Who said it, and when? Responsibility of Government for social and economic conditions should include the promotion of measures that would assure to everyone a defined minimum standard of living. While a country’s spiritual civilization is reflected in the highest level to which the genius of its people rises in the arts and sciences, a rock bottom measure of its economic civilization is the level of comfort and decency below which no one of its people needs to fall.

Source

Major edits or new articles:

Li Desheng

Chen Xilian

Kang Sheng

Peng Chong

Xu Shiyou

Zeng Shan

Wan Li

Wang Sheng (Taiwan General)

Wei Guoqing

Gao Gang

Economy of East Asia

As well as,

General Political Department

People's Liberation Army Air Force

PLA Military Regions and individual regions

Chinese Soviet Republics

Nanchang Uprising

Communist Party of China

Zhu De

Yang Shangkun

Qin Jiwei

Yang Dezhi

Japan

If you watched Li Xiannian page, you could notice that there are missing a number of important informations, such as: an important role in stimulating the Chinese economy, conflicts and the support of Deng Xiaoping, the role in Jiang Zemin set to power in 1989, enormous power and influence that Li had. I would like to ask you if you can, to some trimmed this page because I do not want this beacuse of quite poor knowledge of English. Please edit this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.146.78 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your recent respond on the humanities reference desk (Best Investment). As a young guy in his late 20s I'm confuse on investment so I'm wondering if you can provide me with some advice/pointers? You think going to a professional is definitely the way to go then? Who should I approach? Bank? Investment firm? Or? I don't want to ask this on the ref desk because ref desk is not the place to ask for advice, and I don't want to hijack (even though I think I did already :P) the question.

Thank you very much, OR and/or any advice would be much appreciated. Royor (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOR. Thank you again for your reply (especially considering the fact I'm just some completely random stranger on wikipedia). I asked a lot of different people on investment and it's nice to hear from someone with absolutely zero conflict of interest. The questions part is really helpful - didn't think of that before. I guess I'm going to browse around for an independent advisor and see if that works out. *bow* Royor (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around here its considered rude to make threats. What vandalism occured to make you post such a harsh message on my user page? The only recent edit on this IP was a revert of some broken markup on the Hong Kong page. 122.49.203.76 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Li Desheng has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. — iridescent 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was entirely unproductive! "Li Desheng" diverts to "Mao Zedong", which seems to prevent me from creating a page for Li Desheng. FYI, he was a Chinese general and member of the politburo standing committee. There is, of course, no reason why this diversion should be there so please undo your reversion! Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the process of nominating a deletion of redirect. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my first article, Li Desheng ! Comments welcome! DOR (HK) (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) And one on Peng Chong, as well as extensive revisions to Xu Shiyou and others.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to People's Liberation Army Air Force has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Arienh4^(Talk) 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arienh4, I've reverted your revert, as there is no reason on earth why anyone would (a) think that recognition / identification of the actual people running an organization such as the PLAAF is "unconstructive;" and (b) fail to notice that the issue had been discussed on the Talk page.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dos

Reverting should be taken very seriously.

Reverting is often used for fighting vandalism and similar abuse.

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first.

If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it, if possible. This may entail factual or grammatical corrections, or style changes such as trimming verbosity.

You can revert your own edit if you realize that it is wrong. Be careful if some other editor has made changes in the interim.

If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit.

Don'ts

Don't let superfluous or badly written material stand in order to avoid slighting its original author. Though your intentions may be good, doing so shirks your duty to the reader.

If your material is reverted, don't take it personally. Not every fact, detail, and nuance belongs in an encyclopedia.

If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid and encyclopedic information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if there is reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors sometimes choose to transfer the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

