User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 5

Yellowface and Racebending

 * I find this bizarre. I have the same message on my talk page, and am wondering if it's not a case of mistaken identity, maybe? Doesn't seem to concern me or be remotely related to any articles I usually edit, except the colour of my skin... Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Mr. Ronnie Chan's Profile
Dear HongQiGong,

On behalf of Hang Lung Properties, I would like to make clarifications regarding your edited article "Ronnie Chan" on Wikipedia.

We would like to clarify that Mr. Chan's family originates from Shunde, Guangdong, instead of Taishan. As such, we have already updated the concerned article with corresponding references (version as of Hong Kong time 6:30pm, 12 February 2010).

We appreciate your previous contribution to Mr. Chan’s profile on the Wikipedia database. Thank you very much for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

May Lam, Senior Manager, Corporate Communications, Hang Lung Properties Limited (CorpComm@hanglung.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.189.81.105 (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Hello ! I have nominated this article : Hong Kong for FAR. Can you give your opinion here : Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive2. Thanks. Toutvientapoint (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of World Information Technology and Services Alliance
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is World Information Technology and Services Alliance. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/World Information Technology and Services Alliance. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Linheraptor.
Hello, HongQiGong! I'm trying to get the article on Linheraptor ready for DYK, and possibly ITN. Since you've helped out with the article, perhaps you'd like to come and participate? I'm asking other users to join as well, and would appreciate your contributions. Thanks in advance!!! Oh no! It&#39;s not here!!! (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Brand Hong Kong.
Hello again, HongQiGong. I note that once again you removed changes to the BrandHK page and reinstated the old, out of date and inaccurate material. Anyway, you should be interested to know that this page is now even more out of date, because BrandHK was relaunched with a new image and description on Saturday (March 27, 2010). I (or someone else) will edit the page accordingly in due course. Before you resume your self-appointed gatekeeper role, I'd be grateful if read the papers or simply do an online search, and you will discover that BrandHK has indeed been changed. The edited page will simply reflect these changes. Whether you like the changes or not is irrelevant - they have taken place. Whether you feel the brand's core values and attributes accurately describe HK is also irrelevant - these words or phrases have been chosen to describe the brand. PMJ Regan (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMJ Regan (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires
Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred Chang notability
Hello HongQiGong, nice to meet you. After some consideration, I agree with your questioning of Fred Chang's notability. I created this article when I was fairly new here and was not as aware of the notability guidelines for biographies. In the coming days, I'll merge it into Newegg; you can do it if you want. Thanks for the heads-up! Airplaneman  ✈  02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
My most sincere thanks and commendation for your recent cooperation on Chinaman (term) and elsewhere in what could obviously been a very contentious subject. I hope I can return the favor.μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:AdultOctopusCard.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:AdultOctopusCard.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in  Lucy Liu. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. magnius (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I Need this typed up in Traditional chinese
I have no software or program to type hanzi, so i need the characters in the image at this link typed up so i can put it into this article The Hundred-word Eulogy. I know its from a blog, but i already have reliable sources proving that it exists.Дунгане (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yao Ming
Why did you revert my removal of a category sitting higher in the cat tree? All Chinese Olympic basketball players belonging to this category shouldn't appear time and time again - your inclusion of higher category makes as much sense as adding Category:Sportsmen or Category:People. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nunchucks
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Nunchucks. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Thank you.--Veritasho (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Romanization for words of English origin
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is: What this invitation is not:
 * You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
 * This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
 * This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

