User talk:Hanteng

Archives

Archive 1

• Wikimedia UK-funded travel report to Wikisym 2011 and Wikimedia Foundation
• by Han-Teng Liao & Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford

With sustaining interest from corporate, civic and academic sectors, the Wiki spirit has evolved from the simple idea for open collaboration, to an array of real-world applications that uses the content and tools surrounding the common resource of the global Wikipedia project.

This is a report written by two researchers from the Oxford Internet Institute, Han-Teng Liao and Dr. Mark Graham. With the travel award generously provided by the Wikimedia UK, the authors attended The Wikisym 2011 and visited Wikimedia Foundation. The aim of the report is to provide a narrative that selects some of the work by researchers and practitioners to highlight the global and public impact of the Wikipedia project.

Launched in 2001, the Wikipedia project has attracted volunteers around the world to contribute both content, computer codes and financial support to maintain and grow "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Celebrating its tenth anniversary this year, Wikipedia as a global project has an expansive and deep impact beyond being just an "online encyclopedia." It has triggered establishment of various institutions, hosted more data, inspired many research ideas and on which various partnerships are formed to sustain and increase the positive impact of Wikipedia ideals and practices (loosely called as the "wiki-spirit") around the world. A conference dedicated to wiki research and practice, WikiSym (International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration), has also been one of the most important annual venues for participants to reflect on, exchange and experiment with new ideas and experiences surrounding wikis and the wiki open collaborative spirit.

The continuing interest from civic, corporate and academic institutions in Wikipedia was confirmed by the three keynote speeches.

The opening keynote speaker is the CEO of Creative Commons, Ms. Cathy Casserly, whose previous job was the Director of the Open Education Resource (OER) Initiative at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, another civic organization which invests more than $100 million "to harness the efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge sharing worldwide." Creative Commons is a civic organization which has been the key partner for the Global Wikipedia project in content copyright (or to be precise, copyleft) licensing.

The WikiViz (Wiki-Visualization contest) invited keynote speaker, Dr Jeffrey Heer, is a Standford professor whose research aims at making sense of large data collections by investigating the perceptual, cognitive, and social factors involved. Heer's academic work in building visualization techniques and tools helps data analysts from different sectors.

The closing keynote speaker, Dr. Ed Chi is a Staff Research Scientist at Google, uses Wikipedia as one of the major cases of Social Computing for what he called "Model-Driven Research". As one of the major people working on Google Plus, he compares the online social systems such as Google Plus, Twitter, Delicious, and Wikipedia with the model he proposed.

In addition to the above sample of keynote speakers and their institutions who have used Wikipedia as source of inspiration, data and innovation, the Wikimedia Foundation has also in recent years expanded its staff power to engage the global community, modernize its data and technical infrastructure. Since the 2011 Wikisym meeting was hosted in Mountain View, near the office of the Wikimedia foundation in San Francisco, many of the staff members of Wikimedia Foundation were present at the Wikisym, including Mani Pande, Nimish Gautam, and Dario Taraborelli.

With the generous support of the Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia Foundation, the authors of this report were given the opportunity to visit the Wikimedia Foundation, present their own research and had a series of conversations with staff from different departments, including Ms. Sue Gardner the Executive Director of Wikimedia. A more detailed summary of the Wikimedia Foundation visit is presented in the conclusion of this report.

The wide interest in understanding wiki research and practice was also reflected by the institutions who sent delegates or sponsored the Wikisym 2011. In addition to academic institutions from all over the world and across disciplines, companies such as Yandex (the dominant search engine company in Russia) and Answers.com (a New York-based company that aggregate Wiki Q&A and free online dictionary) had their employees attending. A list of self-submitted contact information can be found in the participant list. The authors of this report were the only UK-based participants at the conference.

