User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vandalism/Deletions concerning Early BC History

Look, Hong, your favouritism for the ethnic-POV story is all too clear, but as I told you on my own talk page, and in the inline comment, these are FACTS. You should read some more British Columbia history than just the Chinese-history-oriented things you clearly wallow in; the material you deleted is standard stuff in the Akriggs, Orsmby, Begg, Morton, and countless other historians; if it's omitted in the books you've been reading, so is a lot else. Now that I've been unblocked (it was an unfair block; if you'd come out of your cave and explore as to why you might give your head a shake as to what goes on in BC politics, and learn something) I'll be taking your vandalism up with arbitration and also with other BC-history people who've read the same books I have. You can keep on being smug, and denouncing stuff as "biased"; all it does is demonstrate exactly how POV you really are.Skookum1 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, more soapboxing. What a surprise. Bottom line was that the paragraphs were POV and unsourced. Your editing is so very obviously biased when it comes to anything having to do with the Chinese. For example - you added that Chinese miners were protected because of an edict from James Douglas. So do you have a source to say that they were actually protected? Or does it just say that James Douglas gave an edict saying they are to be protected? Big difference between law and the enforcement of law you know, especially when it comes to institutionalised racism. But whatever, man, I got tired of trying to reason with you months ago. Provide accurate sources and don't be POV, and nobody would revert your edits. That is all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reported you for vandalism and insulting commentaries; deal with it. And read some BC history...I've been busy today being a good Wikipedian and catching up on work for the BC Wikiproject and didn't get to your cites; you're sure trigger-happy I'll say that for ya...Exactly what kind of books and papers on colonial BC have you read, Hong? Deleting stuff you don't know happened because it sounds biased to you is just silly; most of this page was uncited when I found it, and what cites there were went to unreferenced politically-biased websites with no real historiographical/verifiable content, and lots of stuff equating conditions here to conditions in the US was unreferenced, which you had no problem with because it suited your own prejudices....Skookum1 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For anybody interested in more info on this:

• Sample of where Skookum1 has "reported me", from his contrib history
• Discussion at Mkdw's user Talk page

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my notice of disengagement from your evident desire to stage a conflict with me over your own misbehaviour: your posts on my talkpage and in my statements to Mkdw are not bordering on harrassment, they are harrassment, which may constitute a separate complaint. I've got more important things to do on Wikipedia than respond to your attacks further.Skookum1 07:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm only responding to you now. Feel free to stop talking about me on other editors' Talk pages, and on my own. If you continue, however, I do reserve the right to defend myself and state my case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

about the date of civilization

generally, we speak of civilization with super bronze technologies and well organized social hierarchy,the chinese Neolitic cultures maybe date as far as 7000BC,but it didn't meet the standard of civilzation.Moreover,the Neolithic in other parts of world date farer than the chinese ones,and we didn't recognize them as civilization rather than cultrue.--Ksyrie 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Other sections of the article date to neolithic cultures as well. And the content in the section begins at 7000 BC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I found no other civilization dated from the beginning of Neolithic era.Please be NPOV.--Ksyrie 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Try the Indian section. Please be NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

the indian valley starts around 3700BC while the neolithic started at least 7000BC.--Ksyrie 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a few phrase,Neolithic generally doesn't be regarded as civilization.I found the levant where flourished the oldest neolithic dating to 10,000 BC,but no one tried to define it as civilisation.--Ksyrie 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We cann't set the standard of civilization just for the chinese,I think it may be a universal standard.--Ksyrie 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read about Pengtoushan, Jiahu, and Peiligang. These cultures had achieved such things as domesticated rice, playable flutes, pottery, millet farming, animal husbandry, storage and redistribution of crops, etc. There's also evidence of craftsmanship and administration. Compare that to how the other sections are dated. Some of them don't even have much archaeological evidence, like the Korea section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

check this one Pre-Pottery Neolithic A,a thing it can be compared with Pengtoushan and Jiahu.Even more,I understand your feeling towards some Korean claims about the start of their civilization.But in my opinion,the more effort they tried to advance their civilization, the more clear we know they were once less civilized,because they just change the criteria.If all people from the world apply the korean standard,all the civilization will start earlier.Ok,we are civilized.--Ksyrie 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese people

You know how you said Taiwanese people (台灣人) are also 華人 (ethnic Chinese), well there is an article that is about 華人:Overseas Chinese. And since Taiwanese people aren't 中國人, Taiwan isn't part of China (中國), but part of the Greater China (大中華地區)--Jerrypp772000 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Angelica lee 2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelica lee 2003.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

In the future, please refrain from reverting other user's talk pages. If a 3RR notice is deleted, the record of the warning is kept and will be an aggravating circumstance for the other party.--CSTAR 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs)'s edits

Greetings, I noticed you have reverted some of Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs)'s, (formerly known as User:Bonafide.hustla), edits. He is aggressively pushing his POV on China/Taiwan-related articles and his edits are increasingly becoming vandalistic. He has a history of deleting warnings and comments from his talk page as shown the history. Could you help keep an eye over his edits? Please reply here. Thanks. Guardian Tiger 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You think him and User:Bonafide.hustla are the same person? Have you filed a checkuser request? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) was previously known as Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) and Freestyle.king (talk · contribs) before he changed his username twice. The userpages all redirect back to Certified.Gangsta. I think he changed his username to hide his previous block logs. Guardian Tiger 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They're the same person - he changed his account name. --Sumple (Talk) 10:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ethnic groups in China

Hi HongQiGong,

(fixing format)

Sorry to see you didn't like my contribution. If nothing else, may I replace the bullet characters, as they appear a little too conspicuous here...?  I italicized Undistinguished ethnic groups as, unlike the other links, it's not the name of an ethnic group. Perhaps if it sat on a line of its own...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
PS {{Navigational templates}} might be of interest.

I just reverted most of it to your version. Actually I had thought you accidently messed up the format because the "as classified by the government of the People's Republic of China" text looked kind of out-of-place in the body. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted the change; glad you feel there was nothing more amiss than the position of the clarifying text (which, looking again, I agree probably sits better beside the title). Best wishes, David (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete of my picture of Warring State Bells

The warring state Music Bells are most important discovery of that period. The bell can play a C tone music and each bell has two sound, depend on where you hit the bell. The picture is not fit into the text because the text is not very long like Ming dynasty. I disagree that you should delete that picture.Dongwenliang 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's "your" picture? I was not aware you actually took that picture yourself. Anyway, I deleted the picture because it was too big for the section. I've inserted it into the Warring States Period article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of Macau and Hong Kong

Talk:Hong Kong,and talk:Macau.I recovered the edit.--Ksyrie 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinosphere

The sphere thing is laguage related. Anglosphere is groups of English speaking coutries. If you want to fabriacte a sinosphere accordingly, please choose Chinese speaking countries. Migye 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about Anglosphere. Again, did you read it? It's about those regions that were culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed Urgently

Please help! the free bronze pictures are all subject to delete by someone who is malicious! I got the picture from bronzes.cn and they are all free to use, please help!Dongwenliang 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First thing - don't leave messages on my userpage![1] That's what this Talk page is for! Now, exactly what pictures are you talking about? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinosphere

Why do you keep adding irrelevant links to Sinoshpere. How does List of tributaries of Imperial China, Suzerainty, Tributary state relate to Sinoshpere? There were already discussion about this in the talk page by other editors, who had the concensus that these information is irrelevant. Migye 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the article has to do with cultural influences from China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. These links are about military matters and the exploitation of the Chinese on its neighboring countries. How can they be culture influences? Migye 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suzerainty-tributary relations were the reason there was a lot of cultural exchanges between China and its surrounding cultures. A huge amount of Buddhist and Confucian texts were passed along to tributary states from China. Please do some reading. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're just ridiculous. Cultural exchanges can happen in a more equal footing without such military backed relations. Migye 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely, but "equal footing" or not, the fact remains that suzerainty-tributary relations were the cause for a lot of cultural exchanges. Please do some reading on East Asian history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is just wrong. Sphere is language based. It is farfetched to define Sinoshpere as culture based and you are pushing it as military related. Migye 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see some sources then. I've provided sources on the Sinosphere Talk page that defines Sinosphere as culturally based. You have not provided any sources to say that it's only linguistically based. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to be aware that Sinoshpere is fabricated from Angoloshpere, which is language based. Even if it is culture based, you haven't provided any authoritative source that says Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia belong to Sinoshpere. There are only small number of Chinese in these country. And these countries have totally different language and cultures. Anyway, I don't want to waste my time arguing about this. But military matters should be kept out of Sinoshpere. Without military matters, culture exchanges can occur even better. Please keep you POV out of Wikipedia articles. At least, there is no source say that some countries belong to Sinosphere because they were tributaries of China. Migye 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, please provide sources to show that Sinosphere is only linguistically based, instead of making assertions without backing them up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your arguement silly. Even if it is culture based, it doesn't justify you to put those military links to the article. Migye 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but please do a little reading. Take Korea for example, during its suzerainty-tributary relationship with China, it would send the Chinese court things like gold and furs. China, on the other hand, would send things like Buddhist and Confucian texts to the Korean court. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies to you as well

So you are welcome to report me and I will do the same to you as well.

