User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Ronald Ebens 2 User:Skookum1 3 Vancouver 4 Regarding reversions[1] made on December 31, 2006 to Japan 5 Vandalism/Deletions concerning Early BC History 6 about the date of civilization 7 Taiwanese people 8 Image:Angelica lee 2003.jpg 9 3RR warning 10 Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs)'s edits 11 Template:Ethnic groups in China 12 Delete of my picture of Warring State Bells 13 Please see the talk page of Macau and Hong Kong 14 Sinosphere 15 Help needed Urgently 16 Sinosphere 17 3RR applies to you as well 18 Your Revert 19 You have yet 20 Question for you 21 Anthropological basis of Asian fetish 22 Enough already? 23 B.D.Wong 24 What is a word? (Re: Wordstock) 25 A gentle reminder 26 Deletions Instead of Using Citiation Tag 27 Chinese 28 Akira Makino 29 3RR messages 30 3RR Warning 31 Hi 32 Hello 33 Barnsensu 34 Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan 35 Christmas Island 36 Your unilateral deletion of material (again) 37 Help me out buddy 38 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 39 Happy New Year! 40 Tawker Bot 41 Photos for Kwun Tong District 42 Yuan 43 China-myth-stub 44 Category sorting 45 GA article nomination 46 re: Purported in Senkaku Island 47 Moving pages and redirects 48 Merge tag 49 Chinese name 50 Muslims in Hong Kong

Ronald Ebens

This article needs more citations for the loaded statements it contains about a living person. I realize this is a controversial topic. I see that you've removed the citations required banner and I'm not going to play 3rr games with you. Please research and cite, or replace the banner. Anything left uncited will be removed in seven days. --Vees 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a short article that already has four sources. Why don't you put citation tags on the specific places where you want to see citations? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Asian Week and The Wayne Lawyer are acceptable sources, a press release on asianam.org is not. I'll accept that Asian Week covers most of the content of this article in one way or another, but little factual inconsistencies such as the fine ($3,870, not $3000 even) make me wary. I'll let it stand as is, but more thorough citation will prevent other editors from simply deleting statements. --Vees 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --Vees 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Skookum1

I'm not surprised. - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how quickly he makes me NOT CARE about what he is ranting about. I get so exhausted from flying from amusement to boredom whilst reading his comments that I don't even have time to be offended. I found this humorous enough, for I am still reserved about scrolling - Erik Bornmann talk history- The Lake Effect 09:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver

I noticed there was a little confusion about the use of the phrase 'historical chinese population' that you may have mistaken as 'historical chinese'. The word 'historical' is used as a modifier in this case to chinese population. The term is used quite frequently and is another way of saying 'original chinese settlers' before the 'Hong Kong influx of the 1980s'. If you were thinking its a slightly prejudice or racist terminology, its just a common term used in the subject of history. Hope this clarification helps. Mkdw^talk 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 31, 2006 to Japan

Vandalism/Deletions concerning Early BC History

Look, Hong, your favouritism for the ethnic-POV story is all too clear, but as I told you on my own talk page, and in the inline comment, these are FACTS. You should read some more British Columbia history than just the Chinese-history-oriented things you clearly wallow in; the material you deleted is standard stuff in the Akriggs, Orsmby, Begg, Morton, and countless other historians; if it's omitted in the books you've been reading, so is a lot else. Now that I've been unblocked (it was an unfair block; if you'd come out of your cave and explore as to why you might give your head a shake as to what goes on in BC politics, and learn something) I'll be taking your vandalism up with arbitration and also with other BC-history people who've read the same books I have. You can keep on being smug, and denouncing stuff as "biased"; all it does is demonstrate exactly how POV you really are.Skookum1 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, more soapboxing. What a surprise. Bottom line was that the paragraphs were POV and unsourced. Your editing is so very obviously biased when it comes to anything having to do with the Chinese. For example - you added that Chinese miners were protected because of an edict from James Douglas. So do you have a source to say that they were actually protected? Or does it just say that James Douglas gave an edict saying they are to be protected? Big difference between law and the enforcement of law you know, especially when it comes to institutionalised racism. But whatever, man, I got tired of trying to reason with you months ago. Provide accurate sources and don't be POV, and nobody would revert your edits. That is all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reported you for vandalism and insulting commentaries; deal with it. And read some BC history...I've been busy today being a good Wikipedian and catching up on work for the BC Wikiproject and didn't get to your cites; you're sure trigger-happy I'll say that for ya...Exactly what kind of books and papers on colonial BC have you read, Hong? Deleting stuff you don't know happened because it sounds biased to you is just silly; most of this page was uncited when I found it, and what cites there were went to unreferenced politically-biased websites with no real historiographical/verifiable content, and lots of stuff equating conditions here to conditions in the US was unreferenced, which you had no problem with because it suited your own prejudices....Skookum1 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

