Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Smith's (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 9 April 2007 (→Please revert your changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Miss MacKinnon

Congratulations for your awards of recognition! I just wanted to drop by and say "hi" because my students at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Center have been making edits to some Hong Kong-related Misplaced Pages pages this past week. I keep coming across your username in the history of the articles they've worked on. Are you going to Wikimania? --Rmackinnon 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not going to Wikimania. I may be addicted to WP, but I'm not that addicted. Hehheh... By the way, if your students are those anonymous or newly registered users that are editing the main Hong Kong article, please tell them to find references if they're adding substantial information! The article is a featured class article, and I'd hate to see it lose that status. Also tell them to engage in discussion in the Talk page. It's a good chance for them to practice their English, or alternatively, they can just use Chinese. I'm sure some editors won't like that, but many regularly contributing editors on that article can read Chinese anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No those edits on the main HK page don't appear to be my students. They were all editing much more specific pages that relate in some way to the topics of their final reporting projects. But I'll remind them to add references in general anyway. Some people are more thorough about that than others :) Take care and perhaps we'll see you 'round. :) --Rmackinnon 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Dekkapai has taken offense at the term japanese porn fanboy. It's obvious there is some personality conflict going on there among several people. It's probably best to just deal with the edits in articles and try to avoid the personalities of other editors. I know you've got a level head and I've seen you deal well with stressful users several times. SchmuckyTheCat 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! That's rich, coming from someone who wrote that I'm "narrow-minded and blind" and called me a 5-year old. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yah, it's flying in all directions. 'S why I advocate being cool. SchmuckyTheCat 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hong, at least he doesn't stalk your talk page, jumping in every time you mention his name... John Smith's 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's such a great guy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Languages of Hong Kong

Re: your edit. For foreigners who have lived in HK for 7 years and are seeking to obtain an HKSAR passport, speaking Chinese is in fact a requirement. Dunno if it's worth mentioning on that page; as for a reference, it's somewhere on the Immigration Department's webpage, listed as one of the factors to which consideration would be given . I read a news article about Indians who had naturalised as Chinese citizens in HK, and they mentioned they had been tested in basic Mandarin (???) by the immigration officer at the naturalization interview. Can't find the damn thing again, though ... cheers, cab 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I did not know that. It must be a pretty low level threshold of Chinese language competancy then, because so many long-term expats in HK still can't speak much Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... According to the link you gave me, it's a "consideration" for applying for Chinese nationality. I wonder if this is specifically worth mentioning in that article because it's technically a different scope than permanent residency in HK. I'll try to reword it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reverted the page before I saw your message here. I don't know if it's worth mentioning in the lead since there's so few people naturalizing as Chinese citizens in HK, and the requirement isn't any different than the rest of China, as far as I understand it (though implementation may differ, because I think it's controlled by the HK Immigration Department rather than the mainland affairs offices). cab 05:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey again

Hello! I know you're probably extremely busy working on a host of other projects, but if you can spare a moment, I was wondering if you could help me clean up Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians (btw hooray for finally settling on a solution with regards to article name!). In case you haven't noticed, the article has recently garnered 4 more negative tags in a short period of time, which is frustrating. I've been trying to maintain the integrity of the article but it's sort of an uphill battle and my patience is wearing thin, and you seem to be good at cleaning things up. I understand if you can't, but any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Drenched 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that article is a mess and contentious articles like that usually sucks up your time. I'll take a look when I can. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You've been a huge help already! --Drenched 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuen Long District WPHK rating

FYI: I have re-assessed this article's importance to mid per WikiProject Hong Kong assessment scheme. Under the scheme, districts as defined by the Hong Kong Districts Council Site are to be rated mid importance and not low importance. However, similarly related to the Yuen Long District article is Yuen Long New Town which should be rated low importance because of its local notability in nature. Luke!

Do you think that further clarification needs to be added to the assessment scheme criteria to further differentiate between administrative districts, like Yuen Long District, and those that are just "districts" or areas, like Yuen Long New Town. I can see some mis-interpretations here as Shau Kei Wan might be interpreted as an administrative district when it is in fact not. Luke! 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt. As you can see, I made the mistake of assessing administrative districts as Low. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits...

I guess that we disagree on many things and will continue to do so, but I just wanted to say that I just saw the fantastic article on Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong, which you have done most work on - if I'm not mistaken. A great piece, I must say! So much work here on Misplaced Pages is biased in favor "great men" and "great events", while these topics such as this tend to be forgotten.--Niohe 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi HongQiGong, I've appreciated your well-reasoned points in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if it just escaped my notice you have already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not paid attention to the Caucasian American list or the African American list. If they take 2 or 3 nominations and they're still not deleted, I'd tend to think that the WP community as a whole does not want to delete them. As for the Chinese American list, I just feel that it's not too long to maintain, and if one day it does become too long to maintain, the solution would be to split the article, and not to delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC Japan

Hi there, are you going to vote on the FAC? I welcome you continuing to tidy up the article, but it would be nice to have some votes "for" as well. I know what you mean about the post-crash history, but given the history section is already long and we can't think of anything that really needs to go in there, could we consider it another time? John Smith's 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article still needs some work, but I'm neutral to it at the moment because I don't want to immediately vote to oppose. I think the FAC itself can be used to raise editing concerns and whip the article into FA shape. If the article gets whipped into shape, I'd definitely vote "for". You've only posted the article for nomination a couple of hours ago. Give it a little time for editors to address FAC concerns. I know the FAC and FAR processes can be frustrating, but think about it this way, they can only serve to further improve the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I was just curious as to what your position was. John Smith's 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is "American"

I apologize even for posting this murky question, but your to List of Japanese Americans fits squarely into the fray muck. My take is that several of these individuals are likely to finish their professional careers in the U.S.; beyond that, they may or may not retire in Japan, or maintain dual residence. Surely these players hold at least permanent resident status, which is sufficient to qualify as "American" in my book. I'd be curious to know your take. --Ishu 22:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a little far-fetched in my opinion. That's like saying Yao Ming is American, but not many people would agree. Even if we are to measure their degree of "Americanisation", it's a lot of presumptions. I just don't think it's necessary to slap the "American" label on every foreigner that has a career in the US. Is there any evidence that they identify as "American", or that they even identify as a member of American society? There's a difference between those that think of themselves as "sojourners" who are removed from their home country, and those who think of themselves as minorities in their own countries. Maybe if they had been in the US for the better part of their lives, it would be easy to give them the American label, but I don't think this is the case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The nationality of any individual isn't some murky process of divination. It can be answered with one simple question. What passport/s do the individuals in question hold? You can live for decades in the US, but that doesn't make you an American. Some Westerners live and work in Japan for decades, but that doesn't make them Japanese. Look here for the Misplaced Pages standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Opening_paragraph Penser 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)penser

WP Tibet

THankou for your comments -even if there are not too many members I feel it would be useful for better project coordination and to find out the articles that need improving on the status ladder, missing articles etc. from Tibet. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

interference

Could you please next time write me reply to my talk page instead of replying here? I appreciate your effort of editing as an admin. but I personally think that you interfered too much that leading to no space of freedom for us to edit esp in the topic Hong Kong. Micromanagement from your part is too much. Guia Hill 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And I'm not sure what you're talking about. What particular article am I "interfering" too much on? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

History of China

Removal of a NPOV tag without consent from the person who placed it or a resolution of the dispute constitutes vandalism. ludahai 魯大海 09:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese-Chinese people merge discussion

It looked to me like there was a consensus to merge. The only argument against merging was a restating of the fact that they are currently different pages. Can you explain to me what you saw? Dekimasuよ! 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, 5 to 2 is not really much of a consensus. And the poll ran for about 3 weeks at 3 to 2. Maybe you can bring the discussion up again in the Talk page? Part of the issue is that Chinese people could be made into an article in its own right, instead of a dab page. I personally don't feel too strongly either way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphan Tags

I am trying to gather a consensus on whether Orphan tags are necessary on wikipedia.

Please go to the page Template talk:Orphan and fill in you opinion under the heading Please give you opinion on the Orphan tag below area of the page. Thanks Dreamweaverjack 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For your contributions to Chinese history-related articles, you are awarded the Barnstar of National Merit. --Nlu (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

China naming conventions

I tried to answer your concerns about edit-warring. Please respond. --Ideogram 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you can have the last word on that discussion. I still prefer no mass-renaming of articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to Misplaced Pages

I am new to Misplaced Pages so I dont know the ropes just yet. Some information is better than no article right? I am trying my best. Please do not criticize me. Alex678 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just frustrating when newbies create new and short badly styled articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong GA on hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong GA