And again, it is standard on wikipedia to head an article with place-of-birth and/or citizenery, not ethnicity. There's nothing further to discuss. Crumbsucker 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you due to the fact that you made an initial change that did not form a "revert". That isn't to say your actions were acceptable; pleas refrain from edit warring. However, in the interum, I have protected the page fully so you can discuss the issue (please read The Wrong Version, as I didn't check which version it actually is that I protected - yours or Crumbsucker). The protection is set for seven days; I encourage both of you to work out a comprimise on the talk page. If you manage to prior to the expiry, please contact me and I'll be more-than-happy to lift the protection. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above comment that he left. He has already stated that "there's nothing further to discuss". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to partake in dispute resolution or at least try discussing it. Wikipedia is created by consensus, discussion and comprimise, and failure to do so whilst still revert-warring is a blockable offence. You can only try your best to engage him/her in discussion, and ask for intervention if the blind reverts without discussion continues. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given this has spilled over into a number of articles, I strongly urge you to partake in dispute resolution. Daniel.Bryant 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Revert

Mongolia doesn't meet any standards to be part of Sinosphere. The Sinosphere article doesn't include Mongolia as part of Sinosphere. The map is simply wrong. Stop being a nuisance. Migye 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on the Sinosphere Talk page, please read the links I provided. Here's one that specifically mentioned Mongolia[2]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have yet

To explain why you want to go against the style manual. Crumbsucker 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1) My edit makes the intro more informative. 2) The style guide is meant as a suggestion, and does not necessarily have to be followed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But, why is an exception being made for actors who are of asian decent? Crumbsucker 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How is an exception being made? I have never taken out ethnic information in the intro of any American actors or actresses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are adding ethnic information to actors of asian descent and not ones of other ethnicities. Crumbsucker 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because I can only edit so many articles at the same time. And I don't know how to write a bot to do it for me automatically. Lack of an act does not mean I am against the act. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But why are you singling out asians? Why haven't you done others? Crumbsucker 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My interests lie more in people of Asian-descent. I mean, why do you edit so heavily on entertainment-related articles? Why not politics-related articles? Obviously, I assume, because that's where your editing interests lie. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

In a hypothetical Wikipedia in which you are boss, Wentworth Miller's opening statement would say "Wentworth Miller (born June 2, 1972) is an African-Jamaican-English-German-Jewish-Cherokee-Russian-French-Dutch-Syrian-Lebanese-American actor who achieved fame as Michael Scofield in the Fox Network's television series "Prison Break"". Do I really have to explain to you why that is riduclous and why WP:MOSBIO protects us from such nonsense? Mad Jack 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In a hypothetical Wikipedia in which I am boss, people like you wouldn't bother me. But lucky for you, this is not one such hypothetical Wikipedia, and it's hardly ridiculous to mention one, two, or even three different ethnic backgrounds. Fortunately for us, out here in real-world Wikipedia, most actors do not have about 11 different ethnic ancestries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I want to mention 11 backgrounds in the header! Who are you to limit me to just 3??? :-) Mad Jack 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then feel free. I won't stop you. I think you should do it. It's a lot more informative that way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Mad Jack 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthropological basis of Asian fetish

I think you definitely improved the article with that deletion, HongQiGong. I suspect an unsavoury agenda behind that whole section, and doubt the "research" and "sources" cited would hold up to much scrutiny. Regards. Dekkappai 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough already?

I must inform you that I fully intend to enforce WP:MOSBIO and prevent this kind of nonsense from polluting Wikipedia articles. Your "more informative" argument is really silly. If we put the whole entry into the opening, that would also be "more informative". What's your point? And on that note, it strikes me as fairly racist that no Asian American can be called simply "American" in their opening paragraph. I am sure racism is not your intention, but that is somewhat the result. Mad Jack 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that I'm not trying to put the entire entry in the intro. I'm only trying to specify ethnicity in the intro. There's a big difference. And I disagree that it's "fairly racist" to point out that someone is Asian American, I'm not sure how it can be racist. This especially applies to someone like Maggie Q, who actually appeared in a public service announcement urging young Asian American voters to go out and vote in the last US presidential election.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, you're trying to put in ethnicity. Someone else can try to put in religion. Another person put shoe size, the other their birth place, and the third person putting in spouse and children's names. This information is all very nice and belongs somewhere in the entry, but it has nothing to do with why a particular person is famous, nor does it summarize the article, which is what the header is supposed to do (and on those grounds it violates WP:MOSBIO). I think it's racist because, if all your edits were to stick, Asian Americans would all be "Asian American" in the opening as opposed to simply "American", like their caucasian compatriots. So, as a result, it appears that no Asian American can be described as simply "American" in the opening, while caucasian Americans can be. As for Q's public service announcement, that may be notable and you should add it to the "personal life" section of the article if you think it is notable. But Q is notable for being an actress, not for being Asian American. (Although she is notable for appearing in a large number of Asian films, and that can be included in the header: i.e. "is an American actress. She is known for her roles in several Asian as well as Hollywood films". Mad Jack 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting a simple, often one-word indication of ethnicity is part of a summary. I'm not trying to put in their family histories. And in my opinion, the only people who would think it racist to introduce someone as Asian American as opposed to "simply" American, are the same people who think that Asian Americans are somehow less American than the rest. It's not racist because I've not denied anybody any social or economic opportunities based on a person's race, and my edits do not have any racial slurs. The point of my mention of the fact that Maggie Q appeared in that PSA is to point out that Maggie Q herself identifies as Asian American and it would be a little strange to think that pointing that out is racist. Also, again, WP:MOSBIO is meant only as a guideline, and is not a set of binding rules. Exceptions are allowed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's a guideline, but you've presented no rational reason for not following this guideline specifically in relation to every single Asian American person whose entry you've stumbled upon. The guideline represents the consensus of many editors and the norm for Wikipedia biographies; there is zero to no reason not to follow this norm. I have never said that Maggie Q (or anyone else) does not identify as Asian American, nor that she is not one. What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with the header of the article, although it may be information that belongs in, say, "Personal life". As for these changes being racist, I am sticking by that claim; racism need not necessarily take the forms that you mentioned above. It can also mean that a whole group of Americans are oddly enough not described in the same terms as others Americans in their opening sentence simply because they are of a different race. If we put in "European American" in every introduction of a person of that group, then it would be on equal grounds with putting in "Asian American". Since we don't do that, we don't single out by race in the opening of those entries, either. Mad Jack 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've provided my rationale time and again - that it's more informative. On the other hand, your rationale for opposing such an edit doesn't make sense to me, because you compare a one-word indication of ethnicity to an insertion of whole paragraphs full of text. But my edit is not intrusive or cumbersome like that at all. Another rationale you've used is that the guideline says not to point out ethnicity - but the guideline itself, in its second sentence, specifies that it is not binding. The guideline is to be used as a recommendation of style, I am well within my rights to not follow that recommendation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your "more informative" rational can thus easily be used to disregard the guideline in every single entry of every single person on Wikipedia. It is not quite good enough to do so, obviously. What's your point? Mad Jack 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, my point is that it's more informative this way. And since I don't agree with the guideline concerning indication of ethnicity, I actually do not mind that every article disregards that specific recommendation concerning ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of having a guideline exactly, if any person can just come along and disregard it for little to no reason? Mad Jack 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I already say that the guideline is used as a recommendation of style? That's the point. A recommendation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but what's the point of having it at all if anyone can just come along and disregard it for little to no reason? Mad Jack 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I have to spell it out for you. Let's say I have never edited a biographical article before, and I have no idea what the best style to do it under. I'd look up a style guide for biographies, namely WP:MOSBIO. I'd see that it has some great recommendations on how to write a biography. I could then choose to follow it, or I can choose not to. But without WP:MOSBIO, I'd be quite lost on how best to write the biography, and would be forced to come up with a format myself. Understand? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand, and hope you fully understand as well that I am going to be reverting any breaches of WP:MOSBIO. Mad Jack 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

B.D.Wong

Hi HQG,

I've got a bit of friendly curiosity about the back and forth on the B.D. Wong page. Could you let me know the reason for your preferece towards your version of the page?

Thanks,

WLU 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good to point out that he's Chinese American, as he's pretty notable in the Asian American community for breaking grounds as an Asian actor in the US. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's what he is notable for, you should add exactly that to the header. "Wong is an American actor. He is notable for breaking grounds as an Asian American actor" (or something along that line, preferrably with a source). That sentence IS indeed helpful and may summarize a section of the article. "Chinese American actor" does not tell me that, or much of anything else. Mad Jack 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good rationale. If you had a ref for the notability as a breakthrough artist for Asian Americans to put in the biopage, that'd go a long way towards the ethnicity being notable in the header text. WLU 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, editors like Mad Jack here only wants to doggedly stick to the guideline, treating it like the Ten Commandments or something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you read my reponse? If Wong is notable for breaking ground as an Asian American actor, then exactly that information should go into his opening header (for example, in the form of "Wong is an American actor. He is notable for breaking grounds as an Asian American" or something along the lines of that). However, that's not the same as simply referring to him as a "Chinese American actor", which doesn't tell me anything except his ethnicity. Mad Jack 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone being Chinese American doesn't tell you anything except his ethnicity? Well, for one, it tells you that he's American. Please read the article on Chinese American then, if that's all you can gather from that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't tell me that he's notable for breaking grounds as an Asian American, which as you have said is the point you're trying to get across in your changes to that article. Mad Jack 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a word? (Re: Wordstock)

Word has some food for thought that you might find interesting. If I take your question literally, then I'd say yes. To make a figurative answer, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. ;) Wordstock would be a compound word.

But that's probably not what you meant. "Is 'wordstock' well attested?" you might ask. Well, "wordstock" isn't yet included in any of the dictionaries I've checked, but it's attested on the web and "word-stock" (wordstock's older sibling) is found in at least one thesaurus.[4] and I'm willing to bet the OED includes wordstock and/or word-stock as well. (I'd check right now, but my copy of the OED is currently unavailable to me today.) --Kjoonlee 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really care if the article uses "wordstock" or not. Go ahead and put it back in if you would like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't really care either, actually. ;) I just thought it was worth mentioning. :) --Kjoonlee 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)\

A gentle reminder

You should be very careful about your edittings on wikipedia. I am not threatening you or anything. We will come here and we will talk like a civilised people. You support China unification, thats your belief alright. respect. But what you are putting on wikipedia are false information, it is politically incorrect, particularly your title is extremely unsuitable for the content. You are a smart person, you should neutralise the article. You yourself is in fact violating the principles of Wikipedia by providing false information. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are de facto two separate states. Happy or not, you shouldnt be putting them together. If so, should I also create an article and title it "List of Ethnic groups in America" and the "America" here I meant the United States of America, but I will list all of the ethnic groups in North and South America and ignore their existence if the United States government does not recognise them. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchih228 (talk • contribs)

It's a simple fact that the PRC government categorises all the Taiwanese aborigine groups into the Gaoshan ethnic group. I and other editors are just trying to reflect this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thats fine. But I strong recommend you to change the title to "List of ethnic groups in the People's Republic of China". The term "China" is vague and controversial, especially other disputed territories are included. China is a sovereign state and the official name is the "People's Republic of China". THats what China is referred to. The article is very controversial and offensive because of the title and the content of 'Taiwanese obrigines'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchih228 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-04 21:21:06

As I've explained on the Talk page of the article, it is disputed whether or not the ROC is part of "China". And it is basically pointless to move the article name because the PRC government still categorises Taiwanese aborigines as one of its official ethnic groups. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions Instead of Using Citiation Tag

