User talk:Instantnood/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notifier

Let me know if you have replied my message at your discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me at this discussion page. Thanks.

[edit] notifier                           to edit → Privacy — 11:27 Jan 29, 2005 Privacy — 14:33 Mar 2, 2005 Penwhale — 14:49 Mar 5, 2005 Shinjiman — 10:06 Mar 7, 2005 Shinjiman — 01:05 Mar 20, 2005

Hello. Enjoy the discussion.

Contents 1 notifier                           to edit → 2 Chattergarden 3 HK status 4 Current events 5 Current Event in HK / Macau 6 Re: WP:HKCOTW 7 Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China 8 WP:FAC 9 Your strong position on the Political NPOV 10 Taiwan 11 Template:rename 12 Re:NPOV regarding China-related articles, categories and templates 13 Demographics of China 14 Your proposed move 15 Double redirects 16 ROC 17 Renaming 18 Taiwan vs Republic of China 19 China-geo-stubs 20 Compromise 21 re:User:ExplorerCDT 22 Geography of Taiwan 23 A possible solution? 24 Wikipedia Policy Reminder 25 Category:China geography stubs 26 Please stop all of these move requests 27 ROC changes 28 proposed stub categories 29 FYI : RFC/Instantnood 30 Notifier 31 WP:RM 32 Geo-stubs - hopefully an agreeable solution 33 Stub tags 34 Tung Chee Hwa 35 HK Govt Cantonese Romanisation 36 The Three Revert Rule 37 China/Taiwan geography stubs 38 Minor edits 39 Make Good Content, Not Edit Wars! 40 Re : Revert war with Huaiwei 41 Hongkong politicians 42 the {{Taiwan-geo-stub}} stub 43 Absence 44 Proposed Compromise 44.1 Categories Airports of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong & Macau 44.2 Hong Kong, Macau, Category:Cities in Taiwan & Hong Kong 45 Proposed reogranization of Taiwan articles 46 Category:Transport in Hong Kong 47 Taiwan-stub 48 Category:Taiwan-related stubs 49 User Pages and Article Categories 50 Chinese Characters 51 Issues surrounding China, PRC, Mainland China... 52 Re:PRC's infobox 53 Shenzhen's airport 54 sg-stub 55 WP:CFD#Category:Something by country 56 AMA Request for Assistance 57 Re: Your vote is needed! 58 Redirecting 59 politics in china 60 arbitration 61 Re:arbitration 62 Your accusation 63 Re: List of Cantonese-related topics 64 Woo? 65 Thank You!

[edit] Chattergarden

• reference

Instantnood, thanks for the note. Look forward to participating. I've left some comments at Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board. You may also be interested in a site I help maintain - http://www.chattergarden.com/. I hope to be able to use the HK current events from here in that site. Would be nice if there was a way to RSS-feed the news events. Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HK status

Instantnood, would you mind help explaining to this guy who's made some reversions on airline destinations articles, List of metro systems and List of official languages by country? I guess he's strongly believed that Hong Kong and Macao are just ordinary provinces or autonomous regions, or with the same status, of the People's Republic of China. - Privacy 18:36, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

Let me see, Privacy. — Instantnood 18:54, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

I've checked with the edit histories and I guess you're referring to Huaiwei. I have leaved a message at his talk page some time ago. — Instantnood 23:45, Jan 28 2005 (UTC) (copied from the reply at Privacy)

• replied

[edit] Current events

• reference

Hi! Thanks for your note on my talk page. I actually don't live in Hong Kong, so the days I don't read Ming Pao I have absolutely no idea what is going on in Hong Kong. However, for those of you who are passionate about creating a section of current events, you may also want to have a look at here. Do you wander around the Chinese Wiki too? See you! (^_^) - KittySaturn 06:49, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Current Event in HK / Macau

• reference

Thanks for your invitation to maintain current event in HK / Macau. Since I can't guarantee to contribute to the event everyday, it would be better to leave this task to somebody else who can commit to it. However, I would like to be notified for the progress, and proof-read the articles for accuracy. --Jackcsk 00:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:HKCOTW

• reference

Hi. Thanks for creating this notice board - I remember once calling for this to be established awhile ago, so thanks very much for your efforts. JuntungWu 14:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China

Hi. You've put {{rename}} inside the Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. This is not correct in process: you should post a notice on WP:CfD and use the {{cfr}} template to seek consensus on a move. I've deleted that notice but feel free to post a link to WP:CfD if you want this debated. --JuntungWu 12:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] WP:FAC

Hi. I've nominated Bank of China (Hong Kong) in WP:FAC and have listed it on HK wikipedians notice board to draw more interest from Hong Kong wikipedians. --JuntungWu 16:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Your strong position on the Political NPOV

