User talk:Sumple

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave a message by pressing the "+" button above.

I will generally respond on your talk page, unless:

1. you ask me to respond elsewhere (e.g. article talk pages), or
2. you are an anon user, in which case I will respond here.

Some misunderstandings

I think things have gone out of hand a bit and I have posted a response to Talk:Forbidden City. I was trying to provoke you to think about these matters a bit deeper, and I didn't succeed. But try to keep this civil. If I don't express myself clearly, it's my problem to explain what I mean, don't put words into my mouth. --Niohe 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

Archiving your talk page

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Read :) enochlau (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Constitution

I'll look over it when I do revision for mooting. enochlau (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Silla

I looked at the Silla page and I would change it if I were you. I can get back to you with more info, but my conviction is that this "loving Silla" is wrong. For one thing, even if it weren't a transcription from Manchu, why would you put a jue 覺 in the middle of Silla 新羅? It looks like a way of justifying Korean claims on Manchuria and even linguistically it just doesn't make sense. --Niohe 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Constitution of Australia

Hi Bainer. When you have a moment, would you care to take (another) look at my proposed re-write at User:Sumple/Constitution of Australia for the Constitution of Australia article? Just wanted to get some authoritative comments before I make the change. Thanks, --Sumple (Talk) 07:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks very solid, and an excellent base for more comprehensive child articles. A few points though:

• You mention that the High Court can interpret it, you should also mention that the Federal Court can too (plus, I'm pretty sure, the Family Court), I think the relevant section is s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903;
• One paragraph at the top of the history section (above "Federation") would be nice, aswell as a link to Constitutional history of Australia as the main article (another article which needs improvement);
• A few more references would be nice.

Otherwise, the rest is good, it can be expanded later where necessary. But you've certainly covered all the bases. --bainer (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've finished reading it now and it looks pretty good. My only concern is that the separation between Constitution of Australia and Australian constitutional law is still vague and there is still quite a bit of duplication - e.g. enumerating the constitution's interesting sections. I'm just wondering how much of the Australian constitutional law article can be incorporated into the constitution article - it'll get long but I think the idea then would be to delegate detailed discussion into separate articles for each of the sections of the constitution. enochlau (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for carrying on discussion on your talk, but I think that a good way to break it up is to deal with the text itself (what the sections are, how they are organised) and historical material on Constitution of Australia, and the interpretation sections and the like on Australian constitutional law. Obviously there'll be a little overlap, but ideally they should both be summary style articles anyway, and they'll merely be sharing some of the same children articles. --bainer (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means, discuss here. I don't think it's a problem that there is some overlap between Constitution of Australi and Australian constitutional law. What you suggested there is what I'm trying to do with this draft - limit interpretation to the minimum necessary. Since interpretations is such an important aspect of the Constitution (defines its meaning), I don't think it should be wholly excised from the article. --Sumple (Talk) 11:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just thinking it would be less confusing for lay readers if everything was in one place like United States Constitution. I think it's good if we move basic principles of interpretation from Australian constiutional law into Constitution of Australia (in the part where it discusses the different sections) and its children articles, and then delete the former. enochlau (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China

What has the constitutional name of ROC to with what the government happen to call itself? Did you actually check the constitution? Surely, Taiwan cannot be the only region/country/entity/island that uses many different names. --Niohe 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, both you and me know why the ROC can't change its name or constitutional, the great neighbor in the West is blackmailing the Taiwanese government (and the rest of the world) by threatening to resort to force. We may call it stealth or cunning, but surreptitiously using the name ROC (Taiwan) is the only way for the Taiwanese government to call a spade a spade. In the same way, Macedonia has been forced to call itself the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) not to offend Greece. In the case of Macedonia, though, it is just called the way its government prefers to in English Wikipedia. Greek Wikipedia is another matter, of course. Should we not state things "as they are" and call people and countries want they want to be called through their elected representatives? Or do the PRC have a right to veto what we write here? --Niohe 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any particular POV, I'm just saying that if the popularly elected government of Taiwan prefers to call itself ROC (Taiwan) just let them do it. Why argue? This is not the platform to tell governments what to call themselves, that would be a POV, I think. When the next government changes it back to ROC or calls itself something even more different, Wikipedia should reflect that. And if the government and people in the PRC want to call themselves China or Mainland China let them do it too. There is no need to introduce red herrings like PRC (China), because no one is using that name anyway. Get what I mean? --Niohe 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, someone again changed it back to whatever may please the PRC. I'm not going to change it back for now. Macedonia may or may not be a good counterpart, but what is a good counterpart of this patently absurb state of affairs? The Greeks are not strong enough to invade their neighbor, so they can't force them to change their constitution. But they can make enough trouble in international organizations to force them to conform to their wishes.

