User talk:Instantnood/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notifier

Let me know if you have messages for me on any discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me on this page. Thanks.

notifier                      to edit →[edit]


Hello. Enjoy the discussion.


/Archive 1 (January to March 2005, 58kb)
/Archive 2 (April to June 2005, 82kb)
/Archive 3 (July to September 2005, 73kb)
/Archive 4 (October to December 2005, 150kb)
/Archive 5 (January to March 2006, 78kb)

Section titlez[edit]

Your lack of humor regarding Time in China disappoints me. You are a sad, sad, little man. Revert again and you will be blocked you blatant vandal. If you decide to respond, remember WP:AGF. Biatch, 165.247.83.156 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and continue with using language like that, 165.247.83.156, you'll get blocked in no time as well. enochlau (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

> As a good sign, you should restore the deleted comments and your user talk page, and respond to them.

I might, some time. It could take a long time to find all those deleted comments in the edit history. Also, I don't agree that all those messages are important and require any responses. For some of the comments, as long as I get the message, I think that is already enough.

> You should also revert the undiscussed and unexplained edits you have made to the many articles across Wikipedia, and explain at the corresponding talk pages.

I hope you understand that not all edits in Wikipedia are discussed before they are made. I am sure you also did not discuss every single edits that you have made (1) , and lots of other users did not discuss either. I don't think I have to come and ask for your permission every time before I edit an article. This is not how things work here in Wikipedia. I also find it pretty unfair for you to require me to ask for your permission every time before I edit, while other users don't have to. If you disagree with my edit, you should point out what is wrong in the discussion page, rather than reverting it immediately. I find it pretty impolite for you to check every edits that I make * , and revert all of them. That was how revert war arose.

  • If you didn't check every single edit that I made, you wouldn't have been able to reverted my edits so quickly every time during the edit war, and you wouldn't know that I have made the {{UN-multilingual}} template. As a response to that, I have also been checking your contribution page. But I think both of us don't like the feeling of being "monitered". If you stop monitering my edits, I will stop monitering yours also.

> Settlements on Wikipedia should not be brought private.

Okay, we will see.

> In my opinion, jau gwei warrants its own article.

Okay, discuss about it in the discussion page. But tell me whether you want to work on an article about the street food in Hong Kong.

> Finally, I find it offensive to see your reminder at my talk page requesting me not to be offensive, for I've never ever done anything that was offensive to you.

You think that you have never ever done anything that was offensive to me. But you should not be the one to judge whether some sentences or some actions that you made were offensive. All people that did something offensive wouldn't admit that they are offensive. I also find it very offensive for you to say that you have not done anything offensive, and that all the responsibility are on me. If you have the willingness to resolve our disputes, I think we should stop accusing each other.

-Alan 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sadly[edit]

Nah, save your energy for improving articles. -- ran (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong action cinema[edit]

hi, you may be interested that Hong Kong action cinema, an article you edited, is up as a featured article candidate. please go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hong_Kong_action_cinema to vote "support" or "object" with your comments, if you like. thx! Zzzzz 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 10:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

name change, other entities"[edit]

Hi there. I just noticed that you made a NOTE to the section I started about name changes and "other" entities on the TALK page of "countries by area". This was over a month ago, sorry, but I really just noticed it there. Anyway, it was not my intention to misrepresent you. The only reason I edited that section thusly was becausea user, Giandrea, had brought the EU issue to a mediation forum, and I told her (?) that I had already addressed her points in the talk page of "by area" and wasn't sure why she had brought the argument somewhere else when I had just addressed her points in the original TALK pages. So, I changed the name and the beginning of the section the hopes it would be easier for her (and any possible mediators) to find. I don't remember, but I guess I didn't delete your entry because I didn't feel right about touching someone else's words. I'll be more careful in the future. Take care. Malnova 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strange "article"[edit]

someone has created this "article", what can we do?--K.C. Tang 07:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Olympics medal count[edit]

I like the edits you made to this page to handle Hong Kong. Thanks for editing the introduction to better explain the situation, without re-opening the large debate we had on how to handle national changes over the past 110 years... Andrwsc 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply on my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrwsc (talk • contribs) 17:31, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

dubious mainland china[edit]

your template says "disputed, see talk page". You haven't said SQUAT on the talk page since adding it, and you've reverted like a hundred times. I've now archived the existing tl;dr talk page. GO TALK INSTEAD OF REVERTING. SchmuckyTheCat 05:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006[edit]

All Hong Kong Wikipedians are cordially invited to come and help the preparation of Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006 * Hong Kong Taskforce(In Chinese)! Will you join?

*Official name has not yet confirmed -- Alfred.Yeung 05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings[edit]

Hello, Instantnood. I enjoy making audio recordings for Wikipedia a lot. As a native speaker of Chinese, I think it is my task to make some audio recordings for Chinese terms and to let more non-Chinese speakers know more about the language and the culture of ours. Actually, a Wikipedian from Sweden called Peter has been contributing a lot in making Chinese recordings. I appreciate his effort. However, he is not a native Chinese speaker. I hope there would be more native speakers joining us, because native speakers always make the most accurate pronunciation. So, you are from Hong Kong, aren't you? I bet you probably know Chinese. Would you like to help making some Chinese recordings together?

