User talk:Mintchocicecream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 00:43, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] DB page links

Hi all of your changes on the DB page are much appreciated, but make sure you do not delete the interwiki links!! You had accidentally removed the one to the Dutch page about Disco Bay. Waerth 09:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops sorry, i had no idea the "nl:" thing linked to the dutch version.. wondered why it didnt appear on the page so i removed it! understood now!!!! thanks mintchocicecream 15:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC+8)

No problem, I just had a bad mood, so maybe overreacted a bit. Waerth 08:23, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Current events, HKCOTW and HKWNB

Hello Mintchocicecream. I noticed you have edited some of the Hong Kong-related topics. You may be interested to have a look at Current events in Hong Kong and Macao, Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week and Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board. — Insta ntnood 10:52 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong Disneyland

There was a wide discussion on several forums about the naming of the district, and several people noted sources that mentioned Disneytown. Unsurprisingly, I didn't record those sources. You are completely correct, however I would like to discuss with you the new name for the article if you are to change it. Thanks a lot anyway. Speak soon.--Speedway 17:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picasa

What theme do you use for Windows XP on the Picasa screenshot? • Thorpe • 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The theme is Energy Blue, a theme Microsoft released with Windows XP Media Centre Edition and subsequently made available to users of Windows XP Tablet Edition. There can, however, be installed under other version of Windows XP too. The official download link at Microsoft.com is now removed, although more details can be found at [[1]]. --Mintchocicecream 18:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Discovery Bay page vandalism

I'd suggest you to move that paragraph to the talk page, and try your best, which you already did, to request the anonymous contributor(s) to discuss there. At the same time you can report the case to Wikipedia:vandalism in progress. Feel free to let me know if there's anything you're not sure about. :-) — Insta ntnood 17:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Bay

Thanks for the note, and especially thank you for sorting out the anon contributor's edits to the article. I've had it on my watchlist for some time now because it seems to often attract dubious edits, but since I know nothing about it, all I could do is revert if it didn't sound right. Niteowlneils 02:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: VfD - Jamie Kane

The article originated as what would widely be seen as viral marketing. It was created by an employee of the BBC within the beeb's networks. Despite the fact it has been improved and made factual (which appears to have ignited much support in keeping the article) it, to me, still constitutes marketing. Purely because that was its original purpose, no amount of factual editing could make it anything "more" than what it was intended to be. Its quite comparable to Roq Coq. If you would be so kind as to view that particular article, and relay to me your views on that which is an extraordinarily similar premise regarding marketing (fictional musicians). Also, uncoincidentally its a candidate for deletion. Would you deign to keep that aswell? D-Katana 02:04, 20 August 2005, (BST)

Whoops, I intended to link to Coq Roq. D-Katana 02:08, 20 August 2005, (BST)

Replied. --Mintchocicecream 09:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

(Thank you for your reply and your explanation. Many comments did not contain any explanation, so thank you for taking the time to explain your vote. However, I would disagree with your analysis, as Cog Rog is about a viral marketing campaign for Burger King whereas Jamie Kane was argued to be a viral marketing campaign in its own right - which isn't true as the BBC (a public service provider) neither authorized the change nor was it meant to be part of a marketing campaign [2]. Thus I would argue the page about Jamie Kane is better compared to pages about other online games or internet phenomenon, of which Wikipedia has many. In any case, Wikipedia is not targeted specifically at 14-18 year old girls and would have made a very poor place to advertise anyway. --Mintchocicecream 09:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

True, ultimately this comes down to personal viewpoint on the matter. Whether the BBC was directly responsible for the creation of the article in the first place is open to much debate. Some would say that an employee of the company, acting within their own networks utterly represents the BBC, in that he acted within his working hours and within his workplace. The BBC could have directly requested the employee create the article, but this is obviously unprovable and the BBC would never admit to that. I do argue, however, that Wikipedia is aimed at everyone over age 12 or thereabouts, I'd imagine a lot of 14-18 year old girls would use the encyclopedia for referance or study, especially as the wiki projects nears the Top 20 accessed sites and so forth. Perhaps a demographic survey is in order? :) -- D-Katana 17:04, 20 August 2005, (BST)

[edit] Demographics

Indeed, it could be conducted in a manner similar to Slashdot's. Ie. every few months members are asked 10 simple questions, regarding age, gender, reason for visiting, general opinion of Wikipedia with a possible extension to non-members later on if it proves a success. Could be pretty swell actually...it would at the very least accomplish some statistical goals. Might even surprise some of us! -- D-Katana 03:11, 21 August 2005, (UTC)

[edit] Hongkongyan

Hello. On the question of transliterations, well, I'm more worried about the content. I'm sure with a bit of common sense and a glance at the manual of style it can be handled [3]. I must say I'm not an expert on formal transliteration systems, so I'd go with whatever systems are preferred by Wikipedia for both Cantonese and Mandarin. -Ajshm 21:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hongkonger