In future, please refrain from unconstructive reverts. Thanks.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed. It happens sometimes that a good edit gets caught up with vandal edits, and I must've mistaken your edit for a bad one. I am sorry. Arienh4^(Talk) 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't see this as an attack of sorts, but mistakes happen. So please, try to assume good faith yourself. If we all believe the other one is acting in good faith, we will all be much happier. Again, this wasn't meant as critisism, just an advice. Arienh4^(Talk) 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response, but still can't figure out why anyone actually looking at the article might have reverted it. If there is some sort of automatic process, it needs to be stopped. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello, I would like to thank you for your great efforts of editing those China-related articles. I created some of them, and you did serious research and made substantial contributions. It's a pleasure to read your articles. Now I'd like to discuss the article General Political Department you've edited. It's good to find the online source. But I'm not sure where you found the second half concerning those subdivisions within the Department. They're not in your cited article. My original Chinese source said it at least controls a film studio (8-1 film studio), a PLA athlete training group, a military orchestra, and some political academies, one in Xi'an and one in Nanjing. I'm sure their status in the hierarchy system. They may probably under charge of those sub-departments you've listed. But I think they're worth mentioning, given that they have large exposure in Chinese media. Plus, you may want to clean it up a bit. For example, you have cultural department and culture department, apparently redundancy. Keep up your good work. I'm looking forward to seeing more exciting contributions from you. Regards. Ramtears (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again. I was little confused by PLA's publishing houses. I wondered if PLA Literature and Art Press and PLA Press are the same agency. First I found a message at xinhuanet.com [1]. It seems they are different names of the same press. Then this idea was confirmed by the following link [2], which says they merged in October 2003 and the press has at least four names. So you may want to adjust the page General Political Department a bit and eliminate one of them, or note they're the same now. Ramtears (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey It's me again. I may have some questions about the article Chen Xilian you've edited. In first introduction paragraph, you wrote the Little Gang of Four were Chen, Wu, Ji, and Chen Yonggui. But from either Chinese or English sources I could find, the last one seemed to be Wang Dongxing. For example, please take a look at this page [3]. And in my opinion, Wang Dongxing should be placed first because he was very close to Mao Zedong and had most serious problem. And you know that the order of names does matter in China. But at the end of your article, it seems you mentioned Wang correctly. So how did you include Chen Yonggui in the first paragraph? Could you check your source again?

The second trivial problem is your footnotes are a little messy. I assume those ibid refer to Lampton?

The last issue may be little more serious. At the end of your article, according to your tone, Chen shared same fate as the other three demoted officials. But some of my sources (mainly in Chinese) point out that actually his ending was better than the others. This is probably due to his amicable personality, i.e., he got along with different people, and his records in war time. After his purge, he still relied on the re-emerged Song Renqiong, his old friend back to Shenyang MR, and eventually restored his relationship with his former boss Deng Xiaoping. This was reflected by the fact that he was twice elected to standing committee member of Central Advisory Commission in 80's, retaining the equal rank of politburo. While the other three were given member of CAC at best. Especially after the death of Ye Jianying, whom he fell foul of in mid 70's, he got more chances of exposure. After Chen's death, CCP sang high praises of his achievements, not least his first half of life. I wonder if your source mentioned any of his rebounding in 1980's. Thanks. Ramtears (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kang was CCP Social Affairs Department Secretary, CCP Senior Secretary in Shandong (ca. 49-55), and Shandong Governor (ca. 49-55). He served on the Politburo and its Standing Committee throughout the Cultural Revolution (1966-75).

Kang reportedly took Jiang Qing under his wing upon her arrival in Yenan, and placed her in a job working in Mao’s confidential military office. (Hollingworth, p. 60.)

In the Summer of 1966, Kang accused Marshall He Long of secretly preparing troops for a “February Mutiny”. (Hollingworth, p. 120.)

< ref>Schwartz, Benjamin, Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao, Harper & Row (New York: 1951).</ ref>

< ref>Whitson, William and Huang Chen-hsia, The Chinese High Command: A History of Communist Militry Politics, 1927-71, Praeger (New York: 1973).</ ref>

< ref>Hollingworth, Clare, Mao and the Men Against Him, Jonathan Cape (London: 1985).</ ref>

< ref>Editorial Board, Who's Who in China: Current Leaders (Foreign Language Press, Beijing: 1989), p. 315; hereafter Who's Who.</ ref>

< ref>Lamb, Malcolm, Directory of Officials and Organizations in China, 1968-1983 (M.E. Sharpe, New York: 1984)</ ref>

< ref>Lampton, David M., Paths to Power: Elite Mobility in Contemporary China, "Michigan Monographs in Chinese Studies No. 55," The University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: 1986).</ ref>

Ramtears, Thanks again for taking an interest.

You’re right on the membership of the Small Gang of Four. As for order, it is just as common to have name stroke order as to have a more meaningful one. I can’t find more than one source, so I can’t confirm the proper order. Wang Dongxing certainly was closest to Mao, but he also was instrumental in the 1976 coup d’état. Citation: (http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/china/china_history_china_and_the_four_modernizations_1979_82.html)

The CCP CC 5th Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee “decided to approve the request to resign made by Comrades Wang Dongxing, Ji Dengkui, Wu De and Chen Xilian and decided to remove and propose to remove them from their leading Party and state posts.” But, due to Chen's military contributions (Wang Dongxing was no great soldier), he remained on the MAC to September 1982. Lampton, p. 286-287. Both Chen and Wu De were named to the Central Advisory Committee (CAC) in September 1982, Chen as a Standing Committee member.

