User talk:Lmmnhn/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

John Bell-Irving

Hi Lmmnhn, John Bell-Irving (1846-1925) is the member of the Legislative Council, not his father (Database on Legislative Council Members, ukwhoswho)--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for pointing out. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Good job on the update :D --北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Demosisto logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Demosisto logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

About the logos of FSHK and New Hong Kong Alliance

Hi Lmmnhn, I am Momocalbee from Chinese version Wiki. I have noted that you made great contribution on the articles of Hong Kong political parties. However, when I was translating your articles into Chinese, I've found that there was a photo that illustrated that FSHK and New Hong Kong Alliance seem to have a logo, but the photo is quite blurry (http://img.eastweek.com.hk/article_multimedia_19000/18996/3_n.jpg). So I am asking for whether you have some ways to find out their logos, Thanks! -- Momocalbee (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I do have a clearer version of the logo of the NHKA but I could not find the FSHK. I may upload that one in the future. Lmmnhn (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your effort! -- Momocalbee (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Hong Kong Progressive Alliance.svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Hong Kong Progressive Alliance.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Democracy camp

This should actually be done by merging the two stubs. (A case can be made for PRODing both of them as cruddy stubs, but I will let someone else do that.) I have tagged them for merger. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Six localists

The localists won six seats in the election. Additionally, Yiu Chung-yim has joined the pan-democrat group Professional Guild and the pro-democrat caucus. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Using "localists" to describe Nathan Law, Lau Siu Lai and Eddie Chu is absolutely wrong. The basic idea of localism is to place the interest of Hong Kong people at the first place[1]. These left-wings advocate cosmopolitianism[2] that violates the local consciousness, so they should be classified as "self-determination" groups. The idea of "self-determination" groups simply refers to the advocate of democratic self-determination, therefore, Yiu Chung-yim should be a member of "self-determination" groups.
I am not complete with you in terms of the number of source that one owns. The term "localist groups" (本土派) inaccurately refers to the "localist or 'self-determination' camp (本土自決派)", where the former is used to describe the ones which support the localism; while the latter merely appeared to classify the seven new LegCo members, especially in Chinese.[3]
Furthermore, in the counting of votes for LegCo 2016, left-wing people like Claudia Mo was put in pan-democrats, even though she participated in localization movement, it does not mean that she advocates localism or is a localist, so the classification of "localism in Hong Kong" is not suitable.
And, the internal link toward "localism in Hong Kong" by the word "localist" is not better than using "localist groups (Hong Kong)" (本土派). Localist means the people who advocate localism (本土主義者的). It would be better to link the word "localist" to where the groups or people belong to, but not the idealogy itself. Last but not lest, linking the words "localist groups" appeared in those pages to "localist groups (Hong Kong)" is never a problem. Keithchan1 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Your accusation of La, Lau and Chu not putting Hong Kong's interest in the first place are totally groundless. They were elected as the Hong Kong people's representatives with high votes, in which they represented at least a large number of Hong Kong voters' interests. Judging them not putting Hong Kong people's interest in the first place because of your own political opinion is not what wikipedian should do and it is not how wikipedia works.
They are Deutsche Welle, The Economist, South China Morning Post, Apple Daily, The Standard, Sky Post, Global Times and etc., I only act in accordance to the these reliable sources from various spectrums by some of the well-known political analysts which provides a pretty solid basis as compared to your single source from the Oriental Daily.
Claudia Mo's votes were not classified as localist in the counting of votes in the involved articles and templates.
If you look at the patterns of the articles on political parties and biographies, you will find out that when you put "conservative", "liberal" or "social democratic" generally refers to ideologies rather than a group affiliation. For biographies, their affiliation is explained in the membership of the political groups they belong, in this case, Youngspiration, Demosisto, Civic Passion and so on. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, "they were elected as the Hong Kong people's representatives with high votes, in which they represented at least a large number of Hong Kong voters' interests" cannot say that those three elected LegCo members are "putting Hong Kong people's interest in the first place". The legislators of pro-establishment also got high votes in the LegCo election, does it mean that they really consider the interests of Hong Kong people? More importantly, the idealogies between localists and the aforementioned left-wings are totally different, you cannot find a concrete commmon ground between them, or say that they are holding the localism idealogy. If you can read Chinese, you should read [4], not just arbitrarily follow what the media said. There are news saying that they are localists, at the same time, some news identified their differences between localists can be found. So, by a person's logic, one should write something that is more objective and knowledge-based, or simply, follow the basic concepts of the terms.
"Only act in accordance to those 'reliable' sources" can make your statements more supportive, but people cannot continue to write on the articles if the logic behind is not understandable. Most of your sources were written by news reporters in English, if you take a look into the recent Chinese news, not much of them would still use the term "localist groups" (本土派) to classify Law, Lau and Chu, but they rather use "localist or 'self-determination' camp (本土自決派). The reason behind that obviously is to make the term more clear to public, if not, they would still use the term "localist groups" (本土派) in doing so.
If Claudia Mo's votes were classified in pan-democrats' votes, then it should categorize her into pan-democrats but not localists, which makes the judgement of a camp's member unambiguous and not crossing between two camps. Also, there is problem about the classification of Yiu Chung-yim by following just some of the articles. Yiu Chung-yim said that he is neither a pan-democrat or member of "self-determination" groups, so it should never be classified into pan-democrats or it would be not objective, not to mention some articles classified him into the localist or "self-determination" camp. The proper way in dealing with this problem is to category him like doing so for Pierre Chan into a separated group.
I understand that the linking of "localist" to "localism in Hong Kong" is a traditional way of writing. I would point out that it is not easy for a reader to link to the "localist groups (Hong Kong) if doing so. Keithchan1 (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hong Kong is an open society and everyone is entitled to their opinions. If pro-Beijing voters, which consist of 40% of the Hong Kong people, think patriotism or closer ties with the Mainland is best for their interests then that is not for you or me to judge if they represent the "interests of the Hong Kong people". What you are promoting here is your personal opinion, not a unbiased view the wikipedia upholds. Same to the definition of "localism". We have had a lot of discussions before and the article "localism in Hong Kong" today is what it is after many discussions and arguments. It goes for a broad rather than narrow definition and encompasses both left- and right-wings of the movement and it is certainly fair enough at this moment until a clearer classification of the political classification comes out. If you have to hold on to a single source by an unknown author named Jasper Ho rejecting the left-wing localists are not localists, I can also list a dozen of academic sources saying that left-wing localists are localists. Until today there is not a defined classification of those six supporters of "self-determination" that are widely used by the media. There is no point for edit war now until, as I said, a clearer classification has come out.
Claudia Mo is categorised as pan-democrat in the involving articles and templates, despite she does hold localist agenda as it is mentioned in some articles. Yiu Chung-yim on the other hand has joined the democratic caucus and joined the pro-democratic Professional Guild. He acts with the pan-democrats in the Legco and for that I see no reason to categorise him as localist instead of pan-democrat.
