User talk:Instantnood/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notifier

Let me know if you have messages for me on any discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me on this page. Thanks.

notifier                      to edit →[edit]


Hello. Enjoy the discussion.


/Archive 1 (January to March 2005, 58kb)
/Archive 2 (April to June 2005, 82kb)
/Archive 3 (July to September 2005, 73kb)
/Archive 4 (October to December 2005, 150kb)
/Archive 5 (January to March 2006, 78kb)
/Archive 6 (April to June 2006, 93kb)

Changes to Current Events in HK and Macao[edit]

Check the Talk page, the change wasn't unexplained. The article was not being maintained, and I was going to start maintaining it. But the current format required more work than there is interest to maintain it. Basically it looked like I was going to be the only one updating it, so I changed it to a simpler format because I simply don't want to spend the amount of time it would take to upkeep it. Also, I renamed it to "Current events in Hong Kong" because Portal:Hong Kong is only for Hong Kong and not for Macau as well, and there didn't seem to be any news updates for Macau in that article anyway.

Now, I would love to maintain the current events page for HK, but simply not in the current format. The format is too much work. If you insist on the current format, are you going to put in the work to upkeep it? Hong Qi Gong 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Industrial Estate[edit]

Dear Instantnood,

Noted you have moved the 大埔工業園 back to 大埔工業邨 for reason "no hit by searching "大埔工業園" site:gov.hk". Don't think this is good enough as you do not even read the amended article and provided External link. The company "Hong Kong Industrial Estate" already merged into "Hong Kong Science Park" in 2001 and the name of the three industrial estates changed from 工業邨 to 工業園.

FYI, I have worked in a company in Taipo Industrial Estate from early 90's to 2002.

--219.77.33.13 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re territorial disputes[edit]

please read my comments on the talk page of this article. I had a lot of my work (a lot sourced/referenced) deleted, and while I was a bit aggrieved at this, my aim is to get bits reinstated to (hopefully) everyone's satisfaction. Any views/help gratefully received. RAYMI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.68.39.212 (talk • contribs) 13:16, July 4, 2006 (UTC).

UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories[edit]

Hi. You have previously posted a couple of questions on the discussion page for the referenced article United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing Territories. I wanted to mention that I've recently added some content to the article as well as a few words on the discussion page that might be of interest in response to the questions. I didn't want you to miss it if you aren't watching the page. Newyorkbrad 15:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

I don't know about that. We have a Macau article, not a Macao article. While Macao gets 35.3 million Google hits, Macau gets 116 million Google hits. The CIA World Factbook uses Macau as well. And not to cite a Wikipedia article, but the Macau article indicates...

The form "Macao" was the original Portuguese spelling, and has been retained in most European languages. In modern Portuguese, the correct spelling is "Macau". During the 20th century, the official spelling "Macau" became more and more common in English-language sources, including most print media.

Do you believe that last statement is incorrect? So perhaps my edit summary may not have been 100% correct, but I believe we should stick with Macau for consistency on Wikipedia and due to its overall popularity. joturner 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Please find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Instantnood reported by User:Vsion (Result:). --Vsion 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 8 2006 (UTC) to City Council (Singapore)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 48 hours.

You're on probabtion. You're banned from Singapore. Please show some sense and some restraint.

William M. Connolley 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. And "its bl**d*n obvious" William M. Connolley 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page ban was related to the criteria to the field "largest city" in the country infobox. Which probably gives a clue of why Instantnood is suddenly taking special intrest in articles like Singapore City, City Council of Singapore, Singapore City Council election, 1957, Singapore City Council by-election, 1958, etc, and spreading the revert warring to these pages.--Huaiwei 13:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My related commentary from [2]:

The page ban was not related to the City of Singapore and the City Council articles. The chief reason for Instantnood's ban from the Singapore article was over his views on the city status of Singapore and the existance of its capital city [3]. After facing universal opposition from the wikipedian community, he unilaterally attempted to create a seperate article called Singapore City to support his assertion that the gazetted city of Singapore during the colonial era is distinct from the present city, hence his believe that no city exists in Singapore contemporarily [4] [5]. When this move was again resisted by other wikipedians, he initiated other articles such as City Council (Singapore), Singapore City (historical entity), City Council of the City of Singapore, Mayor of Singapore, Singapore City Council election, 1957 and Singapore City Council by-election, 1958, amongst other articles to stamp his viewpoint, and resulting in the wikiwar spreading to all of them. I therefore doubt his assertion that these reverts were not essentially "over the same thing".--Huaiwei 13:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD Macao people categories[edit]

