User talk:Instantnood/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notifier

Let me know if you have replied my message at your discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me at this discussion page. Thanks.

notifier                         to edit →[edit]

Constrainer — 01:47, May 17, 2005

/Archive 1 (January to March 2005, 58kb)

Hello. Enjoy the discussion.


re:Your arbitration[edit]

AsylumInmate 09:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong surnames[edit]

I've noticed you've been making/changing links to Category:Hong Kong surnames. Is this even necessary? Doesn't Category:Chinese family names cover it adequately? Not to mention that Category:Hong Kong surnames doesn't even exist yet. If you don't want people to remove the links to the category, you should at least create it. Perhaps put it as a sub-category of Category:Chinese family names. --Umofomia 07:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I will have to agree with them this time. I was not that fond of the category in the first place, since it's not completely Hong Kong specific. --Umofomia 18:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what to say about the matter currently, but I'll post something once I've had time to think about it. --Umofomia 20:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao in PD-China[edit]

I wish I knew the answer to that. Sorry. I found out about copyright in the PRC and ROC by leaving a message (in English) in the village pump of the Chinese Wikipedia, so you might try that. Hope this helps. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Category:Foreign banks of Hong Kong[edit]

Yes, and I've voted to delete both. JuntungWu 15:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CfD[edit]

I had to revert your last update to CfD to remove the many duplicate sections. Perhaps something went wrong when you posted? -Kbdank71 16:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you said something[edit]

User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat (22:38, Apr 5, 2005)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Airport categories[edit]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully, this will get sorted and we will have a consistent system we can apply across the board. Cheers. Burgundavia 10:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Naming Conventions (Taiwan vs ROC)[edit]

Quote from the 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia:Naming conventions

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.
I think that says it pretty well. =] LG-犬夜叉 18:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, okay, but both the people as well as the government of Taiwan refer to themselves as Taiwan. You do not hear the term the Republic of China on the news by Western counties at all.

I understand that ROC it is the official name of the island state since KMT fled in 1949. However, my vote against that is simply because the majority of the world will recognize Taiwan much better than ROC, especially with the current situation across the Straight, Taiwan does not have formal diplomatic relations with most countries in the world.

Plus, a vote is a vote, you can't tell me NOT to vote for something. LG-犬夜叉 19:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • After my second reply I looked at the page more closely. I must point out that, if this must be enforced then why is there a poll with 'support' and 'oppose'??? LG-犬夜叉 19:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, UN does not have Taiwan as a memeber. If ROC was to be the name used on wikipedia, then Wikipedia is assuming that ROC is a legitimate country.
  • I must also make it clear that I am not an anti-Taiwanese-independence, nor am I pro-Taiwanese independence. I choose a neutral stance because both sides are at fault on this issue.
  • However since most of the world does not have relations with ROC politically, may I suggest that Taiwan is the better choice for most related article titles. LG-犬夜叉 19:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but that's a lot of stuff to read.
To be honest, I won't read it. I guess I voted on that thing a little bit too early. I don't have a problem with ROC or anything, it's just that I think Taiwan is much more commonly used than ROC. You have my permission to remove my vote from that page. LG-犬夜叉 19:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

CfD restruct[edit]

Hi there! You voted on #4, but that's rather pointless unless #3 passes, so you may want to consider voting on #3. Yours, Radiant_* 15:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy Policy on votes[edit]

Dear Instantnood, The articles involved in the vote initiated by You have been voted exactly one month ago. I belive that there should be a limit on initiating similiar kind of votes for the sake of everybody's time and energy. Thus, I have posted a Double Jeopardy on votes discussion to see if we can come up something to curtail this type of frivolous votes in the future. Please kindly spend some time and participate in that discussion if you have any suggestion and opinion on in this regard. Best regards. --Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

China airports CFD[edit]

Hi there! I may have been mistaken in xref'ing this to the entire China debate, I wasn't entirely sure but it felt safer to mention it anyway. Yours, Radiant_* 12:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

China - again[edit]

You have raised your case many, many times - and have failed to obtain a majority, let alone the required consensus, for your proposals. Please accept this. Continuing to re-raise the points in forum after forum is disruptive to Wikipedia. You are now proposing having another 25!!! votes. This shouldn't be a battle of attrition - and I'm sure we've all got more constructive things to do than argue this point on an ongoing basis.

I have listed your proposed new voting page for deletion. I would also ask you to remove it yoursel (you can mark it as a speedy delete), and to leave all these proposals alone for a while. Otherwise, it will end up with an ArbCom ban for you, jguk 13:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfAr[edit]

Just to let you know that, frustrated at your new escalation of his arguments by opening 25 more votes on the same issue, I am enjoining myself to SchmuckyTheCat's ArbCom request on your behaviour. Kind regards, jguk 13:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I took a look at the RFAr between you and the two other users. If this gets thrown out by the ArbCom I will take a look at this more closely and decide if I can be of any assistance, but until then, I will let the normal process happen. I realize that this might not be the answer you are looking for, but in cases where the ArbCom has been involved, I want things to be proper.

Again, if it gets thrown out, I'll have a look. Inter\Echo 01:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have people who are willing to assist you through the proceedings. If the case has been accepted, I would advise you to take up their offer. Inter\Echo 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category: Religion in China | Category:Religion in the People's Republic of China[edit]

The second exists. The first doesn't. Why are you changing the category in Protestantism in China DDerby 08:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your NPOV position and it is consistent DDerby 08:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

On behalf of User:jguk, I have filed a second arbcom case against you. Snowspinner 19:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

== AMAUTC)

China airports CFD[edit]

Hi there! I may have been mistaken in xref'ing this to the entire China debate, I wasn't entirely sure but it felt safer to mention it anyway. Yours, Radiant_* 12:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

China - again[edit]

You have raised your case many, many times - and have failed to obtain a majority, let alone the required consensus, for your proposals. Please accept this. Continuing to re-raise the points in forum after forum is disruptive to Wikipedia. You are now proposing having another 25!!! votes. This shouldn't be a battle of attrition - and I'm sure we've all got more constructive things to do than argue this point on an ongoing basis.

