User talk:CaradhrasAiguo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Visa policy of Taiwan

You have not explained the rationale behind the revertation of my edits, as all I did was to update the sources and cleared up the article with WP:COMMONNAME. Please do so in the talk section of the article. Thank you. C-GAUN (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

UCN does not apply in article contexts and is overriden by WP:NC-ZH, regardless. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Not talking about either the UCN or WP:NC-ZH so quite baffled by your response. Regardless, the consensus of Taiwan's WP:COMMONNAME is found here, just FYI. C-GAUN (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Nope, neither move discussion held any bearing on whether article text, not article titles, would be affected. You are grossly distorting the decisions for your own agenda.
And I perfectly know how to search through talk archives, having done so myself elsewhere, so there is no need for that patronizing comment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
This does not sound like a friendly response as I was just being polite here. Not sure why my comment is "patronizing" or why I would be "distorting the decisions for [my] own agenda". Do you mind explaining your rationale behind these accusations? Also I did not search the talk archives for the consensus. C-GAUN (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
An editor with your experience should know that WP:AT relates to the titles, not text, of articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, I apologize for not being too familiar with the rules. But would you clarify the term "an editor with my experience"? I only edit Wikipedia occasionally and am not familiar with all rules. Anyway my apologies again. C-GAUN (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Also if you don't mind, can you elaborate on the "agenda" I'm pusing here? C-GAUN (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Songzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Wufeng, Wuling, Li County, Shimen and Jing Prefecture
SNH48 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mercedes-Benz Arena

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sioux City, Iowa weather listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sioux City, Iowa weather. Since you had some involvement with the Sioux City, Iowa weather redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Addis Ababa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gangwon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Uyghurs, Taiwan edits - removing relevant references

Dear Sir, please stop removing relevant references from articles such as:

I would also suggest that you use the standard signature in comments, instead of isolating yourself from feedback.

Thank you - CultureArchitect (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The UN report has been scanty on the evidence, and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to an exile Uyghur organization based in Istanbul (use Google Translate). The original Reuters report on the matter only cites members of UN panel; there has never been an official UN policy statement. For more on the problematic aspects of reporting on this alleged mass internment, see This source.
Until major reversals in links such as nonstop Cross-strait commercial flights, Xi's statements merely accentuate the Anti-Secession Law, which has never been repealed since passage in 2005. The user who added the references has a history of adding tangentially relevant, WP:UNDUE material.
I would also suggest that you stop patronizing someone who is clearly more well-informed on matters pertaining to this area of the world. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. The references that were added to the article provided independent reports from additional reliable sources i.e. BBC, the New York times, the UN report. To remove these references because you believe the "UN report has been scanty on the evidence and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to ..." is bad editing. CultureArchitect (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, nowhere in the Reuters article was the suggestion made that the statements of the UN panel members represented official UN opinion, let alone a so-called "UN report", which has not yet to be produced on the matter. Before smugly lecturing others, properly read articles beyond their headlines to conduct your own critical thinking; otherwise, bugger off my talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

You did a revert, with an edit summary saying something about "implicit promises to retire". What is that about? To whom is it addressed?