I disagree that Song Renqiong was an ally of Chen Xilian. Lampton (p. 276-277) has Chen directing the Red Guard’s attacks at the CCP “Regional Party Bureau and Song Renqiong.”

As for the CAC, the arrangement in 1982-87 (or so) was that the Chair was entitled to sit in on Politburo Standing Committee meetings, but not vote. The Vice Chairs could attend Politburo meetings on the same terms, and the Standing Committee members such as Chen Xilian, could attend Central Committee meetings, only. Chen’s MAC role might have given him the opportunity to attend some Politburo meetings, but not many. His obit was in line with his accomplishments.

Hey, thanks for the discussion. Of course Wang Dongxing was instrumental in getting rid of gang of four. If not for that, he would have been completely discarded by those seniors. The fact is he was so loyal to Mao Zedong and so arrogant and stubborn, many senior officials disliked him. Evidence could be easily found from memoirs of Tan Zhenlin and Zeng Zhi, the wife of Tao Zhu, among many others. So if we are talking about little gang of four, we are evaluating damages they might have caused if they had remained in power. Thus, I guess Wang Dongxing could have done most harm compared with more placable Chen Xilian and others. It's like in Gang of Four, Jiang Qing was always placed first.

Chen Xilian's elevation to CAC standing committee was, as I mentioned, partly due to his personality. He could make self-criticism and listen to criticisms from others after Cultural Revolution. This is something Wang Dongxing would never do. Plus, he was the subordinate of Deng Xiaoping and Liu Bocheng from early years in war time. Thus, he somehow regained some trust from Deng and others in 80's. The exception was Ye Jianying, with whom he competed in Central Military Commission in Mid 70's. Thus, he was still somehow in "shadow" until the death of Ye.

His relationship with Song Renqiong may need more evidence. If that Lampton book is your only source and it's from the point of view of a westerner, we may want to find other materials to gain more comprehensive and objective examination. In theory, any source could be biased and prejudiced. Let's keep looking.

As for the status of CAC, I thought that foreigners believed CAC somehow suppress the politburo standing committee. (See page Central Advisory Commission. But if you think it didn't play a critical role, I'm totally fine with that. After all, the politics in China is sometimes hard to interpret. Regards. Ramtears (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading more material, I agree Chen and Song Renqiong were not close. But meanwhile they're not hostile either. It might be because of their different backgrounds. Song never really led any armies or battles, though he was a general. It's true that Chen succeeded Song as the head of Northeast China, and directed attacks at Song as you said. But what he did was simply following the directive of Beijing, and doing whatever he had to do to keep himself out of trouble. In those turmoil years, it's understandable. I don't think Chen had ambitions or evil intentions as Gang of Four did. Actually in his memoir,[4]Song mentioned Chen 13 times. His amicable style determined he couldn't be seriously execrated. Senior military officials such as Fu Chongbi and Li Desheng recognized his achievements even when criticizing his mistakes. Ramtears (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes: When editing different parts of articles on different days, the footnotes can get out of order. “ibid” means (as you probably know) “same source as the previous footnote,” although it may be a different page. So, the last several are indeed references to Lampton.

---

Ramtears, I’ve been watching Chinese politics on a daily basis for 30 years. One thing I’ve learned is that whether an analyst is Western, Asian, African or Chinese is totally irrelevant to that person’s objectivity. Some of the most bias work I’ve ever read has been by Chinese, whether from the Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan or elsewhere.

Such comments about bias and prejudice are thinly veiled racism. I don’t know why you would think “foreigners believed” anything different from what anyone else believes.

The CAC was a means of retiring the old guard, with face. That hadn’t been done before, and they needed a mechanism. It was useful in that it also got Deng Xiaoping’s policy (not political) opponents out of the way. The “critical role” was played by specific individuals (e.g., Chen Yun), not because of their CAC roles but because of personal prestige.

