|
==Covenant Breaker==
{|align=right id=toc width=200 style="margin-left:10px; margin-bottom:10px"
As it is clearly stated in the Will and Testament, only the Guardian of the Faith has the authority to declare a believer a Covenant Breaker. This is the most serious charge imaginable to a believer, and is never issued lightly. As no Guardian of the Faith ever declared Dr. Jensen a Covenant Breaker before or after his death, it is erroneous to ever state that Dr. Jensen has this stigma in the after-life. Moreover it is irrelevant whether other believers or even institutions "consider" him to be one or not, as they are just opinions and not actually sanctions conforming to the Sacred Will and Testament which is the charter for all institutions governing the Faith. [[User:Jeffmichaud]]
|-
|bgcolor=#ccccff style="border-bottom: 1px solid #505090""|
<font size=3 face="times new roman"><b>notifier</b></font>
|-
|style="border-bottom: 1px solid #C0C0F0""|<font face="times new roman">Let me know if you have messages for me on any discussion page, by dropping a time stamp below. Alternatively, you are welcome to reply me on this page. Thanks.</font>
|-
|
===<font size=1><font color="f8f8ff">notifier</font> to edit →</font>===
<!--
:OTOH, it's pretty undisputable fact that the mainstream group of Baha'is (what most people mean when they just use the word "Baha'i") regard Leland Jensen as a covenant breaker - indeed, he was the most cult-like of all the Guardian claimants, seeing as how he alone, amongst all the putative Guardians, actually did have sex with several of the women in his cult. [[User:PaulHammond|PaulHammond]] 09:33, 16 November 2005
[[User_talk:EXAMPLE#Section|EXAMPLE]] — July 6, 2005 17:31 (UTC)<br>
:Did any Guardian ever declare him one? NO! The entire world could "regard" him one and it don't mean diddly, guvna. The term is tossed about so cavalierly. Far from considering him a C.B., the Guardian Shoghi Effendi made him a Knight of Baha'u'llah. He spent his entire life promoting the Cause of Baha'u'llah, not the cause of Leland, turning believers towards God and the Cause. Tossing about unsubstantiated charges based on hearsay and rumor is called libel, good friend. To stoop to that instead of using fact seems beneath you. You name me one believer who can say they've turned half as many people on to Bahau'llah and the Faith as Dr. Jensen (some estimates are between 5 and 10 Thousand), and your next cup of Earl Grey is on me. [User:Jeffmichaud] (UTC)
COPY AND PASTE the the example from "[[User_talk:EXAM.." to "..July 6, 2005 17:31 (UTC)<br>", thanks!-->
----
::Well, that would be because Leland Jensen's covenant breaking took place after Shoghi's death, now wouldn't it? If you recall, Baha'u'llah did indeed say that Muhammad Ali ought to succeed Abdu'l Baha, and the Bab did indeed appoint Subh-i-Azal to lead after his death. Just because someone you like says nice things about a person doesn't stop things going pear-shaped afterwards. Jeff, you don't know me very well, so I'd appreciate if you didn't start calling me a "good friend" or speculating about what might or might not be beneath me. I take it that you aren't disputing the fact that Leland served a jail term for lewd behaviour? That one appears to be substantiated fact. I know there's a lot of people unofficially declared CBs by enthusiastic Baha'is, but that isn't the case with Jensen. The UHJ have officially declared him a Covenant Breaker, and that's a fact. [[User:PaulHammond|PaulHammond]] 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
|}
<!--please don't edit the text below.-->Hello. Enjoy the discussion.<br>
Paul, you do understand that only the Guardian of the Faith has the authority to make such a declaration, right? The UHJ wasn't given that authority either in the Master's Will, nor in any other Explicit Text. The sans-Guardian UHJ can't "officially declare" anyone a C.B. as far as the Explicit Texts are concerned. So here is where we'll have to agree to disagree. You go on following the sans-Guardians down the road of error, and I'll continue as always to follow the Covenant, the Master, and the Explicit Text. [[User:Jeffmichaud]]
::I understand that the UHJ has so declared him, and that the UHJ is the authority mandated to make such declarations. The mainstream Baha'is find the term "sans-Guardian UHJ" insulting. You do your level best to deny the fact that the UHJ declare Leland a Covenant Breaker. This is the heart of the issue of Covenant Breaking. You aren't going to solve that issue by editing articles on Wikipedia. [[User:PaulHammond|PaulHammond]] 00:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[[User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_1|/Archive 1]] (January to March 2005, 58kb)<br>[[User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_2|/Archive 2]] (April to June 2005, 82kb)<br>[[User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_3|/Archive 3]] (July to September 2005, 73kb)
:Patently not true. The Universal House of Justice indeed has that authority. It was instituted by Bahá'u'lláh, properly elected per the Guardian's instructions at the close of the Ten-Year Crusage, and explicitly identified as the authoritative body on matters not found in the holy books — including determining who is, or is not, a Covenant breaker. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Himself, is absolutely clear regarding the authority of the House of Justice in the very ''Will and Testament'' these people are so fond of selectively quoting:
::And now, concerning the House of Justice which God hath ordained as the source of all good and freed from all error, ... By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, ... It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text.
:::('Abdu'l-Bahá, ''The Will and Testament'', p. 14)
:[[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
All conjecture and debatable. The Master's Words you quote are in my opinion not relevant in this case, for it all hinges on your fantasy that the sans-Guardian UHJ was established according to the Provisions of His Will, which I don't believe to be the case. Another flaw in this thinking is that it was "properly elected per the Guardian's instructions", for this is patently not true. The fIBC was to "efflouresce" through four stages: IBC, World Court, Supreme Tribunal (1st elected stage), and finally the UHJ. I'm not even getting into the whole Guardian, Twin Pillars thing. Your statements, though impressively crafted, are patently flawed. [[User:Jeffmichaud]]
__TOC__
== Covenant breaking again ==
==After you==
Just to tell you that [[user:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] put me up to the RfA right after you declined so. Click the "support me" button at the end of my signature and help! {{User:Deryck Chan/s2}} 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Deryck Chan#Re: After you|replied]]
==Template for MTR Stations==
I do think the idea for a MTR station template feasible. Certain information like working hours (which is shown on a small bulletin board), platforms, the year that the station began its service, etc.. What say you? If it's ok by you in any sense, I hope you can create one right away with your sophisticated wikicode knowledge! :-D -- [[User:Mcy jerry|Jerry Crimson Mann]] 16:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Mcy jerry#Re: Template for MTR Stations|replied]]
== ice cream ==
hello, i have renamed the royal ice cream to mister softee, but then a delete template appears, could u help me fix the problem? many thanks --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
:um...as a procedure idiot, i dun really follow u. anyway, what can i do to rename the article with its history? could u do that for me?--[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::Yeah, i've got what u mean. i just wait for the deletion and move the article with its history to the deleted one. million thanks. --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:K.C. Tang#Re: Mister Softee|replied]]
Regardless of how you interpret scripture, the opening paragraph must mention that Leland Jensen is considered a covenant breaker by most Baha'is. Whether or not you agree with it is one thing, but he was labelled a covenant breaker. It's deceiving if it's not mentioned. Someone reading this page might come to the conclusion that Jensen led a group of Baha'is within the Baha'i administrative structure. [[User:Cunado19|<font color="#d14c04">'''Cuñado'''</font>]] [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] - [[User talk:Cunado19|<font size="-3">Talk</font>]] 18:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
==add chinese, s'il-vous plait?==
[[Shen Dzu]], an alternative romanization is shenzhu. Would you do that thing you do where you add the chinese characters in the various differences of Chinese? gracias, [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 21:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Re: Add chinese, s'il-vous plait?|replied]]
== help ==
:This statement "whose followers are labelled by the majority of Bahá'ís as [[covenant-breaker]]s" is unacceptable. The "majority of Baha'is" have no authority to label anyone anything. According to Wikipedia's Files there are only two individuals who officially carry the title "Covenant Breaker"; one is Mason Remey, and Dr. Jensen's NOT the other one. Provide an "autorative reference" or drop the subject. This statement is just hearsay otherwise. BTW, I've also been "labelled" one by the hijackers on Mt. Carmel. I've used my real name so there would be no confusion about who I am. Why are you communicating with me if you blindly follow the rulings of that FALLIBLE "House of Justice"? Careful you don't get reported on for collaborating with enemies. You could get in trouble for this you know. [[User:Jeffmichaud]]
Hey, could think of some words and phrases Hong Kongers usually use when they speak?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Hong_Kong#.22Hybridization.22_of_Cantonese_and_English] --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[User talk:K.C. Tang#Re:help|replied]]
== Sanitary Board ==
::Once again, whether or not you agree with the label, or agree with the authority to give that label is rather irrelevant. Wikipedia's "files" had Leland Jensen on the list as a covenant breaker until '''you''' removed him.
