Hello, Privacy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kdau 20:40, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Let me see, Privacy. — Instantnood 18:54, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

I've checked with the edit histories and I guess you're referring to Huaiwei. I have leaved a message at his talk page some time ago. — Instantnood 23:45, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

Yes thanks. - Privacy, 11:27, Jan 29 2005 (UTC)

Left what message?--Huaiwei 12:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Culture of Hong Kong has been chosen Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week. Please help improve it to featured article standard. — Instantnood 21:22, Feb 13 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:20 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I have left some comments there. - Privacy 14:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Instantnood 16:41 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:22 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) to change the title of some articles and categories. Would you be interested to join the discussion and say something? — Instantnood 20:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree with your edit of Lillian Too. The reference to a person's place of birth is not one of history. I believe it should be a reference to what the place is called today, as it is most relevant in this context. I have been to Malaysia, and I have never met any older person that says that they are born in "Malaya". They always say that they are born in "Malaysia". Please also see Jimmy Choo and Robert Kuok. If we can't agree, then maybe we can compromise and change it to "(born 1946, in Penang) is a best-selling Malaysian author...". Alternatively, if you still disagree, then I suggest that we take this discussion to the Malaysian portal to get thier opinion. -- S Masters 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, why should Lillian be listed under the Hong Kong businesspeople category? She's not from Hong Kong. She's Malaysian but once worked in Hong Kong. That's all. If we are going to list every country that people have worked in, or have had business in, then somelike like Rupert Murdoch, Richard Branson and Tony Fernandes will have multiple country categories under them. -- S Masters 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would Julius Caesar be considered to be born in Italy? She is not from Hong Kong, but from the article she seems to have been an important and influential figure. - Privacy 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was skeptical at the need for such a map, but when I looked at it and its data source, I found it illuminating. Thanks again! TransUtopian 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks (lol). It was not me who created it. - Privacy 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attempting to unilaterally reverse the decisions of *FD debates, especially where templates feeding categories are concerned, as these cause a disproportionate load on the servers, which have to update the cached version of each page in the category. If you have an objection to such a closure, take it to deletion review. Alai 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree the SFD debate had such a decision. - Privacy 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In English "equipment" is plural, "equipments" is not a word. Cheers. L0b0t 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Privacy&diff=85392070&oldid=83739517

Thanks for Ping. Please sign with four tildes. - Privacy 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss changes like the one you made on List of countries on the talk page before making them. It might be right, but it's still always good to make sure people are in agreement with you when you make fairly significant changes. You should also always include an edit summary for a major edit like that as well. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, someone wanted consensus for such a change. Don't you think it would be prudent to discuss the issue on the talk page like I suggested instead of simply reverting? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to make them two categories and two lists. - Privacy 20:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about your revert and earlier unilateral change of the status quo on List of countries. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Exactly. Look into edit history. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries&diff=12766176&oldid=12699939 And there was no consensus to take them away from List of dependent territories and create a new list with a self invent title. Define unilateral before you call anybody. Regards. - Privacy 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy, you seem to be having some difficulty understanding the situation. Yesterday you made a major edit to List of countries, an edit which changed something on the page that had stood for MONTHS before, and which seemed to have been agreed upon. You did not discuss this change on the talk page. You did not even provide an edit summary for this change. I noted this to you as seen above. Someone else reverted this change asking for consensus. You reverted that. I reverted you and asked for at least discussion of the issue. In response, you are now claiming vandalism. I am going to revert the page once again and I ask you to discuss your proposed change on the talk page before trying to change it back. Do you understand? I hope so. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show it if what stood for months has ever been agreed upon. "Seemed to" is no qualifier. It was actually never discussed.

Check the differences carefully. Huaiwei and you really vandalized. Regards. - Privacy 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing useful edits. It is vandalism unless you were unaware and was innocent. Regards. - Privacy 20:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this edit from June: [1]? Clearly, if the page has been that way for months there has been agreement that that is the way it should be. If you want to make a drastic change to the page, you need to at least discuss it. How can you possibly consider what we are doing vandalism? You're the one who made the drastic change and didn't even leave an edit summary or discuss it on the talk page, let alone gather consensus. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not drastic change or major edit. There has never been any agreement. It is not an agreement though it was not challenged. (The new list Wilfried Derksen created with self invented title was challenged, however.)