The "localist groups (Hong Kong)" is linked on the Template:Hong Kong political parties which means it can be clicked on every Hong Kong political party article. Additionally, localist groups as a parliamentary force is a very recent thing, one should let it brew as more articles are created and linked rather than to arbitrarily change every article for just for the accessibility of another newly made article regardless the custom. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
All I heard from you are just using your flow of thinking and loads of "selected" sources to support for personal idea towards "localists". I do not think that you have read much about "localists" articles in Chinese. The original and most "raw" source of Hong Kong political issues should be reviewed in Chinese. You did not even understand the meaning of "localist groups" (本土派) and the difference between localist and "self-determination" camp. The basic concept of localists would not involve the left-wing. Can you point out one common point between them? You are just continuously saying that you have many sources to support your personal view.
You are biased to classify someone into pan-democrats such as Yiu Chung-yim. He claimed that he is either localist or "self-determination" camp nor pan-democrats. Why did you put him in pan-democrats because of his cooperation with some pan-democrats, but not because of his advocation of democratic self-determination, and classify him into "self-determination" groups? or put him in "others? That is obviously a subjective problem.
I do not think that linking those words in the definition or main description part of the groups' pages to "localism in Hong Kong" would be more effectively for reader to direct to the most related pages. They are part of the localist groups, so "localist groups (Hong Kong)" by no means is a page that is more desirable for them to read further. Keithchan1 (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea where your accusation is based on. They is not just "selected" sources but sources ranging from English to Chinese languages, international to local outlets, pro-Beijing to pro-democracy media and political analysts, as compared to your own claim which solely based on a commentary article from a blog written by a unknown writer. It is not for you to judge if I know localism or not. I created the article "localism in Hong Kong" and provided most of its content with sufficient sources and it was developed and approved by the other users to make it the way it is today. If you have another opinion about localism, go read the article and its bibliography first.
Yiu's membership of the the pro-democrat caucus and the pro-democratic Professional Guild is what makes him classified as pro-democrat. Same as Mo, who advocated fro "self-determination" during the campaign, is classified pro-democrat due to her membership of the pro-democrat caucus and the pro-democratic Civic Party. Many more pro-democrats have hold certain degrees of the localism, what they are classified as pro-democrats based on the same standard.
I agree in a certain extent. That's why I did not revert all your edits on that matter. I did keep some articles unchanged. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I was saying that you did not take those articles apart from those you have read into consideration. There are many sources on the web or somewhere else. As you said you have just read "sources ranging from English to Chinese languages, international to local outlets, pro-Beijing to pro-democracy media and political analysts", how about those sources written by localist media and particularly in Chinese etc. The term "localist groups" is first appeared in Chinese context, and elaborated long in Chinese media. Localists should know more about themselves other than the others. What they wrote if not all correct, should have some values for references. You kept judging the reliability of my sources because of the popularity of the writers or media, and neglected about their presence. That is why you still thought that there was no problem in putting Law, Lau and Chu into "localist groups". I have read the "localism in Hong Kong" before I was taking with you. The first description of localism in Hong Kong was already incorrect. So I suggest you to read more about localism in Chinese context before forbidding some others to edit those related articles correctly.
Your criteria in determinating whether a person is that camp or not is inaccurate. It is more suitable to follow what that person claimed, rather than disagree or ignore it. Since that person has already expressed his will of being in a specific camp, it is the fact that he or she has admitted. In Yiu's case, he does not think that he is a pan-democrat, putting him into there is not telling the truth. This should also be consider for other pan-democrats. Keithchan1 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
To judge the reliability of a source from their language is totally biased. Moreover there are also Chinese sources I listed. The fundamental thing is we do not have the same opinion on who "localists" are, that makes it impossible to agree on whose sources should be taken into account. You insist that only the right-wing localists are the localists and only their sources (or rather one source by now) should be taken into account, and ignoring the other multiple sources written from non-right-wing localists from different languages, countries of origin, political spectrums and political analysts (that's what you have been trying to do), that is totally what we call bias and for that reason I am afraid I cannot agree with you.
Yiu says he is not a pan-democrat or a localist, then what does he make him? It is not factually correct that he is a non-aligned independent like Pierre Chan, or is he a pro-Beijing independent. So that makes me either pan-democrat or a localist. Then my point comes back, he joins the pan-democrat caucus and Professional Guild and he is not the only one in pan-democracy camp advocates for self-determination. To not classify Yiu because of only according to what he spins is unreasonable, because that's what Yiu tries so hard to do in the first place, not to be classified into any side at all. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not say that I judge the reliablility of source from language. I was trying to point out that you were not willing to read some of those articles in Chinese, which are rich in first-hand information. What you did is to rely on some sources, and only see things from their own perspectives. That is not objective enough to present information fully from different points of view. Also, I was suggesting to consider the basic concept of "localists" to determine whether those left-wings should be classified as "localists". I knew that many "western" news reporter put them into localists, because they do not understand that their "democratic self-determination" is not as usual as the self-determination in western culture, in which the former one is not about to create seperation from China. That is why I think putting them into localists is absolutely incorrect, and suggest you to read those articles that you omitted.
When you started thinking to put Yiu into either pan-democrat or localist (self-determination) had already made a judgement about his group affiliation. He said that he is not a pan-democrat, how can you put him into the pan-democrat? I see you using his cooperation to make this judgement, but it would be inaccurate to do so. I think the most suitable way should be classifying him into "others" or "difficult to be classified", as to be fair to the "self-determination" groups. Keithchan1 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I have listed the Chinese sources. You are saying that if they do not support "separation from China" then they are not localists. That is fundamentally incorrect. if they advocate separation from China they are called "secessionists" and "separatists", and the separatist idea has already been covered in "Hong Kong independence". Localism is about the consciousness of caring about the local culture and society, as opposed to the Chinese nationalism which cares about China as a whole and neglect the wish and interest of the locals. Based on your understanding of "localism = separatism" and your earlier statement of "putting Hong Kong people interest int he first place", I really doubt if your claim on localism well-advised. That can also be observed from you giving only one source from one of the localist blog denying who are not localist.
The point I wanted to make is Yiu does not want to be classified into any group but it is definitely not factually correct as he is a member of several groups. That means what he says is not relevant. And therefore from his membership in the Legco he is classified as pan-democrat. I am actually considering of divide the Legco into "establishment" and "non-establishment" to avoid all these endless pointless arguments, but there will most likely start another front of war. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