You removed an entire explanation in the Asian Fetish article because of a lack of reference. The proper procedure is to add a citation request and remove the section if no citiation is made. Do not simply remove what you don't agree with. After seeing your talk page, it is clear you have serious NPOV issues! 144.81.32.187 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That section had been discussed before. It's a bunch of original research strung together by unrelated articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussed where? I see no record. Regardless, why do you remove it instead of putting a fact tag? 144.81.32.187 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, the article is very contentious, so please discuss what you're going to add before you add it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be discussed after adding. That is the point. If you are referring to the physical anthropology section, that has nothing to do with the evolutionary basis for sexual preference, which is an extremely well-established biological principle. Resolve conflict, do not incite it. 144.81.32.187 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it discussed first before adding. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese

Hi. Could you help me out here? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since you're knowledgeable about Chinese, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at this usercat rename nomination. Xiner (talk, email) 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Akira Makino

hi ,could you please have a look at the article Akira Makino and wikify certain sections..you help is appreciated here.--Iwazaki 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

well done..you have put some effort at wikifying the article..thanks..About the birth place of Mr makino, I have checked several Japanese sources ,and all says he lives in 大阪府枚方市, hirakata、osaka..Assuming he was born another place, they would have certainly mentioned it..Thats the way it works here...

since all the local sources refers ,that he is from hirakata, Osaka, I guess we　 can attribute Osaka as his place of birth/home town..what do you think ? --Iwazaki 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

plus,if you need any help in Japanese related article let me know..--Iwazaki 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

シエ シエ --Iwazaki 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

不客氣。 Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR messages

Will you stop giving me these 3RR messages? I know perfectly well about 3RR, and so do you. It's a waste of space for us to be pasting them back and forth to each other. It's also a waste of space to keep this edit war, which is only going to end one way anyway, up. Mad Jack 17:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning

I am not reverting people's edits, they are verting mine and i am reverting their reverts of my work. All my work is factual and is being reverted without any reason. By the looks of things this it not the first time you've used the 3RR warning as a tool to push anti-Japanese POV. I'm supprised the Communist Chinese government even allows you to access the internet. P.S. I'm not Japanese I'm British so I have a neutral POV. Anymore reverts of my work will be reported to the Administrators board along with the user names of those who reverted it and I will ask for a block on those who repeatedly revert the factual information I contribute and give no reason why they revert it. Maybe because there is no real good enough reason to revert it and it's all purely POV. The contributions I are completely NPOV and I can't see how in any way they could possible have a view point or offend. Somethingoranother 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, old chap! And this is the first time I've been informed that a British person always has a neutral POV concerning Japan. Wow! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Somethingoranother 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've got your IP address here: 88.109.93.91. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So? It changes whenever I want it to anyway Somethingoranother 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I hope you're doing well. By the way, during my attempts to mantain the Japan article's quality, I attempted to revert edits by Somethingoranother and Andrewrhchen, but due to an edit conflict, my edit came slightly later than yours, which might have brought about an apparent impression that I had reverted your edits. My sincere apologies, as I did not mean it to sound it like that way and the edit summary was in response made to the edits by the other two users. It's pretty difficult to mantain consistency or the quality of such a high-traffic article, and so I might have made a few embarrassing mistakes with my edits (^_^). ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

How come you are opposed to editing the Asian fetish article? --Mr Phil 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, as I said on the Talk page, it is a contentious article and I would prefer we discuss the addition of whole sections before they are actually added to the article. Second, the addition you want to make is either original research or taken from a very unreliable source (Steve Sailer). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I award you this Barnsensu in recognition of your tireless efforts to bring balance to Japan and other Japan-related articles-- a very meaningful, but thankless and never-ending task. Although we may not always agree, I admire your tremendous persistence and appreciate your presence at Wikipedia. No matter what some may say, you are a positive force here. Don't forget that. And don't give up. Don't compromise. Just because you are outnumbered, doesn't mean you are defeated. Truth is on your side.--"Edger" 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan

Re [5]. I was thinking that we could work some mention of involved parties into a regional territorial disputes template. Something like: User:Changlc/Territorial Disputes of Asia Comments welcome. -Loren 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My response[6]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Island

Yeah, I thought it was vandalism too, but see Christmas Island#People. Or, for example, their governmental homepage, which promises future translations in both Chinese and BM. [7] cab 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Well now I feel like visiting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your unilateral deletion of material (again)

Please see talk:japanese war crimes. Grant | Talk 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My response[8]. Content in articles should be verifiable and they should not be original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Help me out buddy

In the category Category:Korean computer and video games characters

I can't figure out why this list separates some of the names correctly and others not...Bethereds 10:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You want them to be sorted by surnames? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames

It is my sense that batch AfD nominations should only be done when all articles nominated are substantially similar, so I think it was an error to include List of common Chinese surnames which is not in the same style as the rest. In that case, it should only have been listed individually, if at all. I've stricken it from the nomination, restricting the nomination to the remaining similar articles. Hopefully you can clarify your comment now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! Wish you all the best in the year of the pig. Wish you a year full of knowledge and energy. As nurtured as a pig, as content as a pig. Greetings from Hong Kong. --Deryck C. 17:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

恭喜發財！ Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tawker Bot

Hi HongQiGong,

Thanks for all your help with the WikiProject Hong Kong effort. While editor contribution is not as high as the participant list, I'm wondering if you know how to use Tawker bot or any other bot to send out a mass message to all identified WPHK editors? By the way, Happy Chinese New Year! Luke! 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Unfortunately I haven't played with any bots for WP. But it's not a bad idea to start playing with a Tawker Bot. Do you know of any WikiProjects that uses one? We've been tagging quite a number of HK-related articles, so people should take notice. I wonder why not more editors are contributing. Though I do suspect that a lot of the editors that regularly editted HK topics are editing over at the relatively new Cantonese Wikipedia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

True too. There seems to be a fair number of participants on the WPHK list, I just find it strange that the involvement level is relatively low. I don't know of any other WikiProjects that use bots. I'll read up on Tawker bot in the meantime and see how to use it. Nonetheless, keep up the good work! :) Thanks. Luke! 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos for Kwun Tong District

Photos for the article can be copied from related articles like Kowloon Bay, Lam Tin and Sau Mau Ping. --Deryck C. 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuan

According to WP policy, the interpretation of primary sources such as Chinese classics is indeed considered original research. Though it is sometims useful to quote such sources, normally their interpretation should be left to professional scholars. WP then reports on their work (secondary sources). Also, according to this, "As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period." Khoikhoi 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I would appreciate if you removed the 3RR warning from my talk page. Hope you can join the discussion at Talk:Yuan (surname) about how to improve the article.--Niohe 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR warning was not suitable indeed. Right now, it's a dispute on whether the "Origin" section of Yuan (surname) is based on interpretative claims of the primary sources. We can remove the tag after we convince the opposing view, although I agree that the tag was placed on rather invalid points in the first place. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

China-myth-stub

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - you are right that it is a guideline not a policy, but guidelines are there for a reason, in this case partly to remind people that WP:BOLD doesn't apply to categories and templates, and also largely for practical reasons. Consider it this way - most of the people who sort stubs into their various stub types are regular users of the WP:WSS pages. In order to be able to sort stubs properly, they need to be aware of what stub types are available. Because there are so many stub types, it is also a great help if those stub types all conform to certain standards. Double-checking proposed new stub types prior to creation makes sure they do conform, and also makes them known to stub sorters. Look at many of the other stub types on the discovery page and you will see that a lot of work is necessary to tidy up other people's unproposed stub types. Also, the threshold is there for a reason, both to make it easier for editors (it is far easier looking through one category of 100 stubs that ten categories with ten stubs each) and for stub sorters (if stub categories could be really small, there would be tens of times more stub types to try to remember). In the case of this stub type, you're not certain there are the required number of stubs, no was the category initially properly formed - both things which should have been checked prior to the creation of the stub type - and both things that would have been if it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

Re [9] - Please be noted that many of these categories are sorted with a space or an asterisk, so that they can appear as subcategories in the parent categories on the first page. Would you mind reverting these edits you have made? — Instantnood 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer them sorted the way they are right now, alphabetically. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been the practise for all similar categories on Wikipedia. They are still displayed alphabetically in their parent categories. — Instantnood 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You sure about that? Here's a pretty popular category - Category:United States. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to categories for stub types. See category:United States stubs or category:history stubs, for example. — Instantnood 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Feel free to move them back then. But please be consistent with either an * or a space, and not a strange combination of both. I moved them partly because they were not consistent with that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it'd much better if you can revert your own edit. It has never been consistent whether a space or an asterisk should be used. The general rule is to follow other subcategories in each parent category. — Instantnood 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know whether or not you're planning to revert your own edits. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not right now. I'm busy with other things currently. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Feel free to request for help if you want me or any other wikipedians to help fix them. — Instantnood 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

GA article nomination

The article you just nominated for the Hong Kong workers needs all of the inline citations to be directly after the punctuation. Just wanted to let you know before somebody reviews it and to save you some time later. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've put it on hold. This is the first time I've nominated an article for GA. Do you know of any peer reviews processes that I can put an article through before nominating it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Purported in Senkaku Island

I inserted "purported" for legal NPOVness because in my view, Japan did not have the legal authority to "ban" anyone from the islands because they do not own it. It's like, if I try to ban you from your own house, that would only be a "purported" ban because I have no such right to do so, even if I do manage to block you from entering your door.