avoid abusing revert
hi, dozens of your reverts are done with a reason "no source" on but you don't seem to feel like discussing it even if the reverts are disputed. In all those cases, "no source" is REALLY the only reason for your revert because they aren't plagiarism, vandalism or defamation. A tag "Citation needed" can be used to avoid edit warring. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or people can just stop inserting information that is not backed up by any source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say that
Not all Koreans are racist. I for one however respect China. But it's the internet that breeds flamewars. Sad reality, isn't it? Komitsuki (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to keep repeating that not all Koreans are racist. Nobody ever claimed that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm done? Komitsuki (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong to FA status
Hi HongQiGong, the semi-protected for Hong Kong expires in 20 September 2010, I feel like we should take this opportunity to push the article to FA status without vandalism interferences. I started cleaning up the History section since that was a section where we received large amount of negative remarks on. I thought about requesting a copy-editor to take quick look at it too, since I'm concern about WP:FA Criteria 1a. Thanks, Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–what?) 03:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much I will be contributing. I don't devote nearly as much time to WP as I used to anymore.  But I'll definitely help out when I can, if you decide to make a push for it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP user re Chinglish
Jeez, Hong, I thought you'd be all over me by now on this one - Talk:Chinglish. Maybe it's because my first post I wasn't logged in but I have no doubt this page is on your watchlist; if it isn't I'd think it should be. I'm not exactly back, just have some time to kill, so killing stupid ideas seems like a good waste of time....maybe you have something to add here; to me this guy's reasoning is even more spurious than his facts....why is it so popular to attack the English language? Is there similar criticism of the Chinese language within the Chinese-speaking world? As with "Chinaman", the tub seems to be thumping over-loudly here; Chinglish is not a pejorative usage, just a hybrid term...what this guy thinks woudl constitute "academic proof" is quite beyond me; it's like asking for a proof that the sky is blue; the proof is taking a photo of it, I suppose; in this case it's sufficient to point to mainstream publications which have used the term, and it doesn't really amtter whether the term is prejudicial or not. This guy's long-winded point-by-point puts my own "rants" to shame in its thoroughness, at least I'm not irrelevant when I "rant"....it reminds me of Bo Yang's points about the behaviour of Chinese people when confronted with facts they don't like: change the facts, and tell your opponent who's bearing them that they need to learn conciliation. Anyway, maybe there's something pithy you can say to him that will end this nonsense; if he wants the article deleted he's welcome to create a user account and then nominate it for AfD; you and I both know it would fail that AfD....Skookum1 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it's really not on my watchlist. That article looks like another giant time sink.  I'm not going to get involved.  It might benefit from a more academic name, I suppose.  I've only heard the term used for code switching between Chinese and English, and not what is basically examples of bad Chinese-to-English translations.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Standard Mandarin
Hi, editor of WikiProject China, please come to the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) and help on the discussion (I suggest Modern Standard Chinese as the English name for article now titled Standard Mandarin) on whether to rename the article "Standard Mandarin" to the title "Modern Standard Chinese" or "Standard Chinese", as proposed by User:WeijiBaikeBianji. Your reply is needed.--TheLeopard (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Khanhoo
Hello, User:HongQiGong, I wonder if you could find me some historical information on the game Khanhoo. User:Ccyber5 kindly provided some historical info on the game and I wonder if more could be found. I don't know if there is any Chinese (Cantonese) Google books where infos could be found, but if so it might be a good start. The game's known in China under the name Kanhu, Kanu or Dohu maybe. Dates, names and places are important too. I placed this same message on User:Yue Chinese talk page but I'd like to find other editors who can speak Chinese and related dialects and see if they could help ! Best regards, Krenakarore (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a very interesting topic. But I just don't have enough time to research this.  Maybe people over at WikiProject China can help.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried that already, but I understand. Regards, Krenakarore (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Diaoyu Islands /Senkaku Islands
hi, you seemed to follow this article before. There is an ongoing discussion about changing the name of Senkaku Islands to a more neutral Pinnacle Islands to avoid stirring up an endless nationalistic debate over naming convention as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan, which has exhaustively proven to become a gala for nationalists but left nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My honest opinion is that this is a waste of time. It's not the first time the naming of this article and other similar articles of disputed geographical areas have been brought up and/or changed.  These discussions will keep popping up until the disputes between those governments have been resolved.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong gathering