使用参考來原

我希望我以下講的話你不會見怪。你產生了一些很重要的文件，我看裡面英文也寫得相當不錯。我不清楚你的英文水平有多高，但我注意到文章好似經常與参考文件語句會有所相近。你也知道百科受嚴格版權法律區管，绝不容許抄習，所以我很希望你用参考資料的時候會更加小心。 我把你剛剛產生的文件就咁改了几句，以示提醒你句子有問題。我相信文章裡係仲有的，不過我暫時無時間全部改。我有時間會慢慢改。 我也希望你不要害怕英文寫得唔，呢方面我和其他人都可以帮你的。我建議你寫的時候用自己的字眼，可以用簡單的句子表達都無問題。-- Ohc ¡digame! 14:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it was just out of convenience. I will be more careful. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

有關立法會議員

請不要在一些地方選區立法會議員加入前任人/繼任人，因為地方選區不是單議席。--QBear (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See the European Parliament elections in England. They are the multiple-seat single constituency system as well and they have managed to solve the predecessor/successor issue. Furthermore, a) Same party's seat is a succession; b) the one who wins the newly created seat wins the new seat; c) the one who wins a seat left by a vacant seat by a by-election succeeds the one who last holds the seat. Even if you were correct, you will have to change all the biographical entries of the members of the Legislative Council from 1998 and also the appointed unofficial members since from 1850 to 1997 and cannot let the work half done. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong.svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Brook Bernacchi.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brook Bernacchi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Woo Pak Foo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Woo Pak Foo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lmmnhn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Youngspiration LegCo members

Template:Youngspiration LegCo members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