Why do you call the name Republic of China (Taiwan) "customary"? You will find this name on every official website from the Government of Taiwan. It is the name of the state now, like it or not. Besides, most people don't bother to use what you call a "customary" name, the Republic of China (Taiwan), they just say "Taiwan". Fair enough, the threat of war changes nothing in a legal sense, but for intents a purposes, the people of Taiwan have changed the name of their state. Regardless of what their constitution may or may not say.

Finally, why should the names of two (antagonistic) governments be in conformity with each other? That makes no sense at all. The only thing it could mean is that we should condone the fact that one government believes it has the right to impose its will on the other.--Niohe 04:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So given what you just said, I guess the International Business Machines Corporation doesn't mind that I set up my own company called IBM, right? Because a company can't have two names right? If they sue me, we're going to appear as to distinict entities. No one will misunderstand us. :)

I think you have a tendency to think in polar opposites, that one thing necessarily excludes another. In the case of Taiwan, such an approach is a POV. Get what I mean? Anyway, I'm not going to edit the article for a while.--Niohe 12:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate and respect your point of view about the constitution, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should be more rigid in the case of Taiwan than in the case of other territories and countries. If we would apply your policy consistently, a lot of article would have to changed. --Niohe 12:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See also User talk:Niohe

To be honest, I'd be tempted to write: "China is ruled by two different states, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in this instance for the sake of clarity. enochlau (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

QC

No I am not really a QC. I am a fourth year law student, like yourself! I am just an avid advocate, is all. Queens-counsel 15:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Informal mediator WikieZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Wikipedia:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom!? Be careful. enochlau (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ume

Good edits to ume. Badagnani 23:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

About Silla and Jurchen

I saw your question about silla and jurchen.

Right Aisin means gold. But there is another family name of Korea, which means "gold." The family name of "Kim" means gold. Because korean and jurchen have no their own script, they usually borrowed to represent their languange at ancient days.

There are two ways for non-chinese people to borrow the chinese character. One is to borrow the chinese sounds of the script, and the other is to borrow the meaning of the script. So Aishin is to borrowing the sounds of chinese character to represent "gold" because the sound of 愛新 is exactly same with the word of jurchen that have a meaning of gold. In addition, Kim is to borrowing the meaning of chinese character to represent the gold whatever the sound is different.

That is to say.

1. Jurchen borrows the sounds of chinese script, so it is called as Aishin.

2. Korean borrows the meaning of chinese script, so it is called as Kim

3. Eventually they are the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.210.209.211 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 September 2006.

replied on user page

THE WEST

Because THE WEST is a highly vague term, which people often take to mean just North America and Europe. Do you think people in South America, South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, etc were especially better informed about Chinese affairs than people in Europe or N.A.? I don't. John Smith's 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you want to talk about Europe and North America does not mean the term "the West" should be used. It is lazy and subjective. Be accurate and say "North America and Europe" if that is what you want to say.

The thing is that it isn't just "Anglophone" countries that read the book - it has been translated a lot. So that statement is not appropriate. By the way, I'm not sure, but I have a feeling you've tried to make a similar change before. If you don't mind then just leave it - you've already clarified that East Asians had a different view of China.

By the way, I don't see how saying British culture is torture would be anti-JC. That would be anti-British!John Smith's 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

Ok, it was just that Hong was trying to resurrect the discussion and I foolishly tried to get an agreement with him. I'm happy to stick with the version we bashed out. John Smith's 10:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yamen

Yeah, it's quite long, but it looks quite fun, doesn't it? There is no abbreviated form of the name, as far as I am aware. But I want it to be there, but if you want to rearrange the contents so they look more visually pleasing, go ahead.

Yes, these China articles tend to get out of hand. I guess there is a little Red Guardist inside us all just waiting to engage in the latest debate on some Big Character Poster, and my apologies if you took offense. I tend to be a bit sarcastic at times, that's my style.

I am posting a little statement on my interpretation of the Taiwan problem, from a Wikipedia policy point of view. I am not expecting any resolution, but just to clarify matters a bit. See ya around.--Niohe 02:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good addition to the Grand Council article. We should be working to adding more to it. I'll see what I can do in my end.--Niohe 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking about what you said on the Yamen article. What about deleting most of the references on Zongli yamen and refer them to the actual article?--Niohe 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it if you have time, or I can do it when I get back. --Niohe 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Standard Mandarin

Copied from my user talk page, which I think you'd be interested, too:

I've started a thread to try to build proper consensus about whether to move Standard Mandarin to a more intuitive and perhaps neutral title or not. I've left this message at your talkpage because you've participated in previous discussions about a possible title change. Please feel free to contribute with your thoughts and arguments at Talk:Standard Mandarin#The move.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

— Instantnood 14:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Enochlau/University of Sydney

Thanks! Btw, do you have the ISBN of your source? enochlau (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which reminds me, I should pop in tomorrow... only $5 a box on Wednesday! enochlau (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Grand Council

I had a quick look at the article and it looks great. This is an important article, I believe, and I am happy that it is in good hands! Who was your illustrious ancestor, by the way? You don't have to tell me, just curious. ;-) --Niohe 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If I can collect enough info on your ancestor, I might end up writing a short bio on him!--Niohe 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ever since I created the article I could see this coming, so I rather talk with you about it than with someone else. Grand Council is not a good "translation", but that is what Junjichu has been called in English for the last one hundred and fifty years, both in the press and in scholarly works. Sometimes bad translation stick and there is nothing you can do about it, and in this particular case the English name, if you will, is a fucntional translation and not a word by word translation.--Niohe 14:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the two words "Grand" and "Council" sound a bit off target, but the people who first came up with this term probably were thinkning about the Privy Council in the UK and wanted to come up with something that was different from the Grand Secretariat.

If we change it here, we will not only confuse readers, but where is it going to end? I mean Nèigé 内阁, for instance, does not mean "Grand Secretariat", but "inner pavillion," right? But that is the word most Chinese use for Cabinets in the West. And if we go the opposite direction, should we go to the Chinese Wikipedia and demand that they stop using that term for Cabinets in the West because it is not "accurate"?

Actually, I am not joking. If you go to Grand Council and continue to the Chinese artcile and click on Neige you will find that they are doing translation of the Cabinet article. There is no mention of the Grand Secretariat...--Niohe 14:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point, but I need to think about this. I'm a bit distracted about things going on at home at the moment. I'll get back to you.--Niohe 00:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You said that people have started to use "Junjichu" in other sources. Could you give any examples? Most Anglo-American academic works stick to Grand Council, as far as I know. My guess would be that you have found alternative renderings of Junjichu in English works from the PRC. Unfortunately, a lot of English language books published in the PRC are made by people whose English is OK, but they do not necessarily know Chinese history that well. Or sometimes they are written by people who know Chinese very well, but just don't know how to translate. Nothing wrong with this in itself, it is difficult to write your "own" history in a foreign language. Another problem has been an exagerated political zeal to "correct names" (正名), but this trend has abated somewhat recently. I think at one point, the PRC insisted that Tibet be called Xizang, even in English.

If you don't mind, I must say that I find the word "inaptness" a bit out of place, since it seems to say that people who use this term don't know what they are doing. Most translation manuals I have looked at from the Qing dynasty (Mayers, Brunnert & Hagelstrom) are aware of the fact that Grand Council is a functional translation and not a literal. Translation is never an exact business and

My suggestion would be to keep the text as it is for the time being. Gotta go, I'll get back to you.--Niohe 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

On you last point, it would probably make sense not to use the word "Grand Council" when referring to the early history of the Junjichu. I'll go and check the literature and see if there is any consensus.--Niohe 01:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it is just a matter of time before someone sets up a disambiguation page for the Grand Council, there are several other grand councils out there. But let someone else discover that and we can take that discussion when it comes up. When I realized that, I wrote up the article quickly because I wanted to claim this space for China for the time being.

A Western name of a Qing institution, which might make less sense than Grand Council is Court of Colonial Affaits for the Lifanyuan. I wrote the article and shortly afterwards I found myself in a fierce debate with a certain "Ian" who uses multiple IP addresses. I defended, and still defend, the use of "Court of Colonial Affairs" on traditional grounds, but there is less agreement in the literature on the subject. We might need to take a look at this again.--Niohe 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Resort

By the way, don't you think it is time that we moved Mountain Resort to a more approprate name? This name is very confusing, if mistype one letter and you get sent somewhere else.--Niohe 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)du

I would prefer Chengde Mountain Resort or Mountain Restort (Chengde), that has some foundation in the UNESCO description. Another alternative would be Chengdu Summer Palace. Perhaps we should initate a discussion on the talk page first, and give people some time to respond?--Niohe 23:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

cooling off period

Both of us need to cool off a lil bit, so you kno what?? Thats refrain from editing the following pages in da next 24 hrz and see if we can work out our difference. aight?? holla at cha lata..--Bonafide.hustla 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

FSHS

This edit added a lot of alumni - though im having a hard time trying to check up whether they actually went to fort st. i'm going to WP:AGF but what do you think? enochlau (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Bill Heffernan

I sympathise, but broad-brush statements like "Bill Heffernan is widely considered to be an unethical politician" really aren't appropriate here. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words specifically lists "...is widely considered to be..." as an example of weasel-wording and explains why this sort of comment is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Calair 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Will continue this on the article talk page, since another editor is also involved in this. --Calair 04:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tsinghua Alma Mater

Thank you for your input. Tsinghua was founded for sending students to US schools; A lot of its early early facultyt members were Americans. The school developed many of its traditions stemmed from American school. The Alma Mater is one of them. In the school's whole history, it has been ALWAYS called Alma Mater, nothing else. In the laguange following the subtitle, it clearly indicates that it is the school's athem. So there is no confusion at all. Furthermore, the word Alma Mater indeed means the school's athem. I don't understand what "university song" means. I'm sorry if you don't understand the meaning of Alma Mater and I don't care what your English grade is or where you learn your English or whatever school you're from. It's totally irrelevant. The point is: Tsinghua calls its athem Alma Mater. If you don't like it, that's you own problem. And Tsinghua has nothing to do with a commonwealth or whatever. All its early traditions come from America.--Manchurian Tiger 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

see also User talk:Manchurian Tiger

Yikes, this contribution above was a bit over the top. Anyway, I basically agree with him that if the school itself used the term Alma Mater and was a school heavily influenced by American academia, we should use Alma Mater. If someone can verify that, I think we should stick to it and possibly add a explanatory text like this Alma Mater (University Anthem).

On your point that we should use "common terms" in English, I agree with you in principle. However, let me remind you that the Chicago manual of style which is referred to, is an American manual, which differs with British English in some respects.

Furthermore, if we backtrack a bit, in the case of ROC/Taiwan it seemed that common terms was strongly opposed from many quartes, regardless of what people call the government of that island. In that debate, it was argued that the commonly used term "Taiwan" was not advisable, since the ROC did call itself Taiwan in its constitution. Even the term ROC (Taiwan) was deemed inappropriate. So if you want to be consisten, it should be Alma Mater. --Niohe 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are dodging the question here. In your first messages, you were clearly against using the term Alma Mater in this particular case. I didn't see any remark avout how to use the term in general, but I may be wrong. And in what way does the subtle distinction between commonly used term and terms common to different varieties of English change the discussion? Even if such a distinction could be made, it strengthens my argument, not yours, because if Taiwan is the generally accepted term in the English speaking world, we should use it.--Niohe 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a discussion about Alma Mater, not Taiwan, but all that I'm saying is that you can't argue for commonly used terms in one sphere, but not in the other. It's sort of inconsistent and the thing I like with many of your contributions is that they are consistent.

You say that I would have no problem with relabelling the country article Taiwan, provided it is made clear that the name of the state is the Republic of China. Really? Why didn't you say that in the first place, when we were discussing it? It would have helped greatly. Why bring in constitutions, etc? If you really think that, I would be more than than happy to make a case for that together with you.

As for the paragraph you quoted, we can probably work in you suggestions.--Niohe 01:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, man. Seriouly, I'm curious about school traditions in Australia(notice I use school for a university as it is very common in America). Do schools (oops universities) have school colors or "university song" and things like that?--Manchurian Tiger 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan question

I am completely with you here. The whole splitting of articles is a red herring. The PRC should be moved to China, and ROC to Taiwan, on common terms ground. That is the only thing that makes sense. The history of the ROC prior to 1949 should be treated as part of the history of China, no need to split into separate ROC categories.