Huaiwei and you keep reverting entirely and in effect undoing other useful edits. It is vandalism. You may be unware and innocent, and therefore should not be blamed, yet such behaviour is still disturbing and nuisance. - Privacy 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy, we do not agree that your edit is "useful", and so we are entirely within our rights to revert it. You are being awfully stubborn in not responding to our requests to discuss the reasoning behind your edit. If the section stayed the way it was for months, then there is an implied consensus. You should always discuss major changes (and it is a major change, even if you don't think so) before making them. Claiming that we are vandalizing is also a violation of assuming good faith. I suggest you discuss your change on the talk page immediately--you will only find others revert it and ask for consensus or at least your reasoning if you don't. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith. I also look at result. Huaiwei's and your edit reverted everything, contentious or not, therefore the result was vandalism. And you did it once again.

Consensus is difficult to be determined to be implied. It became clearer that it is not agreed since it was challenged, although elsewhere. It is not a major edit or drastic change or major changes, even if you claim to be. You can bring it to the talk page when you revert, if you believe it is a major edit, and notify me here to respond there. But you didn't. - Privacy 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one thing to revert, so of course we reverted everything. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not innocent, please stop pretending you don't know what you have done. - Privacy 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Khoikhoi 22:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at what Osgoodelawyer was doing. - Privacy 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see my username being quoted three times, all of which were basically saying the same thing. This repeatitive conversation style hints of an acute stubborn personality, a characteristic which arguably contributes the greatest to User:Instantnood's downfall. Quite sadly, you appear to take him as your role model.--Huaiwei 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thread was clearly repetitive. But I don't think Instantnood has left any message to the thread, has he? - Privacy 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why should he?--Huaiwei 17:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your original edit on this page was, indeed, a major edit. I did not catch that your subsequent edits were not as drastic, the reason being that your edit summary described them as reverts. I apologize for not recognizing this, but it is important in the future that you not label something a revert if it is not. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are an administrator and I suppose you know you have the duty to read what each edit is. I have seriously thought of bringing your disruptions to the notice board. It was obviously a revert of your nuisance and therefore summarise as such. You don't have to apologize as long as you are innocent. Regards. (And thank you, Electionworld.) - Privacy 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed have a "duty" to read each edit, but generally, if someone marks their edit as a revert when it is not (and it was not, apparently), it is likely going to cause some confusion. I apologized for my mistake (and I assure you that it was a mistake). I'm not sure what else you could want. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have the duty to single out what should be undone, and what do not have to be undone in the first place. You should not have reverted the whole of my edit in the very beginning. - Privacy 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it very unlikely that one would be expected to pick out a possible improvement in a drastic edit which was not discussed and re-insert that part of the edit. Generally, one is expected to re-add uncontested edits which come after the edit being reverted, but I can't be held responsible for noting a minor wording change along with your major edit, decide that it is "worthy" of inclusion, and re-add it. Your edit was a wholesale change to the structure of the outline—that you also made a couple wording changes along with it is really not my job to fix. All that had to happen was for you to do what you, in fact, did do, and that is add them back yourself. The only reason I ended up reverting again was because you called this edit a revert, and of course, it wasn't. Again, I apologize for not noticing that your revert was not actually a revert, but it might be helpful if you also simply acknowledged that you made a mistake in calling it a revert as well. Then maybe we could get on with actually improving the list. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reverting everything, including improvements, that is already a disturbance. Not to mention your reverting that followed. That is clearly not my mistake. I do not agree my edit was a wholesale change to the struture of the outline, by the way. - Privacy 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first, you called something a revert that was not a revert. Is that not a mistake? I think (actually, I know) that is a mistake. Why not accept some responsibility? I accepted mine.

