1666:) How the policy should be enforced also might varies a bit depends on how individual interpret it. Further, as MarkSweep said, the voting system itself is another form to gauge the opinion/consensus on how the NPOV policy should apply. With the failure of geting consensus, Instantnood should seek for discussion, not looking for more debates. During the discussion, many people pointed out that Taiwan is a name more representitive to the government on the island than the name ROC. Some people also pointed out the difference between ROC and Taiwan. Question is which one should we adhere or perhaps there is a way to compromise but still keep the article itself neutral. I personally belive that we should use a name that is more popular to facilitate information search/distribution on this encyclopedia. The NPOV would be kept as the infomation written in the article. It would be totally useless if people can not found the information they want and have the article burried in millions of articles. Same thing was done to many XXX of China articles and so far this ambiguity on the interpretation of the NPOV policy works well and fine.
1670:
targeting on Taiwan related articles and make massive requests to move articles dedicated to Taiwan. I am not certain if he did the similar thing to articles for China in such a large scale. After a the failure to gather consensus on the move on Taiwan's article, he make 9 more requests for move regardless of the objections from other
Wikipedians. I think this is extrordinary. I do not understand the underlying reason for him to be so focused on Taiwan's articles. He made similiar moves on the categories of Taiwan-templates, which is fine, if it ends with a neutral point. However, I believe that the final proposal would end up in another non-neutral POV, as opposed to the current "sort-of neutral" status. I thought about the possibility that Instantnood targeted on Taiwan/ROC/China/PRC topics in order to reshuffle the current categorizing system and creat a new system separate HK from PRC as his ulterior motive; however, I would rather belive that he is acting in good faith and does not have secondary gain for him to engage such massive disputes.
1508:
it to discussions was a good attitude. SchmuckyTheCat, who joined the discussion very recently, demonstrated similar behaviour of
Huaiwei. Acts of Huaiwei looked more like provocative to Hong Kong-related topics, and that is not uncommon among Singaporeans on things about Hong Kong, for the two places have long been rivals. From what I heard from people from Hong Kong, some of them also have an impression that Singaporeans are generally simple-minded and loyal to authorities, and consider these as a result of draconic rule by a dominant party. From the lengthy discussion at
1439:
differentiating HK, Macau or Taiwan from the mainland in most 'List of xxx in China' articles. For purposes of clarity I think some of the 'xxx in China' articles should be renamed anyway, and recently voted in support of one of
Instantnood's suggestions. Why? 'Internet censorship in China' is clearly a mainland (PRC) Summary: I believe that in some cases Instantnoods suggestions are just and valid - and anyway, placing one's suggestions on 'requests for xxx' is not 'singlehandedly launching a frontal assault' but rather standard wikipedia editing procedure.
1678:
is that he should stop all the proposal based on similar reason after the initial proposals are voted down. He should be well advise to seek discussion on the interpretation of the policy. Overall, I felt that Taiwan-articles were presecuted without obvious reason. Instantnood is probably not even a devoted
Chinese nationalism believer, unless Instantnood has some untold reason to motivate him. I am extremely puzzled and some of my planed edits were stalled in this process.
1812:. She/he also cited an e-mail reply from the government to prove that the government has no capital. Nonetheless she/he (until now) failed to provide a hyperlink or an e-mail address of the department or agencies that she/he made the enquiry. She/he said a consensus had already been reached to remove Victoria City from the article. The so-called consensus was in fact reached between she/he and Huaiwei, another user who also support removing it. There was
1138:'s requested moves, nevertheless, he certainly has the right to request such moves; indeed, he is following Knowledge policy by listing the requests rather than making the controversial moves himself unilaterally without first seeking the opinion of the community (also, by making the requests on WP:RM, move wars are thereby avoided). Furthermore, throughout the discussion of these requested moves, Instantnood has repeatedly been personally attacked by
2068:(response to SchmuckyTheCat) Huaiwei is right. Here is not the right venue to carry on the factual dispute. It is your POV that Hong Kong has no capital. You failed to tell the details of the e-mail, the so-called official evidence. The consensus was only one between two people, Huaiwei and you. The situation wasn't like "everyone but you (me) that Hong Kong has not capital". The real side of the fact is there was another discussion over it in
181:. I wouldn't go so far as to call his behaviour deliberately disruptive, but he has a definite bee in his bonnet about Taiwan/RoC and it makes reaching a consensus impossible. He seems to be genuinely trying to help, but he's going about it in a very annoying way. All attempts at reaching a compromise (such as on the two pages mentioned) are met with InstandNood hardly budging (if at all) from his position.
127:
twoversions. As of a few days ago 50% of the usage of that template were his entries. In some cases he does not point twoversions to edits that are actually different. Twoversions should be temporary. In some cases he makes no attempt to discuss the matter at all. In most he becomes pedantic, circular, but mostly pig-headed. It is impossible to actually have a discussion on the merits with him.
2199:(response to SchmuckyTheCat at 18:53, 7 Mar) We are not asking you to prove a negative assertion. The common ground that all we shared is that Victoria City was the capital of the crown colony. You claimed that it ceased to be in 1990 (when the Basic Law was formulated). Yet you produced no evidence of the change in 1990. I have already proved that this claim was invalid. —
2255:(response to Huaiwei) If it is she/he who sent the government and receive the reply, why cannot she/he produce the detail and the proof of the e-mail? And even if this e-mail does exist, it cannot support her/his claim that the Victoria City ceased to be the capital in 1990. She/he simply avoided telling readers all about these. Is it a way of reaching consensus? —
1805:
exist, and ceased to be the capital. One may argue
Victoria City is no longer a city on its own right, but the more important is that Hong Kong has never had any official or legal definition for city. The government today is still headquartered within the legal boundary of the Victoria City, and most departments have their head offices within it too.
1848:
I guess I was wrong. Using "Taiwan" in place of "ROC" has already been so deep-rooted that virtually everybody has taken it for granted, without challenging its accuracy. In fact
Knowledge has provided lots of valuable information if one is interested to know more about the issue, and I have listed out some articles and sections that might be useful.
1879:
However I did find
ExplorerCDT citing wrong facts, such as the naming conventions that I quoted from was edited back and forth for many times, or stating something without any evidence, like the PRC government made the world to swallow one of the two spellings of Macao/Macau. I guess that's not acceptable to anybody in an discussion on Knowledge.
1479:
notice that they are not listed separately from mainland China, unless the lists are restricted only to sovereign states. Nearly all creditable lists and websites deal with Hong Kong and Macao as countries, as they do for all other colonies, dependent territories and places that are de facto independent. Just to see the websites of
1044:
mass majority of people voting without a total understanding of the complexities of the issue. Instantnood is not entirely innocent here. I think the edit war and wikiquette charges apply. (I don't see a problem with NPOV or disrupting wikipedia to make a point though) I have most recently been in an edit war with him at
837:. There is nothing wrong with ignorance and being unaware of conventions per se, but the attitude displayed by these users is somewhat cause for concern. In particular, starting a debate about the appropriateness of the naming conventions is not productive on a page like WP:RM. Such a debate should take place on
2079:, and frankly speaking, of course unavoidably, my intepretation of the conventions. We should have proceeded to the discussion page when the page was reverted, but you didn't. There wouldn't be a revert war if there were only me, and I was forced to join a war that you staged, to enforce the conventions. —
1631:
Capital in the InfoBox. In my opinion, this is an example of subterfuge, an attempt to make a change in such a way that it would not be as readily detected. This of course does not address why
Instantnood felt it necessary to hide the information about the typhoon, but that is another matter altogether.
1040:
either by users like myself who object on different grounds or other users who are ignorant of the rules, as evidence of
Instantnood's bad conduct. Instantnood has been trying to enforce the rules: they should either show the rules dont apply or work to change the rules; they have failed to do either.