In HK government documents it is usually called '潔淨局'. You can google it and see the results.--[[User:218.103.176.124|218.103.176.124]] 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[zh:user talk:水水#潔淨局|replied]]
::The only way the statement should be removed is if he was not actually labelled as a covenant breaker by the rest of the Baha'is, and that is not the case. [[User:Cunado19|<font color="#d14c04">'''Cuñado'''</font>]] [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] - [[User talk:Cunado19|<font size="-3">Talk</font>]]
== Hong-Kong-actor-stub ==
*[[user talk:Caerwine#Template:HK-actor-stub|reference]]
It's generally recommended to wait 7 days from first proposal for comments. For instance, the Hong Kong related categories now all use ''Hong-Kong'' rather than ''HK'' as the prefix, tho they also include the HK prefix version as a redirect. However, this one is straightforward enough, that waiting just a few days should be acceptible to most, since the need for the category, and once one compares it with other Hong Kong stubs, so is the name. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Caerwine#Template:HK-actor-stub|replied]]
That accusation is insulting and out of order. I could care less who's name is on that list. I was pointing out that Jensen's not on it. I've had nothing to do with editing that list of names, and you have no right to say I have. This statement that "whose followers are labelled by the majority of Bahá'ís as [[covenant-breaker]]s" is unacceptable. It doesn't conform with the definition, for the "majority of Baha'is" don't have any say in the matter. If it can be shown that he was labelled that by an Institution then say which and reference it, or drop it. [[User:Jeffmichaud]]
== Re: Panoramic view ==
:The way the statement is written is in line with other Wikipedia articles. See [[Ahmadi]] and [[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]] who "mainstream" muslims (Both Sunni, and Shia) see as heritical. The statement that mainstream Muslims see them as heretical and controversial are in both articles at the top. -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] 13:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[User_talk:Carlsmith#Panoramic_view|reference]]
<!--
[[User_talk:Carlsmith#Panoramic_view|Original message]]
:-->Well, I've got a normal digital camera but has a [[panoramic]] mode built into it, which allows me to take the whole view section by section. Then I would use [[ACDSee]] Photosticher that was bundled along with the camera to mend them together. I also tried [[Hugin (software)|Hugin]], but that's much harder to use. --[[User:Carlsmith|Carlsmith]] 02:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[User_talk:Carlsmith#Panoramic_view|replied]]
==List of companies in the PRC==
*[[ user talk:Thryduulf#List of companies in the PRC|reference]]
I haven't got time now to check all the links you gave me, but if they are breaking the 3RR report them for it. Regardless of that I encourage you to take it to RfC, if there is a conensus about which version should be displayed then start RfCs about their refusal to accept it. If there hasn't been much involvement or there isn't an absolutely clear consensus, start an RfC on the article first. Alternatively, consider seeing if they will accept mediation - I think one of the various forms claimed to be up and running again (see this week's [[Wikipedia:Signpost]]). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[ user talk:Thryduulf#List of companies in the PRC|replied]]
----
*[[user talk:Dmcdevit#List of companies in the PRC|reference]]
I'll go ahead and reply here. First, it looks like your idea of page protection is off. Protection is harmful and against the idea of wiki. We do not protect to support any (non-vandalism) version. Ever. It just stops the edit war wherever it is. I believe you are acting in good faith, but I'd like to ask you to do something. Stop and talk. It's been more than a month since there was a post on [[Talk:List of companies in the People's Republic of China]]. It takes two to edit war, and frankly I'm of the opinion that by now no revert or major change is justified without consensus on the talk page. And I'm not taking sides here. I mean it when I say it takes two, so I'm copying most of this message to Huaiwei as well. It looks like you two (and Schmucky?) may want some kind of a mediator, especially since it seems like this is a larger dispute (?). I'll do what I can if you'd like me to, but please let's stop the warring. :) The Wikilove has been really strained lately and I think we've got to spread some. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=25086221&oldid=25043918#List_of_companies_in_the_PRC replied]
:(Tell me if you have a preference on how/where I respond.) I'm not sure what you mean by the original intent of articles. I may simply be misunderstanding you, but I don't think that matters. The original author has no more say in the content than everyone else. Since it's a wiki we have to throw out the idea of article ownership (see [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]]). Now, I realize that you have been talking (like even on my talk page) but my point was that I think it is healthier to do so on the article's own talk page. The reason, besides the transparency it offers to future people who look there, is that it makes things much more likely to be on topic (ie, this particular article) and, one would hope, prone to be less personal that a less public user page comment might be. It's just natural that you have a different tone on an article talk page, especially if there are others there. Anyway, I wonder if you could tell me what the general dispute is. I want to know what it's about and where people stand, but not really about people's actions that you disagree with. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADmcdevit&diff=25089102&oldid=25086221#List_of_companies_in_the_PRC replied]
::I've looked over the diffs and I have some idea that the dispute seems to be mostly about definition. Just to be clear, you're not currently asking for protection, right? But I'm curious whether you are seeing this {{tl|twoversions}} thing as a final solution or a temporary solution while disagreements are worked out. I don't think it should be permanent. If we stopped the back and forth on all of these articles right now, do you have any ideas in what you think an amicable solution would look like? [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Also, I noticed that you recently performed another revert involved in this overall dispute. I want to see if we can get all the parties to agree to stop the reverts for the time being if we're really serious about this. I really don't see how we could carry on a dialogue on one page and continue the war on the rest. My idea is that we all just voluntarily stop and leave the article frozen in whatever state they are in. Edit wars aren't getting anyone anywhere, especially since every revert is, exasperatingly, reverted. Also, I always like to remind everyone that 3RR is not an entitlement, and more than one revert in a day is often harmful and not justified. So will you agree to this mutual ceasefire? Additionally, Huaiwei just left the requested summary of the dispute on my talk page. I'd appreciate if you could look over it and see what you'd like to add/disagree. Thanks, and lets try to make this work! [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=25123694&oldid=25111687#List_of_companies_in_the_PRC replied]
::::I don't know where you are, but I was just checking my watchlist before bed. I'll surely look at your last comment more fully and get to it first thing tomorrow, but while you're online, one thing. You didn't answer my request to voluntarily stop reverting. It will only work if everyone agrees (I guess I shall have to ask Schmucky too, tomorrow though). So will you agree? I think it would be a show of good faith and good intentions. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 09:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
::::*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=25192739&oldid=25146886#List_of_companies_in_the_PRC_reply_4 replied]
:::::I thak you for your agreement. Huaiwei also suggested disciplinary action for breaking our little ceasefire. Since I'm an admin, I could do that with blocks, but only if you agree as well (and all parties would be bound then). Anyway, I'd like to actually get to the meat of this thing now. I think it was Schmucky that said somewhere that you had been changing categories and stub tags to reflect Hong Kong as not part of the PRC categories but separate Hong Kong ones that make HK look like a separate country (that may not be worded best, but you know what I mean?). I mention this first because it seems like the easiest solution. Categories, to me, are nothing more than a navigational tool. As such, if it could be misconstrued either way, than there is no harm in including, say, both PRC and Hong Kong categories/tags. Agree? The same goes for putting things like [[:Category:Healthcare in Hong Kong]] in the country category where they may be nominally useful that way, though that one is more debatable. Another thing that I'm wondering about is that you've used the term "original intent" of articles, like the companies list. I mentioned earlier that this sounded like article ownership, or something like it. I may be misunderstanding your point, so I'd like it if you could explain what you mean. If not, I want to remind you that, this being a wiki, anyone could start an article for any POV (hypotheticall, not accusing) and then have it de-POV'ed and ''fixed'' against their original intent. I don't think the original author gets anymore decision-making power just because they are the original author. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=25269437&oldid=25267240#List_of_companies_in_the_PRC_reply_5 replied]