For anybody interested in more info on this:

• Sample of where Skookum1 has "reported me", from his contrib history
• Discussion at Mkdw's user Talk page

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my notice of disengagement from your evident desire to stage a conflict with me over your own misbehaviour: your posts on my talkpage and in my statements to Mkdw are not bordering on harrassment, they are harrassment, which may constitute a separate complaint. I've got more important things to do on Wikipedia than respond to your attacks further.Skookum1 07:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm only responding to you now. Feel free to stop talking about me on other editors' Talk pages, and on my own. If you continue, however, I do reserve the right to defend myself and state my case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

about the date of civilization

generally, we speak of civilization with super bronze technologies and well organized social hierarchy,the chinese Neolitic cultures maybe date as far as 7000BC,but it didn't meet the standard of civilzation.Moreover,the Neolithic in other parts of world date farer than the chinese ones,and we didn't recognize them as civilization rather than cultrue.--Ksyrie 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Other sections of the article date to neolithic cultures as well. And the content in the section begins at 7000 BC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I found no other civilization dated from the beginning of Neolithic era.Please be NPOV.--Ksyrie 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Try the Indian section. Please be NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

the indian valley starts around 3700BC while the neolithic started at least 7000BC.--Ksyrie 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a few phrase,Neolithic generally doesn't be regarded as civilization.I found the levant where flourished the oldest neolithic dating to 10,000 BC,but no one tried to define it as civilisation.--Ksyrie 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We cann't set the standard of civilization just for the chinese,I think it may be a universal standard.--Ksyrie 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read about Pengtoushan, Jiahu, and Peiligang. These cultures had achieved such things as domesticated rice, playable flutes, pottery, millet farming, animal husbandry, storage and redistribution of crops, etc. There's also evidence of craftsmanship and administration. Compare that to how the other sections are dated. Some of them don't even have much archaeological evidence, like the Korea section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

check this one Pre-Pottery Neolithic A,a thing it can be compared with Pengtoushan and Jiahu.Even more,I understand your feeling towards some Korean claims about the start of their civilization.But in my opinion,the more effort they tried to advance their civilization, the more clear we know they were once less civilized,because they just change the criteria.If all people from the world apply the korean standard,all the civilization will start earlier.Ok,we are civilized.--Ksyrie 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese people

You know how you said Taiwanese people (台灣人) are also 華人 (ethnic Chinese), well there is an article that is about 華人:Overseas Chinese. And since Taiwanese people aren't 中國人, Taiwan isn't part of China (中國), but part of the Greater China (大中華地區)--Jerrypp772000 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Angelica lee 2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelica lee 2003.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 02:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

In the future, please refrain from reverting other user's talk pages. If a 3RR notice is deleted, the record of the warning is kept and will be an aggravating circumstance for the other party.--CSTAR 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs)'s edits

Greetings, I noticed you have reverted some of Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs)'s, (formerly known as User:Bonafide.hustla), edits. He is aggressively pushing his POV on China/Taiwan-related articles and his edits are increasingly becoming vandalistic. He has a history of deleting warnings and comments from his talk page as shown the history. Could you help keep an eye over his edits? Please reply here. Thanks. Guardian Tiger 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You think him and User:Bonafide.hustla are the same person? Have you filed a checkuser request? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs) was previously known as Bonafide.hustla (talk • contribs) and Freestyle.king (talk • contribs) before he changed his username twice. The userpages all redirect back to Certified.Gangsta. I think he changed his username to hide his previous block logs. Guardian Tiger 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They're the same person - he changed his account name. --Sumple (Talk) 10:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ethnic groups in China

Hi HongQiGong,

(fixing format)

Sorry to see you didn't like my contribution. If nothing else, may I replace the bullet characters, as they appear a little too conspicuous here...?  I italicized Undistinguished ethnic groups as, unlike the other links, it's not the name of an ethnic group. Perhaps if it sat on a line of its own...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
PS {{Navigational templates}} might be of interest.