Ditto for the other "purported". It is not intended to mean that they "did not actually ban", but rather they "had no legal authority to ban." --Sumple (Talk) 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood what you were trying to do. That's why in my edit, I tried to just not use the word "ban" at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages and redirects

Hi Hong, when you move pages it creates double redirects which need to be fixed and single redirects which ought to be fixed. You can find these by going to the new location and clicking "What links here" in the toolbox on the left. For example, Four Asian Tigers gives this. --Ideogram 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually did fix all the double redirects, and I don't see any right now. Single redirects are not a problem for when users click on the links. They don't particularly need to get "fixed" per se. I'll just let them get fixed over time by other editors and me when I come across them in other edits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to fix the redirects that go to East Asian Tigers. --Ideogram 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

The merge tag isn't hard to use: just put {{merge|New page title}}. Badagnani 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

Since you participated quite a bit in the Template:Chinese name debate at tfd, you may want to continue it at Template talk:Chinese name. I'm in the midst of an editing dispute over whether to use the template for individuals with names already rendered in the western order.--Jiang 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims in Hong Kong

See Islam in Hong Kong. Could obviously use better sourcing, but it's there, at least. A lot of development to be done, e.g.:

• Demographics of South Asian Muslim immigration. This should be the easiest part, lots of sources, lots of scholars, e.g. Caroline Pluss.[10], Anita Weiss. See for example:
  • Pluss, Caroline. "Globalizing Ethnicity with Multi-local Identifications: The Parsee, Indian Muslim, and Sephardic Trade Diasporas in Hong Kong". Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks: Four Centuries of History. Berg Publishers. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |date2= ignored (help)
• Hui immigration (one of the main Muslim schools in HK, 伊斯蘭脫維善紀念中學, was established in honor of a Hui guy from Panyu, for example). Not much that I've been able to find so far. A few in English [11] [12], didn't see anything in Chinese yet.
• Southeast Asian Muslims. Mostly Indonesians. Don't really see any good sources on this either in English or Bahasa, though.
• Community institutions
• Race relations among Muslims, if I can find any sources. There's a bit on this on page 12 of [13], for example

Dunno if Muslims in Hong Kong should be a redirect; doesn't seem to be a common practise for any of the other Islam by country articles (see also {{Islam by country horizontal}}). (Also trying to develop these kinds of articles is no fun at all because of all the edit warriors they attract.) Cheers, cab 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 [14]. 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[15], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Wikipedia: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 [recent edit] 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 Wikipedia standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 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 Wikipedia

I am new to Wikipedia 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 ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 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 Wikipedia rules when you're not.Skookum1 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "weasel word" is a term used by the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article/List of missing Hong Kong Films for missing film from the lists and wikipedia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 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 ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet also? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 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

Wikipedia 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 [16][17] 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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[18]
• 2nd revert[19]
• 3rd revert[20]

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

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 Wikipedia. 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)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Hello,

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

Can I trouble you to write a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram recounting your interactions with him and your impressions of his conduct as an editor?

Thanks.

LionheartX 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts on Mao: The Unknown Story

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Mao: The Unknown Story. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 11:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hong Kong Barnstar

		WikiProject Hong Kong Award
		For your dedication and enthusiasm to the WikiProject Hong Kong effort in the hopes of improving the quality and scope of all Hong Kong-related articles. Your contributions have been valued and appreciated. I look forward to our future collaborations. Luke! 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RfCs

As requested by other users and the arbitrators, I have filed RfCs on the matters you have been involved with. Please leave your comments here. John Smith's 10:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved one of your comments because you claimed that you weren't involved - there's a separate section for that. If you want your comments move back, please change your statement to reflect the fact you are involved. John Smith's 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't sure where to put it anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

about Chinese American

Template:See also should be used at the head of article sections. See Template:See also description page and Wikipedia:Guide to layout#"See also" for one section. --Neo-Jay 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to review Tepper School of Business. I spent a good bit of time working on it and I appreciate your recognition. PadreNuestro 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist for Hong Kong

I've added it to the list. The bot is running, doing other things right now, but next time it updates watchlists (later this evening, probably), you'll get your watchlist. Ingrid 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ling Peak vs. metric/"imperial"

Hey there; I almost rv'd this when I saw it was about Ha Ling Peak, which is in Alberta/Canada and we do use the metric system; but I checked the ref and it's from the New York Times, which of course would not at present be using metric; I looked at the ref and it doesn't say what wire service it originated with - if it was CP or Reuters the original copy, before the Times Americanized it, was probably metric; could have easily been AP or another American wire service though; that it's a peak in Canada, still, implies metric should be used (with imperial in brackets, which is my preference, esp. with mountains as I think of various ones in terms of the imperial height, not their metric height; e.g. Mount Waddington as 13,177 and so on). But here's a Canadian source instead, but with 7900' not 8793'; I think the Times has confused this summit, which is of low "prominence" (only a 31m-dip col separates it from its parent peak; as a subpeak it's really more of a promontory, rather than a spire, although it looks like it from below); anyway the parent peak is Mount Lawrence Grassi 2682m/8799' so that must be the source of the confusion. The renaming thing and some technical cartographic problem with its contours, accounting also for the different heights, is covered on the bottom of the first-linked page. When I was with bivouac I wrote a side-report on this as it had been in the news around here lately and the issue that I've said before that Ha Ling himself named the peak Chinamans Peak was in our newspapers, along with the rest of the controversy; that I can't provide a cite for directly; I'd think the Canmore or Calgary papers might have something on file. I can't see the whole essay anymore because I'm not a paid member though (about $35/year - my membership was complimentary because I was their main data-compiler - it's a huge databse of latlongs, elevations, prominence relationships, park/area boundaries et al). There are Canadian wikipedians who have newspaper-archive access (most papers are owned either by Black Newspapers - usually smalltown papers - or Canwest Global (http://www.canada.com, which is nearly all the big ones except for the Toronto Star and National Post) but there's a subscriber fee to search their archives. But given it's a Canadian peak I'd suggest that a Canadian ref be found, if not simply bivouac.com's page then something from one of the Canadian papers; could be it's searchable in http://www.cbc.ca somewhere; I don't have time to look.Skookum1 07:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source from Bivouac.com. Yeah, New York Times probably Americanised it for its readers. Another possible explanation is that New York Times (or the source it used) took that number directly from an older Canadian source - Canada did not metricate until the 1970s. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

True; but the news copy on the renaming would have originated in Canada, by whatever wire service, long after the switch. The comments on the Lawrence Grassi Peak or on Ha Ling about the different contour-line counts seem to account for the height discrepancy, too....Skookum1 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FDHContract.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FDHContract.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article "List of Hongkongers"

Let's discuss :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Hongkongers#Groups_of_people.3F --supernorton 02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Hi HongQiGong, do you have time to take a look at Forbidden City? I've been working on it recently, and I think the subject has potential for a good article. Any improvements, suggestions and criticism are welcomed. Thanks, Sumple (Talk) 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of {{db}}

Please only use the {{db}} template, or any other speedy template, if the article in question meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Otherwise, follow one of the other processes listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bye for now

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

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

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

Here are the links to the fare charts of the MTR and KCR: MTR fare table: [21] KCR East Rail fare table: [22] KCR West Rail fare table: [23]

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

Keep it up!

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

Editing China-related articles

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

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

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

XXX-American actors categories nominated for deletion.

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

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

Diaoyutai Reference

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

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

WikiProject Three Kingdoms

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

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

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

Penser loves me

Mao Zedong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you just trying to destroy my contributions without explanation?

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

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

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

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

Unsourced ABC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. We can't.

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

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

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

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

3RR violation

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

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

Beijing Olympics

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

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

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

Anna Mae He

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

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ashes2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

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

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

Gaogouli Tributary relations

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

For example, Samguk Sagi (Korean primary source):

Year fifteen (656), summer, fifth month, iron fell like rain. Winter, twelfth month, envoys were sent to Tang to offer congratulations to the imperial crown prince. [24]

Assault11 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:ChanIsMissing.jpg

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Society Barnstar

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

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

Good friend100's behavior

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

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

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

Re. Senkaku Islands

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

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

Image:FreshKidIce.jpg

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

Stop removing others' posts

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

Smile

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

About BetacommandBot

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

The Bus Uncle featured article review

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

My thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of tributaries of Imperial China

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

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

Image:SanGuo.gif

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

Not going to be used anyway.

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

userbox

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Certified.Gangsta 2

Hello,

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

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

Thanks.

LionheartX 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Asian fetish talk page

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

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

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

Notice of arbitration review case

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

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:AdultOctopusCard.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AdultOctopusCard.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

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

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

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

Japanese war crimes

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

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

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

Proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Overlistification

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

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

Category:Japanese porn stars

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

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

list of eurasians

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

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

Very mature of you

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I just did. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:HongQiGong/Userboxes/User Jade Ribbon Campaign

Hi. You reverted my removal of the user categorisation function from the userbox linked above. My edit to the page served the purpose of implementing the consensus reached at a deletion discussion (see here). Before the category can be deleted, it must be emptied; in order to be emptied, the userbox must be edited. Userspace is not immune from decisions reached at XfD. Please undo your revert. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Before a category can be deleted it must be emptied? Are you sure? I've never heard of that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My bot has made this change before I saw this discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/User is where categories are processed and each is listed here to be cleared before deletion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. You must stop adding this category back into the userbox. It is transcluded by a number of users and it is putting them all into a category which no longer exists. I have removed it again. As this has been decided at a UCFD discussion, I will protect the page if you add it again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why I cannot have this in something that is stored in my own personal userspace. Other users are free to choose to use the userbox or not, but it is mostly for my own use. You can also feel free to remove the userbox from every other user who currently have it on their userpage - there're only 3 or 4 of them I think. Whether or not the userbox links to it, the category is still deleted. I have not tried to re-create the category. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The category is not in your personal userspace. There is no need for the category and site consensus is against it. The rest of the box can remain, but the category may not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I have not tried to re-create the category. So your rhetoric that the category is not in my userspace is quite moot. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Internment Camp GA review

Thanks for evaluating the article. I've been waiting for weeks for someone to get to it. But damn! It's like you were evaluating it for FA status! But that's OK, my eventual goal is FA status and your suggestions would only make the article better. I'm going to work on the issues you listed. Not sure how long it'll take me, but can I leave a note here to ask you to re-evaluate it when I nominate it again for GA? It would be a lot more helpful than potentially waiting again for another 4 or 5 weeks for a GA evaluation. I'll try to address all your concerns, but sources on the topic are in fact kind of limited. I count 6 sources on the article right now, but most of the less comprehensive sources that I'm aware of are basically derivative of my two major sources. It is possible that I may not be able to satisfy some of the concerns you brought up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi HongQiGong, I agree the backlog of GA nominees is infuriating - I have one of my own articles on the backlog so I decided to do something about it and started working my way through. However, one of the consequences of that is that I am new to the GA review process. I did read up on the guidelines but it is perfectly possible that I am being a lot more strict in my interpretation of them than another editor would have been - if this is the case then my apologies! I'm glad that you are happy to work on the issues raised, and I don't actually think your article is very far off FA status although (having taken one article to that stage myself to date) I wish you luck with the process, you can take quite a bruising! I have no problem re-evaluating your article again when you have done some more work on it, that seems fairer than having you wait for another editor to evaluate it. I do appreciate that the topic is obscure and was therefore impressed at the quality and variety of images you had managed to find, its just that the range of sources for citations was less impressive - it may be that there simply are no more sources available, which obviously makes your job more difficult. As I said in the GA, it was borderline anyway and I was considering passing it in its current form so with a little more work I would have no hesitation in passing the article for GA status. Good luck with your continuation of the article, and do some GA reviews yourself to get down that backlog :-) Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

請你創建「Vietnamese people in Taiwan」的內容

我是Taiwanese people，你是否可以創建「Vietnamese people in Taiwan」的內容？感謝你！--城市獵人 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

對不起，本人對這個科目不太熟悉！ Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What's this guy saying? He's spamming everyone at the Vietnamese Wikipedia with this message, but nobody understands him. DHN 05:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He asked me to write an article on Vietnamese people in Taiwan, and I replied to say that I don't know much about the subject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

真是遺憾呀！現在日本語Wikimedia卻是有「ja:在台ベトナム人」的內容哦！--城市獵人 11:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

那你可以問懂日文和英文的Wikipedia editor來翻譯那個日文Wikipedia條目。 Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, and by the way

As you are a Leslie fan: http://www.lesliecheung.cc/library/library.htm.