:::::: I appreciate your concerns. I had expected one (or both :) of the parties to feel like they were getting the short end of the stick. And really, you may as well be right. But I just hope that after this many months of conflict, you would be willing to bear it. Make an honorable sacrifice for the hope of a resolution and to foster good will between the parties, you know? Tell me what you think. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=25308333&oldid=25307045#List_of_companies_in_the_PRC_reply_6 replied]
:::::::Yes, I see your concerns. My point though, which I should have stressed above was that I only want this temporary agreement during the course of mediation. Then, if and when there is consensus, we will repair all of the POV (in either whichever direction). So I want to emphasize that this is not any change, it just means we are stopping temporarily wherever we are right now until this gets fixed. I really don't see any other way, since if you're suggesting that we revert back ''some'' of the articles until we get to some kind of equlibrium, surely you can see the impossibility in that? There won't be any agreement about what equilibrium is (and then more edit wars!). Guess I'll go prod STC too, but ''please'', let's give it a shot. Thanks. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 23:58, October 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General_discussion&diff=25340377&oldid=25328420#reply_7 replied]
::::::::I am sure it is just as reasonable for you to ask them to revert back as it is for me to ask you to cease doing so, both as acts of good will towards the other. But, think about it. I can't imagine a possible way where it would work. Let's say they agree, would you have them revert all their edits that you think are POV (and remember they think just as strongly that it is not)? Surely not? When would it stop? Who would decide? I think that would just lead to more acrimony. I think the best couse of action is just to all agree to halt, only ''temporarily'' until there is a resolution. I don't see how this can work otherwise, as I see edit warring as the root of the problem here. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General_discussion&diff=25343567&oldid=25340377#reply_8 replied]
:::::::::One of STC's contentions has been that you just "filibuster" until everyone else is so exasperated they move on. If that is all you can say, then it can't you see why it feels like that is what's going on? Reread my comments above; I have repeatedly, painfully explained why your demand is unreasonable. Now I'm telling you directly, as an uninvolved, disinterested editor trying to help this encyclopedia, that what you are proposing would hamper mediation. The most reasonable proposal is for everyone to go along with a ceasefire. Huaiwei has been willing to do so almost immediately and even proposed broadening the terms. Now I'm going to be blunt here: either agree to the easefire, or propose some workable alternative, or tell me that you are rejecting mediation and I've wasted all this time. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General_discussion&diff=25371072&oldid=25364150#reply_9 replied]
::::::::::Okay, you've made more contentious edits recently (like adding "country" a Hong Kong category [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Healthcare_in_Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=25565911] and adding "mainland" before China here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Pan-Blue_visits_to_mainland_China&diff=prev&oldid=25579565]) and I'm concerned that these could just lead to more revert wars. You haven't responded to my last question. Basically: are you still interested in mediation? And are you personally willing to take responsibility and actually ''modify'' your behavior based on some resolution (ie, point of mediation = give and take)? And (if yes) will you agree to temporary armistice? [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General_discussion&diff=25645885&oldid=25568956#reply_10 replied]
:(moving back to left finally) Thank you for your encouraging response. I hadn't meant to say that either of those were contentious, but that since they looked like some of the wordings that were disputed, I was worried, but not sure if I should be. Forget about it if the "mainland" was an undisputed usage. And I think your commenting out in the category was in using good judgment. Please see a new section I've started, [[User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes]], where there is now a structure in place to begin discussion on the lists. Please fill in the requested info so we can get started. (Feel free to copy and paste parts from previous statements if this is getting redundant.) Thanks again! [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 08:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:*[[User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes|responded at user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes]]
*Hey, let's get this party started, [[User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes]]
==Macao/Macau==
I spell it both ways and have no preference, but I possibly lean towards the u. Apparently it's own government goes both ways too. I saw one talk page discussion where you mentioned just leaving either spelling as we would American vs Queen's spelling of words. That would be a healthy compromise. And if it gets changed one way or the other, is it really that important to edit war over? [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[ user talk:SchmuckyTheCat#Re: Macao/Macau|replied]]
== cat talk page ==
Hey, you created [[Category talk:Airports in the People's Republic of China]], so now I can't move [[Category talk:Airports in the People's Republic in China]] there unless I delete it. Since you are the only contributor, if you dont' mind I can delete the page. <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#FF0033>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>¿</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 19:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*Hey again. I made a note not to rename the [[:Category:Chinese golf clubs and courses]] on [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_25#Subcategories_of_sports_venues_by_country_categories|this CFD discussion]]. I was wondering if you had a link to the discussion for this, seeings the Airport's got renamed, I don't see this being a problem. Let me know if you still think it is an issue and I will keep the note posted for its renaming. Thanks. <font color=#000000>[[Special:Contributions/Who|∞]]</font>[[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|<font color=#FF0033>?</font><font color=#FF00FF>¿</font><font color=#0033FF>?</font>]] 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Who#Re: Cat talk page|replied]]
== Typhoons ==
I noticed you made some typhoon edits. If you're interested, check out [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones]]. Also note that [[:Category:Pacific typhoons]] is different from [[:Category:Pacific hurricanes]]. [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Jdorje#Re: Typhoons|replied]]
== Appreciation ==
r all the templates for the list of MTR stations created by u? woo...it will be a Featured List if there is any. it is informative as well as eye-catching. :P --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:by the way, do u think it's good to have a hk wikipedian's message board, beside a notice board? --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 04:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.C._Tang&oldid=25123772#Re:_Appreciation replied]
==Request for help expanding an article==
I am looking for information on [[Vasco Joaquim Rocha Vieira|the last Portuguese governor of Macau]], and unfortunately, I can find only limited information in English. If you have time, could I humbly ask your help in updating the page mentioned? Thanks for your time, and apologies for the direct request. [[User:Indiana Fats|Indiana Fats]] 14:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Indiana Fats#Re: Governor of Macao|replied]]
== About Vasco Joaquim Rocha Vieira ==
*[[User_talk:Macanese%E9%A6%AC%E4%BA%A4%E4%BA%BA#Vasco Joaquim Rocha Vieira|reference]]
Actually, I don't know him very much but I know that his reputation is not good. See [http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/1/3/24/n62256.htm this]. - [[user:Macanese%E9%A6%AC%E4%BA%A4%E4%BA%BA|HeiChon~XiJun]] 16:41, October 8, 2005
*[[User_talk:Macanese%E9%A6%AC%E4%BA%A4%E4%BA%BA#Vasco Joaquim Rocha Vieira|replied]]
== Motorola Dragonball ==
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomchiukc&oldid=25075136#Motorola_Dragonball reference]
There is no citation. It was originally from a computer literacy TV programme of RTHK with 林敏驄 as the host. The first issue talked about CPHK (the now City University of Hong Kong, with the first half of the programme interviewed Minnet Fukuda (夏敏), with shoots of her teaching with Compu. Engg. students. Another half of the programmed talked about that DragonBall CPU. -- [[User:Tomchiukc|Tomchiukc]] 05:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