I just reverted most of it to your version. Actually I had thought you accidently messed up the format because the "as classified by the government of the People's Republic of China" text looked kind of out-of-place in the body. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted the change; glad you feel there was nothing more amiss than the position of the clarifying text (which, looking again, I agree probably sits better beside the title). Best wishes, David (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete of my picture of Warring State Bells

The warring state Music Bells are most important discovery of that period. The bell can play a C tone music and each bell has two sound, depend on where you hit the bell. The picture is not fit into the text because the text is not very long like Ming dynasty. I disagree that you should delete that picture.Dongwenliang 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's "your" picture? I was not aware you actually took that picture yourself. Anyway, I deleted the picture because it was too big for the section. I've inserted it into the Warring States Period article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of Macau and Hong Kong

Talk:Hong Kong,and talk:Macau.I recovered the edit.--Ksyrie 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinosphere

The sphere thing is laguage related. Anglosphere is groups of English speaking coutries. If you want to fabriacte a sinosphere accordingly, please choose Chinese speaking countries. Migye 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about Anglosphere. Again, did you read it? It's about those regions that were culturally influenced by the Chinese civilisation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed Urgently

Please help! the free bronze pictures are all subject to delete by someone who is malicious! I got the picture from bronzes.cn and they are all free to use, please help!Dongwenliang 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First thing - don't leave messages on my userpage![2] That's what this Talk page is for! Now, exactly what pictures are you talking about? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinosphere

Why do you keep adding irrelevant links to Sinoshpere. How does List of tributaries of Imperial China, Suzerainty, Tributary state relate to Sinoshpere? There were already discussion about this in the talk page by other editors, who had the concensus that these information is irrelevant. Migye 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the article has to do with cultural influences from China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. These links are about military matters and the exploitation of the Chinese on its neighboring countries. How can they be culture influences? Migye 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suzerainty-tributary relations were the reason there was a lot of cultural exchanges between China and its surrounding cultures. A huge amount of Buddhist and Confucian texts were passed along to tributary states from China. Please do some reading. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're just ridiculous. Cultural exchanges can happen in a more equal footing without such military backed relations. Migye 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely, but "equal footing" or not, the fact remains that suzerainty-tributary relations were the cause for a lot of cultural exchanges. Please do some reading on East Asian history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is just wrong. Sphere is language based. It is farfetched to define Sinoshpere as culture based and you are pushing it as military related. Migye 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see some sources then. I've provided sources on the Sinosphere Talk page that defines Sinosphere as culturally based. You have not provided any sources to say that it's only linguistically based. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to be aware that Sinoshpere is fabricated from Angoloshpere, which is language based. Even if it is culture based, you haven't provided any authoritative source that says Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia belong to Sinoshpere. There are only small number of Chinese in these country. And these countries have totally different language and cultures. Anyway, I don't want to waste my time arguing about this. But military matters should be kept out of Sinoshpere. Without military matters, culture exchanges can occur even better. Please keep you POV out of Wikipedia articles. At least, there is no source say that some countries belong to Sinosphere because they were tributaries of China. Migye 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, please provide sources to show that Sinosphere is only linguistically based, instead of making assertions without backing them up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your arguement silly. Even if it is culture based, it doesn't justify you to put those military links to the article. Migye 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I must repeat this, but please do a little reading. Take Korea for example, during its suzerainty-tributary relationship with China, it would send the Chinese court things like gold and furs. China, on the other hand, would send things like Buddhist and Confucian texts to the Korean court. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies to you as well

So you are welcome to report me and I will do the same to you as well.

And again, it is standard on wikipedia to head an article with place-of-birth and/or citizenery, not ethnicity. There's nothing further to discuss. Crumbsucker 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you due to the fact that you made an initial change that did not form a "revert". That isn't to say your actions were acceptable; pleas refrain from edit warring. However, in the interum, I have protected the page fully so you can discuss the issue (please read The Wrong Version, as I didn't check which version it actually is that I protected - yours or Crumbsucker). The protection is set for seven days; I encourage both of you to work out a comprimise on the talk page. If you manage to prior to the expiry, please contact me and I'll be more-than-happy to lift the protection. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above comment that he left. He has already stated that "there's nothing further to discuss". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to partake in dispute resolution or at least try discussing it. Wikipedia is created by consensus, discussion and comprimise, and failure to do so whilst still revert-warring is a blockable offence. You can only try your best to engage him/her in discussion, and ask for intervention if the blind reverts without discussion continues. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given this has spilled over into a number of articles, I strongly urge you to partake in dispute resolution. Daniel.Bryant 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Revert

Mongolia doesn't meet any standards to be part of Sinosphere. The Sinosphere article doesn't include Mongolia as part of Sinosphere. The map is simply wrong. Stop being a nuisance. Migye 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on the Sinosphere Talk page, please read the links I provided. Here's one that specifically mentioned Mongolia[3]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have yet