I think we can include links from this site on the grounds that you personally don't have print alternatives available, and that no internet news archive goes back to anytime earlier than 2002. Have fun! - Pandacomics 03:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we can tag images of deceased persons under fair use as long as sources for the images are provided. It's not as good as free photos, but I think the current general concensus is that a person being deceased is a reasonable justification for fair use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question, though. Would you be willing to hop on board a Chinese popular music taskforce? I've got one other user so far (yay). Two others wouldn't be too bad, would it? Pandacomics 07:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be willing to help out, but I don't want to sign my name up for it and not devote much time to it. There are a few articles related to Chinese pop music that I would like to improve. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia's not a binding agreement anyway. Heck, we all do it on our own time. Pandacomics 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

picture

Hello, can you delete the Nanjing Baby on track picture from the commons too? And also this [25] I tried to resolve the naming issue and I think made a double redirect or something. Thank you. Blueshirts 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a duplicate after uploading Image:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif to commons. The photo I uploaded is taken directly from National Archives, which released the photo to the public domain. Images tagged as duplicates in commons is under speedy delete consideration, so I think we just have to wait for an admin to get to it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Thanks for your help on Forbidden City, which has been recently GA'ed. I'm hoping to eventually get it to FA, so any time you can spare on that article is greatly appreciated! Thanks again, PalaceGuard008 02:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Octopus card FAC

It's a custom to put "support", "oppose", or "comment" in the front, but it's not a must and some people feel that they want to explain their reasons first before declaring their stance, as oppose to others who want to declare their stance then explain. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

dogs and cat(egorie)s

Thanks for the category-ing. I'm still mulling over how to deal with the mess that is the Mandopop artist categorizing. I mean, Taiwanese male/female singers, Taiwanese "musicians," Taiwanese "pop singers"...EVERYTHING. Can't we just tag them as "Mandopop" ? Sigh. Pandacomics 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think most of the Chinese music-related articles need a lot of work. Aside from the categorising, there seems to be a lot of information without backing sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

{{HongKong-album-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 09:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have added this stub template to Faye Wong (1997 album). First, is there much more to be added to this article? If the article is reasonably complete, then it is not a stub. Second, are you sure it is a Hong Kong album rather than China? According to this, the track "Nostalgia" at least was recorded in Beijing. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think much more information could be added. There are no mention of reviews by critics and fans, no sales numbers, no mention of what Faye's motivations or inspirations were behind this album, etc etc. But you are right in that I don't know if this could be considered a Hong Kong album. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair points. Do you know what sources there are for sales numbers? - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It might be in Chinese news articles. If not specifically the sales numbers, they might mention when an album goes platinum or something, especially for someone like Faye. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

dispute on Talk:Mandopop

This might just be my first dispute, and with someone you happen to know (Benjwong). He keeps inserting this sentence that says "Tai-pop is used to describe Mandopop in Taiwan," which it isn't. I even did a Google search for him, and yet he's adamant on his stand. Pandacomics 12:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly warning - Re:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republic of China. 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 ^{ta | co | em} 19:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm... I haven't made any edits to Republic of China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oups...Sorry bout that... wrong one...I meant to warn you about Political status of Taiwan...after dealing with TingMing for so long, they just all seem like the same article. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 19:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Hey HongQiGong, I was just wondering...I read your userpage and saw that you speak a bit of the Sze Yup/Si yi dialect...thats pretty cool...is your family from that region? Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My mother's side of the family is from Toi Saan, or I should say Hoi Saan, and my father's side of the family is from San Wui (新會). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! :D My mother's family is from San Wui...my grandparents are always talking about the oranges...on my father's side, they're from Hoi Ping. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sun Wui is famous for its oranges and orange products, especially dried orange peels. Some of my relatives have dried orange peels that had been dried for over 10 years. These days, most of the young people have moved to 江門 to find work, so it's kind of abandoned. But some older people still live there. Check out Battle of Yamen - apparently the last battle of the Song Dynasty took place in Sun Wui. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Anthony-Leung.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Anthony-Leung.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cantonese profanity

Will you create Cantonese profanity so Puk Kai can be merged into it so that discussion can be closed? I don't know anything about the subject, so I can't create it. If you can just create a basic page this information could be merged to, that would be great. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm all that interested in the subject matter as to create an article for it, actually. Maybe post up a message with WikiProject Hong Kong? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahaha Danone joint venture

I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 02:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at it later. It looks like you've done quite a bit of work on it already. Good job! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Ahh, i get it now. I thought that maybe it was the thing he was holding in his hand, the pike. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You were absolutely right. Without previous knowledge, nobody would know what that caption was talking about. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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^{Talk to me} 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 ^{ta | co | em} 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 ^{ta | co | em} 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 ^{ta | co | em} 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

picture for deletion

Hiya, I've listed this picture [[26]] for deletion. I've noticed that it looks different from this [27]. 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 Wikipedia'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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Anthøny (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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 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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category: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 18:40, 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)

That's a bit of a dodgy argument. Nothing required you to make the edits that he would want to revert, either. --Deskana (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC

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

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre 2. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

WPChina banner

Ok, so I want to create something of a double-standard, because what's High importance for C-pop is most definitely not High importance for ALL of WikiProject China. So I was wondering if you knew how to tweak the banner such that a second importance field pops up if {{.....|music=yes}}. As in you'd have a this article is rated...blahblahblah at the top, based on how WPChina sees it, then a second importance listing for how the workgroup sees it. Pandacomics 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a WikiProject Banner with more than one importance rating - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, it seems like you're looking for something that a full WikiProject could offer. If there are enough participants, you might consider making a full WikiProject out of it, with it's own banner. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...because it's really not fair for WPChina, really. Just because we feel that Jay Chou is High importance does not mean at all that it's high importance for China. I'll scrounge around for more participants then, ho hum. Pandacomics 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a full WikiProject will give you more flexibility and recognition anyway. If you're dedicated to organising a group of editors anyway, I say just go for a WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess...but man. I'm going to have to re-modify the banner again, and move all the pages to their new locations. Bahhh. This honestly feels like creating an independent country. Having to start everything up painfully slowly. Pandacomics 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you. If you want to just let it stay as a workgroup, then figure out how to add a second importance rating to the banner just for the Chinese Pop workgroup. It may be that you're the first one to do it, but that doesn't mean at all that you cannot do it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin

After the recent weekslong hit-and-run cases of the IP editor who insisted on putting pinyin everywhere, and which you spend hundreds of edits reverting, it's obvious we need more SE Asian admins. Why isn't that you? SchmuckyTheCat

Because dealing with WP bureaucracy makes me want to pull my hair out. And because I don't want every random person leaving a message on my Talk page every time he or she disagrees with how I enforced the rules. I have some experience moderating an internet platform, and I would rather not have that burden here on WP. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood, especially that first sentence. Are there other users that might be good that pay attention to SE Asia? It just seems pointless going around and around with this pinyin troll. SchmuckyTheCat

User:Nat.tang has been tagging his IPs as sockpuppets[28]. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can be done about him other than just reverting his edits. Technically what he's doing is not vandalism, and he's using a whole IP range to edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I stopped taging him with sock tags. Once I realized it was one of those rotating/switching IP adresses, I just tag them with ISP tags. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw...the IP is registered to a UK ISP called ORANGE HOME UK PLC. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 02:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. Here's the IP WHOIS for one of his IPs.[29] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nanking

Yeah, I don't think it's worth the time arguing with these people. John Smith's alright, at least he tries to outline his points. Hare-Yukai is just a fucktard, and the sad fact it that I'm pretty sure he's Taiwanese like me. A lot of Taiwanese people don't have backbones. Because they hate China or the KMT, they'd like to suck jap dicks, sad sad sad. Anyway, perhaps you could add a paragraph saying that the massacre's been called a genocide by various sources, without adding the category? Personally, I think other Japanese atrocities like the country cleansing campaigns were far more devastating than Nanking, as those killed tens of millions, not just 300K. Blueshirts 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too aware of Taiwanese sentiments toward Japan, so I'm not going to comment on that, but yeah, atrocities done by the Japanese military really happened all over China and the rest of Asia. It's just that topics like Nanjing and the comfort women are the most debated. I'll bet that if Iris Chang had not committed suicide and had completed her book on the Bataan Death March, that topic would have been given plenty of attention, too. Anyway, I did a little reading and searching for how we could add something to the article on how it's been called a genocide, so I may add that to the article when it comes out of protection. But it'll probably become another edit dispute, which would unfortunately take a lot of time away from my other editing efforts. I've got an article sitting in FAC, another one sitting in GAN, and I've been working on and off on getting yet another article up to GA quality. John Smith's and I are both pretty stubborn when it comes to edit disputes, but I just have to prioritise what I think is more important in this case. There're simply too many edit disputes on WP, and not that much real content contribution. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PinYins

Hi Hong. As you may have noticed, I am back from my wiki-break. I noticed that you have been reverting pinyin additions to articles that were added by other editors. I've looked briefly around WP for styles, policies and precedents with regards to pinyin but haven't found much. Contemplated restoring the pinyin additions but haven't yet. What is your rationale for reverting these additions? Luke! 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary clutter in the intro. I think just adding traditional characters to most HK-related articles is quite enough. We don't need to add different romanisations and simplified characters as well. I don't mind if all that are presented in the Chinese text template though. But it just looks way too cluttered when you put all that stuff right in the first sentence in the intro. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think I'm going to revert them back as I don't think they contribute to the quality of articles either. Thanks. Luke! 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. WP is not a Chinese-English dictionary. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

colbegin

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep it in mind. Pandacomics 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Pier

In case you were not aware, I had rewritten the article yesterday and today, including updates of recent developments. In your last edit of the article, it appears that you have rolled back all the changes made since July 30. May I ask what the problem may be? Ohconfucius 05:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops that was a mistake. Sorry about that. I've self-reverted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ms. He