: If I remembered, I had told you already. ;-) It is a programme at around 1990. -- [[User:Tomchiukc|Tomchiukc]] 07:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:: And it was because of my searching of the information and found that Mrs Fukuda (my placement supervisor) has left CityU some years ago. -- [[User:Tomchiukc|Tomchiukc]] 07:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomchiukc&oldid=25120129#Motorola_Dragonball replied]
== Yucca ==
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.C._Tang&diff=25131482&oldid=25123772#Yucca_de_Lac reference]
um...i've tried to rewrite it, see see. :P --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 15:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:but r u sure we need so many transliterations for that? It may be good for an entry like Cha Chaan Teng, which is a Cantonese term, to have so many transliterations listed, but not for this one, I guess. --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.C._Tang&diff=25190785&oldid=25147033#reply_1 replied]
==Putonghua and Chinese==
I'm not challenging the assertion that Chinese and Putonghua are taught as different subjects in some places today, as you stated on the [[Talk:List of official languages by state|talk page]], but I merely wanted to ask: do students/teachers ever write anything down during Putonghua class? <br> If so, would the language they wrote down during Putonghua class truly be, in your estimation, a completely separate language from what was being studied in Chinese class? --[[User:Dpr|Dpr]] 18:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADpr&diff=25191964&oldid=25161623#Re:_Putonghua_and_Chinese_reply_1 replied]
== Lantau/o ==
I never knew it was called Lantao Bus, which was a surprise to me. They do call it "Lantau" Island though...both ways I guess. [[User:YCCHAN|YCCHAN]] 15:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YCCHAN&diff=25340617&oldid=25230646#Re:_Lantao/u_reply_1 replied]
== Map idea ==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=25193923&oldid=25178434#Map_suggestion reference]
That's a very cool idea. I'll probably make it one of these days... =D Though don't expect it within one week, I gotta get school out of the way first... -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 15:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=25340877&oldid=25193923#Map_suggestion_reply_1 replied]
:What kind of map are you making? -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=25451957&oldid=25340877#Map_suggestion_reply_2 replied]
::ok, send it to something underscore something at somewhere dot ca. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=25754726&oldid=25753740#Map_suggestion_reply_3 replied]
:::Sorry.... try it again. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 05:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=25990967&oldid=25982826#Map_suggestion_reply_4 replied]
== Manchukuo is a former country ==
Hey man, please stop sabotaging my work on Manchukuo. Y'all got to learn how to respect other's work. No matter you like it or not, Manchukuo existed as a nation. It is the fact and Wiki is to list fact not opinions. Got it?--[[User:Manchurian Tiger|Manchurian Tiger]] 21:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manchurian_Tiger&diff=25341015&oldid=25076097#Re:_Manchukuo_is_a_former_country_reply_1 replied]
:Yes sir. To answer your question, I'd like to list the following facts that support Manchukuo as a legitimate nation: the country had an emperor, effective central and local governments and armed forces; the country established diplomatic ties with 23 countries and far more countries for trade and transportation including China; You may not like the fact that the Japan had a huge influence on the country but it did not change the fact Manchukuo was a country. I'm not arguing whether it is a puppet or a cow because that does not serve the purpose of Wiki and because that's just a matter of different views by different people. One can also argue China was not an independent country but a puppet state in the 50s because of the Soviet heavy hand there.--[[User:Manchurian Tiger|Manchurian Tiger]] 13:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manchurian_Tiger&diff=25371480&oldid=25341015#Re:_Manchukuo_is_a_former_country_reply_2 replied]
== copyright problem again ==
Hello, what about the images of stamps? PD? --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 04:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.C._Tang&diff=25531276&oldid=25505364#Re:_Copyright_problem_again_reply_1 replied]
==MTR Island Line station template==
How do you like it when the descriptions for platforms within an MTR station is written down? I have experimented it with the Island Line stations. See if you like them. ([[User:68.33.194.218|68.33.194.218]] 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC))
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.33.194.218&diff=25645109&oldid=23915333#Re:_MTR_Island_Line_station_template_reply_1 replied]
== [[:Image:Location_of_Kaiping_within_Guangdong_(China).png | PRC locator maps]] ==
Hi Instandnood,
some time ago, you asked me whether I could modify the maps to replace "China" by "Peoples' Republic of China" in the locator maps for prefrectures and districts. First, sorry for the long delay, second, the idea to place "China" and not "PRC" or anything else was that "China" is relatively language independent and understood by almost the whole world, while this is not the case for "PRC". However, you are right with your NPOV objection. Therefore, I think the best solution is to simply remove the "China" and rely on people to recognise that the little map with a piece highlighted is China (I think 99% of the readers of articles about Chinese places can manage, the leftover 1% being people like Sarcelles). If you have a better idea, please let me know, I value your opinion. -- [[User:Herr Klugbeisser|Herr Klugbeisser]] 09:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Herr_Klugbeisser&diff=10011599&oldid=9998387#Locator_maps_of_cities_of_the_PRC_reply_1 replied]
:Hi again,
:Honestly, in my understanding, China (PRC) is also not so much less NPOV than only China. First, PRC is, as I said, not comprehensible for all those who are not firm in English (I am from a non-English edition of Wikipedia, so I am more aware of this kind of problem). Second, I think we are talking about a map where "China" is used for the sake of simplicity and not as a political statement, and the maps are all used in a context that should be not very politically sensitive (just cities). If that is interpreted NPOV, then also "China (PRC)" can be interpreted NPOV. Also [[User:SchmuckyTheCat]] says that "just plain China is acceptable on a map". So, I think that leaving just "China" is the best solution, the alternative still being removing this text. -- [[User:Herr Klugbeisser|Herr Klugbeisser]] 08:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Herr_Klugbeisser&diff=10049891&oldid=10044325#Locator_maps_of_cities_of_the_PRC_reply_2 replied]
::I would suggest using "[[Mainland China]]". It is very jarring for me to see a map labelled "China" without Taiwan on it, and that's because I'm accustomed to the mainland POV. Imagine how it would be for someone who is not just accustomed but also passionate about that POV. "Mainland China", on the other hand, is NPOV and problem-free. 中国大陆 (Mainland China) is used extensively on Chinese Wikipedia for NPOV reasons as well. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 00:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=25744732&oldid=25696977#Re:_PRC_locator_maps_reply_1 replied]
{{User talk:Instantnood/PRC locator maps}}
==0101 army==
Who the heck are these 0101 armies?! I don't like the grammar and style and make-believe contents they implemented in the articles. I'm fed up with their ever-lasting edits! -- [[User:Mcy jerry|Jerry Crimson Mann]] 14:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcy_jerry&diff=25745690&oldid=25353053#Re:_0101_army_reply_1 replied]
==St. Stephen's Girls' College==
Hi Instantnood. I've performed the move that you wanted with regards to [[St. Stephen's Girls' College]]. Would you be able to go through the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/St._Stephen%27s_Girls%27_College What links here]'' for that article and correct the links to it. Cheers, --[[User:Cyberjunkie|Cyberjunkie]] | [[User_talk:Cyberjunkie|Talk]] 09:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberjunkie&diff=25993884&oldid=25992822#Re:_St._Stephen's_Girls'_College_reply_1 replied]
==Danish "dependencies"==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Europe&diff=25834267&oldid=25831736 reference]
Hi Instantnood. Regarding [[Template:Europe]]. I have read the page on [[Dependency|Dependencies]] and, well, that list was definitely made by somebody who had not read the Danish constitution. Just for the record; as far as the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark is concerned; both [[Greenland]] and the [[Faroe Islands]] are integral parts of Denmark proper. The fact that we've granted both communities extensive home rule (the Faroe Islands in 1948, Greenland in 1979) does not change that, and the home rule arrangements are not mentioned in the Constitution. The only exception is that the Constitution states that Danish laws are not binding for Greenland and the Faroe Islands, unless stated by the Danish Parliament. The legal links uniting the three parts of ''Rigsfællesskabet'' (the Community of the Realm) are at least as strong as those between [[Hong Kong]] and [[Mainland China]].
