Jump to content

User talk:HongQiGong

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoryBot (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 24 August 2006 (BOT- bypassing cross-namespace redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1: 26 February 2006 - 12 July 2006

New format, good job!

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

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

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

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

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

Image Tagging for Image:ChinLinSou.jpg

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

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

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

Removing inappropriate comments from talk pages (re: [1])

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

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

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

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

Cool, I'll try to find some sources later. If we can find an English name that's being used for the "Soviet Koreans", I think that would be the best. But I'm sure whatever name we come up with, if the article ever catches a lot of people's attention, it'll be moved around a few times before it settles down to a name that the majority can accept. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually meant some Soviet Koreans. They speak Russian and do not speak korean.--D-Boy 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

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

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

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

Senkaku Islands

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

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

Category renames

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

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

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

Hm? I don't think I disagreed with splitting the project into two. Yeah, it's a good idea. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer renaming to creating two new pages? — Instantnood 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you want a Current events in HK, a Current events in Macao, and a Current events in HK & Macao...? --- Hong Qi Gong 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you want to split the project, neither current events in Hong Kong nor current events of Macao shall inherit the original project (say, why it's A not B, or why B not A, to be chosen). This is the reason why I oppose the move proposal. The original project should serve as archive to both new projects. If you've no objection I'd go ahead and demonstrate. — Instantnood 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. What exactly will you be doing? And please discuss that on the Talk page of the article first. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were no Macao news in the June archive, and there was already majority support for only "Hong Kong" in July. My cut-and-paste move in July was not correct procedure, but procedure aside, every other editor agreed that the article should be just "Hong Kong". I really just can't agree with having June and July be "Hong Kong and Macao". It just doesn't make any sense to me. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a seperate note - do you know of any good English-language online news for Macao? I've come across Chinese language and Portuguese language news sources online, but I don't think those would be appropriate for English Wikipedia. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it's good to implement the proposal right in the middle of a month. Another important reason was that the page was already archived according to the conventional way. Please don't insist on keeping cut-and-paste fork materials. Let's start the separate projects with effect from August.

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

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

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Lights Out HK.jpg

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, I'm not a journalists. I basically read the news and post up what I thought would be important news. And I post a direct quote from the news articles so that there would be no arguments or disagreements between editors on how best to word the news items. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O, just one more minor thing: use the present tense, as the news on the Main Page do. Forgive my fussiness.Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer putting in a direct quote from the news articles, so if the quote is in the present tense, my additions will be in the present tense. Of course, you are free to edit them if you like, just make sure your edits reflect correct information. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Government of Hong Kong

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

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

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

Note that you reverted 4 times though. I did not report you because you self-reverted your fourth revert. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point of a self-revert. If you had reported, you wouldn't have got anywhere. John Smith's 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on Nanking Massacre

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. John Smith's 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category changes: Panyunese people etc. (re: [2])

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

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

Mediation request

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your reverts on Overseas Chinese

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Edipedia 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when re-nominating articles for deletion (re: [3])

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