Second, you changed the classification of four entities that were considered first and foremost, "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement" and re-classed them as primarily dependent territories. I think that, in fact, is a major change to the structure of the outline. I think most would likely not agree with that reclassification. Aland, for instance, could not be considered a dependent territory—according to its article, it is "an autonomous, demilitarised, monolingually Swedish-speaking administrative province." An administrative province could never be considered a dependent territory. The other entities are in similar situations. I would certainly call such a change major. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a revert to your nuisance. Why is it not a revert? I made that change but I don't agree it was a major change. Greenland, Aruba, Faroe Islands, Dutch Antilles were neither dependencies if Aland were not. - Privacy 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1: A revert is when you take an old version and make it the current version. That is, when I revert your edit, I make the edit prior to yours the new current one. You did not revert my edit, you made a new edit which had some of what was in the original edit, but not nearly enough to be considered a revert.

Issue 2: The other entities you mentioned above are territories. Territories are generally considered something different from provinces, states, autonomous entities, etc. They are less integral to the countries they belong to. This is why, for instance, the Falkland Islands are considered to be suitable for List of countries while the Azores are not. The Azores are an integral part of Portugal (they are considered Portugal proper even while having a sort of autonomous status), while the Falkland Islands are not considered part of the United Kingdom proper, just something owned or controlled by the United Kingdom. Those entities in the "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement" category would, if not recognized by treaty or agreement, be considered more like the Azores than the Falkland Islands, and wouldn't be on the list at all. It is by virtue of being recognized by the agreements/treaties that they are considered to be something that is fitting for the list._└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the differences again carefully. I made no new edit and you did have reverted what I have done to improve the list. That's nuisance if not disruptive. Falklands is not part of the U.K. But the Faroes and Greenland are part of Denmark. Are they recognized by any treaty? Why are they on the list of countries? What about Australian and U.S. external territories? Do they form part of Australia and the U.S.? - Privacy 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! On the article click consonants you keep writing that Hainanese is a click language. This is of course not true, as the only languages that contain clicks in their phoneme inventory are the languages of the various "Khoisan" families plus some Bantu languages, all being spoken in Africa. Hainanese is a Chinese language and of course doesn't contain any click sounds. I wonder where you got this information from... got any sources? — N-true 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All good sources I have found are written in Chinese. Here is an article on Xinhuanet.com, the online version of China's state-run news agency [2]. Another source from Academia Sinica from across the strait also discusses on this subject [3]. I originally found the information on Chinese Wikipedia, and have verified by searching on Google [4]. Regards. - Privacy 21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something so linguistically earth-shattering (since it makes absolutely no sense) would likely be discussed in depth in the English literature. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're confused with the possibility of clicks showing up in some trivial way. click consonant says "English and many other languages may use clicks in interjections, such as the dental "tsk-tsk" sound used to express disapproval, or the lateral click used with horses. In Ningdu Chinese, flapped nasal clicks are used in nursery rhymes." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, all of you. I guess either of this also applies for Hainanese. In many languages click sounds are sometimes used to mean something like "no" or "tsk tsk tsk" in English. I know a Hainanese speaker, I might ask her, maybe she can explain it... — N-true 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did she say? - Privacy 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does English contain all human knowledge? - Privacy 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course English does not contain all human knowledge. However, the absolute absurdity of the statement that one Chinese language is a click language while none of its relatives are would make it a very hot topic if it were true. It would certainly have reached the international linguistics community, and would have been discussed in the leading international English-language journals. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's speculative. Things do not always happen as what they ought to be. - Privacy 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Santa Claus crashed his sleigh into Hainan this morning, I assure you it would be on the English news by tonight. It does work that way, especially when English is the language of international academics. Anyway, Hainanese is clearly not a click language--it goes against all linguistic principles. One dialect of a language that doesn't know clicks doesn't just magically gain them amongst all its non-click relatives. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deduction sounds logical. But it provides no evidence to prove Hainanese is not click. Let us await for the good news from N-true. Regards. - Privacy 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Aldux 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an administrator is not a king. Show the consensus to legitimise your exercise. - Privacy 22:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a commoner isnt king either. You are equally under the onus to show concensus to legitimise your reverting exercise.