Before 1948, the Faroe Islands were considered to be a standard Danish county known as ''Færø Amt'' and thus a completely integrated part of the Kingdom. In 1948, home rule was granted to the islands a number of internal affairs. The list of policy areas has gradually been expanded. Greenland was a series of colonies until 1953, when the colonies were abolished and the island annexed to Denmark proper. §1 in the Constitution of 1953 states that ''Denne grundlov gælder for alle dele af Danmarks Rige.'' "This constitution is valid in all parts of the Danish Realm". (The former constitution was not in use in the West Indian and Greenlandic colonies.) So from a legal point-of-view, Denmark "proper" extends (almost) to the North Pole. The same is the case regarding Norway; [[Jan Mayen]] and [[Svalbard]] are, legally speaking, not dependencies either. On the other hand, both [[Bouvet Island]] and [[Peter I Island]] (both located on the southern hemisphere) are Norwegian dependencies. Finland's [[Åland Islands]], seem like a dependency but they, too, just have a measure of authonomy - most importantly that the official language is Swedish, not Finnish. On the other hand, the demilitarization of Åland is regulated by international treaties, so in that respect they resemble dependencies. I'm no expert on the [[Netherlands]], but for what I can see, the relations between [[Aruba]] and the [[Netherlands Antilles]] on the one hand and the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] on the other, are very close to the Danish arrangement. These two territories are categorized as "overseas countries/territories". Alas, I'm pretty convinced that few foreigners realize (or care) about these distinctions. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valentinian&diff=26189624&oldid=25856947#Re:_Danish_.22dependencies.22_reply_1 replied]
:Hi again, please forgive the late reply. I've read your reply regarding the status of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. I respect your views, but I have to disagree. If you visit the Web page of the Home Rule Administration of Greenland [http://www.nanoq.gl www.nanoq.gl] and do a search for "dependency" you'll end up with a big round 0 (the page is trilingual in Greenlandic, Danish, and English.) I can't find a good official Faroese page, but the Faroese Wikipedia has a page on the Faroe Islands, [http://fo.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B8royar]. If you look under "Fullveldi" (''Independence''), well, I'm pretty sure that "onki" means No / none. The note (1) simply means "home rule since 1948". You might also find this page interesting [http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520328&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL]. It is part of an official Danish portal.
: In fact, the Danish language doesn't even have a proper word for "dependency", so it couldn't have been used in the Statutes that created the current legal arrangements. The only word we have is "bi-land" once used regarding the former Norwegian possessions of Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. The word is never used nowadays, since the word carries a strong connotation of "somewhere unimporant that we don't have effective control over and don't give a damn about" (my interpretation). If I lived in either Greenland or the Faroe Islands, and anyone used that phrase, I'd be greatly offended. Many people on both the Faroes and in Greenland wish to stress that they are "on the same level" as Danes. We have one "Realm" (the Kingdom of Denmark) but "three nations" (in the meaning "cultural entities").
: If you see the talk page on [[Faroe Islands]], they too reach the conclusion that the islands are not a "dependency". I once added a long message there describing the historic relations between the three (originally four) parts of the Realm.
: I've removed the word "dependency" in both articles, which I consider to be POV, and replaced it with a neutral description of the legal status. I've not changed [[Template:Europe]] yet, but I'm very tempted. I'm quite aware that you probably didn't mean to cause offence, but the word "dependency" strongly reminds me just too much about the time when [[East Germany]] officially referred to Greenland as a "colony" in order to question Danish sovereignty over the island. And I know how much that word would offend some of my fellow countrymen. The Danish political system has gone to great lenghts to demonstrate to the peoples of the Faroes and Greenland that we (Danes) respect them and their cultures too.
: You might also be interested in a message from [[User:Huaiwei]] on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valentinian#Dependencies]. Regarding Norway, hmm, I'm no expert but knowing that Norwegian law is based on Danish legal tradition (we ruled Norway from 1380-1814), and reading the Norwegian pages on [[no:Jan Mayen|Jan Mayen]] and [[no:Svalbard|Svalbard]]; Jan Mayen is listed simply as an island annexed in 1929, and administred by the Province (Fylke) of [[Nordland]]. In my view: no dependency. The article on Svalbard presents no arguments to qualify for that label either. As one source says, four territories are regulated by international treaties: Svalbard (Norway), Åland (Finland), Hong Kong, and Macau (both China). Since I've never seen the latter three described as dependencies, which I know would be positively incorrect regarding Åland, I see no reason to give Svalbard that label either. Norway doesn't "govern" the area. Sovereignty was awarded to Norway in 1920 by the International Court in the Hague following a diplomatic dispute.
: Regading the Netherlands, you might be interested in the article on [[Netherlands Antilles]]. It seems like they will be split up and three islands will be placed directly under the Dutch crown. That will without question make the Netherlands a country with territories "outside of Europe". Like Denmark and Norway. Best regards. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 15:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valentinian&diff=26537166&oldid=26210991#Re:_Danish_.22dependencies.22_reply_2 replied]
:: Thanks for your message. If our area of difference can be narrowed down to finding a neutral word, then I'm optimistic. All these territories have in common that "the territory in question has a special relationship to another territory". Sticking to that definition, I'll suggest either "autonomous provinces", "autonomous territories" or "territories with extensive home rule". If islands like Jan Mayen are to be included, then "provinces" is not an option. In that case it'd have to be "autonomous territories" ("Territories" in the geographical sense of the word, not the political.)
