User talk:Da Vynci

Hi, please leave your message here.

Thanks

I want to thank you for your work on the Hong Kong sections. I just think it's a good thing. Zachkchk 07:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess that I just edit and create articles in Wikipedia whenever I found subject that interests me. I haven’t done much though compare to some hyper-active Hong Kong Wikipedians(!!)( and I wonder where did you find my fingerprints?) But anyway, thanks for your appreciation, it is really cool, especially for a message from one of the editors of the magazine that I often read. Da Vynci 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliment in turn. I would like to talk to you about a few things, especially concerning your post below. Could you drop me an email at zach AT ostensible dot org? Zachkchk 13:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong

Da Vynci ：

The planning of the establishment of Wikipedia Hong Kong as a society has entered the final stage.

From 27th April 2006, every Hong Kong Wikimedians is welcomed to participate in the discussion on the vote on the official name of the chapter. Then a one-week nomination period and a three-week voting period will be held. At the same time, you are also welcomed to join in the discussion on the draft constitution of the chapter.

After an official name is decided, the recruitment of member will be started and the first general meeting will be held (Please refer to the schedule). If you're interested to join, please sign your name on this page so that an estimation on the number of member could be done.

WIKIMEDIA HONG KONG NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION AND SUPPORT NOW.

I am the Wikipedian who invites you:encyclopedist 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image:Chinglish restaurant sign.JPG

呵呵,我也有这样的反应 :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Manual of Revenge?

You included a reference to this book in your article on the The Complete Manual of Suicide -- where did you get this? I can not find any information on it online (I am looking to obtain a copy). Please email me -- brendanx@gmail.com Thank you! --Brendanx 2:49 9/21/06 (EST/USA)

Tokyo flag

Hi! I've upgraded your image Image:Flag of Tokyo.gif to an SVG file at Image:Flag of Tokyo.svg. The main advantage of an SVG file is that it can be made as big as you like without it getting pixelly: compare

File:Flag of Tokyo.gif

As a result, I'm going to nominate the original for deletion, and should therefore leave a note here. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have a better version, why don't you simply overwrite my version (by hitting the 'update this image' link, or similar link) , why bother going through the precedure of voting? Da Vynci 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Because I can't overwrite a GIF with an SVG; as far as I'm aware, the software will only let you replace an image with another one of the same file type. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oh, I see. Yeah, that's good, dispose the old pic and add a better version, thanks! Da Vynci 08:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Mannual of Sucide

Dude, it's different authors (鶴見済 and A.R.A), different publisher (太田出版 and Wanibooks) and even unrelated title (完全自殺マニュアル and 復讐の手引き)and deceptively unrelated topic (sucide and revenge). Only common element is use of similar words, mannual and instruction (Tebiki). Moreover the later book encourage people to take reveng in "legal manner" by harrasement and not by murder. Vapour

Kill Bill

I see your point about Dim Mak. However, I think it is POV to equate the FPPEHT with Dim Mak (i.e., wikilinking the FPPEHT phrase with Dim Mak) simply because a reviewer does so. If Dim Mak is included, explain the connection (with sources), but do not wikilink the two phrases. Ward3001 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re you tube

hi,

I'm of the generation that is still to be pursuaded I need a cell phone, so I haven't a web cam etc. The only video footage of performances of myself I have access to is a 9 year old unedited video tape of a 30min TV programme on my playing. Thankyou for the vote of confidence - but I'm not a touring concert artist, merely a working musician specialising in classical guitar performance and tuition.

Tablature is a curse, I frequently have to repair the damage it does to young musicians who belatedly decide to take music seriously. RichardJ Christie 08:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for Wikipedia research from CityU HK

Dear Da Vynci,

I would like to congratulate you to the fantastic work you’re doing for Wikipedia! Because you’re an expert in your field and a well integrated member in the Wikipedia community, we would like to invite you to participate in our research project on collaboration activities and mechanisms in Wikipedia.

At the Center for Applied Knowledge and Innovation Management at City University we’re currently doing a research project on Wikipedia, and we are inviting experienced Wikipedians in Hong Kong to share their success stories and views on different aspect of the community processes with us. We would thus like to invite you to an interview at your convenience, preferably within the next two weeks if possible. The interview should not take longer than 30-45 minutes and will be conducted at a place and time of your convenience.

