Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:03, 28 June 2007

Archives

Archive 1: 2006-02-26 - 2006-08-29 Archive 2: 2006-08-30 - 2006-12-28 Archive 3: 2006-12-28 - 2007-02-26 Archive 4: 2007-02-26 - 2007-05-07

Bye for now

Thanks for your support on ANI. But those messages really disappointed me. I thought Misplaced Pages was run by rational people -- that view has now been qualified somewhat. Thanks for your help on Forbidden City and elsehwere. I think I will be taking a break for a while, maybe for ever. I will still be contactable by e-mail though... Thanks. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah take a break if you're getting annoyed at things around here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A source for the maximum price on the rail network fares on the Octopus Card

Here are the links to the fare charts of the MTR and KCR: MTR fare table: KCR East Rail fare table: KCR West Rail fare table:

Hence the maximum possible fare is $34.8.--Kylohk 09:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up!

I just want to say, great work on the 2008 Beijing Olympics page. It is so refreshing to not see strait up PRC bashing on every topic related to China. We need more people like you to equalize all the anti-PRC propagandas different special interests groups are spreading. Keep up the good work, I support you! Yongke 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing China-related articles

I barely joined in on editting pages and have already started noticing some serious issues with getting articles complete, updated, and standardised. My intent was to upgrade and unify the articles pertaining to China, its history, its people, its languages, and its cultures, but the effort will be maddening considering the amount of information to be posted as well as having everything adhere to a particular style or standard. Would you be willing to work with me in editting and posting articles in this arena? We can't do this alone, and we will need a common standard to come from to do it.

I posted this message using edit because I didn't know how else to do it. --漢慶 07:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at WikiProject China - that's a WikiProject designed to coordinate editing efforts for all China-related articles. It should have all the types of information you're looking for. And if not, you can ask for it in the Talk page. Also, Misplaced Pages is as always a work in progress. Basically that means there's really no end to the editing work that needs to be done. Constant work is required. Happy editing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

XXX-American actors categories nominated for deletion.

Thanks for the heads up. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wanted to get the opinions of people who might be more knowledgeable on the issue of ethnic minority actors in the U.S. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Diaoyutai Reference

Thanks for adding references. One thing, I didn't see where that exact quote was in the PeoplesDaily2003 article, maybe I'm missing it. One thing, though, I did see was it mentioned was similar: "The name 'Diaoyutai' first appeared in 1403 in the Chinese book "Shun Feng Xiang Song (Voyage with the Tail Wind)." It recorded the names of the islands that the Chinese had passed during their voyage from Fujian to Ryukyu, an independent kingdom up until its annexation by Japan during the late 19th century." This isn't in the Misplaced Pages article that I saw, but it seems relevant since it's the first mention of the name Diaoyutai. Maybe not, I don't know. I don't know this topic so well as the Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo article, so maybe you can add it if it is appropriate. If I'm wrong, sorry to have bothered you, but if you have time please check to make sure that reference covers the quote. Some of us responded to your query on how the policy relates to Liancourt Rocks, by the way, I'm not sure if you had a chance to go back and read it, or if you had any thoughts on that article. --Cheers, Komdori 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article to better reflect the source. And I'll go take a look at the comments left on the Dokdo article now. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Three Kingdoms

Thanks for all your help with WP:3K! :-) Ling.Nut 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How's the two-tone gold for the userbox? Ling.Nut 13:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Penser loves me

Mao Zedong

Why did you claim my addition was unsourced? Just because you deleted the source doesn't mean it was unsourced. (Much of the rest of the text is unsourced, by the way.) Penser 02:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Firstly Jung is an extremely biased source, secondly, the source doesn't confirm everything you added. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang's book is controversial, and certainly she takes an vituperative, attacking tone, but the facts are generally acknowledged to be accurate by many respected historians. If you look at the criticisms of the book, the points I noted have never been criticized. What did I claim that wasn't in the book? Penser 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Are you kidding? Academics have said that many of her "facts" cannot be verified, some even have said that she made stuff up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Most academics are uncomfortable with the tone of the book, but there is hardly a consensus that the facts are bogus. http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/biography/0,6121,1498718,00.html

This criticism is mainly for a few events, such as her claim the the Ludong Bridge Crossing under Nationalist fire was a fabrication. The more common criticism is that "the untold story" is not that new or untold. By the way, you seem to be backing away from your original claim that my points were unsourced and that my source didn't confirm all of my claims. Is that an accurate perception? Penser 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

No, I'm doubtful that everything you've added is verified by Jung's book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, look it up. Penser 03:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Are you just trying to destroy my contributions without explanation?