British honours

I urge you to revert your recent edits concerning the removal of British honours from biographical entries. The HKSAR government is known for prohibiting the use of British honours in their documents and publications out of political reasons. The list you have provided is a product of political screening and should not be solely relied on. There are many other sources available elsewhere and we should always avoid taking a narrow view in shaping a decision. Besides, substantive British honours are bestowed on British nationals including those in Hong Kong before 1997. They are entitled to use the relevant post-nominal letters and titles, if any, even after they renounce British nationality. Removing British honours from biographical entries of Hong Kong people only is like a discrimination against them. I am afraid that your edits concerned have undermined the editorial independence enjoyed by Wikipedia as well. --Clithering (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree with your claim that it is a political screening. I think "prohibiting" is a strong word. I would rather say the SAR government does not "recognise" the British honours in their official documents because of that does not belong to their own honour system. However, the more important thing is how the persons address themselves. Most of the people, e.g. Donald Tsang, Andrew Leung, Selina Chow and Woo Kwok-hing, have not used the British honorific post-nominals in public and it is a more important indicator that should be respected. This issue has actually been addressed and settled in Talk:Donald Tsang. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
How to define a person who does not use the post-nominal letters "in public"? In fact, there are plenty of sources showing that the people concerned have used the post-nominal letters in public (e.g. WOO Kwok-hing GBS CBE, Mrs Selina Chow, GBS, OBE, JP, Jeffrey Lam, GBS, MBE, JP, ANTONY LEUNG, GBS, OBE, Andrew Leung, GBS, MBE, JP). The case of Donald Tsang is exceptional for at least two reasons. Firstly, he was knighted on the eve of the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong and therefore, he has almost never used the title at all; secondly, he has publicly stated that he has no intention to use the title. Tsang's case does not apply here. --Clithering (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not see there are plenty of sources which they use their British post nominals in public. In most public events they mostly go by their post-handover nominals only. I could totally go with your suggestion if the most of the sources state otherwise. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems you have changed your stance from whether they have used them or not to whether they have used them most of the time or not. We cannot deny the fact that they do use the post-nominals at least in some occasions if not all. However, we do not have a scale here to define what is "plenty" and what is "most of the time", and it is certainly unscientific to judge by merely relying on a few sources as retrieved from the Internet at one time. Unless they have publicly expressed their preference, it is just like a guessing game and arbitrary judgment may easily be made (with perhaps a few words provided in the edit summary as "explanation"). Besides, there are no established rules and regulations prohibiting the use of British honourific post-nominal letters in the entries of the personalities concerned in Wikipedia. --Clithering (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I have not changed my stance. My stance is that the common usage of the post-nominals of those individuals should be respected. There are of course statistics you can easily search on google and that is usually how things are resolved on wikipedia as far as I have experienced as an editor on here. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
How do you define "common usage"? Like 39 search results of "Selina Chow, GBS, OBE JP" vs 12 serach results of "Selina Chow, GBS, JP" on Google?--Clithering (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, or "Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, GBS, JP" vs "Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, GBS, OBE, JP". I cannot find a better way to gather the statistics otherwise. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The base is too small. The difference on the number of results between the two search terms is also too insignificant. As such, the British nominal letters should not be removed. --Clithering (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
"Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, GBS, OBE, JP" has about 212 results and "Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, GBS, JP" has about 3,510 results. I think the difference is quite apparent. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The two search terms return 19 and 41 results respectively, of which many of the results are dummy wiki pages. The result is too insignificant. I shall revert the removal of the British nominals. --Clithering (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There are 212 vs 3,510 results and that provides a significant difference. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
When you click second page or so, it says 19 and 41 results. --Clithering (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
"Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, GBS, JP" It is not what is shown on my google search result. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The so called search with "3,510 results" ends on page four with 40 results remaining only. Among the 40 results, at least 10 of them are wiki pages. The result really represents nothing at all. It would be a great shock to our readers if they know we conduct research in such manner. --Clithering (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That has to be settled in some way we can both agree on. Is there any alternative statistic you can gather? Lmmnhn (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe the burden of proof falls on you. If what you can find is an insignificant Google search result pointing at nowhere, there is no reason to remove the British post-nominal letters at the first instance. Drawing reference from the case of Donald Tsang, you need to find facts such as statements issued by the personalities concerned on their decision to abandon the British post-nominal letters in order to substantiate your claim. Without such facts, I shall revert your edits accordingly. Moreover, even if you think your claim is valid, you should not have left your work half done. Some biographies have the nominal letters removed by you but many are not now. Readers are left confused by the uncomformity created. --Clithering (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The lack of proof goes both way of removing and imposing the British post nominal letters. If you cannot find an alternative standard then the google statistics should be taken into account. The one with more google results returned should be respected. In the case of Donald Tsang, the personality's decision and common usage were ignored in the first place and being reverted on the accusation of "political correctness". As long as there are more sources or statistics suggesting the personality's decision or common usage, there should not be more arbitrary edits as it was done to Donald Tsang. Moreover, the current usage of the personalities should always be in priority. Take Selina Chow and Woo Kwok-hing as examples, they are addressed as Selina Chow, GBS, JP and Woo Kwok-hing, GBS in the government gazette and the publications by the institutions where they have held office at, such as their positions in the Legislative Council and the High Court. To add the British post-nominal letters would be a total ignorance of the current post-nominal practice of those personalities. Furthermore, in response to your "nonconformity" claim coming out of no where. The issue of British nominal letters concerns more than a few hundreds biographical entries on here and should not be the work of an individual. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The Google search has already proved that the British post-nominal letters are publicly used. Without public objection from the personalities themselves, the use of the British post-nominal letters in Wikipedia should be respected in accordance with the relevant guidelines. As I have already mentioned, the HKSAR government has issued internal circular prohibiting the use of British post-nominal letters in their documents and publications. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the HKSAR government and in no way represents views of the HKSAR government only. To remove the post-nominal letters by selectively quoting government publications such as the Gazette only undermines the political neutrality of the articles involved as well as the editorial independence enjoyed by Wikipedia. Besides, I would like to remind you that Selina Chow quit the Legislative Council in 2008 while Woo Kwok-hing quit the High Court in October 2016. Your argument on "current practice" is not true.
If you read the discussion on Donald Tsang in Talk:Donald Tsang, you would know that its conclusion says "Whether he is simply following HKSAR protocol is immaterial, the fact is that he has not used it post-handover, does not use it currently and has stated in clear terms that he will not use the title." Our findings show that the post-nominal letters of the personalities concerned have been used post-1997, we have no evidence proving that they does not use it currently, and they have not stated in clear terms that they will not use the title. As such, your edits concerned should be reverted. --Clithering (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes I do not object your claim that the British post-nominals are used in several occasions but that is not the most common usage. The claim of "internal circular" of "prohibiting" the use of British post-nominal letters has to be supported by evidence.
Moreover, according to Wikipedia:Post-nominal letters, "post-nominal letters......should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but should generally be omitted from the lead." In this case, the public officeholders of the HKSAR should be included while the pre-handover honours by the British authorities should be mentioned but omitted.
I acted in good faith in accordance to the outcome of the discussions. You may restart the discussion if you disagree with the outcome. However till this day, "Sir Tsang" has not been used formally in public. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
As we have already discussed, a Google search with 19 and 41 results represents nothing at all. This should not be the way we conduct scholarly research. In fact, Google is not a yardstick to determine the use of British post-nominal letters in Wikipedia. Both the discussion on the case of Donald Tsang and Wikipedia:Post-nominal letters guideline do not mention the "Google search methodology" as invented by you. As I have already quoted, the discussion on the case of Donald Tsang concludes that the removal of British titles and post-nominal letters has to meet three criteria, viz. (a) they have not been used post-1997; (b) they have not been used currently; and (c) their owner has stated in clear terms that he/she will not use them. Wikipedia:Post-nominal letters guideline further points out that the post-nominal letters should be omitted only "when an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters, or seldom uses their post-nominal letters". Your Google search results fail to meet any of the criteria as mentioned.
