User talk:Lmmnhn/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lmmnhn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protest grouping / chronological order?

Hello Lmmnhn. I noticed your edit in Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 about the chronological order of the protests [1]. I wanted to discuss with you why I believe it should be grouped. First, the bill here is the focus and the protests are the result of the conflict. Grouping the protests together make the whole article much tidier and easy to read. Also, as there is a new article (2019 Hong Kong extradition bill protests) which is created to separate the bill and the protest against it, grouping it makes it easier to summarize and reduce the excessive content of the events, and redirect readers to the new article for more information. As I mentioned, the focus of the bill article should not be the protests. I hope you can consider reverting your edit. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it what a separate article about the protesting doing - to group the protests in order to make it easy to read? I do not see the point of grouping in the both articles. Furthermore, if grouping is your concerns then there would be grouping of every parties - namely the legal sector, business groups, the foreign and Beijing governments. However these parties issued statements and responds regarding how the events have been developing and unfolded. To group them into same section for the sake of grouping just does not make sense, as the events are developing organically and there are causal co-relations to it. To group them against chronological order would make the readers having to jump back and forth in order to get the context of the whole thing. But I do agree with the reduction of the protesting part and I helped reducing some details to its current state too. But I have reservations trimming it too heavily to make it way too simplistic. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do agree that having it in chronological order makes some sense – I'll just let it be for now. I understand your worries about trimming it too heavily, but we have to try hard to prevent having too many repeated content in both articles. –Wefk423 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Instead of trimming the bill article, why don't you expand the protesting article? It currently only briefly describes the events on that day, not to mention it can be expanded into two separate sub-sections - the day peaceful protest and the night violent clashes with much more details and even a timeline can be added. The 31 March protest also needs expansion. Anyway, I appreciate your understanding and compromise though. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a good idea, I'll do it when I have time. Thank you too, you did a great job in both articles. –Wefk423 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please can you use the article talk page so other editors may contribute to the discussion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019

On 10 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Viztor (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect loop

Hello. Your recent edits caused 2019 New Territories East by-election and New Territories East by-election, 2019 to redirect to each other. Presumably there is some article on the topic that you were trying to make the target, but I don't know what the title is. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In an addendum to this, I have reverted your PROD tagging on the same redirects as per WP:PROD, proposed deletion cannot be applied to redirects. Start a discussion at WP:RFD instead. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no by-election in New Territories East in 2019. I am not looking for redirect I am looking for deletion. Lmmnhn (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ALLinHK logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ALLinHK logo.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide justification for future undo operations

Hello, I see that you have been undoing some of the articles that provided incorrect/inaccurate information and I appreciate your work. However, please provide justification in your undos in the future to avoid possible misunderstandings. Thank you. Sammyknowsitall Criticize 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please point out the incorrectness when accusation. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Citizens Party.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Citizens Party.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Hong Kong Indigenous.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Hong Kong Indigenous.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tung Chung Central (constituency) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tung Chung Central (constituency), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kwai Luen (constituency) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kwai Luen (constituency), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cheung Chau (constituency) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Cheung Chau (constituency), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tai Pak Tin East (constituency) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tai Pak Tin East (constituency), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hoi Nam (constituency) (November 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Otr500 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I don't see any constituencies listed in any of the districts. The stand alone notability of hundreds of poorly sourced articles (41 constituencies in this district) would not benefit readers or the encyclopedia.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Otr500 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lmmnhn! Having an article 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! Otr500 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Camp" Control table heading convention

Re 2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections#Results_by_district Thanks! Amazing stuff! Knowsitallnot (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Unneccesary removal of content on 2019 Hong Kong local elections.

