User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hong Kong Returnee

Hi, sorry about the business on AfD--I listed it because it was tagged for speedy deletion, and I though listing it was the thorough thing to do. However, it hasn't gotten any votes to delete, your points make sense, and I'm still not sure why it was tagged for speedy in the first place. So I withdrew the nomination and closed the discussion. However, I think the neologism question is about the term itself, not about the phenomenon. Would you mind if I moved the page to Hong Kong re-migration, which is the term used in the source you cite? Thanks, and sorry again about all this--the article is really fine. Chick Bowen 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! And thanks for moving it out of AfD status. Like I said, it's the first entry I've created, and I know that many new entries are deleted everyday, so any advice is welcome. I plan on expanding it and adding more sources, but it's not exactly a commonly discussed topic so I really need to sit down and spend time to find more sources.

But I would disagree with moving the article to Hong Kong re-migration because the term Returnee is probably more common in discussions about Hong Kong. It's actually been used in two wiki entries already: 1990s in Hong Kong and Education in Hong Kong. Also, the topic of Hong Kong Returnee is one that can include, and probably need to include, the topic of Hong Kong re-migration, whereas making Hong Kong re-migration to include the topic of Hong Kong Returnee would be a slightly different topic from what I planned on creating. Hong Qi Gong 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I moved it to Hong Kong returnee, though, in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I also put it in some categories and did some minor fixing-up. Let me know if there's anything you need. Chick Bowen 18:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need anything else for this article, unless you're actually interested in the subject and want to help expand it.  :-) Once I get some meat on the entry, I'm going to ask if I can include it in the Demographics of Hong Kong series. Hong Qi Gong 00:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Englishes

Basically, we try to use whichever is most appropriate to the subject matter (so theoretically US English would be limited to articles about American culture, history, or people). In practice, though, the general feeling is that people should respect each other's spelling, and there is resentment for people who go through articles and change spellings. I remember a furious war over the title of the article color/colour, though I can't remember who won. There's more information at this style sheet. Cheers, Chick Bowen 03:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hanja/Sino-Korean

HongQiGong, you've proposed merging Hanja and Sino-Korean without giving any reasons. I think it would be useful to justify this suggestion. In my understanding, Hanja refers to the character set (the writing system, in fact) and Sino-Korean refers to the vocabulary (where Sino-Korean vocab is opposed to native vocabulary). Much Sino-Korean vocab is now written with hangul, not hanja, so it's rather simplistic to equate Hanja to Sino-Korean. Would be interested in hearing your arguments.

The three articles in Sino-Korean, Sino-Japanese, and Sino-Vietnamese all suffer in some degree to a failure to distinguish between vocabulary and writing system. Sino-Japanese, in particular, was extremely poorly conceived. Bathrobe 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AID

-Litefantastic 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yayoi article, again.

Hi. If you could look at the current revisions on the Yayoi period, I would appreciate your feed back although it might be a complete waste of time. Thanks. Tortfeasor 06:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcom back! Tortfeasor 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahhah are you stalking me? Hong Qi Gong 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zhonghua Minzu

Hi, HongQiGong. I noticed you deleted the external reference for Zhonghua Minzu.

Actually, that article addresses one of the historical problems of the Zhonghua Minzu concept in a fairly revealing manner. Rather than simply cry out "Sinocentrism", it looks at the way in which the Zhonghua Minzu concept leads to the current Chinese position. Although it at no place used the word "Zhonghua Minzu", it is clear that that is what is meant:

In the People's Republic of China (PRC), history has tended to be written in such a way as to use the past to validate the present political order. In particular, history writing has often come to incorporate the same language that is used to discuss present-day policy governing the rights of ethnic minorities in the PRC. Just as these minorities, who for the most part occupy the PRC border regions, are described as properly belonging to the PRC because their ancestors, defined as those peoples and states that once bordered China proper, were likewise part of a greater Chinese state of the past. This formula is quite obviously based on the premise that any pre-modern people or states that occupied any part of what is now the PRC are defined as having been part of the Chinese state of the past. Some Chinese historians view it as “unscientific” to use this as a sole criterion for deciding which states and peoples should be included as part of the early Chinese state, and they often turn instead to obscure arguments involving ethnic affiliation and the supposed existence of a pre-modern Chinese super-nation, within which existed many ethnic groups who nevertheless viewed themselves and one another as members of some inclusive super-ethnic body.

These ways of viewing the past are obviously contrived to address certain very present-day concerns, but they are also built upon a historical view that developed over many decades as a result of the influence of Western notions of race, nation, and ethnicity. Such arguments regarding the alleged Chinese-ness of the states and peoples surrounding the pre-modern Chinese state dissolve quickly when they are subjected to critical analysis against the historical record. This applies also to the case of Koguryo, which was clearly not a Chinese state in any sense, as demonstrated abundantly by China’s own dynastic histories. But in order to fall into line with the currently preferred way of viewing the Chinese past as essentially a reflection of the present multi-ethnic state, it was absolutely necessary to include Koguryo among the “minority nationalities” of ancient China. This is based solely upon the fact that some of the territories of Koguryo are today part of the PRC. This peculiar way of depicting pre-modern history is clearly grounded in the practical desire to provide security for all of China’s borders – these territories are today Chinese because they have historically always been Chinese.

This is highly pertinent to the issue of the "Zhonghua Minzu" and I'm not sure why you felt it was "irrelevant". Naturally, it is also a problem that there is only one external link in the article. It would be useful if more external links could be added that discuss Zhonghua Minzu as a whole, rather than one single aspect of it. But I don't believe that detracts from the value of this link.

I'm adding this explanation because I feel that re-adding the link needs some kind of supporting argument. Bathrobe 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sex crimes against Asian women

大哥，谢谢你帮保持这篇文章! It doesn't seem positive that the article will be deleted, a no consensus vote also seems likely. At any rate, I originally wrote the list for the Asian fetish article, so my vote is for remerging. But if it does become deleted, I'll support whatever decision you make with plentiful academic references. --Wzhao553 06:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Article was moved to Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States --- Hong Qi Gong 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Frank Chin

Hi, I removed Category:Overseas Chinese from Frank Chin. I believe he is a 4th generation Chinese. He has actually written extensively about how Chinese Americans should not be considered the same as Chinese, and would vocally object to being classified as "overseas Chinese." --Wzhao553 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Hong Qi Gong 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving sections of Talk:Asian American

The talk page is a bit over-long, and I've noticed some sections that are clearly obsolete. Do you think we should start a "sections to be archived" section on the Talk page? Thanks for the intervention on the Middle Eastern thing, too. --ishu 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. And I've archived the talk page. Hong Qi Gong 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Japanese female porn stars

No, it is not. I have deleted the redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics

Greetings, I have been having the beginnings of a revert battle with an anonymous user, User:65.33.167.138, at the 2008 Summer Olympics article, I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to look in and give an opinion? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Hong Qi Gong 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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 an article to a previous version 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. 72.65.68.229 05:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Relax. I have done exactly 3 reverts on the article, and no more than 3. Hong Qi Gong 06:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of first Sino-Japanese war

Hi, I have translated the english article of the First Sino-Japanese War to Norwegian. However - on the chinese version of the article there is a map:

The first Sino-Japanese war

The map of the war

-and I would like to use it. I wrote the person that did the map but he was rather poor in english. I wonder if I could ask you translate the chinese names there to english? Most all Norwegian read english so that would be just fine with me, and with english names the map could possibly be inserted into the english version of the article as well. If you dont feel for doing it I would be happy if you gave me a tip about someone else that could. Best regards from Norway! Ulflarsen 09:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you need me to edit the image? That would take a bit of time. Hong Qi Gong 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If possible yes - to add the various names in english beside the chinese version of the same. If you can do it it's really no hurry, I can wait - or if it's a problem for you I can probably get someone else to do it. Ulflarsen 15:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can work on it but it will take me a long time because I'm not good at image editing. You should try to get someone who has more experience with image editing. Hong Qi Gong 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will try that then. Thanks anyway! Ulflarsen 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish article and three revert rule

You cannot revert the article Asian fetish to its 20:03 23 June 2006 version until after 20:03 24 June 2006 because any revert before this time will violate Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.--Dark Tichondrias 20:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The 20:03 June 2006 version of the Asian fetish differed from my previous version by four edits. You have kept two additions and removed two. You cannot remove the last two until after 20:03 24 Juned because any total revert to the 20:023 June 2006 version will violate Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.--Dark Tichondrias 20:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And your edits border on vandalism, especially since I wanted to discuss the edits in the Talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asian_fetish#Asian_fetish_does_not_describe_interracial_relationships. However, you refused to participate. Hong Qi Gong 20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Authority on subject (re: Asian fetish)

The criticism from authority is not a POV. Which part is the POV? Is it that Asian women are the supposed victims, causing them to be the highest authority? Or is it that non-Asian men are the ones who are supposed to be afflicted, causing them to be the second highest authority? Do you think Chin and Chan are clinical psychologists? All these statements have obvious answers which are not based on POV.--Dark Tichondrias 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, why? Why do Asian women being the supposed victims make them the highest authority? Secondly, the section is POV because it claims only Asian men think Asian fetish is harmful while Asian women do not. Even the source cited was used incorrectly. That article cited had two women authors discussing how disgusting Asian fetish is. Hong Qi Gong 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The part about Asian women holding only one position on the article was unintentional if it were construed to state that, but Asian women would be the highest authority, because they are the ones who experience it. It may be true that arguably non-Asian men would be equal authorities to Asian women, because they are supposed to be afflicted, but since they are afflicted they would not actually be able to perceive themself as having a problem. This is similar to psychiatric patients who do not know they have a mental condition. The authorities in this case would be those who are the direct observors, namely the trained wards of the psychiatric hospital. The outside observors could not know as well as the wards the ills of the patient. Asian men couldn't possibly be as knowledgeable as Asian women or non-Asian men.--Dark Tichondrias 20:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the fact that Asian women and non-Asian men are directly involved in cases of Asian fetish would seem to suggest that they hold bias views. I can agree that trained psychologists and sociologists are much better authority, but the mere fact that Asian women and non-Asian men are directly involved in it does not automatically make them better authority. And especially given that not all Asian women are victims of Asian fetish, and only a minority of non-Asian men have Asian fetish. Do you even have a source that claims that Asian women have the best authority on the subject? Or is this original research? At the very least, that section has no source backing it up. Hong Qi Gong 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a circular argument. You are trying to argue that the authority of Asian women and non-Asian men is subject to question because of bias and that the authority of Asian men could be looked at as more credible because they lack bias. You request the authority of a citation from whom? If we are trying to establish if any sources have credibility, we cannot run a circular argument, citing the questionable sources as proof.--Dark Tichondrias 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I have never said that Asian men are a more credible authority on the subject matter. I have only said that Asian women are not better authority. But whatever. Like I said, do you even have a source to back up the claim in that section? Otherwise it is not only POV but also original research. Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If we were to be a stricter on the policy for original research, then many sources would have to be dissected to analyse their credibility. The Wikipedia original research policy demands verifiability of sources to prevent against fabrication of data. The Wikipedia verifiability article mentions the hallmark of verifiability is credibility. Many of these sources are not credible because they are tainted with bias. Notice, I never conceded that Asian men lacked bias above; I just characterized your argument which said Asian men had the least bias. Bias about an issue is not caused by contact with it like you claimed. A person could be very familiar with the Vietnam War and not have any bias about it. Conversely, a Vietnam-veteran-hating-hippie would deplore the need for war, resulting in bias. Asian men have the most bias about the Asian fetish. As a whole, Asian American men gain more dating partners by undermining the desireablility of their female counter parts to the wider population. Non-Asian men who are not afflicted with the Asian fetish would have the least amounts of bias. Only these sourcess could be satisfactory as credible sources in articles on the Asian fetish.---Dark Tichondrias 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When you upload an image like this:Image:Kenneth Omura Sun Bikini 4.JPG, you lose a lot of credability in my eyes. Not to mention putting your homepages as sources and external links on Racial classification of Indian Americans

• Asian Genes
• Historical Racial Classification of Indians

They pics on it look like a joke if not insulting and racist. --D-Boy 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The links were purposeful in the argument. The links were there to support the arguments I was making against User:Lukobe. Could you elaborated on why you perceived them to be insulting and racist?

I cross dress and identify with different genders, but that does not make me less credible. Your opinion that my personal life makes me loose the credibility of my arguments might stem from a differing worldview from my own regarding transgendered people. Arguments which attack the character of the individual have no relevance on whether their arguments are strong. This is an informal fallacy of logic.--Dark Tichondrias 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias - Once again, you put words in my mouth. I never said that Asian men held the least bias concerning the subject matter. All this discussion about it is pointless. Like I've said before, do you have sources for the claim made in the section? Otherwise, it is POV and original research. It is not verifiable, nor is it credible. Hong Qi Gong 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, the articles with little credibility as defined above would also have to be removed if we were to demand strict adherence to Wikipedia policies.--Dark Tichondrias 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, there are plenty of sources in the article. The section in question, however, lacks any sources. And I don't think it is far fetched to say that it is basically your opinion, and probably the opinions of some of the other editors. The only source it used was even incorrectly applied. Hong Qi Gong 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The section shall be resurrected at some future date when relevant sources are found, but for now it can be removed.--Dark Tichondrias 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Like I've said. This discussion was pointless. Hong Qi Gong 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New Portal:Hong Kong and news

Hi, I notice you've been updating the Hong Kong news on the portal. I have replaced the skeleton of Portal:Hong Kong and you will need to edit a new page to add news now. Ideogram 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Hong Qi Gong 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to get Featured Portal status we need to create archives of our rotating content. When you delete old news entries please save them to Portal:Hong Kong/Hong Kong news archives. Thanks. Ideogram 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually you can merge old news items into Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Ideogram 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You have made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, so if you choose to make a forth revert on the article Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States,you will have broken the 3 revert rule.--Dark Tichondrias 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Twenty four hours since your first revert will be after 7:05 June 2, 2006.--Dark Tichondrias 20:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You have made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, so if you choose to make a forth revert on the article Asian fetish, you will have broken the 3 revert rule. Twenty four hours since your first revert will be after 6:23 June 2 2006.--Dark Tichondrias 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm well aware. Hong Qi Gong 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox (re: Template:user antiracist mx admirer)