Osomec's voice wasn't retracted. It's no consensus. If you think there's no reason to oppose, you may try a repeat nomination. Conscious 19:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have closed the nomination improperly, go to DRV. For any other reasons, go to CFD. Conscious 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason that might take you to DRV is the violation of the deletion procedure (for example, misinterpretaion of consensus by the closing admin). Conscious 06:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re territorial disputes[edit]

My entries are now being checked by Ran, after viewing sources--80.68.39.212 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-order divisions of the ROC by population[edit]

Hi Instantnood, the population for Taiwan province is missing a digit. I don't know where you got the data from so I cannot correct it. — Nrtm81 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I thought the website gave the actual figures for the provinces (My mistake). By the way, the second external link is dead. — Nrtm81 01:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, the URL of the English page was moved. I've updated the link now. — Nrtm81 12:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hkcolonyprocess.jpg[edit]

Sorry for taking 4 months to reply to your message here... -_-" but before I modify it, what did you mean by High Island reservoir being "a channel" before it being dammed? Please reply on my zh-talkpage, thanks. -- tonync (talk) (講) 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still don't quite see what you mean -- perhaps you can find an image or some sort to help? -- tonync (talk) (講) 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The map I used actually originated from here, without making any adjustments to the landforms... -- tonync (talk) (講) 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts that are like blackened eggs[edit]

Please stop revert warring on list of largest airlines. SchmuckyTheCat 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province[edit]

Hi Instantnood, I don't agree with your move of removing the article merge. Please see the Talk:Taiwan Province for my reasons. Thanks. — Nrtm81 02:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an additional note, I've thrown in my few cents. (Yes, I'm back somewhat...) Feel free to comment on my page if you want to discuss. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the merge tags and moved the PRC page back to Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China). That was how it was originally before someone moved it to The Claimed Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China. — Nrtm81 11:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, though... - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this issue ties directly with the political issue. I'm going to suggest a notice be put somewhere on the page which points to the correct article regarding the political problem between PRC/ROC. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KCR East Rail Stations[edit]

Take zh:大圍站 as an example, before the renovation of Tai Wai Station (大圍站), the name of it was 大圍車站[6].

But after the renovation, it has been changed into 大圍站.Image On the other hand, the expansion project of Sheung Shui Station is using 上水站 instead of 上水車站Image, so all KCR East Rail stations have changed from xx車站 into xx站--Mtrkwt 08:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

回應，馬鞍山鐵路是九鐵東鐵支線，因此馬鞍山鐵路根本是東鐵一部份，不論是否大圍站，甚至第一城站，同樣是九鐵東鐵不可分割一部份。
根據九廣鐵路的車票發出及使用條件第一部1.2條及第二部大部份條文，內文是使用羅湖站，而不是羅湖車站，而條文制訂日期為2004年8月18日。
另一方面，車站街道圖、部份九鐵通告、九鐵網頁、九鐵刊物同樣是使站紅磡站、尖東站、羅湖站，而不是使用XX車站。--Mtrkwt 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tfd[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs).

TfD nomination of Template:Hong Kong (PRC)[edit]

Template:Hong Kong (PRC) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs).

Template:Hong Kong (PRC)[edit]

May I ask why you made such change, replacing unicode space with non-unicode &nbsp ;? Also, I would recommend you to recuse in the TfD because you are also a person of interest. --WinHunter (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stray votes...?[edit]

Hi Instantnood,
Are your votes here meant for elsewhere...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I didn't spot that User:Jtdirl = "FearÉIREANN". I have, however, removed your first vote; hope that's okay. Yours, David 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, so long as what's been left is what you intended. Best wishes, David 02:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.[edit]

  1. Please use edit summaries.
  2. Please do not recreate deleted content.
SchmuckyTheCat 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis B in China[edit]