If you want to make a move in this direction, I am with you.--Niohe 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Law School

Well done. enochlau (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Three Musketeers"

Hey, sumple, do you want to file a check on those three guys at the Tiananmen page? I've asked an admin to look into it, so thought I shouldn't raise a formal query until he got back to me. Of course you can, so maybe it would be a good idea to try that at the same time. I think it would be best to go here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser and list it under code E if you can catch him doing it four or more times within 24 hours. John Smith's 18:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Well, don't worry about New dindong or whatever his name was; he's been blocked indefinitely. I think you could list more sockpuppets on the current entry I made, but I'm not sure. I really didn't know what I was doing too well when I made that report, so there may be some problems that need to be straightened out yet. I've let Nlu know what's up, since he's an admin and might be able to help with anything I've messed up. Heimstern Läufer 00:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just after I posted this, A9a9 returned. I've gone ahead and added him to the list. I hope this will help solve the problem. Heimstern Läufer 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

about Double Tenth Day

Hi, ChungCheng is still reverting Double Tenth Day to add his San Francisco Chinatown event. I have reverted for many times. But I have to avoid violating the three reverts rule. So I will appreciate it very much if you can continue to help revert it. And can we complain to some administrator for this edit war? Thank you so much. --Neo-Jay 09:34, 9 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/Falun Gong. 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: 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Re:User:Bonafide.hustla

The user looks like he's on a wikibreak for the next couple of weeks. I'll keep an eye out but I hope that means there won't be trouble from that quarter for a while. enochlau (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article in question and asked for a straw poll on the talk page. It's good to see that other editors are stepping in to help, but I'm no China-Taiwan expert myself so I probably should not intervene in the dispute. In any case, I've had my share of horrible disputes and I don't want to be dragged into full-scale mediation right in the middle of exam period. As for blocking the guy, there's not much I can do; it is ultra vires for me to block on a content dispute. The correct way is through the mediation and arbitration processes, which are unfortunately rather draining. enochlau (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[[1]] is absolutely hilarious (see edit summary). I don't know who's the one who should get a life herre. My assumption that you use IP to circumvent 3RR is a legitimate question. Get a life, man. There ain't no need to get so work up over the internet lol.--Bonafide.hustla 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sumple has not violated WP:3RR because 3RR refers to more than 4 edits in 24 hours. In any case, that IP address belongs to the EU and I can verify that Sumple is definitely currently not in the EU. Keep personal attacks down. enochlau (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Temple of Heaven

Remember our discussion on the Manchu name of the Temple of Heaven? For a moment, I was afraid that I was overstating my point, but since then I have chanced on a number of pictures with clearly show a bilingual sign on the temple. Most of the pictures I have seen were in rare books, but I found this drawing from 1925 on-line, which in all likelihood is based on a pre-1911 photograph. It is quite amazing how the image of Qing China has been shaped by Republican representations...--Niohe 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that you liked the picture, after all it's from Australia... There are quite a lot of stuff out there - even on-line - that is quite astonishing. I'll keep you posted...--Niohe 03:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Conseil suprême de l'Empire

Just came across the original text of the infamous Sino-Russian Treaty of Tianjin 1858; in article 2 of the French text of the treaty, I found the following passage: "...du premier membre du conseil suprême de l'Empire (Kiun-ki-tchou)..." So, we can say with reasonable certainty that by the 19th century, even the Qing government recognized variants of "Supreme Council" or "Grand Council" as virtually official translations of Junjichu.--Niohe 14:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to archive 1

...that was actually my point, then the discussions would come to full circle! ;-) --Niohe 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian constitution

What do you want a source for? That Australia is an independent country? That the Constitution can only be altered by referendum? Adam 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

replied on user page

You say: "The fact of the matter is, the Australian Constitution is a part of a British act." That is untrue. The text the Constitution, as it was drafted in 1900, is appended to the British Act as a schedule, presumably for the information of British MPs. That act gave legal force to the Constitution, but did not decide or specify its content. Its content was drafted and adopted by Australians at the Constitutional Convention, and approved by the Australian people at referendum. Since the Constitution specifies that it can be altered only by referendum, it must follow that the text appended to the British Act was not the Constitution, but merely the draft text of the Constitution. The Constitution is whatever the Australian people at any given time decide by referendum it shall be, and it is now substantially different to the text appended to the British act. Since the Constitution cannot exist in two different versions simultaneously, it must follow that the text appended to the British Act is not the Constitution. The assertion that the British Parliament could repeal the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and thus render the Australian Constitution void is specious. By agreeing to the independence of any dependent territory, a colonial power renounces forever any claim to sovereignty over it. The State of Westminster and the Australia Acts severed all connections between Australia and the UK, and the UK cannot now go back on that decision. Adam 01:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Qiandao Lake Incident

I expanded the article (according to the Chinese article). Check if there's anything wrong... AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs)'s POV pushing

Greetings, I've noticed you have reverted some of Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs)'s (formerly User:Bonafide.hustla) edits on China-related articles. He continues to push his POV on China/Taiwan-related pages. Could you help take a look at his edits. Please see his contributions and here for more details. Thanks. --RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)