Talk:Hong Kong Police Force

message: Is there any reason to your mass reverts? From section moving, to POV tags and the blog removals? — MarkH21 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you won't give your reasons or discuss, then we should restore those edits. You're clearly unwilling to talk from . — MarkH21 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the comment on the "Not News" section above and lack of any discussion for any of the 6 different reverts, I'm restoring the previous edits. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: With all my respect, everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia entries in good faith and with good practice. MarkH21, I would kindly ask if you could stop abusing your status as a long-time editor of Wikipedia. Experience or time doesn't necessarily guarantee quality. We would all appreciate positive contributions from you, but not in the form of an edit war, a word war, or blind reporting other editors. Thanks. - (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, both of you, make use of your dispute resolution resources to resolve this. Please also review WP:ONUS and edit accordingly. Thanks. El_C 18:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

text:   Why do you continue to ignore requests for discussion and neglect giving reasons for any of your reverts? These are 10 separate edits and you haven't given a reason for a single one! Giving several requests here, on your talk page, and at WP:AN3 are sufficient notice before continuing with editing activity. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not clear how one would use WP:DRR when the other editor refuses to discuss. Pageseditor has not given a single reason for their reverts, even after 6 requests for discussion here, on their talk page, and at AN3. I would normally go to 3O or RfC when both editors have discussed the issue thoroughly and it is clear that there is no agreement in sight. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cautioned the user to start being more responsive. El_C 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

text: MarkH21 Thank you for your blanket approach of flooding me with messages and without pings. It was certainly my fault for not having sufficient time to pile through your 'un-pinged' request of discussion on 30 September. You clearly know how to play the game of Wikipedia, but I regret I won't be joining in. Not everyone has time to sit at home all day. I understand Wikipedia moderators have good intentions when listening to your side of the story. Congratulations. This has verified my suspicion that the quality of some editors (perhaps an understatement) leaves something to be desired. Please continue to contribute actively to the Wikipedia community while I give my share to the higher intellectual academia. Thanks. (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you on about? We have pinged messages here.  clearly came before . There has been plenty of opportunity for you to explain your reverts, including now. Still nothing. Still waiting. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, sorry I clearly wasn't aware of it - 'there have been plenty of opportunities' - and perhaps I inadvertently ignored your incoming messages as I was busy outside of the Wikipedia world. I'd close this case if I were you. Enjoy savouring the pleasure of successfully reporting an editor. Stop wasting our time, will you? — pageseditor (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, there is still no given reason against making the MOS:CITEPUNCT fixes, moving "Recent developments" into a subsection of "History", removing the redundant "illegal" from "illegal torture", and removing some of the mentions of news reports about the police making arrests per WP:NOTNEWS and the previous "Not News" discussion (as well as WP:UNDUE). If you're not here to discuss anything, then that's your issue. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

text:  At this point, Pageseditor is clearly WP:NOTHERE (point 7). — MarkH21 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  if the user refuses to be responsive, they effectively forfeit their position. Of which I get the sense that this is where we are at.  you can't not find the time to be accountable to other editors, it doesn't work like that. El_C 22:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you can see, that's what I thought in the second and third comments of this very talk section. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanket reverts 

message: Hi everyone! I was reading the new Hong Kong national security law and I came across a passage that I have not read any news reports on. Art. 16 HKNSL, last paragraph states: 'The department for safeguarding national security of the Hong Kong Police Force may recruit qualified professionals and technical personnel from outside the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to provide assistance in the performance of duties for safeguarding national security.' Looks to me like this would enable the HKPF to bring in PRC riot police, even. Anyone care to take a look? The law can be found at . Doanri (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's too speculative. This means that it's still unknown if the HKPF will actually do this. I know that ex-British/Commonwealth personnel who stayed behind after the handover were allowed to stay in. Ominae (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruitment outside HKSAR