Instantnood: You are hereby enjoined from editing the article Hepatitis B in China for a period of one year. Failure to comply with this will result in you being blocked from editing altogether. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the prevalence of a disease in a geographical region commonly known by the name "China". It has nothing to do with the government of that region or any other political aspects. Your edit war on that article served no useful purpose other than to make the article obfuscated and aggravate the other editors. If you wish to contest my ban, feel free to post on WP:AN/I. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in sorting between POV and NPOV edits. I am here to stop you from engaging in edit wars, as per multiple ArbCom decisions. If the edit you mention is indeed unrelated to the dispute, then by all means feel free to suggest it to SchmuckyTheCat or any other editor, and they may restore it if they see fit to do so. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfd[edit]

if you put an rfd tag on an article, then nominate for rfd. SchmuckyTheCat 21:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting My Edtits[edit]

How dare you revert my edits! I mentioned on the talk page why I had organized the page like that!! Did you even look! Revet it back to my changes! You have no reason for using sections and subsections!!!!100110100 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am refering to List of Chinese languages and dialects.100110100 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Talk:Current events in Hong Kong[edit]

Hi Instantnood! There appears to be a fair but real dispute on this article. I have opened an article RFC on the above talkpage (There were two talkpages to choose from, I selected which one by tossing a coin). Please comment if there are things you wish to add. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be a specific Barnstar for Wikipedians who help a lot in editing Hong Kong related articles?[edit]

As the title asks... --Nxn 0405 chl 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was... It could be easy to design as the bauhina flower itself is a 'star'. PS Instantnood, hope you like your first barnstar :-) Jsw663 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Hong Kong/temp[edit]

What's the purpose of that page in the subspace of the main article? It looks like an unfinished revision of the article. Why did you change those links to link to that instead of the article itself[7][8]? I don't oppose revisions to the article if that's what it needs, but don't you think we should keep to linking to the article itself instead of an unfinished revision in the article's subspace? --- Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country article[edit]

Take your discussion of Country to the article's talk page. You are close to violating 3RR. Joelito (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You were properly warned. You have been blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring on both Country and List of largest buildings in the world. Joelito (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are on probation and edit warring is disruptive. Both incidents are clearly related since they both involve User:Huaiwei, who has also been blocked. Joelito (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnoodle, I am amazed by your enthusiaism in edit-warring. Actually, you started edit-warring with the international-ranking articles half a year ago. I thought you have stopped already, but you have not. The fact that you have been pushing your "special" political view has already invoked many edit wars, with many different users in Wikipedia. I hope you can seriously think about why so many peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Instantnood&action=edit&section=28 are being pissed off. Originally, a lot of people were enthusiastically collaborating with you on the "weekly collaboration" project that you established, but now that project has already become inactive - people are not willing to work with you anymore. Why? I hope you can figure out the answer. (Delete this message if you want) - Alan 08:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instant was not given a proper hearing. He's views were correct. My talk archive shows extensive attempts to get sense out of his detractors who refused to provide evidence of their accusations. I haven't checked his latest edits but suggest they be checked carefully before jumping on the bandwagon. Too often wikipedia operates on the bandwagon principle rather than looking at facts. 實事求是. Mccready 15:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More warring[edit]

Please stop. If you continue warring I will block you for a longer time. Joelito (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits on Country and they are borderline. However this one [9] is just plain silly. You are a good contributor, but sometimes you lose focus. It would be better if you concentrate on building the encyclopedia instead of getting into petty syntax edits. Joelito (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of TVB programmes[edit]

Hi, just a question. Do you watch TVB serials? If so, can you verify which year the drama Find The Light was produced in? And Blade Heart, starred by Adam Cheng (as Ling Fung or Yueman Fung) and Liza Wang (as Madam Wong), it was made in 2003, not 2004. I'll verify this.--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 09:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm watching Blade Heart on TV now, in Cantonese. :P LOL.--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 09:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the late reply. I don't think I'll be editing after this due to exams tomorrow, so thank you anyway, Instantnood!--Tdxiang 10:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

Halo Instantnood! As you maybe hear that some Hong Kong wikipedians (*Like me who's concerning in Chinese Wikipedia most of the time*) are discussing about a new organization named Wikimedia Hong Kong. We suppose that this organization will represent all the Wikimedians(*including Wikipedians of course*) that live in Hong Kong, so technically including English Wikipedians like you. So my buddies & I are pretty eager to listen to your opinion about this new organization. Of course, enquiries about it is also welcome. & I also would like to ask, can you give me a list that includes the usernames of the Hong Kong activists here in English Wikipedia, pls. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. My contact info is here (*stuff under the Name Jerry*), en I hope you'll call me rather than just post some words on my talk page. Anyway, it's up to you.