1940:
fail to gain concensus first. Whether you are indeed gulty of this, as well as other charges as laid out above, should have been the main issue for discussion here. It is not an avenue for you or anyone else to repeat factual/content debates. As a matter of fact, I actually agree with you (generally)
1863:
I don't care anybody's agenda, no matter my actions are in effect help it or stall it. I don't mean to be annoying. We all have to stick to the established convetions, or propose to change it. I am neutral on Taiwan independence or (re)unification/incorporation, and my position is based on the status
1851:
My position is simple. Whenever the scope of the content of an article, a template or a category is about the entire territories under ROC's control, i.e. Quemoy and Matsu included or applicable to, or involves the national government, "ROC" should be used, instead of "Taiwan". The use of "Taiwan" is
1847:
The discussion over the choice of "Taiwan" or "ROC" over titles, as many have suggested, was a result of ignorance (though this word is too strong) and failing to udnerstand the complexity of the issue. I underestimated it, and thought I could convince people who opposed it by letting them know more.
1843:
I don't think
Huaiwei wants to provoke anything, but throughout the long conflict he was unfriendly, and has never had the intention to agree on any of my arguments. There were two or three times that he simply quitted a discussion, leaving the dispute unsettled, and continued to enforce his point of
1478:
An average resident from Hong Kong who has studied some ABC local history can tell the capital of the Hong Kong is Victoria City, and roughly the limits of it (of course not as precise and detailed as the law). Everyone knows well the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao, and will probably be surprised to
1430:
1. Hong Kong and victoria City. Clearly, if the above summary is correct, Instantnood should desist from arguing that HK has a capital city, as it does not. Appearently it would be correct to state that in the past under XX law or XX system of governance it had one. This should please all parties.
1034:
I have been in much conflict with Instantnood, but I believe Instantnood has acted in good faith and is a genuine contributor who suffers from misguided enthusiasm. I concur mostly with MarkSweep with regard to Instantnood's listing of Taiwan/ROC-related articles on WP:RM. Though I have voted against
821:
My own view is that the latter naming conventions are more specific and should apply in this case. The China-related naming conventions are the product of community consensus and suggest that the phrase "Republic of China" be used, especially in political contexts and/or when it is more specific than
2370:
Looking at the above lengthy exchange between Huaiwei, SchmuckytheCat and Instantnood I am reminded of a set of 3RR violations some weeks ago by both Instantnood and Huaiwei on several Hongkong related matters. At the time I blocked both and afterwards advised them to have a wikibreak and drink some
2280:
It was SchmuckyTheCat who tried to use it as a proof. She/he should have produced the evidence of its validity. I do not have the responsibility to prove it for her/him if she/he fails to do so. The responsibility of failing to reach a consensus is on the side of the one who failed to make the proof
2056:
appears to directly contradict that. ON HK, the infobox with a note isn't correct. It delegates the truth (there is no capitol) to a footnote while elevating something that is AT BEST informal into the front and center view. The best way to handle it is as it reads now - a few sentences explaining
1685:
Lastly, I have no comment on the word of choice during disputes. I did not recollect any unsuitable wording in the process of discussion as other opinions given earlier. Perhaps people has different threshold and preference in their communication skill. This would affect the perception for different
1681:
I would highly suggest Instantnood to be more focused on HK related topics where he would share a better understanding on the policy between the contributers there and to work on the topics which his true enthusiasm lies in. Helping out enforcing policy is great, but finding out a compromise between
647:
However, other Wikipedians should not declare a instant victory over Instantnood and start marking SAR or PRC on every single Hong Kong term in articles on Knowledge. Hong Kong is part of China, and is a SAR. Whether we inlcude or exclude SAR from Hong Kong in articles, it's not going to change this
338:
Particularly in a page in which I was actualy tracking for quite some time long before this comment request appeared, I have already seen evidences of behavior which is far from being as open, honest, and accountable as we would have liked to see in all our edits, and even more when it is pertaining
149:. Dispute: Hong Kong has no capitol city and has not since government re-organization and passage of the Basic Law in 1991. Confirmed by the HK government, Instantnood has changed the HK article at least six times to proclaim victoria City the capitol and the VC article a huge number of time as well.
1758:
I ended up involved not with this particular dispute, but with another section of Chinese (of all types and governments) airports. I had originally categorized them as PRC and ROC. There was an attempted Cfd on the PRC article, which failed. What happened then is that new articles were added to the
1677:
may or may not apply since Instantnood does not have any obvious point beside the current policy to show us. "NPOV" does not apply, in my opinion, since what he wants to enforce is the consensus, but he interpreted in his own way. "Doesn't respect concensus", I am not sure what it is. All I can say
1658:
articles. It is true that the Chinese naming convention dictates the political NPOV policy covering the related articles. However, certain unwritten ambiguity which allows the existance of articles not seemingly conform to the convention verbatimly as long as the article itself is neutral. (Such as
1507:
Rather than saying Instantnood has violated the guidelines, I would say it was Huaiwei who failed to respect the facts, and has made revert wars and more than three reversions inevitable. And it was nice that Instantnood stayed cool while Huaiwei gone impatient. His retreat and willingness to bring
709:
I support the following statement in particular: "Instantnood is a genuine contributor towards Knowledge, especially towards Hong Kong-related articles and continues to do so" and Instantnood's efforts concerning the ROC vs. Taiwan dispute. It is what is being interpreted as our naming conventions,
383:
Here, is it becoming obvious that Instantnood is gulty of what they have feared: an abuse of the voting process by calling for as many votes as possible in his favour from people he hopes are like-minded. Interestingly, his overtures sometimes backfire. :D In addition, I noticed he also has a habit
326:
I am beginning to see a real need to make formal comments with regards to the above member. It is becoming apparant, that this page's existance has not seen him making any efforts to basically be a positive contributor as what others have called for, and he has continued, or even worsened, the very
152:
2. Various List of... articles. Dispute: Edit wars on the appearance of bullet items in lists that don't conform to his POV. I don't actually see consistency in what he wants here, but in various lists always breaks out Hong Kong and Macau as seperate entities from China. The semantic contortion of
2122:
I came to most of those AFTER you had already been in revert wars and used the twoversions tag to enforce your POV. Please don't blame me. List of cities by country, for instance, has you reverting four times, then using the twoversions tag, before I went there. Don't try and hide behind naming
1944:
So what is the real "problem" here which deserves this page to appear? SchmuckyTheCat has only given a glimse of the whole issue on this page. I have yet to actually write my entire thesis on what I feel is inappriopriate conduct on your part. I just need to find a good timeslot when I have enough
1043:
However, I believe it would better serve his cause if Instantnood were less combative and aggressive in his editing. I personally think sticking all those articles at WP:RM was a very bad idea and he would have better chance trying to convince us on the individual talk pages where we dont have the
224:
The talk pages of any of the above show people discussing with him. Most of his discussion just becomes pigheaded and circular, he is willing to argue nothing for pages if it leaves his edits in place. The appearance of continued discussion does not mean concensus has not been reached and disputes
1973:
Victoria City as capitol of HK: Concensus under among several users (everyone but you) was that Hong Kong had no designated capitol. I confirmed this with the Hong Government itself, who stated that HK does not have a capitol. Your entire argument on this is that it once WAS the capitol, so it
1474:
on topics related to Hong Kong. I have trouble spending huge amount of time on Knowledge and to watch around, and I did not know the discussion has gone like in this way. I have not read the page of requested moves in details, and therefore the following comment are not based on the disputes over
1311:, which, because they are the most accurate descriptions are the most appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is obvious, however, that there is some strong and very vocal opposition. Still, Instantnood should not have been subjected to the abuse that I've seen just for vigorously arguing his points.
