User talk:Lmmnhn/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Orphaned non-free image File:Man-kam Lo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Man-kam Lo.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) 17:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Next Japanese general election
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Next Japanese general election. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Japanese general election, 2017. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Japanese general election, 2017. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Guanaco 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- How can one contest the nomination if the page has already been deleted. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.STSC (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No edit summary
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)
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 → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
If you keep reverting with a blank edit summary, it would be treated as vandalism.
STSC (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Chan Yat-sen.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chan Yat-sen.jpg. 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) 18:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Lmmnhn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chip Tsao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equal Opportunities Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Leung Kwok-hung
I'm not aware of any requirement that the subject has to be looking ahead. And he's not doing that in either image. Anyway, I think the later image is a better pose/composition. Also, for the caption, it's the image of Che that's iconic, and not his T-shirt. He has plenty of different ones with the same "iconic" picture. -- Ohc ¡digame! 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is not the requirement but only the preference: to have the subject's portrait shown in a better way, which is his full face being shown, clearer background and his Che t-shirt shown and red colour also representing his social democratic stance. --Lmmnhn (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You never accept changes, do you?
ELHK | 〒 11:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Democratic Party officially supports the winners of the primaries. False fact ought to be corrected. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kowloon East (constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A45 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
HK election template
Please stop removing the referendum and links to other elections – this is the seventh or eighth time you've done it and it really needs to stop. Thanks, Number 57 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure if you have a good understanding of the electoral history of Hong Kong. The 1896 plebiscite is not in any sense the modern definition of "referendum". It was held within a narrow electorate deciding a mere community matters. To include it as a "referendum" cast confusion to the readers. Furthermore, the Sanitary Board elections were not the only elections at the time. There were elections to the several public offices including the Licensing Board, as well as the Legislative Council unofficial seats elected by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and the Justices of the Peace. Since these elections were largely non-public and in limited size. Rather to put all these non-public elections into the current template. It is much better to distinguish them from the modern day's Urban Council elections from 1936 to 1981 and the public franchise from 1983 to 1995.Lmmnhn (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree – these elections were public, albeit with a highly limited franchise – this is not a reason for exclusion. Please return to discussing this at Template talk:Hong Kong elections. If we are unable to agree, then I suggest seeking further input from WP:E&R. In the meantime, please respect WP:BRD and leave the template in its stable version. Thanks, Number 57 11:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're now reached three reverts on the template, so I hope you'll be stopping and moving to the discussion page, otherwise you'll probably end up being blocked. Thanks, Number 57 11:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You in fact are the one who have reached the three reverts on the template. Simply saying "I disagree" is the least justified reason for undermining the people's effort. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- We are both now at three reverts. And I didn't simply say "I disagree" – I gave you the reason I disagreed. I am happy to debate this in a civil fashion, but this will not be possible if you make misleading comments. Number 57 12:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are saying that "highly limited franchise is not a reason for exclusion" without any further elaboration is hardly a convincing argument against the three major reasons I have listed above. How is a plebiscite within the European community in 1896 which only included 788 persons in and excluded the overwhelming majority of the Chinese residents a modern day's sense of referendum? There was no referendum law in the colony at that time and therefore it can not be legally defined as "referendum". So either in legal sense or political sense it could be called a referendum. Historically, it was not even significant enough to be included. Furthermore, How is excluding the Licensing Board elections, the Legislative Council elections of HKGCC and JPs justifiable if you insist to include the Sanitary Board elections in the template? Why should the Sanitary Board, an institution which totally different from latter Urban Council be listed in the same template? Lmmnhn (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- With regards to the referendum, that's what the franchise was at the time – for many countries we have elections on the template where there was a tiny, tiny franchise compared to the number of adults in the country/territory – for example {{Zambian elections}}, in which the early elections had only a few hundred enfranchised voters or {{Belgian elections}} where only 1% of the population was able to vote in the 1830 election. The lack of referendum law does not mean that this was not a referendum. Perhaps worth noting that I use this term ("referendum") interchangeably with plebiscite – if the terminology is what bothers you, then I have no problem replacing "referendum" with "plebiscite" on the template.
- With regards to the other elections, add them too if you have the relevant information. If they occurred at the same times, then perhaps the Sanitary Board election articles could be renamed to something more general and the content on the elections to the other posts could be added to those articles.