Keep in touch, JéRRy.雨雨.talk.hk 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet-geo-stub[edit]

I completely agree with you, and argued as such at the time it was proposed. I suggest you check the WP:WSS/P archive and contact those who created it who disagreed. Grutness...wha? 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:renaming, the template is probably OK (the other option would be TibetAR-geo-stub), though the wording of it would need changing. The category might need renaming though. Grutness...wha? 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thanks for your opinion. I understand your point of view now. However, I think that the opinion of only 2 people is not enough so I suggest that we wait longer and then take a small poll. Whether or not the merger happens, can we add some new infomation about the bus terminus, the mall (Ocean Walk) and Pierhead Garden? Sir Studieselot 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and block warning on Huaiwen Xu and Xu Huaiwen [edit]

If you two continue this copy and paste move war, I'll definitely protect both pages and consider blocking both of you for disruption. Resolve the differences rather than enforcing your views. Thank you. --WinHunter (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Standard Mandarin[edit]

I've started a thread to try to build proper consensus about whether to move Standard Mandarin to a more intuitive and perhaps neutral title or not. I've left this message at your talkpage because you've participated in previous discussions about a possible title change. Please feel free to contribute with your thoughts and arguments at Talk:Standard Mandarin#The move.

Peter Isotalo 12:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about it! --Sumple (Talk) 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

 Instantnood/Archive 7 ：

The 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong, will be held in City Express within CityU at 19.00 on 16th September , 2006.

The Hong Kong Wikipedians who attend the meeting, will be regarded as members of the Preliminary Committee. For further information, please refer to the agenda.

Yours Turly,
encyclopedist 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK vs. HK[edit]

For one thing, see UK and HK. More to the point, we've SFR'd several such at this point, so I think the general consensus is clear, and one way or another, consistency is important. Alai 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is exactly the opposite, and, as above, the redirect vs. the disambig seems to indicate this is not an isolated sentiment on my part. If you agree consistency is important, why are you ignoring the earlier renames? And come to that, I'd appreciate it if you would propose stub type creation, for exactly such reasons of ironing out such issues. Alai 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing (or conflating) two or three distinct things. a) my experience is that UK typically denotes "United Kingdom", moreso than "HK" denotes "Hong Kong"; b) the consensus of earlier discussions was to rename "HK-" types to "HongKong-"; c) the contents of the HK and UK pages indicates something about the feeling of editors on their respective ambiguities. You may wish to address those points individually, rather than creating ad hoc dependencies between them. On google results: top google hit for "HK" (for me) is http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/; for "UK", http://www.uky.edu/ is at #4. Alai 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, I suppose you could ignore all of the above, and continue your "google" tangent. I was inclined to make much the same point to you about google customisation by location (my current IP address is in France, FYI, so it's by no means clear how that would introduce any such bias). My language settings are, I hope you'd agree, entirely appropriate for this context, given that the key EN.WP rubric is "common names in English". I really don't see what your "googlefight" proves: that "UK" occurs more commonly than "HK", regardless of referent, perhaps. (2.5 billion hits vs. 90 million, if I search unrestricted.) Note that many of the first searches are indeed references to "UK", that your exclusions fail to eliminate. Certainly it is in no way a meaningful assessment of the "error rate". Alai 16:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've answered your point about google, in addition to making several others (to which you've declined to respond). Alai 16:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning[edit]

You are very close to earning yourself another block. Edit-warring (e.g. Country, Demographics of mainland China, Huaiwen Xu) either on the same day or over time is unacceptable behavior. Continue in this manner and you will be blocked. Joelito (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I could help with the dispute I would but my knowledge in that area is slim. I only see the slow edit war, whether your edits are just or not I do not know nor do I wish to make such judgement. I am not here to assign blame just to ensure that this encyclopedia is not disrupted. Joelito (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing China / 'mainland China' / PRC, etc. + other edit-warring[edit]

