User talk:Rigley/Archive 4

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  ... (up to 100)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I need your input

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#User:John_Smith.27s_tried_to_use_an_Evangelical_Christian_author.27s_book_.28he_has_no_academic_credentials.29_as_a_reliable_source_regarding_Chinese_history

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovableΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

and User:John Smith's has a long history of writing pro Japanese POV and anti China POV on multiple articles, with a big block log- [1] edit warring on nanking massacre, and obsessed with adding anti Chinese POV to articles- [2]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in the Boxers. I would have participated in the RSN discussion, though, but that seems to be resolved. Quigley (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You might have a stalker...

An anon editor seems to be following you. [3] Not sure why. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; in investigating, I found another older one! That old anon wanted to reinstate some POV-pushing edits of a banned sockpuppeteer in whose SPI I participated. This new anon I'm guessing has a similar motivation. My usual approach is to revert the vandalism and deny the stalkers recognition, but if the hounding escalates, I may have to find some stronger medicine. Quigley (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at this

New, *unreviewed*, article by someone whose viewpoints I cannot yet judge... Tibetan Resistance since 1950. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

your edits to the Tibetan Resistance since 1950 article

Thank you very much for cleaning up this article. However, I wonder why you removed a couple of external links within the text, namely, a link to the text of the "Five Point Peace Plan" and the link to the text of the "Strasbourg Proposal"? Omganeshaom (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see why you did it now. I'll use the citation method instead. Thanks. Omganeshaom (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

sock

a sockpuppet has been adding theories that Cantonese are not the same ethnic group as Han chinese and are "oppressed" by the chinese government, manufacturing make racial slurs here, i would like you to participate in the following investigation.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isuzu1001

Your input again, please

I'd really appreciate your input again on the Bruce Vilanch article. I've had to go to the BLP noticeboard to ask for more help because another editor who is fighting me practically every step of the way in bringing the article out of the state it's been in (your comment about it reading like an entertainment blog was well put). If you could head over to the article talk page as well as the BLP noticeboard, I would be grateful. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the BLP Noticeboard. :-) Lhb1239 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Human rights in Singapore

Quigley, human rights are an international issue in any country included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You have partly correct in your critics. The lack of all information is partly based on time restrictions. Based on your critics I added the human rights in Energy in Finland, like Energy in Singapore. Here my intention was to address the original request Difficult to find this info. I will give a new proposal discussed in Talk:Singapore. Please excuse me if I take some time brake. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Watti Renew (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your principled addition to the Finland article; however I do not see how your human rights paragraph is at all relevant to the Energy in Singapore article. Quigley (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pro-life feminism

Thanks for weighing in! You're still the only uninvolved user who's commented, so your vote is extra important. :) We've added the text to the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234 engaging in canvassing

Arilang1234 has been doing Wikipedia:Canvassing, deliberately asking editors whom I have had disputes with- User:John Smith's and User:Smallchief

I request neutral editors like you engage in the discussion as well, to offset his canvassing. (you do not have an interest or stake in boxer history which is why you are neutral)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Its at this ANI threadΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Arilang1234 was shooting out conspiracy theories on the talk page

Thats not the only thing Arilang1234 posted-

marxists, black panthers and vietnam protestors have something to do with anti imperialism in the boxer rebellion according to arilang, all according to his own original research and looking at other wiki articles

since benlisquare mentioned australia also includes anti imperialism in its textbooks, arilang1234 goes on to claim it must be because australia is a "socialist" country

This shows pretty much consistent behavior from his earlier rants-

"In my opinion, this lead section is straight out of the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China, and need to be rewritten. Notice the word "Uprising" (Chinese: 起义) being used, and The uprising took place in response to imperialist expansion (into China) involving European opium traders, political invasion, economic manipulation, and missionary evangelism. , which is full on and pure propaganda stuff, is not of encyclopedic standard."

Arilang1234 here claims that only the communist government considers the Boxers anti imperialist "Heros", even though the word hero was never mentioned once in the article

At this ANI thread, PCPP lists edits in which Arilang1234 accuses other people of being "employee of the "50 Cent Party" they "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept", that " wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department", that "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government" and that PCPP was"always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points".

strange Arilang1234 claimed he "changed completely"

and wow, look at this from October 13, 2020, where I warned against using chinese government websites for qing dynasty articles, before the dispute on the boxer rebellion article started. I guess Arilang1234 can say I was kidnapped by aliens and black panthers during a vietnam war protest, and went into the future twice to deliberately insert that comment as to not arouse suspicion that I am inserting communist party propaganda into the article, and came to the present to war on the Boxer article.