- As for asking why the elections should be listed – it's an election template designed to list elections. It would be bizarre to exclude any we know existed, particularly when we have articles on them, otherwise readers are much less likely to find/access the articles. The point about the Sanitary Board being different to the Urban Council doesn't seem to make sense – the template contains elections to numerous different bodies. Cheers, Number 57 12:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The lack of referendum law means that it is not an official referendum that has any legal binding as it is shown in the article. Unfortunately both the Template:Zambian elections and Northern Rhodesian amalgamation referendum, 1922 are created by you. There is not a third party who can support your argument that the elections with limited franchise should be included in the same template. On the contrary, I can find various examples where indirect elections/limited elections are listed in the different templates, including the Template:German presidential elections and other presidential indirect elections, and Template:Taiwanese elections which does not include the indirect presidential elections. Also, many elections of positions with special duties, such as the England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections and the United States Attorney General elections, which are much more similar to the Sanitary and Licensing Boards elections, are also not included in the Template:United Kingdom elections and the Template:United States elections either. Furthermore, I am NOT saying that the Sanitary Board should not be included in an election template but I just asking whether it should be included in the SAME template, as it is a practice of the election templates of many countries. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- On the first point, you are confusing elections with limited franchise with indirect elections. In the first case they are public elections with an electoral law determining the qualifications for voting. In the second, the electorate is restricted to a defined set of post-holders, usually parliamentarians or local councillors.
- On the second point, Police and Crime Commissioners are part of local elections and are included in the local election articles, which are linked on {{United Kingdom elections}} (see United Kingdom local elections, 2016#Police and Crime Commissioner elections as an example). The articles linked to from the US template do include details of elections to positions like Attorney Generals (see e.g. United States_elections, 2004#Other state-wide Officer elections). This is what I was suggesting above with regards to the possibility of expanding the Sanitary Council election articles to include the JPs etc, as long as they were held in the same year.
- To answer the last point, I think it's quite clear that they should be included in the same template – these were public elections that took place and which we have articles for. Number 57 12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Whether the Sanitary Board elections were public elections are debatable. Only individuals on the jury lists, certain types of taxpayers and professions were eligible to vote. Also, the size of the electorate was fewer than 3% of the population for the most elections. How "public" was it when only 3% of the public was eligible to vote? They were was definitely limited elections just like the presidential indirect elections. Sure it was included in the local elections but they such as England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 were not the listed independently in the Template:United Kingdom elections, that refuting your claim that all elections should be included in the same template. It is just not justifiable to include the Sanitary Board elections but not the Licensing Board elections and Legislative Council elections of the HKGCC and JPs as they were almost the exact same types of elections however it would also be very problematic to include all of them (as that would be too many as they were held every two years) into the election templates which have totally different types of modern elections. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- (1) Again, similarly tiny franchises were in place for other countries in their early elections, and there is a clear difference between limited franchises and indirect elections. (2) The 2012 PCC elections not being independently listed is not a refuting my argument – you'll notice that the PCCs are for England and Wales only, so it is not a UK-wide thing. (3) Again, I've said that the other elections could be included on the template if you have the data. However, if they were held in the same years as the Sanitary Board elections (which appear to be every two years), then the content could be included in those articles.
- Rather than going round in circles, could we deal with the latter issue – were all the other elections you mention held in the same cycle as Sanitary Board elections? Number 57 13:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Of course that are difference between elections with tiny franchises and indirect elections. But they have also similarity which they are both limited non-public elections. The Sanitary Board, which had limited duties, the sanitary affairs namely, elected by small groups of selected electorates can not be seen as public elections whatsoever. The elections of the Licensing Board and HKGCC and JPs, are unfortunately not in the same cycle as the Sanitary Board. Also, they are too trivial and insignificant for me to even create multiple articles for them. I created these Sanitary Board election articles in the first place out of curiosity even though most of them are uncontested elections with limited electorates were only because the board was the forerunner of the Urban Council. But their inclusion in the template regardless their nature of a limited duties with limited electorates and limited jurisdictions does not sound right to me. As it would certainly create controversy if the PCC elections are included in the Template:United Kingdom elections as they are not the general elections. If it can solved in two different templates, why insist in one? Lmmnhn (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Creating another template is not solving this issue, because it isn't an issue to include them in {{Hong Kong elections}}. We're just going round in circles now; you're not going to convince me to exclude these elections, and seemingly I am not going to convince you that they should be in there, so I've started a discussion