Also, about the United Nations issue...I think I am addicted to making audio recordings already. Originally, I would like to make some recording for the pronunciations of the Chinese names in the articles about the United Nations, as I saw that the Chinese names were there. It seems that some fools are going to delete the Chinese names from the article. That's sad. It seems that most of the people who suggest deleting the foreign names are American. Sigh...

Audioman 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Wong[edit]

I'm curious as to why you readded that paragraph on the basis that "everything with spoiler warning notice is like that" [poorly written and providing duplicate information]. Gsd2000 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006香港維基人第二次春聚 HK Wikipedians 2nd meetup 2006[edit]

  • 日期Date：4月15日
  • 時間Time：7.00pm - 11.00pm
  • 地點Venue：水瓶座咖啡店Cafe de Verseau
  • 最低消費Minimum Expense：每位約$20 (飲品一杯)
  • 聯絡人Contact Person：Angus Lai


由於篇幅關係，詳情請參看這裏！

For more details, please look over here.

－－Stewart~惡龍 (Chat&講！) 00:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography stubs sorting[edit]

Hi Instantnood - you wrote: Do you think it would be a good idea to sort biography stubs according to the "Family Name, Given Name" format?... That's probably a very good idea - I'll add it to the suggestions at WP:WSS/P#Other stub-related discussions for debate. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Self-declared Emperors and Kings[edit]

I changed my vote to delete since my original category wasn't very clear and there didn't appear to be any support. I would like to support the creation of your category but I'm afraid we don't have a good definition of what a self-declared emperor or king is or isn't. Although I could be wrong, a quick look through Category:Emperors reveals that some leaders declared themselves Emperors, leading to a line of succession, with "legitimate" Emperors continuing that line (this could be controversial) while others usurped the title altogether. If you can help me clear up the categorical distinctions I would appreciate it, as I'm hopelessly confused.  :-) Some wikipedians might argue that all Emperors and Kings are "self-declared", so we need to draw some kind of line, here. —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFd stuff[edit]

I've noticed the relatively large number of "userfy" votes you make at TFD for the former country infoboxes, and wouldlike to understand your reason for them. After all, these (including the oddball one for Template:Infobox University2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) are little more than "Keep, but don't use" votes. It'd be nice ifyou culd make it clear whether you want them moved to your or somebody else's userpace too.It makeslittlesense to ask for a template to be moved in someone else's userspace, IMHO. If you want them moved to your own userspace, I can copy those I deleted there. Circeus 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions[edit]

...is a problematic term for a cat name that deals with territories in one country:

  • the term "division (subnational entity)" itself is used for country subdivisions in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The divisions of Pakistan were dissolved. The rename would result in Administrative divisions being subcategory to Administrative divisions
  • Administrative division can also apply to non-territorial divisioning (of government areas, i.e. Defense, Interior)
  • Administrative division would exclude other kinds of country subdivisions

best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I know that "subdivision" is somehow problematic, espicially this seems to be true for people with US housing subdivision background, or knowledge of Canadian Census subdivision. But the US term only developped that way. It's an abbreviated use. See talk:Country subdivision of examples how the term is used in different places in WP that have nothing at all to do with housing subdivision. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks we have the same opinion as on what the cats could include. Maybe you like to join the oppose camp (do not split Subdivisions of XY into Administrative divisions of XY and Political division of XY, do not rename, because all other names are same problematic or even more.) Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#new_debate My main reasons to postpone any mass moves are somewher down at [1]. regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD[edit]

On 7-Jan, you tagged the redirect Ng Hoi Yee for deletion, but you did not list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I have added it to that page for discussion. You may wish to add a comment there if you still wish to see this redirect deleted. In the future, if you nominate a redirect for deletion, please list it. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HK Wikipedians 2nd meetup 2006 Summary[edit]

How's your day recently?! And how's about Hong Kong Wikipedian's Board? Our last meetup you can read thru here -- zh:Wikipedia:聚會/2006香港第二次春聚, do u have any interest held one like that for Englsih Wikipedians in Hong Kong? Anyway, hope we can join together next time!! －－Stewart~惡龍 (Chat&講！) 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...We can firstly have an internet meetup on SkyPE or irc, I think Hong Kong Wikipedians can use simple English to communicate with each other, my Skype account is 「stewartcc」! If there're any big news on Hong Kong Wikipedian's Board, plz do inform me! See ya! －－Stewart~惡龍 (Chat&講！) 05:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing bans[edit]

Because of your recent disruptive editing, I'm implementing the following article bans under remedy 3 "Instantnood placed on Probation" and enforcement measure 1 ("Procedure for banning in Probation") of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3.

Please don't take this as a definitive list. The message is that you're still far too aggressive in your edits and you need to revert less, discuss more and respect other people's opinions. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my own talk page. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I blocked Alanmak and I appreciate your attempt to add {{unsigned}} on SchmuckyTheCat's talk page. Ashibaka tock 01:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a block[edit]

SchmuckyTheCat pointed out that Tony Sidaway gave you page blocks and you didn't pay attention, so first, I'll expand his page ban to all of the pages you revert warred over in the past two days:

  • Las Vegas Sands two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
  • Share taxi two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
    I wouldn't have to block you on this if you'd simply put your comments on the talk page and waited for a reply, rather than reverting it and giving him the heads up in an edit summary.
  • Estádio Campo Desportivo two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
  • Douhua two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006

This is not a license to revert war on even more articles. If I were you I'd apply WP:1RR until people regained faith in your contributions.