Hello, I'm Symes2017. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2019 Hong Kong local elections without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Symes2017 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have stated my reason before, as the section is just a few of the many miscellaneous "controversies" which occur in every election. As it is very trivial and very one-sided that might violate WP:NPV, I wonder it is worthy enough to list them. I added them back again for now but I think it should better be removed. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

By definition, any newsworthy controversy which is properly sourced and is related to an notable election cannot be "trivial" in the slightest, especially if it has the potential to unduly affect the final results. I recommend you launch a Request for Comment and obtain consensus before you attempt to remove such content again. Symes2017 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

you've got to stop removing old information, and uncapitalising the ballot names, as they appear on the ballot, also as with all elections, the more recent belongs at the top — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharnevil (talk • contribs) 07:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sai Kung District Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sai Kung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sai Kung results

The pic showing the results of the election has the consituencies of Cheung Chin-pang, Christine Fong Kwok-shan, and Chris Cheung Mei-hung in gray instead of blue or yellow. This is because they are part of the centrist Professional Power, which is part of neither of the two main camps. Their names should be moved out of the pro-Beijing column and into the "other" category. User:DunkyMatchette 04:56 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Which picture do you mean? Actually there are different sources put them into pro-Beijing or non-aligned as they are self-claimed non-affiliated but their candidacies were endorsed by the pro-Beijing HKFTU. Lmmnhn (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kwai Luen (constituency)

Hello, Lmmnhn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kwai Luen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 15:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tai Pak Tin East (constituency)

Hello, Lmmnhn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tai Pak Tin East".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 08:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tung Chung Central (constituency)

Hello, Lmmnhn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tung Chung Central".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cheung Chau (constituency)

Hello, Lmmnhn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cheung Chau".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tai Po Democratic Alliance logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tai Po Democratic Alliance logo.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carrie Lam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolfson College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi!, I am so interested in Hong Kong, I just wanted it to share it with you, but I can't contribute further because I don't speak Chinese. :) I particularly love Mr. Sham for his LGBT activism. You that know much more than me, is he known better for what activism, political or LGBT? Have a extraordinary end of year! :) -- Iván. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I don't have affiliation to any of two sides, and I respect your position whatever it is. My admiration for Mr. Sham comes for his identity :) That clarified, warmest greeetings. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

He is a long-time LGBT activist but he didn't get the fame he has now until he organised demonstrations which have been attended by millions after millions of people. Wish you a great Christmas and new year too. --Lmmnhn (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Taiwanese local elections infobox

Please do not mass-change infoboxes to the versions you have. They have several problems.

They don't have results for townships/cities, which are important parts of the elections
There is no clear basis for the colour shades for the maps, violating WP:OR. Two of which don't even have legends.
"Township Chiefs" is dubious. The legal term is mayor of townships/cities according to the Local Government Act. All these titles are lowercase.
Turnout figures are unclear as to what they refer to.

Ythlev (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarise (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The most important of the Taiwan local elections are the mayoral elections mostly, and the municipal council second. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts. They are not summarised if you remove them. The most important of the Taiwan local elections are the mayoral elections mostly, and the municipal council second. Says who? You're saying how many local governments the parties run in the next four years is less important than the percentage of votes they got for the magistrate/mayor elections? There are enough parameters to include all of them in any case. You also haven't addressed the other points above. Ythlev (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is "key facts". There are six types of offices and referendums and it does not make sense to include all of the information in a single infobox. If you have ever studied Taiwan politics or read any news of the 2018 elections you will understand the most regarded elections are the municipal council and mayor elections. As for the colours and terms, I have changed to the maps you preferred and changed to "township mayors". And for the turnout I have added citations. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how township mayor seats are not key facts. the most regarded elections are the municipal council and mayor elections. They are more regarded. If you base what should be included on news coverage, only results for Taipei need to be included.[2]. I think you misunderstand MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An example of failing to summarise is this: three numbers crammed into one field. Infoboxes should contain concise, straight-forward fields. The infobox is designed with six additional fields, so anything that fits is reasonable. Otherwise what are those fields for? Ythlev (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, if township results are so insignificant, why do they have their own section? The table of contents have titles for each type of election, but the infobox leaves some out. Do you call that summarising? Ythlev (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That is nonsense to only claim that Taipei is relevant. With all the news coverage, the most important indicators of the popularity of the sitting presidents are the mayoral elections and they even have their own articles for it. To cram all the information into one infobox is unnecessary and reader-unfriendly. The readers are confused with all these numbers with all these seat changes that make it more difficult to acknowledge who the winner in this election was. I have never seen an infobox is more than 11 fields in. It is just not a practice on here as it goes very much against the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Point me to one if you see such a complicated, unnecessary and counterproductive election infobox if you can find it. Lmmnhn (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, what's purpose of making Tsai's portrait 1.5 size bigger than Ma's? Lmmnhn (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That is nonsense to only claim that Taipei is relevant. But news coverage is your criterion for inclusion. the most important indicators of the popularity of the sitting presidents. Since when are election infoboxes for showing popularity of the presidents? make it more difficult to acknowledge who the winner in this election was. That is totally up for interpretation, which infoboxes are not for. Infoboxes are for hard facts. Sure there can be a widely-held opinion on who is the winner, but that can, and is, written in the lead paragraph where it belongs. I have never seen an infobox is more than 11 fields in. You've also never seen other nine-in-one elections. Neither have I. Different things have different circumstances. Why should they fit the same clothes? If it's simply the number of fields you have an issue with, then the fields Popular vote, Percentage, Mayors/Magistrates±, and Councillors± can go. Vote share doesn't equal seats and seats are what matters. Seat changes are also arguably less important the results of 3/5 of the elections. Also, what's purpose of making Tsai's portrait 1.5 size bigger than Ma's? Where? Ythlev (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a bunch of other issues with you versions, like non-machine-readable dates, incorrect predecessors and so on. Stop reverting. Ythlev (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your edited version. Thanks for the understanding and compromise. Lmmnhn (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding image sizes (diff), the images have different ratios, so they will be different sizes regardless. Sizes for your version are 135x180 and 128x180 and for mine are 170x227 and 162x227, which have similar ratios. Sizes in my version are actually closer. We should be using defaults as much as possible for consistency and so that changes to the infobox template would apply to these infoboxes. Ythlev (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