The communist party official history basically says that Chinese forces were humiliated and defeated in the war, part of their movement to discredit the "feudal" qing dynasty and make themselves look good. My edits were the exact opposite, I was using reliable sources to prove that chinese forces were not only well equipped, they beat the foreigners multiple times and it was only because they deliberately held back did they lost.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

can you just confirm that these accusations are false

Arilang1234 lodged two false accusations directly against me, see this User:ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.False Accusations. They've crossed the border into outright lying. Arilang1234 deliberately showed past revisions of the talk page rather than the current one, in order to claim/lie that I did not respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. I need other users to confirm that he deliberately lied with malicious intent.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He is definetly lying now, he repeated the same exact claim at reliable sources noticeboard

When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ completely disregarded WP rules.

this was after I posted a notice to him on his talk page concerning the falsehood of his accusations, and provided a linkΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Quigley, for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for remaining so calm and deferential throughout this unfortunate affair. It is a rare thing for someone with such prolific contributions. Quigley (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have noticed my appropriate demeanor throughout all this. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

thx

[4] (I didn't even see the additional OR rant he added this time) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Human rights in Singapore

Quigley, I started discussion in Talk: Singapore about neutrality and human rights. Watti Renew (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Suggestions_from_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on talk page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Joseon Dynasty. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, the Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states that:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I made one revert to an edit that was in such open defiance of community norms that it was tantamount to vandalism. That obnoxious template is wasted on me. Quigley (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just trying to be fair in giving the same warning to every user who's reverted in the dispute. Personally I agree that it's ok to tag the article, but since there are multiple users disagreeing over it people might as well use the talk page rather than just edit summaries to work this out. As for "one revert", you are an experienced enough user to know the difference between a 3RR warning (which the above was not) and an edit warring warning. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

{{uw-ew}} was created 12 days ago, and has all the trappings of {{uw-3rr}} (even <!-- Template:uw-3rr -->) without explicitly mentioning the rule. I agree with the general sentiment of the template, but to slam that big red stop sign and a "you may be blocked from editing without further notice" on somebody's talk page without any prior indication of a bright red line is unclear, upsetting, and unhelpful. I have made a change to the template to help ameliorate this problem. Quigley (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: that user

I'm not entirely sure and this is just a hypothesis as I'm a bit of anthropologist (not going to actually really be one until I get my Archaeology BA), but is it possible there might not have been a cultural issue in dealing with HXL (like having something that is encouraged in one culture be very discouraged in another)? I am not trying to insult the guy at all, but I was thinking maybe it was possible he was raised in an environment where competition was strongly encouraged and modesty discouraged to a great extent(the way he wrote conveyed the idea to me). Then again, his userpage says he was educated in the US so that hypothesis is most likely invalid (given the values they're supposed to teach you, but then again I'm NYC-educated =p). I also admit I lack any sort of deep knowledge of any East Asian society so I don't know the genesis of this idea I have. Thoughts? Also hi. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

From what he has written, he certainly believes that AGF stems from some "Western cultural custom". I disagree, and think that such social lubricants are more common in East Asian culture, while his insistent demands for absolute justice are stereotypically American. HXL's behavior can better be explained, I think, by his interactions with other users on Wikipedia. He has seen that editors who have created hundreds of articles, or who otherwise have a lot of social clout, are routinely excused for incivility (including against him), so he thinks that he can throw his weight around also. Unfortunately, because he spends more time on article-space than on the noticeboards, he does not see the flip-side of Wikipedia relations: when newcomers are swiftly blocked for acting in a hysterical way, regardless of the merits of their cause. While it may be a cultural issue, it's also a competence issue. Even if you don't agree with every rule here, you should at least pretend to make obeisance to them. He was remarkably lucky to have escaped from learning this so far. Quigley (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

the map

since the map is located at commons, it needs to be taken up at the commons ANI, as it has been only used for POV pushing and is downright false with no sources (the east turkestan republic only comprised of three districts in the Ili region, and never reached southern xinjiang, and never took over Urumqi as the map implies.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what remedies commons policy has for such images (if at all); I will try to find the appropriate procedure rather than bring it to ANI. Quigley (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Rjanag's talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You might want to add a few points of evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry if you wish. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Category

Hi. What do you think of Category:Turkic history and Category:History of the Turkic people ? Are there differences among them ?

