong Qi Gong 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't prevent him forever from using sockpuppets to push his POV, but at least it'd stop him from doing it on the 2 userboxes. And it'd prevent me from flipping out Kelly Martin/Tony Sidaway style and going on a userbox deletion rampage. -- Миборовский 01:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Hong Kong Meeting

 HongQiGong/Archive 2 ：

The 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong, will be held in City Express within CityU at 19.00 on 16th September , 2006.

The Hong Kong Wikipedians who attend the meeting, will be regarded as members of the Preliminary Committee. For further information, please refer to the agenda.

Yours Turly,
JéRRy.雨雨.talk.hk 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[7] made on September 8, 2006 to Jung Chang

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 6 hours.

Please see the 3RR page for more

William M. Connolley 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jung Chang

Hong, I am not even going to try to find another comprimise between us. I have reached a consensus with Sumple, so I am going to use that version. He was the one that had the original dispute, not you. I resolved the issue with him, so don't turn someone else's query into your personal crusade. It's quite ridiculous. Of course if you would prefer an edit war, we could always resume that where we left off and get blocked again. Did you enjoy having your first block? John Smith's 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the purpose of your message is. Regardless of what agreements you and User:Sumple had, I'm only trying to say that the edit using "English" is the most accurate/NPOV. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Edit to Anson Chan

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Arbiteroftruth 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

huh? - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On 23 August, you aded in some information that were similar to those made by the leftist user:WangFeihung in July. Any edits made from him, or others that sounds similar to that leftist, will be reverted by me and will be considered as vandalism. Since I understand you did not revert my changes, nor did you attack me as a Nazi like that leftist did, I AGFed on your actions. If you want to re-add the contributions you made, please discuss them on the discussion page before proceeding. Thanks. Arbiteroftruth 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This - [8] - is my August 23 edit. How exactly is that vandalism? I edited to change the word "She" to "Chan". - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I made a mistake on that one, and my apologies for that warning. Consider the warning retracted. Very sorry! Arbiteroftruth 05:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, and thanks. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

District Emblem

I remember I actually jacked that emblem in the official web page of the district council, and tried to delete the background colour with softwares like Photoshop or Photo Impact. :-) - Alan 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I had half guessed that's what you had to do, because it's a PNG file. I guess I'm actually going to have to do a little photoshop work if I want to upload those emblems with white backgrounds. Thanks. =) - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it would be nice to have white background for all the emblems. But that would be a lot of work. (That's why I don't want to do it! :-P) Anyway, let me give you a surprise. See this article. There you go. That's what you want, right? :-) - Alan 05:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Of course. Wonder where the editor got them though. I couldn't find the white backgrounds on the district council website, Chinese or English. Maybe he did the white backgrounds himself? Anyway thanks. I think I'll upload those to commons when I have a little more time than right now, so Cantonese Wikipedia can use them also without uploading again. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I do hope that you could add the emblems to the English Wikipedia also. Actually, the Hong Kong Wikipedians in the English Wikipedia had once discussed about collaborating on the eighteen-district articles long time ago. Sadly, due to the fact that some Hong Kong Wikipedians (e.g. User:Instantnood) have been spending all the effort on provoking conflicts amongst Hong Kong Wikipedians, rather than collaborating with other people in a humble and friendly fashion, the Hong Kong-related projects in the English Wikipedia are not progressing forward at all. More ridiculously, the Hong Kong weekly collaboration campaign is even inactive!
All I want to point out is that the English Wikipedia needs your help. In this age of globalization, English has already become an international language. So, the Hong Kong-related articles in the English Wikipedia enable foreigners to know more about Hong Kong, our home. It is important for us to improve the articles in the English Wikipedia.
Furthermore, I am sorry to say that I am highly against the whole idea of the so-called "Cantonese Wikipedia". So, I won't participate in any projects there. - Alan 05:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there's a lot of work that needs to be done for HK-related articles here. Don't worry, there are lots of people who love HK, so I'm sure the clean-up that needs to be done will be done eventually. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Asian porn star categories