1039:
that their mass media devoloped vision of the Taiwan-China conflict cannot be suitably reproduced in an encyclopedia that adheres to accuracy and npov. Instead, they have ignored the fact they have been out-argued (and have therefore failed to change the policy) by taking "oppose" votes at WP:RM,
639:
to collobrate with other Hong Kong contributors. I do, though, find to some extend that he has some bias aganist the PRC. This is not unusual in Hong Kong; ask anyone on the street on HK and you can expect negative comments towards Teng Chee Hwa and PRC. He should, though try to take note of such
1804:
As I have mentioned many times elsewhere, Victoria City is the de facto capital of Hong Kong since it was made a crown colony. The colonial government, and its successor the government of the special administrative region, have never publicly and officialy proclaimed that Victoria City ceased to
1669:
Instantnood initially tried to enforce the policy verbatimly without factoring in the ambiguity that had been working well. There is nothing wrong with enforcing a policy. He brought the request into vote and thus did not make controversial move, nice. However, he have this invincible enthusiasm
1630:
article and the matter of the "Victoria City is not the capital" complaint. On Feb 14, 2004, Instantnood committed a change to the Hong Kong article with the notation "information about 1906 tsunami hidden". In fact, Instantnood did hide this information, but also assigned Victoria City as the
681:
I added SAR to the Cathay Pacific to compromise with Instantnood, as he wanted to break it out entirely from the PRC. His justification being that HK has seperate immigration controls. Whether SAR is important or not depends on context, agreed. I'm no PRC flunky. I just got tired of my minor
375:
sections, as well as being a major participant in just about any voting process he happens to come across, including his passionate participations in convention pages. But when participating in such activities, it is noted, that he has a habit of "Vote garnering", or as some wikipedians call it,
86:
First, I believe that Instantnood genuinely wants to contribute. He has made several substantial contributions which help the project. However, he is pushing a POV across any page that has anything to do with the status of China, it's SARs (Hong Kong, Macao), and the independence of Taiwan. This
1953:
I guess I have to let readers to know about the basics about what's going on, when I have to make a response to the accusations. I didn't mean to go into deep details of the content/factual debates. Rather, I responded to the accusations, for instance, not following the (so-called) consensus. —
1878:
I believe politeness is very important in a serious discussion, and it is meaningless to be emotional or impatience on the webspace. No one would actually understand how are you feeling like. I guess I could tolerate some of the attacks, as long as they did not affect reaching a final solution.
1682:
contributers would help smoothenig and shortening the length of disputes. I think an advanced communication skill is crucial for everyone (including myself) participated in the disputes so far. People should be more suspectible to other people's opinion and not to act out subborness any debate.
1993:
is not a discussion. On every talk page where there is dispute with you this is your modus. Rephrase the same statements over and over. This is not evidence that there isn't consensus, it's simply you pushing on. Rather than blame Huaiwei for leaving the discussion, I think he was more than
1835:
Privacy pointed out on her/his view above that Hong Kong and Macao posess many characters of countries, and are dealt with as they are countries by many people, organisations and MNCs. The fact is except from national defence and diplomatic relations, the two special administrative regions are
1657:
My experience of interacting Instantnood is based on Instantnood's repetitive request for move vote and VfD on Taiwan related articles and templates. I have no doubt that Instantnood is a true Wikipedian. However, I am not certain the underlying reason make him has to be so focused on Taiwan's
34:
dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ), the page will be
346:. In the ensuing debates on-going in the disussion page, I reproduce my observations in the history of that page's development. Further discourse over his conduct has already started there, but subsequent developments may occur here or there (or even both), depending on how things flow later.
2394:
Quite on the contrary, it is possible. I took some time off a few weeks ago, and when I came back, I notice someone has apparantly taken my absence to his advantage. When the cat is away, the mouse came out to play I suppose. Its quite sick to think that I am almost forced to visit this site
271:
22:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) I would add that I very much hope Instantnood continues to contribute usefully to Knowledge, but the constant attempts to change Taiwanese articles to ROC articles, despite there clearly being no consensus to do so, are wearing thin. I hope he stops this behaviour and
2231:
which I find hardly condusive for resolutions to occur in wikipedia. Trying to engage in lengthy disputes which causes his opponents to finally give up not because of facts, but because of just how tiring it is talking to him over for extended periods over and over, and therefore taking the
1438:
2 & 3. Various List of... articles, Taiwan articles. Lists of X in China might justifiably have Taiwan, HK and Macau as seperate bullet points from standard mainland provinces as they have a different status. This would be on a list by list basis. For example, there's little point in
121:
Many have given up making changes to any article he contributes to because he will revert them later, this goes beyond the three revert rule, in some cases he has gone back ten times. He does not follow concensus about fact, even when the fact has been confirmed by the source country. (See
2291:
I POSTED THE EMAIL WITH A PARTIAL HEADER. Go to www.info.gov.hk, hit "contact us" and ask away. How hard is this for you? Tht is entirely valid. The only thing I've hidden is the specific name and email address of myself and the sender. I am posting more about this factual dispute under
126:
where email from a government representative confirms Hong Kong has no designated capitol city, but Instantnood still reverts the Hong Kong article to include Victoria City as the capitol.) He even deletes NPOV statements added to be conciliatory to him. He abuses the pseudo-protected tag
2305:
What I requested was a hyperlink or an e-mail address. I didn't not say it was unreal or invalid. I had no information to tell. Back to the basic, could you tell the e-mail address of the sender? (Please reply at either your or my discussion page. Here is not the place to continue.) —
1145:
However, Instantnood should also be aware that having made a large number of requests on WP:RM relating to ROC/PRC/China/Taiwan, nearly all of which have been overwhelmingly voted down, he might be well-advised in desisting from listing further such requests relating to renaming of
1048:
where he kept trying to split the article despite a lack of consensus both at WP:RM and the talk page to do what he proposed. Instanthood just needs to cool down and take this all less seriously. People are resistant to change and trying to push all these things at once will end up
1549:
of Anon, and when Anon, in his previous attempts to get things done his way by putting in muliple votes from different IPs, I have hardly any trust left in deciding just who is who. In fact, I didnt even suspect Instantnood was indeed Anon after more then a month until this page
1771:. To me, adding those commented out categories amounts to Editing to make a point. They don't serve any purpose, as it just as easy to change the existing category when or if needed, add another few bytes to each page download, and seem to be there to make a political point.
849:
who has engaged in personal attacks against Instantnood, which are especially troubling because of his persistent and repeated name calling. I am glad that ExplorerCDT has acknowledged above that this was inappropriate, but I think there is some evidence of a general pattern.
339:"sensitive" topics which has clearly seen diversive opinions. Any responsible user of this site should have known, that when a topic comes under so much scrutinity, surely edits and changes related to this has to be handled with care, and has to be as accountable as possible.
1918:
It has to be reminded again, that this page exists not because of factual disagreements. It didnt exist because you found fault in other people's reasoning, you considered their understanding of topics inadequate, or if they were discovered to quote erroneous information.
1986:
tag and ignore discussion on the issue. The list of roads by country article was probably the most obvious here, you actually placed Hong Kong in alphabetical order, rather than the other subtletly of making repeated entries for China - PRC, China - HK, China - ROC, etc.
1974:
still must be. You are asking for . Everyone but you that comments on the HK pages agree that it is not the capitol, yet you repeatedly reverted any changes to the page you disagreed with on this issue. This is THE single issue that brought me to use the RfC process.
1709:
After reading through large amount of proposals that Instanthood brought up, as well as the arguments brought forth by others, it seems that the main reason for people to Rfc him was the fact that he was trying to correct a "taken for granted" usage of the word Taiwan.
1035:
most of Instantnood's proposed moves, I believe jguk and ExplorerCDT's complaints should not be over this single user, who has acted in good faith in order to enforce the guidelines, but against the guidelines themselves. Jguk and others have been convincingly told at
1832:. I do have an impression that Huaiwei does not understand much about the statuses of Hong Kong and Macao after the transfers of sovereignty, and has tried to undermine or downplay their independent characters by considering them ordinary part of the PRC.
844:
In conclusion, regarding the requested moves of Taiwan-related articles, it is my view that Instantnood's behavior has been well within the bounds established by the guidelines and policies of Knowledge. The same cannot be said about other editors, notably
1800:
The disputes leading to this request for comment were over Victoria City, listing of Hong Kong and Macao, and the choice between ROC and Taiwan in titles. The first involves factual information, and the latter two are around a set of naming conventions.
2187:
You are asking me to prove a negative assertion, a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The statement from the HK government that there is no capitol pretty much trumps any evidence provided thus far to the contrary.
241:
Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. (sign with ~~~~)
1503:
already stated how mainland China can be used to differentiate Hong Kong and Macao from the rest of the PRC. They are quasi states as same as many other dependent territories that have almost all government structures, but are not fully sovereigned.