at WP:E&R. Number 57 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Of course that are difference between elections with tiny franchises and indirect elections. But they have also similarity which they are both limited non-public elections. The Sanitary Board, which had limited duties, the sanitary affairs namely, elected by small groups of selected electorates can not be seen as public elections whatsoever. The elections of the Licensing Board and HKGCC and JPs, are unfortunately not in the same cycle as the Sanitary Board. Also, they are too trivial and insignificant for me to even create multiple articles for them. I created these Sanitary Board election articles in the first place out of curiosity even though most of them are uncontested elections with limited electorates were only because the board was the forerunner of the Urban Council. But their inclusion in the template regardless their nature of a limited duties with limited electorates and limited jurisdictions does not sound right to me. As it would certainly create controversy if the PCC elections are included in the Template:United Kingdom elections as they are not the general elections. If it can solved in two different templates, why insist in one? Lmmnhn (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Whether the Sanitary Board elections were public elections are debatable. Only individuals on the jury lists, certain types of taxpayers and professions were eligible to vote. Also, the size of the electorate was fewer than 3% of the population for the most elections. How "public" was it when only 3% of the public was eligible to vote? They were was definitely limited elections just like the presidential indirect elections. Sure it was included in the local elections but they such as England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 were not the listed independently in the Template:United Kingdom elections, that refuting your claim that all elections should be included in the same template. It is just not justifiable to include the Sanitary Board elections but not the Licensing Board elections and Legislative Council elections of the HKGCC and JPs as they were almost the exact same types of elections however it would also be very problematic to include all of them (as that would be too many as they were held every two years) into the election templates which have totally different types of modern elections. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The lack of referendum law means that it is not an official referendum that has any legal binding as it is shown in the article. Unfortunately both the Template:Zambian elections and Northern Rhodesian amalgamation referendum, 1922 are created by you. There is not a third party who can support your argument that the elections with limited franchise should be included in the same template. On the contrary, I can find various examples where indirect elections/limited elections are listed in the different templates, including the Template:German presidential elections and other presidential indirect elections, and Template:Taiwanese elections which does not include the indirect presidential elections. Also, many elections of positions with special duties, such as the England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections and the United States Attorney General elections, which are much more similar to the Sanitary and Licensing Boards elections, are also not included in the Template:United Kingdom elections and the Template:United States elections either. Furthermore, I am NOT saying that the Sanitary Board should not be included in an election template but I just asking whether it should be included in the SAME template, as it is a practice of the election templates of many countries. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are saying that "highly limited franchise is not a reason for exclusion" without any further elaboration is hardly a convincing argument against the three major reasons I have listed above. How is a plebiscite within the European community in 1896 which only included 788 persons in and excluded the overwhelming majority of the Chinese residents a modern day's sense of referendum? There was no referendum law in the colony at that time and therefore it can not be legally defined as "referendum". So either in legal sense or political sense it could be called a referendum. Historically, it was not even significant enough to be included. Furthermore, How is excluding the Licensing Board elections, the Legislative Council elections of HKGCC and JPs justifiable if you insist to include the Sanitary Board elections in the template? Why should the Sanitary Board, an institution which totally different from latter Urban Council be listed in the same template? Lmmnhn (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- We are both now at three reverts. And I didn't simply say "I disagree" – I gave you the reason I disagreed. I am happy to debate this in a civil fashion, but this will not be possible if you make misleading comments. Number 57 12:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You in fact are the one who have reached the three reverts on the template. Simply saying "I disagree" is the least justified reason for undermining the people's effort. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're now reached three reverts on the template, so I hope you'll be stopping and moving to the discussion page, otherwise you'll probably end up being blocked. Thanks, Number 57 11:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree – these elections were public, albeit with a highly limited franchise – this is not a reason for exclusion. Please return to discussing this at Template talk:Hong Kong elections. If we are unable to agree, then I suggest seeking further input from WP:E&R. In the meantime, please respect WP:BRD and leave the template in its stable version. Thanks, Number 57 11:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
There are several issues at play here.
Elections with limited mandates: I think these should be included in templates. The job of the template is to bring together a list of articles. It is not to make judgements on the democratic mandate of the election. The individual articles should explain that, but I would include elections with limited mandates or other unusual features. Template:Soviet elections includes numerous elections that were so controlled they barely count as elections, but we still list them.
Separate to that question is whether elections are notable. Given there are articles for these Sanitary Board elections, then I presume they are notable.