After the revert, you restored a category that had been removed by the revert. In addition, the revert changed "Margin of victory" back to "Margin". Was this your intention? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary was addressed at a recurring problematic IP editor who, on more than one occasion, has posted messages "Block me forever (or indefinitely)". The user has previously been blocked for egregious edit-warring and, unfortunately, left off the hook for subsequent infractions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I see that this is the guy whose edits ended up changing "Margin" to "Margin of victory". He followed an apparently reasonable procedure here: he made an edit; I reverted it and suggested an alternative; he went with the alternative. This outcome was OK with me, and I am inclined to restore it. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The section about requesting to be blocked and never unblocked is now removed and there were no further infractions as far as I can see for a few reasons including the fact that only 1 block was performed and any future AN3 discussions involving me after that didn't result in any action nor was there any violation. Also I pretty much never tried to be problematic. That's just what I think and therefore not telling anyone to think a particular way.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW If you don't want me to put a block request on my talk page you can have talk page editing disabled for me.211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I was stressed back then (not now).211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't be absurd or pretend to be stupid. The block settings only allow for talk page access to be revoked as a more stringent setting. The only other option is if your talk page is semi-protected, which is unlikely to occur without disruption from other IPs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought I've seen discussions on talk pages requesting to have another user's talk page editing rights removed and that's what was done to the user, nothing else. Basically I actually thought removing talk page editing rights could be done as a standalone thing. Anyway I was stressed at time of requesting but not now (as I said before).211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
No links, and it did not happen. I was stressed at time of requesting So, you could have quietly stepped away from Wikipedia instead of throwing temper tantra left and right. You should know better than to edit under a cloud. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
WelllSpeakinf of the 2nd sentence there's always the chance of going back to editing which did in fact happen. 211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
End of conversation, now go for a morning jog in Melbourne, FFS. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't do morning jogs (I think the point is just to stay calm). I'm an early riser recently (including the day I posted this).211.27.126.189 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Chrystia Freeland page

On 2018-12-06, you've reverted my edit on the Chrystia Freeland page with a remark "overt POV-pushing by pro-Svoboda" IP.

- First of all, I'm probably as far removed from being "pro-Svoboda" as possible.

- Second, your remark shows that you most likely have no idea what you're talking about.

- Third, and finally, why not revert the original edits which clearly show a pro-Russian-propaganda bias?

All this is, of course, assuming that you've acted in good faith, and are not a part of the Russian propaganda effort.

You did not provide an edit summary for the removal of the sourced content. Per WP:MEATPUPPET, the last sentence is to be considered an unfounded accusation and you are in violation of the policy against personal attacks. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I'll make them with an edit summary. As to the "unfounded accusation" part, would you be so kind to explain how exactly your words "pro-Svoboda" are not "unfounded accusation"? Thanks.
They are not. You selectively removed text documenting her grandfather's Nazi collaborationist ties, and have an IP based in Kyiv. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
And this is related to "Svoboda" how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.36.181.71 (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. After reading what Himka has written, and stuff about it, I think I know where you might have gotten the Svoboda connection. In 2011 or 12 there was an incident with one of his young proteges trying to give a provocative public lecture, and Svoboda intimidating him. I'd be happy to share with you what I think of the whole affair, but you probably wouldn't care to know, and this is not the place for it anyway. So good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.36.181.71 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop removing facts from Chinese-related articles

This is not the first time I come across your Chinese-state sponsored, wumao activity on Wikipedia. So before I report you, I ask you to stop removing facts and events that are uncomfortable for you and your Party. I know it is embarrassing to fail after claiming several world records, but if other countries can face criticism, then China should do so as well. Otherwise is just a pathetic abyss of hidden shoddy constructions. 125.196.63.109 (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism

You left the following message on my talk page:

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Yunnan, you may be blocked from editing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over thirteen years, and have never been accused of deliberately introducing "incorrect information". While you may disagree with my edit (sources differ on whether Yunnan is more correctly described as "southwest" or "south central" China, and this disagreement is a sincere one), your disagreement does not make my edit vandalism. Indeed, from a purely geographical standpoint, it is clear that "south central" is more accurate than "southwest", but I recognize that there are historical reasons for the widespread use of "southwest" to describe its location. So to be clear, you have erred in falsely accusing me of vandalism. If you cannot tell the difference between vandalism and a reasonable edit with a clearly explained edit summary, then perhaps we need to take this difference of views to a third party for some intervention. As to the matter of the edit in question, had the edit merely been reverted, I would have been unaffected. I do not have strong feelings about this matter, and in fact, have learned that many see the matter differently than I do. I may, when I have more time, investigate the matter further, but I just cannot do that right now. My solitary objection at this time is to your slanderous accusations of vandalism, and it is on that matter alone that I am considering further action. The tone of your response will be the primary factor determining my next steps. Unschool 03:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you click on southwest China, which has sourced, official definitions of the regional delineation, before making your edit on 26 Jan? The government's definition, based on the historical definition, is the final say; any such descriptions of the province as south central is pure WP:OR and confusing to the reader, given the existence of the south central region. The same goes with describing Beijing or even Shandong as being the "northeast".
And apologies, I do not have control of the fully protected message templates, which for level 3, defaults to linking to WP:V. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Did I click on southwest China? I honestly don't remember. But I don't need to read an article to know that this sentence (as it appeared before my edit) is factually wrong:
Yunnan is a province of the People's Republic of China, located in the far southwest of the country.
That sentence, which I changed, is simply wrong. Note that it says, "the far southwest". That is not a reference to a region, but a compass direction. The "far southwest" using a compass would be Tibet. If you drew a north-south line down the middle of China, Yunnan would probably fall on that line. That makes it south-central. Regardless of your fealty to the opinions of the Chinese government, they do not have the final say on compass directions.
Additionally, I did look at South China, and you see right on that map there that Yunnan is listed as part of "South China" in two of the three connotations of the term (one of which does admittedly antedate the Communist regime). So my position is not entirely without merit.
The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that you fail to recognize the difference in the official name of the region and the geographic characteristics of that region. I see that the article currently reads with the word "far" removed, like this:
Yunnan is a province of the People's Republic of China, located in the southwest of the country.
This is an improvement, but it remains problematic, as anyone with an eight-year old's intelligence and understanding of geography is going to question the accuracy of that statement. It's not unlike the problem that I found with elementary school social studies textbooks in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, in assigning what region each state belonged to. Most were obvious; three or four were not. For example, Oklahoma in some books was listed the Great Plains states, in others as a Southern state, and in one encyclopedia as a Southwestern state. These designations were of course matters of opinion, and one's opinion was influenced by whether you were more concerned with culture or compass directions. I personally regarded the listing of Oklahoma as "southwestern" as absurd, but it also didn't really fit in with the others. But the point is, no one was being a jerk for suggesting one classification or another, they were simply looking for the best solution they could find to the problem.
Of course, this problem is unnecessary with China. Unlike the United States, there are official regions established by Beijing which can be used. I cannot understand why this is not what you (or whoever edited the current version) have done. Sure, there's a wikilink to Southwest China, but why on earth would you pipe it? Unless someone does click on the link, they're going to assume that person who wrote the sentence is geographically ignorant. If the sentence had originally been written this way, I would have never changed it, because it would have been factually correct. So I'm going to go ahead and do that. Hopefully you will understand why saying "southwest China" is not the same thing as saying "Southwest China". Then I am going to copy this discussion over to Talk:Yunnan, for future reference, with the hope of preventing future misunderstandings. Unschool 06:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
far southwest is correct with the interpretation that it is both in the southwest region and the southernmost province in the region, and in fact, the province containing the southernmost point outside of Guangdong and Hainan. As an aside, the U.S. Census does define the Southern U.S. as extending to West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. lists the

Spam on your talk page

Hi. I used to own 211.27.126.189. From that IP I posted a message on your talk page which you thought was spam (see [1] and [2] as that section is now archived - these links in this message aren't spam themselves). There's no spam. I don't get how there's spam. Thank you.211.27.115.246 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaradhrasAiguo&oldid=870163302#Invitation_to_a_topic_on_a_talk_page_relating_to_an_edit_you_reverted_(no_offence)
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaradhrasAiguo&oldid=870086714#Invitation_to_a_topic_on_a_talk_page_relating_to_an_edit_you_reverted_(no_offence)

Uyghurs, Taiwan edits - removing relevant references

Dear Sir, please stop removing relevant references from articles such as:

I would also suggest that you use the standard signature in comments, instead of isolating yourself from feedback.