HongQiGong, what's going on, buddy? You seem to be bent on the destruction of my work, even when it is often the only sourced work in a section. Care to explain? Penser 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Penser

Disagreed. Your "work" is often unsourced and extremely biased. Please try to be NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False. In many of the articles in which you have recently destroyed my work, there have typically been no references cited, and yet you pick out my contributions for destruction. And by biased, I suppose you mean not hagiographic accounts of the Chinese Communist Party or Mao? Penser 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

By biased, I mean you use an extremely biased source, and add text that are one-sided and not balanced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced ABC?

What are you possibly talking about? The entire article about ABC was unsourced. I provided the only source. How can you possibly single out my contribution? What do you even dispute? Penser 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

That source does not even talk about the term "American-born Chinese", nor does it say that it de-emphasizes American-ness. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The source talks about the "perpetual foreigner" stereotype. The rest of the ABC page is unsourced as well. Shall we delete it all? Penser 03:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

There is already a tag at the top to ask for more references, but the article does have one link in the external links section and one link in the references section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So why single out my inadequately referenced contribution? It certainly wasn't an unreasonable addition. Penser 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Disagreed. I thought it was unreasonable, biased, and POV. Add to that it being unsourced, I took it out. Just add a source that discusses how the term de-emphasizes American-ness and it wouldn't be removed. Otherwise I have to assume that it is your own WP:Original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. First what is reasonable about that? The reasoning was all clearly spelled out in the section. Where was the logical flaw? 2. How can we assume that the rest of the contributions aren't original research as well? Penser 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

1. It was unreasonable because it sounded like original research.

2. We can't.

I've said what I needed to say about this - add a source to back up the claims and it won't be deleted. Maybe Jung mentioned it in her book, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. Good one. In other words, it wasn't at all unreasonable and you have no logical objection. Apparently you are just trying to delete my work out of some sort of spite or political antipathy. Penser 04:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Since you admit we can't assume that the other contributions aren't original research as well, can I assume you'll be deleting it all as well? Penser 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Nope. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

I count three reverts in a 24 hour period. Penser 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Previously you said I've violated the 3RR rule - which is false. Thus, warning removed. I would have violated the 3RR rule if I made four reverts or more. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Beijing Olympics

Now you've deleted my well-sourced addition about the growing use of the term "Genocide Olympics" to put pressure on Beijing? Are you a professional apologist for the Communist regime in Beijing? What is with you arbitrarily deleting every sourced contribution I make? Penser 03:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

No I haven't deleted it. I've moved it to an existing paragraph that was already talking about that issue. Please look at my edit carefully. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. You had deleted so many of my contributions that I didn't look that carefully. Fair enough. Penser 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)penser

Anna Mae He

Anna Mae He, an article you created and worked on, has been speedy deleted by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) with reasoning "WP:BLP not this". See User talk:Doc glasgow#Anna Mae He. Thanks, Prolog 10:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ashes2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashes2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaogouli Tributary relations

Your quote emphasized only on Han - Gaogouli relations. Keep in mind there was also tribute to Tang.

For example, Samguk Sagi (Korean primary source):

Year fifteen (656), summer, fifth month, iron fell like rain. Winter, twelfth month, envoys were sent to Tang to offer congratulations to the imperial crown prince.

Assault11 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up in the article Talk page first. Let's try to avoid a revert war. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChanIsMissing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ChanIsMissing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Society Barnstar

		The Society Barnstar
		For your tireless work and effort to expand Asian American related articles. mirageinred 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100's behavior

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing ambiguous about Gaogouli being a Tang tributary. Primary sources as well as secondary sources all confirm this. His reference to Mark Byington's article only stated that Gaogouli's tributes to the Han Dynasty (Xuantu) ended in 106 CE. But this completely ignores the successive Northern dynasties that succeeded Han. Not only that, he bases his weak argument on false reasoning - something not supported by sources of any kind. Assault11 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral about the whole thing. Just please try to find a compromise. Maybe try to re-word the text so it'll satisfy the both of you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? That we make a "Maybe" category? The facts all point towards Gaogouli being a tributary of Tang, there is nothing ambiguous about it. Assault11 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Senkaku Islands

Hello. Sorry, apparently I forgot to reply to your comment. I might have a look at this move discussion, but probably I won't interfere. After Liancourt Rocks, I think I need a break from controversial move debates... Thank you anyway. Best regards, Húsönd 03:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:FreshKidIce.jpg

I have tagged Image:FreshKidIce.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Misplaced Pages policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. MER-C 10:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing others' posts

Unless you can quote me a guideline that says otherwise, stop deleting Lord Ameth's "oppose" vote on Talk:Wokou. People have the same right to oppose a suggestion as they do to support it. CES 02:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