That all said, however, there are valid questions over what should go in a template or if we need a number of different templates. If there are a very large number of Sanitary Board, Licensing Board and Legislative Council elections, then a separate template may be better, with the initial template including a link to an overarching Sanitary Board elections article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: All the Sanitary Board and LegCo elections are already included. My suggestion is to combine the Licencing Board elections with the Sanitary Board ones (if details are available and they were held in the same years), which would mean no more additions to the current template. Hence I don't think a separate template is needed. Number 57 11:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: I do not understand the argument over whether the Sanitary Board elections should be excluded in the templates as I am not suggesting to exclude them from any template. What I did, before being reverted, was to create a Template:Hong Kong Sanitary Board elections which better distinguish these elections of the public offices of certain special duties from the general municipal and general elections. There are indeed many Sanitary Board elections which are very different from the Chief Executive/Legislative Council/District Council elections in term of the time frame and the nature of the elections. Therefore, I suggest that these numerous small elections should be separated from the Template:Hong Kong elections along with the 1896 plebiscite.
- @Number 57: The Legislative Council elections of the HKCGG and JPs which stretching from the time frame of late 19th century up to 1985 are NOT included in the templates. And it will take a lot of efforts to sort out the data from the archives, as well as the Licensing Board and several other public offices. Since these were the small elections with different franchise in a very different pre-1930s colonial system, I am struggling to see why all these numerous small elections of the institution, which no longer exist or has any relations to today's Chief Executive/Legislative Council/District Councils, MUST be included in the same template. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know they're not included in the template. Perhaps it would be worth reading what I've said more carefully as you seem to have misunderstood.
- I don't see any value to be gained from separating the Sanitary board elections/referendum into a separate template. There is not a huge number of them and removing them from the template will reduce it in size by just two lines. In turn, doing so will make those articles less visible to readers. As far as I can see, there is almost no benefit to having a separate template and a significant disbenefit to the reader of doing so. Number 57 12:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think the template as is right now is fine, as per Number 57. I wouldn't remove anything. If there are a largely number of additional Sanitary Board election articles in the future, I take Lmmmnhn's argument that it would unbalance the template. However, I am happy to leave that as a bridge to be crossed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: The problem remains that it gives the illusion to the readers that the Sanitary Board elections were the only elections at the time but there were various limited small elections going on at that time. But if we include all the indirect/limited elections into the same template as the following, it is totally inadvisable as you could see it will be too many elections which were insignificant and even more confusing as the LegCo elections of JPs and HKCGG were TOTAL different systems from the post-1985 elections (as a matter of fact that applies to the pre-war sanitary board elections and the Urban Council elections as well). It is wiser to divide the template into different electoral systems to make it clearer and avoid the confusion. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think the template as is right now is fine, as per Number 57. I wouldn't remove anything. If there are a largely number of additional Sanitary Board election articles in the future, I take Lmmmnhn's argument that it would unbalance the template. However, I am happy to leave that as a bridge to be crossed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Number 57: The Legislative Council elections of the HKCGG and JPs which stretching from the time frame of late 19th century up to 1985 are NOT included in the templates. And it will take a lot of efforts to sort out the data from the archives, as well as the Licensing Board and several other public offices. Since these were the small elections with different franchise in a very different pre-1930s colonial system, I am struggling to see why all these numerous small elections of the institution, which no longer exist or has any relations to today's Chief Executive/Legislative Council/District Councils, MUST be included in the same template. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
| Chief Executive elections | |
|---|---|
| Election Committee elections | |
| Legislative Council elections |
|
| Sanitary Board and municipal elections | |
| Licensing Board elections | |
| District Council elections | |
| NPC elections | |
| Plebiscite | |
This template looks good to me. I don't see the need to divide up elections to the same body because there were different electoral systems – we don't do this for other countries. Number 57 08:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- How does a template with whole bunches of the pre-1985 elections with only one seat in the council being elected by a group of less than 200 hundred elites voting in each time while 99% of the population were excluded, plus all dead links with a very possibility that no one would ever create those articles dominating the template and drew attention from those post-1984 Green Ppaer direct elections, even look good to you? Even a student union election in a school has larger electorate than them. Why should the Licensing Board, same as the Sanitary Board which had similar limited functions, only supervises over the giving out licenses for selling liquor, be included in the template. If the Licensing Board elections are to be included, why should the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, Heung Yee Kuk and various other statutory bodies which have held elections not be included in the template then? I hope you can is how ridiculous that would become. Lmmnhn (talk)