Hi,

While your proposed title has the virtue of precision, I think it sounds a tad "unencyclopedic." If this were just a custody dispute, it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. It is the precedent-setting nature of the case, and its international implications, that make the article notable. The present title is patterned after Elian Gonzales. I recommend no further change, but you are always welcome to take your idea to the article talk page. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. I am going to post a thread on WP:AN/I regarding this matter. Regards, IronGargoyle 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should warn User:91.104.1.169

I have been watching Hong Kong for quite some time and I see that you have reverted a number of User:91.104.1.169's edits. If consensus already decided on this issue, then you should warn him and remind hims about our 3rr rule and consensus. Reverting put you in danger of being block if you revert his edits 3 times. If you want, I can help you do that. Chris! _{my talk} 19:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He is aware that he is the only one that wants those edits and that concensus is against him. And I've been careful not to violate 3RR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But putting a warning tag might be more effective than revert. I can help you warn him if you want. Chris! _{my talk} 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a warning on his talk page. Hopefully he would stop. Chris! _{my talk} 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if warnings will help, but go ahead and warn him if you like. He never actually makes more than one or two edits a day on the same article with the same IP. The problem is that he's been using a whole range of IPs, and there's no absolute proof that it is the same person making those edits. Which also means he might not even get your warning if he gets another IP next time he comes on WP. But maybe there are admins out there who would be bold enough, ignore WP bureaucracy, and do something about him. Me, I don't mind reverting his edits. It only takes a few minutes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, he gets tire on editing already. Chris! _{my talk} 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

Hi HongQiGong, PericlesofAthens here. I just want to thank you for making some valuable copy-edits to Tang Dynasty. It is an enormous help, considering that it is up for FAC at the moment. --PericlesofAthens 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed it at the FAC page, that's why I took a look. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong films

Please can you help add the films and details in Category:Hong Kong films to the List of Hong Kong films. It is ridiculous that the lists didn't even have Way of the Dragon or Enter the Dragon!!!. Why has nobody helped them? Isn't anybody interested in Hong Kong movies? I've begun gradually adding titles from Z in the categories working backwards. Your help in adding at least a decent coverage of titles already on wikipedia would be more than appreciated. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried leaving a note at WikiProject Hong Kong or WikiProject Films? People are interested in Bruce Lee and Hong Kong films - they just don't want to put in all the work necessary to improve articles. Mostly because they have other editing interests. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese editors & "apartheid" article

I don't know if there's an equivalent of the Community Portal in the Chinese Wikipedia. If there is, you might want to consider using it to mention the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid and inviting English-speaking Chinese editors to comment. It would certainly be useful to get more input from editors with local knowledge. -- ChrisO 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, and you know I think the article ought to be deleted, I think the issue would be better handled by English WP members instead. English WP is way ahead of WP in other languages, including Chinese, as far as how to apply WP policies. While all the different language versions of WP should have the same policies, we're much better at how to apply them here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234. 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.

This also applies to:

• Song Dynasty
• Ming Dynasty
• Han Dynasty
• Southern and Northern Dynasties
• Sui Dynasty John Smith's 19:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation request

[30] Thank you. But most land reclamations are not landfills, and many landfills are not land reclamations. Qaka 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

As a known edit-warrior you will get baited. Don't fall into the trap. Leave the article alone, ask for discussion, and get other opinions by posting as many places as you can, including our talk page. --Ideogram 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's (talk · contribs) is baiting you. Others may bait you in the future. --Ideogram 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's resolved that's fine, but do me a favor and stay away from John Smith's (talk · contribs). Don't revert any edits of his you disagree with; bring it up for discussion with a wider audience. --Ideogram 16:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He

I have information on the general feeling but it may be interpreted as biased because the Asian community extremely hates the Bakers for creating much bias against the innocent Hes who cant speak English. Its the truth. I don't have sources becuz the last personal interview with a local was done on television a long time ago and i cant retrieve the information. Nobody of Ithaca 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mao was not an atheist thinker or activist

Hello HongQiGong. Mao was not an atheist thinker or activist. Mao was a politician. He didn't make any contributions towards atheism. Maybe, Mao was an irreligious person; however, you have to make a some contributions towards atheistic philosophy to be considered as an atheist thinker or activist. Best of luck! RS2007 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Ethnicity-American actors categories up for deletion

Thank you for letting know. To tell you the truth I'm in the same stance as you in this one. Tony the Marine 02:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic actor categories

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure whether I'll comment or not, but I appreciate the note. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking an POV pushing

I'm disappointed that you wikistalked me on to the History of Japan page. It's clear you're not interested in discussion, so I feel it necessary to report you here. Of course you would have found that out anyway by checking my contribs as you usually do, but I thought I should tell you myself. John Smith's 17:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You are violating WP:3RR on a number of articles, and may be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jackie Chan

See this. Congrats and good job. Axem Titanium 19:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

The backlog is only getting longer, so maybe you should contact an active checkuser to resolve the report - if you think there is any merit in it, of course. John Smith's 10:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well actually I don't know if a checkuser is the person you need to talk to. I think any admin will direct you to those you can process the case. As I said, you do want someone to process the case - right? John Smith's 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're still commenting on the case, why aren't you responding to my requests to find an admin to process the case? I hope we're not going to go through a silly game where you ignore me. John Smith's 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Musee Guimet caption

Thanks! I hadn't thought of that!! Best regards. PHG 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you tag it for fair use anyway? You took the photo, couldn't you upload it to commons and put it out in the public domain? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I think the poster itself is the copyright of the Museum (like a brochure edited by the Museum would be). Regards. PHG 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

battle of china

hiya, there's this guy who keeps vandalizing The Battle of China page. I suspect this guy's Hare-Yukai, just to let you know. Yeah, and too bad about ideogram huh? Blueshirts 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

okay, I think User:Rabota is definitely a sockpuppet. Blueshirts 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hare-Yukai has a jap wiki account here [31]. Not sure if he's japanese or not. Sometimes he forgot to log in when editing the shanghai bombing pictures from a while back and his IP result from ipwhois got traced from Taiwan. Anyway I added him to the checkuser you initiated. Blueshirts 05:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are genuine stalkers. --Hare-Yukai 14:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hong, Rabota (or his socks) says he made the video, also he probably made the fake (sic) of nanking video too. The same conclusion can also be drawn from his first user page [32] edit, as tamagawaboat is the guy who made the nanking video from youtube I think. The site [33] is a jap right wing apologist site, with ludicrous claims like japan fought nazis in china [34]. We should bring this to light, as the pictures the socks have uploaded not only violates copyright, but also smell strongly of original research as evidenced from these shitty websites. Blueshirts 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Longwinded comment on Talk:China

Hi. I would just leave it be. The user insists on placing at the top anyway, so it will be the first section to be archived, anyway. Thx. Regards, El_C 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fancy Pants

Hong, that picture is not the Fancy Pants. It looks cool, but it's wrong. According to the directories at the time (available at the Detroit Public Library), and the court case 82-273374 FY, the address of the Fancy Pants is 13300 Woodward, not 13843 Woodward, which is what the photo shows. The theater was torn down. That's why I removed it. http://cinematreasures.org/theater/4235/ . MMetro 08:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure why the picture was "erroneous". Thanks for explaining. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg

Thank you for the information. I will check it out. -- But|seriously|folks  14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are issues with this image, and I'm trying to straighten them out. I posted the issues here to let the experts give their opinions. -- But|seriously|folks  15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Font

Hi 洪七公. What's going on w/ the font used at History of China. It looks like Verdana but i couldn't find any reference to the font at the article. Do you have any idea? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok i got it. That was a bug i think. Back to normal now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast

The word “broadcast” is combined from “broad” and “cast”. As the past tense of “cast” is still “cast”, the past tense of “broadcast” remains unchanged. You may notice that many grammar check programs will underline “broadcasted” as an incorrect word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sl (talk • contribs) 17:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

According to Dictionary.com, "broadcasted" is a word.[35] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahha...... I think we should have looked it in a more authoritative dictionary. -✉ Hello World! 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com references the American Heritage Dictionary. Here's Oxford dictionary saying broadcasted is used as a past participle.[36] It so happens that broadcasted is only used as a past participle by the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

血滴子

I know this means flying guillotine, but would "Blood-dripping child" be the correct literal translation? --Ghostexorcist 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:HenryTang.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:HenryTang.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 07:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

rabota

Hey Hong, Rabota (or his socks) says he made the video, also he probably made the "fake (sic) of nanking video too. The same conclusion can also be drawn from his first user page [37] edit, as tamagawaboat is the guy who made the nanking video from youtube. His blog is a jap right wing apologist site, with ludicrous claims like japan fought nazis in china [38]. We should bring this to light, as the pictures the socks have uploaded not only violates copyright, but also smell strongly of original research as evidenced from these shitty websites. Also, the request for checkuser came back as "possible". However, if you go to User:MUSASHIKOGANEI's youtube page, you'd see that he is "tamagawaboat", as his original tamagawaboat youtube account has been suspended. User:Rabota is very likely the same person as User:MUSASHIKOGANEI and Tamagawaboat, based on his user page edit and a serious of reverts [39], [40], [41] evading my questioning whether he's tamagawaboat or not. Tamagawaboat is pretty famous for his original fake of nanking video and he seems to have visited many websites and blogs posting his rhetoric, especially in response to Ted Leonis's new Nanking documentary that's airing at the end of this year. Blueshirts 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hong, rabota sent me this video. Do you know how to report this to wiki admins? Thanks. Blueshirts 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe try reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

List of British Chinese people

Newbie here. Read your contribution to the Nomination of for deletion for a similar list in the US. Now they are proposing another Mass Deletion of Ethnic List. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_Chinese_people

Do you think there is anyway that some kind of permanant policy can be established once and for all? Thanks. Chineseartlover 19:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There is actually a proposed guideline for this issue. Take a look at Wikipedia:Proposed guideline for lists of people by ethnicity, religion, and other cultural categorizations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wiki is getting too big and people are repaeting all the arguments without realising it :) Chineseartlover 19:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The AFD of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_Asian_people concluded as "No consensus, defaulting to Keep". Yet similar AFD for Chinese in UK resulted in "deletion". I wonder if you might be interested to contribute to the following discussion? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_25#List_of_British_Chinese_people Chineseartlover 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar FAC

When you get some time, feel free to add your support for the Manzanar FAC! Gmatsuda 07:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Things are still going slowly. As of now, it looks like it's going to fail due to lack of interest, which is really quite sad. Hope you put in your two cents on the Manzanar FAC soon! -- Gmatsuda 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		HongQiGong...thanks for your contributions to Manzanar, especially when we were "embroiled" in that debate over terminology. You helped put us back on track and look what happened...it's now an FA. Thanks again! -- Gmatsuda 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that really deserves the praise for putting that article together. It's really a great article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

I just wanted to thank you for your cooperation and ask you a question. I'm a journalist and need the info for style purposes.

My doubt is: When you refer to something, let's say a movie, from New York in an international context, you say it's an American movie. But when you speak about something from Hong Kong in an international context, should you say it is something Chinese (since HK is now again a part of the PR) or something Hongkonian, due to the special rule of this territory? Thanks. --Damifb 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Minzu

I noticed that you redirected Minzu to Zhonghua minzu. Would you mind explaining your thinking on the talk page please? That seems the best place for discussion. Matt 18:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethics

You've been persistently publishing on Wikipedia an unofficial map, which depicts the territories of other countries as part of China's territory. I understand all your love to China. If you love your country, please respect her neighbours too. Please don't cover your neighbours' yards in the map of your yard. I don't see anything hurting the ROC POV in the more official map I have suggested. Moreover, the map I suggested respects the POV of the Russian Federation, Mongolia, India and so on, without offending the POV of PRC, ROC, HK, Macao etc. :) Gantuya eng 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We've been telling you over and over again - that article is not about the PRC. It's about "China". We can't use the PRC flag for an article that's not about the PRC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear HongQiGong, May I ask you to be more polite. Please do not turn my talk page into a theatre of edit war with your repeated "warning" signs. They scare me. Gantuya eng 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to warn people who are in risk of violating WP:3RR. Please read about that policy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

rply to email; will send some files

..may be useful... later! --Ling.Nut 02:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

..but in order for me to help with sources, you need to reply to my email. Wikipedia mail does not permit attachments, so I'll have to attach the files to your reply. Ling.Nut 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Duh.  :-p Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Nanking FAC

I'm really sorry, but I've been hard at work on another article and just didn't get a chance to look at that FAC and don't think I'll be able to get to it, since I have some travel pending. Good luck with it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Son Goku Saiyuki

If you disagree that Son Goku is part of the Saiyuki manga series, please remove the reference from List of main characters from Saiyuki and propose the redirect Son Goku (Saiyuki) for deletion. Failing that, it should be on the disambiguation page and there's no reason to remove it. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chinese Foo Dog

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chinese Foo Dog, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Foo Dog. Thank you. Evb-wiki 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations for ethnic group lists

Hi,

I see you've commented on a number of these deletion discussions that have just come up for ethnic-group people lists. Having all of these come up at once is problematic, I think, so I left a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". You may want to follow that or comment there. Noroton 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Asia Miles AFD

I noticed the arguments there, but I determined that the delete ones had a lot more weight. If you disagree (btw. you might want to check the deletion summary too), request a review. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. I was neutral to the deletion, but I thought that the AfD itself should have resulted in no consensus. I don't feel strongly about it either way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Correcting a mistaken impression

After seeing your edit summary here, I wanted to clear a minor issue up. Please don't assume that because Kurt Leyman broke the three revert rule and was blocked, therefore his edit was 'wrong'. I have no particular opinion about the content of the edit; the three revert rule is about editor behaviour and not content. The fact that an editor is blocked under the rule does not mean that other editors can freely revert their changes without discussion or sanction if they are continuing an edit dispute. Sam Blacketer 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Faye Wong

Hi, please be careful with what you delete. On the Faye Wong article, while making your defensible WP:FLAGCRUFT edit, you also hacked out her birthplace.

Please edit with a scalpel, rather than with an axe!

-- Terry Carroll 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to add that back in and actually had an edit conflict with your edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

flags

Oh ok. Looks like lots of infoboxes are going to need some work... Pandacomics 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Modern Chinese music. I didn't know I was violating any real flag kruft rule. Feel free to swing by that page. Benjwong 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

Hi there. Do you think it would be a good idea to ask for an article review? I think this is an article that deserves attention - maybe with advice from neutral third parties it could get even better? John Smith's 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian American citations

User:Iseebias would not have been able to walk all over the Asian American article if the citations I added from sociologists had been kept in the article. They agreed with the US Census. Can my citations be added back in?----^DarkTea© 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't your citations that was the problem, it was the fact that you completely re-hauled the article without discussion. But either way, I doubt those citations would convince Iseebias of anything. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please write an accurate article

Neo Gomanism Manifesto Special - On War - Please quote the part of Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan. This book doesn't criticize China though there is a doubt of the history revisionism though I read this book. --KoreanShoriSenyou 15:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This book is a book that investigated the crime of the foreigner who lives in Japan. Please quote the part that relates to China if it relates to China.) Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File - Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007　--KoreanShoriSenyou 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 　

Reversion

Why did you revert this edit? My rationale was correct. Beijing has always been Beijing, its just that the Cantonese form of the word sounded like Peking so that is why English translators romanized it as that. Later, English translators decided to go with an interpretation that was closer to the Mandarin form of the word and thats why Beijing (past, present, and future) is now called Beijing in English. 128.227.143.54 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Image with Clear face in Korea War

Edit War Help! I don't expect you vote in the talk page as Chinese, but only vote in a good faith of fair person. Dongwenliang 04:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalsim edit from Grant65

Hello, i saw your discussion in Japanese_War_crime section. [42] Grant65 maybe vandalist. his edit is totally inappropriate in articel.[43] also, citaion is no relation, too. You and i are support to delete his edit. [44]. can you help me? how can i delete his vicious edit? Checkorder2 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre

Hi HongQiGong. I think the title of Nanking Massacre should be changed to Nanjing Massacre. Do you agree with me? I have also created the article Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall. Please read the article and if you find any error, please let me know. Regards, Masterpiece2000 08:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yao Ming

hongqigong, you're absolutely right, yao ming has chinese citizenship. also i think nobuo uematsu is of japanese citizenry. apologies, i forgot the article was about asian americans, not asian people in america... i am new to wiki, and do not know how to undo that, so if you or someone else could fix those changes, i'd appreciate it. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The infinite (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page: List of recipients of tribute from China

I have done some edits in this article to reverse the imbalance of the article. Please protect this article as I am busy most of the time.

With Kind regards,

James Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by James collins123 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I cannot protect anything. If you would like an article protected, you can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. But do note that unless there is a valid reason for protection (vandalism, edit wars, etc), an admin will deny to protect the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Durian Durian

Thank you for improving my article! Totnesmartin 11:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese renminbi

I assume that you realise that your edits of Chinese renminbi yesterday have removed the possibility of keeping the edit history of this page in one place without the intervention of an administrator. If you think this kind of subtle vandalism is clever, please think again. If you can't ensure that your point of view is reflected by the strength of your arguments, don't cheat. It's not big and it's certainly not clever.
Dove1950 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hello Hong. There's a rather heated argument on the Talk Page of The Society For Truth And Light, could you take a look at that when you've time? Regards.--K.C. Tang 07:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of Hong Kong films

Hi, Hong. Remember me? ;) An editor who has been creating lists of films of particular countries has notified me about work that needs to be done for Hong Kong. He pointed me to Hong Kong films of 1971, which comes off the main article List of Hong Kong films, then to Hong Kong films of the 1970s. He started breaking the lists down by year, and commented that there were many important films missing on these lists. The editor himself has been working more on India, and appears to have taken a hopefully tempororary, but he claims permant, leave from Wikipedia. I've got my hands more than full working on the Japan and Korea areas. In working on the lists for Japan and Korea, I see that we already have many film articles started, but they haven't yet been put on the lists. This is probably the case for Hong Kong also. Maybe you know of someone who would like to take up the Hong Kong film lists? Regards. Dekkappai 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm aware of continuing efforts to populate those lists, and there's an outstanding request at the request page of WPHK to help populate them. But I suspect that nobody else has fully dedicated himself/herself to populate those lists because, well, it's an extremely ambitious goal. During its heyday, the HK movie industry was the 2nd highest producing movie industry in the world in terms of number of movies produced, behind India and ahead of Hollywood. Maybe you can post a note at the talk page of WPHK or WikiProject Modern Chinese music (the movie and music industries in HK are very intertwined) to ask if anybody is interested. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Right-- Listing every film from any one country would be an enormous task... much less one of the more prolific countries. I take these lists to mean, "Lists of films on which Wiki has articles". Anyway, I'll take your suggestion up tomorrow. Cheers. Dekkappai 01:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LungFuMuhn288.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LungFuMuhn288.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re : Toyotaboy95's edits

Sure. I've also dropped a note on his talkpage, hope he actually reads it. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Guan Yu

It seems Guan Yu is the winner of the WP:3K collaboration discussion.. I'm not gonna be helping quite as much as I did earlier.. but I hope you and _dk & Gamer Junkie can attack & conquer the citadel of FA together with this article.. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 東北大學

An article that you have been involved in editing, 東北大學, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學. Thank you. ✉ Hello World! 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Interested in expanding an article?

I came across the Flying_guillotine_(weapon) article, which appears to be desperately in need of a rewrite at the moment. I did a little bit of searching on the net and there were lots of information about it - like this and this, but I have neither the time nor the energy to tidy up the article now. It certainly seems to be an interesting subject. I'd be glad if you could help expand the article. Thanks! Aran|heru|nar 08:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source in Simplified Chinese. I don't really have enough interest to do a re-write though.[45] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:FreshKidIce.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:FreshKidIce.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

infobox actor & singer

First off, thank you for your putting in time to make a new infobox. Second, is it possible to make the box just a bit wider? Haha. Preferably the width of the "This article contains Chinese text" template. (So then it's aligned and looks neat. I'm OCD like that.) Pandacomics (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok it's done. But the template needs to be re-rendered onto each article so the change won't show up until someone makes a new edit to an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang

Are you going to take part in the discussion? Only I have some suggestions for the part you edited if you'd like to chat about them - drop me an e-mail if you've got the time. John Smith's (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell where your suggestion is on the Talk page. Can you link me up? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because I haven't made them yet. Are you still interested in the page? I might need to send it to mediation. John Smith's (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China