Thank you - CultureArchitect (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The UN report has been scanty on the evidence, and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to an exile Uyghur organization based in Istanbul (use Google Translate). The original Reuters report on the matter only cites members of UN panel; there has never been an official UN policy statement. For more on the problematic aspects of reporting on this alleged mass internment, see This source.
Until major reversals in links such as nonstop Cross-strait commercial flights, Xi's statements merely accentuate the Anti-Secession Law, which has never been repealed since passage in 2005. The user who added the references has a history of adding tangentially relevant, WP:UNDUE material.
I would also suggest that you stop patronizing someone who is clearly more well-informed on matters pertaining to this area of the world. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the no original research or neutral point of view policies. The references that were added to the article provided independent reports from additional reliable sources i.e. BBC, the New York times, the UN report. To remove these references because you believe the "UN report has been scanty on the evidence and the vast majority of the media reports ultimately source to ..." is bad editing. CultureArchitect (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, nowhere in the Reuters article was the suggestion made that the statements of the UN panel members represented official UN opinion, let alone a so-called "UN report", which has not yet to be produced on the matter. Before smugly lecturing others, properly read articles beyond their headlines to conduct your own critical thinking; otherwise, bugger off my talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you can find the official UN ICERD country report for China here: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?Lang=en&SessionID=1196. This is in agreement with press articles quoted. Have a good read! CultureArchitect (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixing redirects

You should have checked my edits, before undoing them. I am fixing redirects. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. They are not uncontroversial fixes, and unnecessary per WP:DONOTFIXIT. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Nashville weatherbox

So, in other words, you'd prefer to never see updates or changes to weather boxes, am I reading this correctly? Literally every single field and figure used in my edit can be directly sourced. Weather data, of all data, should not remain stagnant, as can very easily be witnessed in how the numbers changed between the 1981-2010 and 1981-2019 sets. Don't know what you want, other than nothing at all. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Normals will be updated in mid-2021 to reflect the changes from 1981–2010 to 1991–2020, just as the current 30-year normals were released in mid-2011. And the notion that I, or anyone else, wants this data to remain stagnant is patently false: record temperatures are consistently updated; a recent prominent example being the slew of all-time record February daily maxima in 2017 and 2018 in Eastern U.S. locations such as Boston and New York's Central Park. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 12:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
But you're saying none of the changes I made are acceptable? The data cannot be updated except in 10-year increments? That's the way it certainly seems looking at this template. It shouldn't be too much to ask to properly show where each set of figures are sourced from...that was the original reason I started on that in the first place. As it stands, https://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=ohx is a dead link, and the two text documents are a mostly unreadable morass of codes that a normal reader would have no hope of interpreting. Fine for specialists, unusable by the general public. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
But you're saying none of the changes I made are acceptable? The addition of both the normal monthly mean temperatures and mean daylight hours has remained.
The monthly mean extreme maxima and minima can be calculated by navigating to "Monthly summarized data", copying the entire table, pasting it into an Excel spreadsheet, and using the mean extremes precise to 0.1 °F. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I did say changes, not additions. I understand the calculation, but you still seem to be saying that no data can be updated outside of these 10-year increments, so that's irrelevant. It just seems absurd. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The mean extreme maxima/minima can be recalculated, but using a "39-year" moving average seems arbitrary compared to a 30-year moving average. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

I reverted your edit on Coral Gables, Florida. The temps listed in the 'Climate' section are not the same of those given by the Weather Channel for either Miami or the Miami Airport. In addition, you also deleted the 'Surrounding areas' section below the Climate section. - Donald Albury 17:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

May I remind you of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You should have taken your concerns to the article's talk page rather than immediately re-reverting me. I try to avoid edit warring, and suggest you do the same. - Donald Albury 17:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The facts do not support your assertion of a difference. The record temperatures are the exact same (Coral Gables "table", Miami template) with the exception of the May maximum (the record was broken in 2017) and Oct minimum (probably a miss by the editor at Coral Gables). The normal temperatures are simply a rounded version of the Miami template. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Uncertainty_and_rounding, which states, "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended." - Donald Albury 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I think we got caught in an edit conflict without me realizing it until now; we were patrolling the same new user's quite misguided edits. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, it happens. I've done that on occasion. Sorry for the abrupt tone. - Donald Albury 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP per capita#Inclusion of Taiwan

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP per capita#Inclusion of Taiwan. Vontheri (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP#Inclusion of Taiwan

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by GDP#Inclusion of Taiwan. Vontheri (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan. Vontheri (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect coordinates

Please do not introduce incorrect coordinates into Wikipedia, as you did with Raikoke. 29' is not the same thing as .29°. Abductive (reasoning) 04:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply misread the former decimal format (0.2916667) as 0.4916667. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I always check on OSM after I edit coordinates for exactly such errors. Typically, humans have a 3% error rate; it is important to double-check. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at WP:ITNC, you may be blocked from editing. I strongly advise you to remove, strike or otherwise modify your comment which is highly offensive and inappropriate. If it is still there in 10 minutes you will be invited to explain/defend it at ANI. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Because I had made no intervening edits since your post at my user talk and my modification of my !oppose, your "10 minute" remark is a militant threat that should also be redacted. For one, I could have been on the road instead and not had the time to edit it. In light of this, you are no longer welcome here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Your behavior at ITN was reprehensible. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
There was no reason not to place this notice under the pre-existing "July 2019" header, but I suppose in haste, details such as this get overlooked. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Block notices get their own header. There was no haste in my decision to create a new header. Please feel free to rearrange your own talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Xinjiang re-education camps

Hi, would you like to engage in a discussion regarding my changes on the talk page of Xinjiang re-education camps? This serial reverting is not helpful to the article. - Divzsd 23:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liu Qiangdong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Messages

Excuse me, but what I left was not disruptive. The PRC has used the OBOR to leverage countries to see their position many times before, which makes the lack of response from heavy OBOR participants like Pakistan completely plausible, especially after the PRC used their veto power to stop the UNSC from labeling that Pakistani terrorist as a terrorist. Indonesia is desperately poor and begging for Chinese investment, which makes their lack of response also completely plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.219.189 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edit, please stop

Titular means holding or constituting a purely formal position or title without any real authority. and there was no treaty port. Please source these facts if you're going to edit them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.219.5 (talk • contribs)

With that choice of header and blatant ad hominem summary, you just earned yourself a report at WP:AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions of the Republic of China

I have already posted this on the Talk page of the redirect earlier, but the page in question to be moved was already at the previous title at Administrative divisions of Taiwan. I was simply reverting another controversial and also undiscussed page move, which seemed to be contesting the WP:COMMONNAME of the territory. Please refer to the edit history of the original page for more information. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your last edit appears to have pushed you over the WP:3RR brightline on this infobox. How about you self-revert and come to talk so I don't have to go to WP:3RR/N. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

And yours, in your haste, inserted incorrect timeline links to not only 1) the present-day PRC instead of the Qing dynasty, 2) but also the present-day ROC on Taiwan in the mainland half of the timeline, instead of the appropriate Republic of China (1912–1949). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suzhou High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm Horse Eye Jack. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop icon 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. In particular see Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point were you state “Indeed, a disclaimer would clear it all. Only the most militant, Sinophobic, pan-Green partisans and their neocon sympathisers in the West would differ but their opinion should be considered both criminal and extreme." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Horse Eye Jack, I'd suggest that, considering the last edit CA made was to blank your previous templated warning, this one is rather irrelevant. Generally deleting a section of a talk page implies that the editor is aware of it and putting up another template warning just looks WP:POINTED. I also realize it takes two to tango. I understand the two of you are involved in a content dispute. I suggest the two of you should settle it reasonably rather than posting premature edit warring complaints and unnecessary template warnings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Simonm223, my participation on this talk page is related not to Confucian Institute but to unrelated comments CaradhrasAiguo made on my talk page. Sorry for the confusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My editing is disruptive, the information on Uyghurs are biased.

Hi,

As an Uyghur myself, the information on the page is not correct and biased towards China's Communist Party propaganda. That is why I added correct information about Uyghurs and let the world know who we are. Please restrain from undoing my edits.

Thank you. 1watwat (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blockingfor three months. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in. I have determined that you will be affected by certain blocks and have given you this so that it will not affect your ability to edit.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Portland Maine weather

Hi, thank you for your recent edit to the Portland Maine weatherbox, adding new data. I am just curious, though, why you also deleted the middle temperature row? While it's easy to do the math, sometimes it's even easier to just have those numbers already in place. —Soap— 03:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, CaradhrasAiguo! I want to warn you about your recent editing at the article Xinjiang re-education camps. You have removed the same content four times over the past couple of days. It has been restored by three different people. That should give you the message that there is not a consensus to include it. Time to stop inserting it and go to the talk page to discuss it. Your editing may not meet the red-line definition of edit warring, but that's what it is nevertheless. If you continue this behavior, you could be blocked from editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I was going to post this at that article's talk page, but I noticed MarkH21's request to not discuss editor conduct: As to Horse Eye Jack, their actions have amounted to nothing more than WP:HOUND trolling, given the non-existent prior editing history here (at Lee Teng-hui, Chinese Americans) and hounding multiple times at WP:AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jo Platt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Grundy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Odd edit

Any reason for this edit, and specifically the flagicon-->flagdeco change? I've undone it because it completely broke the page but just wanted to give you a heads up in case you've got someone set up in AWB that you don't want. Nole (chat·edits) 05:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the change to flagdeco image. Flagicon for the states themselves is an arguable case of WP:OVERLINK for most states except for perhaps Kosovo, South Sudan, and the Pacific / Caribbean island states. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Qantas

Hi, Why I changed your edit to begin with was you deleted a ref without saying anything so it was not obvious why you did it. That is why nothing to do with not being competent WP:CIR. I except it was a mistake of mine and there was another ref in your follow up edit. Please make sure when you remove references in the future state why in the reason for editing box. CHCBOY (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary

Don't ever do this again [1] Acroterion (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too

Your edit summary here is in violation of don't be a jerk and don't bite the newcomer, even if an edit is editing from an IP address, there are still as much an editor as you and should be treated and addressed the same way as any other editor. If this one editor happed to be introducing bad edits that's one thing, but saying that an editor is "inferior" simply for not registering, is simply bad behavioral etiquette. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was also about to complain about that edit summary, but you've beaten me to it. I also note that the article was semi-protected because of a content dispute involving the IP and User:CaradhrasAiguo (I think that was the reason, but a more detailed analysis may be needed). The effect was to side with the anonymous user but block the IP. According to SP policy that is not allowed. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
No, the article wasn't semi-protected at that time and for that reason, although the article was becoming disrupted by the silly flagicon reverts. However, let's give CaradhrasAiguo a break from the pile-on, shall we? I'd already warned them above. 'Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@31.52.163.28: Said IP involved in the dispute was edit warring to keep the flags inside the infobox (now table). Since the flags are now inside the table pending consensus the semi-protection hasn't sided against them at all. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to display more respect for other editors

The diffs here and here are inappropriate. Even if someone is an SPA, you cannot shrink their entire comment by using the small tag. Tagging with Template:Single-purpose account is enough. It is not appropriate to apply formatting changes to minimize someone else's opinion. It is disrespectful and rude. I have reverted your formatting changes for this reason. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: This seems to be your own interpretation, as WP:TPG does not specify what to do with SPAs, nor does the Template:Single-purpose account disallow the formatting alteration. And as to disrespectful, it matters not as respect is something that has to be earned, on or off Wikipedia. I did the minimum by not re-factoring or removing their comments entirely. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
In general, it is best to never edit anyone else's comments unless they have been blocked as a sockpuppet (subversion of the blocking policy), made the comment in violation of a ban, or if the comment contains libel, legal threats, personal details, copyrighted material, defames living persons, violates anti-promotional policies, or includes personal attacks, trolling or vandalism (these exceptions are listed at WP:TPO). WP:TPG does not specify what to do for SPAs merely because the rule to never edit another person's comments is rarely up for individual discretion, the only exceptions to the rule are what I just listed (and they do not include refactoring comments from people you suspect are SPAs). There is also literally zero instruction saying editors are permitted to make another editor's comment small; if a comment is an egregious violation of policy, it is to be removed... if it isn't a violation of policy, it is to not be touched at all. Adding an SPA tag is okay, but it should only be done in limited cases where it is clear the person has been here for a while and only is here for one purpose. I don't think that applies as clearly as you do in this case, as the user had just created an account... and the topic of the coronavirus is extremely high visibility (there's no great mystery as to why someone new might end up editing this topic area). So, it would be good to listen to User:Chess' advice here, and I would add you should assume good faith with new users, unless and until you have a very good reason not to. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack

Hello, I made an ANI-notice for User:Horse Eye Jack. You can find it here. Your input would be appreciated. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited China Airlines Flight 334, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taoyuan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Quadratic growth

Hello, you removed the following sentence I added to 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#Criticism_of_official_statistics:

The regular quadratic growth is compared to previous research describing how Chinese organ donation statistics was falsified using a simple quadratic equation.

I believe this is factual and relevant information. Why did you remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipe42 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

About emailing me

I'm posting this on your talk page so as to not bother HEJ too much, which I worry is starting to be the case. I'm sorry, but for privacy reasons I have made the decision to not link my email to my account, and I am strict in keeping my Wikipedia interactions to only on the site itself. I'd be lying if I said that I understand why you won't present diffs publicly though. Surely admins would need to use the evidence if you were to file a report? That said, I don't belie your right to not bring up a case if you don't wish to do so. Sincerely, Darthkayak (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not want to mention the specific diff on HEJ's talk because I know that, short of (the credible threat of) sanctions, he will not alter course and it would do nothing but to "keep the hornet's momentum going" (a la the adage "stir the hornet's nest"). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. Thanks for your response. If you have it I don't think you should keep it to yourself, but that's up to you. Best, Darthkayak (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Darthkayak: Without suggesting an infringement of your privacy, have you considered creating an email account to be used solely for Wikipedia where the display name is made anonymous (i.e. not the name used on your government documents)? Just an idea... CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response - I've had a fairly busy week. I've considered such an email account, but for now and the foreseeable future I prefer to keep my interactions entirely public. Thank you for the suggestion though. Darthkayak (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for you guide about the useful tool below.:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Flag Icons

Hi there. I noticed you reverted several changes of mine but I accept your decision because you have mentioned one, which I failed to follow it. From now on, I will. Anyway, thanks for your advice. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have thanked your changes as well because of this following rule: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags. I have done a very big mistake and will not be repeated again. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To CaradhrasAiguo,

Hello,

I saw and edited the content about Sansha on Wiki because the text and images contains many wrong and fake information about the history of South China Sea area. Sansha is a city-level unilaterally declared by the PRC's government to make their claim on disputed South China Sea in reality. In fact, the legitimate issues of South China Sea water and its islands have not been resolved by the international law. Thus, publishing such a bias in a global platform of knowledge like Wikipedia is an inappropriate action and should be removed.

Reverted action without any discussion with the reader has violated the basic principle about freedom of speech.

I solemnly request you to delete this section or I will do it.

Best,

Kim Dang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiem Dang (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ythlev (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Two tips

Hello CaradhrasAiguo, thanks for your anti-vandalism work. I would like to give two tips:

  1. Users and IPs are allowed to remove messages from their talk page, even if they don't archive them. Please do not restore them.
  2. This removal was uncalled for. NOTVOTE does not prohibit people from sharing their opinion on RFPP, it only says that the ultimate decision is not based on a count of votes.

I hope this helps. Best, MrClog (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The effect of allowing any discussion on RFPP is to cuddle scummy IPs who, in typical fashion, can only resort to the obnoxioux "But but it will tilt the balance towards registered users" whine. As if semi-protection doesn't prevent them from simply creating an account. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you agree with the argument brought forth by an IP user, removing and/or changing their posts is in most cases unacceptable, unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. --MrClog (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There can be no dispute that their posts fall under Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure how the post you removed ("Oppose. This user has reverted the sourced info five times and semi-protection will be the big advantage for him in the dispute where he is absolutely wrong.") would constitute any of these things? Even if they have engaged in any of these activities outside RfPP, that does not justify removing this specific comment. --MrClog (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
They claim others are "wrong" in a dispute while being completely absent from the talk page. Given they were able to skulk their way onto more than one noticeboard (despite there being no notification for pinging IPs), there is no way they cannot find the talk page. They are purposefully avoiding it. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Avoiding talk pages is not grounds for having your comments removed from noticeboards. --MrClog (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
My reasoning was intended to illustrate that their actions show that they are only here to troll, and that anything they post on a noticeboard shall be regarded as trolling. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
If it helps get the message across any clearer, removing posts at AIV or RFPP can get people swiftly blocked - I don't even normally warn people who do that - and if I see anything like this or this again I'll not be impressed. In the future just make your case, say your piece, and let the admins deal with it. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't try intimidating other editors with warning templates like you did here! Favonian (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.235.125 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Concerning this edit. Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CaradhrasAiguo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The dispute at Candidates Tournament 2020 which led to the conflict with the AN/I reporter has already dissipated with the page in question being semi-protected, and constructive discussion occurring at the talk page. Given the last article interaction between myself and the IP occurred at 15:35 UTC today, and the timing of the two edit summaries raised in the complaint (15:45 UTC and 15:23 UTC), it was unlikely that any further personal snipes would occur; see my criticisms of the IP's conduct above at #Two tips in which no personal attacks were made. I would accept a topic ban on any Administrators' noticeboard and a local block at Candidates Tournament 2020, where the flare-ups occurred, in lieu of what is objectively not a preventative block. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Saying "it was unlikely that any further personal snipes would occur" is not sufficient, especially not when you were continuing making personal attacks in a report about your personal attacks. I think we would need to see an active commitment from you to cease your personal attacks, in all situations and on all pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I do take note of the recommendation at the end, though I would rather you not make posts from afar like this. I made a self-criticism here which may have gone wholly unnoticed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I just sent you one, short (1 paragraph, ≤ 60 words) email. If you would rather not have any email correspondence about this matter, I will respect that and desist. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Your email was no problem, but I have no more advice to offer you than to make a new unblock request in which you make an active commitment to cease your personal attacks, in all situations and on all pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that's better. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a block you'll want to sit out and not appeal. Not even saying the comments were egregious enough for them but the tone of that discussion was the preferability of an indef. Sometimes withdrawing to come back another day is best. Been there done that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
From your log, I don't doubt your sincerity, and the 4+ year time since the last entry (9+ years if discounting the interaction ban and self-request) is evidence enough. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
That means quite a bit. I had a rough entrance and a few spats that were just not needed. I will let you be I've saged off enough, but really thanks for the comments about the actions and my block log. Some editors might be sensitive to that and in the right context I still am but I hope/d that eventually it would pay off in terms of some image rehabilitation. I've thought about a clean start before but I figure one of the best ways I can contribute is not hide the freckles and hopefully people will see more then just block log entries when I started with a crash and burn. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: if it wasn’t apparent, it’s a bit inappropriate to call other editors neo-fascist and partisans, or to assert that other editor’s concerns are revolving around tone-policing rather than substance. Recognize that these are personal attacks as clearly described in WP:WIAPA. — MarkH21talk 20:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was drafting an unblock request which had intended to list political epithets (to include partisanship) as the first problem pointer, so it was already apparent before your notice, and I thank you for attempting to point to an in-thread example. HiaB, this was a constructive attempt by MarkH21, so the poking the bear remark is not needed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Hell in a Bucket: It’s intended as helpful advice in response to

Can you demonstrate within that thread, which criticisms I made about other users were personal attacks and not merely criticism of their conduct? If I am missing something here (everybody can improve in terms of self-awareness), I ought to know.

from here. — MarkH21talk 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I recommend you sit out the block for what is a very deserved block after addressing editors as "neo-fascists", a lot of admins would have blocked you for much less. I like that you asked for feedback but your unblock request does not show any understanding of why the block was placed. --qedk (t 心 c) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your email

You can file a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement when you're unblocked, but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding as promptly as you did and pointing to an appropriate venue. The user in question is currently attending to other matters, i.e. not being disruptive in the area in which they were notified of DS, as far as I can tell), which could explain why it appears to not (be) a big deal. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China

Your removal was not clearly explained. Please make sure you explain all of your changes clearly and cogently. El_C 16:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaradhrasAiguo/Archive_2&oldid=1048395820"