- Navbox guidance says to avoid red links, so until those articles are created, the point is moot. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: The point is not only about the red links. If the elections are significant enough they should be included in the template even if the articles has not been created. The question is the representativeness and the significance of the elections themselves and the limited duties of the mentioned statutory bodies. No answer is given that why the insistence to include Sanitary Board elections, but to exclude Licensing Board, Arts Development Council IPCC, Heung Yee Kuk and many other statutory bodies which serve equal level of functions and more recent than the 19th century elections. But everyone with common sense know that a template should not work that way. Therefore, I have suggested that the elections of the central governmental bodies and the main-tiers elections (the three-tiers elections in the colonial period) and the elections managed and listed on the EAC should be included and the rest should be listed on a different template. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's no practical benefit to the reader to removing the sanitary board elections to a separate template to sit alongside a bunch of articles that will never be created – at the moment the problem is only imaginary. I think we're now moving into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Number 57 10:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: The point is not only about the red links. If the elections are significant enough they should be included in the template even if the articles has not been created. The question is the representativeness and the significance of the elections themselves and the limited duties of the mentioned statutory bodies. No answer is given that why the insistence to include Sanitary Board elections, but to exclude Licensing Board, Arts Development Council IPCC, Heung Yee Kuk and many other statutory bodies which serve equal level of functions and more recent than the 19th century elections. But everyone with common sense know that a template should not work that way. Therefore, I have suggested that the elections of the central governmental bodies and the main-tiers elections (the three-tiers elections in the colonial period) and the elections managed and listed on the EAC should be included and the rest should be listed on a different template. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Navbox guidance says to avoid red links, so until those articles are created, the point is moot. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Non-free image use
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically Central and Western District Board election, 1982, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Lmmnhn. The licensing of each media file you see used on Wikipedia is determined by it copyright status and not every file you see on Wikipedia is licensed the same. Some files are licensed as public domain or licensed under a free licensed suitable for Wikipedia and these are often collectively referred to as "free images". Other files are licensed as non-free content because of their copyright status and these files are commonly referred to as "non-free". Non-free content use on Wikipedia is highly restricted and each use of such files must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free image use policy. So, before you add any images to any article/pages, it's a good idea to check the file's licensing. If it's a freely licensed image, you should be able to use it no problem. If it's non-free content, you are going to need to justify each use of the file by providing an appropriate non-free use rationale for the use which clearly shows how all ten non-free content criteria are met. Simply providing the rationale is a start, but doesn't mean the file complies with all ten criteria as expalined in WP:JUSTONE. From experience, the way you're trying to use this flag image in various election articles is almost always considered to be WP:DECORATIVE and not acceptable per relevant policy. However, if you feel differently, then you need to provide a rationale explaining why for each use of the file. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask them here, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFC, but please don't re-add this file to the election pages again without first providing the required rationales. --- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Please be careful when you add images to articles and don’t just automatically assume it’s OK. If you come across an article where you think an image has been removed, then check the article’s history to see if some one left an edit sum explaining why. If the file was removed for a policy/guideline reason, then simply reading it like you did at Central and Western District and some other similar articles without addressing the reasons for removal is not helpful at all. You should try to be careful when it comes to adding non-free content to articles. If you keep doing so inappropriately, an administrator will eventually be asked to intervene. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Donald Tsang have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Please do not remove sources without first challenging them. Kirbanzo (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sha Tin District Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ma On Shan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to join Women in Red
 We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.55% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for April:
| ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Co-operative Resources Centre logo.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Co-operative Resources Centre logo.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The source is Co-operative Resources Centre as it is stated on the page. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Concerning: Old revision of Template:Hong_Kong_district_councils_election,_2011
Perhaps you'd like to indicate what the correct way of removing the warning about mismatched bold formatting is then?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- What is the mismatched bold formatting are you concerning? Lmmnhn (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was using - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint to find coding errors in Article pages. It provides a report at the top of the edit window about problematic code sequences on a page.
The cause of the mismatched bold is the title of the table using {{electiontable}}. If the title is placed inside the template as the Second parameter, there is no mismatched formatting generated. However, the additional bold formatting of the title may not be needed as the templates puts the header line into a "table-header" which is bold formatted with class "wikitable" anyway. If you were wanting a NON-bold table header, you would have to use a template like {{nobold}} to cancel the deafult table header formatting around the relevant title.