HongQiGong, I don't know what point you are trying to make by taking the Asian porn star category out the Asian porn stars of each individual country in Asia, and I really don't care. But this is clearly bad-faith editing. You are disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point or strike back at the other editor. If you have a dispute with the other editor, please take it to a talk page rather than disrupting Wikipedia. Thank you. Regards. Dekkappai 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A "strike back" at another editor? What are you talking about? I'm helping the other editor to better categorise these articles. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please try to discuss the issue instead of just reverting. Like I said at Dekkappai's talk page, I agree that the categories currently consist of people 'by ethnicity' instead of 'by nationality' and they should probably be renamed and subcategorized accordingly. And edit warring isn't helpful, please try to discuss the issue with each other, thanks. - Bobet 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, HongQiGong. In regards to this: I could see a "Porn stars by ethnicity" in addition to the Asian porn star category, since the removal of the latter would be to imply there is no pornography in Asia. Or is that your goal? As for further discussion, frankly, your rhetorical style, as shown here, indicates to me that you plan another circular, nonsensical waste of time for a "discussion." Thanks, but not interested. Regards. Dekkappai 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the implication would be there's no porn in Asia. Again, my reason for the edit was that East Asians like Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc, are not referred to as "Asian" in the UK and certain other countries. The category that I removed was not "Porn in Asia". It was "Asian porn star". But should I take your comment here as a refusal to discuss these issues with me? - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you approve of a category for "Asian (per American definition) porn stars", then? Or should we just stick with "Oriental porn stars"? What's best, do you think? --Rankler 02:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's fine. It's not that big of a deal. The bigger problem was that none of the actresses in those categories were Chinese nationals, Korean nationals, etc etc. They were all American nationals, with a few British nationals. But those categories are themselves categorised under "porn stars by nationality". - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You reference to Iris Chang

Do you have any other references for the Nanking Massacre besides that book? Can you reference from , say Fogel's book ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenzi (talk • contribs) 2006-09-12 17:32:12

I have not read Fogel's book. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

English news source on Macau

I've found the TDM has its television news reports on its website [9]. — Instantnood 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I've found that Google News is also a good source. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia sock (re: [10])

Blocked. They're rather a nusance.--Konstable 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. And thanks for the block. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
They just keep coming. I have semi-protected the pages.--Konstable 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Help?

Hey. A long time ago you said I could ask you for help with the article Stereotypes of Asians. I think I need it now...it was fine before, but now its been discovered by a lot of people who are sort of unscrupulously starting to flame back & forth and making a mess of it. I'm back in classes so I can't really fix it very well right now, but I just don't want things to escalate and get out of control to the point of deletion which is now being informally suggested. I understand if you are busy or not interested, but...just an update. Thanks! --Drenched 02:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! You're awesome. =) --Drenched 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
HongQiGong, I award you this here RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar in recognition and appreciation of your tireless efforts to defend Japanese history articles from those who would deny Korean influence and involvement, and for your extensive work on East Asian topics in other respects. It is truly a never-ending task and a more or less thankless job. Thank you. LordAmeth 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! My very first Barnstar. =) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tila (re: [11])

Tila Nguyen is 1/4 French, 3/4 Vietnamese. Isn't that mixed? Pink moon 1287 12:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, on the internet I've read anywhere from that she's part French, quarter French, half French, to that she's not mixed at all. None of these sources came from Tila herself. If you insist on putting her in the Eurasian article, go ahead, it's not a big deal to me and I won't oppose it. But until I see a source straight from her, I personally wouldn't assume she's mixed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User zh-beifang

In Chinese Wikipedia the templates are named as Template:User zh-cmn . Would you like to synchronise the names of the templates? -Hello World! 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we necessarily have to. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason is that we'd comply the ISO 639 and RFC 3066 standards as many as possible.--Hello World! 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to change them, by all means, go ahead. It's not a big deal to me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Han Chinese

Hi there, you are too pathetic. You can't revert other people's work without good reasons. Wang Xin 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a good reason. You're a sock. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Another page you may be interested in contributing to

Deportation of Cambodian Americans. Incidentally we've had several threads on this and related topics over at YW: [12], [13], [14], [15]. cab 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Had no idea there was an article on this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Image:RitaFan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RitaFan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok ☠ 00:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DavidHo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidHo.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lǐ_(李)_(surname) Yao Ziyuan 03:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