:: I believe that either of these terms will be both an accurate description and NPOV. Calling the Åland islands for a "dependency" is clearly off the mark. Any Finn or Swede can tell you that. The major difference between Åland and mainland Finland is that the islands are not militarized and that the official language is Swedish. But that's also the case in several municipalities on the Finnish mainland. Finnish law states that a municipality becomes legally unilingual if one language is spoken by more than 94% of the local population (if I remember the figure correctly). In Åland, this applies to all municipalities since virtually no Finns live there. Consequently, it also applies to the district level. It works the other way around as well, most municipalities only has Finnish as the official language, while some - most notably the capital ''Helsinki'' (Finnish) / ''Helsingfors'' (Swedish) - are legally bilingual. Åland and Sweden's Finnish provinces were conquered for strategic purposes by Russia in 1808. When Imperial Russia collapsed in 1917, the Grand Duchy of Finland declared its independence. Shortly after this 96.2% of the people of Åland signed a petition calling for reunification with Sweden. This request was rejected by Finland and turned down by the League of Nations. The islands were granted home rule as compensation. The main point regarding the autonomy is the right for the islands to decide who's allowed to settle there. That was merely a guarantee against a future Finnish colonization of the province.
:: More seriously, I'm writing this because insistance on using the word "dependency" insults a great many people. You might not find it particularly insulting, but it certainly insults me, particularly regarding some of the examples you use. I admit, I'm not a native English speaker, but I did study the language at university level. In the Danish example, the word is a massive insult to all three nationalities in the Danish Realm. 1) it makes it sound as if Denmark (proper) was still a colonial power - a slander often used against us by the Soviet Union and East Germany during the Cold War. 2) Regarding Greenland and the Faroes, the word has - in English too - a connotation that the area is in someway in an inferior position towards the "motherland". This is not the case, and both Greenlanders and Faroese are extremely proud of their own culture and history. Bot are very insistant on being respected as the equals of the Danish people. Besides, they are legally integrated in the "motherland" so how can they be in any position towards it? They can be in a position towards the Danish people, yes, but not towards the Kingdom of Denmark. I know this is getting long-haired, but it took us a long time to find a formula that would satisfy the different nationalities.
:: 3) If the word "dependency" is applied in a case like Hong Kong (to which I must insist, if your definition is to be followed regarding Greenland, the Faroes, Svalbard, Jan Mayen, and Åland) the use of that has serious political overtones. I don't think you deliberately intended to insult other nationalities but if you use the word "dependency" regarding the Faroes and Greenland you offend an awful lot of people there. That is not NPOV. I'm pretty sure many Chinese would find a reference to Hong Kong as a dependency both an offence and a support of separatism, which is also not NPOV. Åland officially has autonomy but is effectively an integrated part of Finland. Speaking of China, I believe that a large number of provinces officially have home rule. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard neither Xinjiang nor Tibet referred to as Chinese dependencies? I've not heard that word used regarding Macau or Hong Kong either.
:: I am not saying this to offend either you, Hong Kong, China or anybody else, but a founding principle of Wikipedia is NPOV which, by my definition, includes respecting other nationalities and their feelings, cultures, and beliefs. The word "dependency" is not only inaccurate in the Danish and Finnish cases, but can be seen as an insult. As you have no doubt seen, the word has been debated on a number of talk pages, and - at least in Scandinavia / the Nordic Countries - the word is not considered to be neutral. Moreover, it is not a correct description of the situation, most people here would define a dependency as e.g. Jersey or Ascencion Island. To sum it up, a neutral compromise would be "autonomous territories", "territories with autonomy", or "territories with/enjoying extensive home rule". Again, I've excluded possibilities involving the word "province" since that clearly does not apply in the Norwegian and Dutch examples. I hope that one of these options will be acceptable to you. I'd personally prefer "autonomous territories". Regarding [[Template:Europe]] the word "Dependencies" can simply be replaced by "Dependencies & autonomous territories". I believe that this change could solve the problem. My regards. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 18:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valentinian&diff=26548528&oldid=26537166#Re:_Danish_.22dependencies.22_reply_3 replied]
::: I don't mind the word in all instances, but in the Scandinavian examples it is misplaced. You have already heard a few of my suggestions, I'm very willing to hear any suggestion you might have. In fact, here in Scandinavia we'd usually just use a phrase like "hjemmestyreområder" (home rule territories) or "områder med hjemmestyre" (areas with home rule). Neither of which are considered to be newspeak, at least not in Scandinavia :-) But if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. --[[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
:::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valentinian&diff=26804947&oldid=26736531#Re:_Danish_.22dependencies.22_reply_4 replied]
==New stub types==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HenryLi&diff=26192904&oldid=25781396#New_stub_types reference]
Roads in ''Hong-Kong-geo-stub'' reach a critical mass enough for a stub its own. It's time to populate it using ''Hong-Kong-road-stub''.
[[User:HenryLi|HenryLi]] 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HenryLi&diff=26193673&oldid=26193479#New_stub_types_reply_1 replied]
: ^^ Aiya. I have not seen any warning when creating it. - [[user:HenryLi|HenryLi]] 16:21, October 22, 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HenryLi&diff=26194251&oldid=26193673#New_stub_types_reply_2 replied]
==road-rail bridges==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat&diff=26212473&oldid=26210780#Hong_Kong_and_Macao_on_lists_by_country reference]
I added more Chinese bridges. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_road-rail_bridges&diff=26224133&oldid=26212255] [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 23:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Another dispute: List of road-rail bridges|see user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation]]
==thx==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_airports_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&curid=1614836&diff=26418257&oldid=26392506] thanks for the correction. The only reference I saw for it ( I didn't look very hard) said Qinhai-Tibet plateau. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 05:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat&diff=26420805&oldid=26212473#Golmud_reply_1 replied]
==Re:Scotland-related stubs==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grutness&diff=prev&oldid=26556304#Power_of_WP:WSS reference]
Thanks for the heads-up. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grutness&diff=26645031&oldid=26608247#Power_of_WP:WSS_reply_1 replied]
== Notification ==
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADmcdevit%2FMediation&diff=26682010&oldid=26679385]. I'd like everyone to be more stringent in listing possible contentious edits, no I made a new section specifically for that. Use it generously. :) [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 05:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Notifications of content additions|see user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation]]
==plz respond==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation&diff=26721922&oldid=26721719] Our mediator did ask for no more comments until that was answered. It is unfortunate that hasn't been followed but can you reply to it so we can move on? [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Queries by Dmcdevit|see user talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation]]
==Image sorting==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Instantnood&offset=20051028205600&limit=32&go=prev reference]
I noticed you image sorting and several are on ifd. Give me a headsup for non-sourced HK/Macao images, I will try and find an existing one or go take one. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 21:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat&diff=26804770&oldid=26700257#Re:_Image_sorting_reply_1 replied]
== Pic ==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzheado&diff=26739092&oldid=25594011#Image_tags reference]
thanks Instantnood, I've labeled the picture. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzheado&diff=26739092&oldid=25594011#Image_tags replied]
==Irish British category==
Hi, I created this category for people or for people whose ancestor moved from the island of [[Ireland]] to the island of [[Great Britain]]. Renaming it Britons of Irish descent would include a huge number of people in Northern Ireland which really goes against the reason I created this category. Could you possibly consider changing your vote [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_21#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain|Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain]] to rename it [[:Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain]] as this would solve this problem and allow inclusion of Irish born people who have spent most of their life in Britain like [[Peter O'Toole]] and [[Terry Wogan]] which was my original intention. Thanks [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26803880&oldid=26784351#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_1 replied]