I don't know whether this has been discussed before, but it seems to me like any use of 'mainland China' is distinctly unencyclopedic. By referring to the People's Republic of China, it is assumed that people know that certain cities / regions are not included in the statistics - that is why, like Hong Kong, they are called "Special Administrative Regions". I see absolutely NO need to insist editing anything economically related to China to 'mainland China' since we are only granted a different econ + pol system BY the PRC government. Hong Kong, Macau, etc. are NOT independent countries. Taiwan isn't included in PRC statistics anyway.

Moreover, I really don't see the point of edit warring all the time. Does it achieve anything constructive? If you want your opinion heard, seek an administrator, or maybe a mediation case. In a serious matter, seek a RfC from the ArbCom. Your constant edit-warring is tarnishing the image of not only yourself, but also of the Chinese (that includes Hong Kong) people on Wikipedia. Can't you be less immature in your actions? I plead with you because your work devoted to the Hong Kong board is very commendable, and also the reason why I awarded you the barnstar in the first place. Just because you disagree with someone else does not mean your version/belief/understanding is the authoritative, or only correct one. Please be a little more open-minded when it comes to encyclopedic editing, especially on Wikipedia. Thanks. Jsw663 20:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your post on my page - maybe a public poll? If any other encyclopedias were used to judge, or other similar official articles, the term 'mainland China' is rarely used officially. One way readers can be informed that that the PRC statistics economically do not include HK + Macau could be by putting a footnote on each page, next to the statistics. I highly doubt readers can be assumed to know what 'mainland China' means anymore than those who read economic statistics would know that PRC does not include HK + Macau. (Few non-Hong Kong/Macau, Singapore or Taiwan people use the term 'mainland China' in a FORMAL, encyclopedic context). I may not be correct, naturally, which is why I suggest we have a public poll - to ask for others' opinions as well before imposing on others what 'should' be the right version yet. Jsw663 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi once again. Yes, I'm aware you've had a colorful history with Schmucky, Huaiwei and a few other users on this board, but please, please can you stop these childish disputes - Wikipedia is not a place for you to unleash personal attacks on each other. As for your 2nd reply, the point is that we are talking about the PRC economy, not the HK economy. As I said above, outside of a few specific contexts, when talking about the PRC economic statistics, it is assumed already that they exclude HKSAR + Macau. Do you see official US-PRC economic documents constantly refer to 'mainland China', or 'the PRC'? Or just about all international trade with the 'PRC', for so many years, has always meant 'mainland China', BECAUSE HK + Macau were non-Chinese colonies before. I don't see why we still need to emphasise this to the extent it detracts from the main purpose of the statistic in the first place. It's like focusing so hard on one tree that you've forgotten about the woods (forest). We must not forget about WP:Undue_Weight after all.
Nevertheless, after all this talk, can't we do the footnote thing instead? That way in the footnote, you can directly link it to the mainland China webpage for clarification. This way, we can preserve the encyclopedic flow of the main article, yet if people wonder about the statistic, they will be referred to the footnote, where they can seek further clarification. How about that? Jsw663 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of simply calling footnotes 'confusing', can you please back up your case with more solid evidence / WP guidelines/policies? Considering I am NOT proposing to put a footnote next to EVERY statistic on every page (but at least once per page, early on in the page, plus a full footnote), I don't see why this would be confusing. Jsw663 21:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi instantnood. The footnotes / layout I have in mind is just like this wiki page: [10] or a better example here: [11]. The (foot)note is clear, and does not distract from the table/article. Imagine if in every table organizations placed 'mainland China' instead of 'PRC' - it would be desperately confusing. Also, note that both the HKSAR and Macau SAR is part of the PRC. The term 'mainland China' is only to distinguish a GEOGRAPHICAL difference, NOT a socio-political one. Jsw663 14:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Instantnood, please read this Wiki guideline [12]. It is highly relevant to you considering your actions now, which has not changed since you have registered with this username. You also should read the following (from here) (written by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales):

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced."

