Hello, Andro611! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andro611! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. You mark almost all of your edits; many of them are not minor. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I though "minor edit" meant "few words added or deleted". Will mark edits properly in the future. Thank you for informing me. Andro611 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you did. But I see that I didn't take note of the other changes you made which were nullified by my reversion. Yue has fixed it. Andro611 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Ho.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Kosovo is a Pandora's Box for all manner of reasons, so much so that oftentimes I feel a Serbia note should be created and added as you have the Kosovo note template- because you never know when seeing Serbia on a list where an internal survey is the source of its inclusion whether the study in question included or left out citizens of Kosovo. There are examples of both. There's another reason I am writing to you. Niue and Cook Islands are in italics and marked "(NZ)". I take it you know that ontologically these two are not different to the Marshall Island, Palau and Micronesia. See Associated state#States currently in a formal association. --Coldtrack (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kosovo is problematic because is it de facto a sovereign and independent country, however it has no legal basis for statehood until Serbia decides to recognise it (fat chance of the ever happening). It cannot claim self-determination, hasn't ever historically been a country nor did it have any constitutional right to be independent. And yet it is a country, just like Somaliland, albeit with limited recognition.
There is actually a point of distinction between the Cook Island and Niue vs Marshall Islands, Palau and FSoM. The most common reason why people list them as possessions of New Zealand is because while the associating treaty between Palau et al and the US is an international treaty, the association treaty between Cook is, Niue and New Zealand is an internal treaty. Perhaps it could be described as a sort of personal union (with the monarch of New Zealand)? Regardless, functionally they are the same and I wouldn't necessarily object to them being displayed without italics. Maybe we should try to establish some consensus about the Cook Islands and Niue with other editors.
As you said, it is a distinction - which you know doesn't mean "difference". I knew there were technincal nuances between the NZ and the US lands but only because of what it says on the link I provided. Since we are talking about just one article and not some precedent (as each arictle follows its own protocols where it produces spreadsheets), I reckon what you and I agree here will be good enough and I doubt something this obscure and minute will even register with most people viewing the article. So would you be all right if I italised the NZ entries? PS. I agree entirely about Kosovo, though sadly it is the apologists for its independence status that carry more weight throughout the project as I've experienced in one or two places. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Adrian Ho, politician and businessman, HKFP portrait.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Adrian Ho, politician and businessman, HKFP portrait.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax«¦talk¦»14:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - material created by the US Federal government is public domain. That doe snot automatically make material produced by other governments public domain. -- Whpq (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why is material on wikisource that is not in public domain in Hong Kong SAR still available under the explanation that it is public domain in the United States? Is it allowed to post material that is in public domain in the US, but not in the jurisdiction of origin?
Edicts of a foreign government, such as laws and judicial decisions, are public domain. Pictures and creative works? That depends on local law. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 20:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I reverted your edit because you didn't provide a source that supports the additions. If you have a source, let me know and I'll help you with adding the source and information to the article. FunnyMath (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see the discussion in the talk page! In that case, then we might be able to add it in. The problem is that we prefer to have secondary sources that give her death date and death place. I'm thinking we can cite the plaque that shows her birth and death date as a source, but I've never heard of that being done before. FunnyMath (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Draft:Hibiscus Petroleum has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the assumption that that's not a problem in temporary drafts if changed in the final version. Can I add the logo of the company in the draft? Andro611 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andro611. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Adrian Ho, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Arkadije Popov instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.
If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.
This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Arkadije Popov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Andro611!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Yevgeny Prigozhin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, Andro611. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hibiscus Petroleum, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Port Botany (seaport), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
@Andro611: If you any more unsourced content into Wikipedia I will take you up to WP:ANI. It not just WP:BLP that references. Every sentences on every type of article under the sun needs references and includes company. So please, no more unsourced content. scope_creepTalk21:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My good man do you even know anything about the China Navigation Company? You do realise this entity trades as Swire Shipping?