To explain why you want to go against the style manual. Crumbsucker 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1) My edit makes the intro more informative. 2) The style guide is meant as a suggestion, and does not necessarily have to be followed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But, why is an exception being made for actors who are of asian decent? Crumbsucker 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How is an exception being made? I have never taken out ethnic information in the intro of any American actors or actresses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are adding ethnic information to actors of asian descent and not ones of other ethnicities. Crumbsucker 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because I can only edit so many articles at the same time. And I don't know how to write a bot to do it for me automatically. Lack of an act does not mean I am against the act. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But why are you singling out asians? Why haven't you done others? Crumbsucker 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My interests lie more in people of Asian-descent. I mean, why do you edit so heavily on entertainment-related articles? Why not politics-related articles? Obviously, I assume, because that's where your editing interests lie. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

In a hypothetical Wikipedia in which you are boss, Wentworth Miller's opening statement would say "Wentworth Miller (born June 2, 1972) is an African-Jamaican-English-German-Jewish-Cherokee-Russian-French-Dutch-Syrian-Lebanese-American actor who achieved fame as Michael Scofield in the Fox Network's television series "Prison Break"". Do I really have to explain to you why that is riduclous and why WP:MOSBIO protects us from such nonsense? Mad Jack 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In a hypothetical Wikipedia in which I am boss, people like you wouldn't bother me. But lucky for you, this is not one such hypothetical Wikipedia, and it's hardly ridiculous to mention one, two, or even three different ethnic backgrounds. Fortunately for us, out here in real-world Wikipedia, most actors do not have about 11 different ethnic ancestries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I want to mention 11 backgrounds in the header! Who are you to limit me to just 3??? :-) Mad Jack 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then feel free. I won't stop you. I think you should do it. It's a lot more informative that way. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule 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, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Mad Jack 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthropological basis of Asian fetish

I think you definitely improved the article with that deletion, HongQiGong. I suspect an unsavoury agenda behind that whole section, and doubt the "research" and "sources" cited would hold up to much scrutiny. Regards. Dekkappai 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough already?

I must inform you that I fully intend to enforce WP:MOSBIO and prevent this kind of nonsense from polluting Wikipedia articles. Your "more informative" argument is really silly. If we put the whole entry into the opening, that would also be "more informative". What's your point? And on that note, it strikes me as fairly racist that no Asian American can be called simply "American" in their opening paragraph. I am sure racism is not your intention, but that is somewhat the result. Mad Jack 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that I'm not trying to put the entire entry in the intro. I'm only trying to specify ethnicity in the intro. There's a big difference. And I disagree that it's "fairly racist" to point out that someone is Asian American, I'm not sure how it can be racist. This especially applies to someone like Maggie Q, who actually appeared in a public service announcement urging young Asian American voters to go out and vote in the last US presidential election.[4] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, you're trying to put in ethnicity. Someone else can try to put in religion. Another person put shoe size, the other their birth place, and the third person putting in spouse and children's names. This information is all very nice and belongs somewhere in the entry, but it has nothing to do with why a particular person is famous, nor does it summarize the article, which is what the header is supposed to do (and on those grounds it violates WP:MOSBIO). I think it's racist because, if all your edits were to stick, Asian Americans would all be "Asian American" in the opening as opposed to simply "American", like their caucasian compatriots. So, as a result, it appears that no Asian American can be described as simply "American" in the opening, while caucasian Americans can be. As for Q's public service announcement, that may be notable and you should add it to the "personal life" section of the article if you think it is notable. But Q is notable for being an actress, not for being Asian American. (Although she is notable for appearing in a large number of Asian films, and that can be included in the header: i.e. "is an American actress. She is known for her roles in several Asian as well as Hollywood films". Mad Jack 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting a simple, often one-word indication of ethnicity is part of a summary. I'm not trying to put in their family histories. And in my opinion, the only people who would think it racist to introduce someone as Asian American as opposed to "simply" American, are the same people who think that Asian Americans are somehow less American than the rest. It's not racist because I've not denied anybody any social or economic opportunities based on a person's race, and my edits do not have any racial slurs. The point of my mention of the fact that Maggie Q appeared in that PSA is to point out that Maggie Q herself identifies as Asian American and it would be a little strange to think that pointing that out is racist. Also, again, WP:MOSBIO is meant only as a guideline, and is not a set of binding rules. Exceptions are allowed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's a guideline, but you've presented no rational reason for not following this guideline specifically in relation to every single Asian American person whose entry you've stumbled upon. The guideline represents the consensus of many editors and the norm for Wikipedia biographies; there is zero to no reason not to follow this norm. I have never said that Maggie Q (or anyone else) does not identify as Asian American, nor that she is not one. What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with the header of the article, although it may be information that belongs in, say, "Personal life". As for these changes being racist, I am sticking by that claim; racism need not necessarily take the forms that you mentioned above. It can also mean that a whole group of Americans are oddly enough not described in the same terms as others Americans in their opening sentence simply because they are of a different race. If we put in "European American" in every introduction of a person of that group, then it would be on equal grounds with putting in "Asian American". Since we don't do that, we don't single out by race in the opening of those entries, either. Mad Jack 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've provided my rationale time and again - that it's more informative. On the other hand, your rationale for opposing such an edit doesn't make sense to me, because you compare a one-word indication of ethnicity to an insertion of whole paragraphs full of text. But my edit is not intrusive or cumbersome like that at all. Another rationale you've used is that the guideline says not to point out ethnicity - but the guideline itself, in its second sentence, specifies that it is not binding. The guideline is to be used as a recommendation of style, I am well within my rights to not follow that recommendation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your "more informative" rational can thus easily be used to disregard the guideline in every single entry of every single person on Wikipedia. It is not quite good enough to do so, obviously. What's your point? Mad Jack 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, my point is that it's more informative this way. And since I don't agree with the guideline concerning indication of ethnicity, I actually do not mind that every article disregards that specific recommendation concerning ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of having a guideline exactly, if any person can just come along and disregard it for little to no reason? Mad Jack 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I already say that the guideline is used as a recommendation of style? That's the point. A recommendation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but what's the point of having it at all if anyone can just come along and disregard it for little to no reason? Mad Jack 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I have to spell it out for you. Let's say I have never edited a biographical article before, and I have no idea what the best style to do it under. I'd look up a style guide for biographies, namely WP:MOSBIO. I'd see that it has some great recommendations on how to write a biography. I could then choose to follow it, or I can choose not to. But without WP:MOSBIO, I'd be quite lost on how best to write the biography, and would be forced to come up with a format myself. Understand? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand, and hope you fully understand as well that I am going to be reverting any breaches of WP:MOSBIO. Mad Jack 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