--Huaiwei 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo before the edit wars back a few weeks was to include these entities. So I'd say that the consensus-building process should start with an attempt to get consensus to remove the territories, not to get them re-added. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You justify the inclusion of entries, and not their exclusion, irrespective of whatever version appears first.--Huaiwei 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need to redirect from this page as users will find the content via searching Wikipedia anyway. Plus, the content on bilingual education and Plurilingualism Promotion Plan is the same. I have recommended the two plurilingualism pages be deleted. Jsteph 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Country. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Paul111 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an RfC on User:Huaiweis behaviour: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Huaiwei_2. Since you have been debating with him, it would be nice of you to add your point of view, to see if I'm wrong about this or not. --Regebro 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again [5], I see Regebro attempting to coerce select individuals to gang-up against those he has disputes with. I consider this a form of intimidation.--Huaiwei 14:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate please. - Privacy 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not label good faith edits as vandalism. There is on-going discussion on the article's talk page about the foundation date - discuss there rather than constantly reverting the article. Also take the time to read WP:3RR. Thanks/wangi 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a matter to be discussed, just as no discussion is required on whether Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. There are different sources on the internet proving that Singapore Airlines Limited and Malaysian Airline System Berhad were two new companies (legal entities), established in 1972 and 1971 respectively. They were established by the respective governments to take over the assets and the routes of MSA. Both companies inherited the history of their predecessor, yet neither was renamed from, i.e. the same legal entity as, the predecessor. Both were newly formed. - Privacy 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have quoted no sources. Please WP:CITE your additions. However take this to the talk page first; it is an on-going discussion. IF you present the appropriate references then I see no problem with the edit, but the current reverts are not constructive. Thanks/wangi 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No source? Did you actually read my edits? - Privacy 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, what I should have said you've not quoted a source that backs up that "proving that Singapore Airlines Limited and Malaysian Airline System Berhad were two new companies (legal entities), established in 1972 and 1971 respectively. They were established by the respective governments to take over the assets and the routes of MSA. Both companies inherited the history of their predecessor, yet neither was renamed from, i.e. the same legal entity as, the predecessor. Both were newly formed". The three sources quoted are all rather vague in the legal situation. Thanks/wangi 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I quoted already backed that up. - Privacy 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user have had a long history of thinking he is above concensus building requirements, and insists on engaging in revert wars even despite on-going dicussions. He also seems to have problems understanding Wikipedia:Verifiability, somehow thinking any internet source can be used to advance his agendas.--Huaiwei 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources reveal. No consensus is required. - Privacy 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And other sources have been pointed out showing alternative viewpoints. You do not have sole legitimacy to modify facts based solely on selective sources you cite.--Huaiwei 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present your sources if you really want to defame me for being selective. Sources are always selected. No one can quote exhaustively all related sources. - Privacy 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add the category relating Hong Kong to category by countries. See here[[6]]--Ksyrie 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often do you speak English? Do you understand what "country" means in English? - Privacy 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for as common English usage is concerned, the term "country" most commonly refers to an independent state.--Huaiwei 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source to support your claim? - Privacy 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pick up any reputable English dictionary, unless you dont know how to.--Huaiwei 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was requesting you to support your claim. - Privacy 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are making a lot of edits without regard for consensus. In particular, you seem to be replacing all mentions of PRC with mainland China. We happen to be engaged in a discussion right now about what to do about this. I urge you to cease your edits and discuss; you are just asking for an edit war. --Ideogram 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of banks in mainland China is a new list. - Privacy 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply has nothing to do with my point. I am advising you to cease replacing PRC with mainland China. All such edits are getting reverted anyway. --Ideogram 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing so, if you are referring to the list of banks in mainland China. - Privacy 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the continued page move wars between List of banks in the People's Republic of China and List of banks in mainland China. In his most recent edit, he attempted to prevent further page moves by editing the redirect itself [7]. I seek help from admins in this, for I don't think its in my or the site's interest for me to be involved in such disputes once again for an extended period.