By comparison if the title is placed outside the template, a mismatch is generated, and identified by the script.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would actually want a bold header like the rest of the electiontable. The reason I reverted it was because I saw there were the "«" and "»" misplaced outside of the box. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You may wish to comment on the question posed by this talk page section. Shenme (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ng Chau-pei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Final Appeal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Real Estate Hegemony for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Real Estate Hegemony is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Estate Hegemony until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Matthew_hk tc 13:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Tang Ka-piu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG. Not notable.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- @User:Jovanmilic97 - how is a member of Legislative Council and a three-time Legislative Council candidate not notable? Lmmnhn (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- He fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage from secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Lmmnhn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Demosistō has been nominated for discussion
Category:Demosistō, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Cut & paste moves
You cannot copy text from one location, paste it in another and then redirect the original location to the new one. You have to either use the move tab or follow the WP:RM process.
Also, combining the pre and post-split ROC elections isn't appropriate.
Please stop on both counts. Thanks, Number 57 12:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Republic of China established in 1912 and still exists in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu only makes sense to be included in the same template for the convenience of the readers to navigate from for example the 1948 presidential election to 1954 election. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Whilst technically it's a legal continuation of the same government, realistically they are different countries. However, I agree that some form of navigation between the two is appropriate – this is already in place with link to Taiwanese elections on the 1912–49 template, and a link to the 1912–49 elections on the Taiwanese template. Number 57 12:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If you don't stop changing Taiwan to Republic of China, then I'm going to be requesting that you're blocked for disruption and POV editing. Please stop now. If this is an issue for you, then please request that Taiwan is moved to Republic of China. Until then, the articles will refer to the country as Taiwan. Number 57 12:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Theres should be at least one template which include all the elections conducted by the government of the Republic of China. And also, you are the one of the being disruptive who ignores the fact that the official name of the government administrates is called the Republic of China. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The country is referred to as Taiwan on Wikipedia in line with our WP:TITLE, so the elections also use this title.
- Having a combined template doesn't work, as the pre-1948 ROC is a completely different entity to post-1948 ROC; they don't even cover the same geographic area. Number 57 12:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 Taiwan presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Chang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Continuing disagreement about Taiwan
Hello Lmmnhn. You appear to be well-intentioned, but now we have a mushrooming dispute and I actually don't notice anyone at all who agrees with you. Unless you agree to wait for consensus before making *ANY* changes of 'Taiwan' to 'Republic of China' in any articles, or creating any new articles about elections, you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston You warning is groundless as I have not violated the consensus of reverting the article from "Taiwan presidential election, 2016" to "Republic of China presidential election, 2016" but only changes to include "Republic of China" in the title of the infobox. Not only was it reverted without any consensus, the term "Republic of China" is now being removed from the lead section [1]. I am concerned on which consensus is it allowed to erase it from the lead section even it is the official name of the country? And I am deeply concerned on which administrator's protocol am I to be banned from even creating any new articles about elections? Lmmnhn (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Bolding issue
Aside from our dispute about the naming issue, winning candidates shouldn't be bolded in the infoboxes. This has been discussed previously here and editors were 4–2 in favour of not using it. I hope this won't turn into another revert war. Cheers, Number 57 10:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- It makes no sense to removing the bolding as a candidate can win the election despite receiving more votes (see 2016 United States presidential election). Bolding becomes an important indicator on highlighting who receive more votes and who is the winner in the election and I see absolutely no point of removing the common practice I have been seeing for many years. Are you trying to push your own agenda again by citing another small-circle discussion (this time only six people) initiated by yourself without a clear conclusion and use it as a "consensus of the community" against other users' contributions again? Lmmnhn (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really interested in getting into another dispute with you. There's been a discussion and a reasonable consensus emerged. If you don't like it, by all means start another one – it might be better to do it at WP:E&R rather than the infobox talk page if you want more input. FWIW, as I said in that discussion, the bolding doesn't help to identify who won; the placing in the infobox makes that very clear. Cheers, Number 57 10:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you say it is the "general will of the 'community'" and you are appearing to be the guardian on the "not-bolding principle" and trying so hard to enforce it upon me, why have you not changed the United States and United Kingdom election articles as they receive much more attention and views? Are you just picking and choosing who to bully now? Lmmnhn (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because I rarely edit American or British election articles and don't have them on my watchlist. However, I do remove it whenever I see it being added to articles that are on my watchlist; see e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] or [8]. I edit articles on elections across a very wide number of countries and my recent interventions have just trying to ensure some consistency in presentation; it's nothing personal and generally I appreciate the good work you've been doing on HK elections in particular. Number 57 11:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for calling you a bully. But I disagree with you 100%. Firstly in the election infobox, it is more complicated than "winner=first party in the infobox" as in many cases the winner gets less votes than the loser such as in the 2000 and 2016 US presidential elections and February 1974 United Kingdom general election and by bolding it makes it clearer to the readers. Secondly, in some cases when the election infobox explains more than one