Hi HongQiGong, I see that the Foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong article has been promoted to GA status. Way to go! I know that you worked really hard on improving that article to what it is now. Good job! Hopefully FA status will come within the near future! See you around. Luke! 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to concentrate on getting Octopus card back into FA status first. Then I'll get back to Foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong and push for FA status. It needs a lot of expansion before it can get there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Hong Kong films

HI there I would be immensely grateful if you could help me fil in the List of Hong Kong films thanks. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure let me take a look. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PRC

I don't know if you noticed, but it lost its FA status. John Smith's 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh oops. I actually knew that but forgot. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

no personal attacks

Very typical of you, Hong, after attacking other people who inevitably criticize you for your attack mode, lately manifested as feeble invocations of WP:Weasel words, which are your own forte. I made no attack, Hong, I made an ovbservations as to what I THINK of your behaviour and personality based on your posts. That's no more a personal attack than the INCORRECT invocation of the weasel words guideline which you yourself were already in violation of; I can't help it if you provide citations for your own hypocrisy; don't turn around and accuse others of "attack" when your own foibles have been clear and in the open for what they are. Dishonesty. Oh, and pretentious holier-than-thou Wikimoralizing. If you don't want people criticizing you with "personal attacks" maybe you should stop doing them yourself; and stop weaseling with items like Chinaman where you make edits that are clearly unsupported by any cite, then demand others provide support for reversing your own unsupported edits. I used to think you were just a fool....Skookum1 17:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Telling someone that he should not use weasel words or original research is not an attack. But calling someone a hypocrite, dishonest, and vain, would be an attack. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you've used weasel words throughout the Chinaman discussion, and through the Talk:History of Chinese immigration to Canada discussion; you've consistently misrepresented quotes and deleted stuff you don't like, without warrant or citation. Then you turn around and invoke citability on others, and using the term "weasel words" is implicitly the same thing as calling their alleged user "a weasel"), especially when it's clearly not what applied. What applied was the cites in place, and the other examples from cricket and politics (and optometry?) which are clear demonstrations that "sometimes" was perfectly apt. I can't believe you actually asked for someone to provide a citation for an adverb. Actually, more's the pity, I can believe it, because I've seen you at work before. And your own assertions that Chinaman is always derisive were themselves "original research" since there are clearly lots of examples that fly in the face of your "theory". Stop pretending to be abiding by Misplaced Pages rules when you're not.Skookum1 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "weasel word" is a term used by the Misplaced Pages community. Please read WP:Weasel words. I don't really want to argue with you over what is considered a personal attack here on WP. Feel free to ask an admin if you disagree with my assertion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you used it wrongly and in a sense where clearly "you are a weasel" was being implied. I don't really want to argue with you over what YOU consider a personal attack on Misplaced Pages, because you're so good at complaining about being attacked when you do so much attacking yourself, soft-pedalled or otherwise. Now you're pointing at the admins, hiding behind the teachers' skirts, when you got caught out YET AGAIN for the double-standard that seems to be your own personal banner around here. Stop judging others, and they will stop judging you.Skookum1 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what part of WP:Weasel words you don't understand. Here is the first example given on the weasel words guideline:

Words and short phrases that make a statement difficult or impossible to prove or disprove, are surely weasel words:

Some humans practice cannibalism. (True, but useless and misrepresentative)

Again, please read WP:Weasel words. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE, your pretentious twit, and NOTHING in the arguments made re "sometimes" et al. falls into "weasel words" - they are straightforward statements that are borne out by other items on the disambiguation page as well as evident rrom the citations which YOU YOURSELF MISREPRESENTED, i.e. in which you used "weasel logic", which also includes your insistence that others provide cites to countermand edits which you yourself didn't provide valid cites for. Stop accusing people of things that you do yourself, Hong, it's that simple.Skookum1 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1, I've no idea about the content dispute, but calling people names will not solve matters. Please discuss the relevant issues in a civil manner, and consider seeking a mediator. At the same time, please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, please see my latest post. Your latest comment there may be considered "trying to get the last word in". Everything is on the record, and if the personal attacks resume, I have the user talk pages watched. If they don't resume, well, that's all we want, right? Xiner (talk, email) 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Hong Kong films (part 2)