:Hi thanks for your message. I'm not sure it would be necessary to create a UK super category as there would be no real need for it, we just put [[:Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain]] as a sub cat of [[:Category:Irish people]] and [[:Category:British people]] (the yet to be renamed category [[:Category:Irish British people]] is in these two cats). I'm not sure it would be make sense creating a category [[:Category:Irish diaspora in Northern Ireland]] as more than half the population see themselves as Irish. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 20:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26862510&oldid=26815955#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_2 replied]
::Hi I think creating a category for Irish people in Northern Ireland is problematic due to the fact that many people who live in the area known as Northern Ireland do not accept that Northern Ireland is separate to the [[Republic of Ireland]] and do not accept a link to Great Britain. Also you may be accused of sectarianism if you split people who live in NI into those who identify as Irish, British or Ulster Scots [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 12:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::Re: the diaspora question, no you couldn't call people in NI who identify as Irish as a diaspora as they are still living on the island of Ireland. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 12:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26877840&oldid=26862510#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_3 replied]
:::Hi, if you were going to create these categories it would be quite hard to chose appropriate names i.e. something like People in Northern Ireland who identify as Irish , People in Northern Ireland who identify as British, People in Northern Ireland who identify as Ulster Scots etc. Although I am really only interested in people in Great Britain, I originally started my category for Irish people who spent most of their life in Britain in the 19th century like [[Richard Brinsley Sheridan]], [[Oscar Wilde]], [[Tyrone_Power_(1795-1841)]] and it grew from there. I see your comment on the cfd page, "the upper layer for Britons of Irish descent, and the second for the Irish diaspora in Great Britain (i.e. England + Scotland + Wales)". The main problem is '''all'' people in Northern Ireland are in theory British and probably 70% of Northern Irish people including protestants have native irish ancestry so the category would be almost pointless. Therefore it we had to split the categories one should be [[:Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain]], and the other [[:Category:Irish people in Great Britain]] for people who live in [[Great Britain]] who call(ed) themselves Irish. I think we got it! [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 13:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
:::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26879610&oldid=26877840#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_4 replied]
::::Hi I've asked the person who originally nominated the category for renaming to change the header on the cfd page to replace [[:Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain]] with the new proposed names [[:Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain]], and [[:Category:Irish people in Great Britain]], or is there problem with that as you can only rename it to one category? There are not many people who were born or grew up in Ireland/Northern Ireland in the list so maybe I should remove these and we can then easily rename the whole category to [[:Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain]]. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26880488&oldid=26879610Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_5 replied]
:::::OK, I will create [[:Category:Irish people in Great Britain]] and start moving and adding to this category. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 14:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26880770&oldid=26880488#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_6 replied]
::::::Hi nood sorry to bother you again, on your comment in the cfd page you mentioned the irish diaspora category, however I do not want to use this name so could you support my proposal to rename the category [[:Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain]], people born or brought up on the island of Ireland (such as [[Tom Paulin]], [[Michael Gambon]], [[Dion Boucicault]], [[Eamonn Holmes]]) will be moved to [[:Category:Irish people in Great Britain]]. Thanks [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 18:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arniep&diff=26959992&oldid=26880770#Re:_Irish_British_category_reply_7 replied]
==喊驚==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granzo&diff=23847568&oldid=20709202#.E5.96.8A.E9.A9.9A reference]
Hi,
喊驚 is the "chinese magic" that people do to clam people who have been suprised / shocked, e.g. a car crashes into the wall in front of him, etc. I think it is some kind of cantonese chant, with some kind of action, to clam the guy and to summon the guy's 三魂七魄 back, which are scared away by the suprise.
From http://www.chinafoshan.net/history/3i/200204220056.html:
佛山的招魂与喊惊
...........
此外，还有一种病人，日久未愈，且神志不清，如失去魂魄一般。家人则在家门口焚烧香烛，用手拍打病人穿过的衣服，且拍且喊病人的名字，以招神魂归来。这种活动，名为“喊惊”，已相沿日久，今较少见了。
But in HK, I think it's more commonly known for claming the people after some kind of shock.
I am not sure whether this is a proper way to reply a message, so pls kindly acknowledge. Thanks.
-Eric 30/10/2005
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granzo&diff=26802654&oldid=26785625#喊驚_reply_1 replied]
== current events in Hong Kong and Macau ==
Oct 29, 2005 [[Macau]] [[East Asian Games]] started, please help me add that event.--[[User:Macanese馬交人|HeiChon~XiJun]] 17:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Macanese%E9%A6%AC%E4%BA%A4%E4%BA%BA&diff=26804029&oldid=25075436#East_Asian_Games_reply_1 replied]
==Phonetics template for Chinese==
Alanmak starts using the template abovementioned robotically...I wonder if it is suitable. -- [[User:Mcy jerry|Jerry Crimson Mann]] 05:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcy_jerry&diff=26857209&oldid=26754169#Pronunciation_templates_reply_1 replied]
:Oh, it's reverted... -- [[User:Mcy jerry|Jerry Crimson Mann]] 08:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
:*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mcy_jerry&diff=26863430&oldid=26857209#Pronunciation_templates_reply_2 replied]
== Re: Sai chaan ==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alanmak&diff=26893261&oldid=24022556#Sai_chaan reference]
I don't think it is acceptable to have the entire article with lots of romanized Cantonese term every where. Those Korean words like "Kimchi" and Japanese words like "Sushi" are widely used by English-speaking communities. But "Sai chaan" is definitely not a well-known English term. Wikipedia is not a place for creating new terms. Please try your best to translate as literally as possible. In a lot of circumstances, it is even unnecessary to tell readers the Chinese terms. We may just describe the detail of the Chinese terms. Those who know Chinese can go to the Chinese Wikipedia to know more about those Chinese terms. Those who don't know Chinese at all don't care about what "Sai chaan" and "tsing cha" are, especially when a lot of romanized Cantonese terms just suddenly appear in the articles without any clue or any explanation. Of course, in a small number of cases, romanized Cantonese terms are acceptable, but those who don't know Chinese would not be interested in an "English" article written entirely in romanized Cantonese terms.
For the Chinese template, it was you who said that "I think I ''will make'' a template like the one used in Korea-related article later." So, please don't blame me for using such a template. But it seems that there is an editing dispute now. Yesterday, when I talked to Jerry, we agreed to stop adding or deleting any more templates until we come up with a better solution. Jerry suggested using an image-based template. We may discuss about that some time.
-[[User:Alanmak|Alanmak]] 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alanmak&diff=26896734&oldid=26893461#Sai_chaan_reply_1 replied]
== Sun Yat-sen ==
I've nomintated Sun Yat-sen for FACR. Your comments are welcome at [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen]] (since you originally supported the nomination). --[[User:Jiang|Ji]][[User talk:Jiang|ang]] 09:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen#Sun Yat-sen|responded at WP:FARC]]
== [[WP:CFD]] ==
On [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_30#Category:Indian_cheeses|CfD for Indian cheeses]] that you want the category to be kept and populated. Well, I just wanted to tell you that ther are no other Indian cheeses (I should know-after all I'm an Indian).--May the Force be with you! [[User:Shreshth91|Shreshth91]]<small>[[User talk:Shreshth91|<font color=green>($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)</font>]]</small> 13:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_30#Category:Indian_cheeses|responded at WP:CFD]]
== Naxi (sic) Porn ==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MSTCrow&go=prev&offset=20051026033100&limit=3 reference]
No, the fact that Hong Kong has Nazi porn in and of itself is not important, but it is very important that Hong Kong culture is adopting a gruesome, strong admiration for Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. This is certainly worth noting in the article on Hong Kong. - [[User:MSTCrow|MSTCrow]] 04:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MSTCrow&diff=27252985&oldid=23161424#Re:_Nazi_(sic)_Porn replied]
== Thank you for your vote, and HDI discussion underway ... ==
Hello! I hope you're well. I'd like to [[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|thank you for participating in the vote earlier to include the HDI]] in the country infobox/template. Yay!