I have listed your proposed new voting page for deletion. I would also ask you to remove it yoursel (you can mark it as a speedy delete), and to leave all these proposals alone for a while. Otherwise, it will end up with an ArbCom ban for you, jguk 13:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfAr[edit]

Just to let you know that, frustrated at your new escalation of his arguments by opening 25 more votes on the same issue, I am enjoining myself to SchmuckyTheCat's ArbCom request on your behaviour. Kind regards, jguk 13:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

I took a look at the RFAr between you and the two other users. If this gets thrown out by the ArbCom I will take a look at this more closely and decide if I can be of any assistance, but until then, I will let the normal process happen. I realize that this might not be the answer you are looking for, but in cases where the ArbCom has been involved, I want things to be proper.

Again, if it gets thrown out, I'll have a look. Inter\Echo 01:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have people who are willing to assist you through the proceedings. If the case has been accepted, I would advise you to take up their offer. Inter\Echo 21:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category: Religion in China | Category:Religion in the People's Republic of China[edit]

The second exists. The first doesn't. Why are you changing the category in Protestantism in China DDerby 08:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your NPOV position and it is consistent DDerby 08:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

On behalf of User:jguk, I have filed a second arbcom case against you. Snowspinner 19:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance[edit]

I am inclined to accept; however, before I do, please leave at my talk page the following:

1) A brief (<500 words) synopsis of the dispute thus far, its nature, the primary players, and the efforts to solve it — you may assume passing familiarity with not only the nature of the dispute itself but also its historical background;

2) Your opinion on whether you want to oppose arbitration or accept it as a mechanism to conclude the situation;

and 3) A statement of your willingness to work with me, answer all queries completely and truthfully, maintain civility towards other users during the course of arbitration on all pages (this would seem like a given, but I've had some people...), and your guarantee that you will refrain from editing any pages in contention (talk pages are okay, insofar as the conversation is kept civil per the aforesaid). Wally 20:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In light of your reply, I would be happy to accept your case.
Please drop me your e-mail address so we might speak further in some privacy. I especially want to discuss my thoughts on the arbitration.
For clarification, you are, of course, the beginning and end of my involvement to the case. I am obligated to honesty and integrity first, your interests second, and any other consideration is not on the map. I serve at your pleasure, act at your whim, and am available for dismissal or recall as you like. In practice, the more leeway you can give me on any given issue the better, and as my past and present clients will attest I take significant store in appraising you of any action I take or propose to take. I, obviously, will not at any time withhold any information — pertinent or no, important or no — that relates to this case, and will alert you at any point a conflict-of-interest presents itself. I also will make no statements about the issue to anyone you do not specifically authorize, nor will I consider myself at liberty to discuss anything about the case to anyone but you. I figure that if I ask guarantees to you, the least I can do is offer some of my own.
I look forward to speaking soon. Yours, Wally 21:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to meddle, but I just noticed that you said over at User talk:Wally: "I will refrain to edit the pages in contention, given that all parties do not make further controversial edit that is in contradiction with the current set of naming conventions." Just want to assure you that the contentious pages are usually closely watched and edits that run counter to the naming conventions quickly reverted. I know, because I have several such pages on my watchlist and basically never need to revert anything – by the time I notice something, it's usually already been reverted. What I'm getting at is this: try to stay away from the contentious pages for now, including talk pages if at all possible, no matter what your opponents may do. Don't allow yourself to be drawn/baited/sucked into further debates. It may work against you, and as far as preserving the status quo is concerned, we've pretty much got that part covered. --MarkSweep 22:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work with him. Have him drop me a line, would you? Also, I have set up a comments page for your case specifically: direct further stuff to User_talk:Wally/Instantnood_advocacy. Wally 22:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

You should write a short, simple, straightforward statement of your position, keeping very calm. If you want to show it to me before placing it on the page, I'd be hapy to advise you on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ogh, I've just seen that you have an excellent person to assist you. If you want my help, I'll be happy to give it, but I think that you're in safe hands. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFAr[edit]

If you would like me to serve as your advocate I would be happy to, let me know and I'll take a look at the case and get back to you so we can discuss further. --Wgfinley 21:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW, just saw that you asked for Wally's help as well. Wally is also an exceptional advocate and my caveats would be the same as his (other than the explanation, I'll gather some info myself and then we can chat online) but particularly the last requirement he has is VERY important for me being able to best serve you as an advocate, we have to be on the same page. --Wgfinley 22:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the dispute, it appears the case that Jguk brought is going to go forward. I would be happy to serve as your advocate on this and I will coordinate efforts with Wally. Would like to hook up with you online sometime to discuss. You can usually find me in the Wikipedia IRC room, you can also reach me as progboatguy72 on AIM. If you use another messenger let me know, I pretty much use them all but have been trying to consolidate to AIM lately. --Wgfinley 23:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just completed a proposed response to the Arb case.[1] check out the link to review it and let me know if you agree and I will get it put up. --Wgfinley 00:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Several pieces of advice. First of all, stay calm. You've been quite good at that, your opponents have not. Second, it may be good to voluntarily limit your activities on these polls while the case is pending (you may not have a choice if the ArbCom issues a preliminary injunction). Third, the way I've seen these cases happening in the past is that the ArbCom first decides on findings of fact and findings of law before considering remedies. Your case is tied to the naming conventions, and even though the ArbCom was specifically asked not to rule on the conventions, it would IMHO still be appropriate for them to consider including certain aspects of those conventions into their findings of fact. For example, it would appear to me that many of the moves you proposed are in fact in accordance with (perhaps even required by) the naming conventions. If the ArbCom were to issue a finding of fact that (all/the majority of/a significant portion of) the moves you requested did in fact follow from the naming conventions, this would IMO strengthen your case. I think a carefully worded request regarding the facts that need to be established (limit it to no more than a handful) would be quite helpful. Let me know if I can help out in any way, though I don't have any specific experience handling ArbCom cases. --MarkSweep 21:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to stay informed about the ArbCom proceedings, but feel free to alert me if anything important is about to happen. --MarkSweep 22:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re:I need your help[edit]

I see you've already secured an advocate, so you should be in good hands. I've left my opinion on his advocacy page. --Umofomia 22:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You need my help[edit]

Hi Instantnood, I would suggest securing your own AMA advocate (I hate the AMA), which you appear to have already done. If you need any support in voting or anything, please e-mail me ( something@something.com ) because I don't frequently check my talkpage. Also, after you read this message, please write my e-mail address down on a piece of paper or something and remove it from this page so it's not available to spam robots. --Node 23:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

arbitration[edit]