I did not add this to the article. I just find it absurd that you're removing it 41 seconds after I reverted your edit to try and find a reference for "Swire Shipping being the shipping the arm of Swire".
Instead of threatening to take me up to the ANI and waste their time, why don't your try to add the reference yourself instead of blindly removing content.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You really can’t change what a source says and add unsourced
And the Brittanica is not a better source. This is a violation of our sourcing policy and opinions can’t override it. I’m reverting you, please find sources and discuss it on the talk page. Doug Wellertalk20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see exactly how Britannica is “not a terribly good source”? The Encyclopædia Britannica is a top-tier encyclopedia, and its "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" classification is solely due to its status as a tertiary source.
Franks not existing in 1195 is not an opinion. You don't need to cite that the sky is WP:BLUE. Is there any source other than Allen claiming this? Allen is scholar of African-American studies, not medieval Europe. It could have been a mistake, especially since the book topic has nothing to medieval Europe. Andro611 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a sky is blue issue. Here's a source for Franks in 1185, only 10 years earlier. [1] You seem extremely sure the use of the term Franks was obsolete by that time despite the sources. Doug Wellertalk14:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the Crusader states. This is the Reconquista. Franks are a catch all word for the western European population of the Outremer. Andro611 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Faye Wong. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Nancy Kwai, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Full final sentence of my the edit summary: "Infobox requires country" is untrue, eg. articles of Puerto Ricans do not write Puerto Rico, US." Thank you. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）15:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the specific MoS section concerning the exclusion of sovereign state in Hong Kong infoboxes, because I have read the MoS and I find nothing of the sort there. There is no uniform style I am deviating from. The convention is to include countries/sovereign states, the notable exception you listed is Puerto Rico because it is a territory not incorporated into the United States. There is no such exception listed for Hong Kong. Furthermore because Hong Kong is constitutionally defined as an inalienable part of China [4]§Chapter 1 Article 1. To draw conclusions from Puerto Rico to Hong Kong is a non sequitur.
Secondly, I do not think adding the sovereign state as required by the infobox causes any readability or accessibility problems. Such an assertion severely underestimates the mental capacities of any literate person beyond reasonable doubt. Do you genuinely think a person would be confused by this?
If Nancy Kwai was born in Shanghai would you say that adding the country in the infobox would “cause readability or accessibility problems”? Ms Kwai is a Chinese national born in China after 1997. This all just seems as one big case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT
I have to clarify why I added. It is not that I believe Hong Kong, China to be a common name. I am writing it as the infobox template asks. Hong Kong is the common name for the region. After it, following a comma, I added the country. I am not implying the common name of HK is Hong Kong, China. I am aware it is not. I am merely adding the country. I apologise if there was a misunderstanding relating to this. I hope you now understand my intentions with more clarity. Andro611 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not delve into the details within the word limit of the edit summary, but my points regarding MOS:NC-CN and MOS:IBP should be very clear.
I actually agree with your "Secondly", as it aligns with the spirit of MOS:IBP. The infobox should convey only the shortest possible key facts and exclude unnecessary content. It is universally understood that "Hong Kong" refers to Hong Kong, China. Nobody in the right mind would confuse it as Hong Kong, France, or Hong Kong, Guatemala. Distinctions should only be made when there is ambiguity. If we are specifically discussing a "China except Hong Kong" here on Wikipedia, it should be referred to as mainland China per MOS:NC-CN. But that is obviously not the case here, as we are not discussing them separately and the usage has no ambiguity, so the common name, Hong Kong, is more than enough.
With all due respect, the page you created, Adrian Ho, along with his predecessor Alice Mak (politician) linked in the article, clearly lists "Hong Kong" in their birth_place parameters. I am beginning to wonder why someone who is fully aware of the correct Manual of Style and local consensus on Hong Kong articles would suddenly forget about this and create inconsistencies in other articles. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）16:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Adrian Ho and Alice Mak were born before HK became a part of PR China. The crown colony of Hong Kong was named “Hong Kong” hence Adrian Ho, born in 1977 has his birthplace listed as “Hong Kong” alone. Nancy Kwai was born after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. She was born in China. We add the country in every case except the ones mentioned as an exception, that's how the infobox template is formatted.
The ambiguity that we are trying to avoid is “Hong Kong as an independent country” such as Singapore (not it being a part of Guatemala or France). A reader who is not informed may be led to believe so if the country is not listed in the infobox, as it almost always is with other Chinese cities. To illustrate how flawed this and the previous argument is let me bring up the page you created Xu Ruohan. You listed her birthplace as Xian, Shaanxi, China. Why? You think people will confuse it with Xian, France or Xian, Guatemala?
Regardless of our opinion on the current political situation, historical rights and wrongs – we must categorically strive to depict the world as it is based on verifiable facts in a neutral tone. Hong Kong is what it is, and it's a fools errand to try to pretend Hong Kong is something that it is not. Let's call a spade a spade.
This will be my final reply unless something new is actually presented, as I have already made my points clear and am beginning to repeat myself, and this discussion is not progressing. I have asked you to provide the Manual of Style that requires the sovereign state to be included in the infobox, which arguably should have presented in your second revert, but I still do not see any policy-based rationale in your arguments.
According to your logic, individuals born in British Hong Kong should be listed as either British Hong Kong or Hong Kong, United Kingdom, since Hong Kong was a Crown colony/British overseas territory (after being removed from the UN's list of colonies), with Britain as the sovereign state in both cases. You are aware that it does not need to be presented in that way, the common name Hong Kong suffices. The premise of your argument does not even hold water and you are contradicting yourself. Gibraltarians simply write "Gibraltar", not "Gibraltar, Britain". Puerto Ricans write "Puerto Rico", not "Puerto Rico, United States". It is evident that the country or sovereign state can be omitted in the infobox as per MOS:IBP, even according to your reasoning.
Another "flaw" you believe you have identified stems from putting words in my mouth. I referred to ambiguity while illustrating the spirit of MOS:NC-CN, not IBP where I used "Hong Kong, France/Guatemala" as an example. Specific cautions are taken when referring to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, whereas other places are generally considered geographically part of China. This also honours the spirit of IBP as "key facts". Attempting to turn my illustrations regarding the two MoS into a rebuttal suggests either unfamiliarity on Wikipedia guidelines or a sophistry.
Even if I were to take a step back, assuming there were indeed guidelines to support your claims. I have presented my case fully based on the MoS as well, and the majority of articles about Hongkongers currently list "Hong Kong" only as their birthplace, regardless of whether they are British Overseas or Chinese nationals. If there are no guidelines that prohibit this format, then, in the spirit of MOS:STYLEVAR, you should not make changes to override them.
I have already explained the difference between Puerto Rico and Hong Kong. Puerto Rico is not incorporated into the United States of America. It is a unincorporated territory of the US. That's why it is the exception.
You appear to have trouble understanding that Hong Kong as a crown colony and later a British dependent territory – was not part of the United Kingdom. How can I ask for it be written as such when it was legally defined as not a part of the UK. Same with Gibraltar. It's not a part of the UK! And definitely not part of Great Britain which is an island a 1000 miles away. On the other hand, Hong Kong post-1997 is legally part of China. Not just geographically, politically as well. Hong Kong was also never a British Overseas Territory. This is not an agenda these are verifiable facts.
What specific cautions are you talking about? Taiwan was NEVER part of the PRC. The consensus on wikipedia is to call the PRC “China”. Therefore there are no “specific cautions”. Taiwan is not a part of China (using wikipedia's terminology), Macau and Hong Kong are since 1999 and 1997 respectively, period.
whereas other places are generally considered geographically part of China.
Are you implying now that Hong Kong and Macau are not generally considered to be geographically part of China? What is this even supposed to mean?
You accuse me of sophistry and having a political agenda yet you are continually trying to obfuscate what is a very clear cut situation.
If there are no guidelines that prohibit this format, then, in the spirit of MOS:STYLEVAR, you should not make changes to override them.
This is directly from the MoS you linked. “This fall-back position does not give unchallengeable primacy to that particular style during consensus discussion, nor give the editor who imposed that earliest style any more say in the discussion.”
Just because some articles use your preferred style does not mean it has unchallengeable primacy, especially considering that you do not address the political geography with any WP:RS. Wikipedia would not advance at all if changes based on verifiable facts supported by reliable sources could not be made. Nowhere in the MoS is it forbidden to add the country into HKers' IBP's then one must assume then that we can and are encouraged by the template which asks for the the sovereign state.
We had a RfC about HK, China and British Hong Kong some time ago, which is how these things should be resolved. There was no consensus. But I was big advocate for “British Hong Kong”. Many editors who disagreed with me then made me realise the error of my ways. Now I see that pre-1997 “Hong Kong” alone is definitely the right choice.
All you did was make it clear to me that once we strip away the stuff that's just plain incorrect, you do not have a solid argument other than “we don't have to do it”. Sure we don't have to. But we don't have to edit wikipedia either, yet we do it.
You gave me barely 5 hours to respond and the dispute was clearly not resolved at all. Also the Adrian Ho IBP “Hong Kong” alone for 1977 was derived from the aforementioned RfC most likely, but definitely not from the MoS as you said. Andro611 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Good afternoon, could you explain, in your reasoning (plus your sources) how Kris Wu is a
- Chinese contemporary R&B singer
- Chinese emigrant to Canada
- Chinese expatriate in South Korea
- Chinese idol
- Chinese male film actor
- Chinese male model
- Chinese male rapper
- Chinese people convicted of tax crimes
- Chinese philanthropist
- Chinese pop singer
- Chinese record producer
- Chinese K-pop singer
..yet not a Chinese person convicted of rape, according to what you're trying to edit?
You keep removing the tag without citing one (1) source of the individual "not being chinese at the time". Please stop before I report you for edit wars
China does not allow dual nationality.[5] (Article 9 Nationality Law of the PRC) Kris Wu is a naturalised Canadian national. Hence because he is a Canadian citizen and considering his inevitable eventual deportation from China (which would not happen if he were a Chinese national since nationals cannot be deported) we are safe to conclude he is not a Chinese national.
“Chinese” is a nationality. Kris Wu is Han, the dominant ethnic group inhabiting, but not limited to, China. However he is not Chinese, as he does not posses Chinese nationality. It is exceptionaly difficult to prove a negative so all categorisations of him as a Chinese national without concrete evidence of him being one must be removed per WP:BLP.
@Andro611, that does not explain your reasoning behind him being a Chinese singer, model, film actor but not a Chinese rapist. In your three edits, you've only taken care of that category. I'm trying to assume good faith right now, but there's no explanation that's helping
I don't know exactly when he became Canadian citizen vis-a-vis when his career started because I don't follow his career. But we can be certain, based on his sentencing that he was no longer a citizen of China at the time of his conviction. If you know whether he had a career in the industry while he was still a Chinese citizen feel free to keep or remove those other categories.
As for renunciation, according to the law the loss of citizenship is automatic. One does not need to be citizen to work and live in China legally. There are both working visas and the status of permanent resident for that. Andro611 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Ok I didn't know there was an RfC, but from what I now see nobody in the RfC brought up the point that these aren't North Korean units under North Korean command, but individuals sent by the NK regime to Russia to fight in the Russian army. I don't have an interest in the Russo-Ukrainian war so I won't edit anything directly related to it anytime soon, but for the record citizens fighting participating in a foreign war, whether as volunteers, or, perhaps more appropriately in this case, as cannon fodder, does not necessarily presume that side to be an active belligerent in a war. Andro611 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