Hey! Smile like the sun Skookum1!!! Beam!!!! With the Hong Kong films I have got as far as adding up to the end of A in the category. Film B-Z need filling in. Also I will be compiling the entire missing list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Hong Kong Films for missing film from the lists and wikipedia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey I started Zhuangzi Tests His Wife. So much for a good gesture above!!! I have finished with the Hong Kong list for today I am up to the beginning of C . Feel free to continue cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How seem clever enough to me!!! I noticed your edit in Qamdo and wondered if you are interested in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tibet also? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really that knowledgeable about Tibet, but feel free to ask me for anything specific you might need help on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

YOU are retarded

Hey retard, YOU are the one that is weak and a pedofile, do not talk about asian men like you are one. It may be, that you AREN'T one, whether by image or by heart. Because you are not. The kind of articles, where you use all sorts of rubbish to "try" to support your ideas and concepts. But, you know what? They are only ideas and ultimately, concepts. That will not change people's own mind and values.

Learn to see the world, nub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Represented (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Great. Thanks for the comment. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gary Locke

HongQiGong, in your justification for editing my contribution, you stated that Gary Locke and his wife are Chinese. They are not Chinese. Did you read the article? They are both Americans. They can trace their ancestry back to China, but they've both been Americans since birth and have never had any other nationality.

I won't revert your change, because I don't think the point that they are Americans needs to be stressed in light of the racist threats, but statements like yours (that he is Chinese) only support racists who think of people of Asian descent as not being "real" Americans. Penser 06:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser

His family is both Chinese and American. Thus - "Chinese American". Also, I've added a source for his Chinese name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Being Chinese American is not the same as being "Chinese." George W. Bush is not "British" even if he has English ancestry. Barack Obama is not Kenyan, though he certainly has Kenyan heritage. The conflation of these two terms is a factor in encouraging parochial racists to think of Americans of certain ethnic heritage as not being "real" Americans. Telling someone to "go back to where they came from" is ridiculous if you are operating from the premise that Locke is an American, born and raised. If he is constantly referred to as "Chinese", then it seems more logical, if still boorish and cowardly.

By the way, thank you for providing a link.

Penser 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser

Yes, he is American born and raised. But your edit also included that he's not Chinese, which is blatantly false. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"He is American born and raised"? Yes, imagine that. An American born and raised in the US. He's not Chinese. He's Chinese American. Saying merely that he's Chinese is blatantly false. If someone was saying bad things about George Bush that suggested he should go back to Britain, might it not be instructive to note that Bush is American and not British? Penser 06:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser

Misplaced Pages is not a place for political activism and it's not a place for you to inject your personal opinions. Please do that on your blog or on a forum somewhere. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not injecting personal opinions. It is you who have done that. I simply stated that Gary Locke is not Chinese, he's American. That is undeniable and can be confirmed by the fact he is only a citizen of the United States. You are the one who tried to claim that he is Chinese; that is injecting some kind of politics into this issue. Penser 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)penser

He is "Chinese" by the fact that it is his ethnicity. This is a fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then you're talking about something different than I am. So don't tell me I'm injecting personal opinions and activism into your pristine and unbiased contributions. You didn't specify ethnicity or ancestral background before; you just said "he's Chinese." To say he's American, like I said, needs no qualification, so please go easy on the accusations. Penser 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)penser

You would be injecting opinions if you added he's "not Chinese", because that is factually inaccurate. He is not a citizen of China, but he is "Chinese". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not factually inaccurate depending on what you are talking about. If you are talking about citizenship and primary loyalty to a certain country, then no, he is not Chinese; he is American. If you are talking about ethnic heritage, then yes, you could argue that he is Chinese, but only with qualifications (e.g. he is ethnically Chinese, he is of Chinese descent). Saying he is American needs no qualifications and is correct beyond dispute. Penser 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)penser

The issue here is that you injected he is "not Chinese" without qualification of ethnicity or citizenship. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since citizenship is the default (for example, when you go to a wikipedia page about Frank Sinatra or Conan O'Brien it describes them simply as "American", without mentioning citizenship) the burden was not on me to clarify at the point. And even if it could arguably be clarified, it certainly wasn't a justification for you to accuse me of adding a blatant falsehood. Penser 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)penser

But it would be a falsehood to say that Conan O'Brien is "not Irish" or that Frank Sinatra is "not Italian". The fact remains that Gary Locke is, in fact, Chinese. And I'm done with this pointless discussion now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It would not be wrong in response to people who say Sinatra should go back to Italy to say, "Hey, he's an American, not Italian! He was born and raised here you ignoramus!" Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that you won't deign to continue to impart your superior wisdom and critical thinking upon me. Penser 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)penser

People's Republic of China

What's with replacing the information about the dynasties and Republican government on the PRC page? Please respond to my points and justify your actions before including apparently inappropriate information:

I don't believe this information is relevant to an article about the People's Republic of China. That would be completely appropriate to the article about China, but this is specifically about the People's Republic, i.e. under communist rule. Thus, the salient date is the founding of the PRC in 1949.