We would very much appreciate the opportunity of talking to you and learning about your experiences with Wikipedia, and we hope that you are willing to participate in our research project. Any information about participants will, of course, be kept strictly confidential.

For further questions about the project and to arrange a date for an interview, please contact Dr Andreas Schroeder at WikiResearchCityU{at}gmail.com or send me an email.

We’re looking forward to talking to you in the near future.

Kind regards,
Dr Andreas Schroeder
Center for Applied Knowledge and Innovation Management
Information Systems Department
City University of Hong Kong

WikiResearcherHK (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD Wiki

You may be interested in contributing to wikicities:AutoCAD. I'm sure your help there would be appreciated. Tom Haws (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies (group)

"Not getting in your way aside", I will actively and voluntarily get in your way, because I think we need to make a distinction with a break, because the collapsing of Cookies into merely "Mini Cookies" basically transformed them from one megagroup to a much smaller quartet. That's why the break is there.

And to quote from you, if you're not going to fix it, I will. And when I do, don't you get in my way. Pandacomics (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Anniversary Celebrations of Wikimedia Hong Kong

Dear Da Vynci:

Celebrating the First Anniversary of Wikimedia Hong Kong, the Chapter will have a first anniversary conference discussing how to promote Wikimedia and her web 2.0 endeavors in education sector in this conference, as well as a better promotion for the free culture in Hong Kong. The details of the Conference are as shown below:

Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008
Time: 1:00 - 3:00pm
Venue:
- Rm 201, HKCSS Duke of Windsor Social Service Building
- 15 Hennessy Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong

For further information, please refer to This page。If you want to come and join us in the conference, or your have any inquiries about the celebrations, please contact us via the email of our chapter: wikimedia.hong.kong@gmail.com

Regards,
Wikimedia Hong Kong

Invitied by Sith lord darth vader (talk), 15:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Reservation Ordinance

Peak Reservation Ordinance is 100 years old. Please leave the historical facts alone. Benjwong (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wiki etiquette

I am warning you, Da Vynci, not to edit the Peak Reservation Ordinance page without first indicating your reason for doing so on the "talk page" of that article. If you don't want to follow proper etiquette, I am going to report you to the wikipedia and have you permanently removed. Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AR1997 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, you're a "British National without the right of abode" in Great Britain. What does that even mean? Oh I see - it means that you're one of those pathetic little Kongers whom the British obviously didn't care enough to grant UK citizenship back in the late 80s/early 90s, when the Chinese rolled tanks over the dead bodies of students. How pathetic. Is that what you are, eh? Someone who dreams that he's British but in reality is nothing but a despised colonial unfit in the eyes of his master even for a "right" of, em, "abode"? AR1997 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE indicated reasons in edit summery on more than one ocassions, and I have left 1000+ words explaination in the Talk page. If you are in doubt, check the talk page. You seems not very familar with Wikipedia's policies, the Be bold policy encourages everyone to contribute, edit articles and add references, etc. If your edit bases on no reference, it sooner or later will be removed. BTW, why you often forget to sign your comments (e.g. this page and the PRO talk page). Your memory isn't so well. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

Thank you for your message so it allows me to explain what I meant.

You asked me which part of Hong Kong does PRC have control. I think you then answered the question: defence and foreign affairs. Your original sentence was:-

"[PRC] has effective control over mainland China and has sovereignty over internally self-governing city states of Hong Kong (since 1997) and Macau (since 1999)."

Your sentence implies that PRC does not have effect control over Hong Kong. But in fact, as you said the PRC central government has effect control over Hong Kong in respect of defence and foreign affairs. I note you cited the Sino-British Joint Declaration to back up your argument. But that's irrelevant in this issue.

Also you said that Hong Kong is a city state. It is not. It is a local government of a state called the People's Republic of China. Singapore is a city state called the Republic of Singapore.

The United Kingdom does not have any control over Australia. Please let me refer you to the Australia Act 1986. It is a piece of legislation passed by both Parliaments of Australia and the UK saying the UK Parliament shall not make any laws for Australia or any of its states. In this respect, Australia is a fully independent nation. Also, the Queen in Australia has an official title of "Queen of Australia". When she exercises her powers in right of Australia, she is acting as the Queen of Australia (not of the United Kingdom).