In addition, I am blocking you for 48 hours for violating Tony Sidaway's ban on Hong Kong national football team and Community of Portuguese Language Countries. "Article ban" means you can't edit that page anymore, even if some other editor is pushing his evil POV. Ashibaka tock 03:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the block isn't helping anything, but it's part of the terms of article banning. Anyway, Alanmak contacted you less than a month ago to make some minor concessions and ask for further discussion. As apparently nothing came of this, I'll contact Enochlau for some more formal mediation. Ashibaka tock 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IEC[edit]

The place where I took the picture is actually somewhere in between Quarry Bay and North Point. See if you can understand my description about the location.

Imagine you travel on a bus or whatever that goes across the EHT southwardly. It then speeds up onto the IEC westbound and is heading for the first exit, with an exit roadsign "north point", on the left of the road.

The picture is taken from the place where the bus is about 100m before the separation point of the highway and its exit.

I'd say North Point is a better description than Quarry Bay, because the picture is taken somewhere westmore compared to the EHT island side exit. --Deryck C. 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U Magazine and SCMP interview[edit]

Hello Instantnood, I'm a Hong Kong wikipedian mostly active on zh. Anyway, a reporter from U Magazine has contacted me to find her some active Hong Kong wikipedians for an interview this week. Are you interested? The date and time has yet to be determined but I wonder when you'll free this week. (Is Saturday afternoon okay for you?) --Lorenzarius 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another writer from the South China Morning Post want to do an interview on this Saturday too, he said the location is up to us. Cheers! --Lorenzarius 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong[edit]

You narrowly escape a 3RR/arbcomm block for your editing/reverting on HK. Please be more careful in future William M. Connolley 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Chinese/Chinese race[edit]

I see that you recently changed the redirect pages "Ethnic Chinese" and "Chinese race" to point to the disambiguation page "Chinese people" rather than their former target Han Chinese. Before I noticed the pattern, I put a note of explanation on the talk page of "Ethnic Chinese" and pointed it back to "Han Chinese" again. My reasoning is the both the disambiguation page and the "Han Chinese" page say that "Han Chinese" and "Ethnic Chinese" refer to the same concept. A similar idea was also expressed on the talk page of "Chinese race" when a prior editor pointed that to "Han Chinese", which you later changed to "Chinese people".

Is there a good reason why these two links should be directed to a disambiguation page rather than directly to what seems to be the consensus article on the Chinese ethnicity? I'll hold off for a day or two on changing the redirection of "Chinese race". Dpv 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(no section title)[edit]

I think you missed this: [2] SchmuckyTheCat 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation[edit]

I have been approached by Ashibaka to assist in the resolution of your current dispute with Alanmak. Just having a browse of your contributions, I see that they are concerned with the distinction between China, People's Republic of China and Mainland China? If you wish to take up my offer of informal mediation, please let me know. enochlau (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'll still awaiting Alan's reply. enochlau (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Overdone revert[edit]

Wikipedia uses a consensus system. What you perceived to be true isn't necessarily be true. I cannot see the basis of your edit in Hong Kong because it is unsupported by other users. Hunter 15:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 

1. the Chinese full name is fine by me in either way.
2. No noticeable difference before and after   is inserted, and I don't see it to be added elsewhere in Wikipedia in places like this.
3. I see link to Special administrative region a better way for people to understand what that means, and how it is used in other context. If they are interested in SAR(PRC), they can always find a link there, just one more click away.
4. "A & R" in SAR is capitalised because it's usually used this way, see [3]
5. Where "the" you are talkin gabout?
6. For anthem, it means what HK is currently using, not whether or not it is its own anthem.
7. People will understand what PRC means
8. Don't quite understand what you are talking about.
9. No, the natively used English name is Mandarin, I think you can quite see from the redirect of Putonghua to Standard Mandarin, so it should be Mandarin (Putonghua).
10. More specific in your question?
11. It may just be one of the thins lost in revert, since I have no time to sort out everything you have changed. What I see is most things in the new versions is not so correct and I made the revert decision.
12. same as 11.
13. same as 11.
14. same as 11.
15. More specific in your question?
16. Why should those newspaper names to be italicised
17. Although English name is one of the official language, do you think many people really speaks English in their daily life judging by your own experience?
18. The order isn't so important

Again, I have to say that there may be overdone revert, but that may because you mixed those things up with too many incorrect stuffs. Hunter 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Base on my observation you have a very different view of the world with other Wikipedians, I decided I'll be very unlikely to respond to any of your comments. I also added this to my talkpage: User:Winhunter/xsomeuser
Hunter 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of Victoria[edit]

Hmm you are right the City of Victoria is still in the legislation. However as you note it is not a term in popular usage anymore (I reworded my edit). I don't like the alternative of putting in "Central and Western District" because that would be like putting in "Westminster" as the capital of London (obviously incorrect). However although City of Victoria is still in legislation and is technically accurate (according to the said law) this is really a matter of laws not being updated? (That said it is curious that the Cap 1 Sched 1 you mention has a date of 1 July 1997!) http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/E1BF50C09A33D3DC482564840019D2F4/B433C7F894FA9F9E48256648002F6F13?OpenDocument=