Anyone know how to go about replacing a page with exactly one line on it, with a proper bio of another person of the same name? This Wang Sheng never ran the secret police in Taiwan . . . Advice appreciated. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the page with the name "as such" is for the most known person with that name. Others become something like "Name (specification)". For example: you can have a "John Doe", a "John Doe (politician)", a "John Doe (mathematician)" etc., and at last a "John Doe (disambiguation)" to list them all with a short description. So, if the new "Wang Sheng" is more likely to be of interest to people reading Wikipedia than the current "Wang Sheng", use the "move" button to change the name of the current article to, say, "Wang Sheng (football player)". This will make the current page disappear. Then create it again as the biography of the new "Wang Sheng", and in the text of both pages link to the other, so that people searching for "the other guy" will still find him no matter at which page they start looking around. For more details please read WP:D.

By the way: it's usually not a good idea to ask questions in your own personal talk page, as very few people read these. I were curious about you after your post at Persondata's talk page, and found your question here. Weren't for this and it would go unnoticed for who knows how much time. Best thing in these cases is to ask somewhere more people read, such as WP:HD. -- alexgieg (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alexgieg. I posted it here mainly because I wanted to remind myself that it is something I want to look at when I have time. I didn't expect a quick response, and would have done more serious research when the time came. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on 199.173.225.25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cheatsheet

I responded concerning the relevant issue on the article's talk page. You might consider following your own advice concerning the assumption of good faith, and in the future, avoid disparaging other users motivations for, and methods of, editing. ClovisPt (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don’t push this any further." - what is that supposed to mean? Refrain from editing a minor aspect of a Wikipedia article because one user desires an alternate edit? Regardless, I'm holding off until more editors comment on the talk page, although as you may recall, I was not the one who originally removed the book from the Further reading section. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I removed it first. DOR, you responded with an accusation that I did so because I don't "like" the book. I found that surprising. I hope this kind of thing is not going to continue. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 05:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The great depression meets the requirement(s) for any sensible definition of recession. We should be careful not to confuse a possibly lay OP. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping threads together, I moved your response here from my talk (hope you don't mind). Zain Ebrahim (talk)

Zain - Thanks for the comment on my talk page. But, I don't understand this: "We should be careful not to confuse a possibly lay OP." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, DOR. I just read your clarification. I was just saying that the OP might be confused if he/she wasn't aware of the issue surrounding the definitions of recessions and depressions. But after reading your post, I see what you were saying. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your automatic assumption of mischief aside, there's really no issue here. I was following the conventions of the Economy of India featured article, in which the history section comes first and the resources sections comes later. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix the first sentence in Biuography section - it makes no sense. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Taiwan General" is a misleading title as Wang also had a prominent role before he became a general and before he set foot in Taiwan. As no other general is known by Wang Sheng, it is not necessary to specify "Taiwan". And why "Taiwan General" and not "Chinese general"?

I think the article should be moved to Wang Sheng (primary topic) once the links headed there referring to the footballer are corrected.--Jiang (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you overlook it on that big page: I replied to you at WP:RD/L. Cheers! — Sebastian 01:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that we not imply that every single Hui person from the 15th century to the present must be Muslim, as it it were genetically encoded. So I tried to make the statement less sweeping. I'll go have another look at it. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 13:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you speak and write Chinese? — Hans yulun lai alias Hans yulun lai 13:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter he use it or not. Wikipedia is not about personal preference. Paul McCartney doesn't use Sir on his professional works too, but doesn't change the fact that he is a Sir. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to the rescue, me and my big mouth felt a bit lonely there. Can you believe the sheer religious power of communism? --Radh (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the wisdom of this--Radh (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly explain the message that you left on my talk page, given that i) I did not vandalize the recession page, and ii) you did not remove any edits made by me? --LK (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOR, there is currently a debate raging on the talk page about whether the Neumark/Wascher 2008 book is given undue weight. Though we disagree on the substantive issue, I think it's important that you weigh in on this procedural question since you are a professional economist. Academic economists LK and JQ have already commented. Thanks! Academic38 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- I do not quite follow? IF you are referring to forgetting to add seomthing to the talk page- my apologies- I just plain forgot- having major Maxtor HDD problems now. Must refrain from using sledge hammer. My Maxtor Onetouch 4 file system changed from NTFS to RAW overnight- for no reason- and no support at all from Maxtor. Seagate-Maxtor= Bastards.Will add explanatory comments as required.Starstylers (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, there's a dispute here over the naming of the party [5].--PCPP (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your request for supporting information on the effects of the minimum wage, I put together some information at the links below that you may find useful. The first is directly relevant to the minimum wage debate. The other two are relevant to standards of living and the income distribution. http://www.antolin-davies.com/antony/conventionalwisdom/minwage.ppt http://www.antolin-davies.com/antony/conventionalwisdom/distribution.ppt http://www.antolin-davies.com/antony/conventionalwisdom/pricesovertime.ppt Regards, Wikiant (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOR I wish you could tell me of what offences I have made to the page you told me of because I thought I had CLEARED vandalism instead of MADE one. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky id (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Could you tell me what is wrong in my fixed page? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Hong_Kong&diff=prev&oldid=340696450--Ricky id (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I deleted the post about antibiotics I also took your comment because it would otherwise have been left floating. I hope you don't mind. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at that article and felt that it could do with much work. I know about the subject, and have source material here, but I may need more guidance about how to really improve things in terms of correct Wikipedia style. At a minimum, there are almost no sources in that article. That quite undermines the credibility of the report to outsiders. If you have some advice for how I can start there, please notify me. Mark Selden's study of Yan'an is the seminal text; I have others, too. --Homunculus (strange tales) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'd like to know whether you insist on stating, that a trade surplus is favourable. Please see my post on the discussion page Balance of trade --62.235.217.192 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please register or log in if you want to discuss edits here. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