category such as in 2014 Taiwanese local elections, where DPP won more magistrates/mayorships but KMT won more councillor seats. The order in the infobox is merely in accordance to the popular votes the parties received but does not show who the winner is as there is no overwhelming winner as the DPP won in one category and KMT won the other and again bolding which differentiates and highlights these categories can let the readers to understand in a second. Thirdly, The "bolding" practice is generally practiced in the US and UK elections, the election articles which receive the most views and it has not been changed over the years which can be assumed that no one has an issue with it or the general consensus is in favor of bolding it. On the contrary, your so-called "consensus" is not a consensus as it was only involved with six users without even a final conclusion. No offence but I really do not think it is convincing for anyone to follow the rule mainly set by you. So you want a consensus that applies on the election articles to ensure the consistency, why don't you start a discussion on the 2016 US presidential election? I will be happy to join and am willing to refute you. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said, if you feel the previous discussion was not well-enough attended, the best course of action would be to start another discussion at WP:E&R. This would be the best place and get the widest possible participation; if it were done on a single article, I'm sure there would be editors that then said it only applied to that article and not others. Number 57 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lmmnhn, you once again bolded the subjects in the infobox this morning, despite this conversation here, and the fact that agreed consensus is currently not to bold them. Please discuss the issue at the page mentioned above by Number 57 if you want to make a case for a different strategy. If you continue to edit war to try to impose a version against consensus, then you will end up blocked, and I don't think any of us want that to happen. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Like I said, if you feel the previous discussion was not well-enough attended, the best course of action would be to start another discussion at WP:E&R. This would be the best place and get the widest possible participation; if it were done on a single article, I'm sure there would be editors that then said it only applied to that article and not others. Number 57 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I apologize for calling you a bully. But I disagree with you 100%. Firstly in the election infobox, it is more complicated than "winner=first party in the infobox" as in many cases the winner gets less votes than the loser such as in the 2000 and 2016 US presidential elections and February 1974 United Kingdom general election and by bolding it makes it clearer to the readers. Secondly, in some cases when the election infobox explains more than one category such as in 2014 Taiwanese local elections, where DPP won more magistrates/mayorships but KMT won more councillor seats. The order in the infobox is merely in accordance to the popular votes the parties received but does not show who the winner is as there is no overwhelming winner as the DPP won in one category and KMT won the other and again bolding which differentiates and highlights these categories can let the readers to understand in a second. Thirdly, The "bolding" practice is generally practiced in the US and UK elections, the election articles which receive the most views and it has not been changed over the years which can be assumed that no one has an issue with it or the general consensus is in favor of bolding it. On the contrary, your so-called "consensus" is not a consensus as it was only involved with six users without even a final conclusion. No offence but I really do not think it is convincing for anyone to follow the rule mainly set by you. So you want a consensus that applies on the election articles to ensure the consistency, why don't you start a discussion on the 2016 US presidential election? I will be happy to join and am willing to refute you. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because I rarely edit American or British election articles and don't have them on my watchlist. However, I do remove it whenever I see it being added to articles that are on my watchlist; see e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] or [8]. I edit articles on elections across a very wide number of countries and my recent interventions have just trying to ensure some consistency in presentation; it's nothing personal and generally I appreciate the good work you've been doing on HK elections in particular. Number 57 11:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you say it is the "general will of the 'community'" and you are appearing to be the guardian on the "not-bolding principle" and trying so hard to enforce it upon me, why have you not changed the United States and United Kingdom election articles as they receive much more attention and views? Are you just picking and choosing who to bully now? Lmmnhn (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not really interested in getting into another dispute with you. There's been a discussion and a reasonable consensus emerged. If you don't like it, by all means start another one – it might be better to do it at WP:E&R rather than the infobox talk page if you want more input. FWIW, as I said in that discussion, the bolding doesn't help to identify who won; the placing in the infobox makes that very clear. Cheers, Number 57 10:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
More reverts about election articles
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per the above discussion, you are continuing to revert war about Taiwan election articles. This time, you are insisting on bolding the winners in infoboxes contrary to the apparent precedent. At 2008 Taiwan presidential election you added the bolding once and then reverted twice after others removed the bolding. The need for consensus has already been explained to you but it seems not to be one of your interests. You were recently warned at WP:AN3 for changing terminology in election articles from 'Taiwan' to 'Republic of China' in apparent disregard of prior discussions. Since this reverting about election articles seems to be a continuing pattern of yours and explanations of policy aren't working, it seems that a block is necessary. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Requesting unblock
Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is unjustified as the following reason:
- My edits on the "bolding" [9] has nothing to do with the previous warning on the "Republic of China" vs "Taiwan" issue [10] and I have not violated the "three-revert rule" so there is no basis on my blocking;
- By using "consensus" which is mentioned above [11] to revert other users' constructive edits is absurd as the the so called discussion [12] was pushed by the exact same person who is using it as the reason against other users and the discussion was involved mostly two users without any conclusion being finalised. Moreover, the so-called "consensus" is clearly not being practiced in most places on wikipedia including all the US and UK election articles with most views and edits and it has no reason to be used against other users. Additionally, in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Category:Elections not won by the popular vote winner where 2003 Catalan regional election was cited, there are bolding on the winner and apparently User:Number 57 has no problem with it as he did not attempt to remove the bolding. So why am I the only one who is being disruptively reverted and eventually blocked for it?