B.D.Wong

Hi HQG,

I've got a bit of friendly curiosity about the back and forth on the B.D. Wong page. Could you let me know the reason for your preferece towards your version of the page?

Thanks,

WLU 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good to point out that he's Chinese American, as he's pretty notable in the Asian American community for breaking grounds as an Asian actor in the US. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's what he is notable for, you should add exactly that to the header. "Wong is an American actor. He is notable for breaking grounds as an Asian American actor" (or something along that line, preferrably with a source). That sentence IS indeed helpful and may summarize a section of the article. "Chinese American actor" does not tell me that, or much of anything else. Mad Jack 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good rationale. If you had a ref for the notability as a breakthrough artist for Asian Americans to put in the biopage, that'd go a long way towards the ethnicity being notable in the header text. WLU 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it, editors like Mad Jack here only wants to doggedly stick to the guideline, treating it like the Ten Commandments or something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you read my reponse? If Wong is notable for breaking ground as an Asian American actor, then exactly that information should go into his opening header (for example, in the form of "Wong is an American actor. He is notable for breaking grounds as an Asian American" or something along the lines of that). However, that's not the same as simply referring to him as a "Chinese American actor", which doesn't tell me anything except his ethnicity. Mad Jack 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone being Chinese American doesn't tell you anything except his ethnicity? Well, for one, it tells you that he's American. Please read the article on Chinese American then, if that's all you can gather from that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't tell me that he's notable for breaking grounds as an Asian American, which as you have said is the point you're trying to get across in your changes to that article. Mad Jack 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a word? (Re: Wordstock)

Word has some food for thought that you might find interesting. If I take your question literally, then I'd say yes. To make a figurative answer, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. ;) Wordstock would be a compound word.