There will be a gathering in Hong Kong this weekend (Meetup/Hong Kong 51) to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the Hong Kong Wikimedian community. You're sincerely invited, since it'll be great to get a few core members of the English Wikipedia community in Hong Kong to come along! --Deryck C. 07:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of townships of Anhui
HI, could you translate this from Chinese into English? Dr.  Blofeld  18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your behavior at Min Chueh Chang is really quite shocking. You have been edit-warring with someone there for nearly 2 months, reverting almost every day, and as far as I can tell neither you nor the other editor has ever made an attempt to discuss the issue at the article talkpage or a user talkpage, all you have done was leave one template at each user's talkpage. If either of you continue this, I will either protect the article or block both of you for edit warring. You have been here long enough to know about dispute resolution, WP:3O, and other outlets for resolving content disagreements. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love it if you could protect the article. Thanks.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you say that mere seconds before you reverted again, again with no explanation. So you're refusing to acknowledge that you edit-warred, and you're asking me to protect "your" version of the article? Absolutely unacceptable behavior.
 * I'm blocking you for long-term edit-warring. You are welcome to contest the block, but if you do so I advise you that an admin will be more likely to unblock you if you acknowledge the disruptive nature of your edits and give your assurance that you won't do it again in the future. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok cool. Will you protect the version you just added?  By the way I know you want some kind of explanation to my behaviour, so here it is: yes I've been around long enough to know edit warring is frowned upon.  I've also been around long enough to know that 1) a single-edit account or IP is not interested in discussion, 2) that WP bureaucracy is extremely slow especially since this is not a case of vandalism and while I'm waiting for action to actually be taken, incorrect information could be on an article for weeks, and 3) the user can easily register another account or use another IP to do the same edit.  By the way, the information about MC Chang's wife is here: .  It is one of the links in the References section, but it just wasn't footnoted in my edit.  You can either add back that info about his wife or wait for my block to be over and I'll add it back.  Thanks.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've had 2 months to add that footnote and didn't; the fact that another editor is being tendentious doesn't give you an excuse to be tendentious as well. You always could have asked an outside editor to review the edits, after which if the IP continued edit warring then he would have been blocked; making 50-some identical reverts to an article in less than two months is unacceptable no matter how you cut it. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it was easier and less time consuming just to revert. And technically an editor cannot edit war just by himself or herself.  So we'd have to let his bad edit stay if we were to avoid reverting, because he seems pretty determine to just revert to his edit.  But now that you are here, you can protect the article to a state where the material is sourced.  Thanks!  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This revert was not wise, given that you have already been blocked for making the exact same revert at the exact same article. Yes, I know the IP is being a bad boy and this time your edit is sourced, but still you should resolve these disputes through the proper channels (WP:AN3, WP:RFPP, or in this case just asking me to intervene, as we have already discussed the issue before). That way I can protect the page (which I have now done) which will either stop the edit warring or will force the IP to engage in discussion; simply reverting every day is not a way to solve problems, and you are in a position where you don't have the tools (blocks or protections) or the right (because you are already involved in the edit warring) to solve the problem. I didn't block you or the IP this time because I want to see if protection solves the problem, but don't think you can keep on edit warring. Again: if you encounter an editor like this, resolve the dispute through the proper channels, rather than just revert-warring for months. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Invite
Per your participation in the WikiProject Council proposal,

Sven Manguard Talk  06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethnoburb for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Ethnoburb, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ethnoburb until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles
There is currently a policy discussion that may concern a Wikiproject that you are a member of Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. Handschuh-talk to me 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Disambig-Chinese-char-title
Template:Disambig-Chinese-char-title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 04:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject East Asia Scope & Ratings
Hello. This message is to inform you that I have called for a reexamination of the scope document and the ratings system used by the project. The ratings system especially has run into problems and could benefit from a simplification and generalizations. The scope, too, could be reexamined to the same end. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia and discuss the matters so that we can reach a community consensus. I'd like to have it done before Christmas, so I can spend the break making any necessary changes. The importance discussion is at the top of the page. The scope discussion is at the bottom, but we can move them together if we need to.

Thank you,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Japan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)