798:, which were established by consensus. The point of WP:RM is to determine if and how these naming conventions are applicable. Some editors apparently disagree with the purpose of WP:RM and instead chose to debate the merits of the naming conventions.
1824:
by an anonymous user (without any discussion) less than 10 hours before my edit (with the edit summary about the tsunami). It was natural to add it back when making other edits, for Victoria City as the capital is never a matter of dispute to me.
1783:
Precisely. And while he demands that we keep to the status quo, he thinks he has the liberty to create more controversial categories, make plenty of articles to populate controversial categories, as well as make plenty of edits to strengthen his
1941:
over the whole Taiwan vs ROC issue, and I also agree that there was nothing wrong at all in initiating discussions over these potentially sensitive topics before making amendments, something some of the above seems to show opposition towards?
2371:
cool beer. My suggestion remains. There is little substance in the RfC or otherwise, any serious RfC should investigate the behaviour of all three editors in this matter as all three are far too intense in their pursuits here on Knowledge.
1981:
be organized under it's parent nation, the PRC. It is appropriate to special case HK, but it is not equal to it's parent. Your agressiveness on this was to revert any change when HK was appropriately placed under the PRC - or to use the
1864:
quo. (I am neutral on whether to support or oppose the status quo too. I just consider the status quo would be the best way to present.) I consider what I suggested in the previous paragraph the most, though not perfectly, NPOV option.
640:
bias and avoid it when editing articles in future. The addition of {twoversions} tags doesn't seem appropriate to me either, at least because it gives me an impression that there is some major changes between two versions. For the
1730:
Taiwan is an island. It has its own history. RoC, however, has only existed since 1912. So, in a way, they are separate items. (And PRC didn't exist until 1949!) I personally do not think Instanthood is wrong in suggesting
738:. I have not examined the other items listed under "Evidence" above. I consider myself an outside party to this debate, since I have not made any contentious edits to any China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong related articles.
1516:, I found Huaiwei sticking to his own perceptions all the way through (for instance, what makes a city), and refusing to accept any arguments countered to his points of view, that made any consensus never possible.
1819:
Ceyockey (Courtland) said in his observation that it was a subterfuge that I added Victoria City back while I am taking away reference to the 1906 Tsunami at the same time. The fact was that Victoria City was being
75:
Instantnood will not follow concensus. He repeatedly uses edit and revert wars to push his POV edits. When he does not get his way he puts in the pseudo-protected tag twoversions but fails to discuss the matter to
822:
the vague term "Taiwan". People may not agree with Instantnood that "Republic of China" is always more appropriate in all of the proposed moves, but that sort of debate is precisely what WP:RM is for. However,
1605:
I am indeed surprised he should come to this assumption about Singaporean contributors. Even I myself started a page on Hong Kong's port, and I dont know if you can find anything demeaning in what I wrote
1860:, i.e. Taiwan, Pescadores, Orchid Island, Green Island, etc. included, and Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas, Taiping, etc. excluded. The same scope of content rule applies to "China"/"PRC"/"mainland China".
648:
fact, but I feel that as much as possible we should avoid politics in articles if there is no need to to avoid any future conflict. For the naming convection in articles, if Hong Kong is referred to as a
2272:
So instantnood, you are not sending the email because of the above "contraints" you are facing as discribed above? Your argumentative principles outweighs the desire to reach consensus and the quest for
1774:
As I have stated previously, I don't really care how the China policy shakes out, and I don't mind helping out when it does, but until then, the status quo should be kept, as it is so controversial.
1278:), "Just like User:Instantnood = Jackass and = someone interrupting Knowledge to make a point, but User:Instantnood ? some nice guy who avoids getting on peoples nerves with his inane bullshit." (
682:
edits to the main HK article getting lost in his revert war and started being more involved. People involved in Taiwan related articles are more upset but they have not made an appearance here.
763:
Wiki etiquette — There have indeed been violations of Wiki etiquette, but not by Instantnood. On the contrary, Instantnood has been on the receiving end of personal attacks: according to the
350:
1797:
First I have to thank everyone who has joined this discussion, no matter you agree with my acts or not. I am glad that everybody has said what came up in your mind, without hestitant.
749:
has not been the victim of revert/edit wars on any of the topic Instantnood has been involved with. The most recent 1000 edits do not include any explicit reverts by or of Instantnood.
2089:
It is the POV of the government of Hong Kong that it has not capitol. Myself, Huaiwei, wshun, jiang, and several anons have concensus here. The only still arguing about it is you.
1970:
I don't know enough to comment on the Taiwan/ROC status. I brought it up because it seemed like others were having the same issues under Taiwan that I was having under Hong Kong.
61:
167:
3. Taiwan articles. Dispute: Naming convention. I don't edit Taiwan articles but Instantnood is "single-handedly trying a frontal assault on the templates and categories" Example:
2219:
You guys are still spending all your time arguing over facts. I makes me wonder then. If Instantnood's factual assertion was indeed notable, then why does he need to engage in
343:
314:
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
1836:
functioning as countries, with their own governments, currencies, passports, customs, immigration, judiciaries, and their own delegations to many international organisations.
1590:
I have to disagree that Singapore contributors are generally provocative towards HK-related articles, I was able to colloborate and work with Hong-Kong contributors to raise
984:. I think this user should be commended for not responding in kind to the personal attacks against him. Those personal attacks were not warranted and they simply must stop.
635:
Instantnood is a genuine contributor towards Knowledge, especially towards Hong Kong-related articles and continues to do so. One of his impressive efforts is to set up the
2416:
For the sake of wikipedia, I certainly hope so. And come to think of it, is the above an endorsement of your sweet-talking habits? NVM. You do not have to answer this qn.--
2246:
yes. and it's not the facts that brought about my attempt at an RfC, it was the revert warring and process abuse he engages in whenever anyone disagrees with his facts.
1499:, etc. can tell. Any comparisons of population, GDP, literacy rates, etc. among countries have separated entries for mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao. And actually,
794:
Failure to respect consensus — The whole point of WP:RM is to gauge and/or establish consensus. For the specific moves that Instantnood requested, they are governed by
2041:
because that this name implies either a) Mainland China controls the RoC government, or b) China=RoC, which isn't true. About the HK argument, the current infobox in
741:
Regarding the specific allegations of policy violations brought forth against Instantnood, I don't see how any of them apply to item 3 of "Evidence". In particular:
376:"Ballot-stuffing". At present, there is no clear rule against this, but the ethical implications is obvious. Refer, for example, to the comments made in responce to
2437:
2100:
You haven't until now showed us the further details of the e-mail. Jiang didn't join this discussion. And there was no consensus among the anonymous contributors (
2162:(response to Penwhale) You are right. Victoria City was the de facto capital, and the government has never officially and publicly said it's no longer to be. And
1977:
Other issues with Hong Kong: HK is not an independent country even though many people treat it as such. In any article that follows a political organization HK
1741:
This is one particular example of users not willing to accept a different kind of ideas, and I truly feel sorry for Instanthood for having to endure attacks.
1274:), "Do you feel some inexorable need to waste our time with such indolent nonsense?" and "Why don't you stop this horseshit and take the damned initiative?" (
2002:
I do think you make positive contributions! Before the disputes with you I recognized you added things to my edits, and you are certainly very productive.
1872:
1868:
1301:
1293:. It is interesting that on that page, although there was some vigorous debate by parties on both sides, there was none of the name-calling that I saw at
1036:
838:
178:
1738:
I am willing to help to make sure that some of the items, which should be renamed/moved, moved, if not just for clarity and the "polically correct" view.
1735:
of the block moves, but that there are particular artilcles in those block moves that would better off be split. Still, this is not grounds to exile him.
1808:
SchmuckyTheCat said Victoria City ceased to be the capital in early 1990s, when the Basic Law was formulated. This is not true, and I have elaborated at
330:
My views on him can be quite lengthy, so I decided to break it into parts, on a case by case basis as and when I see it is reaching intolerable levels.
318:{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
1840:
has already stated how, when and where the term "mainland China" can be used to refer to the territories of the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded.