But that's probably not what you meant. "Is 'wordstock' well attested?" you might ask. Well, "wordstock" isn't yet included in any of the dictionaries I've checked, but it's attested on the web and "word-stock" (wordstock's older sibling) is found in at least one thesaurus.[5] and I'm willing to bet the OED includes wordstock and/or word-stock as well. (I'd check right now, but my copy of the OED is currently unavailable to me today.) --Kjoonlee 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really care if the article uses "wordstock" or not. Go ahead and put it back in if you would like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't really care either, actually. ;) I just thought it was worth mentioning. :) --Kjoonlee 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)\

A gentle reminder

You should be very careful about your edittings on wikipedia. I am not threatening you or anything. We will come here and we will talk like a civilised people. You support China unification, thats your belief alright. respect. But what you are putting on wikipedia are false information, it is politically incorrect, particularly your title is extremely unsuitable for the content. You are a smart person, you should neutralise the article. You yourself is in fact violating the principles of Wikipedia by providing false information. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are de facto two separate states. Happy or not, you shouldnt be putting them together. If so, should I also create an article and title it "List of Ethnic groups in America" and the "America" here I meant the United States of America, but I will list all of the ethnic groups in North and South America and ignore their existence if the United States government does not recognise them. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Changchih228 (talk • contribs).

It's a simple fact that the PRC government categorises all the Taiwanese aborigine groups into the Gaoshan ethnic group. I and other editors are just trying to reflect this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thats fine. But I strong recommend you to change the title to "List of ethnic groups in the People's Republic of China". The term "China" is vague and controversial, especially other disputed territories are included. China is a sovereign state and the official name is the "People's Republic of China". THats what China is referred to. The article is very controversial and offensive because of the title and the content of 'Taiwanese obrigines'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Changchih228 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-04 21:21:06.

As I've explained on the Talk page of the article, it is disputed whether or not the ROC is part of "China". And it is basically pointless to move the article name because the PRC government still categorises Taiwanese aborigines as one of its official ethnic groups. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions Instead of Using Citiation Tag

You removed an entire explanation in the Asian Fetish article because of a lack of reference. The proper procedure is to add a citation request and remove the section if no citiation is made. Do not simply remove what you don't agree with. After seeing your talk page, it is clear you have serious NPOV issues! 144.81.32.187 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That section had been discussed before. It's a bunch of original research strung together by unrelated articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussed where? I see no record. Regardless, why do you remove it instead of putting a fact tag? 144.81.32.187 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, the article is very contentious, so please discuss what you're going to add before you add it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be discussed after adding. That is the point. If you are referring to the physical anthropology section, that has nothing to do with the evolutionary basis for sexual preference, which is an extremely well-established biological principle. Resolve conflict, do not incite it. 144.81.32.187 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it discussed first before adding. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese

Hi. Could you help me out here? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since you're knowledgeable about Chinese, I'd be grateful if you could take a look at this usercat rename nomination. Xiner (talk, email) 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Akira Makino

hi ,could you please have a look at the article Akira Makino and wikify certain sections..you help is appreciated here.--Iwazaki 03:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

well done..you have put some effort at wikifying the article..thanks..About the birth place of Mr makino, I have checked several Japanese sources ,and all says he lives in 大阪府枚方市, hirakata、osaka..Assuming he was born another place, they would have certainly mentioned it..Thats the way it works here...

since all the local sources refers ,that he is from hirakata, Osaka, I guess we　 can attribute Osaka as his place of birth/home town..what do you think ? --Iwazaki 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

plus,if you need any help in Japanese related article let me know..--Iwazaki 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

シエ シエ --Iwazaki 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

不客氣。 Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR messages

Will you stop giving me these 3RR messages? I know perfectly well about 3RR, and so do you. It's a waste of space for us to be pasting them back and forth to each other. It's also a waste of space to keep this edit war, which is only going to end one way anyway, up. Mad Jack 17:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning

I am not reverting people's edits, they are verting mine and i am reverting their reverts of my work. All my work is factual and is being reverted without any reason. By the looks of things this it not the first time you've used the 3RR warning as a tool to push anti-Japanese POV. I'm supprised the Communist Chinese government even allows you to access the internet. P.S. I'm not Japanese I'm British so I have a neutral POV. Anymore reverts of my work will be reported to the Administrators board along with the user names of those who reverted it and I will ask for a block on those who repeatedly revert the factual information I contribute and give no reason why they revert it. Maybe because there is no real good enough reason to revert it and it's all purely POV. The contributions I are completely NPOV and I can't see how in any way they could possible have a view point or offend. Somethingoranother 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, old chap! And this is the first time I've been informed that a British person always has a neutral POV concerning Japan. Wow! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule 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, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Somethingoranother 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've got your IP address here: 88.109.93.91. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So? It changes whenever I want it to anyway Somethingoranother 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I hope you're doing well. By the way, during my attempts to mantain the Japan article's quality, I attempted to revert edits by Somethingoranother and Andrewrhchen, but due to an edit conflict, my edit came slightly later than yours, which might have brought about an apparent impression that I had reverted your edits. My sincere apologies, as I did not mean it to sound it like that way and the edit summary was in response made to the edits by the other two users. It's pretty difficult to mantain consistency or the quality of such a high-traffic article, and so I might have made a few embarrassing mistakes with my edits (^_^). ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