There is Category:History of the Germanic peoples. But there isn't Category:Germanic history.

Takabeg (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap between the two, but the former would include the history of Turkic states and Turkic dynasties, while the latter would include Turkic migrations? I feel like the Category:History of the Turkic people is unnecessary now that Category:Turkic history is created, but you should ask the creator of Category:Turkic history for his intent. Quigley (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"cantonia"

as far as i can tell, not even one of the "primary" sources even used on Provisional Government of the Republic of Cantonia even mentions a "republic" in guangdong at all. even though ntdtv is connected to falun gong, they would not go as far as to report on a fake, nonexistent republic which can be verified as false immediately. That would qualify the sources for immediately deletion since they have nothing to do with the article, they are all reports on the controversy over use of the cantonese language.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the Cantonese blogs; does Cantonia even merit mention there? Quigley (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

this blog is clearly run by the same guy, as is this youtube channel. Anyway, blogs and forums are not permitted as links on articles, since anyone can post anything on them.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Isuzu1001

and he was busted for sockpuppetry earlier- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isuzu1001/ArchiveΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised the main account wasn't blocked. Maybe it wasn't stressed enough in the SPI that Isuzu1001 and Zhongshuangyu worked in concert to edit-war. Quigley (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're still gonna have to keep a close eye on Isuzu1001; he keeps adding a so-called "human rights declaration (something something thingo) of Manchukuo", that is an external link to a partisan anti-China uyoku dantai website from Japan. The website claims to be a "provisional government of Manchukuo", and claims that there is an active independence movement based on the idea of ethnic self-determination (in an area that is 99.7% Han Chinese lol) and that they represent the struggle of ethnic Manchus (despite that Manchukuo was originally a Japanese puppet state), but if you look at its advert banners and its financial sponsors, the website gains most of its money from far-right groups in Japan. I have the feeling that he's gonna keep on trucking. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Isuzu's userpage could be considered a violation of WP:SOAP since he is using it for promotion, as could the external links he is putting on other articles.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Isuzu1001. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

edit warring by new users

There's prenty of revert edit-warring going on at Nine-dotted line - an IP and a new editor are keen on adding off-topic material, and are reverting good-faith edits that fix up their poor English grammar. The article is about a border line with nine sections drawn by the PRC on its maps of the South China Sea, but some editors are intent on making it a WP:FORK of content from Spratly Islands and South China Sea, sometimes including material which has been previously deleted from those articles. If I'm not around and this continues, would you mind bringing this to 3RR (if it is broken) or something? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not only paying attention to the new and IP users—I am hearing the rumblings of a tribal pissing match using established Wikipedia channels. Anyhow, it looks like you've successfully reformed the users' copyvios into a plain old content dispute. Quigley (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Act of Free Choices...

Quigley, thanks for all extensive cleanup work on the Papua related articles. Much of this I have long wanted to do, but I choose my battles (too?) carefully and was very wary of trouble. It’s great work and I’m supportive of most of your changes across these articles. However, I don’t really believe that we can avoid mention of the – let’s call it – “dissatisfaction” with the Act of Free Choice. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot say that it was a sham, on the other hand, should WP ignore all *accusations* that it is was a sham? Something to think about. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP can't ignore all accusations that it was a sham, but WP can ignore the fringe accusations that it was a sham. If an editor wants the opinion that it was a sham represented, then they should use attribution: wording it like "organization x and person y say it was a sham", and organization x and person y should be knowledgeable, mainstream, and relevant. In any case, Wikipedia already implies that the AoFC was a sham by representing it as a unanimous vote among 1000+ people. I can't read Indonesian, but if you can or if you can translate id:Musyawarah, which seems to be the process used here—not a vote—it would be helpful in clarifying things. Thanks for your topical expertise and support. Quigley (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tibet...

also, Charles Bell was not the first to make the claim that the Tang dynasty captured Lhasa. It was an ethnic Tibetan, Rin-chen Lha-mo, who published a book in 1926 which claimed that the Chinese captured Lhasa and overran Tibet. Charles bell wrote his book in 1992, decades after Rinchen Lhamo.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)