Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 10 September 2006

Archives

• Archive 1: 26 February 2006 - 12 July 2006
• Archive 2: 13 July 2006 - 29 August 2006

Re: About Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2

Afd is a discussion, not a vote, the tally doesn't really matter in the end. In this case, there were convincing arguments made for keeping, which weren't countered by anyone. And now that you mention it, I probably should've closed it as a keep, since everyone arguing for the deletion were basing their "vote" on a proposed guideline, without addressing the points already brought up in the discussion. - Bobet 09:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I personally commented on every vote/argument to keep. I would like to ask you to review the discussion again. The biggest argument to keep was basically the number of Google hits, but that's already been determined to be an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars. And yes, the votes were based on a proposed guideline. So how about the official WP:BIO? This person definitely fails that, and the article should be deleted based on that then, if you would not like to validate WP:PORN BIO. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Edipedia

This is getting out of hand. 3 sockpuppets, 2 of which broke the 3RR? We need a very, very hard punishment here for Edipedia: For breaking 3RR 6 times, for personal attacks, for disruption in Administrators' noticeboard, for illegitimate warnings, for very long edit warring, for pure vandalism, for trolling (his recent edits are obvious trolling, see their edit summaries), and, of course, for 3 sockpuppets. Think we should take it to Arbcom or somewhere? At least a one month block for Edipedia and an indef for all his sockpuppets, I say. I have reported him in 3RR, Incidents, and Sockpuppets, none of which seemed to be getting attention from important admins. Any suggestions of how to stop Edipedia? Perhaps leave a note on an admin's talk page? This is pure vandalism, no longer a content dispute. Aran|heru|nar 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can contact an admin directly. I've found that sometimes, stuff that's reported on the Incidents board often get ignored. Honestly, I'm not sure. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted the admin who blocked Edipedia for 3RR and requested a longer block for two more violations of 3RR. I did not mention the dozens of other rules he broke, though. Aran|heru|nar 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left a comment on User:Robdurbar's talk page as well. Maybe we can contact other editors who have had run-ins with Edipedia. User:Nat Krause, for example. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably User:Sumple. It was I who invited him to the Han Chinese discussion after Edipedia started his "content dispute". Aran|heru|nar 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's disgusting. You need to have hard evidence, not just your imaginations! Edipedia 16:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the user page, as these tags shouldn't be removed without conclusion of the discussion. I'm afraid that I'm not really a good person to ask about sockpuppets, as its not a policy I'm very familiar with. However, I have re-warned Edipedia about his general behaviour and how that may lead to afull block if he doesn't sort himself out. --Robdurbar 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's one more violation of the rules. I suggest immediate and harsh actions to be taken against Edipedia. He seems determined to cause disruption now. Aran|heru|nar 04:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3RRR (re: Eurasian (mixed ancestry))

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages 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. 69.170.35.211 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Edipedia

I'll keep an eye on him; I've noticed that in addition to the 3RR violations he has also been repeatedly incivil. He's been here since July and has over 500 edits, so an indefinite block might be too controversial at this point. If he continues to cause problems, you can request a Checkuser to see if the other accounts are really him. RFCU is down for the weekend because of Labor Day (there aren't a lot of people here with Checkuser permissions), but it should be back by Tuesday. You can also use the Incidents page of the administrators' noticeboard. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already a report on him in the Incidents board. But sockpuppetry aside, he has been removing the sockpuppet tag from the User:Yepre user page. --- Hong Qi Gong 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've protected User:Yepre for now. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fork (re: June 2006 in Hong Kong and July 2006 in Hong Kong)