About BetacommandBot

This bot goes insane and keeps deleteing old fair use images that I've uploaded long time ago. Use the rationale and it might be useful somehow : qualified as fair use due to low resolution and for educational purposes only. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle featured article review

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

As I said at the Bus Uncle FAR, I'd disagree with you whichever actions your "out of line" described. Here's how I see it:

Tony made edits that he felt improved the article and that he felt were warranted or even required by policy. He explained his reasoning and has not edit warred, either at the article or at the list of featured articles. Pretty standard Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Removing the article from the list of FAs was, perhaps, a bit silly, as FAR is a much more effective way of getting the community to double-check itself as far as quality standards go, but again, Tony made the edit once and then let the usual discussion play out. As for the removal of the names, I disagree with Tony's interpretation of policy, but the interpretation and enforcement of that policy is really what the ArbCom case boils down to. Which makes the interpretation Tony brought to his edits on this article relevant, and AnonEMouse's mention of this article there (which, by the way, he did make notification of at the FAR a couple of lines above your comments) appropriate.

Now, there's obviously a lot going on with the whole BLP issue at the moment, and there's been some obnoxious behavior all around. And there've been nasty comments flying from numerous people as well. Seen as an extension of that mess, the edits Tony made could be considered part of that flaming fiasco. But in the context of all that, I don't see any of the actions taken by anyone at The Bus Uncle and related pages to be anywhere near as problematic. Your mileage, may, of course, vary!

By the way, thanks for notifying the Hong Kong WikiProject of the featured article review. Totally missed the wikiprojects. -- Jonel | Speak 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If he has a problem with the article, then discuss it, edit it, request a FAR, etc. But he said that the article was a piece of shit and unilaterally "demoted" its FA status. You may call it "silly", but I'd consider that out of line. I don't really care what's going on with this BLP dispute, I only wish it was over already because it's becoming very disruptive. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to wishing the BLP dispute was over already! And I certainly concede that I may be a bit inured to Tony's abrasiveness and self-assuredness. Anyway, the article is getting plenty of eyes now, and thus becoming {even, much, somewhat} better than it was. Which is a good thing, regardless of how we got there. -- Jonel | Speak 02:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China

I think it would satisfy both sides if the nature of tributary relationships in Asia is clarified in the article. I think a good summary of its description in Tribute should suffice, though I don't entirely agree with it. Some emphasis should be given to this particular content: China often got tribute from the states under the influence of Confucian civilization and gave them Chinese products and recognition of their authority and sovereignty in return. Sometimes Chinese support were significant in local politics. There were numerous tribute states to the Chinese established empires through out the ancient history, including neighboring countries such as Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam. Any thoughts on this? Cydevil38 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but I don't think it'll satisfy the editors in the dispute. I think the best thing to settle the dispute is something added to the Goguryeo listing that'll satisfy both of them. What we're really missing is an article about tributary relationships in Imperial China. I'm considering writing this, but it may be a big job if I want it to be well-written. But as far as the dispute is concerned, it's just some more spill-over from Goguryeo. Hopefully they'll just either stop edit warring or come to a compromise. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:SanGuo.gif

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:SanGuo.gif, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:SanGuo.gif fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:SanGuo.gif, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:SanGuo.gif itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

userbox

I made the image 63 px and the userbox cell 63 px.... please do let me know if all is OK (every time you see it, that is, since you say the prob comes & goes)... Thanks for your help!!!! Ling.Nut 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The width of the left cell has to be a little bit bigger, or else the image overlaps onto the margin in the right cell. I made the correction, I hope it shows up fine on other browsers as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Certified.Gangsta 2

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed regarding the conduct of Certified.Gangsta.

Can I trouble you to write a statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Certified.Gangsta 2 recounting your interactions with him and your impressions of his conduct as an editor?

Thanks.

LionheartX 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Asian fetish talk page

The discussion between WikiIsforLamers and Computer1200 is getting seriously out of hand. Neither one of them has done anything but edit that page, and it's becoming their personal battlefield. Since they seem to have ignored our respective suggestions to cease and desist, maybe it's time to ask for an admin to intervene? Lindentree 10:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an admin will just protect that page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I"m not the one you need to correct. I was absent for 2 days, suffecient time for junior over there to cool off. However, it is *he* who has continued to insert snide remarks. I've just pointed out his ignorance in response, I could continue to mock his idiocy but I havn't. WikiIsforLamers 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration review case

Please be advised that an arbitration matter on which you commented has been accepted as a review case at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta/Review. You may present evidence on the case page or additional comments on the talkpage. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese)