Substantive British honours are exclusively bestowed upon British subjects who have rendered distinguished services to the British cause. They are entitled to keep using the British titles and post-nominal letters even after they have renounced British nationality. The fact that people like Selina Chow, who live in a former British colony with a current population of 3.5 million of British Nationals (Overseas), have not given up their substantive British honours post-1997 is a strong testimonial of their continued bondage with their former sovereign state. I also note that British honours are used in many Wikipedia entries of heads of state of former British colonies which have become republics after their independence as long as their use meets the guideline. Examples include Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin and Sir Feroz Khan Noon of Pakistan and Sir Ellis Clarke of Trinidad and Tobago, etc.
Last but not least, kindly be reminded again that Selina Chow and Woo Kwok-hing are NOT public officeholders of the HKSAR government now; and "Sir Tsang" is a wrong form of address. The correct way to address is either "Sir Donald Tsang" or "Sir Donald". The "Sir" title is never followed by the surname. --Clithering (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who has been on wikipedia long enough cannot be that foolish to think that the google search statistic is invented by me. It is a common practice to resolve controversy as we are trying to do here. You seem to have a tendency to mix things up. Firstly, google statistic is just one of the methods to resolve this question as neither of us provided an alternative solution at that time. It is not the best solution obviously, as no significant difference is shown with this method, but I reserve this solution if it cannot be resolved with any other solution. Secondly, on the Wikipedia:Post-nominal letters guideline, the "honours issued by other entities should generally be omitted from lead" point and the "when an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters should be omitted from the lead" point are in different paragraph which means that if the individual fits in either of these points then their post-nominal letters should be omitted. I think the wikipedia guideline, neither is it invented by me, should provide a good enough basis to settle the whole British honour issue. Whether the individual has given up their honours or not is a non-issue, as the wikipedia guideline has stated. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Substantive British honours should not be regarded as honours "issued by other entities". Examples include Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin and Sir Feroz Khan Noon of Pakistan and Sir Ellis Clarke of Trinidad and Tobago, etc. --Clithering (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course the British colonial government is a different entity from the SAR government. That is how all these discussions started in the first place. The examples of Clarke, Noon and Nazimuddin are irrelevant as their post-nominal letters are all Commonwealth. They are not mixed with British colonial and SAR post-nominal letters as Selina Chow, Woo Kwok-hing and others would be. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
How about Sir Dawda Jawara of The Gambia? The Gambia has left the Commonwealth. --Clithering (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
However he does not have a post-nominal letter from "the other entities" and that is the point I have been trying to make. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure?--Clithering (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from that, the Commonwealth of Nations is no more than an international governmental organisation. Each member of the Commonwealth is an independent political entity without being subject to the jurisdiction of other entities. The Commonwealth argument is not valid. --Clithering (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Their honours are recognised by the succeeding institutions because of the Commonwealth ties. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The notion that a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations must recognise British honours is totally wrong and baseless. For example, Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth but British honours are not used in their government websites (see e.g. 1, e.g. 2 and e.g. 3). Despite of that, British honours are used in Pakistani entries in Wikipedia such as Sir Khawaja Nazimuddin, Sir Feroz Khan Noon and Amjad Ali, etc. Furthermore, the Gambia is not even a member of the Commonwealth but British honours are again used in the entry of Sir Dawda Jawara. By the way, based on your logic, foreign nationals should have their HKSAR post-nominals be removed but I see that the Wikipedia entries of people like Sir William Purves, Inga-Stina Ewbank and Martin Gilbert Barrow, etc. have kept them, with the HKSAR post-nominals of Barrow being added by you. --Clithering (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You are still missing the point after all this time. According to the guideline, the "honours issued by other entities should generally be omitted from lead". The main argument of this issue is the "other". The post-nominal letters by the one organisation that person closely associated with should be included and the "other entities" should be omitted. The examples given are mostly from the single organisation, the British government, as compared to the SAR vs British honours we are dealing here. Furthermore, no matter how many examples you give it cannot overthrow what has been said in the guideline. Either the Barrow article or the the articles you cited should not set a standard to follow, as people, like me, edited without knowing the guideline. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted the guideline. It says post-nominals "should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognisable organization with which the subject has been closely associated". "A country or organisation" here does not refer to a single country or organisation. The point is that there can be more than one country or organisation as long as the subject is closed associated with them. It is just like Basil Hume, who has two sets of post-nominals, namely "OSB", "OM", issued by two different entities. I don't think the guideline means only one of them can be used in his Wikipedia entry. The crux of the matter is whether there is a close association, nothing else. As such, "Honours issued by other entities" refers to honours issued by a country or organisation which does not have close association (e.g. a foreign country) with the person. It does not mean the second or third country/ organisation to bestow the honours. Besides, even if what you say is right, the guideline only says the post-nominals "should generally be omitted". It is not in absolute terms. Given the special case of Hong Kong, British post-nominals should be kept. --Clithering (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It does say a country or widely recognisable organisation in a singular form, in this case it would be the SAR government where many of the concerned individuals have held high positions in. And I agree Hong Kong is a different case from the Commonwealth, Pakistan or Basil Hume, as the matter of this long debate is because the British colonial rule is a historical period and is now succeeded by the SAR government and the latter does not recognise the British honours. The fact that in many occasions that those concerned individuals do not present their honorific titles from the former regime shows that there is an issue in which an English Roman Catholic bishop does not concern, nor the Commonwealth states have problems with. Therefore, a Chief Executive, an Executive Councillor and a vice-president of the High Court in the SAR government choose not not present themselves with the British titles make their own sense and this general practice should be respected. That is a country and a organisation that these individuals closely associated with in comparison to the UK government or previous British colonial authorities and therefore the post-nominals of such entity is omitted. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You have really mixed things up. The words "country" and "organisation" are generic nouns in singular form to mean an example of a larger category with a view to giving a definition. The generic nouns here does not mean "one country" or "one organisation". Your interpretation is also implausible as it is very normal for a person to use post-nominals awarded by more than one organisation (such as professional organisations) in Wikipedia and elsewhere. In addition, "honours issued by other entities", in contrast to the first sentence of the guideline, refers to honours awarded by a country or organisation which does not have close association to the recipient, such as honourary orders awarded by a foreign country. So as long as the honours are substantive, post-nominals should be used. Your notion that "Commonwealth countries automatically recognise British honours" is totally false and irrelevant here. Your idea of relying on one government's line is a serious tendency of political correctness. As mentioned many times, the case of Donald Tsang has concluded that British honours should not be removed unless (a) they have not been used post-1997; (b) they have not been used currently; and (c) their owner has stated in clear terms that he/she will not use them. As the Google search has proved that British honours are still in use, the British post-nominals should be kept and your edits concerned should be reverted. --Clithering (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has already become a deadlock. Both of us are just repeating our points. I suggest to resort it to broader discussion with other users on the talk page of Wikipedia:Post-nominal letters. I think the Commonwealth examples are irrelevant as I stated as it does not have the same context as the Hong Kong case. It is not just a government's line. It is also how those individuals chose to present themselves when they hold offices at the SAR government. Lmmnhn (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WP is not a publicity channel nor an organ of public record of the Hong Kong Government, so its stance on recognition of British honours is not relevant. The only questions for WP are factual: (1) was the honour awarded; (2) was it accepted; (3) has it been revoked or returned. If the answers to these questions are yes, yes and no, WP has an obligation to state the facts. Likewise, WP is not a vehicle for personal promotion, so whether or not the honouree trumpets his/her award is completely irrelevant. What is published in the press is also completely irrelevant; in fact, if there is a tendency in the press to be quiet about old honours, all the more reason we need WP to contain them. WP is a source of facts; provide them. This is vitally important to WP's role as an independent source of information.sirlanz 02:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You claim is based on the assumption of "a tendency in the press to be quiet about old honours" and that is very debatable. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am commenting on this thread at the request of Clithering on my talk page. I have not extensively edited the Tsang article in the past. I just examined the article as well as the comments hereabove. I would just say that I have no particular issues with the standing of DT's knighthood within his biography. I do not believe there can be any problem with censorship or undue weight as it stands. My view is simply based on the fact that it is nowadays relatively unconventional for British honours to be reflected in HK (and their usage tends to be shrouded with political connotations, especially as far as this individual is concerned); in addition, the knighthood attributed is given prominent mention in the article, including a sentence in the lead. The majority of our readers are not 100 percent knowledgeable as to these, and readers would look up the relevant associated article if they are interested in any particular item or award. I feel not showing the abbreviations immediately after his name does not detract from the article. Usage of postnominals in the article that is out of line with everyday use invites interminable and unproductive discussion that would be detrimental to cooperation. I hope that this opinion is of some help in resolving the dispute. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Centrists category