Jsw663 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong-company[edit]

Hi Instantnood,

Much like Category:Hong Kong is also a sub-category Category:China, Category:Hong Kong company stubs should also be a sub-category of Category:Chinese company stubs. All companies from Hong Kong could theoreticall also be stubbed with {{China-company-stub}}, but the {{HongKong-company-stub}} template is more specific and therefore preferable. So the latter should be a child of the former.

--CarabinieriTTaallkk 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, {{China-company-stub}} was created for all Chinese companies, including Hong Kong and Macau. While Hong Kong already had a more specific category, which should be the child of the Chinese company, Macau, e.g., would still be tagged with {{China-company-stub}}. Hong Kong and Macau are always children of Chinese categories, becuase they are a part of that country. This principle also applies to the question here.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jsw663 has left the following message on my talk page:

The above is reinterpreting something with a POV. Until this has been publicly discussed (or has it already been done?) one person's opinion does not triumph over more than one other person's unless one is an expert in the field. Are you an expert, Instantnood (e.g. civil servant, professional, academic etc.)? Jsw663 14:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with him. You can't just re-interpret the whole discussion so it fits the point you are making. The question you are claiming was answered at the proposal was never even posed. The only controversy at the proposal was, whether Puerto Rico is part of the US. From what did you conclude that only Mainland China was meant? The only evidence as to what the stub type was created for is the fact that the editor, who proposed it (me), meant for it to cover all of the PR of China, not parts of it (which would be nonsense, since we were splitting the parent by country). The question of what the stub types was created for was never answered. So how do we decide? 1. Even the smallest amount of geographical knowledge combined with logical thinking tells us that Hong Kong is a part of China and the categories concerned with the city should be a daughter of those about China. 2. It is a lot more practical to include Hong Kong and Macau in the China-related categories, because often a category related to just one of the cities is not feasible. In this case this applies only to Macau, but Wikipedia, especially the Stub Sort Project strives for consistency, which makes everything easier, so the principle should also apply to Hong Kong. 3. Precedent is to include Hong Kong in China-related categories; Category:Hong Kong is a part of Category:China, Category:Economy of Hong Kong is a child of Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China, Category:Companies of Hong Kong was a child of Category:Companies of China until you changed it ([13]). Please, this is a very pragmatical decision, which - looking over your talk page and considering all the people who have complained about similar topics - seems to be consensus on Wikipedia.--CarabinieriTTaallkk 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't "please don't" me[edit]

No, my characterisation of your actions is not "putting words in your mouth", and nor is it an "unsubstantiated accusation", it's a straightforward description of your actions, and one that I stand by. You've repeatedly acted to rescope "China" or "PRC" to "Mainland China", in some cases ignoring guidelines and consensus (much less any attempt at establishing same) in the process. Frankly, in the circumstances, you should be glad I've gone about dealing with this in as low-key a fashion as I have. You may recall I was one of the people arguing for more restricted measures instead of the last ban you received following discussion at AN/I, and I have little doubt that if brought there again, it would quickly escalate back to a similar point. If you continue to act in this manner, rather than engaging in meaningful discussion about appropriate category organisation, I shall move for you to be banned from the category (and stub-template) space as it pertains to China (broad sense). (And if such suggestion has knock-on effects, so be it.) Alai 10:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations in China[edit]

I'm not too clear on what exactly your question is; I know that the issue of what constitutes "China" can be a bit thorny, but at present Hong Kong, Taiwan and the PRC each have their own separate media categories. If you want to dispute that, I'm not the person to take it up with; if you want to rename the category, go right ahead. I'm not at all wedded to the category name; my only interest in the matter is in keeping the Category:Radio category tree cleanly sorted. Bearcat 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small map of the South China Sea islands[edit]

Ideally the South China Sea islands should be mentioned in some way, but I'm still puzzling over how to do it. Perhaps I'll try to make a small map instead of a long-winded and confusing note this time round. -- ran (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! =D -- ran (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out move request?[edit]

Hi. Just curious why you have a commented out {{move}} and {{WP:RMTalk}} in Talk:Huaiwen Xu? The move has been requested in WP:RM. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_7&oldid=1144588594"