Hello, friend. Ashikaga Yoshimitsu recieved 册封 as "日本国王", by china dynasty. Yoshimitsu united the Northern and Southern Court, then recieved 册封 by China. This 册封 represent to "Japan" country itself. and show China-Japan Diplomatic relation. moreover, after Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, this tributary relation succeeded. Japan recieved "日本国王印" 金印 from china.[46] it represent to China-Japan relation. Japanese try to hide this truth... Japan was tributary state of China, since Han dynasty("漢"倭奴国王). Japan paid tibute to Han, Sui, Tang(master dynasty of Japan), Song, Ming... Japan recieved 册封 by China dynasty also send tribute to China. Toyotomi recieved 册封 by china in Ming dynasty 萬曆 24年. (1596 丙申 / 萬曆 24年) 12月 7日 " 倭將行長, 馳報秀吉, 擇於九月初二日, 奉迎冊命於大坂〔大阪〕地方受封。 職等初一日, 持節前往, 是日卽抵大坂〔大阪〕。 次日領受欽賜圭印、官服, 旋卽佩執頂被, 望闕行五拜三叩頭禮, 承奉誥命。" Conclusion, In history, Japan Recieved 册封 by China. Japan send 朝貢 to China. It is reasonable for including tributary list. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, oppose JPOV change. Clerkwheelzeon (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Li Feihui

A small side note: if you take the notenglish tag off, it will end up being put back on WP:PNT again when someone decides to complain it's not in English. I myself would be happy with just the pronunciations of the titles being added, but monolingual editors don't tend to agree with my opinion... -Yupik (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But I don't see any Chinese on the article that's not been translated. If someone puts it back on WP:PNT, it would basically be an invalid listing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah true! Now I see that also took out the Chinese song titles. Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  :) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Code addition

Hi can you help make an addition to the Template:Infobox Chinese actor and singer? Right now the template turns lightblue when "currentmembers" has content. Can you also make it turn lightblue if "pastmembers" has content? I made an attempt in a preview box and it did not seem to accept another if-statement??? If you can't do it, just let me know. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in China

Hi, can you help me with this issue? --Esimal (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with Protestantism in China too. The January 2007 claim has been used as the only source, despite it has been denied by the recent surveys. --Esimal (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Pier

I have noticed your recent edits to the above article. Whilst I am not opposed to selectively linking some truly historical dates dates, I do find the wholescale linking of dates in an article being counter-productive, and is certainly may be contrary to WP:DATE. I have no view on whether the date when the pier was inaugurated should be linked, but there should be a reciprocal link from the relevant date/year article, but they do not. I would reason that if it is important enough for the date page, the link is probably justified. However, I would question that 31 July 2007, when the High Court accepted the activists' application for a judicial review, is a sufficiently important date for wikilinking.

As far as the sentence abut the Chinese name, I believe it is relevant. Although what you said about Queen's Pier = 皇后碼頭 being correct, it is nevertheless dedicated to QV, so the relevance is direct. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Req for review

Hi, could you please check this addition (not mine) for correctness and applicability. Even if correct, it seems to slightly ... wierd/out of proportion, :) so I'd appreciate it if you could put it into some perspective.

Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested in the subject of Chinese reunification nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians interested in the subject of Chinese reunification. –Pomte 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Other problems

It seems there are other problems. Can you give your opinion another time?

To me, the best way to keep neutrality is avoiding any kind of citations, both by USA leaders and other people. --Esimal (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hong! I've written the paragraph about positivities and negativities of Christianity in China. We should add also some informations about the relation of Christianity with colonialism. --Esimal (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Slaves in the Tang

I skimmed the article months ago, and found it interesting, but did not think to look for a more recent article. As of right now I am scraping up what I can find on the JSTOR database for any scholarly journals on the subject; preferably something a little more recent than the 1930s (;) lol). I do know that the Chinese had maritime contacts with East Africa since at least the 7th century, and it was Duan Chengshi who described the African slave trade by the Arabs there in the 9th century.

I have a question for you as well: I can't seem to find any good sources on the transition of Yuan to Ming dynasties, and the long process of rebellion and collapse. Do you know of any online articles or even books I should buy? I own tons of books on China but none of them really treat the subject well. I ask this because I've gotten the Tang and Song dynasty articles up to featured article status, and I am now shooting to get Ming Dynasty up to featured status.

Peace, Eric--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the top of my head I don't know any sources. But try books specifically on the Mongol empire. They may not discuss it in the context of dynastic Chinese rule though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Found something

I found a bit of info about this in Gao Jinyuan's article China and Africa: The Development of Relations over Many Centuries (1984) featured in the African Affairs journal and published by Oxford University Press. After talking about Persians and Arabs settling in Yangzhou and Guangzhou during the Tang Dynasty, the article states:

These Arabs were presumably largely from West Asia, but it is also probable that some might have come from North Africa. And they also brought with them black slaves or servants, most of whom had their source in South Asia but some were noticeably from Africa.

In 1954 a clay figurine was found in a Tang tomb in a suburb of Sian, once the capital of the Tang Dynasty. It has every feature typical of an African, with black skin, flattish face, curly-swirly hair, broad nose and thick lips. The figure-maker must have been very familiar with the image of black Africans, possibly by watching them closely. Even more interesting is that many short stories in Tang Dynasty tell anecdotes about black servants or slaves who often display bravery, wisdom, unusual behavior and a sense of justice.

Well, there you have it. I can find more if you'd like.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Duk Dou

I know you said just a kidding about the matter, but I feel very offended by your reckless sarcasm. I don't you where you're from either Mainland China or Taiwan.(Hong Kong certainly belongs to PRC), but China is also disputing with Japan over Senkaku Island. In addition, the some people think Taiwan is not an independent country and other don't. In the current status, if people are joking about the status of Taiwan, Taiwanese feel offended by the comment. Here is not a blog, so please refrain from saying inappropriate comment. --Appletrees (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(If anybody was wondering what he's talking about - [47] - Or maybe Appletrees himself is being sarcastic? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry to butt in here uninvited, but since I started the dialogue which led to Hong's comment to which you took offense, Appletrees, I'd like to remind you that we're not here to settle difficult political problems, and, really, not even to discuss them. We're here only to help each other write encyclopedic articles. I saw a funny scene in a film, and shared it with the editors of the article. I was happy to see Hong reply humorously-- it was quite obvious he was only making a joke, and, just to make sure, he stated quite clearly that he was only making a joke at the comment. Hong and I have had major difficulties with each other in the past, Appletrees, and I was happy to have a light exchange with him for a change. I meant no offense to either the Japanese or the Korean side in my part of that dialogue, and I am pretty sure that Hong did not either. I look forward to continued good work with you on the Korean film project, Appletrees. Regards. And, Hong, I am glad to have shared a laugh with you after our past battles. Cheers. Dekkappai (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dekkappai, thank you for your explanation, but HongQiGong's the above comment also offensive as well. It doesn't matter what his intention was. He doesn't even realize how sarcastic he made on the disputed territories. I'm also a bit involve in the article, so the unfunny (well, Hong himself and few can be laugh)but offensive CPOV comment should not be written anywhere on the article. I've encountered him on several articles in which I've been interested, and tried to give positive inputs, but the reckless comment took away my first impression on him. And no apology from him yet. --Appletrees (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, Appletrees. I usually try to stay out of these sorts of disputes-- I drank a lot of makkeolli with my family & friends last night, and stepped in here against my better judgment... Anyway, I'll step aside and let you two sort it out. One more word of advice though-- I could have easily taken offense at the video Hong posted (naturally, the portrayal of the Japanese did offend me a bit), but I took it in the spirit it was offered-- as a humorous look, on the talk page, at a difficult situation. We encounter all kinds of people from all over the world here, but as long as they seem to be trying to make positive contributions, we should try to assume good faith. I can understand your taking offense at Hong's statement, as I have taken offense at some of his actions in the past. But probably just a gentle note to Hong explaining your feelings would work best. Anyway, back to editing... Best of luck! Dekkappai (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I apologise for making that joke. But just so you know, I am keenly aware of the Diaoyu Islands situation and I probably would find it funny if someone makes a joke and say the article for the islands should be renamed to the Korean name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Talesrunner

I noticed that you removed this article from Articles Needing Translation into English. You may not have noticed, but this page actually has two parts. The top part is for articles that have some untranslated non-English text, which fits the title of the page nicely. The bottom half of the page is for pages that have been fully translated, but need some cleanup on the language. Often, this is where pages go when they have been translated by machine or by a translator who is not fully fluent in English. The Talesrunner article falls into the second category, which is why it is in the bottom half of the page. I think you should restore the entry so that the article still has the visibility it needs. Cbdorsett (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.[48] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Info

Hello, Hong Qi Gong. I guess you already know that the professor at Asia University was sued by a victim of the Nanking massacre for libel, and the Tokyo district's verdict stated that "the quality of the defendant's work which is a rebuttal against Chang's book is poor in academy and filled with trivia. I think the reaction in Japan also should include the info along with all the Japanese professors mentioned on the article who are engaging in a ultra right-wing committee in Japan. --Appletrees (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that actually. I still think it does a huge disservice to the readers to use right wing critics and not mention that some of them go as far as to deny that the massacre even happened. I am not sure how to reach a compromise with User:Saintjust though. It seems to me he only wants to inflate the article with any and all criticism he can find, no matter how trivial, and no matter that some of them may violate WP:UNDUE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fujioka Nobukatsu (藤岡信勝), Higashinakano Shudo (東中野修道) They are members of Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform and Prof. Fujioka is even the vice president of the comittee. Here are links regarding the lawsuit. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

Well, the editor has been very "famous" for his writings on Korean related articles as well. The article of Secretary-General of UN, Ban Ki-moon is one of his long-term favorites [54] and is a featured article too. In the example of Ijime[55] article (of course deleted), his behavioral pattern is too transparent. Anyway, I think you can gather more opinions from editors possibly interested in the subject as you post a note to get a help at military, history, and East Asia wiki project groups. --12:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)

Black slaves in Tang Dynasty

I have read the above article before. The book Snow, Philip. The Star Raft: China's Encounter With Africa. Cornell Univ. Press, 1989 (ISBN 0801495830) mentions the import of east African slaves by Arab traders during the Tang-Song Dynasties. These slaves were called (along with Southeast Asians) "Kun-lun", a generic term used to classify all dark-skinned people. It says the Tang Chinese believed the African slaves had supernatural strength, were great swimmers, and their black skin was actually a magic black salve that could cure diseases. But Song Chinese later learned they were only scared mortal men who were kidnapped from their homeland and forced to into slavery in China. Only the richest Chinese own these slaves.

I have not read it myself, but there is also the journal article The Magical Kunlun and "Devil Slaves": Chinese Perceptions of Dark-skinned People and Africa before 1500 (The linked article is just a summary of the actual research paper). I hope this helps. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll save that link and read it when I have the time. Thanks. If I ever gather enough information that I think we can create an article out of it, I'll ask you and User:PericlesofAthens to help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)