Hong Kong, on the other hand, is a different story. The PRC government can at any time make laws to override the Basic Law in accordance of the legal principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (the parliament can make whatever laws it pleases). The Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot prevent that from happening. This is another example that PRC has effect control over Hong Kong.--pyl (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the PRC still has final say as it has the power to interpret the Basic Law any way it wants. Readin (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the wording limits the interpretation. However, with Parliamentary Sovereignty, they can legally do whatever they want with Hong Kong.--pyl (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of 猩猩?

Hi, Da Vynci. Would you be able to add something about the Chinese origin of 猩猩 to the much-disputed Shōjo article? (I would like to make a stub article on 猩猩.) The Japanese Wikipedia page says the legendary creature originates in China, but offers no citation. If you don't have time or are not interested, don't worry about it. Thanks. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I suspect the "legendary creature" that the Japanese encountered or heard (probably when visiting south China around 6-8th century) is this. Because 猩猩 in Chinese means Orangutan. Also, Orangutan is known for their reddish-brown hair. All other Chinese websites I see and daily usage indicate 猩猩=Orangutan. Since it is a specie that is native to south-east asia and probably new to Japanese eyes ( in 6-8th century) , plus all the hearsay, it became a "legendary creature" and inspiration for Noh play. XDXD

I don't know if should upload the above "theory" ...coz depite it is logical, but i seems can't find reference to support it. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is also used to mean "orangutan" in Japanese, too, but the (unreferenced) Japanese Wikipedia page says that the "legendary creature" comes from China. Your interpretation makes sense, but until we can find some citable source, I suppose I should just remove the "comes from China" phrase. Thanks! Matt Thorn (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mainland China

Hello.

I noted you added the "largely self-governing" phrase in the definition to HK and Macau. The definition now reads as follows:-

"Mainland China, Continental China, the Chinese mainland or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term synonymous with the area that is under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC), usually excluding the largely self-governing territories of Hong Kong and Macau.[1] The term never includes Taiwan, which is claimed by the PRC, but is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC)."

While I would like people to know that HK is largely self-governing but I don't think that fact is quite relevant to the definition of mainland China.

It is like saying "The term never includes the democratic Taiwan". The status of the freedom of territory really has nothing to do with the definition of "mainland China". I would suggest if we can remove it from the definition so it is concise and easier for people to understand.--pyl (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man...why do I see you wherever I go? Fine. As long as it says "excluding Hong Kong and Macua", I am cool with it. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You like to visit articles in my watch list I guess lol. I will remove the "largely self-governing" bit. Thank you. --pyl (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den

Thanks for tagging that article. I do agree that it definitely needs a lot of cleanup. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion...

Could you reconsider this and this? My first thought was it was someone's joke, but you don't seem to be making jokes in other edits. Do you really think someone is going to get these confused, or if by some stretch they get to the wrong article, that they will remain confused? Or think of it another way - I see words in articles that I think should be linked, but there is this idea that too many links spoil things, so I don't link just everything I think of. Shenme (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message, lol, of course I don't think all reader who is reading about Confuse will be confused it with Confucius or vice versa. But I bet some might, due to their similar sound and spelling. IMHO the little message on the top of the article doesn't not hurt. Moreover, I found the word Confucius hard to spell and I think it may be helpful to have a link on the top of confuse page for those who are confused about the spelling of Confucius...^^ --Da Vynci (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chopsticks

As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not an instruction book, it is improper for an article to say "if rice is served on a plate, eat it with a spoon or fork." Wording like "it is acceptable to eat rice with a spoon or fork" is more desirable.

Also, the sentence you have been adding about how it is tradition to serve rice in bowls is not necessary for the understanding of the section about using chopsticks to eat rice out of a bowl, which is why I have been removing it; it's a detail that would be better incorporated into a different article. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the section is about "Chinese etiquette" , and in Chinese etiquette there is no such thing as eating rice with fork. So any memtion about fork's usage using should be removed.