2223:
just to proof a simple point? For example, if he disputes the contents of that email, or even its existance, then why cant he email the hk government
1122:
I have not followed the Hong Kong disputes, so I cannot comment on them. However, with regard to the moves relating to ROC/PRC/China/Taiwan listed on
281:
If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. (sign with ~~~~)
130:
This list is incomplete. Instantnood is all over Knowledge changing templates and making global renames to enforce his POV. I cannot follow all of it.
355:
Check it out for a "different" side of the above user's behavior. Actions speaks louder than words. I will be adding more cases as time progresses.--
261:
17:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Only so many times I can bear getting frustrated at his inability to accept rational arguments and proof. Called him a
841:
instead. That said, this is an understandable mistake, which we collectively seem to be doomed to make over and over again on all voting pages.
2076:
1837:
1500:
1308:
834:
815:
795:
1760:
853:
To summarize: The present aspect of the debate should be treated and resolved as a content dispute, not as a complaint against Instantnood. --
806:
dispute, rather than a dispute about the behavior of Instantnood. At the heart of this debate are two seemingly conflicting pieces of policy:
2399:
others, often then not to subsequently invoke changes in his favour, over and above all the little "minor edits" he makes across the site.--
2123:
conventions. You're as active there as anywhere. If an entry, like a list, is organized politically then HK belongs under the PRC. period.
670:, or when politics are involved, then only the SAR or PRC should be included to reflect that sovereignty under People's Republic of China.
1304:, there certainly has been some long discussions, but it never got heated, and again Instantnood has shown a willingness to compromise.
872:
and the talk pages of some of the parties involved. I have no specific knowledge of Instantnood's activities pertaining to Hong Kong. --
644:
and capital of HK dispute, it is more of a factual dispute - I think we can trust what the official authority has spoken as legitimate.
693:
Note that this is only for Hong Kong related articles only, I have not taken a look at his involvement with the ROC/Taiwan articles. -
1244:
1945:
mental energy to do so...something I hardly find pleasant to do so, and something I have never expected myself to do in this site.--
861:
Mark, did you look at any of the articles dealing with Hong Kong or is your statement solely about the interacton regarding Taiwan?
377:
53:
2316:
Funny. After so long, and then we finally discovers what he really wants. Just goes to show just how effective talking to him is.--
626:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
1457:
the summary was not accurate, and I don't think it's a problem to differentiate Hong Kong and Macao from the mainland on lists. -
2167:
158:
110:
2045:
is somewhat agreeable, because it notes the fact that it was never officially designated while at the same time being de facto.
1045:
30:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
717:
I agree with Mailer diablo's remarks generally, except for saying Instantnood was biased, and politics have to be avoided. -
27:
17:
2072:, which no consensus was reached. All these did not justify staging this RfC against me, for I did not follow the consensus.
2232:
opportunity to declare "victory" in the dispute and thereby making more edits in other pages in his favour, is what I find
1703:
EDIT: Note that I have not and will not comment on articles 1, 2, and 4. The following is regarding the Naming Convention.
1407:
1007:
1727:
are raised because that readers do not have sufficient knowledge of what is the current status of the political entity.
598:
Ethical? Well...it is up to personal opinions, I suppose, but I hardly find the above "coincidental" or "reconciliary".--
2406:
People can think independently, and couldn't be easily misled. I don't think sweet-talking would help if I am wrong. —
1659:
810:
1998:
You've clearly been involved in edit/revert wars over the HK issues against concensus on those pages. That has to stop.
1759:
mainland China category, and not the PRC category. I did not vote in the deletion pool, which can be seen archived at
1519:
Instantnood is genuinely a contributor to Knowledge, and I do hope the assault here will not affect his enthusiasm. -
653:
162:
105:
1763:. After I removed the articles from the mainland China category and adding them to the PRC category, I ran across
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1123:
731:
2351:
Just as funny to notice those lines gets losts in the lenghty debates he prefers to engage in subsequently? ;)--
2341:(23:04 Mar 1) as well). It took more than a week for him to figure out something already stated explicitly. —
2338:
2180:
Personally, STC, if you can provide an actual governemntal press release info, we wouldn't be here arguing. :/
2104:). And please, here's not the place to continue the discussion. If you want to continue on it let's go back to
169:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Economy_of_Taiwan_.26rarr.3B_Economy_of_the_Republic_of_China
791:
Not adhering to NPOV — No evidence, and also not applicable to WP:RM, since it's not in the article namespace.
2026:
of each other's intentions, and eventually be able to even work together to make the Wiki a better one! :) -
2101:
2069:
1813:
730:
My view relates to item 3 of "Evidence of disputed behavior". I have commented on Instantnood's requests at
417:
154:
115:
2410:
2388:
2345:
2310:
2285:
2259:
2203:
2174:
2152:
2138:
2112:
2083:
1958:
1886:
1706:
I'm originally from Taiwan-- one of the reason that I thought I should comment regarding the arguments.
1546:
1535:
1403:
1003:
951:
49:
2265:
blah blah blah, around and around we go, back to where we started. this has been answered repeatedly.
1926:
you go about conducting yourself in this site, especially when disagreements occur, and when it can be
868:
Like I said above, this is solely about the proposed moves of Taiwan-related articles, as discussed on
2075:
To have Hong Kong and Macao excluded from mainland China on lists is not my own POV. It involves the
1389:
1348:
1326:
1212:
1187:
1101:
972:
922:
498:
404:
399:
830:, and others have taken this debate in a different direction, partly out of self-professed ignorance
2297:
2266:
2247:
2210:
2189:
2124:
2090:
2058:
2003:
1151:
1080:
897:
862:
683:
435:
430:
298:
246:
384:
of writing individually to people who vote against his favour to influence their votes privately.
2057:
the historical role of the location and explanation for the concentration of government offices.
2027:
1719:
as of 2002 and therefore CANNOT include the islands under RoC control. A lot of the arguments on
1599:
1562:
1539:
1366:
934:
694:
674:
565:
559:
547:
516:
511:
411:
652:
under non-political context, there is no requirement to include the SAR (which currently is for
272:
concentrates on improving articles about Chinese affairs generally, which clearly interest him.
1829:
1663:
1582:
1520:
1513:
1471:
1458:
1379:
1307:
My personal opinion is that the changes that Instantnood proposed fit with the suggestions at
1202:
1110:
941:
718:
591:
585:
466:
461:
2407:
2396:
2385:
2374:
There is good reason for all three editors to take a lengthy voluntary break from editing.
2342:
2307:
2282:
2256:
2200:
2171:
2149:
2135:
2109:
2080:
2015:
1955:
1883:
1399:
1259:
1255:
1139:
1135:
999:
992:
985:
948:
846:
823:
768:
753:
636:
485:
480:
302:
Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism?
301:
258:
91:
He has been battling across any number of pages since arriving in December of 2004 as anon.
45:
1857:
1385:
1334:
1312:
1267:
1208:
1173:
1166:
1146:
ROC/PRC/China/Taiwan articles, since they will likely also be voted down overwhelmingly. —
1087:
1053:
968:
908:
772:
757:
578:
492:
448:
393:
2054:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_city_listings_by_country&oldid=10641398
1270:. Here are some more ExplorerCDT quotes: " Instantnood, stop speaking out of your ass. (
351:
Talk:List_of_countries_that_only_border_one_other_country#An_interesting_chain_of_events
2334:
2330:
2105:
2042:
2019:
1828:
The dispute over how Hong Kong and Macao should be listed was in fact a long battle at
1809:
1509:
1372:
1195:
1147:
1127:
1076:
1065:
1022:
893:
873:
854:
424:
295:
123:
2395:
regularly just to ensure that this person does not go round misleading, seducing, and
1488:
2436:
signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to
2293:
2181:
2046:
2023:
1742:
1724:
1641:
1558:
1362:
1290:
1240:
1232:
962:
930:
641:
541:
534:
529:
505:
372:
368:
174:
146:
100:
1873:
Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of Taiwan → ..of the Republic of China
1636:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hong_Kong&diff=10547455&oldid=10258941
2417:
2400:
2352:
2326:
2317:
2274:
2237:
2011:
1946:
1785:
1720:
1607:
1595:
1569:
1551:
1528:
1294:
1263:
1251:
1236:
869:
785:
746:
735:
734:
and have read several exchanges involving Instantnood and others who are active on
599:
455:
356:
265:
out of such frustration, and I apologize for reducing my frustration to vulgarity).