Hello! I stole your anti-racist userbox. I hope you don't mind? Drenched 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not "mine", so don't worry about it. =) Hong Qi Gong 02:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Offensiveness and common usage" (re: Chinaman)

I just reversed and expounded upon the distinction between the modern/evolved context of Chinaman as pejorative and its onetime widespread usage without derogatory contexts. You may not like this, but what I don't like is having someone from another culture/language coming and making pronouncements on my culture/language that are only based in political and cultural insecurity and wheedling. There IS a distinction between offensiveness and common usage for MANY words in English, and in other languages. But then there's "gwai lo", which is specifically derogatory and remains in common use in Cantonese and, yeah, there is no apparent distinction between its derisive and casual sense; but the endemic racism of Chinese culture should not be assumed/trasnposed of others. "Chinaman" remains the ONLY word for Chinese person in many North American native languages, by the way; and its origin are in Chinese-English pidgin, though Chinese politicos like to maintain "it was invented by white people to abuse Chinese people with". No, we had OTHER words for that. We also had "Oriental" and "Celestial", both of which were respectfully meant but have also been pronounced (by Chinese commentators on anglo culture) as "racist" and "derogatory". Really? How's that again? "Celestial" is in reference to "subject of the Son of Heaven" and is somewhat akin on context to "British subject", and was meant in a complimentary, even respectful fashion; but Chinese insecurities demand that it be pronounced "racist". Fix your own language's many racist and sexual biases before demanding other cultures kowtow to your need to rewrite history to suit yourselves; "hak gwai" - there's another charming racist phrase that remains in common use in Cantonese, and remains derisive.Skookum1 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and stop flying off the deep end. Take a deep breath. You're making baseless and inaccurate assumptions about me, and I don't take kindly to it.

1. I happen to think "gwai lo" and its derivatives, including "huk gwai", are offensive.
2. Xenophobic much? Just because I'm Chinese, I'm "from another culture/language"? I speak English at a native level and I use it everyday. So I'll claim as much "ownership" to English and American culture as you do, thank you very much.
3. "Cultural insecurity and wheedling"? Excuse me, this is the first time we've had any communication. You don't know anything about me, and I don't know anything about you. But so much for assuming good faith, huh?

Hong Qi Gong 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to your personally but in the context of the white-bashing common amongst the New Chinese here in Vancouver, whose ongoing rewrite of my city's history and culture is getting REALLY GRATING. "cultural insecurity and wheedling" wasn't mean to YOU, but to the overall sense of "everyone else humiliated us and we want revenge" - "humiliated" being as defined by the insecure, and more often perceived than real. In the case of chinaman, that's an old dialect word around here that was made a political football; by the same people who defend the use of gwai lo; since you DO think that term is offensive, might I suggest you apply the same standards of judgement to gweilo as you have to chinaman. It was your edit presupposing that there is no distinction between non-derisive uses of Chinaman vs the derisive context it has acquired that set me off, as I am subjected to "gwai lo" and the attitudes that go with it on an everyday basis; but the pretense is that it's OK to use because there's no other word (while there actually are). Fine, I didn't mean to offend YOU, but I do take major offense when the standard knee-jerk presuppositions about "white" English word usages are made, over and over again (see HongCouver).Skookum1 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaning yourself. I've never even been to Vancouver. I suggest, in the future, that you do not automatically group any and all Chinese persons together with those that would seek to label you with a racial slur. That's akin to me telling you that you're racist for the mere fact that you are white (assuming that you are). You want to complain about being the victim of racism, but look at your own writing above. Seemingly to you, disagreements are relegated to "Chinese insecurity" and my ethnicity is automatically a sign of foreigness. No offense, but it is people like you that make immigrants and racial minorities feel unwelcomed in North America. Hong Qi Gong 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I really am sorry for what sounds like a racist statement ("chinese insecurity") but to appreciate why it's a valid statement (about Chinese political/cultural behaviour/writing in my area) you'd have to know BC history, and have been subjected to the politicization and revision of our history to suit the political tub-thumping of the "New Chinese" and also the way they hijacked the Head Tax Redress issue as a political football (one of my Chinese-Canadian friends, third-generation, says most of the Head Tax payers and families are offended by the way the issue has been appropriated by the new breed, who are notably discriminatory against the older-stock Chinese; it's between CAnadian citizens and their government, as my friend and others have said, and does not concern the New Chinese; except as being a racially-defined agenda. Now they've got their apology and redress, but the word is that the apology wasn't enough, and "they" (the politicos) now want a stronger apology and, of course, more money. The insecurities are so strong here that even the word "Chinese" is avoided in public discussions and the Chinese politicos prefer to use "Asian" now, in order to paint it as a yellow-white i.e. racist divide, rather than a purely cultural one (as is the case). If you ever visit here, be sure to go to Yaohan Centre or Aberdeen Centre in Richmond; you'll have no trouble; but if you try and bring in a non-Chinese, even a Filipino or Korean, you'll find hostility and, if you weren't Chinese, comments about "go to your own shopping centres, this one is for Chinese people". The wheedling is endless here; condo developments which are marketed exclusively in Chinese, even marketed exclusively in China; excuses made for problems like "astronaut kids" (the parents ditch their kids in a condo, give them a car and a credit card, and disappear for months on end; when the problem went public the Chinese political types claimed that the criticism was "racist" because they were Chinese. Similarly, when over 125,000 people were discovered to have bribed examiners and translators in order to get driver's licenses, the Chinese political/cultural organizations blocked any prosecutions by complaining that the prosecutions would be racist because 97% of them were Chinese. That's why "racist" has acquired a bad taste in our mouths, as has any overly casual invocation of it; likewise any assumption that "anything white people say is racist". OK, so you don't have this experience; but you should be aware of it; and aware that words like Chinaman (as with Oriental and Celestial and Son of Heaven) evolved and were commonly used without any racist connotation (and were originally an adaptation of the Chinese pidgin form chinee-man, so therefore weren't "invented to discriminate against Chinese people with" - which is quote from either Victor Yukmun Wong or Jenny Kwan, who led the charge against chinaman years ago in a big local controversy about what was by then an archaic word, but got revived because of the controversy); simply a statement of different culture; in Chinook and other native languages, as explained elsewhere, it is also the adjectival form and not just a noun chinaman muckamuck (Chinese food), chinaman laswey (Chinese silk). Of course, most native languages use words for non-natives that are intrinsically derisive; the language in the town I'm originally from (http://www.cayoosh.net - see http://www.cayoosh.net/chinaman.html, which I wrote) uses sama7 (7=glottal stop), which is so vulgar/ugly that none of my native friends are willing to translate it; yet it's their only word for us, other than the Chinookisms whiteman (as in cultus whiteman - damned whitey) and boston (in the Fraser Canyon in the old days most/many whites were from the US; boston man is standard Chinook Jargon for an American, or w/wo the man suffix is used like chinaman as an adjective, e.g. boston tolla - American money.