How come you are opposed to editing the Asian fetish article? --Mr Phil 03:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, as I said on the Talk page, it is a contentious article and I would prefer we discuss the addition of whole sections before they are actually added to the article. Second, the addition you want to make is either original research or taken from a very unreliable source (Steve Sailer). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I award you this Barnsensu in recognition of your tireless efforts to bring balance to Japan and other Japan-related articles-- a very meaningful, but thankless and never-ending task. Although we may not always agree, I admire your tremendous persistence and appreciate your presence at Wikipedia. No matter what some may say, you are a positive force here. Don't forget that. And don't give up. Don't compromise. Just because you are outnumbered, doesn't mean you are defeated. Truth is on your side.--"Edger" 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan

Re [6]. I was thinking that we could work some mention of involved parties into a regional territorial disputes template. Something like: User:Changlc/Territorial Disputes of Asia Comments welcome. -Loren 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My response[7]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Island

Yeah, I thought it was vandalism too, but see Christmas Island#People. Or, for example, their governmental homepage, which promises future translations in both Chinese and BM. [8] cab 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Well now I feel like visiting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your unilateral deletion of material (again)

Please see talk:japanese war crimes. Grant | Talk 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My response[9]. Content in articles should be verifiable and they should not be original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Help me out buddy

In the category Category:Korean computer and video games characters

I can't figure out why this list separates some of the names correctly and others not...Bethereds 10:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You want them to be sorted by surnames? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames

It is my sense that batch AfD nominations should only be done when all articles nominated are substantially similar, so I think it was an error to include List of common Chinese surnames which is not in the same style as the rest. In that case, it should only have been listed individually, if at all. I've stricken it from the nomination, restricting the nomination to the remaining similar articles. Hopefully you can clarify your comment now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! Wish you all the best in the year of the pig. Wish you a year full of knowledge and energy. As nurtured as a pig, as content as a pig. Greetings from Hong Kong. --Deryck C. 17:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

恭喜發財！ Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tawker Bot

Hi HongQiGong,

Thanks for all your help with the WikiProject Hong Kong effort. While editor contribution is not as high as the participant list, I'm wondering if you know how to use Tawker bot or any other bot to send out a mass message to all identified WPHK editors? By the way, Happy Chinese New Year! Luke! 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Unfortunately I haven't played with any bots for WP. But it's not a bad idea to start playing with a Tawker Bot. Do you know of any WikiProjects that uses one? We've been tagging quite a number of HK-related articles, so people should take notice. I wonder why not more editors are contributing. Though I do suspect that a lot of the editors that regularly editted HK topics are editing over at the relatively new Cantonese Wikipedia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

True too. There seems to be a fair number of participants on the WPHK list, I just find it strange that the involvement level is relatively low. I don't know of any other WikiProjects that use bots. I'll read up on Tawker bot in the meantime and see how to use it. Nonetheless, keep up the good work! :) Thanks. Luke! 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos for Kwun Tong District

Photos for the article can be copied from related articles like Kowloon Bay, Lam Tin and Sau Mau Ping. --Deryck C. 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuan

According to WP policy, the interpretation of primary sources such as Chinese classics is indeed considered original research. Though it is sometims useful to quote such sources, normally their interpretation should be left to professional scholars. WP then reports on their work (secondary sources). Also, according to this, "As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period." Khoikhoi 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong, I would appreciate if you removed the 3RR warning from my talk page. Hope you can join the discussion at Talk:Yuan (surname) about how to improve the article.--Niohe 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR warning was not suitable indeed. Right now, it's a dispute on whether the "Origin" section of Yuan (surname) is based on interpretative claims of the primary sources. We can remove the tag after we convince the opposing view, although I agree that the tag was placed on rather invalid points in the first place. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