For example, if you look at the page for the Soviet Union, it only includes the dates when Russia was under Communist control. It doesn't include all important dates in Russian history, because that's not relevant to the period of Soviet control, which is what the article is about.

Penser 06:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser

Ask for consensus on the Talk page of the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made these same points on the talk page for a couple of days and there has been no point offered as to why these other regimes of China should be included in a page specifically about the PRC. I'll wait another day or so and then revert. Penser 06:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser

Mike Honda

HongQiGong, are you going to go around adding katakana names to all Americans of Japanese descent? How about Russian Americans like Natalie Wood? Shouldn't they have their names written in Cyrillic? ;-) Penser 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)penser

Chink article

Took another look. Good work. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh it wasn't me. It was User:Falsedef that did the expansion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my refs. I didn't have the bibliographical information handy.Zeus1234 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just Googled the books, that's all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Archaic"

Hi Hong. Archaic means outdated, no? Xiner (talk, email) 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I switched it to "outdated" because, seeing as how the word is still used sometimes, I think "archaic" might be too strong of a word. But it's not really too big of a deal to me which word is used specifically. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts

Multiple comments on yours on the Japan FAC have been unsigned. Please make an effort to sign your posts so I know who is talking when I read those threads. Raul654 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story

Greetings. When you get a chance, can you take a look at the dispute currently going on at Mao: The Unknown Story. The page has been locked, and we are trying to get consensus to resolve the impase and get the page unlocked again. In order to do so, we need the regular editors involved in these issues to give their opinon. Thanks.Giovanni33 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

“South Tibet”

I've nominated the article on “South Tibet” for deletion. Please have another look at the discussion on that article. —Babelfisch 08:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try AfD instead. I'm going to remove the prod tag. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Chinaman

Done. Sorry about that. Xiner (talk, email) 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Kwan

Thanks for the vote, but it was closed as "delete" basically on the strength of two "I've never heard of it and I don't read Chinese" arguments. Ggaaah. I've asked the closing admin to clarify; may head for WP:DRV otherwise. cab 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 3#Kelvin Kwan. cab 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I don't know why you gave me a warning. You have to revert 3 times to the same (or virtually the same) version of the page - I have only reverted twice. Please do not put up any more false warnings. John Smith's 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You took out Bgaulke's addition three times.

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not "take it out", I changed it. The first time I removed it prior to a rewrite of the whole the page. When you subsequently tried to stuff it back in you were duplicating the content. John Smith's 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Mao: The Unknown Story. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Smith's 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please revert your changes

Hong, your recent edits on the Mao book article have just removed various but important pieces of content from your arbitrary "positive" section. You cite the problem that it is "too large" - are you going to cut the criticism section down too?

Also as I said in my earlier edit, it is not proper to put at least two reviews in the "criticism" section. They have good things to say as well - to put them there incorrectly implies they don't have anything positive to say. That's why I put them to the top. Also you have left out the Rummel comments, which are positive. Really reviews are far more nuanced then "good" and "bad" - there's no need to put them into boxes.

Considering this I would ask you to revert your edits and discuss changes on the talk page so we can work out a solution - you don't want another edit war, do you? John Smith's 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the section is too large, so I wanted to put in subsections, and I thought some of the reviews were too large, so I cut them down for the sake of brevity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But the subsections are not appropriate - History isn't about "right" or "wrong" views. Also through some of your edits you changed the entire focus of one of the views. I'll ask you once more to revert so we can discuss changes. Also you've failed to cut down the other section. I'm sure we can make it more compact, but changes need to be made for both parts, not just the more positive views. John Smith's 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The section titles are not commenting about whether it's "right" or "wrong" history. It specifies positive or negative reviews of the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You've done it again - you're allocating more content to the criticism section than the first - why can't it be roughly the same? There are six people on each side mentioned who are generally positive/critical. John Smith's 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)