The twisting of language to tub-thump and browbeat has gotten further play here is endless; the two sobriquets HongCouver and Vankong were invented by new-Chinese street youth here, and none of the rest of us even liked the damn terms because it reminded us how much our own society had been overwhelmed (ESL rates in Vancouver schools have resulted in poorer grades for non-ESL students because of the diverted resources). But despite the known origins of these terms, and the fact that they're not really used, the politicos like to maintain that they're in common usage by whites, which they're not and, frankly, we wish we'd never heard them. It's not us who use them; it's the politicos who complain that we do who are the ones that keep the terms alive. As also with chinaman, which in my youth was simply "quaint"; something you'd hear an old-timer or a native use, but no one else; if we wanted to be racist, there are of course other much worse words available....Skookum1 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'll admit maybe it is revanchism on my part, but that's a response to racist treatment. When I was in university, I tried to get a summer job as a bellhop at the Bayshore Inn, a classy five-star on Vancouver's Coal Harbour famous for Howard Hughes hanging his hat on the penthouse floors for a couple of years, plus the original Trader Vic's; I went in an asked for an application from the bell captain; he and the other guys laughed and laughed and told me "we only hire orientals for this job". I had a job with the ad agency that managed the HongKong Bank's account, even learning to read Chinese numbers and titles so as to do the buy-checking, but the Bank insisted that they get a Chinese person in my position and that my willingness to learn Mandarin wasn't good enough. All over Vancouver, and in Vancouver's job listings, you'll see "Chinese an asset", which is a way of saying "no non-Chinese need apply". You go to dim sum, if you're not with a Chinese person, they'll seat you in a side area, and more. So when I hear comments like, as you often do in the sophomoric press and places like the net, that "white people don't know what it's like to experience racism", all I can do is snort/choke and try and laugh. But it's not a laughing matter, not when people use their culture/race as an excuse to ignore the norms and expectations of the other culture(s) around them, as they do here.Skookum1 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Backgrounder on what I mean about the politicized revisions of BC history now too-commonplace in our media and curriculum; the comments forum following the article at http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/06/20/EmilysMonkey/ (look for same username, Skookum1)Skookum1 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Search for the phrase "Interestingly, the Chinese and other non-whites" to find the beginnings of the posts in question, though what comes before is variously interesting in terms of local historiography and culture, which you're probably not interested in and don't need to wade through to find the bits I'm talking about; there is some farther back up the page that this section refers to; search "Anti-Oriental Riots" on the page and you'll find the bit that the later section is explaining.Skookum1 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you've experienced racism. There is definitely never an excuse for it. I'm not familiar with the finer points of racial tension in Vancouver, and I really don't want to have a long point-by-point discussion about it here on my Talk page.

But regardless, I must point out that I still see a hint of bias in your attitude. For example, thoughts like your "own society had been overwhelmed" or "condos marketted only to the Chinese" smacks of the perpetual foreigner stereotype attributed to the Chinese. If you truly consider these so-called "New Chinese" to be one of your own to begin with, as the Canadian government seems so proud of the country's acceptance of immigrants, you wouldn't characterise it as "overwhelmed", but regard it as a problem in your own community that needs attention. And if condo apartments were to be only advertised in English publications or publications with a white majority readership, does that not also mean that they were advertised to exclude the Chinese? If your attitude is common, you really have to wonder if the exclusiveness in the Chinese community (whether justified or not) was basically prompted by the white majority's attempt to discriminate and exclude them in the first place.

No matter though. What it comes down to is this - if you really want my support in editing the gweilo article, then philosophically, you have to compromise on the Chinaman article. You can't have it both ways. Either both are offensive, or neither of them are. Hong Qi Gong 22:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect at Ethnic groups in China article (re: Nationalities of China)

Editor Nat Krause seems to have just redirected back, without discussion. Badagnani 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. See my comment in the talk page. Hong Qi Gong 22:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

HongQIGong (re: Talk:Ehren Watada)

Your right. My apologies for editing that article incorrectly. I will become a member to edit better. Also I apologize for what you might consider to be anger towards the article. As a soldier I have a particular interest and didnt consider the fact that Wikipedia is a nuetral portal to knowledge. Again please accept my apologies and perhaps in the future we can share knowledge instead of me changing it.

                                   Best regards Sgt F

No problem. I know it's a topic on which a lot of people have strong opinions, but Wikipedia is simply not the place for free expression of your own opinions. Hong Qi Gong 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Supaidā-Man

That deserves it's own article. It's mentioned on the Spider-Man page, but going into detail about it on Spider-Man would not really be worthwhile.Bethereds 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack (re: Skookum1's personal attack against me)

Other than the "may" conditional qualifier, stating that about someone is NOT a personal attack, but a comment on the irksomeness of your hypocritical judgements of MY posts and also to my responses to your veiled attacks on ME; you claim that you're not calling me a racist, but you're imputing it all the time; just as here you're attacking me while claiming I was attacking you. What I was saying is that your circular defenses are annoying, and they're a pain in MY ass; I said nothing about your ass.Skookum1 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC) PS in case you go "no profanities" to my use of "ass", ass is not a profanity. It may have been before the 1960s, and in places of the world still locked in puritanical mentalities, but it is not a profanity, just as my comment was not a personal attack; merely a comment on the mild irritant that your attacks on me have become.Skookum1 17:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. First, you claim that "bullsh*t" is not profanity, now you claim that saying I "may be an ass" is not a personal attack? The reason I warned you (second time now) is because, like other editors have also pointed out, you need to calm down and be more civil in your comments. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I can't help it if you operate in a puritanical linguistic mentality dating from before the 1960s; suggesting in fact that while English may be one of your native languages, you don't get the difference between sharp language and personal attack, or between mild invective and actual profanity (profanity? sheesh. "shit" stopped being vulgar about 30 years ago, fer chrissake (to use another, which also is no longer profane; not in my dialect anyway); and it's you who attacked me, not the other way around. The only other editor who's attacked me is TravB, and that had to do with me correcting a falsehood on a US history page (and we know how sensitive they are); the one editor who advised me to "calm" was not doing so in a put-down way, and included a smiley. What you should do is realize the falsity of the positions you've been defending, rather than inciting me to respond to your attacks; I'm going to largely disengage from you because you're a waste of time, and you talk in circular twaddle, making attacks while alleging them. Seems to me you're trying to rally support to have me blocked because of my criticisms of sinocentric history pages; yawn, yawn, and more yawn.Skookum1 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Youi remind me of the sino-propagandists on UseNet, from both KMT and CCP factions, who kept on threatening to have ISPs block posters; many of them themselves got blocked because of their abusiveness and endless accusations and posturings. You're not Joseph Askew, are you?Skookum1 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you're using Wikipedia as a soapbox. It's not a blog, and it's not a forum. Your behaviour is abrasive and definitely not civil, and that's self-evident themselves. There are perfectly acceptable ways to point out that certain wikipages are POV, if that is your take on them. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who wants there to be an article on Chinese delivery boys in NYC getting beaten up, as though this were encyclopedia material; so how about we write up something on Chinese thugs introducing the tender art of home invasion on elderly white people in BC, because of the stereotype that old white people are passive and easy to violate? You're operating in a double standard, Hong, and it's nothing new to me as I've seen your kind of crud before in UseNet; you fulfill various stereotypes while claiming that you shouldn't be saddled with them. If it walks like a horse, and it talks like a horse, and it s**ts like a horse, you're trying to tell us it's a camel. LOL. I'm going to be smiling the rest of the day, laughing at your self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is a synonym for hypocrisy IMO.Skookum1 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between there being an article on a subject, and me wanting to create an article. You're absolutely right, Violent Crime Against Chinese Delivery Men is not encyclopedic material - yet. That's why there isn't an article on the subject, and that's why I haven't created the article. There're not enough notable sources to have an article about this.

And crimes committed by "Chinese thugs" do not justify crimes committed against Chinese people. Like I keep telling you, any random Chinese person cannot answer for what some other Chinese person did. It would be like me blaming you for some random white guy calling me a chink, or me telling you that you can't talk about racism against you because some random white guy called me a chink. That doesn't make sense at all. Your repetitive mention of BC and Vancouver is pointless to me. Wikipedia is not your blog. I didn't invade any elderly white people's homes, and the Chinese delivery men in question did not invade any elderly white people's homes either. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? You present a victim stereotype of the Chinese being seen (supposedly) as passive, I present a parallel stereotype and what I can assure you is a much bigger problem than your delivery boys in NYC: no doubt something that makes all the HK papers, but not something that matters in the bigger scale of things. I wasn't "justifying" one against the other, just pointing how much you have your own tub-thumping agenda; repetitive mentions of Vancouver and BC are pointful to me because of the different context in this city, which is very different from anywhere else in North America, even Toronto; and because there's so much fuzzy ethnocentric history written on articles addressing that city. And FYI I give Americans and Eastern Canadians just as much a hard time for their hackeneyed false histories as I do those put forward by Sino-Canadian politicos; it has nothing to do with "race", as you are once again implying; what it has to do with is differing cultures and worldviews in conflict, not with "race", which is seen around here as a standard dodge; just as with the item about ethnically biased condo advertising had to do with language rather than skin colour/race. But it's obvious at this point that you're just attacking me because I dared disagree with you and point up the fallacies in your own worldview. It's old hat, everything you're saying, and your attacks on me fall in the category of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".Skookum1 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "present a victim stereotype". All I did was put up a note on my userpage about possibly creating an article on Chinese delivery men being attacked. It's a topic I'm personally interested in. That's it. End of story. If you're interested in writing articles about Chinese raciam in BC, then go for it. I've never claimed that Chinese people can't be racist, and I've said over and over again that I don't condone racism of any kind. Yet you keep soapboxing to me. It's pointless. And how many times must I tell you that I've never even been to BC? That I can't be held responsible for the things some other Chinese people do? --- Hong Qi Gong 00:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I say you were responsible??? NO.....but you sure are good at trying to put words in other peoples' mouths, it seems. Bore-ing....Skookum1 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And since you've never been to BC, could it be that your opinions as to whether or not English-language advertising discriminated "racially" against Chinese, French and Latinos was totally irrelevant and very much a red herring re the context of the discriminatory Chinese-only marketing of everything from condos to shopping centres around here? The issue is culture and self-segregation and exclusionism, not racism; but to you, it sounds like racism because you're assuming things that just don't apply in this very peculiarly multiculturally-driven place...Skookum1 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you realise that I'm not responsible, then why do you say borderline racist things about Chinese people in general and Chinese society? Wikipedia is not your blog. Stop soapboxing. I've said in the beginning of our exchanges that I don't want to have a long-drawn out discussion about Vancouver. I've never even been there, none of the major edits I've made had anything to do with Vancouver, I don't know much about Vancouver, and I'm not even interested in Vancouver. You keep telling me about Vancouver, but it's completely pointless. How many times must I mention this? --- Hong Qi Gong 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying are borderline racist comments of mine are my response to the not-so-borderline racism of the many Chinese-Canadian history pages, which stereotype whites and paint a completely distorted picture of the circumstances and times involved, i.e. from a purely ethnically-biased standapoing. And if you're not interested in VAncovuer, why did you start to kibbitz with me in the first place? Oh- that c-word business; but this is the point; in the history of BC especially, but also throughout the Pacific Northwest, the word was NOT necessarily a bad word and to many people (including Chinese-Canadians of long-standing) it still isn't; it's only the recent arrivals/arrivistes and other Chinese who've made it such a big issue; as indicated by the Mark Twain quote cited by User:Human Fetishist. I'm just the messenger; I was raised to be liberal, tolerant and accepting; but that is anything but what the "New Chinese" are often like, with notable exceptions such as the Hon. David Lam, who cautioned the HKers against arrogance when they first arrived. Are you going to call him a racist too? This is my point; the issues on the pages addressed by me relate to my local culture; while Chinaman may be an ugly word in NYC and Toronto, it has a history of NOT being an ugly word in my part of the continent. So while you're not interested in VAncovuer, it serves as a case in point that rank generalizations about what white people believe and why they use certain words are inherently fallacious when dealing with the particular history and culture of this area. And as noted previously, I'm just as down on Americans who write history and culture pages that connect to Canada that are full of errors, misconceptions, and downright slanders; equally with Central Canadians. My own family has a history that includes linguistic and social discrimination by the "mainstream", and we're white; as my Chinese buddies at the coffee shop today realized when discussing some of this, it wasn't "just Chinese people who were discriminated against", which is the gist of the tub-thump that you and others seem to cherish so deeply. And you're full of equivocations and generalizations, and obviously have some pretty callous attitudes towards people who disagree with you; and do that stupid game of attacking someone and when they respond, you attack them for attacking you. A bit worse than passive-aggressive, and also highly disingenuous; or just ignorant. There - is that a personal attack? No - because you've said straight out you don't care about Vancouver or BC, but that doesn't mean you have a right to dismiss the history and culture of the place out-of-hand when it relates to articles under discussion, as with Chinaman or even more particularly with History of Chinese immigration to Canada. If you don't really care about Vancouver/BC/Canada why were you monitoring the latter page? The white bogeyman is in your mind, HongQiGong (I can't bring myself to call you "hong" because that's a rankly racist expression here, unlike chinaman). Go back to your goldfish.Skookum1 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Skook: Let me tell you how racist you all are, the other day in Vancouver...

Hong: I don't care about Chinese in Vancouver, nor do I have any control over what another Chinese does.

Skook: Let me tell you how racist you all are, the other day in Vancouver...Bethereds 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do "you guys" have to put words into other people's mouths in order to justify your claims they are racist. I mean you Bethereds; you're even worse than HongQiGong. The discussions which HongQiGong jumped in on had to do with Vancouver, and the rewriting of BC/Vancouver history by people so new to the province that many of them don't even bother (or condescend) to learn English; but then proceed to make gross generalizations; or, when that fails, to make up things they allegedly said or did - which they did'nt. All to have something to wrap themselves in the cloth of righteousness, even though fabricating history is one of the more venal things you can do. Oh well, "he who listens to the counsel of fools is himself a fool" (a quote from one of my DNA-defined cultures), so Hong it looks like you've found a colleague. And me, I've found something else (and someone else) to laugh at for the rest of the daySkookum1 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't say you were racist.Bethereds 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Skookum1, these are some things I've said many times already. You need to pay attention.

1. I've never denied that Chinese people can be racist. I don't condone racism in any form.
2. I can't be held responsible for what other Chinese people do.
3. I've never been to Vancouver, I don't know much about it, and I'm not that interested in it.
4. Wikipedia is not your blog or a forum for you to soapbox.
5. If you find think other editors are soapboxing or certain articles are POV, there are acceptable ways to point this out instead of the abrasive and incivil manner that you are employing.

--- Hong Qi Gong 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. A couple of observations:

• Both of you are better contributors in Article space than you are in User Talk space.
• Accusations of profanity are always POV. For what it's worth, I hear "bullshit" on daytime TV and radio regularly, so it passes under my profanity threshold. This is a regional, cultural, and individual thing though. I place "bullshit" in the same category as "bollocks", "ass", and "crap". In a world forum like this, you'll never be able to agree on what is or is not profanity except in extreme cases. This isn't one.
• HongQiGong, speaking of "ass"... I cannot see where you were called an ass. What I can see is that Skookum1 said you "may be a pain in the ass". Is this what you're talking about? This is very different.

I hope you guys work something out here and keep making good contributions in Article space. Cheers! --Ds13 16:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, "may be a pain in the ass" is the personal attack. But overall, I just want him to stop using my Talk page as a soapbox and stop his incivility. Just read the comments he's left in this section alone. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I see breath-wasting more than incivility here. You both want the last word on this Talk page, so you're each fuelling the other. But to each their own — do whatever you want to work it out. I still look forward to future Article space contributions from both of you. Cheers. --Ds13 18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I just want him to stop soapboxing and being incivil on my Talk page. Much of the stuff he writes, as I've said already, is pointless to me. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been the one making the personal attacks (re: Skookum1's personal attack against me)

You intruded on BC/Vancouver-related history/culture discussions, and attacked my positions by impugning all kinds of things, indirectly said or not. But all too directly said. And stop referring to yourelf in the third person; it is very immature. I'm done with you; go away.Skookum1 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What "BC/Vancouver-related history/culture discussions"??? Chinaman? That's a word that's been used all over North America and the UK. And I can't "intrude" on any articles. All articles on Wikipedia are open to edits from all editors unless they are protected. And what exactly do you consider a personal attack? Me telling you to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox? And how have I attacked your positions? Because I point out your bias toward Chinese people? Let me remind you of these gems:

• I look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet..... [1]
• "Celestial" is in reference to "subject of the Son of Heaven" and is somewhat akin on context to "British subject", and was meant in a complimentary, even respectful fashion; but Chinese insecurities demand that it be pronounced "racist". Fix your own language's many racist and sexual biases before demanding other cultures kowtow to your need to rewrite history to suit yourselves. [2]
• it was a racist response to racist times; natural enough, but don't pretend it's not based in racism and the attached insecurity; the clue here is that word "humiliation", apparently one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego. [3]

And I'm sorry, but I can't "go away". You see, this is my Talk page you're writing in. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But it has a different history in my part of the continent; you're pretending that its meaning/history in the UK and elsewhere in North America is the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

Well, sweetie, wouldn't it help if you'd stay off mine. Unwatching you now, but anyone reading this be advised that everything exampled above is a further example of the humiliation times white bogeyman paranoia that typifies HQG's mentality; and his pretension that because Chinaman is used "all over North America and the UK" means that it has the same history and context throughout that turf; yet if he bothered to learn any history but the prejudiced views of his own culture, he'd have picked up on User:Heqs example and my various comments that in the Pacific Northwest and California, and especially in BC it has a more casual sense, especially historically. The pretense that it is "inherently racist" is all the more ethno-twaddle crap because it's pretty clear from the history of the word that it was an adaption of the Chinese-English pidgin as used and invented by the Chinese themselves. That it was "always racist" is complete and utter b.s. And HGQ, where the hell is the explanation of what white people were called before the Opium Wars, which is when gweilo was supposedly invented out of resentment towards outside domination? UNWATCHING NOW and stay off my own talk page with your ethno-political nonsense.Skookum1 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments just to insert yours in the middle. It's absurd that you should tell me to "go away" on my own Talk page after you've filled it with paragraphs and paragraphs of your soapboxing. Let me remind you once again:

1. I've never denied that Chinese people can be racist. I don't condone racism in any form.
2. I can't be held responsible for what other Chinese people do.
3. I've never been to Vancouver, I don't know much about it, and I'm not that interested in it.
4. Wikipedia is not your blog or a forum for you to soapbox.
5. If you find think other editors are soapboxing or certain articles are POV, there are acceptable ways to point this out instead of the abrasive and incivil manner that you are employing.

--- Hong Qi Gong 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And really - the "gweilo" issue again? I've already said, in my very first reply to you, that I think the term is racist. And I've already edited the article to better reflect that the term is racist. If you want to improve the article and add sources to say that the term was used before the Opium Wars, then go right ahead! I don't have a complete history of the term. Don't complain to me and expect me to offer a dissertation on the term. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For a little more context on the discussion, here's a good article about how racism is perceived[4]. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

New format, good job!

Thanks for fixing the Kaifeng Jews page with the huge gap between paragraphs. It looks a hell of a lot better! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

You're welcome. =) --- Hong Qi Gong 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideogram is so mean to me (re: Comments on Ideogram's Talk page)

He was supposed to be a mediator but was not neutral at all and kept on insulting me. He is bad. -Chiang Kai-shek 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahhah, OK. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:ChinLinSou.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChinLinSou.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate comments from talk pages (re: [5])

Ni hao! I left a note on the Eurasian talk page, but also wanted to give you the reference to the wiki policy directly. Please see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages#Prune for more information regarding removing inappropriate comments from talk pages.

If you ever need to cite "proof" of vandalism, you can always cite the history of a page, which is never deleted. Removing things from the current version just helps keep things clean, neat, polite, and appropriate. --JereKrischel 07:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Korean

I've started working on this in my userspace at User:CaliforniaAliBaba/Koryo saram. Not really sure what to call it yet, though, since the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, "Ethnic Koreans in the former Soviet Union" seems too unwieldy, and Koryo-saram isn't English (and someone might insist on moving it to "Goryeo-saram" even though no one spells it that way in order to be consistent with the romanisation). If you have any material, feel free to edit it in. I'm starting, of course, from the articles in this thread =). I'll probably move it into the main namespace once I fill out that skeleton outline. cab 14:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to find some sources later. If we can find an English name that's being used for the "Soviet Koreans", I think that would be the best. But I'm sure whatever name we come up with, if the article ever catches a lot of people's attention, it'll be moved around a few times before it settles down to a name that the majority can accept. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've actually meant some Soviet Koreans. They speak Russian and do not speak korean.--D-Boy 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Hi, there. Just wanted to draw your attention to the possibility of you breaking the 3RR policy on the Senkaku Islands page. If you make a fourth revert 24 hours from your first one you might get blocked.

I'm just letting you know, as I didn't make the last change. Thanks, John Smith's 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

I've reverted your change to Senkaku Islands. Normally I hate getting involved in edit conflicts but in this case I personally cannot see anything wrong with the current formulation and feel that the adding of Taiwan to the name would help users whore are more used to seeing the ROC referred to as "Taiwan" than as "The Republic of China". Rather than continuing the revert war, I'd appreciate it if you could outline your objections on the article's talk page; I accept that it's possible that there is something I am missing and am open to hearing your side of the issue, I'd just rather not have the article constantly changing while the only discussion is in edit summaries. --Daduzi ^talk 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've commented in the Talk page. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Category renames

Hi. I see you've moved all of the articles in Category:Chinese-American actors to Category:Chinese American actors, and listed the older category for speedy deletion. If you'd like to rename a category in the future, please make a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion instead of making the change manually. Also, please note that speedy deletion only applies to categories that have been empty for more than four days. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. Thank you! - EurekaLott 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I was only doing doing what it says here: Help:Category#Moving a category page. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Current events in Hong Kong and Macao

Current events in Hong Kong and Macao: 1

Why you disagree with spliting the project into two instead? Don't you think it's not good to have any of the two inheriting the past of the project? The original project should be serving as the archive of both new projects. — Instantnood 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm? I don't think I disagreed with splitting the project into two. Yeah, it's a good idea. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you prefer renaming to creating two new pages? — Instantnood 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So you want a Current events in HK, a Current events in Macao, and a Current events in HK & Macao...? --- Hong Qi Gong 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No. If you want to split the project, neither current events in Hong Kong nor current events of Macao shall inherit the original project (say, why it's A not B, or why B not A, to be chosen). This is the reason why I oppose the move proposal. The original project should serve as archive to both new projects. If you've no objection I'd go ahead and demonstrate. — Instantnood 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. What exactly will you be doing? And please discuss that on the Talk page of the article first. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Current events in Hong Kong and Macao: 2

Why can't you agree with commencing in August? There was no discussion over the matter in June, and in July the discussion was in process. — Instantnood 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There were no Macao news in the June archive, and there was already majority support for only "Hong Kong" in July. My cut-and-paste move in July was not correct procedure, but procedure aside, every other editor agreed that the article should be just "Hong Kong". I really just can't agree with having June and July be "Hong Kong and Macao". It just doesn't make any sense to me. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

On a seperate note - do you know of any good English-language online news for Macao? I've come across Chinese language and Portuguese language news sources online, but I don't think those would be appropriate for English Wikipedia. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it's good to implement the proposal right in the middle of a month. Another important reason was that the page was already archived according to the conventional way. Please don't insist on keeping cut-and-paste fork materials. Let's start the separate projects with effect from August.

As long as the news stories are translated accurately from Chinese and/or Portuguese, it's just fine. I myself haven't come across any English-language Macao press that has a presence on the internet. — Instantnood 21:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Current events in Hong Kong and Macao: 3

Please stop insisting on your cut-and-paste fork. From August 1, 2006 onwards they have already been two projects. Apparently there was no discussion at all over the split proposal in June 2006. Actual discussion with wide participation didn't take place until late July. There's little ground to do the split in June or July, not to mention doing so by cut-and-paste fork. — Instantnood 16:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You were the only person to oppose the split in July, and the June article does not contain any news from Macao. The splits are perfectly justifiable. --- Hong Qi Gong

Iff you manage to have gained the consensus to split the previous archives, or else please stop now. The split proposal has no retroactive effect to the previous archives, nor does it have the ground to endorse any action to implement the proposal made before the proposal was actually tabled and agreed upon by consensus. Further, it never can justify creation of cut-and-paste fork. — Instantnood 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your logic here would only apply to June. The fact still remains that you were the only one opposed to moving July to only "Hong Kong", even before it was archived. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When did the discussion start, and when was consensus achieved? Is it cut-and-paste fork or not? — Instantnood 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From the beginning of July, you were the only one to oppose the move. And the cut-and-paste rationale only justifies re-doing the moving or archiving properly, it doesn't justify moving the July archive from "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong and Macao". --- Hong Qi Gong 17:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I never oppose the move, although I've shown some reservations. I oppose only cut-and-paste fork. You claimed the discussion was started in June [6]. Please tell everyone i) when the discussion was actually started, ii) when the consensus was reached, and iii) the reason why the proposal should have retroactive effect. — Instantnood 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restated already that the move was agreed upon in July or early July. Anyway, we can continue the discussion at the Talk page of the current events article. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure there was discussion on the split proposal, and there was consensus on the split proposal in early July? — Instantnood 18:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Check Talk:Current_events_in_Hong_Kong_and_Macao. Both User:Pkchan and User:Ideogram agreed with my edits, which included the rename. That would be 3 editors that supported the rename, and no editors who opposed, with you opposing only the fact that it was a copy-and-paste move, and not opposing explicitly the end-result of having the article renamed. And I want to point out that I never considered it a fork, because there was no news on Macao. To me, the rename was to give the article a more accurate name. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In [7] this section of discussion, what user:Pkchan said was just words of encouragement, without touching the details of your edits. Neither you nor user:Ideogram talked in that section of discussion about spliting the project, or to exclude Macao from the project. It was not until July 8 that you first suggested in the AfD discussion to split it into two [8]. User:Huaiwei was the first person (July 13) to have stated explicitly to endorse the page move [9]. User:Pkchan may, arguably, be supporting the page move (July 9), yet he also suggested to keep two parallel and identical pages [10]. — Instantnood 19:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, why don't we continue the discussion in the Talk page for the current events article. I've also notified those editors who had participated in previous discussions on the renaming. I'm sure the editors in question here can clear up their opinions themselves. And regardless of past edits, I'm trying to reach concensus now on what to name those archives. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stop responding to him here. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR (re: Template:User Han Chinese)

Woha, You have so violated 3RR, i will remain neutral for now and just warn you. But i advsie that you both make no more reverts for now.

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. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Talk:Current events in Hong Kong

Hi Hong Qi Gong! There appears to be a fair but real dispute on this article. I have opened an article RFC on the above talkpage (There were two talkpages to choose from, I selected which one by tossing a coin). Please comment if there are things you wish to add. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Template:Demographics of South Africa for speedy deletion with the reason "Appears to be an incomplete template not used by any articles". However, "Appears to be an incomplete template not used by any articles" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:TFD if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lights Out HK.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lights Out HK.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. 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

HK news (re: Current events in Hong Kong)

Hello, it’s really good news that the HK news section is being maintained again, I think everyone appreciates your effort. But I am not sure if it’s the best way to do the thing to take a direct quote from the Standard everyday. For one thing, that kind of journalistic style is not necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. Perhaps you can try to rephrase the quotes from time to time. By the way, we should not use words like “today” or “yesterday” in an encyclopedia article, even in a news section. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a journalists. I basically read the news and post up what I thought would be important news. And I post a direct quote from the news articles so that there would be no arguments or disagreements between editors on how best to word the news items. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

O, just one more minor thing: use the present tense, as the news on the Main Page do. Forgive my fussiness.Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer putting in a direct quote from the news articles, so if the quote is in the present tense, my additions will be in the present tense. Of course, you are free to edit them if you like, just make sure your edits reflect correct information. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Government of Hong Kong

It was in fact part of the proposal to move Government of Hong Kong to Hong Kong Government, as per the common and conventional short name of the executive branch, and to create government of Hong Kong as a topical article covering all aspects of government (now resided at government of Hong Kong/temp). — Instantnood 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. So add on to or edit the current Government of Hong Kong article, either now, or when the content is ready. It's highly unconventional to be linking to temporary articles in subspace, especially when it's still a work in progress. I have no problem at all with the proposal. I would even help if my help would be useful. I just object to linking to articles in subspaces. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR (re: Nanking Massacre)

In that case you are also warned, given that you have reverted three times. John Smith's 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that you reverted 4 times though. I did not report you because you self-reverted your fourth revert. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point of a self-revert. If you had reported, you wouldn't have got anywhere. John Smith's 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Nanking Massacre

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. John Smith's 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Category changes: Panyunese people etc. (re: [11])

It's a pity we didn't have time to debate properly the issue you raised on the CFD page about ancestral homes. Maybe if you've got there sooner ... Starting from where we are now, I'd suggest going with that idea from David Kernow about creating a set of category names that make their use unambiguous, maybe as "Ancestral home in zzz". I see there's already an article Ancestral home that could be linked up to make things clearer. Then if anyone challenges the validity of those categories we'd certainly see a debate that's better focused. --Mereda 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we can always create new categories. I'm going to discuss this in the Ancestral home article's talk page. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Zhenghe(Hui ethnic )is overseas Chinese

Zhenghe is a famous overseas Chinese and he is not Han Chinese. Overseas Chinese doesn't only refer to overseas Han Chinese. Edipedia 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Zheng He was not an Overseas Chinese. He was an explorer and an admiral. But he did not settle down to live outside of China. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"华侨" refers to those overseas Chinese who permanently live outside China. Every Chinese people can be referred as "华人", whether they live within or outside China. Edipedia 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And 華僑 == Overseas Chinese. Thus, Zheng He was not Overseas Chinese, because he did not live permanently outside of China. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You can see the terminology section of overseas Chinese.Edipedia 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware. The section would indicate that Zheng He was not Overseas Chinese, since he is neither 華僑 or 華裔. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another more commonly used phrase "海外華人" for overseas Chinese. In that sense Zheng He is an overseas Chinese. Edipedia 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic sources all use terms like 華人，華僑，and 華裔 to equate to Overseas Chinese. Overseas Chinese refer to people who have settled down outside of China, and their communities. Face it, Zheng He was not Overseas Chinese. He may have been an explorer, but he didn't permanently relocate. He returned to China. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese people temporarily living outside China qualify most as overseas Chinese (海外華人). Nobody considers Lucy Liu, Michelle Kwan overseas Chinese. At least, people consider them American citizens first. So citizenship matters more. Technically speaking, Zheng He(鄭和) is overseas Chinese and his example is used in the History section of overseas Chinese. Overseas Chinese are not just Han Chinese. Edipedia 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, people do consider Lucy Liu and Michelle Kwan to be Overseas Chinese. Overseas Chinese are Chinese people who have settled or were born outside of Greater China. Please read some studies on Overseas Chinese. Your edits amount to a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Overseas Chinese

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. Edipedia 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful when re-nominating articles for deletion (re: [12])

When you are doing an AfD on an article that had previously been nominated for deletion, you need to create a new AfD page, rather than blanking the old one. Please be careful. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:People of Hong Kong descent

It is completely unacceptable to depopulate a category and immediately put it up for speedy deletion. If you disagree with the category and do not get the outcome you want at WP:CFD, please continue to discuss the matter. You might want to review dispute resolution to see what options are available to you. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thanks (re: [13] and [14])

I have reported him for 3RR violation, but that doesn't seem enough, as he is resorting to pure vandalism, including repeated blanking and obvious illegitimate warnings now. He isn't even bothering to discuss - not saying that he did really discuss in the past as he didn't really pay attention to anything explained to him. Aran|heru|nar 15:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

He deserves a report, obviously. He put a false protection tag on article Han Chinese, made 5 reverts in article Han Chinese in less than 24 hours (and countless reverts before that), and made 3 reverts in article Overseas Chinese in less than 24 hours, an article which he was previously blocked for. He repeatedly blanked his user talk page (about 10 times), put false warnings to yours and my talk pages, and has been incivil. That's a lot, not counting his two false unprotection requests, which was granted. Aran|heru|nar 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, he's finally blocked. Well, that means 48 hours of peace. Honestly I don't think he's going to change - he's been blocked 3 times before this one. Watch out when he comes back. Cheers, and nice name. I liked 西毒 more, actually. Hong is sentimental :). Aran|heru|nar 16:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now he uses a sockpuppet, User:Editor 1. What a creative name - he might get the Nobel Prize in Literature after all. I reported the sockpuppet, and requested an extend of the block on Edipedia for 7 reverts under 24 hours (counting the two reverts with his sockpuppet). Aran|heru|nar 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected User:Editor 1 is his sockpuppet. I don't know for certain, of course, but a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser would be able to tell. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious. He made the same edits in the two pages that he was edit warring in, and his edit summary has the same grammatical errors that he previously made. You can also see that he never bothered to discuss in any talk pages (except an irrelevant one on Han Chinese); he only made the same edits that Edipedia made, and told us to "discuss" while the account never made a discussion. Editor 1 also uploaded an image with false license - and you can see from Edipedia's logs that Edipedia uploaded about 10 images with false licenses, too, most of which are deleted. Aran|heru|nar 04:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese People

Please respond to my discussion in Chinese people article. Otherwise I'll think you accept my explanations. Editor 1 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really feel like it. I'm just waiting for you to get banned again for violating 3RR. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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[15]. But sockpuppetry aside, he has been removing the sockpuppet tag from the User:Yepre user page[16]. --- 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: [17])

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: [18])

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[19]. --- 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: [20])

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)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[21] 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 - [22] - 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 [23]. — 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: [24])

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: [25])

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: [26], [27], [28], [29]. 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.

• 1st Revert
• 2nd Revert
• 3rd Revert

Your reverts:

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd

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 [30]
• Tianshi School = 0 google books search results [31]
• Celestial Masters = 151 google books search results [32]
• Celestial Master = 227 google books search results [33]
• Way of the Celestial Master = 17 google books search results [34]
• Way of the Celestial Masters = 23 google books search results [35]

Google

• Tianshi Dao = 1930 results [36]
• Tianshi School = 3 results [37]
• Way of the Celestial Master = 322 results [38]
• Way of the Celestial Masters = 533 results [39]
• Celestial Masters = 13400 results [40]

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 [41]:

"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)

Ronald Ebens

This article needs more citations for the loaded statements it contains about a living person. I realize this is a controversial topic. I see that you've removed the citations required banner and I'm not going to play 3rr games with you. Please research and cite, or replace the banner. Anything left uncited will be removed in seven days. --Vees 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a short article that already has four sources. Why don't you put citation tags on the specific places where you want to see citations? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Asian Week and The Wayne Lawyer are acceptable sources, a press release on asianam.org is not. I'll accept that Asian Week covers most of the content of this article in one way or another, but little factual inconsistencies such as the fine ($3,870, not $3000 even) make me wary. I'll let it stand as is, but more thorough citation will prevent other editors from simply deleting statements. --Vees 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --Vees 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Skookum1

I'm not surprised. - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how quickly he makes me NOT CARE about what he is ranting about. I get so exhausted from flying from amusement to boredom whilst reading his comments that I don't even have time to be offended. I found this humorous enough, for I am still reserved about scrolling - Erik Bornmann talk history- The Lake Effect 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver

I noticed there was a little confusion about the use of the phrase 'historical chinese population' that you may have mistaken as 'historical chinese'. The word 'historical' is used as a modifier in this case to chinese population. The term is used quite frequently and is another way of saying 'original chinese settlers' before the 'Hong Kong influx of the 1980s'. If you were thinking its a slightly prejudice or racist terminology, its just a common term used in the subject of history. Hope this clarification helps. Mkdw^talk 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[42] made on December 31 2006 to Japan

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 24 hours.

Happy New Year

William M. Connolley 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)