Is the intention to depopulate and eventually delete Category:Hong Kong centrists? [5] Deryck C. 10:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not intended to do it but it would actually be a good idea. Lmmnhn (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Democracy Groundwork LegCo members

Template:Democracy Groundwork LegCo members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chan Chi-chuen#Requested move 28 November 2016

You were involved in one of previous RM discussions. I invite you to another one. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:People Power LegCo members. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hong Kong independence into Localism in Hong Kong. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox

I started an RFC at Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen#Name in infobox. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use images

I've been going through a lot of table lists that you have added images to and I thought I would leave a message here explaining my actions. Fair use images cannot be used in table lists for the sole purpose of identifying the subject. This is per WP:NFLISTS. Second, all fair use images must be below a certain resolution to comply with our fair use policy. I have added {{non-free reduce}} to some of your uploads and a bot will take care of them. Third, every use of a fair use image requires a completely separate fair use rationale that explains how it complies with policy. If the image does not have one it is subject to removal from those articles or deleted all together. If you have any questions about fair use or our policy please don't hesitate to let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Raymond Chan Chi-chuen" in other pages

Can you at least let me change the links from "Chan Chi-chuen" to "Raymond Chan Chi-chuen"? We want to cooperate together rather than fight over. We both are warned, so can you concede into letting me change the links in other pages? --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not know what links are you referring to. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for belated response. I was referring to changing from "[[Chan Chi-chuen]]" → "[[Raymond Chan Chi-chuen]]" linked by available pages. The former is now a redirect to the latter... Well, if the admin changes the title into "Raymond Chan (Hong Kong politician)", then I'm not surprised. However, consistency is either tricky or weak. I used parenthetical disambiguation for Samantha Lams. However, I also used natural disambiguation for composers named Keith Chan. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that the recent RM is closed as "not moved", shall I make changes to Template:People Power LegCo members? George Ho (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a totally different issue though. It does not mean that the template has to follow the exact title of the article. Lmmnhn (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Shall we take this to WP:DRN then? George Ho (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Woo Kwok-hing 2017CE.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Woo Kwok-hing 2017CE.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Independent shading vs. Independent meta color

