Talk:Marine Department (Hong Kong)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marine Department (Hong Kong). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103080917/http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/contact.html to http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/contact.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129024717/http://www.mardep.gov.hk/hk/contact.html to http://www.mardep.gov.hk/hk/contact.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120023948/http://www.mardep.gov.hk/sc/contact.html to http://www.mardep.gov.hk/sc/contact.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New edits
User:Carter00000, you need to discuss your desired edits here on this talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating your mass edits. Currently there is consensus against the lot of them. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Noted, and have started a section below. Please provide your reasons for objection in the section. Carter00000 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Amendments to Section (Reformation)
The section "Reformation" is currently almost unreadable for a normal person, due to the poor prose and grammar. I have made an amendment to make the section clearer, but have been reverted on multiple occasions.


 * @Citobun has stated that the edits were "poorly written and indirect".
 * @Softlavender has stated that the edits were of a large volume and no WP:CONSENSUS had been reached.
 * @Girth_Summit has previously stated support for the edits and characterized the edits as a improvement to the article.

@Citobun & Softlavender, please clearly indicate which specific section which you have a concern with. I have asked this multiple time on both edits and talk page, and have not received a concrete response. If there is a issue with the prose of what I have written, please indicate that. Otherwise, I am unable to understand the reason for your objections, as my edits are prose related, and have not removed any content, but only re-written the existing content.

@Girth_Summit, please help to provide your reasons for you previous support on the article to move this discussion along.

Carter00000 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not how this works, Carter00000. You are the one that needs to gain consensus for each and every part of your desired changes, one by one, and not en masse. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed through the changes, and on the face of it, this seems like a fairly straightforward tightening up of the prose. The current version of the article reads like it was written by someone with a limited grasp of the English language, perhaps using machine translation. If anyone has any specific issues with Carter000000's changes, it would be great if they could point to them so those bits can be discussed? Girth Summit  (blether)  06:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The edits to the section called "Reformation" removed an important and relevant heading title, and removed three independent reliable-source citations and 250 words of reliably cited information from the paragraph that began "On 19 April 2013". I object to all of that. I do not object to the edits made above the "Reformation" section or to the paragraph that began "May 21, 2013". This is precisely why making mass undiscussed and non-consensus edits in one single edit is problematic. User:Carter00000, I'm OK with you re-making the small edits you made above the Reformation section, and to the paragraph that begins "May 21, 2013". But please do not edit the paragraph "On 19 April 2013" or remove/replace any citations or remove any section heading without explaining here first and getting consensus after your explanation. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Addendum: Citobun's statement at ArbCom just now raises some serious additional concerns: . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @softlavender Instead of making these allegations on multiple threads, please take your concerns to an appropriate venue such as WP:NPOVN. Otherwise, please review WP:WITCHHUNT & WP: HOUNDING and cease making such allegations. Carter00000 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that is not hounding or witchhunting, but providing a link to potentially relevant statements made elsewhere, for the information of editors who may be interested in this thread but may not have seen the ArbCom discussion. Pam  D  07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @PamD: Noted on your rationale for the comment by @softlavender. Thank you for amending the title. Carter00000 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that for "pinging" someone to work, you need to type userxxx@undefined, not just @userxxx . Pam  D  15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @PamD: Noted on the markup for pinging. Thank you for the information. Carter00000 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)