Dear Instantnood,

I am astonished that you have been targeting on Taiwan-related articles and templates recently and demanding NPOV to be enforced without leaving room for pratical ambiguity. Your strong adherence to the political convention makes me wonder if all the PRC-related topics/templates will be your next targets in the comming few weeks? Please also stop by and comment on my proposal on the talk page of the article political divisions of China. I have been hoping for some imput and comment to solve the current dispute. I am looking forward to your response.Mababa 20:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Taiwan

• reference

I have never seen the term "Republic of China" here in the UK (or at least not so much so that I remembered what it meant before I saw certainly puzzlingly named Wikipedia articles). The distinction between the province of Taiwan and the areas of China not under Beijing-rule is a thin one that, in most contexts, is entirely irrelevant. It also strikes me that the term "Republic of China" reflects a view that Taiwan is a distinct republic, a view not officially shared by the majority of the international community.

But I digress. The first aim of a well-written article is not to confuse the reader. Your proposals totally confuse the reader: I bet if I asked most people where I live a question like, "What's the capital of the Republic of China?" over 90% of them would answer Beijing. Let's leave the obscure terms alone, particularly when there's a very good alternative that's in common usage, jguk 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Template:rename

if youre going to at rename to articles, can you list them at Wikipedia:requested moves or is there something Im missing? thanks--Jiang 22:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Re:NPOV regarding China-related articles, categories and templates

• reference

Thank you. My position is still the same, to title according to the scope of its content, as follows:

• "China" for things about China in general, such as history, calligraphy,
• "People's Republic of China" (PRC) for things about the PRC,
• "Republic of China" (ROC) for things about the ROC, which include ROC from 1911 to 1949, and from 1949 onwards, including Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, Matsu, and probably Pratas and all other territories under ROC control...,
• "Taiwan" for things about the island or the province of Taiwan (including Pescadores and perhaps Tiaoyutai, but excluding Matsu, Quemoy and probably Pratas and Spratlys), the best example would perhaps be Taiwanese cuisine.., and
• "Hong Kong" and "Macao" for Hong Kong- and Macao-related topics. — Instantnood 21:04, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

You are a man of principle. I admire your courage to suggest draconious enforcement of the convention on both ROC and PRC. I am all neutral to your proposal and so far they looks fine with me except too tedious. Some people might argue no need for creating HK and Macao templates since they are PRC related. My support would all be conditional since I am fine with the current pratical usage when no obvious political POV is implicated. The new priniciple would have to be fairly applied on both side if there is any. So far your rename proposals seem to majorly be heading on articles on Taiwan.

I do not understand your example of Taiwanese cuisine though.

One more comment, I do not see any merit on most of your change name proposals. I am not sure what the outcome of your proposals would be. However, almost of them could be solved by creating an corresponding page with a title of ROC. There is no reason why the articles with names of Taiwan can not exist. In my opinion, no POV were contained in them.Mababa 01:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Demographics of China

• reference

You may be interested to have a look of the article Demographics of China and see its way of treatment. — Instantnood 23:10, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. I think I would prefer to wait for a consensus on the treatment over province of China and political divisions of China first, before we go on make any potential comment or proposals on this one. Perhaps if the treatment does not fit your current position, you might want to initiate a change if you feel like to. Let's be focused and comment on my proposal on the political divisions of China first.Mababa 01:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Your proposed move

Wikipedia:Requested moves suggestion:

It is advised that a discussion regarding a proposed move be initiated on the talk page of the articles in question with the hopes of achieving a consensus among those that frequently contribute to the article. cited from Wikipedia:Requested moves

1. 22:03, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Holidays in Taiwan ( ) (top)
2. 22:02, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Economy of Taiwan ( ) (top)
3. 22:02, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Demographics of Taiwan ( ) (top)
4. 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Transportation in Taiwan ( ) (top)
5. 21:59, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Communications in Taiwan (top)
6. 21:57, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan (top)
7. 21:53, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) (top)
8. 21:52, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Taiwan (→Political divisions) (top)
9. 23:24, 18 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Category:Airports of Taiwan (top)

You have just proposed multiple moves targeting on Taiwan-related articles at the same time for similiar reasons based on NPOV convention, without gathering consensus or opinions in advance. If the current two proposals on List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan & Politics of Taiwan do not reach a consensus (meaning no consensus on the reason similiar to other new move proposals), do you still intend to go on your other proposals puting these titles on trial? Just being curious.Mababa 02:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Double redirects

Hi Instantnood -

I've just fixed up all the redirects you forgot to check when you moved Föhn wind... Please next time follow the instructions and check! Double redirects don't work, so about five redirect pages were leading nowhere. Grutness|^hello? 09:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] ROC

• reference

I'm not sure what there is to say that has not already been said. john k 20:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Renaming

• reference

I don't think that you have anything to worry about; the voting is about eight to two in your favour at the moment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Taiwan vs Republic of China

• reference

The specific instance I had in mind where Taiwan was a more useful key word when searching the PNAC site, where someone had been claiming neoConservatives were part of Jewish ethnocentric conspiracy and favoring pro-Israel policies. A search on Taiwan on the PNAC site showed far more references to Taiwan than to Israel, tending to demonstrate that their pro-Israeli position was a principled stand favoring beleaguered democracies and self-determination over oppressive states serving oligarchies, royalty or dictators. In such a circumstance, where Taiwan was the term used by the PNAC and other thinktanks, it was more appropriate to have Taiwan in the article.--Silverback 22:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, accuracy is important, but usefulness and usage are also important, and "accuracy" in some contexts as demonstrated by my example above usage of ROC would lead to false null results. Foreign languages often have different names for countries and even cities than are used in their native lands. In the case of Taiwan, the need to avoid confusion with the deceptively named "People's Republic" of China, which is really an imperialist, racist, hegemonic oligarchy rather than a democracy or a republic. Its persistent claim of rights to Taiwan, flies in the face of the principles of self-determination and democracy can have little more basis than racism and perogatives of imperial power. It is time for racism and nationalism to die well deserved deaths. The PRC should be seeking to increase self-determination and distribution of power to local levels in its own domains rather than trying to extend unresponsive centralized control to others. The breakup of the Soviet Union should serve as a model for both the PRC and the United States.--Silverback 16:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If "England" were being used for the United Kingdom, by American english thinktanks, the way Taiwan is being used for the ROC, then "England" would be more appropropriate in many contexts. Fortunately wikilinks can make up for deficiencies and inconsistencies in usage.--Silverback 16:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] China-geo-stubs

• reference, reference

You wrote: I don't think readers would recognise Category:China geography stubs covers geostubs related to the ROC, until they read the notice on the of the category, or see category's link at an ROC-related article.

Then we think differently. And just because there are more stubs relating to one than the other doesn't mean they should be separated. In fact, the paucity of Taiwan geo-stubs is a very good reason to keep them together, as there wouldn't be enough for a separate category. Believe me, before stub categories are created they are debated at great length in the stub-sorting wikiproject. Grutness|^hello?

• replied

---

• reference, reference

I don't see why you repeated your arguments on my talk page. I've read them on the TfD before I voted. First of all, stubs aren't for the benefit of readers, but for editors who may want to expand them. If an editor doesn't recognize that ROC stubs might be in China-geo-stubs, I doubt it would take them that long to figure it out. I don't see any advantages in splitting this template. --jag123 07:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Compromise

• reference

I am always in for a comprimise, so if there would be an agreement in using Republic of China (Taiwan), I wouldn't mind. I would prefer then Republic of China - Taiwan, which would be less POV. Gangulf 20:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] re:User:ExplorerCDT

• reference

Even more interesting are his comments here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2. Since that RfC seems to have gone nowhere, you might want to amend that RfC, or better yet, start a new RfC. Then track down everyone that he has insulted (plus any other violations of Wikipedia policies) with the goal of seeing it go to arbitration. If those involved are organized (for example, see Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute and the associated Evidence page), you should be able to get the banning that he demanded on the RfC talk page. BlankVerse ∅ 07:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

I have become a little more attuned to the all too regular substitution of abuse for discussion that happens on the Wikipedia Talk pages since I recently had my first accusation of trolling (by User:Netoholic on this page Wikipedia talk:Meta-templates considered harmful, as well as being accused of using sneaky edit summaries). Still, being called a troll is nothing compared to what ExplorerCDT did, and there is no excuse for what he said. BlankVerse ∅ 08:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Taiwan

I need some time to think your proposal over. This being said, I do not see why a geographic region can not have a article dedicated to herself. Even it serves the main article for the geography of ROC, the main article can still be remained with the title of Taiwan with the exact same reason that ROC is mainly based on Taiwan. Qinmoy and Matsu can always being supplemented in either ROC page or at the end of the Geography of Taiwan. Let me look arround in Wiki and see how similiar issues are being handled.Mababa 04:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] A possible solution?

• reference, reference

Hi Instantnood - thought you might like to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#The_China-Taiwan_mess. With any luck it, or a close approximation of it, will be acceptable to everyone and then maybe this often entertaining/often frustrating debate can be put to sleep for a while! Grutness|^hello? 11:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: :::Thank you for bringing the issue to resolution. I haven't. I've simply suggested a way forward. Since the Taiwan-related stubs category is being so misused, and since - other than geo-stubs - it seems there is virtually no need for such a category (with less than ten stubs in total), it seems better to rearrange things this way. But it will still require debate on WSS before it can be "brought to resolution". Grutness|^hello? 00:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Right.. bringing to possible resolution. :-D Nope. To bring to a resolution means to resolve. It hasn't been resolved. The process of bringing it to a resolution has started. Once it has been debated and a defvinite decision has been made, it will have been brought to a resolution. Grutness|^hello?

[edit] Wikipedia Policy Reminder

I would like to remind you of one Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take care in remembering this policy. I am only providing this reminder as a courtesy to you, not to insult you, offend you or warn you in any manner. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Category:China geography stubs

Feel free to re-nominate Category:China geography stubs on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion after the template stuff has settled out and been changed to rename the category. Be sure to note in your re-nomination the results of the template changes. --ssd 14:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop all of these move requests

These constant and numerous requests to move pages relating to Taiwan are now disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You have made your proposal to use ROC rather than Taiwan, you have also seen the opposition to it and will have noted that it does not have consensus. Please leave it there for now and do not persist, jguk 20:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] ROC changes

• reference

I'm afraid that there's not really any way that I can help. I agree with you that your suggested changes generally make sense, and that much of the objection seems to be on the basis of keeping thing inaccurate for the sake of supposedly stupid or ignorant users (a peculiar view for encyclopæ editors) — but such views are in a very large majority amongst those voting. Many if not most voters appear not to read the comments by others (I don't mean on this vote specifically, I mean generally), much less take them into account, so there's not even much point offering arguments. I'd advise making a dignified retreat, at least for the time being, and spending your time on more constructive editing. Sorry not to be of any help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• replied

---

• reference

I've seen that a big problem on the Wikipedia is that decisions are often made based upon what is what is most popular (Google tests, etc.), and not on what is most appropriate for an encyclopedia. For me, the criteria almost always comes down to what is the most accurate and precise answer, and not the easiest or most popular answer. On top of that, there is a barely disguised xenophobia that is the basis for some of the arguments and decisions of some Wikipedians. Witness the description of diacritics as "funny foreign squiggles" in the Article Naming debates.

I am willing to occasionally put my comments and votes into the debate process on the Wikipedia, but I am not willing to enter into any prolonged battles over any issues. From what I've seen, it is always the most persistent (and obsessed) that will be the "winners" in any big debate. If Wikipedians deliberately and consistently choose to use less accurate answers, then the Wikipedia will always be a second-rate encyclopedia—good enough for providing lookups on a wide range of topics, but not good enough to trust for important questions.

As for the debate over templates and categories: This is really a minor part of the Wikipedia that is mostly of concern to Wikipedia editors and not to the casual Wikipedia visitor. You are better off concentrating your efforts on making the individual articles as accurate as possible, rather than worrying about the names of the categories they are in.

Also: You might try to work within the framework of the various WikiProjects (Stub-sorting) and Regional notice boards (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), rather than single-handedly trying a frontal assault on the templates and categories. BlankVerse ∅ 05:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

---

You might be interested in going back to Here. I've given some interesting thoughts on it. Penwhale 18:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] proposed stub categories

why did you delete my 6 proposed stub categories? i cant see any reason for it. Bluemoose 16:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] FYI : RFC/Instantnood

You may want to know, that a Request for Comment has been filed aganist you by three Wikipedia users. RfC is the first stage of the Dispute Resolution proccess in Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Instantnood,

You can make your defense at the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood#Response section. ;) And don't feel bad to any of my comments made, in fact, you know this is the first time I'm involved in a RfC! =P Don't worry too much about this issue, a few other Wikipedians have come to help you tide over this incident. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think now would be a good time to write your response on RfC, given that there shouldn't be anymore new outside views to your case by now. :) - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

---

• reference

I'll go ahead and state my support for you. Sorry for not joining in the Taiwan/ROC discussion. I've been having trouble finding time for Wiki these past couple of weeks. 172 21:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

---

• reference

Hello Instantnood, you are very welcome. I am afraid that I might be too honest about my view toward this discussion. As you have noticed that the way interpreting and enforcing the policy during the debate was quite controversial, and that everyone seemed to have different opinions, I wonder whether if it really worth it for everyone engage into the debate. While I have no doubt that you tried to propose changes according to the NPOV convention, it really cost us time on these endless discussions. I wish that I could be more supportive on your moves; however, I have to admit that these debates has already stalled my plans on Wikipedia and that I really wish these pointless disputes which did not lead us to any consensus could come to an end. Especially, when I have only limited time to enjoy the luxury of participating Wiki. :)Mababa 08:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

---

Hey there. I think that you're brave.. (maybe to a fault really :P) in the moves. Perhaps a more gradual change would be accepted more. However, what you're doing is right, I think. I've stated my support for you in Rfc. Penwhale 14:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At least we share some common ground. Perhaps I can be of help? Penwhale 14:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which 2 providence are you referring to? Penwhale

Problem here: Taiwan Providence is streamlined. I don't see one for Fukien. :) Penwhale

• replied

I guess. Now it makes sense. Penwhale

[edit] Notifier

Mind if I borrow that? :P Penwhale

• replied

You know, you could've told me that you were reverting... lol.. Penwhale 20:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM

We lost that whole argument there. Should we consider moving the argument to Naming conventions (Chinese)? I personally find partially insulted by the lack of understanding. If you want, I would support you in a RfC effort. Penwhale 01:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Geo-stubs - hopefully an agreeable solution

Hi Instantnood - thought you might like to see my final proposed solution to the China/Taiwan geo stubs issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Geo-stubs_proposal. Grutness|^hello? 08:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Stub tags

DO NOT add multi stub tags to an article, even if it fits in more than one category of stubs. →Raul654 17:50, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Tung Chee Hwa

Hey! Just a little comment; it really is unnecessary for something like Wikipedia to mention even the time when Tung resigned. The date alone is really enough, in my opinion. Happy editing! -- KittySaturn 10:50, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

I think you missed my point; I was referring to the fact that it is unusual to put in the time such as "16:30"; rather, the date, March 10, is fine and is what matters. In a typical encyclopaedia or Wikipedia article, one doesn't mention the time when someone has resigned, only the date, cf. Carlos Mesa Following protests, he offered his resignation to the Congress on 2005-03-07; however the Congress voted almost unanimously the next day to reject the offer. -- KittySaturn 14:26, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] HK Govt Cantonese Romanisation

• reference

I forgot where I got the information that the romanisation used by the Hong Kong Government was based on Meyer-Wempe. It was somewhere on the web. Let me try to find it. If you can find more reliable sources on its origin, go ahead to edit the related articles. -- Felix Wan 20:07, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

• replied

I believe this are the forum threads where I got the information. [1] [2] It is claimed by a person who has worked with the Hong Kong Government for many years. -- Felix Wan 02:20, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

[edit] The Three Revert Rule

You have violated on Macau the 3RR rule. This can lead to a block. This is a warning only at teh moment Refdoc 23:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] China/Taiwan geography stubs

Okay - I've done my bit... now it's time for some help! I need you to help go through Category:China geography stubs to depopulate it. This involves opneing each article and clicking edit. If it's a mainland China article, you just need to resave (so that the template diverts it to the new category). if it's a RoC article, you need to change the stub to Taiwan-geo-stub. Category:Taiwan-related stubs needs sorting for taiwan-geo-stubs, too. There's about 250 articles in all, which is a big job for one person, so I'm roping you and Mababa in as well :) Grutness|^hello? 07:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Good point. All that requires doing by hand is going through Category:Taiwan-related stubs and removing any Taiwan geo stubs from Category:China geography stubs. Grutness|^hello? 08:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Please stop marking all of your contributions as minor edits. [ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit This may be instructional] particularly this statment, "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it is only a single word." As there is dispute about the neutrality of your edits, even things like adding or removing a category or external link are not good choices to mark as minor edits. thx. SchmuckyTheCat 16:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• ring! ring! hello? bananaphone!

[edit] Make Good Content, Not Edit Wars!

Hi Instantnood,

I can see that both of you (Instantnood and Huaiwei) are valuable editors that have made significant contributions to your own respective countries. I would wish to appeal to both of you, to avoid coming to blows at every meet on a same particular article. Assume good faith! The other party is certainly not some POV-warrior out to annihilate you or something!

Getting into edit wars is only a lose-lose situation both to yourselves and to Wikipedia. Eventually if this doesn't settle, like many other cases I have observed, one party would be banned, forced or leave, or/and go through RfA. If anything happens to one of you, other editors will have a more difficult time trying to fill up the gap of the roles you editors have taken up. So please, refrain yourself into edit wars or conflict with each other, why not try in the meantime to concentrate on your own-country related articles for now. We all are working together to make this encyclopedia a better one, isn't it? :)

- Mailer Diablo 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

• I've posted the same message on his talkpage, and I'll see what he has to say. No matter what, don't get into any future disputes anymore. I'll probably take a status quo stand - that is if any edit war ensues, I'll probably revert to an edition before both of you are involved unless there is something that even in my view, is seriously wrong that needs fixing. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Others have said what I would like to say. SO no point in repeating. I had a look at various disputed categories and left some comments. Have a look. Refdoc 20:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Re : Revert war with Huaiwei

• reference

I've decided to revert both categories to Aranel's version before both of you are invovled. I deliver what I promise. ;) You both have to reaize that there is little gain to keep on reverting each others' changes. If you disagree with this verison, you may want to request an explanation of edits from earlier editors. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI - The category in question has been put up for CFD, but it is not done by Huaiwei. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hongkong politicians

• reference

Thanks, I hope to use more your articles about Hongkong politicians on pl:Wiki. Berasategui 21:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Donald Tsang - done;) Berasategui 10:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] the {{Taiwan-geo-stub}} stub

I've modified most of (all of?) Chingi's taiwan provence/county/city articles. I really disagree with the notion that the wikipedia feels that Taiwan is part of China (I am married to a Taiwanese woman), and the whole thing makes me sick. The stub itself should be changed to not include ROC at all, but whatever. Uphill battle not to be won here. I figured I'd let you know that I've gone and done most of it. If you think there are still some outstanding, let me know. Avriette 22:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

---

Avriette's completely correct here. The stub should be changed to not include ROC at all - as including it is to take Taipei's POV, jguk 17:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What consensus? jguk 17:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, there is no consensus at all on that page - quite the opposite. And besides, a WikiProject can't unilaterally decide to flout the WP:NPOV policy, which is and has always been key to Wikipedia, jguk 18:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

I am trying to counter pro-ROC bias (though I'm not quite sure how using the term "Taiwan", which Taipei itself uses, is meant to be pro-PRC). Anyway, I have proposed a compromise on the template page. Kind regards, jguk 18:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• responded at template talk:Taiwan-stub

[edit] Absence

• reference

Ya, I'm back. I've vanished for a few days. So sue me if you want. Penwhale 13:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Proposed Compromise

• reference

Hi Instantnood,

I have seen both of your messages, and a bit of the situation at CfD and page histories. This is the first time I mediated (or tried to in Wikipedia), so I guess I still have a long way in dispute resolution =P

Reverting both of your edits in any "revert war" isn't a long-term situation. How about reaching a compromise. The following is my proposal on a compromise :

[edit] Categories Airports of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong & Macau

1. The two categories Hong Kong and Macau are sent for CfD. The categories should be kept. (General Community Consensus)
2. Airports of Hong Kong and Macau remain as subcategories of Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China
3. Add "the two subcatergories are aiports of PRC's two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau" to Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China

[edit] Hong Kong, Macau, Category:Cities in Taiwan & Hong Kong

1. Add "These are the cities of geographical China, which includes the People's Republic of China, its Special Administrative Regions Hong Kong and Macau, and Republic of China (Taiwan)." to Category:Cities of China (Note the word 'geographical' as well as the link to the article)
2. Category:Cities in mainland China should be populated, or else be listed for CfD.
3. Add Category:Dependent territories to both Macau and Hong Kong, while retaining Category:Cities in China with the above-mentioned changes.

Let me know what do you think. If everything goes fine that I hope this dispute can be settled once and for all. :)

- Mailer Diablo 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Instantnood,

I saw yours and SchmuckyTheCat's opinon on the plan. The latter was telling me, that there was this problem of having too many categories being created. In that case, 2. of your proposal may not be practical. Contents of category:Airports of the PRC (exlcd. subcat) can be safely assumed and is understood as airports in mainland China, and should do fine. For 3, it looks good to me, I'll add them later myself with some formatting changes. The link to ROC though is not nessecery in this case, as Hong Kong and Macau are hardly related to it in any way.

I've looked up on the Internet about dependent territories. Hong Kong and Macau are not current dependent territories, but rather former dependent territories (See [3]). Therefore, they would be better suited to be under Category:Special Territories, and SchmuckyTheCat has no objections to that as well.

I'll wait for Huaiwei's response on this plan, and if things goes fine I'll start making the changes according to what is agreed.

- Mailer Diablo 19:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

Okay, noted, in the meantime I'll wait for others' opinons before planning what adjustments to make for all parties to agree. It'll take days, but be patient and try and not to get involved in any rever war in the meantime. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't lose hope yet! Settle the issues one by one. Those that can be agreed on, I'll implement first. Perhaps for other oustanding issues, put them to the vote as Refdoc suggested. I think I'll write on his talkpage later. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't start an aruguement in my talkpage, please. It'll not help in ressolving your differences. I'm almost burnt out for other problems outside Wikipedia. Give me a break for the moment, I'll get back to you both again when I'm done. Thanks for your patience. :) - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed reogranization of Taiwan articles

Someone proposed something at Talk:Taiwan#Proposal_for_New_Organization_.283.2F19.2F2005.29.2C_Please_Comment, if you would take a look and comment....--Jiang 01:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Category:Transport in Hong Kong

Hi Instantnood,

Thanks first for inviting me to paricipate in various HK related editing works.

I have currently noticed that you have renamed (or redirected?) the Category:Transportation in Hong Kong into Category:Transport in Hong Kong. However, for nearly all of the similar categories, they have adopted the use of transportation rather than transport (See: Category:Transportation by country).

Any opinion? - Spring Dennis 05:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

I was wondering the same thing... "Transport in Hong Kong" sounds slightly awkward. --Umofomia 05:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Taiwan-stub

Hello, I wonder if you can help me find the discussion on resorting the Taiwan-stub and the Taiwan-geo-stub and paste them in the talk pages so that people coming later would know the previous consensus before a new NPOV dispute posted? Many thanks.Mababa 06:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Category:Taiwan-related stubs

• reference

Hi Instantnood - You wrote: The islands are not "its [Taiwan's] associated islands"

They are islands governed from Taiwan, that you keep saying are not in Taiwan. Therefore, by definition, they are islands associated with Taiwan. No reverts are necessary. Grutness|^hello? 06:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But what was wrong with the version before your edits? The islands are not associated territories of Taiwan, rather, they're part of the ROC as Taiwan does.

Well, firstly it was an over-reaction on my part (I'd only just discovered the mess that has been ongoing with the Taiwan-geo-stub template and was still fuming a little), and you're right about the change on China-stub. But as far as category:Taiwan-related stubs are concerned, the edit is to emphasise Taiwan first - hitting people with the phrase "Republic of China" straight out will make 99% opf people instantly think of the PRC rather than Taiwan. By swapping the wording around to emphasise Taiwan primarily (yet keep the name ROC there) will more instantly tell people what they're looking at. Grutness|^hello? 06:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about this?

Even worse - people won't notice the brackets and will think that items about both PRC and Taiwan can go in there. Try this one on for size: [4]. Grutness|^hello? 07:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay - I've changed the category over to this text (with - d'oh! - the date corrected, along with a correction in the very freudian word "repubic")! Grutness|^hello? 11:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sigh - I corrected one date, and got the triple 11 of the WWI armistice and the double 10 of China mixed up. 10-10-11, not 10-10-10. Hopefully6 the current category information should keep everyone happy (for a while, at least! :) Grutness|^hello? 11:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] User Pages and Article Categories

DO NOT OVERLAP ARTICLE CATEGORIES on pages you are preserving in your userspace. SchmuckyTheCat 21:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page discusses appropriate use, while not specifically saying it's a poor thing to do that would fall under "stating the obvious". SchmuckyTheCat 21:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It damages the wikipedia. I will keep removing it. SchmuckyTheCat 21:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

And no, I won't self-revert. SchmuckyTheCat 21:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Instantnood, in case you haven't already found it, please see Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 02:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Chinese Characters

Thank you for adding the Chinese characters to my edits for villages and people's names. SchmuckyTheCat 14:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Issues surrounding China, PRC, Mainland China...

• reference

I do not want to fight in all battlegrounds over Wikipedia. The current dispute is rather counter-productive. Let's put all our efforts to reach a consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), and then apply the consensus consistently. Try to involve as many people as possible to write more specific and stable guidelines first. We can always add back appropraite categories later. What do you think? -- Felix Wan 22:19, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

• replied

---

• reference

About the population page: I think "Mainland China" is sufficient... people can click on it and find out what it means. -- ran (talk) 03:11, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:PRC's infobox

• reference

Quemoy and Matsu are officially part of the Taiwan Area, which is syonymous with the Free Area of the Republic of China. We should avoid using ROC synonymously with the Taiwan Area or Free Area because that implies that the Mainland Area and Hong Kong Area are not part of the ROC. It's a far-fetched claim, but these terms are still being used in legislation and elsewhere, and we should avoid ambiguity or inaccuracies where we can--Jiang 15:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Shenzhen's airport

Hi! As part of the Wiki Syntax cleanup effort, I came across a broken redirect page from Huangtian Airport to Shenzhen Airport, which you put up a few months ago. Such a redirect would normally be deleted, but given the fact that there are a couple of links to it, I'm trying to salvage it.

