Canvassing[edit]

Well, someone canvassed me here.....not sure how many other editors have the same experience. Matthew hk (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit on 15:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ) Evidence of ip posting notice of this (or related discussion) everywhere: User talk:Matthew hk/Archive 33#Lighthouses in Macau and Hong Kong, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Lists of lighthouses in Macau and in Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk thank you. At least two other editors were canvassed; we can't know how many were because of IP-hopping. That's on top of the socking/meatpuppeting. I almost wonder if we need to simply close this discussion and open one that is semi'd, inviting IPs to participate via edit request or something? I don't know. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are there only three that we are talking about? That seems to be a right balance. 219.77.118.18 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... open one that is semi'd, inviting IPs to participate via edit request or something? I don't know." Whatever the case, you shouldn't take on admin role in this area of topics. You have not acted in an impartial manner from the onset. It may be more helpful and constructive if you may participate as an ordinary lay editor. 218.255.11.66 (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in editing here. I literally WP:DGAF about it. I wouldn't even know which way to !vote on this issue, and I'm not interested enough in the question to do any policy research to try to figure it out; if I weren't adminning here, I wouldn't be here. I literally could not be any more qualified to act as an admin here.
Have you seen Deryck C's reply to you about creating an account? His opinion is that, even in Hong Kong, it helps protect your privacy rather than the other way around. Maybe go to the HK user group he suggested and ask the folks there if they agree with him. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... I wouldn't even know which way to !vote on this issue, and I'm not interested enough in the question to do any policy research to try to figure it out; ..." Your actions speak louder than your words. You have all along helped him or her to fix things at his or her version, and forum-shopped. See, e.g. among others, [1], [2], [3]. As 218.255.111.214 put it above, it was "red-handed". 218.255.11.66 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
, Ok, i am not sure it is offsite canvassing from lihkg or telegram group. But using VPN is a big no-no in wikipedia. It seem some ip editors is using VPN or open proxy from a company called DOMAIN FIVE ENTERPRISES LIMITED, which renting an ip range 124.217.128.0/18 from UGC (edit: HGC). Matthew hk (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew hk, thanks, where do I go to ask for help? —valereee (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whole talk page is a train wreck . I think for now just place the discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and those teen and kid will learn the karma of vote. Which vote does not work in wikipedia. I don't saw another chance to close the thread other then "no consensus". Matthew hk (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the ip claimed DOMAIN FIVE ENTERPRISES is an agency company of UGC (edit: HGC) at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. I guess they are too bored at work to abuse the company ip range to vote twice..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of UGC? 124.217.189.34 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UGC? 124.217.189.34 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, typos. HGC. Matthew hk (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And i miss the point the company is not a subsidiary of HGC but a subsidiary of HGC's former parent: Hutchison Telecommunications Hong Kong Holdings. But anyway it seems not a ISP https://3care.com.hk/VHIS/aboutus/index-en.jsp

Domain Five Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hutchison Telecommunications Hong Kong Holdings Limited, is an authorized insurance agency in Hong Kong and registered with the Insurance Agents Registration Board (Registration No.: FA2643). Domain Five Enterprises Limited is an authorized insurance distributor of FWD Lift Insurance Company (Bermuda) Limited and FWD General Insurance Company Limited. Hutchison Telephone Company Limited provides IT and network supports to Domain Five Enterprises Limited.

.
-- Matthew hk (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk Hi. Do you have anything to backup: "SAR is the same level as province and the 'Autonomous' region like Tibet". Thanks. --Now wiki (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we live in the same timeline? Since 1997 Hong Kong is part of China for whatever verb people described (occupied? handover? takeoever?). http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-06/15/content_18253.htm

