User talk:Symphony Regalia: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== March 2020 == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, and [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome to Wikipedia]]. You appear to be repeatedly [[Help:Reverting|reverting or undoing]] other editors' contributions at [[:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2]]. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "[[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]" and is usually seen as obstructing the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|normal editing process]], as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on the [[:Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2|talk page]]. |
|||
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|lose their editing privileges]]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 02:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|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 [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 08:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Conspiratorial thinking == |
== Conspiratorial thinking == |
||
Look, maybe I was too insulting of you to begin with, but the problem is that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engaged with Dekimasu on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? I have checked twitter and "China virus" is not a widely used term on there, with less than a dozen tweets an hour using the term. I don't know Dekimasu in any capacity outside the Coronavirus article, though I have great respect for him. What I would like to address is your conspiratorial thinking. We are not trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese goverment, it is just that we think that the name isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
Look, maybe I was too insulting of you to begin with, but the problem is that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engaged with Dekimasu on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? I have checked twitter and "China virus" is not a widely used term on there, with less than a dozen tweets an hour using the term. I don't know Dekimasu in any capacity outside the Coronavirus article, though I have great respect for him. What I would like to address is your conspiratorial thinking. We are not trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese goverment, it is just that we think that the name isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
== March 2020 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours''' for [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]] and violating the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> |
|||
== [[WP:BRD]] == |
== [[WP:BRD]] == |
||
Revision as of 07:39, 18 March 2020
Conspiratorial thinking
Look, maybe I was too insulting of you to begin with, but the problem is that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engaged with Dekimasu on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? I have checked twitter and "China virus" is not a widely used term on there, with less than a dozen tweets an hour using the term. I don't know Dekimasu in any capacity outside the Coronavirus article, though I have great respect for him. What I would like to address is your conspiratorial thinking. We are not trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese goverment, it is just that we think that the name isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You are free to make bold edits, but please follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If your edits are challanged, you are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page so a consensus may be reached. Calling a popular term a misnomer in the intro is inserting a clear WP:POV. Also don't edit logged out to evade a block. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I am here to strike through the last part of my comment, I see you've been impersonated by a vandal who was trying to get you into trouble, sorry for that. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Your editing history consists almost solely of WP:POVPUSHING, and has for the most part not produced any meaningful improvement and has only resulted in wasting other editors valuable time. While you're clearly not a troll, merely an obstinate pedant, you're just as disruptive. You can go through my editing history and see that I have productively contributed to this enycyclopedia while you have not. You have become fixated on the fact that I have repeatedly insulted you, and you think that I am somehow persecuting you, which is delusional, I hold no more power than any other wikipedia editor, but you somehow think you deserve respect despite the fact than pretty much all yur editing is unconstructive. I still haven't got an answer as to why you reverted the edit by the Architect sock on Dekimasu's talk page, reverting users edits to their own talk page is a huge-no-no. If this pattern of behaviour continues then this will probably end up at the administrators noticeboard. Every other editor who has expressed an opinion diagrees with you. Do something productive with your time or don't contribute at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Symphony Regalia. I first became aware of the issues at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 when I closed this edit warring report that you filed. Now that I have perused the discussion on that talk page, I have to agree that you are wasting others' time. You also believe that Hemiauchenia filed "two bogus reports to intimate me". This is after you were blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on 5 March. Since that block expired it is hard for me to identify anything useful that you have done. Administrators have the authority to issue blocks under WP:NOTHERE if they perceive that someone's edits are not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe any of these accusations are warranted, and I don't see how discussing improvements to an article can be seen as a waste of time. Regardless, the discussion is rather stale as only two people have chimed in, so I am waiting to give time for other editor opinions. I am also contributing to other articles. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Argh! no, no, no ...
" It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. " NO! I go thru this with so many students. Nationality=Ethnicity, NOT citizenship. Only those recognized as ethnically Chinese (typically those around the heart of Yellow River China) are "Chinese." Han Chinese is the largest grouping. There is no way I can ever be a Persian - I can become a citizen of Iran, but I remain English in my ethnicity/nationality. Please review "nation-state" and so on. There's been a lot of sloppy, "politically correct" nonsense in many schools of late, and this sort of sloppy talk will drive a historian or linguist mad. "race" doesn't play a part here - the non-scientific, but social, definition would be "Mongoloid" but as so many nationalities are part of this, it's useless in discussing ethnicity. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.197 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nationality has absolutely nothing to do ethnicity. Nationality is a legal construct, that is decided by law. There are Chinese people of all races. You should not be erasing those people. Furthermore, (Han) Chinese is also an ethnicity, but ethnicity is decided by shared culture/traditions/language, and not blood. For example Borris Johnson and Vladimur Putin are of the same race, but of different ethnicities. Although minorities, there are Black Chinese and White Chinese who, for example, are both legally and culturally (Han) Chinese. If you have students, I fear you are doing them a great disservice, and are not doing your job. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)