There is currently an incongruity between Template:Party shading/Independent and the meta colors Template:Independent/meta/color and Template:Independent (politician)/meta/color. Do you see this as not a problem? I also don't know how many editors are required until "consensus" is reached. Please advise. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you realise that any change of the Template:Independent/meta/color would affect hundreds of articles? A consensus and possibly a vote should be carried before any change. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A vote would be great! Nevermore27 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Term of office of Election Committee

Accoring to CAP 569 s9, the term of office of Election Committee should start from 1 February 2017. The title of List of members of the Election Committee of Hong Kong, 2016–21 should be 2017-22. Also the year of term of previous Election Committees should be: 2000-2005 (the first Election Committee constituted on 14 July 2000[6]), 2007-2012, 2012-2017 respectively, please correct the categories in Category:Election_Committee.QBear (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alliance for Peace and Democracy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017

On 27 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Carrie Lam

You might not be aware of this but religions are not being placed in the infoboxes anymore as per this archive pump village policy: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes. Also, Template:Infobox person says under "children" parameter: Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g., three or 3), or list of names if notable; not really the case in that BLP, so I restored it to a single digit. This goes to other parameters such as relatives, relations as well. Hope this makes sense. Bluesphere 13:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Chaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wah Yan College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hong Kong legislative election, 2016
added links pointing to North District and Eastern District
Donald Tsang
added a link pointing to Queen Mary Hospital

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Woo Kwok-hing 2017CE.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Woo Kwok-hing 2017CE.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I keep seeing your name on Revision History pages...

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your indefatigable work in the immensely important area of Hong Kong politics. The details are often boring & the tasks thankless, but your years of service are hereby recognised! A L T E R C A R I 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roland Arthur Charles North, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Katoomba and P&O. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification re: pro-government

Hello again!

I have a question about Southern District Council#Political control. What does pro-government mean? The Hong Kong Civic Association page says the party is pro-Beijing?

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 17:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the article pro-Beijing camp. "Pro-government" means pro-colonial government before the formation of the "united front" of pro-government business interests and traditional leftists. Lmmnhn (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I unfortunately still don't understand. Weren't the colonial government and the CCP at odds? Did the Hong Kong Civic Association change its views around the time of the Handover? The Civic Assoc page says that the Assoc wanted political reform to avoid HK as 'colonial museum piece'. This began as the Governor's proposal, but still, it doesn't sound 'pro-government' to me. Please forgive my ignorance on this. I genuinely want to understand this better.
Unrelatedly, what would you think of me putting the links to Chinese Wikipedia in the Southern District Council sortable table in the format below?
Chan Fu-ming zh
—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 02:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, according to my understanding, the Reform Club of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Civic Association were the two quasi-opposition political "parties" in the 1960s and 70s. However, HKCA, which catered to conservative teachers and middle class were more conservative and moderate, thus the electoral slogan of "stability, prosperity and progress". However as the new wave of pro-democracy activists joined the politics and elections in the 1980s, these older generation political organisations were seen as relatively behind the time. Hong Kong Civic Association was one step closer to the pro-government side as it was evident in their close partnership with the Progressive Hong Kong Society formed by Executive and Legislative Councillor Maria Tam in the mid-80s, as well as its successor, the Liberal Democratic Federation of Hong Kong set up in 1990 by the pro-business conservative elites from the Group of 89. However it was not until Chris Patten's 1994 Hong Kong electoral reform that put the British and Chinese at odds (before that the colonial government worked closely with Beijing upon their wishes, see 1988 Hong Kong electoral reform, where colonial government killed the direct election plan upon Beijing request). The used-to-be pro-British legislators such as Allen Lee and Selina Chow switched side to Beijing and that was how the today's pro-Beijing camp came into being. I could not find when exactly HKCA became a pro-Beijing party, but I am confident to say it happened during the 90s when the whole pro-government conservative bloc was absorbed into pro-Beijing camp like Heung Yee Kuk and some community kaifong organisations. Today when you go to HKCA website, you can see the patriotic, pro-Beijing conservative messages we get to see from a pro-Beijing group.
When I edited the election articles, I categorised HKCA into pro-government camp when they started fielding candidates together with PHKS as PHKS was clearly a pro-government group. But in the case of Southern District Council, the 1985-94 District Boards were all marked as pro-government control just because it was controlled by pro-government appointed members and the kaifong conservative elected members.
Yes, I think the Chinese wiki link with a bracket should be fine: Chan Fu-ming (zh) Lmmnhn (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I just removed several paragraphs from Leung Chun-ying–UGL agreement that you largely copied and pasted from a copyrighted news article. I am somewhat concerned given that you have a few additional copyright warnings on your talk page from a while back. Can you explain what went wrong here and how you will prevent it from happening again? As I'm sure you understand, it is extremely important not to copy and paste copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The rewritten content is still far too close. Please read WP:Close paraphrasing and be careful to avoid this issue going forward. Never write an article by copying and pasting content and changing words -- that is only a recipe for problems. I recommend writing from your memory of the source and then going back to check for accuracy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, I found a copyright issue in the article Harold Thomas Creasy, where some material was copied from the source web page http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Harold_Thomas_Creasy. Please don't add copyright material copied from other websites to this wiki. Everything you contribute needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It was rephrased. Lmmnhn (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Map British Lowerhouse results elections 2017