You can either eat in the Chinese way (bowl+chopsticks) or the Western Way (plate+fork+knife). The western way is out of the scoop of "Chinese etiqutte". Moveover, the almost-never-serve-rice-on-plate traditional custom deserves to be noted. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

While there's no blanket ban on linking to YouTube (see WP:YOUTUBE), it is preferred that it not be used as a reference whenever possible because of the instability of YouTube links and the copyright issues that may arise. Since Kylie's OBE was widely reported, another source should be used. If you have issue with this, please discuss it to the talk page to seek a consensus. Plenty of people have the article watchlisted because of its FA status so consensus will be easy to seek if this actually becomes an issue. Thanks. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to know where on Wikipedia guideline says youtube videos are "not be used as a reference henever possible". Your claim (or sterotype? lol) about the "instability of YouTube links and copyright issue" may not apply to that particular vidoe because that youtube channel is owned by the Crown. Please see details on the article's talk page. Good day. --Da Vynci (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese name or Japanese name?

User:Uglyguy2006 made a change to Goku. Which is correct? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it is a Japanese manga, 孫 is definitely a Chinese surname not a Japanese one (romanized as Son, Sun or Suen, depends on the system), even the entry on japanese wikipedia says so, where the third line reads 中国などに見られる姓の一つ。, it even cites 孫悟空 as example. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you undo the edit but explain why in your edit summary? That is, for everyone else to know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball (film)

The use of a smattering of Japanese words in the film does not mean that Japanese is its language. The language field is for the primary language, not minor ones dropped in now and then. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wei Man

korean editor kuebie is preparing a vote to change name to a korean one, and canvassing korean editors, vote no on name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.134.214 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Example

Hi there, I'm sorry I wasn't trying to say that you were making personal attacks. I was trying to say that the argument you were making was not justified based on the same logic as personal attacks. I completely disagree with your example regarding New York for the same reason. Editors from anywhere are of course encouraged to write about New York, or Hong Kong, or wherever, so long as they are putting in appropriate material. Now I'm not saying the editors you have a problem with are putting in appropriate material. But your opposition should be phrased against the arguments they are making, not against where you believe they come from. If they are consistently making edits that are biased, counterproductive or simply wrong, you may be able to get an admin to take action against them. But the argument "you can't edit my city's article because you're not from here" is clearly not valid on Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Linguaphone.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Linguaphone.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Thank you for experimenting with the page British Museum on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.Canterbury Tail talk 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an experiment, British Museum's stolen artifacts are well known in Asia, please take a look at China Radio International's article and UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects to learn more about stolen artifacts in museums. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, not every single word in wikipedia require reference to back it up, especially if it is common sense. That's why reference weren't include at the first time when the content in question were introduced. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you made an edit that states that every single item in the Asian collection is a stolen item, something that is not true. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't type the words "every single item", so please talk to the person who wrote that instead. Well, if that appears to be a problem, u can well remove those words and replace it with "most items" or "many items", but the words "stolen" has to stay in the articles. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What neutral references do you have for them being stolen? Remember this is Wikipedia, and all such claims need to be verifiable from proper neutral sources. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Turn_Left_Turn_Right.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Turn_Left_Turn_Right.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of your inappropriate, impolite accuse

I never doubt the autonomy of Hong Kong. It is simply because the heading column is country. And you are putting a non-country item in a country column. That's all. I have no other political or any other stands. -Ngckmax (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If u honestly never doubt the autonomy of Hong Kong, I wonder why u stated "Hong Kong is just like New York City", knowing that New Yorks City doesn't have NY dollar and doesn't have a different official language from the rest of USA. If u honestly never doubt the autonomy of Hong Kong, u would know it is often treated just like a country on international setting in practice. What written on papaer isn't always correct, just like North Korea's official name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea, does it means we should put that into the list of democratic countries on the world? --Da Vynci (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't know why you keep on stressing my wrong comparison between Hong Kong and New York City. Yes, I agree with you that Hong Kong is not comparable to New York City. (New York City is like Shanghai of China, agree?) But it doesn't affect my stand. I just want to give that example to show that Hong Kong is not a country. Regarding Hong Kong is treated independently from China, Yes of course I agree (I'm born and raised in Hong Kong, educated by the western system, reading foreign news everyday). But have you noticed that in such occasions, for example in Olympics and APEC, "Hong Kong, China" should be used. It's widely adopted in all international organizations and foreign ministries of other countries.

- And very important, it's based on the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law (Article 151). Never initiated by me. Please read the Basic Law in detail. -Ngckmax (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category