First of all, I apologize for my bad english (I'm french). Anyway, I would like to ask you something: on the Xie Fuzhi's article, I'm interesting in one of the references (currently the 6th, on the Tiananmen Square's mass rally), but the link is broken... The history tells me that you added this reference (in may 2008), so it would be very nice of you if you could just give me the title and the author of the article, or a link, if you remember them (of course!). Thanks ! Binabik155 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (You can answer here, or on my french account, at your convenience.)[reply]

I greatly thank you for your help and your quick answer! Fortunately, the book is available on Google book. Binabik155 (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't lead anywhere useful. If you have something to say, say it here.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi your revert[6] on the article did nothing except removing three sources from the CIA Factbook, IMF and World Bank, so your revert was removed. From your talk page, it seems that you've watched economy of hong kong but your edits have raised some concerns. Please refrain from any reverts unless you really know what it is about. --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am attempting to research, edit, reorganize, and generally improve our article on Zhou Enlai. You posted some (sourced) information on Zhou's talk page back in 2008, on a period that the article hardly covered at all, but no one afterwards made the effort to include that information into Zhou's biography. I have attempted to include it, but I do not have the original source, and am not completely sure that I have interpreted it correctly. Could you look over to what I have added to make sure that it has been added correctly; and, if possible, edit the article with more information from that source? That would be awesome.Ferox Seneca (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why goods such as crops that developing countries are best at producing are still at a disadvantage?118.123.200.135 (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question entirely, but if you'd care to register and log in, I'd be happy to try and help you. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. Look in WorldCat, Google Books, etc. cab (call) 04:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're are both simplifying it, while its true that the economy is not dominated by the plan, the private market is "guided" by the state sector (or at least, that's what they like to say). Secondly, in the majority of large private enterprises in China, the CPC has established a party committee which controls operations. All heads of private enterprises have to be accepted by the CPC. Its the name of the game. The five-year plan still has a major role to play, it guides (as said above). The state sector compromises 50 percent of GNP, and if you look at equity ownership in the stock market, the Chinese state owns 70 percent of the companies listed there. Its still a very statist thing - Hong Kong, however, is the complete opposite, its private enterprise all the way through. --TIAYN (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited People's Liberation Army General Logistics Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liu Yuan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:China 1978-2010.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:China 1953-77.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1908, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 67.244.114.239 (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not sure if my ping registered. You're the ideal person to answer the question, much as I'm sure the notion of neoliberal economics is repulsive to you. Would love for you to go to the humanities refdesk, and add your $0.02 (That's a small enough price, isn't it?) Eliyohub (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, question is archived by now, and I see you DID answer. Fro the record, I meant the question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_February_8#Per-person_tax_rate_comparison_figures. Eliyohub (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DOR, I see that you are a professional economist. I wonder if you could help with Trickle-down economics. There has been a fairly long-running dispute as to whether anyone has actually argued for trickle-down economics, i.e. giving money to the rich through tax cuts, as opposed to hoping that the rich will invest more if they are taxed less. Most RS on the page say that it is a theory, but they are all from sources critical of trickle-down economics. In contrast, a few sources say that no economist or politician has ever proposed this theory, but there are not very many of these. I wonder if you knew of any more sources that would help either way, i.e. either a source arguing that giving the rich more money through tax cuts would help poorer people, or one saying that no one had proposed it. Thanks! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely accepted that Singapore is in Southeast Asia. Please look at the Southeast Asia page and the East Asia page. Singapore is not included in East Asia. Why would you think that Singapore is in East Asia? So I guess by your logic, Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor and Cambodia among others are all East Asian countries as well. Is this right? So what constitutes Southeast Asia in your eyes? India? "Singapore is at the heart of Southeast Asia" says Tommy Koh, a Singaporean diplomat. "We are part of Southeast Asia" said the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore. What else do you need? Please stop being so ignorant. (137.147.28.24 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Please register and login, so that your edits may be considered serious. No one has suggested that Singapore is not part of South-east Asia, and aside from you, no one seems to think it is not also part of East Asia.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not need to listen to you. People like yourselves always tell IP users to register. How rude can you be? My edits are taken seriously by other user. Do I need to get an administrator to tell you your remark was wrong? Administrators have told other users like yourself on my behalf not to say such words to IP users. I do need to listen to a rude user like yourself. How dare you say that. (121.220.60.18 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Did you seriously think I was a new IP user who did not know how things work on Wikipedia? I've been editing Wikipedia for more than fours years now. You're an extremely rude user, I have no respect for people like yourself. Do not lie! That is what you're doing by telling me that! I know the rules on Wikipedia so your stupid lies won't work on me. How disgusting! Learn geography, I can tell you don't know anything about it! (121.220.60.18 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