--Huaiwei 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note with alarm his recent creation of List of banks in Macao, creation of List of banks in Macau as a redirect, and introducing a redundant edit in the later [8] possibily to prevent a page move. This is against the fact that every article on Macau has now been named with the letter u. Privacy's edits continue to demonstrate similar viewpoints of a currently banned user.--Huaiwei 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are complaining. You were the person who moved the list, and turned the whole thing illogical. You changed the title of the list, while you kept listing Hong Kong banks as foreign. Were you trying to imply that Hong Kong was not part of the People's Republic of China? That's obviously against the truth. If you were not trying to imply as such, how can Hong Kong banks (which are in People's Republic of China) be foreign banks in the People's Republic of China? Illogical, isn't it? They are foreign because they are foreign with respect to the Chinese mainland. - Privacy 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may feign ignorance all you like, but it is plain obvious you know you are creating articles with controversial article names and consciously preventing page moves.--Huaiwei 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What controversial names are you talking about? - Privacy 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your preferred names at WT:CHINA instead of edit-warring. Note that there is no NPOV guideline being violated. --Ideogram 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) too. I don't edit according to my preferred names. That best describes what you are doing. - Privacy 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is disputed, as you can tell from the tags. Don't try to attack me. If you don't participate in the discussion and consensus goes against you your edits will be reverted and there will be nothing you can do. --Ideogram 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are there for ages. No discussion regarding the "dispute" is active. No matter disputed or not, it is enforcing until amended. I did participate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. - Privacy 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion regarding the dispute is the one at WT:CHINA. It doesn't matter what you try to enforce if a decision is made to revert you. You have not participated in the discussion, you only voted, which is not discussion. Your vote will not be counted if you do not discuss. --Ideogram 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did take part in the discussions. What you are saying is wrong. Decisions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, if there's any, do not override official guideline. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not vote counting. It is not a democracy. - Privacy 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because Wikipedia is not a democracy that your vote will not be counted. A guideline is not "official", you don't seem to understand that. Who do you think wrote that guideline? If WPCHINA decides to change it, it will be changed. --Ideogram 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read them? They are guidelines. WikiProjects do not override guidelines. - Privacy 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Don't insult me. Guidelines can be overridden by anyone. Do you know what "guideline" means? Do you speak English? --Ideogram 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no statement anywhere that WikiProjects cannot change guidelines. Guidelines are changed by consensus; I have left a note at the Naming Conventions page directing interested parties to the discussion at WPCHINA. You have no basis for your opinion. --Ideogram 21:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said I did not participate in the discussions. That was not true. I did discuss. No proposal was ever made to amend the guidelines. Guidelines cannot be overriden. They can be amended by consensus. Please stop your drive. - Privacy 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there is no point in talking to you. If consensus is reached at WPCHINA you will be overridden, whether you agree or not. --Ideogram 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe the neutral point of view policy on Wikipedia. - Privacy 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get to determine what the NPOV policy is, or how to apply it here. That decision can only be made by consensus, and if it goes against you, you will lose. --Ideogram 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view cannot be overridden by whatever decisions. - Privacy 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand the NPOV policy. It has nothing to do with what articles and categories are named. If consensus goes against you, all your talk and opinions will mean nothing. --Ideogram 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the one not understand? Neutral point of view cannot be overridden by consensus. - Privacy 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand that your opinion of NPOV is not the official policy. We can certainly override you. --Ideogram 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I follow what was decided in the previous discussions that paved the way to the current sets of guidelines. My own personal opinion is not involved. - Privacy 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Guidelines can change, and we are in the process of changing them. And the guidelines have nothing to do with NPOV policy. That is your opinion. --Ideogram 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section specifically on NPOV in the guideline. Guidelines can be changed, but nobody indicates he is proposing to amend it. - Privacy 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is wrong. That is why there is a tag on it. Can you read? --Ideogram 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter it is wrong or not, nobody has discussed about the tags for ages. Didn't you notice? - Privacy 22:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. I have already explained to you that we are discussing it now. --Ideogram 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nobody says he is discussing because of the tags, or about the tags. - Privacy 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you it is irrelevant. Do you understand what that means? --Ideogram 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. The