After a lengthy gestation, '''''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country/HDI|a discussion piece has been prepared to help give form to the vote]]'''''. If you've a preference for how and where this information should appear in the infobox, I'd appreciate it if you head on over there and comment. :)
After a decision is arrived at, if at all, I'm also hopeful to prevail upon you to add the values (if you're willing and comfortable) for a handful of countries; the more people doing it, the less time it will take to implement the vote and realise the fruits of our collective labour.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your co-operation! [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] 04:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[template_talk:Infobox_Country/HDI|responded at template talk:Infobox Country/HDI]]
== Minority languages in China ==
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=26706394&oldid=26306627#Official_languages reference]
The thing about these languages is that I don't think any language in China is strictly "official". For that matter, Mandarin isn't strictly "official" either, it's just that a national law on language use has defined it as being the "common language" nationwide. As for minority languages, all of them have some sort of "common language" status "somewhere" in China. These "status"es are scattered over an infinite number of local guidelines, promulgations, legislations etc. which may or may not be on the Internet. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yi: In Liangshan Autonomous Prefecture, the "common languages" are Yi and Chinese. [http://www.lsz.gov.cn/detail/show2_zcfg.asp?INFOID=15410] I have no idea what's happening in the other two autonomous prefectures (Chuxiong, Honghe). Honghe has legislation that says [http://www.yn.gov.cn/yunnan,china/77405618595430400/20050831/523834.html] that Yi is one of the common languages, but I haven't found legislation that actually *defines* it that way (in the same way Liangshan does). As for Chuxiong, I might look for it later, but I haven't found any yet.
Hmong: I'm still looking. Of the six autonomous prefectures (Enshi, Xiangxi, Qiandongnan, Qiannan, Qianxinan, Wenshan), I haven't found a single one that puts its language policy legislation on the Internet.
So, as you can see, this stuff is very hard to research without access to some sort of library with local legislation across all of China.
-- [[User:Ran|ran]] ([[User talk:Ran|talk]]) 16:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ran&diff=27253095&oldid=27160086#Official_languages_reply_1 replied]
== Macao-stub ==
Why did you create this at this spelling, against a clear consensus in favour of "Macau-stub" (if any stub at all)? And why are you now reverting my attempts to fix this? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 20:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alai&diff=27192066&oldid=27048056#Re:_Macao-stub_reply_1 replied]
:So far as I'm concerned, this ''was'' sorted out on WSS/P. You just didn't appear to take any account of the outcome, which was clearly "Macau-stub, if anything at all". [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:*[[Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#Move_and_redirect_.7B.7Btl.7CMacao-stub.7D.7D_to_.7B.7Btl.7CMacau-stub.7D.7D.3B__delete_.7B.7Bcl.7CMacao_stubs.7D.7D|see discussion at WP:SFD]]
== [[Cha chaan teng]] ==
Ah, i'm re-reading the article, could u help make its layout look better? by the way, do u have account in Chinese wiki? i've joined the Chinese wiki recently, so i can ask for ur help for editing problems if u have one. :P --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
*<span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.C._Tang&diff=27349462&oldid=26738182#Re:_Cha_chaan_teng_reply_1 replied]
:Yeah, it's better, and i've reorganized the whole article (u see how food-obsessed I am!). Beside writing a bit on Chinese wiki, i've been dreaming of starting an anti-the-use-of-[[1911 Encyclopædia Britannica]]-on-Wiki campaign. But how can i persuade others that the old encyclopaedia is outdated both in style and content? really, i am in despair. :-C --[[User:K.C. Tang|K.C. Tang]] 02:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
==Jewish American actors==
Hi nood, I noticed your vote on this. I just wondered whether you realised that this category contains many people in it have only one parent (or even grandparent in some cases) who was jewish, do not identify themselves as Jewish American and are in other (ethnicity)-American categories. I think it needs to be deleted because it doesn't make sense that a person who does not identify as wholly jewish could be described as a jewish american actor such as [[Carrie Fisher]], [[Patricia Arquette]], [[Robert Downey Jr.]], [[Michael Douglas]]. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== Gregory Charles Rivers ==
Hi. I notice you switched a stub tag on the [[Gregory Charles Rivers]] article from {{tl|Australia-actor-stub}} back to the more general {{tl|Australia-bio-stub}} as most of his acting career is in Hong Kong. As the article suggests that his time in Australia was up to part-way through a medical degree, I doubt any Australian editors outside of the actor field are likely to know anything more about him to add to the article. Should we drop the Australian stub tag completely from the article? He's famous because he's an actor, not because he studied medicine. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]</sup> 14:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== Sheung Shui minibus ==
The red minibus in Hong Kong has no official route numbers. The "number 18" is a de facto route number but does not have official status. --[[User talk:Sl|Hello World!]] 08:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
== Macao/Macau stub ==
Hello, Instantnood (cool name, by the way). Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have added a comment with my opinion in the discussion about the stub category. --[[User:AngelRiesgo|AngelRiesgo]] 14:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
==Re: Jewish American actors==
Hi, thanks for your reply. I've realised that aside from the problem of labelling people xxx-American even if they don't identify as that, there is a major problem with any categories of ethnicity-nationality-profession because, as valiantis says this just messes up the category structure. For example, a person who is an actor and a director who has grandparents of four different ethnicities could be placed in 4 different xxx American actor and 4 different xxx American director categories which personally I think would be ridiculous and make Wikipedia look ridiculous. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 15:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with that statement and it can get ridiculous, even though it is somewhat accurate. That's why ultimately I don't feel strongly about the Actors category getting kept. But the whole "identify/not identify" thing is just silly and not encyclopedic, since most people don't even "identify" with something over the other and there is pretty much no way of knowing what the heck people think of themselves. DeNiro thinking himself Italian is pretty much just a matter of audience perception because he plays non-stop Italian-American characters. And DeNiro is world famous - what about, to use some random examples - Robert Downey Jr.? He used to say "my father is Jewish but I'm not", now he calls himself a "nice half Jewish boy" and he was married to a Jewish woman in a Jewish ceremony. But the catch is - he is only 1/4 Jewish - do we ignore his other ancestry (equal parts Irish, German and Scottish)? It still exists even if he doesn't primarily identify with it - and obviously his identification changed over time. What about all of the Phoenix siblings? Harrison Ford? Kirsten Dunst? Does she think of herself as German or Swedish or what? Identification IS important when dealing with someone's religion, but not ethnicity. It's just pushing it too far. We should record ethnicity like the U.S. Census does, otherwise we could get into hundreds of long, boring, pointless debates about a large number of actors and how the heck they identify or don't identify, cross-comparing quotes and articles. It is going to create a very pointless and large bundle of work, and is probably just going to end up being confusing. Ethnicity can be and should be measured, if we want to vote on whether to use my 1/4 (one full grandparent of one ethnicity in order to be included) rule then let's vote. Otherwise, dividing this into identification is just going to be a mess that even I don't think I could clean up.[[User:Vulturell|Vulturell]] 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:::It is not accurate because xxx-American is a label and [[POV]], we can solve all the problems by changing the categories to Americans with xxx ancestry which is totally [[NPOV]] and verifiable, and also to make sure we do not mix ethnicity with nationality and profession in categories. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
| 