Hey Instantnood,

I don't think I've been following the issues closely enough to say all that much. I am terribly unsympathetic to jguk on this issue, since it seems to me like he's seeking to make his own ignorance into wikipedia policy. Furthermore, I remain somewhat confused about what exactly has been done that warrants Arbcom intervention. That said, I don't feel like I've followed it closely enough to make an intelligent comment on the arbitration page. For instance, Snowspinner refers to wanting to stop "edit wars." On the pages I've seen, I've not noticed anyone involved in an edit war, but I'm not sure I'm fully aware enough of what has been going on to say for sure. It seems to me that what should really be done is some hard work to figure out what the naming convention for these issues should be. And that this should be done in a way where it is explicitly made clear how different things should be referred to. I think that they way you've been going forward with this - with the multiple votes, and all, has not proved terribly successful. Votes, in general, rarely work out too well. Whenever I start a vote I just become more and more infuriated as it goes along...anyway, I hope things work out okay - I don't think you've done anything to warrant sanctions, certainly. john k 23:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re : I need your help[edit]

Hi Instantnood,

Sorry to hear that you're going for arbitration, but I believe things shouldn't turn out as bad as it really seems. You should be in a relatively stable position with two advocates at your assistance, so for now I'll just watch the case closely. In the meantime, just stay calm, don't worry! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arb Filing Response[edit]

Instantnood -- Wally and I got together with some other users and have completed the response to Jguk's filing. Please take a look at it and let us know of any changes you would like to make, nothing's sent in stone on it. Hope you are pleased with the result. Best regards. --Wgfinley 05:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad you were pleased. Thanks for the reference to that page where you've been compiling information, you're the easiest client yet!! Will make sure we go through it when it comes time for the evidence phase. I think there are many arbitrators away right now so things are a bit snagged at the moment, might not be for a few days yet until it is accepted. --Wgfinley 06:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What names do you want?[edit]

The "case file" says:

Specifically, he advocates a name change where by the People's Republic of China would be referred to as "mainland China" whereas Taiwan would be called "ROC."

Does this mean that you want the article about the PRC to be placed at Mainland China? Or that in some or all articles about China, you see a need to refer to the non-ROC-controlled parts as Mainland China? Or the non-ROC, non-SAR parts as Mainland China?

Are you doing this, and if so, why is this important to you?

I thought the rule was to follow the consensus of general English usage. And in the West, at least, the term "mainland China" generally refers informally to either the PRC or to the PRC + the SAR's

Oh, ... maybe now I get it! The PRC has two meanings:

  1. it means the Communist government which claims all of China, and by extension it therefore means "China"
  2. it means the Communist government (as above), but it refers only to the territory which the PRC actually controls, such as the "mainland" or mainland + SAR's

Thank God I'm a computer programmer and know about Boolean logic.

Look, I just want to clear up the confusion. I'm not on anyone's side; and I'm not against anyone. I only want the articles to describe the Chinese situation as accurately as possible. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

Archiving[edit]

Hi Instantnood. The usual way of archiving is to create a red /archive-example link to a sub-page, click on that link to edit the new sub-page, and then cut content from the original page and paste it into the archive page. That has the advantage of preserving the history of the original page. I believe that moving the page to its archive location, like you did, will have unintended side effects: since links to diffs are treated like external links with a full URL, previously created links to diffs on the original page will break, because its history is now gone. I'm not sure if there are such links in connection with your RfC and RfAr's (it's hard to check, because they are external links), but if there are, they will no longer work, I think. Just to avoid giving off the wrong impression here ("suppressing evidence"), it may be best to ask an admin to restore your talk page and its history, and then create another archive by cut-and-paste. Cheers, --MarkSweep 21:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your ArbCom case[edit]

Just to let you know that I am closely following your case and I am considering involving myself further into your case. JuntungWu 14:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meeting[edit]

I don't know if you're familiar with or ever make use of IRC, but if possible I would like to set-up a real-time meeting there between yourself, myself and WG to discuss the case and plan out how we're going to handle it. Also, I would like your e-mail (I'm requesting WG's too) so that we might communicate in private. Mine's Paintball5320@aol.com (trite name, I know, and it's AOL too, but I'm a l4m0rz ;] ). For the IRC meeting, I'm in the United States Eastern Time Zone (and we're also in Daylight Savings') so at the moment I believe I'm UTC -4. We've a lot to discuss, and there's no time to lose! Wally 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Written Cantonese[edit]

I have just written a message on User Talk:Yuje and noticed your conversation with Yuje. You might be interested in the Talk:Cantonese (linguistics) page where the Yuje's WP:RM request to move "Written Cantonese" is being discussed. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Restructuring[edit]

Please revisit this and vote on #2C and #6 (variations on earlier proposals). Yours, Radiant_* 15:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

A few questions[edit]