Greetings, I have been having the beginnings of a revert battle with User:Jerrypp772000, at the disputed Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese), I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to look in and give an opinion? Thanks. LionheartX

Fair use rationale for Image:AdultOctopusCard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AdultOctopusCard.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

It's all a bit confusing, but my understanding of the situation regarding WP:FU is that #1 about not being able to create a free alternative is that we should not use fair use images of living people (because by definition, while they're still alive, it's possible to create a free image of them). So in theory, promotional pictures of living people aren't actually usable under fair use. enochlau (talk)

My understanding is that Enochlau is correct. Even if it was intended as a promotional image, we can't use it under fair use if the person is alive. It does seem to be ok to use fair use images that show people at an earlier stage of their life (like an image of an actor in his prime when the actor is now elderly) or of particular events (like an athlete winning a championship to illustrate a discussion of that championship). You can probably also use a fair use image of a band if the band has broken up, even if the members are still alive. But we're definitely not supposed to use album covers to show what the artist looks like. Those are reserved for discussion of the albums themselves. The area is in a bit of a state of flux right now, so it's confusing. I'd be happy to discuss it further with you if you have specific questions. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is 100% set in stone, but I believe generally if an article about a group includes significant discussion of an album released by the group, the album cover can be used to illustrate that section of the article. I say "significant" discussion, but this is another gray area. A bare mention in a discography is clearly insufficient. A detailed discussion of the cover art would definitely pass muster. I'm pretty sure there is something less substantial than a section that could be a standalone article on the album that would satisfy WP:FU. Hope this is helpful! --Butseriouslyfolks 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

Hi. Please tell me why you removed the Japanese war crimes category from Batu Lintang camp in this edit. I have reinstated the category: as it says in the article, several of the Japanese army staff at Batu Lintang were tried, found guilty and executed for war crimes committed at the camp. Thanks. Jasper33 11:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops. That was a mistake. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good to know it was inadvertant rather than deliberate Jasper33 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline at Misplaced Pages:Overlistification

Misplaced Pages:Overlistification is a proposed guideline that intersects with my proposed guideline at Misplaced Pages:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations. There are some good things in Misplaced Pages:Overlistification and some things that would need to be changed. In particular, the section "Irrelevant Intersections by Race, Gender, Beliefs, Sexuality, Ethnicity, and Religion Lists" appears similar to what I've proposed. Some tweaking of language would be needed, but the similarities are there.

Unfortunately, there is an appearance that Misplaced Pages:Overlistification is being created to bolster one side of the debate around the deletion of certain types of lists. I'm sure the same could be said for my proposed guideline. As people may know, the guidelines and policies which succeed at Misplaced Pages tend to be the ones which reach consensus from people on both sides of a debate. Perhaps we should merge info from Misplaced Pages:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations with Misplaced Pages:Overlistification, bring in info from the current list guidelines, and see if we all can't reach a general consensus on this issue. Any thoughts on this? Is so, joing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overlistification#Problems_with_proposed_guidelines.2C_possible_ways_to_achieve_consensus. Best,--Alabamaboy 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese porn stars

And how did you happen to come across those? (Just kidding.) I agree, and I've tagged three of them to see how it plays out. All three were uploaded by the same editor. Thanks for the tip. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded over at User talk:Dekkappai. I'm not looking to get involved in this notability dispute. Just copyright issues at the moment. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

list of eurasians

Look i'm eurasian and the reason i keep editing the list is because 1. Yul brynner is 1/16 mongolian the rest is a european mix that hardly qualifies him as eurasian seeing that eurasian means 1/2 white 1/2 asian. and the reason i keep taking emily booth and anglo indians are emily booth is part palestinian aka JEWISH that is the same as taking a russian and german person and placing them under the category of eurasian. Okay also about indians being asian i've always disagreed with that. Indians are asian geographically. that is the same as placing a black person who lives in latin america and a latino person who lives in latin america and considering both of them latino because they live their. Also Indians know go by a knew name ANGLO- INDIAN. I'm 1/2 chinese 1/2 caucasian and in know way does that mean to me the same thing it does to an indian person

Also indians aren't mongoloid their caucasian just like the people of the middle east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.17.17 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-26 23:44:13 (UTC)

Very mature of you

Should I go find every picture you've uploaded and tag them? There's a difference between the reliability of historical images and ones from the modern era! John Smith's 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rules are pretty clear about usage of photos of living persons. That is, non-free photos of living persons do not qualify under fair use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? So it just so happens you're only tagging photographs I have either uploaded or been involved with? Ok, I honestly believe you're not trying to get back at me. John Smith's 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Assume good faith. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith - don't assume I'm not. Please read WP:Assume good faith yourself. John Smith's 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)