Hi again. I made some changed again, maybe this will remove some of the POV? What do you think? Anyhow, the article seems to focus a lot on different terms for Chinese, but maybe that gives some context. -Ajshm 21:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the blatantly POV sections. Are we ready to removed the NPOV tag now? -Ajshm 13:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Yat-sen FAC

Sun Yat-sen Sun Yat-sen is now on FAC. Let's click here and vote for its success!!!!
Deryc k C. 09:32:30, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

[edit] Kung hei fat choi

Please kindly share with us at a move request discussion your observation from among the people in England on the usage of this phrase. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 17:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Added comment: Oppose. Gong Xi Fa Cai may be the official Mandarin pinyin (and thus top Google hits) but why suppress other, often more common transliterations? After all, we use so many non-standard phrases - hoi sin sauces, kung po chickens, dim sums and yes, Kung Hei Fat Choi. Of note, in the UK, Kung Hei Fat Choi is probably more well known: See BBC for example: [4] Granted, this may be biased as the poster is sponsored by Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific but still!! --Mintchocicecream 10:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HKCOTW

	Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week
The current HKCOTW is Hongkonger . Please help improve it to featured article standard. Every week, a Hong Kong-related topic, stub or nonexistent article is picked to be the HK Collaboration of the Week. The previous HKCOTW was History of bus transport in Hong Kong - see improvements.

[edit] Photoblog Links

I noticed your recent edit on the Photoblogs external links. I agree with it and think we should get rid of all the links to individual photoblogs since it shows favoratism for certain individuals. I've been trying to do this myself but could use your support. Ralmer Rufus 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the particular photoblog because it was spammed to many Wikipedia pages (mainly Hong Kong-related pages, but also the photoblog page you mentioned) - see [[5]]. Sure, if I find other individual photoblogs I can help remove them too. --Mintchocicecream 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HK Regional Council Logo

Please consider using zh:Image:HKRegionalCouncil.png to make amendments to Image:HK Regional Council Logo.svg. Thanks! -- tonync (talk) (講) 14:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City of Victoria

Re [6] - It's true the name has been fading out in common usage, but it is not defunct. It's limit is still defined in Cap 1 Sched 1. The Central Government Offices is also known as the Government Headquarters. That's its name, and therefore, has to be capitalised. — Insta ntnood 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied. (Hmm you are right the City of Victoria is still in the legislation. However as you note it is not a term in popular usage anymore (I reworded my edit). I don't like the alternative of putting in "Central and Western District" because that would be like putting in "Westminster" as the capital of London (obviously incorrect). However although City of Victoria is still in legislation and is technically accurate (according to the said law) this is really a matter of laws not being updated? (That said it is curious that the Cap 1 Sched 1 you mention has a date of 1 July 1997!) http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/E1BF50C09A33D3DC482564840019D2F4/B433C7F894FA9F9E48256648002F6F13?OpenDocument= Hmm I am undecided - changing it back to Victoria City will invite a edit war towards a change to 'Central and Western District'! I guess ultimately this is a problem with the usage of the 'country' template for Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is not a country. --Mintchocicecream 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Not sure if you've read my edits and edit summaries [7] [8]. It's okay, IMHO, to leave the box blank, and to say that the legally-defined area of City of Victoria is where the Government Headquarters and head offices of most departments are located within. Whether the name is fading out in general usage belongs to that article, not the infobox. I've also explained why the City of Victoria is more correct than mentioning the Central and Western District. FYI, the City Hall, the home to the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and the London Assembly, is in Southwark, instead of Westminster. The former Greater London Council had its office in the County Hall in Lambeth. — Insta ntnood 15:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Amended reply. (I guess an issue is whether you can also find a legislation that defines the City of Victoria as the capital of Hong Kong. Victoria City is clearly defined (even if it uses outdated placenames like Government Pier and Royal Navy Ofice) but Cap 1 Sched 1 does not say that Victoria City is the capital... --Mintchocicecream 15:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

I'm interested to know how other places define their capitals. As far as I know not every single country explicitly designates a capital. Meanwhile, please don't confuse the definitions of the terms country and sovereign state. — Insta ntnood 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Legally and administratively speaking, London is not a city, the City of London (the Square Mile) and the City of Westminster are. Tokyo is not a city, but a prefecture. Hong Kong is, neither, a city in that sense. All of them are geographically, nevertheless, urban areas and are therefore city according to some definitions. — Insta ntnood 18:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Legislation setting the boundaries of Victoria City: Laws are complicated things and that's why lawyers get paid so much money to argue about them. We aren't lawyers (and even if we were) there is a serious problem with Wikipedia:No original research inserting our interpretation into Wikipedia.

Many defunct things continue to exist in laws, and will in perpetuity, because documents, laws, and contracts made when those things were valid are still in force and refer to them. These other documents need the continuity. Every large city that has ever annexed nearby areas will have legislation defining the old area. That Victoria City has a definition in the laws doesn't mean that Victoria City exists, it simply means that it is defined. And as above, for us to make an interpretation that LegCo intended to "create" Victoria City would be "novel" according to Wikipedia's NOR policy. Luckily, we don't have to make that kind of interpretation, the Hong Kong government answered that question when asked: Victoria City does not exist.