New Chinese surname categories up for deletion

A new editor has just added a number of categories for Chinese surnames, which I believe to be very useful, particularly in grouping individuals who share a common surname but use different romanizations. As is usually the case at the Categories for Deletion area, the people who frequent that place generally try to delete every new category, regardless of whether they understand its use. In this case, they seem not to understand the utility of being able to have a category for everyone with the name "Liu," for example. Please voice your opinion here. Badagnani 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Image:Brenda Song.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brenda Song.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, fair-use images may not be used to depict living people. Your recent changes to Image:Brenda Song.jpg and Brenda Song have been reverted. Please do not readd the image. --Yamla 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 03:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to Image:Brenda Song.jpg, don't forget to add an explanation to the image's talk page as to why you think it impossible to create a free image of Brenda Song. For example, please provide evidence that she is dead or has gone into hiding. If you are unwilling to do so, please immediately revert your recent changes to that image. Additionally, you added a fair-use tag but have not provided any detailed fair-use rationale to the image page. --Yamla 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a rationale. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned several times, we are not permitted to use a fair-use image solely to depict a living person. Please see WP:FU. I will delete this image now. Thanks. --Yamla 18:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert on Chinese people

You are off the point. The thing is that Han Chinese consider them as ethnically Han. Many Chinese people as well as people in the West consider Tibetans and Chinese Mongolian minorities as Chinese. They only distinguish them sometimes from Han Chinese. It doesn't necessarily mean Tibetans and Chinese Mongolians are not Chinese. In addition, overseas Chinese interact more with people in the West. They should be listed as one of the bullet points here. Ated 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Spawn of Snle

Jesus, this person never stops creating socks! And I can never figure out what exactly is the point of any the edits -- maybe s/he doesn't know either. Badagnani 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to check if this is a sock? If s/he is not using a computer lab or switching computers each time (or switching IPs, which is possible if one is computer knowledgeable enough) then it can be checked. I think there was an IP check for Snle a month or two ago, and several dozen (!) socks were located. We can't allow that kind of thing. Badagnani 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're just going to have to file for a sockpuppet check or an IP check. It's a hassle and I don't really want to do it right now though. Maybe later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I filed for semi-protection and now both the article and the talk page are semi-protected. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese people

Since the talk page is blocked for no reasons, I'll write here. I agree with you that some people in the West don't consider some Chinese ethnic groups as ethnic Chinese. But others do. For example, Uighur people live in China for thousands of years and most of them live within China. Even those who don't consider Uighurs as ethnic Chinese, they generally consider other Chinese ethnic groups that ain't that different from Han Chinese as ethnic Chinese. My wording "People of Chinese descent" doesn't say all Chinese ethnic groups are ethnic Chinese either. Ated 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the second bullet point of the article covers that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, did you mean that Chinese people can also mean 華人 in Chinese people?User:Jerrypp772000 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The source you found does not talk about the term "Chinese people". It talks about the terms 中國人 and 台灣人. The article does not state that people in Taiwan are 中國人. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it talks about how citizens of ROC refer themselves as 台灣人, and not 中國人. So then I was just adding some more extra information.--Jerrypp772000 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK so your point is that citizens of the ROC are also 華人?--Jerrypp772000 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Snle

Hey, no problem. I've semi-protected the page. Snle actually stopped editing Wikipedia for a month or so (at least it appeared that way), until he returned as User:NKH. Since then, he's gone through a number of sockpuppets and some IPs. That's why I created User:Khoikhoi/Snle. I suppose I should eventually list all of them there, but there are literally hundreds. Also it contradicts WP:DENY... Cheers, Khoikhoi 20:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some advice needed

Okay, I somehow crossed the path of User:John Smith's again on Mao Zedong. I was re-writing the introduction and John Smith reverted my edit on sight...mmm, hasty. He didn't struck me as somebody willing to discuss faithfully the last time I conflicted with him. Any advice? Aran|heru|nar 14:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion on the Talk page, it seems like you two are coming to a compromise. Or am I wrong about that? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Hong Kong

Hey!