252:
229:
2209:
The current government says there is no capitol.16:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) (added by
1882:
Once I again my vote of thanks to all of you who have joined this discussion. —
771:
has called Instantnood a "gnat" twice, accused him of lying, and compared him to
2377:
1687:
778:
Disrupting Knowledge to make a point — An allegation to this effect was made by
474:
168:
2018:
are positive contributors who even stay up at late at night doing edits! From
1990:
1496:
1163:
1050:
572:
442:
2329:
did not follow the discussion, but jumped to his conclusion. See my words at
2052:
again, I don't care enough about Taiwan. but this, which Instandnood likes,
1627:
1415:
1228:
1015:
827:
779:
268:
142:
95:
802:
In fact, the whole dispute about the Taiwan-related articles seems to be a
232:
is another great example of trying to discuss with him and getting nowhere.
1484:
1297:
and Instantnood showed that he was willing to work towards a compromise.
1280:
Science and technology in China ? Science and technology in mainland China
1816:
among two or three anonymous contributors, and no consensus was reached.
711:
523:
153:"Mainland China" is a treatment as if HK and Macao are equal to the PRC.
2296:, because I asked them again and they responded EVEN MORE CONVINCINGLY.
1994:
patient discussing it with you until there was nothing more to discuss.
1250:
I think that in the middle of some fairly heated comments and taunts at
1427:
I don't have time to properly read through pages of history, however.
1853:
1142:
but has kept his cool and avoided retaliation with abusive comments.
1012:
07:41, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) (I meant to endorse this summary long ago.)
811:
Knowledge:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things
2134:
The reversions were made to Huaiwei edits, before you joined. —
1869:
Knowledge:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#The China-Taiwan mess
1867:
I am looking forward to having it settled as soon as possible at
1227:
I have not looked at, so I can not comment on, the disputes over
1109:
except misguided enthusiasm, edit war and etiquette charges. -
657:
378:
Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#.22Ballot-stuffing.22_is_fine
2384:
Right. That's what I want to. But seems it's not possible. —
1591:
462:
User_talk:Juntung#Re:_Category:_Insurance_companies_of_the_PRC
327:
behavior we have singled out for criticism here, ever since.
1492:
775:. Instantnood's responses have never stooped to this level.
1545:
I doubt so too, but when Instantnood was revealed to be a
662:
websites don't include the SAR. If HK is referred to as a
363:
Vote garnering habits, and the abuse of the voting process
1713:
What is Taiwan? From my point, it's just an island. It is
566:
User_talk:Kbdank71#Category:Airports_of_Hong_Kong.2FMacau
1761:
Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China
2163:
2053:
1821:
1768:
1764:
1635:
1480:
831:
782:
764:
750:
612:
Response has been added by Instantnood at the sections
190:{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
1284:
Politics of Taiwan ? Politics of the Republic of China
660:
62:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.
2148:(response to Mailer diablo) Haha that's very true. —
1838:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV
1501:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV
1309:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV
1276:
Image:China_flag_large.png ? Image:PRC_flag_large.png
816:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV
745:
Revert wars and/or edit wars — As far as I can tell,
467:
User_talk:Juntung#Category:Foreign_banks_of_Hong_Kong
216:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
418:
User_talk:Electionworld#Taiwan_and_Republic_of_China
344:
List of countries that only border one other country
592:
User_talk:Zzyzx11#.22Mainland_China.22_vs_.22PRC.22
554:
Possible instances of "covert" influencing of vote:
788:for everyone to comment on is disruptive behavior.
1901:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1778:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1749:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1694:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1648:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1617:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1452:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1357:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1158:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1130:'s comments. Despite the fact that I have voted
1060:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
883:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
704:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
606:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1527:Isnt Privacy the same person as Instantnood?--
1472:took Instantnood into the dispute with Huaiwei
784:, but I fail to see how listing an article on
613:
8:
2166:my preference over the listing of Taiwan on
752:The only recent revert war occurred between
499:User_talk:Mel_Etitis#Please_come_and_vote.21
405:User_talk:BlankVerse#Please_come_and_vote.21
1302:Knowledge:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria
1037:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
839:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
400:User_talk:BlankVerse#Your_vote_is_needed.21
237:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
179:Knowledge:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria
517:User_talk:Penwhale#Please_come_and_vote.21
436:User_talk:Felix_Wan#Your_vote_is_needed.21
2221:endless disputes and roundabout arguments
1936:of the possibility for disputes, and yet
548:User_talk:Umofomia#Your_vote_is_needed.21
512:User_talk:Penwhale#Your_vote_is_needed.21
2325:It's more funny to have discovered that
1561:and give the benefit of the doubt. :) -
579:User_talk:Jiang#Category:Laws_of_the_PRC
486:User_talk:Mababa#Please_come_and_vote.21
388:Some examples of vote garnering include:
2022:I thought it would be good if both can
1852:restricted to matters that involve the
1675:Don't Disrupt Knowledge to make a point
1634:For the example I have noted here, see
1445:4. Heated discussions are not a crime.
1235:. I would, however, like to comment on
481:User_talk:Mababa#Your_vote_is_needed.21
203:Don't Disrupt Knowledge to make a point
35:deleted. The current date and time is:
904:
835:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)
796:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)
710:not Instantnood, that is the problem.
449:User_talk:Jiang#Your_vote_is_needed.21
2070:an earlier discussion in mid-December
1814:an earlier discussion in mid-December
1626:Consider the following regarding the
1072:
889:
535:User_talk:Ran#Please_come_and_vote.21
431:User_talk:Felix_Wan#We_need_your_vote
7:
1282:}, " Instantnood, the Red Chinese" (
958:
760:and is related to a different topic.
530:User_talk:Ran#Your_vote_is_needed.21
367:Instantnood is well acquited to the
277:Other users who endorse this summary
1622:Observation by Ceyockey (Courtland)
1258:remained fairly calm. For example,
637:Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board
2108:and the other discussion pages. —
1245:Knowledge:WikiProject Stub sorting
24:
1534:I highly doubt that Privacy is a
1272:XXX of/in Macao ? XXX of/in Macau
159:List of city listings by country
111:List of city listings by country
1349:
1346:
1340:
1327:
1324:
1318:
1188:
1185:
1179:
1126:, I concur wholeheartedly with
1102:
1099:
1093:
1046:Science and technology in China
923:
920:
914:
833:and/or without being aware of
28:Knowledge:Requests for comment
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
1335:
1313:
1174:
1172:(Also see my comments below)
1088:
1086:(Also see my comments below)
909:
136:Evidence of disputed behavior
26:In order to remain listed at
1893:
1660:political divisions of China
2438:this page's discussion page
1154:) 02:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
654:Cathay Pacific destinations
163:Cathay Pacific destinations
106:Cathay Pacific destinations
37:12:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
2454:
2348:10:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
2313:09:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
2288:07:46, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
2262:23:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
1913:
1083:) 02:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
900:) 02:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
334:The Lack of Accountability
220:(provide diffs and links)
2413:11:35, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
2277:05:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2240:05:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1966:SchmuckyTheCat's response
1894:
1830:Huaiwei's discussion page
1793:Response from Instantnood
732:Knowledge:Requested moves
359:12:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
209:Doesn't respect concensus
194:Revert Wars, way past 3RR
173:4. Heated discussions at
2403:10:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2391:09:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
2380:21:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2365:
2355:10:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2320:10:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2300:08:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2269:00:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2250:14:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2184:10:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2049:15:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2006:04:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1965:
1949:21:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1922:Rather it is to do with
1844:view on other articles.