Hmm I am undecided - changing it back to Victoria City will invite a edit war towards a change to 'Central and Western District'! I guess ultimately this is a problem with the usage of the 'country' template for Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is not a country. --Mintchocicecream 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an issue is whether you can also find a legislation that defines the City of Victoria as the capital of Hong Kong. Victoria City is clearly defined (even if it uses outdated placenames like Government Pier and Royal Navy Ofice) but Cap 1 Sched 1 does not say that Victoria City is the capital... --Mintchocicecream 15:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the dash in your previous edits seems very reasonable. The point on London is taken; though my point was to illustrate that cities could do without capitals w/o going to details. --Mintchocicecream 16:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Time in China[edit]

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 4.249.9.152 00:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese naming conventions[edit]

I just made a new proposal on NPOV treatment of the different Chinese languages/dialects on the Chinese naming conventions. Please take a look and comment if you will. Thanks.--Yuje 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further disruptive editing--more bans and a block[edit]

You're continuing to edit war, as documented by SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) [4].

Under remedy 3 "Instantnood placed on Probation" and enforcement measure 1 ("Procedure for banning in Probation") of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. I'm extending all existing temporary bans for the duration of your probation--that is, to end 20 March, 2007. I'm also adding bans to the articles listed by SchmuckyTheCat.

You are now banned from editing any of the following articles:

Under the blocking policy, I'm blocking you for 48 hours for disruption. I hope that you will take this as an opportunity to reconsider your editing on Wikipedia.

Please remember that you are also on General Probation. If you continue to behave disruptively, you could be banned from the site by any three administrators under Remedy 4 of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this request for a review of the bans. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned for two weeks from Template:Hong Kong (PRC) for edit warring. Please consider making some substantial contributions to the encyclopedia, rather than engaging in a revert war over a minor formatting issue that the vast majority of readers will either not care or not notice. --Jiang 06:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should propose your preferred formatting at a general guideline/policy page such as the MoS for China-related articles. Settling the issue through community discussion would be more effective (and binding) than reverting across several pages.--Jiang 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

Instantnood/Archive 6 ：

The planning of the establishment of Wikipedia Hong Kong as a society has entered the final stage.

From 27th April 2006, every Hong Kong Wikimedians is welcomed to participate in the discussion on the vote on the official name of the chapter. Then a one-week nomination period and a three-week voting period will be held. At the same time, you are also welcomed to join in the discussion on the draft constitution of the chapter.

After an official name is decided, the recruitment of member will be started and the first general meeting will be held (Please refer to the schedule). If you're interested to join, please sign your name on this page so that an estimation on the number of member could be done.

WIKIMEDIA HONG KONG NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION AND SUPPORT NOW.

I am the Wikipedian who invites you:encyclopedist 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

flag[edit]

I've put the flags side by side on my user page at the same size to see what the issue is. I can see that in one the flower is slightly larger but I don't know which is "more correct". It certainly doesn't seem worth warring about instead of FIXING THE PROBLEM. The SVG version should be easily editable if you can clearly identify what the problem is. SchmuckyTheCat 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some problem with the svg flag, talk in the image discussion page, talk to the uploader, BUT NOT go against the trend of taking Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png out of service. Right now, I see NO dipution claims on the image discussion page. Even in zh:香港 (Hong Kong), it's Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg being used.Hunter 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated over and over again, Please discuss image problem in the image talk page, I haven't seen ANY of your comments in Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg accusing it to have anything incorrect. Also, since the problem is very minor, if any, as per Jiang's comment's above: "(please do not) engaging in a revert war over a minor formatting issue that the vast majority of readers will either not care or not notice". Also, I have clarified some of your misunderstanding about 3RR in WP:AN3. Hunter 08:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with your view about that peaceful thing. It seems that you are the one who actively engage in revert wars in many articles and images with multi users. This can be reflected in your block logs, the fact that you are on probation and the ruling against you in the atribution hearings. Hunter 09:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take note that you had at least 2 ArbCom hearings before, you did submit an opening statement in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2 and of which it yielded exactly the same results as in a later hearing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3. Also, if you insist, the easiest name of users you engaged in editing / reverting wars before are namely SchmuckyTheCat, Alanmak and Huaiwei. There are others if you look through your own history. Hunter 09:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Transition[edit]

see the talk page of the article. there were plenty of political transitions during the warlord era. --Jiang 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my archives alone[edit]

Please leave my archives alone. And stop trolling on my talk pages. William M. Connolley 13:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've "replied" too William M. Connolley 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your treatment on wikipedia[edit]

Hi Instantnood, I've now spent time looking at four instances of your treatment on wikipedia and I have to say I think you've been wronged. I could see no reason for William reverting your comment, and I made the following comments on Tony's page:

Hi Tony, I checked Instantnood's edits on Macao, China from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. Mccready 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now checked this user's edits on List of bridges and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a country and a sovereign state. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. Mccready 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on Hong_Kong_national_football_team. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again. Mccready 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Hong Kong/temp[edit]

I see there is a difference between the entries, but a temp entry is not a definitive entry. So please create an article or add the content to another article. But it is not an antry to be listed in a template. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't moved. I put the content in the Politics of HK article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content stayed also in your temp article. Many Politics of entries give a description of the exedcutive and legislative branches. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Economic history[edit]

Boy, I had to do some digging. That AFD discussion has been closed for almost a year.

The consensus decision was that the article content should be merged. However, the deletion-debate participants did not indicate a clear consensus on the best merger target. That's an allowable close to a deletion discussion because whether and where to merge content is an ordinary-editing decision which can and should be worked out on the respective Talk pages. Since it was a "merge" and not a "delete", any editor can dig into the page history to recover any useful content.

I attempted to document the question here in the hopes that someone much more informed would have a good opinion on the ideal merger target. There were some answers on that page and some good suggestions (including from you). I don't know if any of those suggestions were ever carried out.

Sorry I can't be more help. Rossami (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Districts of Hong Kong[edit]

I have edited the first line to remove any conflict by rearranging the sentence. enochlau (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr archives[edit]

Please don't edit the archives William M. Connolley 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Template:Hong Kong (PRC)[edit]

Try asking STC on his talk page to post a reply there.--Jiang 22:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a town gas structure[edit]

Hey, do you know how to call this structure in English?--K.C. Tang 13:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islands[edit]

Not sure anymore - it was a website with a list of islands in order of population, iirc, probably one of the big geography websites, but I'm not sure. john k 22:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fyi[edit]

[5] SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Instantnood, as a result of the continuing stream of problems with your editing, I am proposing that we give you a brief (two weeks) ban from Wikipedia under your General Probation [6].

This is a provisional suggestion only, but I think it has a fairly high likelihood of passing. You are welcome to speak up for yourself on that page, or to ask an advocate or a friend to speak for you. I don't want to ban you from Wikipedia, so please use the opportunity to convince me that you can improve your behavior without needing such a crude reminder. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been banned from Wikipedia for two weeks. [7]. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Please Stop[edit]

I'll not, retiring image is the community consensus as shown on the talk page of Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png, only you have the opposite opinion. Your opinion alone does not qualify for the reversal of the retiring process. Hunter 10:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View it as you like, but it is community consensus which I explained to you in too many talk pages (thus I am not going to repeat all those facts again). The only one that disagress is you. Hunter 01:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(no section title)[edit]

This person is clearly here on Wikipedia for one sole purpose - to sabotage the efforts of all the other users. - James —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.219.124 (talk • contribs) 08:38, May 23, 2006 (UTC).

Bus Uncle[edit]

Hello! Long time no see. ;-) Recently I've been editting the article Bus Uncle. Do make improvements to the aritcle~ BTW, I've suggested the reason why I prefer the present title in the talk page. Take a look at it if possible. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diglossia[edit]

I'm back after my long hiatus. I see you're still as "active" as ever. Anyway, I added information about Chinese to the Diglossia article and gave the example of the Cantonese situation.

Regarding your question about French, it was not French but Anglo-Norman that was used in England. Anglo-Norman is related to French however. I don't know the details very well, but you can read the article about it. —Umofomia 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really have no idea about French other than what is linked in the article above. —Umofomia 08:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive[edit]

Hello. I sometimes see you editing articles on Southeast Asia. History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. So, would you mind lending a support for the initiative? Thanks __earth (Talk) 03:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Meetup - Summer 2006[edit]

Instantnood/Archive 6 ：
近來參與維基的工作如何？是否遇到問題或希望跟其他維基人切磋、交流心得呢？

本年6月10日晚上，香港維基人將舉辦2006香港夏聚，現誠意邀請閣下報名參與。是次聚會，有幸邀請到台灣維基人虎兒及KJ，來港跟各位香港維基人作深入的對話及交流。屆時，希望能夠見到你，一起舉杯暢談、共商維基事。

邀請您的維基人是：Carlsmith 03:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Brackets[edit]

It is the widespread convention in maps, almanacs, and encyclopedias to list/depict dependencies with their mother countries in parenthesis. The comma is usually only used for integral parts of a country, not dependencies. How often did you ever see "Hong Kong, United Kingdom" anywhere? --Jiang 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverts[edit]

While you were away, I was trying to come up with a way to get you to edit without going through the revert wars. [8] Your last few days of editing since returning from a two week ban don't show any difference from before. It is obvious without some kind of external rules put upon you that you aren't going to change your revert warring behavior. You will end up being banned from Wikipedia. Can't you please refrain from this? Being banned is not going to accomplish your goals and it isn't what anyone else wants either. SchmuckyTheCat 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

中文wikipedia問題[edit]

因為係關於中文維基，所以我用中文講，Sorry，之前既語氣重左di。

天水圍以前既問題可以留意呢度(有相架)[9]

至於元朗市方面，可否等待我地討論一番之後先改呢?係zh:talk:元朗市--AP71 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

沙田車站[edit]

其實早已在西鐵興建時，九鐵早已為東鐵更名同時取締「ＸＸ車站」一名，因此「沙田車站」早已更改為「沙田站」。閣下可參考下列網站，所有車站位置圖早已改用「ＸＸ站」： [10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtrkwt (talk • contribs) 10:54, June 12, 2006 (UTC).

About Yuen Long[edit]

之前諗過，其實“元朗市”係指元朗市中心之意，即係話原本元朗並唔係只係指市鎮--AP71 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 我唔係指元朗市同元朗新市鎮既分別...--AP71 08:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EU in country lists[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you were involved in a couple discussions about whether the EU should be included in country lists. Do you know if a consensus ever reached as to how to deal with it? The issue has come up again on List of countries by population. TastyCakes 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonization of English names[edit]

Hey, man, I don't mean to be hittin’ you up for pro bono work like this, but… Consider it flattering you was the first person I thought of. ;) I promise it’s a relatively un-time-consuming job.
Is there a predominant way that you can think of for rendering the name “Eric” into characters in HK? Due to the prevalence of English, I assume most Western names are just left in the Roman alphabet, but I’ve noticed, at least on the Mainland, there are certain names that seem to have a “standard” phonetic representation in characters, regardless of who, exactly, the name is referring to. I have no idea how one would go about this so it would work out in a Cantonese reading, though, since AFAIK, there’s no vowel-initials in Cantonese.

This question is open to anybody else wandering across Instanood’s talk page, too. :)

—Wiki Wikardo 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there’s no words in Cantonese that start with a vowel; you start every syllable with a your mouth closed. Well, I guess you could argue that your mouth is open with, like, ng; I don’t know what the formal linguistic definition of vowel is, but at least there’s no words that start with E.
Either way, you seen Eric consistently transcribed any way in Hong Kong?

20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki Wikardo (contribs) 20:46, June 16, 2006 (UTC).

Oh. Well, yeah, I guess that could be useful, then. So, the answer is no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki Wikardo (contribs) 23:40, June 16, 2006 (UTC).
Thanks. Good lookin’ out, homie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki Wikardo (talk • contribs) 16:24, June 17, 2006 (UTC).

Flag[edit]

If you continue to try to reinstate the png flag, ignoring consensus, then I am going to bring this to meditation and then if it fails, ArbCom. --WinHunter (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hong Kong, China --WinHunter (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You NEVER justified your claim of something in Hong Kong, China is not already in Hong Kong, as agreed by communicty conensus in Talk:Hong Kong. If you not stop both actions, I am going to bring this to higher level as stated above. --WinHunter (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is, just you keep ignoring them because it's against your own POV. I already shown 5 people support the merge, at least 3 of them feels materials are duplicated, ONLY you against. Yet you keep imposing unilateral actions. --WinHunter (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already showed you how CPAScott feels the materials are duplicated. You try to ignore his opinion --WinHunter (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to waste time with you in repeating everything I said in Talk:Hong Kong --WinHunter (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we are not going to resolve these through mere talking. Are you willing to take this to a higher level? (e.g. Meditation Committee). --WinHunter (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had shown you the consensus is that it's already duplicated. Take a look at the prilimary poll result if you still don't believe. Your continuous disagreement on community consensus is the reason I want to take this to a higher level. I ask again, are you willing to do so?
Btw, your "notices" on user talk pages makes one to think of vote-stacking. Can you elaborate how you choose whom to message and whom not to? --WinHunter (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue with you about this, our POV is clearly different. Lets see what others view in the poll.
Base on past experience is very dangerous because it may be the case that it's someone you know their POV. (i.e. violating "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." in Wikipedia:Spam.) That's the reason I never notified anyone about the poll. I just leave the poll there, my believe is that anyone who watch (those who care) the Hong Kong article will see it (which is likely by Hong Kongers). You may choose to notify all editors of the article Hong Kong, but again that may be regarded as spam and also pretty infeasible. Look, I don't want to accuse you of vote-stacking by assuming WP:FAITH, but if your suspicious behavior continues then I may have to think twice. --WinHunter (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that it cannot be even obvious that is duplicated. You too never point out what material is missing because you feel is obvious that something is not there. That is what our difference lies on.
How can you prove it? And how can any outsiders know you aren't mixing some you know with known POV and some you don't? (e.g. 60% with known POV, 40% unknown. That's enough to "sway away consensus"). Look, I am not accusing you did or did intent to, but I say it's suspicious and unless there is some scientific way to proof it, such action is best to be avoided. --WinHunter (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see you only made claims, provided no evidence (What you said as evidence are only claims).
Wikipedia is NOT a legal system. The standard of proof of legal system is "guilty beyond any reasonable doubt", though such standard does not apply in Wikipedia. The standard of proof here is much lower (and most of the time no "jury" (group of people) is needed to make decision). When that posings is presented to, say "ArbCom", you may be asked to explain yourself. If you can't, or saying only "past personal dealings", your actions can be regarded as attempt for vote-stacking. --WinHunter (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indention reset) "The first two links take you to user contribution and article edit history, which show that nothing was moved upon Hong Kong, China was turned a redirect. The other three links demonstrate that I've repeatedly provide the same two links upon your request. — Instantnood 05:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)" The only single claim you made. Though what I said is, Hong Kong, China's material is already duplicated in Hong Kong, so no move is necessary to complete the merge. --WinHunter (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "I don't know..." or "I am not guilty..." is not enough. Many criminals in court claims that. Still, they get convicted. All I am saying is, it's suspicious and should be avoided. --WinHunter (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you provided the evidence for the former, and I am not going to dispute it now.
Note my first sentence under "burden of proof" : "Since only Instantnood feels some materials are not covered here,...... I would say that the consensus is that everything in Hong Kong, China is already in Hong Kong --Hunter 14:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)". From the beginning I feel your reinstate of article is unjust because the article was turned into redirect (to copmlete merge) because the materials are duplicated already. You keep reverting and never gave evidence of the otherwise. (I demonstrated at least 3 people shared the view) --WinHunter (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can know your true intentions. You can keep making claims but it doesn't change the fact that your actions are suspicious (You recognised that and said "Based on past experience could be dangerous").
I say again, I am not accusing you did but just suggesting you to avoid suspicious actions. --WinHunter (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said CPAScott feels the article is duplicated because he performed the merge. (See how he justify himself from your given link), which I agree with his action because I also possess same the feelings that materials are duplicated, not he agrees with me.
Evidence is a tricky thing, where everyone can have a different view on it. You presented your view about the evidence. What majority view on those is the most important (on Wikipedia).
Let me give you an example, an knife (evidence) can be treated as: 1. Kitchen knife 2. Murder weapon.
The first view is the view of a murder case defence and the second is by the prosecutor, both viewing the same evidence.
So on Wikipedia, you have to hear what the community says on the evidence in dispute situations, not merely act on your view on the evidence.
Take what words out of context??? --WinHunter (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say again, it's your view of evidence. It may or may not be true. That's why you need to hear what the community says. (Why court need jury? Because inidivial view could be wrong, jury offers protection from that). You cannot guranteen your view of evidence is correct, neither can I. We can only resort to community conesnsus.
Though from the past experience, you keep on insisting your view of evidence but keep ignoring what the community view about those evidence.
Fine, as long as you don't conitinue those actions. --WinHunter (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said: it couldn't even be more obvious that materials are duplicated. To the least, at least 2 people support this. What makes your own POV greater than two people's? That's 66.6% support and 33.3% against.
In what way can you justified your claims that you do not know their POV? You dealed with them before. It can be regarded as: You posting notifications on "friends" that you know in rallying support for your view. --WinHunter (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you done exactly the same. You feel something in Hong Kong, China, not in Hong Kong (which you never gave proof btw). So you kept on reverting until everyone else gives up.
You still haven't answered me. What makes 1 people's (you) opinion outweight two other?
Fine, do what you like. But if you are later being found to have attempted of vote-stacking, don't say I haven't warned you. --WinHunter (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we cannot solve our disagreement through mere talking. Would you willing to take our disagreements to Meditation Committee? --WinHunter (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are neutral third parties. Should I be wrong they would not hesitate to point out, the same applies to you though. So what do you say? --WinHunter (talk) —The preceding comment was added at 18:43, June 17, 2006 (UTC).
I am saying we should involve a neutral third party to solve our dispuates, as stated in Dispute Resolution. Will you agree to do so?
I am proposing to use meditation for:
  1. Should Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png or Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg be used (in various articles)?
  2. Should Hong Kong, China be turned into a redirect of Hong Kong?
  3. Role of community consensus?
Let the meditator help us to sort these out. Will you agree to do so? --WinHunter (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indention reset) You only made claims, which is based only on your view of the evidence. I ask again, will you agree to meditate? --WinHunter (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I look at your actions of reverting. This is one of the area where our differences lies in and that it is one of the reasons I wish meditatoin to be used to resolve our differences. Are you willing to meditate? --WinHunter (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have your own view on whether or not it's groundless, I have my own. That's the exactly why I think meditators is necessary 'because of our differences.' Are you willing to present these issues to meditation committee and let them meditate between us? --WinHunter (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
svg is only part of our differences. Whether I am or am not able to convert png to svg does not solve all our differences and thus we still need meditation. Are you willing to do so? --WinHunter (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to ask you one last time this way.... Are you willing to meditate? --WinHunter (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary: We cannot resolve our differences through mere talking. Useful and Helpful: Official dispute resolution process as in WP:DR. --WinHunter (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other two thingsI can think of:
+ the three I stated earlier
Makes it a total of five issues I wish meditation can solve, can you can think of anything else? --WinHunter (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to meditate if I present these five to RfM? --WinHunter (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and second: It appears you just posted them in RfC, if that's the way you prefer things work, so shall it be. Though if after a reasonable amount of time have elapsed and RfC did not draw the desired attention I'll present them to Meditation.
Third matter, my view is that png should be retired regardless (since difference is minor) to join the majority other pages which contain the HK flag and all efforts focus on making the svg image more correct. If you disagree on this then it shows the need of meditation.
Fourth matter, if I see you just disregard the consensus after the poll has concluded, I'll also present this to meditatoin.
Fifth matter, since we have disagreement on the role of community consensus there is a need on meditation. Though I'll wait for other issues to see if they too need to do so until I present them jointly to meditation. --WinHunter (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your responses has shown exactly that we have disagreement that we haven't solved through talking. And that's where meditatoin should come in. I'll simply wait a reasonably time to see how the RfC results then I'll bring this whole thing to meditation. --WinHunter (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The continuing comments of disagreeing what I have said. --WinHunter (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(indention reset) I have explained my rational above repeat it again. --WinHunter (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying you won't consider Meditatoin because you believe it's not useful? --WinHunter (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you and explained what and why I will bring to meditation and how I will proceed which I am not going to repeat again and again. --WinHunter (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in continuing the current discussion. I'll simply follow the steps as stipualted in WP:DR. --WinHunter (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fyi[edit]

[11] SchmuckyTheCat 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming talk pages[edit]