discussions are irrelevant with the tags. - Privacy 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That statement is meaningless. --Ideogram 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now making POV edits that have nothing to do with naming conventions. Please stop. --Ideogram 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the naming conventions: [I]t is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China. --> By the same logic, to write "many tourists from Hong Kong are visiting the People's Republic of China" could imply that Hong Kong is not part of the People's Republic of China. - Privacy 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you many times the naming conventions are disputed and are being discussed right now. You cannot refer to them to prove your point. --Ideogram 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no active discussion regarding any "dispute" at the naming conventions' talk page. Even if we are not referring to the naming conventions, it is simple logic that to write "many tourists from Hong Kong are visiting the People's Republic of China" implies that Hong Kong is not part of the People's Republic of China. - Privacy 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you the discussion is happening on WT:CHINA and I have posted a pointer on the naming conventions talk page to that discussion. Don't be so stupid to think a discussion and consensus can only take place on that talk page. And other people disagree with your "simple logic" so apparently it is not that simple. --Ideogram 22:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has ever indicated anywhere that any recent active discussion is related to the tags. Nobody has ever indicated any discussion is proposal to amend the guideline. Different people can have different opinions, but everybody has to follow policies and guidelines. - Privacy 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Other people disagree with you about what the guideline should be. You don't get to tell other people what to do. --Ideogram 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not indicate you were proposing to amend the guideline. - Privacy 22:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm telling you now. --Ideogram 22:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Tell everybody you are now proposing to do so (eventually), and start a new section at the talk page to put forward your amendment proposal. You may, tho, refer to previous and ongoing discussions. - Privacy 22:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed Privacy usually replies in short, curt messages. But when he is engaged in longer conversations or need to write longer than two sentences, he suddenly begins to sound very familiar...--Huaiwei 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? - Privacy 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Military of the Republic of China. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ideogram 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not pretend you don't know what was being reverted. - Privacy 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pretending anything. --Ideogram 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that a lot of people agree to broaden the scope. Also, according to the closing summary, the result was to keep and to scope China inclusively, which means to include both Mainland China and the Republic of China. All that would need to be done is to tweak the wording of the template and category to reflect that. I hope that answered your question. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seemed to agree with redefining the scope, as did User:Passer-by and User:Huaiwei. User:Instantnood and User:Michael G. Davis were the only ones who didn't agree. So, that makes it 5 (Caerwine, Alai, you, Passer-by, Huaiwei) to 2 (Instantnood, Michael G. Davis). Although, you could say that Huaiwei argued a couple points, so even if you take his vote out, it's still 4-2. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... This is the one I thought you were referring to: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BChina-university-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Cat:China_university_stubs ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see what you are talking about now (a link might have been useful). And I see your additional note. The decision was NOT to update the scope. Upmerge means that the template {{Taiwan-university-stub}} will feed directly into the cat Category:China university stubs. This happens frequently when a template is useful, but doesn't have quite enough articles for its own category. The scopes did not change at all. I hope I've finally clarified things. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, upon further count I see 2 votes for upmerging to Asia as opposed to China. Passer-by and you said to Asia. Grutness and Alex43223 didn't really say either way (although Grutness mentioned that Asia might be easier). And, of course, 2 votes for China (Caerwine and Alai). So, that's split. I went with China because Caerwine had a very convincing argument, citing the naming conventions, while you and Passer-by didn't really have any evidence to back you up. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the discussion wasn't about China vs. Mainland China. It was about ROC/Taiwan. And clearly, Taiwan does not have enough stubs for its own category. Hence, it was upmerged. China includes both Mainland China and ROC, so it makes sense for Taiwan to be upmerged to China. As it stands, Category:China university stubs covers all of China, not just Mainland China. If you want to change that scope, then that is the discussion for a new SFD. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I'm sorry that you think the discussions are producing conflicting outcomes. That's just what happens when different people participate in them. Also, the closing decision for that discussion is final. I can't go back and change it. If you want to dispute what happened, you'll have to bring up a new discussion. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't close the discussion to your liking. Yes, it probably should have been no consensus, but I'd been getting tired of nothing being decided regarding China vs. PRC vs. Mainland China vs. ROC etc, so I went with the side that had a better argument, in my opinion. Let's just agree to disagree and move on, because there's nothing either of us can really do about it. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who was your comment directed toward? If you were responding to Alai, you might want to might want to respond on his talk page. Here's the related discussion in his archives. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 13:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But that was archived anyway. - Privacy 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some user named Secrecy created a userpage for you and put a sockpuppet template for Instantnood on it. I deleted the page for you, assuming it is crap. Lexicon (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Privacy 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand why the term exists. What I fail to comprehend is why you keep trying to equate "China" and "Mainland China" by arguing that "China-" stub templates should feed into "Mainland China" stub categories. The name mismatch violates Wikipedia's naming conventions concerning China. I am neutral on whether "Mainland China" stub categories would be useful or not, I'm not neutral on the naming issue. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know that was decided when Category: Mainland China geography stubs was created. Template: China-geo-stub feeds into Category: Mainland China geography stubs (a precedence that Template: China-struct-stub followed). The rule "Mainland China" ≠ "China" is, as I understand, not as strict when applied to titles of templates. The reason is that template titles do not affect any actual content to readers. - Privacy 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrongly decided in my opinion, largely because at the time {{China-geo-stub}} was split into Category:Mainland China geography stubs and Category:Republic of China (Taiwan) geography stubs there was a lack of awareness of the naming conventions in the stub sorting project. Certainly there was no mention of them in the discussion and when Instantnood proposed the split, even he suggested renaming the template to use Mainland China as well. While there might be some justification for using "China-" in the stub templates if it always implied "Mainland China" in the stub category, the simple fact is that it does not and for those stub categories that contain articles that are historical in content, it never can. With the consistency that the stub sorting project tries to keep in stub template names. having "China-" imply "Mainland China" in some contexts and "China" in others also implies that "Mainland China" = "China" which is incorrect and against policy. Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. [9] I don't care how templates are titled. But if you don't like Template:China-geo-stub feeding into Category: Mainland China geography stubs, do not feed the template elsewhere without any discussion. Propose at SFD to rename it as Template:MainlandChina-geo-stub.

We are dealing with geography, buildings and structures, universities, which all have specific locations and can be allocated neatly to one of the stub categories. They are not -hist-stub or -bio-stub and therefore got nothing to do with historical contexts. Companies, like buildings and universities, have their bases or origins from one of the 4 jurisdictions. - Privacy 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating 3RR on Category:Economy of mainland China. --Ideogram 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are already in violation of DRV and CFD. - Privacy 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect earlier decisions by DRV and CFD. - Privacy 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's three reversions to Lyudao Airport. One more and you get blocked. --Ideogram 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not game. Count how many times you have removed the navigational template. [10] Navigational templates are used extensively on Wikipedia. - Privacy 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational templates are stupid. From the page you linked to: "Some editors deprecate large, colorful, list-based templates on small articles." and "Try to avoid navigation templates that are too large." Links belong in the text in context. Navigational templates are spam that take up a lot of space with links that are not usually interesting to the reader. --Ideogram 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are used extensively on Wikipedia, and are used on almost all articles on ROC's airports. It is your responsibility to explain why you wanted to remove it from that particular article. - Privacy 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how extensively they are used, they are all stupid. I will remove them wherever I find them. --Ideogram 16:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have explained when you removed them, not here at my talk page. Go back and explain there. - Privacy 16:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one putting them back. --Ideogram 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you did not explain why you wanted to remove them. Go back and explain there. - Privacy 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know why I am removing them, so you don't have to put them back anymore. If anyone else asks why I am removing them, I will explain it to them. --Ideogram 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, you should have explained there when you removed the template, not here. Go back there to explain, and ends the conversation here. - Privacy 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it concerns you that much, you can simply copy this entire conversation there yourself. Finding ridiculous excuses to revert-war arent that difficult to detect.--Huaiwei 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is his job to explain, not me. - Privacy 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating WP:POINT. --Ideogram 17:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why. Don't just make your own plain statement with no elaboration. - Privacy 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change any more article categories without achieving consensus. --Ideogram 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were made according to the current set of naming conventions and in response to consensus recently reached.