My friend Instantnood, I have posted my last few questions in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC page. Please stop by and take on your reponsibility to address people's concern. I would be looking forward to your comment. Thank you.  :) --Mababa 05:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My friend Instantnood, Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I really apprecited it. However, I would like to remind you that your dispute and effort to initiate votes on Taiwan-related articles are the ones with the trait of repetitiveness. Your position on the currently voting regulation (which do not adhere to Wikipedia voting standard) in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC, contrary to your reply, is not clear to me.
I think you and your advocates probably have misunderstood the arbitration as the means to determine the outcome of your votes. However, to my understanding, arbitration process do not determine how the vote to be conducted and do not exonerate your responsibility loaded upon your shoulder either. I am not certain if your advocate's suggestion to ignore people's concern are wise and would actually help people understand your arguement or would actually produce adversary effect on the public impression on your neglecting move over this discussion.
The concerns over the fairness and justness of the voting rule applied by you are legitimate and genuine concerns, not contentious discussion at all, as you and your advocates worked hard to label them as such. I have already voiced my Wiki leave on that issue so that you would not mistake it as a contention you can opted to walking away. Please understand that your responsibility toward today's vote (which is very much still alive) is not linked to the arbitration between you and other Wikipedians. Please also demonstrate us your Wikiquette and your responsibility as a conscientious voting initiator. I am still looking forward to your answer on that page. :) --Mababa 02:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think your advocate has confused the arbitration case with the voting rule twist debate. Please take a look if you are interested. Reference Thanks.--Mababa 04:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Greetings Instantnood, glad to recieve your reply. However, I have to disagree with your point of view and point out flaws in your logic. I do agree that your position is always the same; contrary to your claim, your position is everything other than being open the passing rule. Let me break down the logic.
Update: I have added a new page for case-by-case poll at /Taiwan vs. ROC.  — Instantnood 12:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
1.I created the page, but I am not conducting the polls. The polls belong to Wikipedia.
You are conducting the poll in the name of Wikipedia. In your page, you claim that your voting rule is derived from the authority under Wikipedia; however, you twisted it from the rough consensus to the simple majority(>50%), either deliberately or accidentally. Starting from that day, it should be regarded as the poll conducted by you, not Wikipedia. You changed the Wikipedia's voting rule without discussion or consensus. Wikipedia should have nothing to do with that vote initiated by you. Participants were gulled by your misleading regulation on that day when you put your voting page on.
2.And as the polls have been started and votes were cast, any change to the passing rule has to be discussed and agreed by the participants, i.e. I cannot, and I'm not in a position, to change it unilaterally.
Again you confused the voting process on your proposal with voting process on your voting rule. When participants casted their vote, they casted their vote in good faith assuming you are acting in good faith. Innocent participants either endorse your proposal or oppose your proposal, but by no means their votes are endorsing your voting rule. You mislead innocent participants that their vote would be counted under Wikipedia regulation, where in fact you changed the rule to favor passing your proposals. Again, without consensus or discussion. Yes, innocent participants who holds good faith in the voting process were mislead by you. And, you have every reason, position and responsibility to rescue your reputation of acting in good faith to assure people would not feel cheated. Failing to correct them would seriously affect the validity/legitimacy of the vote you conducted. The legitimacy being mentioned here is due to potential bad faith, not the constant/repetitive debate behavior which has been brought for arbitration. Moreover, if your logic stands, then when you casted your first vote, you have already instate your own voting rule. You do not need any participant's vote to secure your own voting rule. Needless to mention that the innocent participants were unaware of the twist and only assume your good faith when you claimed the rule following Wikipedia's request for move.
3.The issue is now part of a pending arbitration case, and people involved should refrain from likely contentious discussions.
I do not see the logic here. If I remember correctly, the arbitration case were filed over whether your constant debate and voting is warranted. It does not touch the issue of your ungenuine voting rule. Arbitration case seemed to be unrelated.
Lastly, I wonder if your reluctance for assuming your responsibility to correct the voting rule would serve you best during the arbitration. I would assume that when an outsider reads through the page, he would think you conducted your vote in a very convenient way, a)passing rule are changed in a favorable direction but still portrayed as following Wikipedia rule, b)votes against me does not count c)if the proposal failed, arbitration process would help to pass them.
This aside, I think today's discussion is still quite productive. I have fully understand your position that you do not think you are responsible for that misleading twist and also that you have no intention to correct it even when people protested the difference and even when you self-portrayed as open. This really helps a lot. I think there is no more confusion. Let me wish you best luck in the arbitration and hope the best satisfying result from it. You have a good day.--Mababa 05:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

about hong kong dollar..[edit]

may we discuss the recent reverse of Hong Kong Dollar page? - 218.103.159.85 16:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese language(s)[edit]

It's probably wiser not to try to bring up more discussions of changing the name of articles related to China. Least not such a major one. Not when there's still an ArbCom case against you about very similar issues. I really don't think the matter is valid. There is nothing to confuse it with, the name change will only be symbolic and the most common term still remains the one we're using now. Peter Isotalo 22:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

The Arbitration request now entitled Instantnood, et al. has been accepted. Although you have advocates, you may still, if you wish, bring your own evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

I'm posting here, assuming that Wally and Wgfinley are watching your talk page. First of all, we should be all glad that this whole matter is one step closer to resolution. I think one of the first things you might want to do (if possible under the arbitration rules, which I'm not sufficiently familiar with) is to consolidate all your replies. Currently there is still your old reply to jguk there, pointing out that this is a content dispute. As several people (myself included) have said before, the ArbCom will probably not make any decisions about content. If that is the generally accepted view, it would be important to remove your own comments about content and focus primarily on policy enforcement. Also, it will be important to make sure that the debate stays away from specific controversial aspects of the article contents (e.g. what, if anything, is the meaning of "mainland China"?) and instead focusses on issues of procedure (how should the community determine the applicability of the naming conventions?) and enforcement (how should the community enforce the naming conventions, if the community deems them applicable?). IMHO the ArbCom need not resolve those issues directly. Rather it should make findings of fact (did anything happen that violated policies?) and of law (are the naming conventions part of specialized policy and enforceable as such?) within the scope of arbitration, which excludes matters of article content. --MarkSweep 20:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin and Vernacular Chinese[edit]

Well, in Mainland China, Standard Mandarin is defined to have the grammar of Vernacular Chinese. Vernacular Chinese in this case is defined as exemplary writing of modern writers not in the Classical style. -- ran (talk) 02:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well.. to be frank I'm not quite sure, though I suspect that Standard Mandarin is basically elevated Northern speech given official status, and Vernacular Chinese is elevated Northern speech put on paper. -- ran (talk) 19:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted though that written Vernacular Chinese has features resembling some patterns in Classical Chinese that are not found in spoken Standard Mandarin. The use of these features is called 書面語. --Umofomia 19:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you can definitively say one was derived from the other since they basically evolved together around the same time period (although written Vernacular Chinese did have a much earlier start). Vernacular Chinese didn't directly come from Classical Chinese though, since it's predominantly of Mandarin structure, but Classical elements were retained for more formal writing. --Umofomia 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyang[edit]

I'm assuming that you want the disambiguation page to be Nanyang (disambiguation). I've merged the material from Nanyang, and turned it into a redirect. The two edit histories shouldn't be merged, though, as the two pages continue to exist. (I didn't check, but Isuspect that it wouldn't be possible anyway, as it would require interleaving the dit histories.) I hope that that's OK. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there was any disagreement with the usage of Nanyang as the disambig page, and for Nanyang (disambiguation) to be removed, so why the latest changes?--Huaiwei 18:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Teresa Teng and category:Cantopop[edit]

I posted a comment with more sources that point out she's a Cantopop singer. --Umofomia 20:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lack of reply, I was away for the past week. I'll just take a look, although unlikely to add any new comment at this time. :) - Regards from, Mailer Diablo 18:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was away as well, so it looked like I just dropped out of the conversation. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I replied to Huaiwei's last comment. --Umofomia 00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Corner[edit]

Can you give a minute to proofread the article? thx SYSS Mouse 22:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new Hong Kong transport stubs[edit]

Hi Instantnood - I see that you have created two new stub categories. Given you've been involved with debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting in the past, you should know that new stub categories are normally cleared there before creation. That way they can be vetted to check that there are a viable number of stubs (at least 60-100) and that the category does not cross the existing stub hierarchy before the stub is created.