Please stop recreating the fork. If you genuinely want to change the title of the entry, request to remove the fork and move the entry. Please stop making trouble. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already concensus to keep the article the way it is without your reverts. Please stop making trouble. Thanks in advance. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the consensus on the title of the entry, page move should not be done by cut-and-paste fork. You can request to remove the fork and move the entry, in order to retitle it in the proper way. Please stop recreating the fork. Thanks. — Instantnood 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering. Going through a request at this point would only be a waste of time. Thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not wikilawyering. It's not anything hard to do so. Put up a request, and administrators will take care of it. The whole thing can be done by a few clicks. Don't make any further trouble if you genuinely want to cooperate and be constructive. Don't waste time. — Instantnood 21:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do it then? You are the only one who wants to do it that way for the particular articles/archives in question. I'm fine with the way it is, so are all other interested editors. I think you should request the move if you really want it to be done that way. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And that is precisely what I was thinking too. Action speaks louder then words. If Instantnood believes so much in the rule of law, then leave it to him to make sure it happens in a lawful manner. Wikiwarring in this case is, ironically, not much different from using criminal means to resolve a crime.--Huaiwei 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any difference between sentence of imprisonment and unlawful confinement? — Instantnood 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:HongQiGong's remarks at 21:29, September 2) I don't agree with retitling that entry, and naturally I don't consider myself to be the suitable person to file the nomination. Nevertheless I have already tell you the proper procedures. You can't claim you don't know about them, and insist on recreating the fork. — Instantnood 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I don't know how to file the request. I just think that at this point, it would be a waste of time, especially since all the interested editors agree to just leave it at that name without going through a request. The outcome is the same. I don't understand why you insist that I file a request when you are the only one who is interested in doing so. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The outcome is not the same. Everyone has the obligation to keep edit history of an entry at one place. Every single change to any entry has to be shown to readers, and all contributors of any entry have to be credited. We don't, therefore, retitle an entry by cut-and-paste the content. We do so by using the move button to actually relocate an entry. — Instantnood 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great. I disagree with the importance of keeping the history especially since it's been over a month and in light of the fact that all other editors prefer to keep it the way it currently is. Go ahead and file the request if you believe in its importance. If you're not interested in filing the request either, like the rest of us who are also not interested in filing the request, please kindly let the issue go and we can look forward to more fruitful editing. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit history is important. It tells readers all about the details of previous edits, and it credits previous contributors. By disagreeing with its importance you're in effect disregarding the core values, the principles, and the foundations of Wiki. — Instantnood 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm a naughty editor. I got your message. Again, if you're not interested in filing a request to move the article either, can we just move on? --- Hong Qi Gong 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It could have been stopped long ago if the fork is not being recreated again and again. — Instantnood 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So we can move on now? You'll stop being the only one that insist on reverting the name back to "Hong Kong and Macao"? --- Hong Qi Gong 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I myself do not support your retitling proposal, and therefore I'm not in a position to file the nomination. I can provide all necessary assistance if you agree to file the nomination, and to give up your insistence to recreate the fork. — Instantnood 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I myself am also not in a position to file the nomination - because I don't feel it is necessary at all. So if you do not want to file the nomination either, please just stop your reverts. What's the point of your reverts if you do not want to file the nomination, and if nobody else wants to file the nomination either? --- Hong Qi Gong 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're not filing the nomination, and you don't stop recreating the fork, you're challenging Wiki values, principles and foundations. No move should be done by creating cut-and-paste fork. — Instantnood 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a naughty, naughty editor. I think I've already apologised for the cut-and-paste move. But your reverts are pointless all the same, if you refuse to file the nomination. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done as much as I could to have the matter settled in proper manner, and I have already explained why I am not in a position to file the nomination. Please.. don't waste any more time, if you're genuinely serious with editing on Misplaced Pages. — Instantnood 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am serious about editing Misplaced Pages. And I'm not wasting any more time by filing a pointless move request. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sally Yoshino

Please do not speedy articles which have been through the AfD process. For example, the article Sally Yoshino went through the AfD process and was kept. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sally Yoshino. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that. However, the article still does not make an effort to establish notability and speedy delete should applicable. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this (re: )

Thanks for the message, HongQiGong. Yes, I agree, we're just going around in circles in the discussions. It's for the best of us to talk this thing out. I certainly agree with you that they don't all deserve stand-alone articles. That's why I complained so much about the deletion of the List of Japanese female porn stars. Listing individual names in the field, to my understanding, only requires a test of verifiability, not notability (assuming we agree the List itself is notable). Notability is required for a stand-alone article, and I have agreed with your nomination in deleting one that was clearly not notable. As for discussing with me before you nominate them, I'm honored you make the offer. But what I suggest is, if you have problems with an article's sources, notability, or whatever, tag the article for fixing. Simply tagging articles for deletion without any attempt at checking for sources or notability first seems intentionally provocative. If, after a resonable period of time, nothing constructive is done to improve the article, then we can start a discussion for deletion. I'll be happy to offer my input then, and I won't just say Keep on every nomination without real consideration of the subject. As for the two models you mention now: Japanese Amazon shows 23 videos, 20 DVDs, and 4 books for An Amazon search shows Manami Yoshii (吉井愛美). Google gives 230,000 hits (no, that's not proof of notability, I'm just saying that one of those 230,000 hits may very well give us a source of notability.) Personally, this amount of visibility at a mainstream site would lead me to consider her notable. What a consensus at a discussion would be, I cannot say. 澪花 has 7 books, 5 DVDs, 2 Videos. I'd say, while verifiable, that's pretty low for an article. Put it up for discussion, and unless someone can prove more notability, I'd agree with you on that one. Regards. Dekkappai 03:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll put the Template:Importance tag on the articles that I think have non-notable people. However, I see no point in keeping them indefinitely if the tag does not help. I will still nominate them if after a while the article still does not assert notability.

And I must point out that I do try to verify the notability of these actresses before I nominate them. However, if a particular article has been created for some time, and no effort was put into proving notability, I certainly am not interested in sitting here for days or even hours trying to prove their notability. At most I spent a few minutes on that task. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply I was unwilling to do the research. If you don't wish to invest much time in it, I understand. Not everyone is interested in every subject. But that doesn't mean someone else isn't. It also doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. So go ahead and send me the names, and I'll be happy to do some preliminary research on them when I can, and then we can proceed with our deletion discussion. My Internet access is limited at the moment, so it might take a day or two to reply, but surely the need to delete isn't so urgent it can't wait. Dekkappai 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia indefinite block (re: )

