User talk:Matthew hk/Archive 27

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong Railway Museum
There is already a link for the current Tai Po Market station in the History section. Adding it a second time to the See also section is redundant. Jackdude 101 talk cont 15:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not it is not redundant, see Manual of Style/Layout if adding brief annotation. That redirect Tai Po Market railway station and hatnote is however confusing and tagged for discussion. Matthew_hk   t  c  15:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is also present in that link you posted: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. As I stated before, the station link is already present in the article body. Jackdude 101  talk cont 16:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, such hatnote of appearance of Tai Po Market Station should be deleted in the history section on Hong Kong Railway Museum. And "As a general rule", so it is not forbidden and have special case. Which the special case would be more detailed "brief annotation" on see also section. Lastly, the redirect hatnote and the proper name had the word "railway" in it as intended. If the redirect being discussed was re-targeted, i also see no harm to remove the see also entry and move the hatnote with new for statement, which "Hong Kong Railway Museum" was for the architectural structure of the station, Tai Po Market station for the function of the station. Matthew_hk   t  c  16:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, here is the text from the History section where the station link is located: The KCR was electrified in 1983 and the station was taken out of service, with the opening of the new Tai Wo station north of it and the new Tai Po Market station south of it. In your annotation to this link in the See also section, you were emphasizing that the current Tai Po Market station in the link is the one that replaced the old Tai Po Market station where the museum is located. What you want to emphasize is already covered by the text I quoted. Jackdude 101  talk cont 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation
You are now the subject of a sockpuppet investigation here: Sockpuppet investigations/Matthew hk. Have a nice day. Jackdude 101 talk cont 03:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: October 2018

 * I notice you post "Please do not add or change content, as you did at Solicitor, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing so...."


 * I guess if it is not a revenge to my comment on your so-called hilarious "big four families in HK", you comment is still hostile, contrary to Wiki's requirements.


 * First, do not say like a cyber policeman or an authority! Do not presume you are. You are not!


 * Second, pay attention to detail: the medium was cited out of necessity because I quoted the "comment by students/candidates" who have sat the exam. That is why it is alright to cite medium or even blog even in Wiki.


 * You "big four families" is so funny! Who authorizes you to identify these business people as "bif four families"? What is your "reliable" authority, dear self-coined cyber-policeman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btnls (talk • contribs) 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, wikipedia do full of rules and guideline. The golden rules were WP:GNG and WP:verifiability. Personal blog is not a reliable source as stated in WP:reliablesource. It also not a place to promote yourself (or people you know) and your organization as you did in List of Chinese University of Hong Kong alumni and Draft:香港中國專利代理人協會 in 2016. (Which seems there is no such organization but the company that also contributed the draft "China Patent Agent (HK) Ltd." ; Not to be confused with the more notable Asian Patent Attorneys Association Hong Kong Group)


 * Also, personal attack is not allowed. I only point out what you did and what guideline is.


 * For Four big families of Hong Kong, i contested your WP:PROD because your reason is not a valid deletion reason. It is not a concept that backed up by WP:self-published source, but widely use in primary and secondary source such as South China Morning Post, the column by notable people Ng Hong-mun and web newspaper Bastille Post. Matthew_hk   t  c  10:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * one second look to your citation, it looks even more as affiliate marketing, which even more not appropriate than personal blog. See External links. We cite only news article content that interpreted someone else personal blog, but did not cite personal blog directly. Matthew_hk   t  c  10:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Take it easy. You like revenging and speculating. You fail to convince me what is the authority to regard only these families clans as the 4 families in "HK". That is all too funny. Wikipedia is a serious place. The citation you refer to is not about me. You misunderstood and mistook it. Though I appreciate you contributed a lot of wiki pages, the big 4 clans in HK simply does not deserve a place in Wiki. Have a nice weekend. BTW, you delete my citation. It is all right. I did not restore it - could I express my views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btnls (talk • contribs) 2018-10-19T11:05:26 (UTC)