How is this difference of sizes closer than this? Btw, the Ma Ying-jeou photo in your edit is 227px, which is bigger than the default size of 220px. Lmmnhn (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean with your subjective perception or with actual numbers? For yours, the width ratio is 135/128=1.055, for mine, it's 170/162=1.049. Btw, the Ma Ying-jeou photo in your edit is 227px, which is bigger than the default size of 220px. That's the default for thumbnails in the article body, not for specific images like those in infoboxes. If we don't set sizes, the heights are 227 and 238px, which are above 220. Ythlev (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Subjectivity? It is very obvious that Ma's portrait is much bigger than Tsai's just seeing with your naked eye. In my edit, both are set as 180x180px which are much more even. Lmmnhn (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you show me a screenshot of what you see? Because for both versions Tsai's is bigger for me. Ythlev (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Here you go. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And what are the respective image dimensions? This is what I see, and I can tell you how I got it. Template:Infobox election/row:

|upright={{if empty|{{{image1_upright|}}}|{{{image_upright|}}}|{{#if:{{both|{{{col3|}}}|{{{image3|}}}}}|0.5|0.75}}}}

The default upright is 0.75, which with default settings gives you a width of 170px (WP:AUTOSIZE), hence Tsai and Ma's images are respectively 170x227 and 170x238, leaving a gap in Tsai's image. By setting Ma's height to 227, they should be the same height. You must have some special settings. Ythlev (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any special setting. The three computers I use at home and office show me the same thing. Lmmnhn (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Either way, even if you fix the height, the widths will still be different. I suggest using images with standard ratios.[3] Ythlev (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well it is not perfect but it is the closest to make both portraits even. If you have the time to crop and upload, do it. But it doesn't bring too much of a change from my edit imo. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't bring too much of a change from my edit imo. It does for non-default image size settings, which is why fixing image size is discouraged (MOS:IMGSIZE). On this page, the portraits are the same ratio, so the box shouldn't have whatever problem you're saying it does. Please post your screenshot along with image dimensions. Ythlev (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of computers you have been using but your edits on image ratio have been completely wrong, first for the Ma/Tsai portraits which turn out to be unproportional then to the infobox in which the texts cannot fit in one line. Lmmnhn (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You have not shown me what the problem is. No screenshot of what you see or what the image dimensions are. The images ratios are all 1:1.37. Do the maths yourself. I don't know what computer or browser you are using. I'm using Chrome and it looks totally normal as it should be. Also stop reverting the constituencies. They are new constituencies. Hsu Chih-chieh for example, represented Fongshan in 2016, which in 2020 in VII, not VIII. VIII is a new constituency. Ythlev (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any special setting. The three computers I use at home and office show me the same thing. What is you thumbnail size set at here? Ythlev (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean boundary changes do not mean new constituencies? Then what are? The numbers don't mean anything. Explain how it makes any sense to list MLYs representing different areas on the same row just because the number is the same. How does that do anything but mislead? Ythlev (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Because they are NOT "new" constituencies. The box can be improved in a way the constituencies are identical to the previous constituencies, but it is false to claim they are brand new constituencies. There are actually only two constituencies that are newly created in this election as stated in the earlier section. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer the questions. Ythlev (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made my responses. I don't know what more you want me to answer. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Explain how it makes any sense to list MLYs representing different areas on the same row just because the number is the same. How does that do anything but mislead? Ythlev (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have actually answered it already if you have read clearly -- "The box can be improved in a way the constituencies are identical to the previous constituencies". Lmmnhn (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What does that mean? You mean it can be improved further or you think it is better to show the current member even if the area is different? Ythlev (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The box can be improved by identifying the 2016 and 2020 constituencies with the overlapping areas instead of numbers, and ideally with some footnotes for further explanations. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So instead of making those improvements, you insist on reverting to the misleading version. That is disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for the images. You haven't answered the questions yet. Ythlev (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

NO. As I stated earlier, they are NOT "new" constituencies that created from nowhere in Kaohsiung City. To suggest the Kaohsiung constituencies are all brand new is misleading. What I did was to revert that misleading information from confusing the readers. My edits at least show the incumbents before the boundaries being redrawn, which cannot be claimed as false. Furthermore, I do not know what answers you want me to reply because none of the answers seem to be satisfactory to you. I have repeatedly stated that, and even screencaped, that the edits you made were uneven, making one image better than the other. And as a matter of fact, for the years I have joined the election and referendum projects and edited more than a hundred election articles, I have not seen anyone saying that the portraits must set in default. Take 2016 US presidential election and 2019 UK general election for the recent examples, images should not be that tiny to squeeze all the texts into multiple lines with no spaces. I don't get your obsession with being tiny, but I do think that is complete nonsense. Lmmnhn (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What I did was to revert that misleading information from confusing the readers. If you've edited hundreds of articles, you should know how constituencies work. I gave you a specific example of how your version may mislead. The incumbent listed for Kaohsiung City VIII is Hsu Chih-chieh. Whoever is elected for Kaohsiung City VIII in 2020 is not his successor because it's a completely different area, but being in the same row it will totally be interpreted that way. "New" is just a word, and can be interpreted variously, but you have not explained what your interpretation of a "new constituency" is. How exactly can it mislead or confuse?

As for the images, setting a fixed size makes them un-adjustable, which goes against guidelines. Your versions still have uneven images, just in width not height. I believe it can be fixed, but you show no intention of fixing it. You still haven't snapped a screenshot of the versions with re-cropped images, or provided the image dimensions, so I have no idea what you're talking about. What you've described is what would happen if you set the thumbnail size smaller than 220px, so at least tell me what your setting is. Ythlev (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if you've edited hundreds of election articles, you should know that the template has the parameters image1_size etc, but they are not listed in the usage section of the doc because they are not supposed to be necessary. I wonder how it makes sense to you to have to manually set the image sizes for every infobox when other infobox templates can deal with images with no problem. How do you even come up with the sizes? Trial and error? Ythlev (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harbour City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Updating the logo of Tin Shui Wai Connection

Hi Lmmnhn,

Would you mind update the new logo of Tin Shui Wai Connection. The sea green one is not the latest one.

File: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qpj4TDXZ0RBaS1wezQAabJCFhR1mnrfl/view

Image above is given by TSW Connection (with size reduction) and they know that it is used in Wikipedia.

I am glad if you can help.

Pakho (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:District Councillors of the certain districts

Because most of them are no longer district councillors. If they are still assigned to certain district councillor categories, they will be confused with the current ones. I also tailor it with the category's Chinese version. Ckh3111 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Please take a look at how it works with the categories on wikiepdia. For example, Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Arizona and Category:United States senators from Arizona. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This causes confusion on how to identify who are current and former ones. There are so many "Former members" categories. Ckh3111 (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There are no "former members" categories. Lmmnhn (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So many examples. Category:Former Members of the Order of Australia and Category:Former members of the Family International. What are they? If you don't know, do not try to be our representative. Ckh3111 (talk)

Also, :Former members of XXX District Council can be created instead to identify the old ones and current ones. Ckh3111 (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You disturbed my editing and fell back to previous version without advising me before. This is a very impolite manner. Ckh3111 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean there is no "former members" categories of the District Councils so your claim is completely invalid. The examples you gave is the exact reason why "former members" is not advisory as they only list a handful of the members. If you look at the categories for parliamentarians all over the world, the most categories do not have the "current/former" separation as it does not make a lot sense to make so many "current categories" with at most include a handful of articles which have to be massively changed every four years, while the "former categories" are unevenly with all the former members throughout history that lose the connection of the specific DCs they had represented. Btw, I did left you a message before the revert so don't take it personal and act up like this, it's just editing. It also takes other people a lot of time and effort to correct your mistake if you edit without deep consideration. Please keep in mind the next time. Lmmnhn (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Former members means the people used to be council members. Keeping information update is the truth of the Wikipedia. Chinese version has "former members" categories. In your mind, will other "Former members" categories also be deleted? If not, your point is subjective and weak. You did not say sorry to me but you blame me instead. If you don't know the Hong Kong politics, don't interfere other people's editing. Ckh3111 (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Your personal attack is laughable and it shows that you can't handle criticism well. But discuss and cooperate with other editors and being constantly challenged is the way wikipedia is. Live with that. Lmmnhn (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Because your stance is biased. When I say why other "Former members of XXX" categories can be reserved, you did not answer. That's why your decision is challenged. Ckh3111 (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Warring: 2019 Hong Kong local elections

You have now three times reverted my action to add a subsection title to the 2019 Hong Kong local elections. I note that your first revert was accompanied by no edit summary. An editor of your long standing and experience ought simply never to display such arrogance and disrespect to any other editor. To revert anyone's material must be explained. That was a very poor first step. I invited you to take the matter to Talk and you failed to do so, going ahead with a second revert. I am not invoking the formal edit warring complaint process because I believe we can happily sort this out between ourselves but that does require a little respect and circumspection from you to start off with. That's the preamble. Now, as to your objection to my creating a subsection title, firstly, this is not something of such vital importance, taking into account what you have said in the two edit summaries you have provided, as to justify this sort of major dispute you have taken up. It's just a section title. So you might consider just reducing the temperature a bit before your next thought on the subject. Secondly, the reasons you have given don't amount to saying that the title is wrong in any respect, merely that you think, as a matter of weight, it creates an overemphasis. This is, clearly, a pretty subtle question, not one arising from any fundamental principle or other central theme of the encyclopaedia. Thirdly, to say that there are other important matters which have not been graced with such a subsection title is no objection to this subsection title; it is an invitation to create those further subsections, and you are at liberty to do so if you are inclined to invest as much effort in such an enterprise as to plague another editor with your warring reverts. I shall leave this matter to simmer for a bit and then proceed to reinstate the subsection title. A further revert will result in the formal edit warring complaint process. sirlanz 14:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not revert your edit for the first time as you claim as I merely just removed the section title but still left the content intact. Secondly, I was not notified any invitation for discussion from you as far as I concern. Thirdly, my argument still stands as you are creating a subsection with only a content of one sentence. If you have to overstate everything you deem as important, then the aftermath section would have at least four subsections for each sentence: (1) The attempt of resignation of the largest party leader; (2) the muted state media on the election results; (3) the signing of the Human Rights and Democracy Act; (4) the speculative reason for the removal of the Liaison Office director. As an experienced editor like yourself, I believe you would see how absurd it would look as well. As you claim it is just a matter not of vital importance, and I believe the reasons I gave were pretty sound and sufficient for an experienced editor like you to understand, I took the liberty to revert with a short edit summary. It is very unfortunate that it failed to make you understand and you felt offended. I believe that it should be resolved in a civilised manner but if you are going to revert for the third time without a consensus, it would be a violation of TRR. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's get our facts straight. You say you that deleting an edit which inserted a section title is not a revert? You say that you did not receive an invitation to discuss? You are saying you have not already reverted my edit three times? Am I reading this right? Are you looking at the correct article? sirlanz 15:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for four reverts on multiple articles (2016 Taiwanese legislative election, 2020 Taiwanese legislative election etc) within eight hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Number 5 7 12:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hoi Nam (constituency) (April 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Hoi Nam (constituency) instead.

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There is now an article that is the same as this draft. However, neither this draft nor the article provides adequate context. For instance, it requires considerable clicking even to learn that these are electoral districts of Hong Kong; they could be anywhere.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lmmnhn! Having an article 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) 23:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Still tireless

Perusing the edit history of People Power (Hong Kong), I note that you have contributed in every year since its creation, 2011-2019 (and there's still another nine months of this year ..). Representative of your enduring hard work on HK issues. Keep safe in these troubled times. - Onanoff (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! Stay healthy too! Lmmnhn (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ythlev (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As some editors tends to change color of pro-Beijing camp and remove anti-communism ideology of pro-democracy camp, could you please discuss in Talk:Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong)#Blue ribbon camp and Talk:Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)#Do we keep CPPCC and ExCo? respectively? Thank you. UU (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Hong Kong legislative election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helena Wong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunny Cheung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Hastie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Winnie Yu (nurse)

On 31 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Winnie Yu (nurse), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in response to the Hong Kong government refusing to close its border with mainland China to contain COVID-19, Winnie Yu organized a labour strike among hospital workers in February 2020? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Winnie Yu (nurse). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Winnie Yu (nurse)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Urgent! 2021 Legco vote should be a new article

Hi, I was going to write to all contributors to the 2020 Legco election article - but it's nearly all your fine work. Thanks for all the effort.

From a Wikipedia point of view, the 2021 event is surely due a separate article? At the talk page, I've posted:
I suggest that we keep the article on the (aborted) 2020 Legislative Council Election, and start a new one for the proposed 2021 election. Although 'postponed' is the word used by the government, the two events have distinct political and electoral significance, and practically, the 2021 event will be completely new, with candidacy open to all, while candidates in the 2020 event will have their deposits reimbursed and the whole thing wound up.

Your comment, and I hope assent, are greatly welcomed, there.

Then I'm happy to help with the transition. Cossaxx (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I will have to disagree with that. Correct me if I was wrong but never have any cancelled election is kept as a separate article on wikipedia. To include a cancelled election with other election articles would be a very confusing gesture to the readers. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Pls could you post that the Talk page? Of course, I'll respond. thanks. Cossaxx (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And yes, there are precedents for article on cancelled elections, I'll post some examples. May I repost your above comment on the Talk page, and continue there? Cossaxx (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've inserted your comment at the talk page.

I'm a huge fan of all the work you do on HK pages, and I hope we can look at this together and with others' input. I'll accept the outcome, but I think it's a discussion we need to have. (I didn't formally propose a split, because of the urgency). Cossaxx (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your incredible work on all Hong Kong election articles. You have done an amazing job. OceanHok (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Wong Pak-yu

On 2 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wong Pak-yu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Wong Pak-yu nominated Woo Kwok-hing in the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election, he decided to cast a blank vote to protest against the election's lack of democracy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wong Pak-yu. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wong Pak-yu), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this

Hi!!!!!! ^_^ , I think I found a news that further 5 pro-democracy activists have been DQ. Among them Jimmy Sham and Sunny Cheung. Here is the source in Chinese you may understand more ! It's for the 2020 Hong Kong Legislative Council candidates' disqualification controversy - Cheers! --CoryGlee (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I will add this information later. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

^_^ , glad to contribute to HK articles. My warmest greetings. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your addition to Postponement of the 2020 Hong Kong legislative election 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. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carson Wen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Carson Wen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054642/https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=5854367&capId=136596879&previousCapId=&previousTitle=. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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. Captain Calm (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've listed that page here for investigation – the copyright problem seems to go back to the creation of the page. If you like, you can create a new and copyvio-free version, written entirely in your own words, on this temporary page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 18:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I closed the copyright investigation above. In doing so, I looked at some other articles you wrote - and the first one (Duncan Bluck) was a copyvio. Not good. I also found three other copyvio warnings in your talk page history. That means you need to provide us assurance that you understand the copyright policy before being allowed to edit again. To do so, please use the unblock process to explain when you can copy and paste text into Wikipedia.