China-myth-stub

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - you are right that it is a guideline not a policy, but guidelines are there for a reason, in this case partly to remind people that WP:BOLD doesn't apply to categories and templates, and also largely for practical reasons. Consider it this way - most of the people who sort stubs into their various stub types are regular users of the WP:WSS pages. In order to be able to sort stubs properly, they need to be aware of what stub types are available. Because there are so many stub types, it is also a great help if those stub types all conform to certain standards. Double-checking proposed new stub types prior to creation makes sure they do conform, and also makes them known to stub sorters. Look at many of the other stub types on the discovery page and you will see that a lot of work is necessary to tidy up other people's unproposed stub types. Also, the threshold is there for a reason, both to make it easier for editors (it is far easier looking through one category of 100 stubs that ten categories with ten stubs each) and for stub sorters (if stub categories could be really small, there would be tens of times more stub types to try to remember). In the case of this stub type, you're not certain there are the required number of stubs, no was the category initially properly formed - both things which should have been checked prior to the creation of the stub type - and both things that would have been if it had been proposed. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

Re [10] - Please be noted that many of these categories are sorted with a space or an asterisk, so that they can appear as subcategories in the parent categories on the first page. Would you mind reverting these edits you have made? — Instantnood 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer them sorted the way they are right now, alphabetically. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been the practise for all similar categories on Wikipedia. They are still displayed alphabetically in their parent categories. — Instantnood 16:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You sure about that? Here's a pretty popular category - Category:United States. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to categories for stub types. See category:United States stubs or category:history stubs, for example. — Instantnood 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Feel free to move them back then. But please be consistent with either an * or a space, and not a strange combination of both. I moved them partly because they were not consistent with that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it'd much better if you can revert your own edit. It has never been consistent whether a space or an asterisk should be used. The general rule is to follow other subcategories in each parent category. — Instantnood 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know whether or not you're planning to revert your own edits. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not right now. I'm busy with other things currently. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Feel free to request for help if you want me or any other wikipedians to help fix them. — Instantnood 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

GA article nomination

The article you just nominated for the Hong Kong workers needs all of the inline citations to be directly after the punctuation. Just wanted to let you know before somebody reviews it and to save you some time later. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've put it on hold. This is the first time I've nominated an article for GA. Do you know of any peer reviews processes that I can put an article through before nominating it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Purported in Senkaku Island

I inserted "purported" for legal NPOVness because in my view, Japan did not have the legal authority to "ban" anyone from the islands because they do not own it. It's like, if I try to ban you from your own house, that would only be a "purported" ban because I have no such right to do so, even if I do manage to block you from entering your door.

Ditto for the other "purported". It is not intended to mean that they "did not actually ban", but rather they "had no legal authority to ban." --Sumple (Talk) 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood what you were trying to do. That's why in my edit, I tried to just not use the word "ban" at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages and redirects

Hi Hong, when you move pages it creates double redirects which need to be fixed and single redirects which ought to be fixed. You can find these by going to the new location and clicking "What links here" in the toolbox on the left. For example, Four Asian Tigers gives this. --Ideogram 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually did fix all the double redirects, and I don't see any right now. Single redirects are not a problem for when users click on the links. They don't particularly need to get "fixed" per se. I'll just let them get fixed over time by other editors and me when I come across them in other edits. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to fix the redirects that go to East Asian Tigers. --Ideogram 04:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

The merge tag isn't hard to use: just put {{merge|New page title}}. Badagnani 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

Since you participated quite a bit in the Template:Chinese name debate at tfd, you may want to continue it at Template talk:Chinese name. I'm in the midst of an editing dispute over whether to use the template for individuals with names already rendered in the western order.--Jiang 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims in Hong Kong

See Islam in Hong Kong. Could obviously use better sourcing, but it's there, at least. A lot of development to be done, e.g.:

• Demographics of South Asian Muslim immigration. This should be the easiest part, lots of sources, lots of scholars, e.g. Caroline Pluss.[11], Anita Weiss. See for example:
  • Pluss, Caroline. "Globalizing Ethnicity with Multi-local Identifications: The Parsee, Indian Muslim, and Sephardic Trade Diasporas in Hong Kong". Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks: Four Centuries of History, Berg Publishers. 
• Hui immigration (one of the main Muslim schools in HK, 伊斯蘭脫維善紀念中學, was established in honor of a Hui guy from Panyu, for example). Not much that I've been able to find so far. A few in English [12] [13], didn't see anything in Chinese yet.
• Southeast Asian Muslims. Mostly Indonesians. Don't really see any good sources on this either in English or Bahasa, though.
• Community institutions
• Race relations among Muslims, if I can find any sources. There's a bit on this on page 12 of [14], for example

Dunno if Muslims in Hong Kong should be a redirect; doesn't seem to be a common practise for any of the other Islam by country articles (see also {{Islam by country horizontal}}). (Also trying to develop these kinds of articles is no fun at all because of all the edit warriors they attract.) Cheers, cab 06:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)