 * While the exact composition of which 4 is disputed, people wrote thesis about them, so what is your point on "self-identification "? Matthew_hk   t  c  11:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Take it easy. That big 4 clans as I believe are not our family. I would agree some of them are notable businessmen. But who may draw a line and say the big clans in HK should be that "four ones"? What about other families? Why not five or six or seven or ten big families in HK?
 * The number is an issue and implies adequately a self-coined prestigious status which lacks the very reliable source or a consensus in the public. I have not removed your page. You can definitely keep it if it is what you direly believe these are the 4 big clans in Hong Kong. My point eventually is there are so many big influential families in Hong Kong. It is not justified to have only 4? Unlike UK where we may have blue blood families (Lord XXX), HK does not have the equivalents because of a lack of official recognition or legitimacy. Again, I highly appreciate your other pages which I found very informative, with no hesitation. But frankly speaking, the big 4 families does not deserve a place in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btnls (talk • contribs) 2018-10-19T11:47:44 (UTC)

You can start an WP:AFD if you have a valid reason. But for a concept that was widely reported by secondary source, your reason seem your original research and your owned self-published point of view. What is "are not our family"? They are migrant to Hong Kong and rooted as elites as reported by the secondary source. Matthew_hk  t  c  12:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For the source, despite the "Big 4" was routine mention in the article 四大望族 李家縱橫政商界 (which the main topic was about Li Sek-peng family). Since it was published by Ming Pao one of the reliable newspaper according to an independent survey of the opinion of HK citizen by CUHK, it seem there is no such thing no "very reliable source". Matthew_hk   t  c  12:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, if you think wikipedia is a serious place for reliable source. I don't understand why you use medium.com in 2018 as well as only primary source to add a person Lam Sum, alleged as the chairman of "Hong Kong Chinese Patent Attorneys Association", that did not have wiki articles, to the List of Chinese University of Hong Kong alumni in 2016. Matthew_hk   t  c  12:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1. Medium was used to cite what some individuals say about the issue. So it is not unjustified. 2. An alumni does not necessarily have a wiki page. Some of my teachers are extremely notable persons in the art, but all of them do not have a wiki page although I spot them from time to time on media. 3. For the organization, you can check the document at BR, Legco and submissions filed with HKIPD. It is an organization that promoted the HK Patent Reform 2016. The reason why you cannot find it is because it has changed name. 4. Our head of association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Luk) is not that Lam Sum but Dr Luk. He does have a wiki page (he is from a notable family in HK). 5. Ok we stop here. I need to work. I am not a student and do not have that energy. I do not delete your big 4 families page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.203.151.164 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like your are bending your own inclusion and exclusion criteria on person, companies and organization related to you and not related to you. While wikipedia is simple, have in-depth secondary source coverage about a person, then it should include in the list, even the article about the person has not create yet. No secondary source (only primary or even none), then the person and organizations should not appeared in wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Matthew_hk   t  c  15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For Lewis Luk, it looks like a WP:CSD G11 material, which looks likes a CV then a real biographical article. Also, may be an autobiography by (which  also edited).


 * And let me introduce a term: WP:Other stuff exists. Since there are way many articles in wikipedia, some articles that should be deleted, are not yet spotted. So, a simple X exist so Y should be exist logic, is not applicable. Wiki editor compares notability of the subject case by case and comparing to the guideline. Matthew_hk   t  c  15:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: According to WP:OWNTALK, blanking is allowed. But it seems so rude to end a conversion. Also, archiving is recommanded. So i moved the rest of the thread in my talk page instead. Matthew_hk   t  c  15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:China Southern Airlines logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:China Southern Airlines logo.png. 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) 17:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Seem it was replaced by a SVG file. Thanks bot. Matthew hk (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at User talk:42.116.114.75
Hi Matthew hk, thanks for your work at User talk:42.116.114.75. Administrators are easily able to tell that the user lacks competence to edit, and that the user has been (obviously) evading their block. It may not be advisable to talk about it on the user talk page, since it'll just aggravate most blocked users. I would suggest never, for example, linking to WP:RBI or WP:CIR on a user's talk page – for the latter, even when it's true, it's rude. As for revoking talk page access, we have historically allowed them to ramble on a bit more before revoking talk page access. Don't worry about this user. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bohemians Střížkov.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Bohemians Střížkov.gif. 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) 17:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed and add back to the article. Matthew hk (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Nanjing Massacre
An editor has asked for a Move review of Nanjing Massacre. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. STSC (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chow Tai Fook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tweet ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Chow_Tai_Fook check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Chow_Tai_Fook?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)