After ten years of exponential growth, the Wikipedia global project is no longer a start-up textual project and the vast amount of social interaction with its textual and non-textual data does not need to be limited only to the web page-viewing and -editing activities. An important trend for both researchers and the broader community of Wikipedians (confirmed more so during the Wikisym event and the Wikimedia Foundation visit), is that there are increasing demands and tangible benefits to engaging with the data that Wikipedia and its sister projects have accumulated in the past ten years. It means that while the encyclopedia content remains important and significant part of the Wikipedia global project, the documented editing trails, collected traffic data, and different ways of engaging the data sets (which includes content pages, talk pages, community pages, web use logs, donations etc.) will continue to be critical for the ongoing growth of Wikipedia-related activities. In short, better understandings of data can help to address what are missing, comparing what is different, visualizing what has happened and addressing what can be done.

Arguably, no project at the conference engaged with Wikipedia data in a more compelling way than the winner of the WikiViz 2011 contest. A data challenge made jointly by the Wikisym and the Wikimedia Foundation, the WikiViz 2011 competition aimed to visualize the impact of Wikipedia beyond the scope of its own community. The winner, Ms. Jen Lowe from Datatelling.com, presented her work titled"A Thousand Fibers Connect Us: Wikipedia's Global Reach" at the Wikisym 2011. Combining the open data provided by the Wikimedia Foundation and the World Bank, her interactive visualization allows users to explore and identify what is missing in the global participation of Wikipedia projects.

Ms. Jen Lowe combined the open source tools (R for data cleaning and Processing for visualizing) that permit users and researchers to explore the readership of different Wikipedia language versions by country, and to compare countries with high or low levels of internet access. Her goal is to connect the world and the world of Wikipedia. Her passionate speech highlighted the power of visualization to persuade, not just to present the data as is. She made a case for visualizing missing values, missing connections and their potential in highlighting what needs to be done:

"I think that visualization is amazing for its ability to force us to see what's missing; to see the missing values in a collection of data. ... I find that visualization trains my mind to notice what's missing ... The more I do visualization work, the more I notice who's missing, not just globally, but personally."

WikiViz 2011: Screenshot of the winning entry

Jen Lowe presenting her visualization at WikiSym

An important part of the conference was the attention paid to gender imbalances in the encyclopedia, both in terms of content and editors. Two papers in particular demonstrated the gender imbalances not only exist, but also significantly influence the types of information that exist in Wikipedia (the papers were titled "˜An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance' and "˜Gender Differences in Wikipedia Editing').

An excellent example of these imbalances (also raised by Jen Lowe) is the Wikipedia article on Feodor Vassilyev. His wife sets the record for the most children birthed by a single woman, and yet it is Mr. Vassilyev and not Mrs. Vassilyev that is deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Given the fact that the Vassilyevs were alive in the eighteenth century, the masculinist bias that went on to be recorded is perhaps not surprising. However, what is more important is for contemporary information creators on Wikipedia to become aware of such biases and actively work to not reproduce them. In other words, the issue is not just a lack of female editors, but also gender biases embedded into the ways in which we discuss and represent subjects in Wikipiedia.

Shaping Participation: Factors of Language and Geography

Some of the most revealing and fascinating work discussed at the conference was produced by Paolo Massa. Two of his tools should be of great use to the Wikipedia community.

The first, Manypedia, allows anyone to do a side-by-side comparison of the same article in different language versions of Wikipedia. This tool will be invaluable for people writing about topics in which radically different opinions can congeal around linguistic practices (such as articles about the Middle East in the Arabic, English, and Hebrew Wikipedias). Having such a tool can potentially go a long way to working around confirmation biases and assumptions embedded into much of what is written in the encyclopedia.

The second, Wikitrip, allows people to peek into the background of editors of particular Wikipedia pages. By typing in the name of any article, the tool displays a map of the location of all anonymous edits to that page and a breakdown of the genders of editors. While Wikipedia in theory allows edits from anyone, anywhere, this tool is crucially important for demonstrating the very real way in which participation in the encyclopedia can come from a very select group.

A highlight of our trip to Wikisym was the opportunity to visit the Wikimedia headquarter in San Francisco. After exchanging ideas with Wikimedia staff who worked in different areas such as community development, global outreach and technical support, both Mark Graham and Han-Teng Liao gave talks on their on-going Wikipedia-related research, where the Executive Director of Wikimedia Ms. Sue Gardner was present throughout the talk.

Mark's talk on "Wiki-related research" focused on the vast inequalities in representation in the encyclopedia. Not only are some parts of the world covered by much denser layers of representation in Wikipedia (see for instance the figure below), but it is likely that even the parts of the world that are poorly represented have many articles created by editors in Europe and North America. This work is part of an ongoing project in East Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East to examine issues of participation, representation and voice in the Arabic, English, French, Hebrew, Persian and Swahili Wikipedias.

Geotagged articles in English Wikipedia. More map available from Mark Graham's blog [or click here]

Han-Teng's work discussed the editorial, content and reception similarities and differences between Chinese Wikipedia and its major competitor Baidu Baike and why they matter for Chinese-language Internet users. For example, the webometric data shows that Chinese Wikipedia is the most visible Website for almost all Chinese-speaking regions except for the users of Yahoo! and Baidu in mainland China, whereas Baidu Baike is visible for Google across all regions and relatively less visible for Yahoo! in Taiwan. Both being much more visible than all the Chinese government websites (*.gov.cn) and Taiwanese educational websites (*.edu.tw) combined, Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu Baike dominate the search engine result pages (SERPs) alternately in different Chinese-speaking regions, as shown in the network graph below, where both the size of arrows and nodes indicate the estimate click-through rates (CTR) for the top-ten most visible websites. Han-Teng Liao further examined the role of user-generated encyclopedia as the major sites for "public goods" content provisions, and their cultural and political implications for shaping an online public space for those who speaks the same language.

The Most Visible Websites: Based on the top-ten search results of a sample of 2500 search terms across nine Chinese-language search engine environments [or click here]

• Note. The listed nine search engine environments include major search engines of Baidu, Google and Yahoo! across up to four regions (CN: mainland China, HK: Hong Kong, SG: Singapore; TW: Taiwan). The search keywords for mainland China and Singapore are in simplified-Chinese characters; while those used for Hong Kong and Taiwan are in traditional (orthodox) Chinese characters, so as to match the user-profile accordingly.

The 2009[1]Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner, Elinor Ostrom has provided solid research and theoretical resources on the potential benefits for the economic and sustainable governance of the commons, or common pool resources (CPR), with examples such as forests, fisheries, oil fields, grazing lands, and irrigation systems, where the way humans interact with ecosystems to maintain long-term sustainable resource are crucial. Increasing evidence from online data has pointed to the fact that the Wikipedia projects have accumulated some of the largest digital common-pool resource for all people in the world. It is also one of the few major global platforms with high web visibility that is not owned by a commercial company. The work that Wikipedia and its sister projects are doing will thus undoubtedly shape new types of global public knowledge become fixed and produced. It is through this angle we found that the ongoing efforts made by the research community in Wikisym, the global outreach program by the Wikimedia Foundation and its local partners such as Qatar Foundation, and the upcoming wiki data and tool modernization project "Wikidata" proposed by Wikimedia Germany in Berlin, may make some important differences in how the Wikipedia project can ultimately benefit much of human kind.

I looked at your blog on OII, and was quite intrigued. Seems like you've done/are doing some very interesting research. I'm interested to know if you have any summary-like reports on your findings with regard to Chinese Wikipedia. It's a fascinating subject: digital culture as it arises from competing facets of Chinese society. —Zujine|talk 01:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouraging comments. I am releasing some of the results in Zh discussion pages. We will organize also a conference at Oxford on China and the New Internet World, I hope that you can help spreading the word (not here of course, but for those who are interested.) --Hanteng (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you tagged the article Suisheng Zhao as being in need of more reliable sources that are less closely affiliated with the subject. I was just wondering if you might elaborate on the rationale here. One of the references is published by the Korbel school where Zhao teaches. It's likely that Zhao had a hand in writing the biography, but you can be sure that his official bio is reliable for information on his own career. The other reference is to the Taylor & Francis Group, which has no proximity to the subject. Thanks in advance. Homunculus (duihua) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Zhao teaches at the school--> not third party for biography sources
2. Zhao edits the journal--> not third party for biography sources

In other words, let us assume that your rationale of using sources for biography were correct, then all professors who have personal pages from their schools and have published articles can have Wikipedia article entry? This is not the case and does not pass the WP:N. Please understand biography is about people, not about research. Usually only those who are famous and notable enough to be reported by other sources such as 海外华人社会科學家傳记, International Who's Who, can be included in Wikipedia. These sources, unlike the sources you provide for Zhao, are third-party and secondary sources on notable academics.

It is perfectly fine to include Zhao's work, which I use a lot, in other research topic-related entries. But you have to find harder and get better sources for "biography". I hope that you understand. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I can't say I agree with you on Taylor & Francis group. If we were to go to the reliable source noticeboard and pose the question "Is Taylor & Francis Group a reliable source for the assertion that Suisheng Zhao is the editor of the Journal of Contemporary China," there would be no doubt that it is.

That aside, it seems your main concern is that, absent more independent sources, you're not sure Zhao satisfies WP:N. Is that right? Certainly it would be unreasonable for all professors with biographies on their institutions' websites to have wikipedia pages. But we do have a notability guideline specifically for academics, which notes that if a person "is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area," they are presumed to pass WP:N. Same if a person "holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Suisheng Zhao is the chief editor of an influential China journal, and the director of a China studies center at one of the best IR schools in the United States, so he would appear to satisfy the notability criteria. WP:Notability (academics) also notes that "for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." In other words, his biography on the University of Denver site suffices as a source for details on his career. Does that make sense? Homunculus (duihua) 04:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me on the point of English policy on WP:N. Points well taken. I stand corrected on this as I was under the impression that WP:N in Chinese version has been challenged many times. Since the English version policy has specific rules on the "chief editor" status, I am happy to take that point and appreciate your effort in poiting that to me.

However, on the third party sources, my criticism stay valid. I did not challenge, as you might have suggested, that the Taylor & Francis Group or Routeldge is not generally reliable. I simply challenge that they are NOT third party sources because that is where the journal is published. To amend the situation, you need only to add other references that is independent from these publishing entities. I have added two other similarily reliable sources but definitely indepedent from the journal and its publisher. I hope that you can understand.

--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 05:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I'm glad you were able to find more sources to resolve the problem. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 13:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, International Whos Who is not generally accepted here as showing notability. And I'm curious why the Chinese version has been challenged. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your recent work on Cultural genocide introduced two broken refs: "AbtahiWebb2008" and "Davidson2012" which I cannot identify. Perhaps you can fix the entries. see [2] Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My bad. It is fixed. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chinese Rites controversy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chinese Rites controversy for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 09:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cannot do it without your constructive review! --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 10:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MrNiceGuy1113. Hanteng, thanks for creating Weiquan Lawyers!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article will get a striking façade if broken into sections with headings

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans-Bredow-Institut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Reith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Another person has written a very good article on "barefoot Lawyer" in regards to China. The problem is it's only in English and Arabic. Is there any chance that you would take a look at it and see if it's something you might be interested in translating or maybe refer someone that could help? It's a very important article. Thanks and hope to talk soon. I can be reached at Dounai99. I'm kind of a beginner so sorry about not using the right formatting for everything. Take care71.49.95.52 (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing me. Now I am busy with my real job and I cannot help at the moment with actual editing. If you need any particular assistance in finding relevant sources in English or Chinese, I may be able to provide you with some references. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 07:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good to see you. and your edits here. bluedeck. Chef Executed Officer (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of dictatorships page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of modern dictators in Latin America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern dictators in Latin America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting undefinable concepts like "dictatorship" with sources is straight out of Alice in Wonderland. The very point I'm making is that rounding up this, that, or the other (tendentiously created) source to "prove" that a country is a dictatorship is ridiculous. Political activists grinding axes use the concept "dictatorship" as part of a dichotomy with "democracy." Serious scholars do not and have not since the 1960s. Carrite (talk) 8:29 am, Today (UTC−7)

User:Carrite seems to believe the following (without any sources, see User_talk:Hanteng#GIGO, exactly):

• Concepts like "dictatorship" is undefinable.
• '[S]ource to "prove" that a country is a dictatorship is ridiculous.'
• 'Political activists grinding axes use the concept "dictatorship" as part of a dichotomy with "democracy."'
• The DD index is garbage.
• "Serious scholars do not and have not since the 1960s."

I have reminded User:Carrite that

• Published systematic definitions of dictatorship exist in recent literature from political science (esp. comparative politics) and history
• Peer review academic communities have been discussing concepts, methods and datasets that "classify" regimes. Others can check if the academic dicsussion on measuring and classifying regimes is well and alive with at least two school of thoughts, minimalist and substantive (e.g. [[3]]).
• The DD index may be garbage in User:Carrite 's eyes, but not only it is published [4] in a peer-review journal and cited more than 500 times since its publication in 2010 [5]. (The authors of the article are the ones who provided the DD index)
• User:Carrite needs to substantiate the cliam that "[s]erious scholars do not and have not since the 1960s" with reliable sources.

Note in Carrite's user talk page, it seems to me that User:Carrite has strong personal and almost "dichotomous" views on literature on dictatorship: "Serious scholars do not and have not since the 1960s." Does this suggest any scholars after the 1960s working and publishing on the topic of dictatorships are "not seriious scholars"? While I agree that data sources such as Polity data series, Democracy Index, DD index, etc., have their conceptual, methodological and institutional limitations, they are in fact taken seriously (both for and against) by academic communities and media organizations. They are notable and thus require substantive knowledge for readers to exercise well-informed and critical judgement, which I believe is part of the reasons why we have Wikimedia's mission as part of global knowledge movement.

(In particular, despite my own personal academic view against methodological nationalism, i.e. nation-states as the main unit of analysis, I find it important to curate cross-country comparative datasets on Wikipedia and its sister projects, with a Wikimania 2014 submission that is currently under review: A data curation hub for students, journalists and writers: Country data reuse and coordination.)

I find it difficult to understand User:Carrite's personal assessment of political science literature and history since the 1960s, and his personal dichotomous classification of scholars and their work (e.g. "Serious scholars do not and have not since the 1960s." DD index is garbage. As User:Carrite has signalled that he will not engage this topic substantivley (i.e. "moving on"), it is important for us to distinguish between the publised views by reliable knowledge (not opinion) sources versus the expressed views by Wikipedia edtors. To my mind, calling datasets such as DD index garbage is not helpful.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 09:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of military dictatorships is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military dictatorships until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dictatorship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reliability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Democracy and Dictatorship. Since you had some involvement with the Democracy and Dictatorship redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Open collaboration page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hanteng/Template:Weiquan Lawyers, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hanteng/Template:Weiquan Lawyers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hanteng/Template:Weiquan Lawyers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Foundation of Women’s Rights Promotion and Development requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:. Thanks for letting me know. The article has been improved with a statement of significance (with citation). See [6]. Please remove the speedy deletion request template if possible. Thanks.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 09:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it seems ok now. More references would of course help still further. And for the references in Chinese, it would be a good idea to give a English translation of a key phrase. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Democracy and Dictatorship. Since you had some involvement with the Democracy and Dictatorship redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hanteng. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of regimes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails NPOV

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ibicdlcod (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Han Population world.tif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to File:Han Population world distribution.png but with different file formats.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hanteng. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of regimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]