Category talk:Hong Kong literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nominated Article!

This category has now been nominated to feature in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. :-) --Yuje 14:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well it's not something good to be featured.. It could have been avoided if User:Huaiwei brought it here to discuss when the first reverts took place.. rather than attacking me for not doing so at the talk page of another unrelated article. :-) — Instantnood 17:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, as far as edit wars go, this was one of the sillier ones to have taken place. Edit wars have been fought over historical revisionism, conflicts involving human casualties, theological questions, and so on, but the location of a link in a category? --Yuje 05:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

lol...yeah it was rather humurous on hindsight. It just goes to show how egoistic both of us are. I would demand that he use the talk page, and he would do the same to me, with both insisting the other should initiate the discussion. Lovers' tiff? :D--Huaiwei 15:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Usually if it's me who started the first revert, and my turn to make the 4th revert in a 24-hour period, I won't carry on.. Rather, I will proceed to the talk page to report the reverts, state my position, and illustrate my rationale if necessary. Apparently this time I wan't the one who made the first revert, and my turn for the 4th revert.. Actually I did not expect Huaiwei would have proceeded to make the 4th revert~! :-) — Instantnood 17:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I find it quite funny. When instantnood is the one who makes the first revert, he insists the person who makes the second revert should initiate the discussion. When he is not the first, he says the first reverter should do it. In other words, he just dosent want to do it. ;)

From the above, we can also see another startling point. Instantnood has decided that he will only use the talk page when 3 reverts has been used in 24 hours. Ridiculous. The 3rr rule exists to desuade against ALL revert wars, irregardless of whether more then 3 reverts are made in 24 hours or not. It is part of a package of guidelines which promote discussion and consenses, and not mindless reverts. The above, however, seems to suggest instantnood thinks it is perfectly ok to engage in revert wars, and without the 3RR rule, he would probably do it till eternity without using the talk page.

Finally, it does also seem apparant that instantnood noes the 3RR rule so well, that he has taken upon it like somekind of manipulative tool. In this particular instance, I cant be bothered about checking the clock. Apparantly he does so, and jumps at a golden chance to make a report at his adversary. How juvenile, and I do wonder how this helps anything here. As far as I am concerned, it just tells me alot about this thing called Instantnood...or perhaps just confirms whatever I have expected of it. ;)--Huaiwei 17:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Awful logic.. Don't jump and make a conclusion for me by taking a few of my words. I never said I only proceed to talk page iff there are already three reverts. What I actually said was I will proceed to talk page when it is necessary to avoid the fourth. Stop making accusation in this way.. please~!
To repeat I did not expect you'd have gone on the fourth revert.. I have to report whenever there's such a 3RR violoation incident.. no matter it was you or not, and no matter I have edited that particular article or not.. even if I don't report it somebody else would do it. I checked the time stamps just to avoid myself violating the rule.
I am pretty sure you know very well that discussions have been started on the talk pages of many articles, for instance, during the mainland China vs. PRC dispute. You have joined quite a lot of these discussions. Don't accuse me for not bringing anything to talk pages, by saying something that you yourself already knew it's not true. — Instantnood 17:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Awful logic? Baseless assumptions? How can that be, when I am speaking after reading your comments above? Now either you have lousy communication skills, or I have great difficulty trying to understand what you are trying to say. Or you write something and then backed off when it turns out to have backfired? Or what?

You are no angel, no matter how you may feign innocence or paint yourself like somekind of blackmail victim. Either way you put it across, you are still telling us that you will only consider using the talk page if you cant do any more reverts after the third instance. So now, you are also saying you might not even use the talk page even after 3 reverts. Now that sounds even worse. You make yourself sound like a 3RR policeman enforcing that rule on anyone, when you are obviously targeting specific individuals here. Let me see...this is the first...second...third time you have nominated me? Probably more than that which I either overlooked or forgot. No you dont have to now rush out and start looking for other people to nominate just to illustrate a point that you arent being personal. Its already beyond all reasonable doubt that you are plainly and unreservertly so. "Someone else will do it"....well in all my history in wikipedia, no one else has ever reported me except you in every single instance.

By saying you "check the timestamps to avoid breaking the 3RR rule", you again confirm the fact that you are manipulating it. You would engage in revert wars, hit the 3rd revert, wait for 24 hours to pass, and then made 3 reverts again, and the cycle could go on for an eternity, all without breaking a 3RR rule. Do you think this is what the 3RR rule is setting out to archieve? Are you taking the admins as idiots?

And what really amuses me is the last part of your paragraph. What I am presently highlighting for concern is the fact that you are persistently avoiding to initiate discussions in the various instances I mentioned, including here. Does it became less of a crime if you do initiate discussions before? In fact, it makes your recent acts even more suspicious. If you can start discussions b4, can we know why you refuse to start them now? Fearful of being proven wrong? Fearful of acknowledging counter-arguments? Fearful of engaging others in useful dialogue? Or fearful of knowing you are incapable of conducting constructive discussions?

No I am "not" making assumptions here. I am innocent! Ouch...dont hurt me. I will cry. I am nice enough to keep giving you several theories and options to choose from, so why do you keep biting me? Sob sob...--Huaiwei 18:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes it might look personal.. but if one knows how many times you have had confronted with me, making most of my activities on Wikipedia are related to you, one can tell it's natural that most of the 3RR violations I reported are yours, and at the same time it's more likely that I am the one to report your violations.
Every action on Wikipedia is transparent. One doesn't have to defend for her/himself, the facts will do. It is equally unnecessary to accuse anybody. Accusations never work. Everyone can tell from the facts that who's right and who's wrong. The fact tells who would proceed to talk page, and who would not. It also tells whether there is anybody who would only proceed to talk pages iff after the third revert, or whether there is anybody who would avoid initiating a discussion.
In the meantime, I suppose it's time to stop this off-track discussion unrelated to Hong Kong literature. — Instantnood 19:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose it was also "pure coincidence" that we have had numerous confrontations? "Pure luck" that our activities here are intrinsicaly related? My "bad luck" that all the 3RR reports just happen to be reported by you?

Your lack of accountability is astounding. Its like someone goes down his street knifing 20 people to death everyday, and when arrested, wailes that it isnt his fault coz 20 people happen to walk down his street everyday. If no one walks there, he wont have killed anyone. Logical? Yeah. Lack of intention? Really?

In Singapore's law, it usually takes two things to convict someone of a crime: evidence, and intention. I believe it is the same for the law courts in many other places. The so-called "transparency" of wikipedia may provide some amount of "evidence", but evidence can be manipulated, tempered with, or misrepresented. So it is not always posible to rely on evidence alone. Establishing intent is also key. Evidences alone will not mean anything if no police report is made. Tonnes of evidence showing negative wikipedia will go unnoticed if no one blows the whistle and reports it.

Would you not agree? Came to think of it, since when did this talk page ever initiated discussion on the category's content anyway?--Huaiwei 19:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)