What's your source for the map, as The Guardian published a completely different map? Thanks in advance! Happytravels (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Completely different map? All the results are correct. Lmmnhn (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please answer my question. What's your reliable source (and Commons isn't a reliable source)? How is it possible that your map differs from the one from The Guardian (here)? Happytravels (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You are saying it's completely different from the one on the Guardian? But where are the difference? Lmmnhn (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ADPL LegCo members

Template:ADPL LegCo members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Neo Democrats LegCo members

Template:Neo Democrats LegCo members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Real Estate Hegemony has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Majority is not the total amount of votes

Just popping in to remind you that majority is the winner's votes deducted by the second runner up's total amount of votes, and is NOT the total amount of votes the winner received ELHK | 〒 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of showing a deduction of the winner's votes by the first runner up's votes? Lmmnhn (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
To show the lead of the winner so the reader can know if (s)he won by a marginal or not. This is also used in other politicians such as Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May, Amber Rudd, Sajid Javid and John Whittingdale. And just to remind you that IP user User:61.224.4.164 have been blocked for 31 hours by an admin because he repeatedly removed the edits on Tsai Ing-wen majority. ELHK | 〒 14:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. O1lI0 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

End of the 4 legislator's term

When you say "There is no de facto/de jure distinction", are you trying to convince me that all the 4 legislators did not participate the meetings and act as a legislator between the dates 12 October 2016 and 14 July 2017? To be more precise you are trying to tell me that they did not speak in the Committees, did not ask questions in the Chief Executive questions, did not vote on any bills and did not use the name 'Member of the Legislative Council". But did they? ELHK | 〒 13:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification added. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Beijing camp

Your source only shows CY Leung's background as pro-China. You should know HK Government is not run by a political party and certainly not by Pro-Beijing camp. The content has got nothing to do with Pro-Beijing camp. It's absolutely undue so it should be removed. STSC (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-China is not pro-Beijing? Pro-Beijing camp is not a political party. Pro-Beijing camp is a political alignment in which all the Chief Executives have been part of. You claim has no supporting evidence. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you still saying the Pro-Beijing camp is running the HK government? That's undue, POV and original research. STSC (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
How can all these sources resulted in a simply groundless remark dismissing it is "undue, POV and original research" without any counter evidence from a senior wikipedian?
You might think that was a common belief that Hong Kong civil servants are traditionally politically neutral, however the Chief Executive and the principal officials are pro-Beijing and they are running the SAR government. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Your concept of Pro-Beijing camp and Pro-democracy camp is completely wrong. We don't say an ordinary man in the street (or CY Leung or Carrie Lam) who is pro-Beijing is a member of Pro-Beijing camp. Pro-Beijing camp refers to the group or alliance of pro-Beijing political parties and they field their candidates in elections. STSC (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Claim with no evidence. Original research much? It is getting ridiculous now. How is an ordinary person a good analogy to the Chief Executives? But it is simply common sense Chief Executives are no ordinary persons. They are politicians and their posts, as well as the principal officials' are political offices. They run for offices. To claim that the Chief Executives are neutral and don't belong to a political faction totally shows you have a huge misconception on Hong Kong politics. Lmmnhn (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem with you is that you're confused with "Pro-Beijing camp" and "pro-Beijing faction". They're not the same thing. CY Leung is one of pro-Beijing faction but as Chief Executive he's non-partisan and did not belong to Pro-Beijing camp. I shall point this out again: Pro-Beijing camp is only a political alliance that takes part in elections. STSC (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The claim that if a politician is nonpartisan they don't belong to pro-Beijing camp is ridiculous. Martin Liao is nonpartisan and he is the convenor of the pro-Beijing caucus. Paul Tse, Junius Ho and Michael Tien among others are nonpartisan and they are obviously part of the pro-Beijing camp. The claim that the pro-Beijing camp only takes part in elections shows you have no understanding of Hong Kong politics. The pro-Beijing camp are a parliamentary group, controls the legislature and the Election Committee, providing the president of the Legislative Council and Chief Executives. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't take my phrase out of context, I said Pro-Beijing camp is only a political alliance, not only just taking part in elections. You're getting more absurd now to say members of LegGo are non-partisan? And don't insist to put Carrie Lam in the infobox. STSC (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Who is being absurd here? Martin Liao, Paul Tse, Junius Ho and Michael Tien are obviously nonpartisans and also Leung Chun-ying but they are part of the pro-Beijing camp. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to waste my time here. Now two editors object you put CE in the infobox. STSC (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Pro-Beijing camp.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. STSC (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Aguyintobooks. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Hong Kong independence have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  10:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Be specific. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Localism in Hong Kong

You need to discuss your changes on the talk page, at least to explain what you are reverting back to, if you are reverting. William Avery (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation source

For some editing related to elections in Hong Kong, the most intriguing question I need to know is the statement on legco 2016 election mentioned that citing the sources, especially from HK government site labelled as unsourced information. I’m just asking why did citing the source from the government site on the correct time still be labelled as 'citing from unsourced site’? Muhammad Azmi 03:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese general election, 2005, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toyama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Localist independent members

Template:Localist independent members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Democratic Party (Hong Kong) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You should really leave an edit summary, especially when changing numerical values in an infobox. Or at least update the access date for source related to the edit. GS ⋙ ☎ 05:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Andrew Leung, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Andrew Leung, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Industrial (first) is the official name of the constituency. We have had this conversation with Ohconfucius before. Stop disruptive reverting if you have no idea what is going on here! Lmmnhn (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lmmnhn/Archive_3&oldid=1146533558"