So do you think Cambodia is part of East Asia as well? I'm curious to know what you think. What about a little further west, do you think Bangladesh and Myanmar are part of East Asia as well? (121.220.60.18 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I should not have gone off at you like that, I was just annoyed that you had told me to create an account to be taken seriously. I don't need to create an account to be taken seriously and I have been told this by administrators in the past. Let's just ignore this situation and instead focus on solving the dispute because that's the issue here. Is that okay with you? I have created a discussion at the page's talk page so we can discuss the issue over there. You're welcome to provide reasons on why it should be included over there. (121.220.60.18 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

See the talk page. I have added an area for discussion there. Zvtok (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As witnessed today, an estimated one million protesters took to the streets over the extradition law. They have been ignored, the law is being pushed through, and with about 100,000 troops on the border waiting to move in to put down any such action, the autonomy movement is only making headlines, but won't change anything as long as Red China has massive, overwhelming military might.104.169.19.0 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you decided to post this on my talk page, nor where the 100,000 figure come from. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: One could argue that calling translations by non-believers "worthless" was itself an attack. And diving in with a Level 2 template is hardly likely to cool anything down. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, attacking whom? The translations? Oh poor widdle transwations, can hawdly defend themsewves. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking non-believers. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, here's what I said: suspect? A translation of a Christian book by a non-believer is worthless. I would say any non-Christian Bible translation would be the suspect ones.

I stand by what I wrote. I attacked no-one. I said that a non-believer's work would be worthless. I harbor no prejudice but the objective view that it takes a believer to understand and explain the Christian faith. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally clicked the wrong button once again before I could finish my edit summary in my revert of your revert on Chinese Communist Party. I am aware that KMT = Kuomintang = Nationalists; the clarify tag I added was to the verb "found" because the sentence does not make sense in the context it is written in. What does it mean by the Soviets "found" the Kuomintang? The original author clearly did not mean "founded", and the entire paragraph itself is written in a casual tone that is not clear, which suggests to me it was a rough translation from the Chinese sources given. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hong Kong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. 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) 06:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No? See WP:SDNONE. No additional description is needed and the description there just restated the title. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2024_July_29#USA_Banking_questions. I was surprised when you say you don't know what country I'm talking about. The topic title was USA Banking questions. And when I responded, red state vs. blue state and state court vs. federal court, that should also narrow it down. 66.99.15.162 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My mistake; I spent a lot of time abroad. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I posted my question in a law forum. They didn't mention a thing about red vs. blue states, like where 1 state would be legal and the other isn't. However if you owe BankA $27,000 but have that money in BankB, BankA can't sue BankB for it, they can only sue the human for it. And if BankB knew you owed money to BankA, supposedly they would hurt their image if they tried to contact BankA about it and transfer the money to them... If BankB knew you owed BankA, but didn't have the exact amount, they wouldn't be able to confirm with BankA on exactly how much you owe, as I guess the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act prevents BankA from disclosing that information. 66.99.15.162 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]