I have also opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lmmnhn. MER-C 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C WTF I never edited Duncan Bluck. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never edited Duncan Bluck. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Other than the fact that this doesn't address any of the reasons for why you were blocked, what's this? Are you claiming that isn't you? You clearly edited Duncan Bluck. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have edited more than a thousands articles and my contributions have been widely recognised. I don't think it is fair to block me indefinitely for one or two copyvio allegations. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to provide us assurance that you understand the copyright policy before being allowed to edit again. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand it. The article Carson Wen I got banned for was edited five years ago. I have learned and edited much more quality articles since then. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Speedy deletion nomination of Carson Wen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Carson Wen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054642/https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=5854367&capId=136596879&previousCapId=&previousTitle=. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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. Captain Calm (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've listed that page here for investigation – the copyright problem seems to go back to the creation of the page. If you like, you can create a new and copyvio-free version, written entirely in your own words, on this temporary page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 18:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I closed the copyright investigation above. In doing so, I looked at some other articles you wrote - and the first one (Duncan Bluck) was a copyvio. Not good. I also found three other copyvio warnings in your talk page history. That means you need to provide us assurance that you understand the copyright policy before being allowed to edit again. To do so, please use the unblock process to explain when you can copy and paste text into Wikipedia.

I have also opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lmmnhn. MER-C 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C WTF I never edited Duncan Bluck. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I never edited Duncan Bluck. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Other than the fact that this doesn't address any of the reasons for why you were blocked, what's this? Are you claiming that isn't you? You clearly edited Duncan Bluck. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have edited more than a thousands articles and my contributions have been widely recognised. I don't think it is fair to block me indefinitely for one or two copyvio allegations. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to provide us assurance that you understand the copyright policy before being allowed to edit again. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lmmnhn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand it. The article Carson Wen I got banned for was edited five years ago. I have learned and edited much more quality articles since then. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of Carson Wen

The article Carson Wen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Captain Calm (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hoi Nam (constituency)

Hello, Lmmnhn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hoi Nam".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Civic LegCo members

A tag has been placed on Template:Civic LegCo members requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --TheImaCow (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Democrats LegCo members

Template:Democrats LegCo members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --TheImaCow (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Democrats out of Legco

Hi. It seems there is no real coverage yet of the mass resignation of democrats from Legco - or have I missed something? I notice a little addition stuffed into 2020 Hong Kong Legislative Council candidates' disqualification controversy but that seems inappropriate. I suppose you'll be putting in your usual good work? Cossaxx (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cossaxx: Unfortunately, Lmmnhn has been blocked from Wikipedia for copyright violations. _dk (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a shame. Lmmnhn does such a lot of good work - the grunt work of putting up comprehensive material on important issues, so that others can add in snippets of updates. I don't always agree with every detail of what he/she does, but very much hope to see the Lmmnhn tag appearing again soon. Cossaxx (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020 Hong Kong legislative election

A tag has been placed on Category:2020 Hong Kong legislative election requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent has been nominated for deletion

Category:Hong Kong people of Fujianese descent 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) 14:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Li Shu Fan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Li Shu Fan.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Executive Council of Hong Kong unofficial members 1946–1997

Hi there, I have been editing articles related to Hong Kong politics recently. In List of Executive Council of Hong Kong unofficial members 1946–1997, what came to my attention was the list stating the number of official and unofficial members. Instead of 4, there should only be 3 official members excluding the Governor by the end of the colonial period, i.e. Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary and Justice Secretary. I would genuinely appreciate it if you could provide the source for that, or at least list out which 4 of them were. Cheers. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 15:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)