Could you be persuaded to write a short stub for this airport? I tried to come up with something myself, but I've found so many name variations floating around that I'm thoroughly confused. You, on the other hand, seem to know your stuff. :)

--Fbriere 22:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Fbriere 06:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] sg-stub

• reference

Hi Instantnood,

Thanks, that was a nice little addition. :)

- Cheers Mailer Diablo 16:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] WP:CFD#Category:Something by country

Please follow deletion policy and give a specific reason why "Category:Something by country" should be deleted. Do not just give out open-ended questions. Zzyzx11 18:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Currently you are asking us to choose three things: Change them to "category:Something by country", change them "category:Xers by nationality", or delete all "category:Something by country" and "category:Xers by nationality". But you should specifically pick one that you would like to be done. One user got onto WP:RFC because he would frequently nominate articles for VfD but never specifically gave a reason what should be done with those articles -- he would just end his statements with questions. Zzyzx11 18:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Zzyzx11 18:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] AMA Request for Assistance

Good evening. My name is Wally, from the AMA, and I noticed you placed a request for assistance on our site. Given the details you left, I wonder if on this subject you have attempted a request for comment? This is the second step on our dispute resolution process and is essentially an "all points bulletin" to users with experience in the area to come and provide input on the issue in question.

As the situation stands, there is merely a need for increased dialogue rather than the intervention of an advocate, who generally represents a single user on one side of a personal dispute (or a professional one that has personal elements, etc.). If improper editing is occuring, you can also speak to an |Wikipedia:Administrators|administrator]] about having pages in question protected while the dispute is closed.

If any further developments which could necessitate advocacy occur, or if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours, Wally 03:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Re: Your vote is needed!

• reference

Hey Instantnood... I've been away for the past several days so I haven't had a chance to catch up on everything. I'll try to post something if I get the chance. Hopefully I'm not too late put provide some input. --Umofomia 09:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting

I've fixed your redirects at Paldo and P'aldo. Remember, the word "REDIRECT" needs to be capitalized and seperated from the article link with a space. Happy editing! Mgm|^(talk) 15:29, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] politics in china

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29#Politics.2FParties.2FElections please discuss before you go on a revert orgy.

• replied

[edit] arbitration

I've requested arbitration of our ongoing dispute. Please, come talk. It'll take your mind off your revert war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat_.26_User:Instantnood

[edit] Re:arbitration

• reference

I doubt that case will be accepted. The two of you need to have gone through wikipedia:mediation first before having the dispute sent to arbitration. I would link the specific RFC page if I were you since there was quite a bit of opinion there on your side. --Jiang 04:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that arbitration can go both ways. The accuser can get punished too, so some of the stuff he's accusing you of doing you've both done so youre free to go on the offensive. Just keep in mind that even in the current accusations themselves, there have been breaches of wikiquette, such as accusing people of "having an agenda".

Given that discussion is still ongoing (save the reverts of categories, which will be voted within a set timeframe at cfd), this all seems a bit premature. What about mediation? Why dont you propose that first? An argument is that arbitration isnt really needed yet. If reverting is a problem, can't the two of you agree to a cool down or truce? --Jiang 19:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• repled

[edit] Your accusation

I must say that I am quite irritated by your enthusiasm in pointing fingers of accusation at me. I quote the following from your responce to the arbitration page:

"The edit wars do not actually exist. I would say the situation was rather marginal. Although my username was listed onto WP:AN/3RR by SchmuckyTheCat and by Huaiwei, I did not violate the 3RR rule. I have not reverted more than 3 times (i.e. 4 times or more) in 24 hours."

What do you mean by saying I listed your name in WP:AN/3RR? I did not even know that page existed! I would demand that you take out that accusation before I take action against you.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive10#User:Instantnood clearly shows that you are gulty of the 3RR rule despite your claims of innocence.--Huaiwei 06:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. And make sure this dosent happen again. I dont exactly consider that a small mistake.--Huaiwei 07:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

You are welcome.--Huaiwei 08:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Cantonese-related topics

• reference

What do you mean by "keeping [it] up-to-date?" I've been editing the list whenever I notice something is missing. It's rather meager currently, but I don't know if there's anything "active" I need to do in order to make it better. --Umofomia 07:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• reply

[edit] Woo?

Hi, I saw your addition to Woo. I'm just wondering how the following two entries differ. Do they not refer to the same name?

Woo is one of several transliterations of the Chinese family name Wu; for example, John Woo.

Woo (胡 or 鄔) is a surname in Hong Kong.

That's interesting, thanks for the explanation. You might want to add some explanation along those lines to Woo to avoid similar confusion in the future by people like me who are unfamiliar with Chinese language(s). --RoySmith 16:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied

[edit] Thank You!

Hi Instantnood,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• replied