目前中国有34个省级行政区，包括23个省、5个自治区、4个直辖市、2个特别行政区。

People can delusional that Hong Kong is not part of China (in their dream) BTW.
Matthew hk (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution of 1982 doesn't put them together does it? Whose being delusional here? If they're part of that as much as provinces and autonomous regions do why have they got separate marine traffic administrations? What's "takeoever", btw? 43.224.235.7 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are the party secretaries in charge of the special administrative regions at the same rank in the bureaucratic hierarchy or similarly positioned in their order of precedence as those in charge of provinces and autonomous regions? 43.224.235.7 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same thing? Hong Kong is part of China since 1997 is not the equivalent of "SAR is the same level as province and the 'Autonomous' region like Tibet". According to the Basic Law, "Except the Basic Law and the Constitution, national laws are not enforced in Hong Kong unless they are listed in Annex III and applied by local promulgation or legislation". Can you tell me which province or 'Autonomous' region in China have the same status? Any proof that the Marine Department of Hong Kong is accountable to the Marine Safety Administration of China? --Now wiki (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Now wiki Would that be something too difficult for some folks to understand? It's often better to put things in plain(er) language isn't it? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Now wiki: Please undo what he does to the list. He got nothing to back up what he claims. 118.140.125.81 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South China Sea lighthouses[edit]

Should these lighthouses be counted as lighthouses in China? Are there any relevant Wikipedia policies regarding buildings and structures on disputed soil? [4] [5] [6] 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lighthouse Directory at UNC have maintained a separate list for the Spratly Islands under the Southeast Asia grouping.[7] 58.177.160.150 (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The islands and their lighthouses would be subject to WP:Notability (geographic features). Also review WP:GNG. My suggestion is to avoid issues that would raise a red flag with reviewers working in WP:AFC and WP:NPP, and simply follow the notability guidelines - and don't hesitate to ask questions. You are close to having justification for a spin-off list considering China recently constructed about 5 new lighthouses, so check them out for notability, and avoid adding only statistics which makes them subject to WP:NOTDIR. Also, any lighthouses that are included need to pass GNG which is dependent on citing at least 3 high quality independent WP:RS, excluding other stat lists. Articles about lighthouses that have historic significance (not just a simple tourist attraction) that are/were important to their respective geographic locations are a good place to start. If all the IPs who commented here (be it one person or many) would simply register an account, and actually consider what we've been explaining in an effort to help you, you may find that it will prove beneficial to your goals rather than being an obstruction to them. Atsme 💬 📧 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above has left me wonder whether this learned Wikipedian had read what he or she was responding to, or what are in the three hyperlinks enclosed. The lighthouses concerned were built on disputed islands (note: even their status as islands is disputed as far as international maritime/hydrographic law is concerned) in the South China Sea controlled by Chung-nan-hai. They certainly aren't "tourist attractions" (no civilians may reach them anyway), nor would they have any historical significance for the time being given that they were only recently built. But they are certainly notable given their importance to geopolitics of the broader region. The question was that whether these lighthouses should be considered "lighthouses in China" and covered by the umbrella of this list, thereby justifying their inclusion here. Would RfC be the way forward? Or should editors simply go ahead and add them to this list? 58.177.160.150 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, a spin-off list? Why do we need to do so if these are Chinese lighthouses? And why would an account be relevant here? In what way would that be relevant to materials for actual content? 58.177.160.150 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference: The Vietnam list already contains those lighthouses on the islands of Spratlys which Vietnam control. [8] As mentioned above, the UC list is available here. [9] 58.177.160.150 (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the lighthouse on Machias Seal Island is at the time being included under the list for lighthouses in Canada and and that for Maine. The lighthouse on Uotsuri-jima covered by the list of lighthouses in Okinawa-ken in the Japanese language. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another point of reference would be the List of airports in the Spratly Islands. 219.76.24.200 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. Any more examples in other countries? For example before the ruling on Horsburgh? 118.140.125.81 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics in names[edit]

Most of the lighthouses currently listed under the table of Chinese lighthouses have included in their names the hànyǔ pīnyīn diacritics, so are those on Cuarteron, Johnson and Subi reefs that have just been added. Should these diacritic marks be needed and retained? 219.76.24.202 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea which way would be better for the general audience. Here's some food for thought: Talk:Ho Chi Minh#Requested move 10 October 2021. 219.76.24.200 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gǎn'ēnjiǎo[edit]

Note to self: Gǎn'ēnjiǎo Lighthouse does not seem to be in the current list — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banyangjiao Lighthouse[edit]

I can find no information on Banyangjiao Lighthouse (Q17022186). Zooming into Google maps shows me that there is indeed a lighthouse at this position, but I can find no reliable sources for this name. Can anyone identify it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - found it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories