User talk:Pasdecomplot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:30, 15 September 2020

Welcome!

Hello, Pasdecomplot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! O3000 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Pasdecomplot, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pasdecomplot! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So sweet, and I'll rsvp as yes. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pasdecomplot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Been sanctioned?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"aligning left for easier reading again"

Hi. FYI: {{outdent}} or {{od}} will create an out-dented reply, that looks this:

A message

A reply

Another reply

It's getting crowded over here

Outdented reply after {{od}}

new intended reply to that

another reply

A new thread having nothing to do with the above

a reply to that

Also, typing four hyphens "----" will create a horizontal rule, like this:

And that lets you separate off one section from another. It's somewhere in between outdenting and starting a new subheader.

There's a script called WP:REPLYLINK that makes all this much easier. If you haven't already, go to preference->gadgets and check the box for "Install scripts without having to edit JavaScript files", which will activate the script installer button. Then go to WP:REPLYLINK and click "install". You'll then see a "reply" button after talk page comments, and you can click "reply" and write your message in the box, and it takes care of all the indenting for you so yo don't have to worry about it. Reply link was written by a volunteer editor and isn't perfect; in some threads it doesn't work; but most of the time it does work and makes communicating much, much easier. (There are lots of other scripts you also might find useful, listed at WP:USL.)

Oh and if you're wondering why we're using 1980s technology to communicate, see WP:FLOW and the links therein. HTH Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So cool. Really challenged by using a mobile system - makes looking for proper editing code while editing tough, especially w/o PC perks. Thanks Levivich! Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't even notice you are editing on mobile. Bless your heart, that makes everything significantly more difficult! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate editing by smartphone, especially when it decides all by itself to switch on predictive text (ugh) and I haven't noticed. You might find this an interesting read. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GirthSummit and Levivich. Must always remember to disable auto-correct! I'll read the piece. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le quagmire

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

wish to protect account from hijacking while gone. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have a strong password and enable Meta:2fa Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Praxidicae. Worried about it due to recent login bizzarities, assuming from the internet connection. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mobile editing

Hey, Pasdecomplot, I know you're taking a sabbatical but, for when you get back: an editor who edits often on his device recommends not using the mobile site or the app but instead the desktop site, which you can get to by scrolling down to the bottom of any article. He has an essay about smartphone editing at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. I think it's possible using the mobile site or the app, combined with unfamiliarity with the desktop site, might have caused issues that then caused a communications disconnect between you and other editors, including me, and if that's true I apologize. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your apology —valereee is for repeatedly redirecting George Floyd talk page discussions of important content edits which needlessly harassed a new editor, then for continuing by pushing for a BLP ban, for three months, for format issues such as tabbing but not based on content issues, then I accept. But I hesitate to even respond since a response could illicit further harassment.

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question. If you have a problem like that again, report it at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vchimpanzee • talk

Thank you for your diligence

Hi Pasdecomplot,

Thank you for your edit expanding the section "20th century" on the Tibetan Buddhism page. It's important those of us familiar with Tibetan Buddhism and Maoist China work together. Time is precious, and so we need to support each other... There is a very real and current danger to our teachings and methods, and that is Chinese manipulation. You should know both OTD and TTD want the same thing - that is to unite the Karma Kagyu lineage. Let it unfold with time, and it will. Skillfully. Have confidence. You don't need to rush. Understand that there are and were very real dangers to the lives of both OTD and TTD and their families. China would have its way and kill both of them. Many high lamas have been killed. For this reason a lot of information has to be kept in secrecy. This means you and I don't know the full story regarding, and don't need to. Dharma is intact. Each of us needs to work together, and not create unnecessary work for each other. We have busy lives, and editing on wikipedia is noble work. All best wishes, Badabara (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Badabara Thanks for the positive wishes! Working in unison is always easier than working in conflict, but Mr Floyd went way overboard... Regards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, deemed a false report by you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pasdecomplot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, An editor with POV and deletion issues, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the dispute

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sinicization of Tibet. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have still not provided a reliable source (i.e. not from the Central Tibet Administration, International Campaign for Tibet, or other similar advocacy group) for the monument claim. And don't refer to edits as "vandalism" (edit summary) when they are not. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo I definitely am not attacking other editors nor have I commented on "other contributors or people". Those claims are clearly mischaracterizations directed at me personally, now located on my talk page. As the subject's talk page evidences, I am trying to reedit incorrect information and POV. And attempting to build consensus. Central Tibetan Administration is not an advocacy group - another mischaracterization. CTA is the elected Tibetan government, and their are as a government entity a reliable source, whether or not it pleases China. Repeatedly removing accurate information in the photo's caption on Sinicization of Tibet that better addresses the page's subject in order to promote Chinese POV contrary to the page's subject is imo a form of vandalism. Please don't make personal attacks or mischaracterize editing on an editor's talk page. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grounds for the "vandalism" remark, as you did here, time to admit to that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiduo On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. This text describes the reverts on the photo's captions at Sinicization of Tibet. The point stands.Pasdecomplot 08:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word malicious. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record,a similar notice was sent to @CaradhrasAiguo which was promptly reverted by same user. Here's the report [1]. Pasdecomplot 10:45 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm sympathetic to your content concerns in your current dispute. But I chose not to jump in at ANI because you are hurting your own case. Per WP:VANDAL, If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. In other words, all that matters for WP:VANDAL is whether or not it appears that CaradhrasAiguo believes they are improving Wikipedia. I think they do. Therefore, the edits are not vandalism. And in a dispute like this, you hurt yourself when you don't hear other editors who are telling you that. By continuing with that particular accusation, you hurt yourself because people are less inclined to consider whether or not your other concerns have merit. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny Thank you so much for the advice-I'll act accordingly. Also, given the kind explaination of apparent intention as versus effected result and with the same logic, it seems an editor can pretend to be improving the project, thus cannot be accused of VAND. I definitely understand the nuance better. Best regards, Pasdecomplot 18:44 12 September 2020 (UTC)

A Block Request and a Block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violation, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 19:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, @El_C I added current info to the Chris Buckley page to include his work on Xinjiang papers which was completely well intentioned, he's a friend of a friend... I wasn't paying attention. Please, it won't happen again.

And meanwhile, I cannot post the edits to a discussion on administrator's board. Is it possible to at least finish the work in progress there - an unfortunate request for a block against CaradhrasAiguo (whom I see just reverted edits on Buckley)?

And, may I ask about the length of the block? So sorry, and thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C Interesting that the 2 day block happened (at 19:17) as I was requesting a block (at 18:33) against a pro-Chinese editor, but maybe that's the result of pinging him? Hum.

Here's the text in progress for the administrator's board:

Block needed on CaradhrasAiguo ; removing earlier possible VAND citation

It's not good that it's necessary to request the sanction, but another diff on CaradhrasAiguo censoring content on the project is available. That editor is going through this editor's contributions on pages where reports of China's cultural cleansing of Tibet are located, and reverting, sometimes months of various edits by editors, based on the editor's entrenched POV, their WP:OR on various sources, while reasserting their questionable "academic" sources. The revert continues to be bad faith, and clearly functions as a form of continuing censoring of information on Wikipedia which is not part of their entrenched POV and not pro-China. Yesterday, that editor also deleted a BBC RS and associated edits on the abducted 11th Panchen Lama here [2] to reassert his entrenched POV aligned with "academic" Melvin Goldstein whose work is disputed by Jamyang Norbu. In that revert, deleted also was a common use image, another file image by another editor, text associated with RS's from the government entity Central Tibetan Administration, as were sourced details supported by included RS's (International Campaign for Tibet, The Statesman, Tibet Post International, The Tibet Post, UNPO, ) which are supported by numerous other available international RS on the 1995 abduction and continued forced disappearance of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima.

Goldstein's POV has been given undue weight as the primary source for the page, while 4 remaining RS are Chinese news sources that cannot be verified since no translations are provided by that editor.

Based on that editor's opinions (looking for diff) regarding Radio Free Asia being a "CIA" unreliable source (no supporting RS provided by CaradhrasAiguo), logic follows that any Chinese news source is likewise unreliable since they are controlled by security agencies [3]. Does this mean - if CaradhrasAiguo is not sanctioned - that all editors could dig through Wikipedia and delete all RS and associated text using Chinese news sources?

(saving to edit and continue adding diffs) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be a pain here, really. But when you are blocked, it doesn't help to ask for a block on someone else. Admins won't listen. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adoring nanny I asked for the block at 18:33, edited it and was blocked at 19:17 before completing request. So, just to make a point, the request occurred before the block...what a mess. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, you were facing an imminent block in that thread, anyway, so what does it matter? El_C 20:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @El_C, but aren't diffs reviewed before decisions are made?

Does the evidence in the diffs, which strongly indicate CaradhrasAiguo's conduct problems, entrenched POV and undue weight in favor of pro-Chinese political positions, of censoring in the form of bad faith reverts of info and RS's mean...nothing?

If I understand, presenting conclusions - which are fully based on the editor's conduct and diffs - before diffs are examined could negate all of the evidence in the diffs because the conclusions can be alleged to be Aspirations, before the diffs are even examined? For which a person can be blocked, while the real problems which matter greatly, as the diffs indicate, get free passes? Hum. Obviously, there's something I must not be understanding. So sorry to ask for explainations. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot 21:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect about the allegation of WP:ASPIR: @El_C, I've followed the recommended process and brought the issue to the board. If I hadn't, then maybe the allegation would have merit - if I understand the section on ASPIR to mean what it says. Additionally, CaradhrasAiguo's list of Articles created about China [4], on the user's page - which also highlights user's proficiency in Chinese dialects - is an additional diff which indictates the accusation of ASPIR and the proposition to block for ASPIR by @EdJohnston on behalf of CaradhrasAiguo very unjust. Meanwhile, during the block, what will be done to prohibit CaradhrasAiguo from continuing to revert edits that I and other editors have contributed related to Chinese "sinicization" and religious persecution in Tibet, reverts that censure very specific information on Wikipedia? Thanks. Pasdecomplot 22:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RS on Chinese state censoring of information

Here's good RS on Chinese monitoring, censoring, and crackdowns on online speech under Xi Jinping: the social media crackdown in 2013 [5], and on the 39 Chinese companies agreeing to aid in censoring efforts in 2011 [6], and (live link?) [7], and on the 2 million "public opinion analysts" hired to help in 2013 [8], and on Xi's intensified crackdowns in 2016 against "dissenting versions" of China's history [9].

Here's more good RS on China's censoring of BBC affiliates and their blocking of access to English Wikipedia as well as Chinese Wikipedia before Xi in 2008, [10] which includes mention of blocking access to sites that report on Tibet, But other domains are still blocked, The BBC says, including sites for the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, human rights groups like Amnesty International, and organizations promoting Tibetan independence..

Another on China's blocking Wikipedia, from 2006, [11] and a quotation, The Communist Party polices these emerging Internet communities with censors and undercover agents, and manages a Web site that it said received nearly a quarter-million anonymous tips about "harmful information" online last year. But the methods the party uses to control speech and behavior in the real world have proved less effective in cyberspace, where people get away with more, and where the government is often a step behind. When authorities catch up, citizens often have already weakened the party's grip on public life and succeeded in expanding civil society. They have organized charity drives for rural schoolchildren and mobilized students for anti-Japanese protest marches. And they learned to work together to write an encyclopedia. The point? China has a history of blocking access to English Wikipedia, and is censoring reports on history which involves China.

China also has a history of blocking access to BBC China. Here's a good RS on the 2008 Tibetan uprising in Lhasa and clashes with Chinese security forces, which is offered as an illustration of the unreliability of Chinese state media, as versus the reliability of BBC UK in reporting on the events, including the mention of difficulties in verifying reports due to Chinese controls:[12] with quotations, 'Eighty killed' in Tibetan unrest... Chinese troops were out in force in Lhasa on Sunday...At least 80 people have been killed in unrest following protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule, the Tibetan government in exile says. Indian-based officials said the figure was confirmed by several sources, even though China put the death toll at 10. The Dalai Lama called for an international inquiry into China's crackdown, accusing it of a "rule of terror" and "cultural genocide". Chinese troops were out in force in Lhasa, Tibet's main city, on Sunday. Hong Kong Cable TV reported that about 200 military vehicles, each carrying 40 to 60 armed soldiers, had driven into the city. Loudspeakers broadcast messages, such as: "Discern between enemies and friends, maintain order." China tightly restricts Western journalists' access to Tibet and it is sometimes extremely difficult to verify what is going on. The Chinese official news agency Xinhua says 10 people died on Friday, including business people it said were "burnt to death". But the Tibetan government in exile later said at least 80 corpses had been counted, including those of 26 people killed on Saturday next to the Dratchi prison in Lhasa. Other bodies were spotted near the Ramoche Buddhist temple, and near a Muslim mosque and a cathedral in Lhasa, said Tenzin Taklha, a senior aide to the Dalai Lama. "These reports come from relatives, from our people inside and from contacts of our department of security. They have all been confirmed multiple times," he said. In an interview with the BBC, the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, said he feared there would be more deaths unless Beijing changed its policies towards Tibet, which it has ruled since invading in 1950. "It has become really very, very tense. Now today and yesterday, the Tibetan side is determined. The Chinese side also equally determined. So that means, the result: killing, more suffering," he said. "Ultimately, the Chinese government is clinging of policy, not looking at the reality. They simply feel they have gun - so they can control. Obviously they can control. But they cannot control human mind," he warned.

Based on this report and the other RS, the Chinese state controlled efforts to censor media also extends outside the internet and into the communities of Tibet, into which foreigners are denied access.

In the last few days, four different pages related to Tibet in the English Wikipedia project have been reverted by an editor, responsible for deleting RS and associated text. The RS included reports from BBC, The Statesman (India), International Campaign for Tibet, Free Tibet, governmental entities Central Tibetan Administration and UNESCO, International Tibet Post, The Tibet Post, and from UNPO. On a page entitled the 11th Panchen Lama controversy, the remaining RS detailing the 1995 abduction and forced disappearance by China of the recognized Panchen Lama were from a Chinese source (without translation) and from a criticised academic source, among another also without verifiability, found likewise on other pages. Image files were also deleted. One of the images was reinserted.

In 2020, RS indicate the abduction and forced disappearance of the Panchen Lama continue to be condemned by the international community - recently, by 159 international organizations acting together with the UN - but the deleted RS and text also removed this information.

The given reason? The editor opined all the RS were from "advocacy groups", without providing RS to support the opinion. No additional reason was given for deleting the image files.

In 2008 China blocked sites that report on Tibet, and then intensified efforts in 2016 to crackdown on "dissenting" versions of history. Sources that support the Chinese government's censored version of events also effectively advocate for censored versions of history.

In this editor's opinion (allowed on talk), the reverts and deletions on the pages follow a exceedingly similar patterns used by China's state controlled media outlets, which can be defined as advocacy groups, and by its corps of "public opinion analysts" to block access to information or to the reporting of historical events which China deems "dissenting".

Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy groups can be used as reliable sources about their own positions, but they can't be used to prove controversial facts about the issues they're advocating for. Yes, they're experts, but they have a point of view they're pushing. That's the very definition of advocacy, and it's what makes them not reliable for our purposes. We need neutral experts. The Central Tibetan Administration can't be used as a reliable source for information about Tibet's conflict with China, any more than the Trump Adminstration can be used as a reliable source for how Trump's handled COVID. BBC's good, not familiar with The Statesman (India). UNESCO is iffy, information on why that is here. —valereee (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, editing your own comments after they've received replies is discouraged, per WP:TALK#REPLIED. —valereee (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg. 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) 02:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bad faith revert deleted the image, which is offered by International Campaign for Tibet as a tool to help the international community locate the subject of the photo. The bad faith edit orphaned the file temporarily. Posted since 15 June, a bot search previously did not discover any copyright. Curious the bot says it's copyrighted after the bad faith revert, but not before. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what I'm talking about. Everyone has told you Caradhras' edits were not bad faith, and yet you are intent on repeating they were, which is a personal attack on them, which can lose you access to your talk page, which will surprise absolutely no one but you if it happens. I'd advise you to strike that comment. Also you're talking to a bot. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11th Panchen Lama controversy is Category: Biography without living parameters, not BLP

Hey, PDC, a good point was made at my talk that 11th Panchen Lama controversy arguably falls under BLP guidelines, which means you still are under your topic ban for that. I don't think those were bad faith edits, as the article was not marked as such, and I can see how you could have believed you were editing in good faith. It's marked now, so please don't edit there again until your topic ban is up.

And I see you aren't going to take my advice. I'm sorry for that, because I think an indef is on its way if you continue to edit in contentious areas while you're still learning our policies. I'm going to be very direct: right now, the trouble you are causing by wasting other editors' time and energy far outweighs any useful edits you are making. When that is true of an editor, and when no amount of well-intentioned coaching seems to be making any progress whatsoever, they get indefinitely blocked. If they continue to make a ruckus on their talk page, like you did during the recent short block, they lose access to that, too. Trying to edit as an IP or open a new account is called wp:sockpuppetry and considered to be wp:block evasion and we have tools to detect that. That is where you're headed right now, and honestly I think it's going to be some admin's next move if you simply remove this advice without bothering to respond in a way that convinces everyone watching here that you're finally going to start listening. —valereee (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C stated Buddhist pages are not BLP in June, so that reason which might protect CaradhrasAiguo's nonRS, V problems, factual errors, and the continued conduct issues doesn't jibe with El_C before today.

Were all Buddhist pages changed to BLP today? Or, just the 11th Panchen Lama page was changed? Hum.

"It's marked now, so please don't edit there again until your topic ban is up." Please share the diff where the change in status was decided.

Where's the concern for the content?

The message from Valereee above supports the sense of that editor's untrustworthiness. Fascinating. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C The current status of 11th Panchen Lama controversy is as you mentioned in June.

But, here's a note Valereee added to the page (does it follow policy? Don't other administrators need to concurr? Note was added after Valereee and CaradhrasAiguo communicated here [13] ):

"This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Valereee (talk | contribs) at 10:48, 15 September 2020 (add wikiproject and ds/blp warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version. (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)"

Has the status change from Biography to BLP followed protocol and is it official? The issue is troubling, given the error filled content with WP:V and WP:RS issues on the Panchen Lama page. Sorry for the bother. Thanks again.

Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not all Buddhist pages. This particular Buddhist page, while not a biography of a living person, is very closely related. It's about a controversy about a living person. That means it's covered under Biographies of Living Persons policies. —valereee (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. —valereee (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me @Valereee? Can you provide a diff? I'm very careful not to

make personal attacks. I comment on editing, there must some kind of misunderstanding. (Also waiting on the diff on WP:CON in changing a Bio to a BLP.) Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 301: / Line 301: @@
 == September 2020 ==
 [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] You may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further warning''' the next time you make [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]] on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.<!-- Template:uw-npa4 --> [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
+:Excuse me @{{u|Valereee}}? Can you provide a diff? I'm very careful not to
+make personal attacks. I comment on editing, there must some kind of misunderstanding. (Also waiting on the diff on WP:CON in changing a Bio to a BLP.) Thanks. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)