User talk:Elhk2047/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Ernestlau, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Democracy camp, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Categorisation of the political factions

The source you cited show there is a grand alliance of pro-Beijing/pro-establishment camp which wins 40 seats and the anti-establishment camp. On the non-estasblishment camp, there have been a discussion User talk:Lmmnhn#Re: Six localists and there are sources I have cited that show most sources state that there are 6 localist won in the election. However as the pan-democrats have formed the pro-democracy caucus of 26 pan-democrats and localists and that left the localists three members in the Legco. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: It is now widely accepted that the localist are part of the Democracy camp http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/1050350 「然而，梁、游兩人及「熱血公民」鄭松泰等多名民主派議員」 Elhk2047 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is only one source claiming they are part of the pro-democracy camp and that is from Taiwan but there is not the general understanding of the Hong Kong media and public and the politicians themselves. Instead the 29 (or 30 if included Pierre Chan) legislators altogether are generally categorised as "non-establishment camp" (HK01, VOA, SCMP and your source Apple Daily) The fact that the three localist legislators is not part of the pro-democracy caucus ("G26"/"G27") further shows this distinction. I wish you can provide more sources to prove it otherwise. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Here is another source which you might wish to take a look at http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1044549 Furthermore, Democracy camp is basically just the anti-establishment camp but without the Centrist (Pierre Chan) https://facebook.com/civicpartyhk/photos/a.450720993456.230412.107336743456/10153899682848457/?type=3 Elhk2047 (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources do not state the Youngspiration and Civic Passion legislators are part of the pro-democracy camp whatsoever. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Anti-establishment camp was used to describe the ones who supports democracy but now it is renamed as 'Democracy camp' Civic Party. Furthermore, in your source SCMP, which writes 'Two major pan-democratic parties say they are willing to work with all pro-democracy forces in the newly elected legislature, including localists who advocate self-determination.' Therefore the phrase 'Democracy camp' or 'Pro-democracy forces' can be used to describe those 29 members. Elhk2047 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a few politicians thought that everybody who shared the same values should be categorised into the pro-democracy camp. That was the idea but it was before the pro-democracy caucus being set up in which the Civic Passion and Youngspiration legislators did not join. Today's the "pro-democracy camp" label is to describe the 26 legislators while the "localists" are the other three. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Have you ever considered using 'Pro-democracy forces' to describe people who shared the same values of democracy? Elhk2047 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I might agree that is not wrong to describe them as "pro-democracy forces" with reservations but it will create confusion between "pro-democracy forces" and "pro-democracy camp". Lmmnhn (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: We should use 'pan-democracy camp' instead of 'pro' as 'pan' is used more widely in the papers. This can also avoid confusions between "pro-democracy forces" and "pro-democracy camp". 'Pro-democratic forces' can also be considered to replace 'pro-democracy forces'. Elhk2047 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Pro-democracy forces" and "pro-democratic forces" have no differences in meaning. Yes, but as you have cited from the sources, the pan-democrats have rebranded themselves to "pro-democrats" and there are more usage of the latter term already. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Although "Pro-democracy forces" and "pro-democratic forces" have no differences in meaning, the different way of spelling it can convey to the reader that 'pro-democratic forces' is a different term to 'pro-democracy camp'. Elhk2047 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not agree with it. Even the spellings are different they are still very closely related words in terms of the words themselves, the meaning it conveys and the groups they refer to which would cause a big confusion. I do not think it is a good solution. Lmmnhn (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Adding references next to it will be a good way to convey the difference between "pro-democratic forces" and "pro-democracy camp". Elhk2047 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The title of the articles itself cannot be added with references and it is the title itself that would create such confusion. Furthermore, by now there is only one Taiwanese source makes such categorisation. I do not think it is strong enough to make a new "pro-democracy forces" title just because of that. Lmmnhn (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: Apple Daily According to this new source (13 Nov), the localist joined the pro-democracy forces' organisation '民主300+' to run for the election committee elections. This is a now very clear that the pro-democracy forces do actually exist and should be inserted into the infobox. Elhk2047 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, "民主300+" is a umbrella electoral coalition for the Election Committee election, which does not identical with "pro-democracy forces". Secondly, the political division in the Election Committee is entirely different from the Legislative Council, the former one consists of "ABC", "pro-Leung", "pro-democrats" and some other unaffiliated and the latter is divided into the major two caucuses, the pro-Beijing and pro-democracy ones in which Civic Passion is not part of it. Thirdly, Chan Chak-to does not determine the whole localist groups, if you read the Localism in Hong Kong and Localist groups (Hong Kong) articles, the term "localists" encompasses more than a single ideology and those factions often disagree with each other. Chan is part of the "民主300+", but does not necessarily mean that he is part of the "pro-democracy forces", which is still a unclear term, and does not mean that all other localists are part of the "pro-democracy forces". Fourthly, the fact that Cheng Chung-tai is not part of the pro-democracy caucus shows that he does not want to be categorised into the pro-democracy spectrum. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: I guess I'll answer your questions one by one:

1. The umbrella electoral coalition is just basically pro-democracy forces, as they're both a coalition for democracy.
2. "ABC" and "pro-Leung" are just subsectors of pro-Beijing and pro-democracy. For example, the Liberal Party is a Pro-Beijing and ABC, and Leticia Lee Sze Yin is a Pro-Beijing and pro-Leung.
3. Chan Chak-to is just one of the example to show that the localist and the pro-democracy caucus are on the same side.
4. The reason that Cheng Chung-tai is not part of the pro-democracy caucus is because his master, Raymond Wong Yuk-man has a strained relationship with the pro-democracy caucus since he left the People Power in 2013.

@Lmmnhn: It would be great if you say something about Elhk2047 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Elhk2047 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Hong Kong political parties. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Deryck C. 22:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I have a source enclosed with an audio tape, which clearly indicated that Cheng Chung-tai denied that he is part of the Localist camp and even regarded people who believe that he is part of it as 'idiot'. Therefore, I have a strong belief that this is certainly NOT unhelpful editing. Elhk2047 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- At the moment this is at the level of primary sourcing. Until common usage emerges among Hong Kong media that classifies Civic Passion and Cheng Chung-tai as anything other than Opposition or Localist, Wikipedia ought to follow the prevailing media description. Deryck C. 23:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--61.224.4.164 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@61.224.4.164: Sometimes things are calculated, where only mathematical equations can be your source. ELHK | 〒 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
no source no change.--61.224.4.164 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
matematucal calculations are your source. ELHK | 〒 14:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O1lI0 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<span style="border-radius:99px;background:#BD0E37;padding:0 25px;" title="Reply" lang="en"><font color="white">[[User:elhk2047|<font color="white">ELHK</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:elhk2047|<font color="white">〒</font>]]</font></span>

: ELHK | 〒

to

<span style="border-radius:99px;background:#BD0E37;padding:0 25px;" title="Reply" lang="en"><span style="color: white">[[User:elhk2047|<span style="color: white">ELHK</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:elhk2047|<span style="color: white">〒</span>]]</span></span>

: ELHK | 〒

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Elhk2047. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Liu Xiaobo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matteo Iannizotto (February 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matteo Iannizotto and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matteo Iannizotto, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Elhk2047! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)