Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:04, 26 July 2007

• If you leave a message here, I will reply here.
• If I leave a message at your Talk page, please reply there - I'll have it on my watchlist.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs)

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 Archive 5: 2007-05-11 - 2007-07-20

Manzanar

Please drop by Talk:Manzanar and add your two cents on the "raging" terminology debate. Thanks. Gmatsuda 04:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hongkonger or Hong Konger

Do you read the South China Morning Post or The Standard? Wasabian 21:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I read The Standard, and the term is not used that often. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the term "Hong Kong resident". There was actually an article called specifically Hong Konger, but after some discussion, it was decided that the term is not an established term and it was merged into another article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your expert help!

Hello! I hope you are feeling great! Anyway, I would like to have your expert help with regards to a template. For further information, please view this page. I hope that you will be able to fix this minor problem, so as to achieve greater consistency in this project. --Siva1979 15:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like somebody else already fixed it. Let me know if there's still a problem with it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Warning

Just a friendly note. If the IP continues, just let it drop. It's not worth it to get block just for 3 words. Nat Tang 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR (Re: Hong Kong)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hong Kong. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Nat Tang 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR (Re: Macau)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Macau. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Nat Tang 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

picture for deletion

Hiya, I've listed this picture ] for deletion. I've noticed that it looks different from this . Essentially the uploader is using a made up picture with dotted lines to discredit a real picture, which can be confusing if one doesn't look closely. So I think there's absolutely no reason for the picture to be here and should be deleted. Blueshirts 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanking Massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. John Smith's 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

John Smith's filed a 3RR report regarding your recent edits to the page Nanking Massacre. If you reverted edits to that page four or more times within a period of 24 hours then you have violated Misplaced Pages's three revert rule. The best course of action to take in this case is to self-revert to the previous version of the page and discuss the editing dispute on the article talkpage. If you feel you did not violate the 3RR rule then you may post here. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talkpage. Perspicacite 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

This block was carried out by another Administrator - Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If you have any questions over this block, please contact him.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, HQG

It's really unfortunate that in defending an incredibly valid point (i.e. that the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, because they focussed on the killing of one race), you got reported by the wronged party! What nerve! When you get back, I will personally treat you to a Wiki...thing. Coffee. A Wikicoffee. Because you deal with too much of this stuff much too often. Pandacomics 00:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in the Talk page, there was already a long discussion about the subject matter, and sources were provided. It's unfortunate that some people edits against what reliable sources say. Just keep a watch on that article and make sure it reflects the sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anna He

Hi,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll read the article in detail first, but I suspect I'll be speedy-deleting it as a G4, on account of the DRV's endorsement. There is, however, room for an article about the legal case involving Ms. He, so long as it is not in her name, as her biography. You may begin composition of that article (in your userspace is probably best) whenever you wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Nanking Massacre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. John Smith's 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Please vote to agree to mediation here. We would have got it last time, but Vsion refused. John Smith's 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case please leave a brief comment on the RfC below. John Smith's 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Category:Nanking Massacre shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. John Smith's 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If you and John Smith's edit war on one more page, I'm blocking you both. I'm not protecting three pages because of the same dispute. Two is stupid already. --Deskana (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that allowing the RfC to work its course would be recommended, but it seems John Smith's started editing related pages before RfC has had a chance to resolve our dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did that require you to revert them back? You don't have to revert an edit - it's your choice. John Smith's 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that my comment above would have already answered your question - I would think that allowing the RfC to work its course would be recommended. You are essentially pursuing the same edit that you were pursuing in Nanking Massacre. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you might say, none of that requires you to revert back. John Smith's 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC

Hong, FYI, I've left a comment. Cheers, --Folic Acid 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)