Stop. Immediately. Alai 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's needlessly disruptive at the best of times (of which you especially should be being particularly careful); find an appropriate noticeboard read by "people who're likely to be interested", post a note there, and leave it at that. It at best escalates the dispute, and at worst could look like an attempt at vote-stacking. Do you really wonder that people accuse you of "filibustering" when this is how you act over such a minor matter? Alai 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Minor" is my personal judgement. Feel free to disagree on that, it's not key to my point: attempting to escalate a major matter is hardly any better, is it? (I don't see how anyone could see it as major, but then again I really don't see the case for a separate article either, so perhaps I just don't "get it".) See Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming: the way to get "opinion from the broader community" is, as I say, to make a post in a suitable central location, not to "get out the vote" to prolong a dispute far longer than its natural life. Alai 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't literally just mean one place, I should add; there may be several marginally-suitable centralised places. A note on a related article wouldn't be amiss, either. But mass-notification is either going to be a) factionalising, if you "carefully select" whom you inform, or b) annoying, if you're informing everyone that "should" be interesting (or some combination of the two). Alai 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0RR motion[edit]

BTW, while I don't support Schmucky's "0RR motion" (not least as he's hardly a disinterested party), I do think, as I said at AN/I (immediately prior to your two-week ban), that you should give some consideration to some sort of self-imposed and openly declared revert limitation. Reversion is a running theme in complaints about you, and if you were to make (and abide by) such a declaration, people would hopefully see it as a good faith attempt to address the concerns of the earlier AC rulings. Alai 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your "ante bellum" stance helps matters at all. If other people make a change, and you doggedly revert to an earlier version insisting on further discussion, that could still -- and evidently has -- been seen as obstructionist and disruptive, too. You're entirely free to ignore my suggestion (which was 1RR, not 0RR, btw), but if you do, it makes it harder for me to argue against other remedies being enforced under your probation. If you've any objection to the assorted arbcom case judgements being implemented, you really have no alternative but to appeal to the AC or JW: it's highly unlikely that admins will simply "decline to enforce" them based on your arguments, and recent events should surely tell you that several admins are all too willing to carry out such enforcement. Alai 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

svg vs png/gif[edit]

svg is a vector format. png/gif are raster formats. It is fairly straightforward to make vector images into raster images, but it is not straightforward to make raster images into vector ones. If there is something wrong with the svg images, then identify what they are and they can be fixed but making new svg images from the png/gif versions is not simple. If it was simple, I would do that for you, really. I have plenty of experience with tools for making raster images, but almost none for vector. SchmuckyTheCat 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

Hi Instantnood

It seems like you don't like the .svg flags of Hong Kong and Macau. If there is a problem with either (or both) of them, might I suggest that you take it up with the flag guys at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:WikiProject_Flags ? I'm pretty sure they still have members skilled in making .svg images. We had some trouble with the Danish flags but they mangaged to fix them. They'll probably be able to create a new image if you provide them with a construction sheet. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've made a small post to the talk page on List of flags. I have no qualifications regarding these flags, but please assume good faith from the other editors. A lot of people are messing up that page, so it is a pretty standard reaction from many users to simply say "not again" and return everything to .svg by default. To be frank, I've taken a quick look at the images, and I can't spot any major differences between them, but then again, my main area of expertise is material from Northern Europe (for pretty obvious reasons.) If you don't see any grave errors with the .svg images, it might be worth a thought simply to ignore them for the time being and to concentrate on helping somebody get the .svg images right. You're probably better qualified that most of us with finding an official construction sheet. That would be an enormous help for the flag guys since we have several editors that can create new images from an official specification. Couldn't this solve the issue? I don't know how official these images are, but these construction sheets might be of interest to you, btw: [12] and [13] Regards. Valentinian (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post. The removal of .png and .gif images from this page is simply due to a policy of replacing these formats with .svg images. I've tried to find an official HK construction sheet (a bit tricky since I have no knowledge of Chinese), but I found something here: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr97-98/english/bills/bills03/bills03.htm See also this thread [14] (post by Christopher Southworth, close to the bottom). I can't find a constuction sheet for Macau, but the flag was apparently designed by Xiao Hong (professor of arts and crafts, Henan University) [15]
I've tried to get a small overview over the history of the two .svg images on Commons.
This guy is probably Commons' leading flags creator: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Denelson83#Flag_of_Macau As you can see, the image for Macau has been created in coorporation with Wikipedians there, so it should be fairly accurate. It seems that a precise MC construction sheet doesn't exist, but the Wikipedians there seem to have looked into the details.
Regarding HK: the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg states that it is created according to a specification from [16] which contains the same information that I found on the Legco page. I think this image too is of a high standard. But if you find more information, why not mail it to one of the guys maintaining the images? Valentinian (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hong Kong, China[edit]

I voted, though after consideration, I did not end up agreeing with your stance. —Umofomia 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize it was just an invitation, but I just wanted to let you know that I didn't agree with it. —Umofomia 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi! I hope you are feeling fine. I need your help. I need you to edit Category:Wikipedians with over 100,000 edits, so that the bot could make the necessary corrections by moving this category page to the correct page. This manual of style is more accurate as it follows the international ISO 31-0 format which is more broader in scope. Thanks for your help. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Kung[edit]

Before complaining, please check the date of edit. They were changed at 18 June 2006, a week before your first complaint. So I'm not stupid (I haven't done anything after your first complaint)… --minghong 16:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, just go ahead. I just thought that you're kinda impolite. --minghong 16:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Just go ahead" means that you can just go ahead and move "Sai Kung Town" back to "Sai Kung". aka, revert my changes. But I just want you to know that my changes were made to make they consistent with zh wikipedia. See zh:Category:西貢市 and zh:西贡 (Hope you can read Chinese). --minghong 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing Hung Shing Temple. I don't know much about this template. :-P --minghong 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_6&oldid=1140171234"