- User:Number 57 has been involved in this dispute as much as I do but so far no warning has been given to him and I would say he is the one who started reverting my edits first [13][14]. I solemnly oppose User:EdJohnston's judgement as he has not been listening to my case that I have been trying so hard to appeal but he has not responded to any of it before he does any warning or blocking;
- I have been working tirelessly on the election articles, especially on the Taiwan ones recently and have given so much more content, in comparison to User:Number 57 who has not contributed as much on these articles but only being extremely obsessed with the minor formats and terminologies without justifiable reasons and offensively revert other people's good-faithed edits and it is such an unfair punishment to a user who have been doing so much for the community.
I hereby request to be unblocked.Lmmnhn (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
- 1 is not relevant; you are blocked for edit warring, not for violating WP:3RR. The rest don't address your edit warring at all. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- It would be wise to actually familiarise yourself with the facts before making pronouncements about other editors' contributions. I've been making significant contributions to Taiwanese election articles as far back as 2011. Number 57 18:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- @User:EdJohnston and @User:Jpgordon: if there really was a war, shouldn't both parties share some responsibilities? Is it fair only one side is to be warned against and blocked? Lmmnhn (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
So although you've started a discussion on the bolding issue, you invite the one editor who was vehemently supportive of it, but not any of those who were opposed (although I see you've now done it since I called you out on it). This is a clear WP:CANVASSing violation. Why is it so hard for you to behave within the rules? Straight after coming back from a block, I would have thought you'd make an effort to avoid skating on thin ice. Perhaps EdJohnston could take a view on it. Number 57 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have invited over 80 members without knowing their opinions beforehand and invited only one particular member who started the previous discussion. And I have no problem inviting the rest of the editors anyway. How is it canvassing? Stop, you are making yourself malicious by making false accusation and threats again and again. Lmmnhn (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was the editor that started the previous discussion. The only editor you invited from it (Zozs) was the third person to join in. There is only one person making false statements here. Number 57 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Next Japanese general election for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Japanese general election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Japanese general election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 云间守望 - (Talk with WQL) 13:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016 Taiwan legislative election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chen Ying (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
RfC
Please could you amend the first option in the RfC, as it's going to end up causing a mess for FPTP parliamentary elections where no party has a majority. Thanks, Number 57 15:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, you seem to have missed a couple of people on the invites – Leaky caldron and Ramone122. Number 57 20:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:LSD LegCo members
Template:LSD 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. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 1991–1995
Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 1991–1995 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2000–2004
Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2000–2004 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2004–2012
Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2004–2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2016–2020
Template:Hong Kong Legislative Council constituencies 2016–2020 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Demosisto LegCo members
A tag has been placed on Template:Demosisto LegCo members requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
File source problem with File:New Hong Kong Alliance logo.svg
Thank you for uploading File:New Hong Kong Alliance logo.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carrie Lam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Page move typo
FYI, the page you just moved (Tsui_Chuk_and_Pang_Ching_(constituency), you forgot to put the closing bracket after "constituency". Kdm852 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Kwai Luen (constituency) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Kwai Luen (constituency), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sheldybett (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Cheung Chau (constituency) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Cheung Chau (constituency), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sheldybett (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Tung Chung Central (constituency) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Tung Chung Central (constituency), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sheldybett (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Tai Pak Tin East (constituency) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Tai Pak Tin East (constituency), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sheldybett (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hoi Nam (constituency) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Hoi Nam (constituency), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sheldybett (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Justice of Hong Kong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019
On 10 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, which you created and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.