BTW, my knowledge is that the legislative history of the definition is retroactive. It wasn't defined until a year or so after the handover when LegCo discovered discrepancies because of a lack of legal definitions for the old areas dating as far back as the colonies founding (Victoria City, NT, NK, etc). So LegCo said, by fiat, that the law existed on 1 July 1997, when in fact it didn't. Legislatures have that kind of time-reversing magical power when creating laws.

Also, you are absolutely right. The edit war is because Hong Kong is using a country template. We should copy a template from other Chinese cities and be rid of defining terms for countries that are meaningless to Hong Kong.

SchmuckyTheCat 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Instantnood, Schmuckhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngyTheCat for your replies. I understand there is a debate on the issue and no agreement - and I put 'none' simply because neither Victoria City nor Central/Western District are entirely accurate. Alternatively, I think Instantnood's use of a dash (—) in previous edits would be just as appropriate. Reading on the discussions on the Victoria City page, I am more convinced that a none/dash is most appropriate - Victoria City was most definitely in earlier texts (e.g. maps, books, etc) with varying degrees of officiality; but I am not surprised either that no one emailed could say with any certainty about its official usage. Hmm in terms of a new template, Hong Kong is in a peculiar position. I had a quick look at Beijing and Shanghai - and they both appear to use different templates! Ultimately if we were to change the template we'd have to see (and discuss!) what to use... --Mintchocicecream 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What we have to do is to modify the country template to allow greater flexibility for all countries, large and small, populous or less populous, unitary or hierarchical. — Insta ntnood 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, what we have to do is stop treating Hong Kong as the equal of the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we treating Greenland and the Faroe Islands equal of Denmark, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles of the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom equal of Canada, Cuba equal of Poland, if we're listing each with a separate section? What is equal? — Insta ntnood 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong

Mintchocicecream ：

The planning of the establishment of Wikipedia Hong Kong as a society has entered the final stage.

From 27th April 2006, every Hong Kong Wikimedians is welcomed to participate in the discussion on the vote on the official name of the chapter. Then a one-week nomination period and a three-week voting period will be held. At the same time, you are also welcomed to join in the discussion on the draft constitution of the chapter.

After an official name is decided, the recruitment of member will be started and the first general meeting will be held (Please refer to the schedule). If you're interested to join, please sign your name on this page so that an estimation on the number of member could be done.

WIKIMEDIA HONG KONG NEED YOUR CONTRIBUTION AND SUPPORT NOW.

I am the Wikipedian who invites you:encyclopedist 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fire services HK

Fire Services Department (Hong Kong) - splendid; sorted; thanks. BlueValour 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Np --mintchocicecream 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Roman" Catholic (on Cardinal Zen article)

The anonymous editor in question has a history of making that same edit in a lot of articles. I guess he doesn't like acknowledging that anyone else might call themselves "catholic"? Interestingly, his IP address shows he's inside the US House of Representatives offices. Fan1967 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anson Chan

The only way to keep the extremist comments off so is to be on alert, in particular WFH and whatever IPs he might use to evade detection. I will make sure any edits he make is reverted. Do you want to help me out on this? Arbiteroftruth 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like WFH has started his Communist schtick again, will you join me in trying to get an admin to ban him as a vandal? Arbiteroftruth 00:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good news on the Anson Chan front. I have gotten an admin to ban WangFeihung, which was the sockpuppet of WangFeiHung. This should weaken WFH for a while. I will get an admin to ban whatever sockpuppet WFH makes. I have also circulated a message to some Wikipedians, asking them to help me in this endeavour. Together, we can keep him off the page forever. --Arbiteroftruth 07:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you. --mintchocicecream 11:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the WangFeiHung vandal has ceased his Maoist attacks. This is truly a good thing indeed. Thanks for everything you have done. Hopefully, we can collaborate on other Hong Kong matters in the very near future. Is there any help you need with certain topics? Arbiteroftruth 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong

Mintchocicecream ：

The 1st Preliminary meeting of Wikimedia Hong Kong, will be held in City Express within CityU at 19.00 on 16^th September , 2006.

The Hong Kong Wikipedians who attend the meeting, will be regarded as members of the Preliminary Committee. For further information, please refer to the agenda.

Yours Turly,
encyclopedist 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - unfortunately I can't make it as I won't be in HK until Christmas. --mintchocicecream 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:University of Bath Logo.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Marked as a {{seal}} as it is a govt/agency. Note that my responses may be slower than usual due to the internet problems across Hong Kong and Asia. --mintchocicecream 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invited

Dear Mintchocicecream,

You are invited to join the Wikiproject Hong Kong. If you want to join, click here and put your username and date, on the bottom of the list. If you do not want to join, you can join anytime you like, by clicking here. Jacklau96 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test

(test) --mintchocicecream 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:University of Bath Logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:University of Bath Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Microsoft Office 2004.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Microsoft Office 2004.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/User_talk%7EMintchocicecream_60da.html"