1810:Talk:Hong Kong#Basic Law
1745:13:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1690:08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1644:14:57, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
1602:15:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1585:15:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1565:14:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1554:17:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1542:15:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1531:15:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1523:14:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1412:07:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
1353:21:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1331:08:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1056:02:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1025:02:35, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
865:00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
857:00:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
677:20:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
602:08:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
342:The page in question is
321:
70:Statement of the dispute
2420:12:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2234:inappriopriate behavior
2206:15:34 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
2192:18:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2177:19:48 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
2155:19:48 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
2127:22:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2093:22:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2086:19:48 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
2061:17:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2033:STC: In a sense, it is
2030:07:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1889:20:53 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
1788:07:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
1610:17:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1596:featured article status
1572:14:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1461:14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1435:(if summary accurate).
1418:17:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1395:00:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1382:14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1375:09:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1369:08:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1266:'s Propaganda Minister
1218:00:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1205:14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1198:09:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1192:08:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1169:03:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1113:14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1106:08:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1068:02:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1018:17:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
995:03:04, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
988:23:00, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
978:18:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
965:13:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
954:15:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
944:14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
937:09:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
927:08:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
876:02:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
765:almost-current revision
721:14:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
714:21:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
697:15:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
686:20:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
304:16:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
255:15:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
249:15:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
155:List of cities in China
116:List of cities in China
2141:15:34 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
2115:15:34 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
1961:19:30 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
1289:I also took a look at
1262:twice compared him to
1071:(See also my comments
957:(Also see my comments
903:(Also see my comments
888:(See also my comments
656:) Even Cathay Pacific
228:The user talk page of
1049:counter-productive.--
469:(this one backfired!)
263:f*****g annoying gnat
1928:reasonably suspected
1822:removed unilaterally
1753:
1716:NO LONGER A PROVINCE
1698:
1652:
1465:
1447:Verdict: Not guilty!
1441:Verdict: Not guilty!
1422:
1222:
1117:
1029:
725:
631:Mailer diablo's view
630:
186:Applicable policies
2077:naming conventions
1914:Huaiwei's response
1858:province of Taiwan
1754:Burgundavia's View
1568:Alright then. :D--
1538:of Instantnood. -
1485:Singapore Airlines
560:User talk:Kbdank71
412:User:Electionworld
322:Huaiwei's response
2366:Refdoc's response
2037:correct to state
2024:Assume good faith
1664:politics of China
1559:assume good faith
1514:User talk:Huaiwei
1300:Also, looking at
1223:BlankVerse's view
586:User talk:Zzyzx11
2445:
2281:a valid one. —
1895:
1854:island of Taiwan
1433:Verdict: Guilty!
1411:
1392:
1351:
1347:
1344:
1339:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1317:
1260:User:ExplorerCDT
1256:User:Instantnood
1215:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1178:
1140:User:ExplorerCDT
1136:User:Instantnood
1118:Lowellian's view
1104:
1100:
1097:
1092:
1011:
975:
925:
921:
918:
913:
847:User:ExplorerCDT
824:User:ExplorerCDT
769:User:ExplorerCDT
754:User:ExplorerCDT
726:MarkSweep's view
87:cannot continue.
46:User:Instantnood
38:
2453:
2452:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2431:
2368:
1968:
1916:
1898:
1896:
1795:
1756:
1701:
1699:Penwhale's View
1673:In my opinion,
1655:
1624:
1581:Interesting. -
1468:
1425:
1423:Pratyeka's View
1398:
1390:
1268:Joseph Goebbels
1225:
1213:
1120:
1032:
998:
973:
773:Joseph Goebbels
758:User:Violetriga
728:
633:
623:
493:User:Mel Etitis
394:User:BlankVerse
365:
336:
324:
311:
279:
239:
218:
188:
138:
83:
72:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2451:
2449:
2430:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2392:
2367:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2298:SchmuckyTheCat
2270:
2267:SchmuckyTheCat
2253:
2252:
2251:
2248:SchmuckyTheCat
2227:? That is the
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2211:SchmuckyTheCat
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2190:SchmuckyTheCat
2160:
2159:
2158:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2129:
2128:
2125:SchmuckyTheCat
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2106:Talk:Hong Kong
2095:
2094:
2091:SchmuckyTheCat
2073:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2059:SchmuckyTheCat
2043:Talk:Hong Kong
2031:
2020:Talk:Singapore
2004:SchmuckyTheCat
1967:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1908:
1906:
1897:
1891:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1755:
1752:
1700:
1697:
1654:
1651:
1623:
1620:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1510:Talk:Hong Kong
1470:It was me who
1467:
1466:Privacy's view
1464:
1463:
1462:
1424:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1413:
1396:
1383:
1376:
1370:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1206:
1199:
1193:
1170:
1134:nearly all of
1128:User:MarkSweep
1119:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1107:
1084:
1069:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1019:
1013:
996:
989:
979:
966:
955:
945:
938:
928:
901:
880:
879:
878:
877:
863:SchmuckyTheCat
819:
818:
813:
800:
799:
792:
789:
776:
761:
727:
724:
723:
722:
715:
701:
700:
699:
698:
688:
687:
684:SchmuckyTheCat
632:
629:
622:
619:
610:
596:
595:
582:
581:
569:
568:
551:
550:
538:
537:
532:
520:
519:
514:
502:
501:
489:
488:
483:
471:
470:
464:
452:
451:
439:
438:
433:
425:User:Felix Wan
421:
420:
408:
407:
402:
364:
361:
335:
332:
323:
320:
310:
307:
306:
305:
299:(pigs can fly)
292:
291:
290:
289:
287:
278:
275:
274:
273:
266:
256:
250:
247:SchmuckyTheCat
238:
235:
234:
233:
226:
217:
214:
213:
212:
210:
207:
204:
201:
200:Wiki Etiquette
198:
195:
187:
184:
183:
182:
171:
165:
150:
137:
134:
124:Talk:Hong Kong
119:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
82:
79:
71:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:Superseded by
57:
41:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2450:
2441:
2439:
2435:
2428:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2412:
2409:
2405:
2404:
2402:
2398:
2397:sweet-talking
2393:
2390:
2387:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2379:
2375:
2372:
2354:
2350:
2349:
2347:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2319:
2315:
2314:
2312:
2309:
2304:
2299:
2295:
2294:Victoria City
2290:
2289:
2287:
2284:
2279:
2278:
2276:
2271:
2268:
2264:
2263:
2261:
2258:
2254:
2249:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2239:
2235:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2212:
2208:
2207:
2205:
2202:
2198:
2191:
2186:
2185:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2154:
2151:
2147:
2140:
2137:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2126:
2121:
2120:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2060:
2055:
2051:
2050:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2029:
2028:Mailer Diablo
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2005:
2000:
1999:
1995:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1980:
1975:
1971:
1960:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1948:
1942:
1939:
1935:
1934:
1930:that you are
1929:
1925:
1920:
1909:
1907:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1892:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1880:
1876:
1874:
1870:
1865:
1861:
1859:
1855:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1839:
1833:
1831:
1826:
1823:
1817:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1744:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1717:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1689:
1683:
1679:
1676:
1671:
1667:
1665:
1661:
1653:Mababa's view
1650:
1649:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1637:
1632:
1629:
1621:
1619:
1618:
1609:
1604:
1603:
1601:
1600:Mailer Diablo
1597:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1580:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1564:
1563:Mailer Diablo
1560:
1557:Still, let's
1556:
1555:
1553:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1540:Mailer Diablo
1537:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1517:
1515:
1511:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1476:
1473:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1443:
1442:
1436:
1434:
1428:
1417:
1414:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1367:Mailer Diablo
1364:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1352:
1345:
1343:
1338:
1332:
1330:
1323:
1321:
1316:
1310:
1305:
1303:
1298:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:Victoria City
1230:
1217:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1184:
1182:
1177:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1153:
1149:
1143:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1098:
1096:
1091:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1041:
1038:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
990:
987:
983:
980:
977:
970:
967:
964:
960:
956:
953:
950:
946:
943:
939:
936:
935:Mailer Diablo
932:
929:
926:
919:
917:
912:
906:
902:
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
884:
875:
871:
867:
866:
864:
860:
859:
858:
856:
851:
848:
842:
840:
836:
832:
829:
825:
817:
814:
812:
809:
808:
807:
805:
797:
793:
790:
787:
783:
781:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
759:
755:
751:
748:
744:
743:
742:
739:
737:
733:
720:
716:
713:
708:
707:
706:
705:
696:
695:Mailer Diablo
692:
691:
690:
689:
685:
680:
679:
678:
676:
675:Mailer Diablo
671:
669:
665:
661:
658:
655:
651:
645:
643:
642:Victoria City
638:
628:
627:
620:
618:
617:
615:
608:
607:
603:
601:
593:
590:
589:
588:
587:
580:
577:
576:
575:
574:
567:
564:
563:
562:
561:
556:
555:
549:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:User:Umofomia
536:
533:
531:
528:
527:
526:
525:
518:
515:
513:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:User:Penwhale
500:
497:
496:
495:
494:
487:
484:
482:
479:
478:
477:
476:
468:
465:
463:
460:
459:
458:
457:
450:
447:
446:
445:
444:
437:
434:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
419:
416:
415:
414:
413:
406:
403:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
390:
389:
385:
381:
379:
374:
370:
362:
360:
358:
353:
352:
347:
345:
340:
333:
331:
328:
319:
316:
315:
308:
303:
300:
297:
294:
293:
288:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
276:
270:
267:
264:
260:
257:
254:
251:
248:
245:
244:
243:
236:
231:
227:
223:
222:
221:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
192:
191:
185:
180:
176:
172:
170:
166:
164:
160:
156:
151:
148:
147:victoria City
144:
140:
139:
135:
133:
132:
128:
125:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
101:Victoria City
99:
97:
94:
93:
92:
89:
88:
80:
78:
77:
69:
64:
63:
58:
55:
54:contributions
51:
47:
43:
42:
40:
33:
29:
19:
2433:
2432:
2376:
2373:
2369:
2273:knowledge?--
2233:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2218:
2168:this article
2038:
2034:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1989:
1983:
1978:
1976:
1972:
1969:
1943:
1937:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1921:
1917:
1900:
1899:
1881:
1877:
1866:
1862:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1834:
1827:
1818:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1777:
1776:
1773:
1757:
1748:
1747:
1740:
1737:
1732:
1729:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1702:
1693:
1692:
1684:
1680:
1674:
1672:
1668:
1656:
1647:
1646:
1640:
1633:
1625:
1616:
1615:
1518:
1506:
1477:
1469:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1356:
1355:
1341:
1336:
1333:
1319:
1314:
1306:
1299:
1288:
1264:Adolf Hitler
1249:
1226:
1180:
1175:
1157:
1156:
1144:
1131:
1121:
1094:
1089:
1059:
1058:
1042:
1033:
1030:Jiang's view
981:
915:
910:
882:
881:
852:
843:
820:
803:
801:
740:
729:
703:
702:
672:
667:
663:
649:
646:
634:
625:
624:
621:Outside view
611:
609:
605:
604:
597:
594:(influence?)
583:
570:
557:
553:
552:
539:
521:
503:
490:
472:
456:User:Juntung
453:
440:
422:
409:
391:
387:
386:
382:
366:
354:
348:
341:
337:
329:
325:
317:
313:
312:
280:
262:
240:
230:user:Huaiwei
219:
189:
131:
129:
120:
90:
85:
84:
74:
73:
59:
31:
25:
2335:09:05 Mar 4
2331:21:03 Mar 3
2039:China - RoC
2016:Instantnood
1984:twoversions
1938:consciously
1550:appeared!--
993:KittySaturn
986:Jonathunder
659:and HSBC's
475:User:Mababa
259:ExplorerCDT
225:should end.
81:Description
76:resolution.
2429:Discussion
1991:Ad nauseum
1547:sockpuppet
1536:sockpuppet
1493:McDonald's
1391:Μελ Ετητης
1386:Mel Etitis
1214:Μελ Ετητης
1209:Mel Etitis
974:Μελ Ετητης
969:Mel Etitis
573:User:Jiang
443:User:Jiang
1769:this edit
1765:this edit
1662:, or the
1642:Courtland
1628:Hong Kong
1489:Citigroup
1373:MarkSweep
1229:Hong Kong
1196:MarkSweep
1148:Lowellian
1077:Lowellian
1066:MarkSweep
1023:Felix Wan
894:Lowellian
874:MarkSweep
855:MarkSweep
828:User:jguk
780:User:jguk
296:Susvolans
197:Edit wars
143:Hong Kong
96:Hong Kong
2339:this one
2229:BEHAVIOR
2182:Penwhale
2047:Penwhale
1784:views.--
1743:Penwhale
1686:people.
1606:there?--
963:Penwhale
524:User:Ran
349:Source:
309:Response
2418:Huaiwei
2401:Huaiwei
2353:Huaiwei
2327:Huaiwei
2318:Huaiwei
2275:Huaiwei
2238:Huaiwei
2225:himself
2012:Huaiwei
1947:Huaiwei
1856:or the
1786:Huaiwei
1608:Huaiwei
1583:Privacy
1570:Huaiwei
1552:Huaiwei
1529:Huaiwei
1521:Privacy
1475:there.
1459:Privacy
1380:Privacy
1203:Privacy
1132:against
1111:Privacy
942:Privacy
804:content
719:Privacy
664:country
600:Huaiwei
357:Huaiwei
253:Huaiwei
2411:ntnood
2389:ntnood
2378:Refdoc
2346:ntnood
2311:ntnood
2286:ntnood
2260:ntnood
2204:ntnood
2175:ntnood
2164:here's
2153:ntnood
2139:ntnood
2113:ntnood
2084:ntnood
1959:ntnood
1887:ntnood
1725:WP:CFD
1688:Mababa
1497:Esprit
1400:A.D.H.
1363:WP:NPA
1291:WP:TFD
1243:, and
1241:WP:TFD
1000:A.D.H.
931:WP:NPA
668:region
373:WP:CFD
369:WP:VFD
177:, and
175:WP:TFD
2408:Insta
2386:Insta
2343:Insta
2337:(and
2308:Insta
2283:Insta
2257:Insta
2201:Insta
2172:Insta
2150:Insta
2136:Insta
2110:Insta
2081:Insta
2035:never
2010:Both
1956:Insta
1933:aware
1884:Insta
1721:WP:RM
1406:&
1342:Verse
1337:Blank
1320:Verse
1315:Blank
1295:WP:RM
1252:WP:RM
1237:WP:RM
1181:Verse
1176:Blank
1124:WP:RM
1095:Verse
1090:Blank
1073:below
1006:&
982:Agree
961:.) —
959:below
916:Verse
911:Blank
905:below
890:below
870:WP:RM
786:WP:RM
747:WP:RM
736:WP:RM
614:below
16:<
2333:and
2170:. —
2102:here
2014:and
1979:MUST
1871:and
1767:and
1733:some
1723:and
1598:. -
1512:and
1481:HSBC
1416:Grue
1231:and
1152:talk
1081:talk
1075:.) —
1016:Grue
949:john
898:talk
892:.) —
756:and
650:city
504:To:
371:and
269:jguk
206:NPOV
145:and
50:talk
32:same
2434:All
2236:.--
1924:HOW
1594:to
1592:MTR
1286:).
1167:ang
1054:ang
712:172
666:or
584:To
571:To
558:To
540:To
522:To
491:To
473:To
454:To
441:To
423:To
410:To
392:To
141:1.
2440:.
1875:.
1638:.
1495:,
1491:,
1487:,
1483:,
1378:-
1365:.
1254:,
1247:.
1239:,
1201:-
1164:Ji
1051:Ji
1021:-
991:-
947:-
940:-
933:-
907:)
826:,
767:,
673:-
380:.
161:,
157:,
52:|
48:|
39:.
2213:)
1410:)
1408:m
1404:t
1402:(
1393:)
1388:(
1350:∅
1328:∅
1216:)
1211:(
1189:∅
1150:(
1103:∅
1079:(
1010:)
1008:m
1004:t
1002:(
976:)
971:(
952:k
924:∅
896:(
616:.
56:)
44:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.