If you can provide any information on why the stub was created, please add a note to entry for the stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered stub categories giving the reason for it. In addition, if there is any Wikiproject associated with the stub add that information. Thanks.

In the case of these stubs, there are two things which probably wouldn't have passed muster at WP:WSS. First, the suggestion would have been that the two categories should have been combined into one, since the same editors would be likely to be involved in the expansion of both types of article - possibly named something like HK-trans-stub, to cover all ong Kong transportation stubs. Secondly, the names of the stubs don't fit in with WP:WSS policy (there is no hyphen between the words). Theis last point seems trivial, but for the sake of editors, having as much uniformity in stub names as possible is a huge advantage. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misattribution - I saw your name as creator of the categories, I think, and assumed wrongly. Sigh. No offence taken, I hope! Grutness...wha? 05:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong[edit]

Thanks for the info on Hong Kong, with reference. It appears you're right; I fixed my list.

Also, I knew about PD-Germany. It's too bad that I was misinformed about Germany's copyright. (To understand the subtleties of the difference between "photographs" and "photographic works", one really has to dig through German case law, not just the treaties, and my German is, unforfortunately, not up to the task.) I don't know what this means for images of Nazi Germany. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:04, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Name policy[edit]

It's not all about the hatin' brutha. Come state your piece. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames SchmuckyTheCat 06:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and since you're involved with other naming projects (HK Surnames) and I'm not... you should get them to respond to that policy as well. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints about HKALE[edit]

Hello. I'm writing to complain that user Carlsmith keeps making meaningless information in the article of HKALE (both Chinese and English version) as follows:

Since 2001 the format of the exam in each paper has undergone rapid changes each year in order to discourage rigorous practice on past exam papers, such as by offering open-ended questions instead of textbook-focused ones. Through such changes, the HKEAA also tried to prevent candidates from rote-memorizing course materials in cultural understanding. This, however, brought criticisms from many candidates on the examination as "pouring of saliva" with no objective grading standards to follow. + - + - The format of the reading comprehension part (Paper 1B) of the 2005 examination, without prior notice, was changed from speed reading of seven to eight articles to normal reading of three articles. This sparked discontent among some candidates, who, in protest, parodied on the phrase "stirring, brewing, squeezing" (攪切榨) which appeared on the paper from Middle Age is Afternoon Tea (中年是下午茶), an essay by Tong Chiao (董橋). The HKEAA, however, insisted that there were no flaws in the paper, for there has never been a prescribed format for the paper. An article with the phrase as its title appeared for a while on Chinese Wikipedia, and was swiftly removed by administrators after holding a Votes for Deletion on it. --Mcy jerry 05:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint regarding vandalism of HKALE + considering protect request[edit]

Within seven days, the section as described by Mcy_jerry was deleted by that user and an unknown user. Simply, Mcy_jerry described the section as "meaningless", "gramma[tically]... [un]satisfactory" and confusing.

I have modified the section above-mentioned and see if anyone objects it, and they should express their opinions on the article's talk page before further modification or deletion.

If any further modification is unsubstantiated by detailed reasoning (which should be regarded as vandalism), I shall be considering requesting protection of the page from the administrators.

--Carlsmith 05:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replied by Mcy_jerry, see correspondent user's talk page (extracted): I have my stance fully illustrated in the talk page. On the other hand, arguably, CarlSmith should give out appropriate explanation to his part of writing as well, otherwise that TOO could be a vandalism--vandalism could refer to inappropriate actions of subtracting and, at the same time, adding data. Mcy jerry 10:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Qinghai, Gansu, Heilongjiang[edit]

Oh, but I already did :D. The new locator maps for Qinghai, Gansu and Heilongjiang (and every other province) show the new borders. -- ran (talk) 15:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kwun Tong[edit]

Certainly. Ysw1987 14:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revision on Mainland China[edit]

Thanks for your review. I'm sorry that I could not agree with some your edits for purely syntactical reasons. I would think economics and politics encompass trade and statistics. It is also preferable to use English translations where possible in an English encyclopaedia: an English reader who's not familar with Chinese might be confused when he suddenly comes to a strange-looking diacritic'ed dàlù which is not properly explained, as the first mention of the term is in parenthesis which might be taken as ignorable.

Regarding to Zǔguó Dàlù, this google search[2] may suggest it's popularity among Chinese leadership. -- Alassius (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought "mainland" is "dalu"! It is the literal translation isn't it?
Statistics is a tool. People do not conduct statistical research for statistical purposes, they do that for economic or political purposes. Besides, good writing should be concise. Listing all possible contexts does little more that cluttering the text. What do you think? -- Alassius (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just read an article by a columnist Koo Tak-ming of the Apple Daily, Hong Kong, talking about the use of "mainland". In English-speaking countries, people use "mainland" to refer the large mass of land forming a continent barring its outlying islands, e.g. the mainland Europe.
But in fact, "mainland" can also refer to a country, as Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary (4th Edition) has clearly stated. Thus, "mainland China" is not a proper noun--similar situations as in "mainland America" and "mainland Italy". Furthermore, American Heritage Dictionary has already recorded the popular name "mainland Edition" in its newest edition.--Jerry Crimson Mann 08:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Chinese, the phrase is used as a proper noun with clear boundary (although contested in Wikipedia) which does not coincide with "the mainland of China" like "mainland America" does. It includes offshore islands as large as Belgium, while excluding Hong Kong and Macau which are on the mainland.
The question Instantnood raised is of a different nature, i.e. whether mainland China is a translation of dalu which has later been borrowed as a translation of neidi, or should dalu and neidi be treated as origins of same importance of the term mainland China. -- Alassius (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese wikipedians' notice board[edit]

Hiya, Instantnood.

So you have recommended the HK wikipedians' notice board to me a few days ago, and I'm now flaming keen to write several articles realted to HK. Pretty fun, eh? Yet, I wonder whether there would be a similar board for China's issues. If yes, please inform me.

Enjoy! =)--Jerry Crimson Mann 15:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Airport[edit]

World record holder for what? Isn't this category kind of large and POV? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 15:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know, that I have listed it on CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:World_record_holders--Huaiwei 05:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese names[edit]

I want to start a data field about Lee Pik Wah. But when I searched for some information of hers via search engines, I, by accident, found that her English name was Lilian actaully . Then, what should be the name of the mentioned entry: Lilian Lee or Lee Pik Wah?

Jerry Crimson Mann 08:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vitasoy[edit]

Finally I've got this article finished, a pretty long entry from nearly nothing! Please feel free to have a look of it, and make any improvement if possible. =-D Jerry Crimson Mann 21:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stub category[edit]

Hi Instantnood - I thought I'd try to preempt all the problems we had with China-geo-stub etc earlier by coming to you directly with this... there is now a new stub category: {{China-bio-stub}}. The hope is that this can be used for all of the one or two (whichever you prefer) China(s). Let's face it, a large proportion of the stubs in here are likely to be historical figures from before 1948 or during the period of schism between the mainland and Taiwan/ROC. Also, the editors who address these articles are likely to know at least something about people from both sides of the strait. The wording of the stub template has been left deliberately vagues ("this biography of a Chinese person..."). Can we try to make do with one template, at least for now? :) Grutness...wha? 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, hopefully the Taiwanese identity thing won't be too big a hurdle. I'll make a note at WP:WSS/C suggesting that the HK category isn't made a subcategory (whether people pay any notice is another matter, of course...) Grutness...wha? 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm ahead of you, at least on one count - I was leaving a note for Mababa on his talk page when your message arrived! I'll add a note on the Taiwanese notice board like you suggest. Grutness...wha? 13:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Oh, and while I was there I answered your question about "Japanese Formosa" stamps. :) Grutness...wha? 13:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: pictures[edit]

Well, I'm trying so hard to make both Wan Chai and Vitasoy WP:FACs, and I've just made an animated gif about Wan Chai's reclamation. Please feel free to have a look at them. With luck, further information will be added into the Wan Chai article.

PS For your concern, I've changed the pics of some Hong Kong-related stub templates -- and they're animated! ;P

PPS Just out of curiosity: how could you make minor edits, particularly in Hong Kong stuff, that quicky just after a short moment prior to previous corrections!!?? As Cecilia Cheung said: it's crazy amazing! -- that's my response to your speediness! --Jerry Crimson Mann 08:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for telling me of your "speedy secret"! =P Well, it's really much of drudgery to complete the Wan Chai page; some city pages of other countries like the New York City are really well-detailed, making me extremely envied. ;P So could you give me any suggestion on further imrpovement of the page? I want it really badly to be an WP:FAC some day!
Btw my next target would be concentrating on the handover of Hong Kong, as I have heaps of secondary resouces in hand. Would you tell me where to kick-start my idea?
Again, thanks a million dollars! You did save me from relentless confusion and despair! ;)
-- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS gonna delete the first frame of the animated gif about reclamation.
Are there shortcuts to change the filenames? How can I create a common gallery in Wikimedia? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a million dollars! —Jerry Crimson Mann 17:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SOS!~!!!!![edit]

Some guys just wanted to delete the pic Image:Hkicon.gif by removing from the stb template by himself, withou previous notification, and declared it a orphane!!!!!That's too offensive! --Jerry Crimson Mann 21:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion

Zscout370 did notify Jerry Crimson Mann (Mcy jerry), who attached it to the Hong Kong stub, before listing it in IfD (granted, apparently only one minute before listing it). This was the only place the image was in use, I believe. Given the apparent backlog on IfD, there is plenty of time to civilly discuss the deletion. HorsePunchKid→龜 22:29, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding me. I did say he made no notification--a previous notification. He made it AFTER he'd transferred the pic into ifd, and I'm not satified with that. The whole thing is just like a conspiracy: he removed it, made it orphaned, dumbed it into the deletion pages...
Backlog? I've seen a lot! But the entire negotiation will be kick-started in a horrific guillotine...and I can't just stand the spookiness. Why not sit down and have a nice chat over a cuppa? Btw, I'm feeling extremely exhauseted right now, so I won't invole in the dispute in the near future.-- Jerry Crimson Mann 22:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates for MTR and KCR[edit]

I haven't been expecting that the new style is so welcomed! Yes, it would definitely be wonderful. PZFUN came up with the new style, then I combined the livery and names for each station. May be we can have a standard template with the stations filled in as parameters, and that may save the hassle of editing the tables, since that was quite a tedious task!

You are doing a good job too, by adding the "Opened" column. I don't have those data at hand yet, so if you know them you can add them there first. -Carlsmith 06:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name issue for KCRC Rail lines[edit]

I would like to ask for your opinion on the names before going on editing.

Article names[edit]

Should it be West Rail (KCR) instead of West Rail (KCRC)? In the news, I heard KCR more often than KCRC when refering to the corporation's lines.

I back up the former one...KCR is a railway whereas KCRC is a corporation. I don't think people would ride on KCRC! =) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Should it be KCR West Rail or KCR West Rail?

-Carlsmith 06:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miriam Yeung[edit]

See this page. Is there any way we can do to get the meat out of all those biased statements?

-Carlsmith 06:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

Would you explain please why you inserted the word "station"? Its completley redundant. Causeway Bay Station is a station on the Hong Kong MTR. There's no need for it, and it is not used in any of the other MTR station articles. Thank you. Páll 07:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

Hello, sorry to bother you again, but you simply must discuss such large name changes as the ones you are making to the train lines. The MTR talk page is the suitable place for htis. I am reverting yoru changes until a consensus is reached. Thank you. Páll 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I've started a dicussion on the MTR formatting on the talk page of the link you sent me. Would appreciate your feedback, but for now let's avoid editing the MTR articles apart from non-controversial edits. Let's not move any articles until a consensus is reached. Páll 08:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

Hi there, now that we've come to an understanding about most everything else, I was wondering if you could explain why you keep inserting the notes? I think they're fairly unnecessary, as I think the station list is just to list the stations and the most basic information, and simply italicising the station name is enough to convey that the station is not in service, and if you'd like to know more about why it is proposed/under construction, you can go to its link. I also think it looks a bit .... awkward with all the symbols and links. Páll 23:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, didn't scare me. I just propose we get rid of them, and the symbols like *, ˆ, etc next to the station/train line links. I just think it looks unprofessional to use a secret code like that, especially on a simple list and table. Páll 23:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OF course, well, let's look at the pro's and con's of keeping them. Why do you think they should stay? Páll 23:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Cut and paste move[edit]

I know that's sloppy editing, but I'm to lazy too ask for a request to move ;). Phlebas 17:28, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

The thing that made me move it was rail transportation, while all articles on Rail transport by country use transport. Phlebas 17:35, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Huaiwei[edit]

Well, what I can do is merely to shrug my shoulder and, sympathetically, say: "hard luck"; after all, I've tried my best to cease the argument. I think time is need to cool the flame down...waiting would be a living agony, though. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR[edit]

For future reference, please note that the instructions at the top of the page say "Please add new listings at the ***BOTTOM*** of this page, just before the 'Report new violation" header'." When you reported User:Huaiwei, you stuck it at the top. The archiving process goes easier when stuff is in order. Thanks. Noel (talk) 04:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Noel (talk) 06:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HKD[edit]

I think we should rearrange this impoartant article of Hong Kong. I see the USD page would be a good example to follow; there're some points which are highly appreciated, particularly those shipshape tables -- spic-and-span. Some queries though: how can we upload pics of HK currency? Would that violate any rules or laws? What kind of tag, furthermore, should be applied to the images? I hope this project would gaonna be our next big success. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS Didn't see you here yesterday...mind telling me why? ;)

Which country does Hong Kong belong to?[edit]

Mr. Instanthood, as you are one of the major contributor of Hong Kong-related articles, I hope you can pay attention to my post "Which country does Hong Kong belong to?" in the Hong Kong Wikipedia discussion board. Thanks.

Hong Kong Man 14th June, 2005

- HongKongMan 00:10/00:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


  • Please see my response in the Hong Kong Wikipedian's Notice Board. I elaborated on why it is better to include the word "China". But besides that, I really don’t like the fact that every time I type in “Hong Kong, China” in an article that I wrote, the word “China” is deleted so quickly. I will keep on preserving the word “China”. But if the word “China” keeps being deleted, my friends and I will consider stop contributing Hong Kong-related articles in English Wikipedia. I may also consider deleting all the Hong Kong-related pictures that I uploaded.
- Hong Kong Man

Producing audio files[edit]

Do you have the slightest idea of how audio files are produced in the format of *.ogg, which is the only compatible format for Wikipedia? I've seen there're Japanese pronunciation demonstration in some Japan-related articles; very likely we can have Cantonese pronunciation demos implemented in the articles. ;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 20:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested, Wikipedia has some information on how to produce audio for Wikipedia articles. The free/open source sound editor Audacity works very well for both recording and saving files in Ogg format. If you want something simpler (perhaps), I know CDex can also convert wav files to Ogg. Hope that helps! —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:40, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin[edit]

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

HKD Cantonese terms[edit]

Can you make some follow-up refine for me please? :) - Jerry Crimson Mann 19:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referendum[edit]

I'd got too much ding-dong with Hong Kong Man. In fact I'd like to have nice talk with him at the very beginningm but he slammed me in an unfriendly manner after my first reply. This kiddo wants a referendum: what do you think? Well, it's ok by me; it's high time to cut the crap off, after all. But I don't think I would vote, and I would remain neutral in the whole scheme of thing. --Jerry Crimson Mann 20:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, didn't have the foggiest idea at the moment. Let's see how things go on, and, God forbid, off the track... :-/ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Milk tea[edit]

I suggest you remove the redirect link right now. Milk tea is a gerneral term, and every place would have its own kind of the drink, e.g. Taiwanese "pearl" milk tea. Moreover, some users like Hueiwei may not appreciate the deed. Before the next big dispute, it'd be better to revert the redirect page. --Jerry Crimson Mann 21:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WE MADE IT![edit]

How woud you like it? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, can you point out some errors...(acutally that's redrawn from a maop from EPD) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did receive your email, but find no attachment in it... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So do you want me to reply you as well?
PS Your email address is registered at a Canadian domain. So you're now in North America or what? :-O -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China etc.[edit]

Personally I think we should lay low for a while. People are frankly very tired of this. But if you ask me what I think things should be, I think any article that deals with Mainland China only should be named that way. -- ran (talk) 15:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Old Hong Kong picture[edit]

Well, I guess waiting for Páll to come back is the only way now. Anyway, I've left a message on his Talk Page. Riddle | Talk 13:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template of History of Hong Kong[edit]

That template would be useful to link up all articles related to the history of Hong Kong, e.g. Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong, Battle of Hong Kong, Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong, Colonial Hong Kong, etc.. I hope you can do it for me it you've got time. I've got a sore throat now, not feeling well at all -- needa get some shut-eyes right away. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Licensing of Images on the Commons[edit]

Hi - you have uploaded some of your images to the commons, and tagged them with {{Permission}}, indicating that the image may be used by wikipedia only. Note that this is a non-free license, and thus the images will be deleted from the commons. Please re-license your images under a free license - the current preference on the commons is dual-licensing with both, GFDL and CC-by-sa-2.0 - have a look at commons:Commons:Copyright tags for more options. Thanks -- G. Gearloose (?!) 22:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "Permission for use in Wikipedia" is not accepted on the Commons (or the german wikipedia). On the english Wikipedia, Template:Permission seems to indicate that it was accepted in the past, but is not any more - it states: If this image was uploaded after 19 May 2005, it will soon be deleted without further warning. That is, you have to relicense your images if you want wikipedia to be able to use them - or put them up for speedy deletion. Keep in mind that Wikimedia is all about free content. -- G. Gearloose (?!) aka commons:User:Duesentrieb 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point ist that images for use by wikipedia only are not acceptable. The only tag I can recommend is {{delete}}. If you want to contribute images to the wikipedia or the commons, you will have to allow others to use the images too. That's why Wikipedia is called the free encyclopedia - because it contains free content only. -- G. Gearloose (?!) 12:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{Attribution}} is accepted, here and con the commons, as a free license - however, using {{cc-by-2.5}} would probably be preferred - it's the same thing with all the legalese attached. Requireing attribution only is even "more free" than required...
Note that if you only require attribution, derivative work does not have to be free - that is, someone could use your work as part of a book or such, and does not have to make the result freely available. If you want to avoid that, you should use a license that requires "share-alike", like {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} or {{GFDL}}. Actually, on the commons it is recommended to use both of those, best as {{self2|cc-by-2.5|GFDL}}. -- G. Gearloose (?!) 01:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, images can not be undeleted. What are the problems you have with re-uploading them? -- 84.185.231.187 12:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for pointing me to the HK noticeboard. I'm new at this. If you have any other resources, please let me know!--GrandCru 04:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Is there a general "Asia" noticeboard? I have great respect for the area and have visited numerous countries. I have learned a lot and wish to contribute.--GrandCru 04:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

p.p.s. How do you put a vote on something nominated to be deleted? I tried to vote to delete "Round Faced Asian" and it didn't show up.--GrandCru 17:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Issues around mainland China and Republic of China[edit]

Thanks for the update. I still haven't been around much but just stopped by for a visit; I hope to get more time to be more active soon. :) Anyway, I do find it unfortunate that none of the issues that MarkSweep brought up were addressed. For now, I would still recommend treading lightly with regard to the issue. --Umofomia 23:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blank user pages[edit]

If the users choose to keep their user pages blank, please respect them and please don't create such pages with a dot. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • 唔屌到你唔好以為自己好撚型，屌那星! 含家呤 SchmuckyTheCat 18:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Literal translation of the comment above by SchmuckyTheCat: "Don't think you're damn smart if I don't fuck you. Fuck those Singhs. Go to hell your entire family." Welcome to comment on my translation if you speak Cantonese. See also the article on the word diu (屌). :-P — Instantnood 18:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Strange, I wonder why would he decide to kick himself? He's re-opening the arbitration case on you, and now he decides to make personal attacks that would probably go aganist him. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would keep an eye on the arbitration. Good luck, anyway. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Leave comment on Arbit page. BTW, who would anyone wrote an article on "diu". SYSS Mouse 21:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request to reopen the ArbCom case[edit]

I've requested this to be re-opened since you've taken it's closure as permission to continue the behavior that initiated it. [3] SchmuckyTheCat 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google map[edit]

I see you're trying to add some Google map links to some Macau-related pages. Seemingly, you find the map useful :) (So you know the website becuase I added one link on the page of Hong Kong? :-D) More's the pity the page only provides high-resolution map of few places like Hong Kong and Macau. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

It's just so nice to have meetup; I see loads of them among Wikipedians from other countries. BUT I don't think we could have one in Hong Kong, as I can't see how gung-ho our comrades are. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mainland China[edit]

Of course I'm familiar with the term: I've heard it my entire life, read much of the debate you point to, and recognize it for the propaganda it represents; so spare me the condescending lecture, please. I am not your ally and you're wasting your time trying to enlist me in your POV crusade. --Calton | Talk 11:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what part of ...you're wasting your time trying to enlist me... was unclear? I have no intention of entering into one of your tireless and tiresome debates. "Mainland China" is a POV term; "People's Republic of China", being the official, formal, legal, and widely recognized name, isn't.
Let me simplify: Go away. --Calton | Talk 11:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's also a Wikipedia tradition for tiresome POV pushers to try to bludgeon people into agreeing with them. And it's also my right to not participate in the process. In short, I don't want to "discuss" this with you.
If your reading glasses are broken, try this
Go away. --Calton | Talk 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am neither pushing a POV, nor trying to make you agree with anything. Bullshit. You were given a reason, and you chose to argue with it. But anything that gets you to go away (after having been asked three times) is fine by me. --Calton | Talk 13:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking up Cantonese romanization[edit]

Do you know of any online lookup tools that will produce Cantonese romanization in the different systems (Yale, Jyutping, et al) or IPA symbols for given Chinese characters? It'll be a lot easier than to have to learn to use (and tell apart) all the different systems. --Yuje 12:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to know as well. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Chicagoans[edit]

(use {{cfru}})

Thanks for the info and fix, I wish I would have known about that template to begin with, isnt the first time I added multiple cats. <>Who?¿? 16:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


It's sad that this template is now on TFD.
Cool... You've discovered that already. :-D
And I'm glad I did, would hate to lose it now, since its like the 3rd time I've done umbrella nominations without it. And I have to start using that little "reply" link you used, good idea. <>Who?¿? 17:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MTR disambiguation[edit]

Hi, The reason I removed MTR Corporation is that I thought given the disambiguation page, the reference to the company seemed redundant (which in case you have not noticed I've added into the first paragraph). Would you agree that the Corporation would be a much less popular hit than the metro system, in which there actually are information useful in daily life? Have a look at User_talk:Mailer_diablo. Thanks. -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

There perhaps are people reading MTR every quarter hour looking up stations and maps. How many, do you suggest, would be interested in how MTR Corporation operates the metro or who owns the superstores around tube stations? I don't believe the corporation deserves special treatment. A disambiguation page should suffice. -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)
I believe in more is less. For example I also think the MTR article has too many pictures, many of which repetitive. Then again it is only an aesthetic opinion, and you would of course have that of your own. -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Hong Kong FAC[edit]

Hello there, I have nominated Hong Kong to be a featured article. Check out its nomination page here. This is gonna be a tough ride (we already have one object vote!) and I really think Hong Kong is a fantastic article that deserves to be a featured article. Let's all work together to get it there. Páll 30 June 2005 08:22 (UTC)

It has not been. I had several friends go over it and extensively edit it. I tend to not list things there because I don't really like them, and I don't present articles thatI think are iffy, anyway. Páll 30 June 2005 08:36 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_2&oldid=1143063829"