User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine/Aug2009

BNO
Please read the article BN(O) carefully before reverting. Those who are holding BN(O) are Chinese citizens without the right of abode in the UK.

From the article of BN(O):

" Although British Nationals (Overseas) are basically regarded as British nationals under British nationality law, in light of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China and the decision made in the 19th session of the 8th Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the People's Republic of China unilaterally regards British National (Overseas) passport as purely a travel document and all British Nationals (Overseas) who are of Chinese descent are automatically and solely regarded as Chinese citizens. As a result, they are not entitled to consular protection in Hong Kong, Macau and the mainland China even if they have never applied for a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport..." 70.48.41.215 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reason is not good enough. Please include other nationality (i.e. BOC, BPP and BOTC) before adding the category of BN(O) only. 70.48.41.215 (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Basic Law of Hong Kong, all people who are holding BN(O) or BDTC will be regarded only as Chinese nationals. Based on British Nationality Act 1997 (Hong Kong), all people (i.e.minority that are not Chinese) who are holding BN(O) only without other citizenship can be directly applied for British citizenship. The rest of all who are holding BN(O) are Chinese nationals and they are Chinese citizens who are eligible for applying HKSAR passport. Please read the article carefully before giving instruction to others. 70.48.41.215 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who should stop this unnecessary war. BOC, BOTC and BPP are also British passports and nationality. You didn't check them carefully but only add the one which is completely irrelevant to the template. 70.48.41.215 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can find the article of BOTC, BOC, etc. Please check carefully and stop vandalism. 70.48.41.215 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly question. The article British passport already included the content of BN(O), BOTC, BPP, etc and that is why I didn't add them on the template. Didn't you check them carefully first?? 70.48.41.215 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I expected that you are going to do this. 70.48.41.215 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect
I added a reference to Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. You may want to revisit the AfD discussion. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: August
Come again? My contribution to the Kosovan passport is open for anyone to see - including yourself. Same goes for other contributions of mine. Your message is sort-of-cryptographic and you have not presented who you are or why I need to decipher what you said. --alchaemia (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shocking? I don't think that word means what you think it means. And it definitely matters who you are as you can't just "remind people to be civil" without even explaining what your authority is in this place. But what's shocking are not my contributions but your claim in the Passport Template talk page that you had "consensus" just because you and Avala agreed with each other - and no one else. That's the shocking part here. --alchaemia (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And likewise, I warn you not to continue accusing me of "consistent incivility" and "breaking the rules" without any proof whatsoever. You came to my talk page accusing me of anything and everything and as "proof" you provided a discussion page where many people - including myself - saw Avala's attempts at pushing his POV for what they were - ridiculous. Yet you keep insisting that I'm the one acting in a bad manner, when you're the one accusing me without any solid proof, really. Now that's incivility, and I suggest you stop writing to me unless you have something important to say. --alchaemia (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can also consider yourself warned for incivility and baseless accusations. Further bad-faith behavior will result in a notice to administrators and banning further down the line. --alchaemia (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It takes two...
Whilst the other editor had violated the three revert rule, it takes more than one to edit war. I hope that you will please consider discussing the issue with them in a calm and civil manner to avoid escalating the situation. You can do so now on their talk page, or tomorrow on the template talk page. It'd be silly for this issue to continue indefinitely, or to have the template fully protected from anyone editing it. All that needs done is calm and civil discussion to seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful then pursue WP:DR. Thank you. Nja 247 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Hex, Just wanted to say a thank you for your comments - certainly not disheartened in anyway at all. I'm actually more energised to do some good work :) Taymaishu (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for an answer
You have been asked a question here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images. It would help if you explained your point of view better. Chillum 21:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with your reasoning, however thank you for clarifying your position. Chillum 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But, before we go.....?
Requests for adminship/Taymaishu was closed before I could respond to your messages to me there. You said the editor attempted to source his contribution, which doesn't happen often with week-old users. Trouble is, he removed long referenced material, and replaced it with a verbatim cut-and-paste copyvio from a facebook blog. AGF and BITE are fine, but I was responding to someone seeking adminship, in which case standards are exponentially more rigid than for newbies. Ok, back to your witchetty grubs and damper. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)