I think it is better to use WP:AN/I to ask about this. Indefinite blocks to users with several hundred edits should probably be proposed to the community first. I am fine with the indefinite blocks to the sockpuppets, since they have been used disruptively. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually the indef block requests have the header "Request for community ban of (Username)", or something like that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China (re: China)

I am not going to revert to what I originally wrote, please feel proud of your edit. But explain to me why it is so incredibly important to you that we don't list the governemt of Taiwan under the name it actually uses, The Republic of China (Taiwan). --Niohe 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's POV. How can we, in the same paragraph, mention that the legitimacy of the ROC and the administration of Taiwan is contested, while at the same time, assign Taiwan to the ROC? Doesn't make sense. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sumple has said all that is needed to this user. See Niohe's talk page. Aran|heru|nar 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hong, it would help our side of the argument if you could stop reverting for now. It's inappropriate, and is giving the other side cheap ammunition if they can invoke 3RR and things like that. --Sumple (Talk) 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've exhausted my 3 edits anyway. And we also have "cheap ammunition", too. I've already warned User:John Smith M.D., Ph on 3RR. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts (re: China)

Welcome to the club of reverting three times. Now, should I block you or shall we ask User talk:John Smith M.D., Ph.D to do it? ;-) --Niohe 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Block me? I wasn't aware that you or him were admins. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I have no idea about John Smith. It was more a joke. But admit it's a bit ironic that right after you accused someone else of reverting three times, you just did it yourself? --Niohe 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Happens all the time. Are you new to WP? If so, welcome. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, it's OK if you do it, but not someone else? --Niohe 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said it's OK that I did it. I find it despicable and disgusting, and I will never forgive myself. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese msian vs msian chinese (re: Malaysian Chinese)

Please don't do redirection regarding chinese msian/msian chinese until the vote has been resolved. __earth 04:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article name is Malaysian Chinese right now, so I'm fixing the wikilinks to skip the redirects. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the voting is ongoing. Please assume good faith and wait until the voting is done. __earth 05:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm just fixing the wikilinks. Please assume good faith. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

False warning (re: )

If you bothered to check, I have not made three reverts to the same version on the page yet. I have made several different edits in an attempt to resolve an issue. So please don't warn me when I'm nowhere near a 3RR. John Smith's 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so hostile. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't pretend you're not causing trouble by ignoring the fact I resolved the matter with other editors, warned me after the edits and filed an admin report without telling me. John Smith's 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't be hostile. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Template:User Manchu

Please be careful - I know it can be difficult dealing with users who contribute with sockpuppets but this Edipedia's (or whatever his name was on that day) edits do not appear to be vandalism here. Consider this a warning - in future, you will be banned if you break the rule again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdurbar (talk • contribs) 2006-09-08 14:13:52 (UTC)

I have semiprotected both userboxes, this should put an end to the sockpuppetry. -- Миборовский 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the protection really works against Edipedia. He just finds more articles to push his POV. First he revert wars in Han Chinese, which was protected, then in Overseas Chinese, which was protected, then in Chinese people, which was protected, et cetera...This user is WP:POINTing here. We should probably just leave an article free for him and indef ban any sockpuppet we see. In the meantime, HongQiGong, can you file an ArbCom case against him to put an end to this mess? I don't have the time now. Violations caused by his main account and his sockpuppets could be found here and here respectively. Thanks. Aran|heru|nar 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Filing an ArbCom sounds like a lot of work. I've never done it before. But is that the only way to get his IP banned? --- Hong Qi Gong 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't prevent him forever from using sockpuppets to push his POV, but at least it'd stop him from doing it on the 2 userboxes. And it'd prevent me from flipping out Kelly Martin/Tony Sidaway style and going on a userbox deletion rampage. -- Миборовский 01:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Hong Kong Meeting

HongQiGong ： The 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong, will be held in City Express within CityU at 19.00 on 16 September , 2006. The Hong Kong Wikipedians who attend the meeting, will be regarded as members of the Preliminary Committee. For further information, please refer to the agenda. Yours Turly, JéRRy.雨雨.talk.hk 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on September 8 2006 to Jung Chang

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Please see the 3RR page for more

Jung Chang

Hong, I am not even going to try to find another comprimise between us. I have reached a consensus with Sumple, so I am going to use that version. He was the one that had the original dispute, not you. I resolved the issue with him, so don't turn someone else's query into your personal crusade. It's quite ridiculous. Of course if you would prefer an edit war, we could always resume that where we left off and get blocked again. Did you enjoy having your first block? John Smith's 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the purpose of your message is. Regardless of what agreements you and User:Sumple had, I'm only trying to say that the edit using "English" is the most accurate/NPOV. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Edit to Anson Chan

Hello, I'm ]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth 22:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

huh? - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

On 23 August, you aded in some information that were similar to those made by the leftist user:WangFeihung in July. Any edits made from him, or others that sounds similar to that leftist, will be reverted by me and will be considered as vandalism. Since I understand you did not revert my changes, nor did you attack me as a Nazi like that leftist did, I AGFed on your actions. If you want to re-add the contributions you made, please discuss them on the discussion page before proceeding. Thanks. Arbiteroftruth 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This - - is my August 23 edit. How exactly is that vandalism? I edited changed the word "She" to "Chan". - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)