In case you do not already know: Wikipedia: Naming conventions (categories). It says the same thing as Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding ROC. - Privacy 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it says that doesn't mean it was agreed to. You will never be able to move Economy of Taiwan to Economy of Republic of China, for instance. Don't think what is written is law. --Ideogram 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is not agreed then there will be proposal to modify it. It will then be testify by discussion and new consensus. Do not ignore recent decisions at DRV and CFD too. Don't ignore people's opinion there. - Privacy 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to agree on the naming convention for all China-related articles and categories, and the place for that discussion is WikiProject China, not one at a time in individual DRV and CFD proposals. --Ideogram 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV and CFD reflects what people think. Their comments are largely consistent with the current set of naming conventions. And no. The place to propose changes to the current set of naming conventions is the naming conventions' own talk page. - Privacy 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people participate in DRV and CFD. For a discussion of this kind we need as many participants as possible. It doesn't matter where the discussion is, as long as everyone knows about it. I already posted two notices at the naming conventions page. --Ideogram 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

yandman 09:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the "previous version reverted to" and the "first revert" that Ideogram reported. The so called "first revert" was not a revert. It was an edit. - Privacy 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific about where on the Macau website it says that the adjectival form of Macau is Macau? According to List of adjectival forms of place names, it's Macanese. Also, wikipedia seems to be using the form Macau. Ingrid 15:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Macao Government calls it "Macao Pataca" in its English language webpages. "Macanese" normally refers only to the people with some Portuguese lineage, or the close-to-distinct creole language they speak. - Privacy 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know you'd replied. I try to watch others' talk pages, but often forget. I'll watch here now. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style, the standard style for currency articles is <adjectival place name><local form of denomination>. If Macanese is not the appropriate adjectival form, please update the list I linked above. If you think that this currency should deviate from the standard form (and some do because of common use), please discuss it at Talk:Macanese pataca. Thanks, Ingrid 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the keep votes were suspicious of being prompted or sockpuppets, so they cannot be fully trusted. That's why I went with the delete vote. Remember, this is not a pure numbers game; consensus is also based on strength of arguments. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly wasn't a consensus to delete it. - Privacy 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using edit summary like "Revered simple vandalism" in a content dispute like this, thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was simple vandalism. SchmuckyTheCat indicated in edit summary that he didn't agree with the map change. But he reverted all of my edits, no matter he agrees or not, and no matter constructive or not. What else should I call it if that was not simple vandalism? - Privacy 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a content dispute. Vandalism is blanking a page, or inserting ridiculous text like "you are a poo poo head". Keep that in mind when you continue to edit as Instantnood. Lexicon (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep undoing constructive edits is vandalism. It was obviously not content dispute. - Privacy 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is delightfully self-contradictory. Please tell us if your "constructive edits" don't amount to a contribution of "content"? So just what are your "constructive edits" then? Non-content edits 100% of the time, including in this article?--Huaiwei 08:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? What had happened was that SchmuckyTheCat undid everything apart from the map. From his edit summary he only said he doesn't agree with the map. - Privacy 09:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last I checked, he wrote "nothing to salvage" too, so is this selective reading on your part? You reverted everything including the disputed map, while calling it "Reverted simple vandalism", so are you any better than him?--Huaiwei 11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for being a sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, as proven by Checkuser, please use only 1 account in the future as you are under remedies of the ArbCom, thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can reply. Why are you saying I am blocked? - Privacy 23:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked as being an account used to circumvent ArbCom decisions relating to Instantnood, who, according to this checkuser case is the same person as you are. Lexicon (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What had happened? I edit from variable IP addresses of the largest ISP in Hong Kong, and this is a shared computer. - Privacy 23:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Nobody believes that you're not Instantnood. If you hadn't raised suspicions by your actions, there wouldn't have been a checkuser. The checkuser only confirmed what many were almost sure of anyway. Lexicon (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it like the policy does not advise users to edit from shared computers or variable IP addresses? - Privacy 09:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this user's reactions to the above rather odd, if he was indeed an innocent party in the whole matter. The last I would expect is the user reacting in a combative tone and pulling up wikipolicies for debate, when all he had to do was to prove his innocence.--Huaiwei 11:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about policies. But nobody is telling. I have already said that I am editing from variable IP addresses of a big ISP, and I edit from shared computers. - Privacy 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the notification is not clear enough, it's:

Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Instantnood (talk • contribs • block log • creation log).  As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All your edits have been reverted. Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. WinHunter (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this deletion discussion here: [11] Bletchley (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Privacy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Francis Moriarty - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #46226 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economy of the Republic of China has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]