Should we re-attempt to nominate Portal:Hong Kong for featured status? I have created and formatted the archival page for all rotating contents. The portal should meet all criterias now. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure why not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Yellowworld

Hello! On December 21, 2006 you put on my user page:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Your reverts:

I suggest a compromise on the discussion page, and ask that you do not undo other people's edits repeatedly as well. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Thank you.

--Joel Lindley 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia socks

Thanks for helping! :-) Khoikhoi 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Yepre unprotection

I've changed the tag for you and unprotected the page. Thanks for letting me know about this. In case you need anything else, please let me know; although I won't be back to my normal editing schedule for about 3-4 more days. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. =) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Han Chinese

I'm really not happy with the current state of the article and I don't see it as a compromise at all. Why should we have to give into aggressive users so easily? Anyways, he's about to be blocked because he's broken the 3RR. See my comment on the talk page. Khoikhoi 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

檢查你的電子郵件。 Khoikhoi 06:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hehheh that is very formal Chinese. You can just say "請看你的電信". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Quanzhen vs. Quanzhen Pai

What is the logic to changing the article name? While it is true that 'pai' means school, as far as I know it is not a term encountered in scholarly literature about the topic. All of my sources on the topic of Taoism simply discuss the various schools of Taoism by using the name without pai, for example instead of saying 'Quanzhen Pai,' they will say 'Quanzhen.' This is the same for other schools such as Lingbao and Shangqing. If anything 'Quanzhen Pai' should redirect to 'Quanzhen' or 'Quanzhen School.' Pai seems to be strictly a Chinese term that has not entered the English language in sources about Taoism.Zeus1234 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I basically changed it just because it's a common name. "Quanzhen School" doesn't really make sense to me. Why is the term half English and half romanised Chinese? Why not "Complete Perfection School"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Good compromise. I think a full translation works well.Zeus1234 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
We are going to have to change this back. It seems as though there is disagreement amongst scholars as to the translation. I'm seeing 'Complete Perfection' and 'Complete Realization.' I'll put it back to 'Quanzhen Pai,' which is far more accurate (even though I don't like the pai too much).Zeus1234 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning for unilateral page move

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages, as you did with Way of the Celestial Master, and follow the correct procedure. --Kusunose 09:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Page Move

I request that if you still wish to move the page Way of the Celestial Master to Tianshi School, you do so via the wikipedia guidelines, and have a survey so that consensus can be found. By moving the page you have broken every single one of the links to the article, and gone against the scholarly consensus of recently published material.

Google Books

  • Tianshi Dao = 27 google books search results [16]
  • Tianshi School = 0 google books search results [17]
  • Celestial Masters = 151 google books search results [18]
  • Celestial Master = 227 google books search results [19]
  • Way of the Celestial Master = 17 google books search results [20]
  • Way of the Celestial Masters = 23 google books search results [21]
Google
  • Tianshi Dao = 1930 results [22]
  • Tianshi School = 3 results [23]
  • Way of the Celestial Master = 322 results [24]
  • Way of the Celestial Masters = 533 results [25]
  • Celestial Masters = 13400 results [26]

Because 'Celestial Masters' is the pluralized form of 'Way of the Celestial Master' and you don't usually say 'adherents of the way of the celestial master,' but rather 'celestial masters,' it seems clear that it is in fact the more common term.

Also, I am recopying this from out other discussion:

From the Wikipedia page Naming Conventions [27]:

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

Note the 'English speakers' part that is bolded. Clearly English speakers are more familiar with the term 'Celestial Master' than with 'Tianshi Dao.'

Please follow the correct Wikipedia guidelines when moving the page as you did not do initially. I will move it back to its original spot at Way of the Celestial Master. If you wish to move it again, I expect you will follow the guidelines for a controversial page move. Zeus1234 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did move it through the correct manner. You had reverted the move by copying and pasting. Really, it was you who should have filed a move request. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you made the initial move, the article was created under the name Way of the Celestial Master.Zeus1234 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. I saw good reason to move the article. So I did it. Please consult Help:Renaming_(moving)_a_page#Undoing_a_move if you disagree with it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Smith's 18:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just keeping you honest. If you feel that strongly about it, why not start another discussion prior to a poll? John Smith's 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)