User talk:STSC/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Strongly support a speedy move". Yes, me too, but I don't know how to achieve it other than what I've done. If you know a better and/or quicker solution, I would enjoy learning how to achieve it. With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the only way now is by the requested move, we'll just wait for an admin to move it back to "Thitu Island". STSC (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually there's the other way: speedy delete the "Thitus Island" page first, after that you can freely rename the article back to "Thitus Island". I have done the speedy delete request now. STSC (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant! (I'm impressed!!) Please keep me posted. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh! (Bother.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For your comments on Talk:Chairman. It's amazing how everyone can link to COMMONNAME and not notice that paragraph you pointed out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is too long, and the topic itself isn't as impactful as it was before. The events are mere protests to me. The media must have sensationalize the whole thing for profits. Is condensation needed? --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, many soapboxing materials should be edited out of the article. STSC (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Which ones? --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just plenty of it. STSC (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Just take them out. Why wait? --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have closed your ANI regarding alleged edit warring by Aaabbb11 and moved it to WP:AN3. Please let me know if you have any questions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. User Aaabbb11 has now been blocked. STSC (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made two new sections Category talk:Comfort women#On adding some categories to this category and Talk:Comfort women#On adding further template to Legacy in South Korea section. Please join to the discussion. NiceDay (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's anyone whose motive is to spread the Japanese revisionist view in Wikipedia, I think they should be thrown into the '18 levels of hell'. STSC (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you have a new message from someone in your wp Commons talk page. Regards. --Lvhis (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I notice this user user:Uaat always engage in lot of edit war. also Vandalism some article about Taiwan/Republic of China, please stop this guy, thanks. Цзинго (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

[1] Please don't revert war. If you don't agree with the content, please raise an objection on the talk page and we can talk it out. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

One revert of undue details is hardly a "war". STSC (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the past discussion, and there was not clear consensus not to include that material in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi STSC, I got your message on my talk page. Based on the editing history on the article, you were the person who recently deleted those paraphrases. This dramatic change to the article has no any consensus. So you launched the edit war? Marvin 2009 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I made bold edits according to the NPOV policy. STSC (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to echo the above editor's comment. You launched the edit warring. No. Your edits defied NPOV. Marvin 2009 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

plus "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted." - bold. The warning you left on my talk page was not so fair:) It seems to You who launched edit wars everywhere, not me:) Marvin 2009 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The warning is justifiable because you keep reverting edits from other editors who try to input a more balanced view in Falun Gong articles. STSC (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you not hold double standard based on your personal hatred, which is shown by your two edits:[deleting wikilinks] and [adding wikinlink]. Plus, you canceled many other editors' work and launched edit wars in many articles. Such a warning is more suitable to yourself. I tried to prevent some damages due to your double standard on the topic. Marvin 2009 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are based on Wikipedia principles. You're obviously a loyal disciple of Master Li but you still need to abide by the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia for which you've got a lot to learn. STSC (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think you respect wiki principles. You failed to provide any grounds for your double standard two edits i mentioned. In addition, the fact that you guessed my identity defied wiki principles. Marvin 2009 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This has now been resolved. STSC (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You add so called details on one page without a source. This does not follow wiki policy. I am going to delete it in a minute. Marvin 2009 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention about Wiki policy if you don't know much about it. Sources are not needed in the lead; anyhow I had added the source but you still deleted it. STSC (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This is reminder that the Falun Gong pages are subject to discretionary sanctions, and users may be blocked for persistent violations of Wikipedia policy. Unwarranted accusations against other editors, and attempts to provoke and needle your opponents, should be avoided. When in a content dispute, discuss the content, not the contributors.TheBlueCanoe 14:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

this is a misleading edit summary. You did not just resize the image. You rewrote the caption to remove mention of the fact that the woman was allegedly torture and killed in custody (as noted here). You've done this on two other pages as well. I'd like to give you a chance to self-revert these changes.TheBlueCanoe 14:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have the silimar opinion as User:TheBlueCanoe's. Many of your edits are questionable. For example is this [2] really for 'shortening'? Critical info to CCP was gone. If you keep doing these things, you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Marvin 2009 (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think its time STSC was banned from Falun Gong articles. Someone else stated Excessive Chinese POV pushing here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_%281912%E2%80%9351%29&type=revision&diff=659048547&oldid=656160390 Aaabbb11 (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my edit which was removed. Who's the silly boy then?! STSC (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Liberation of Tibet ? Do you REALLY believe that ??? Looks like you are a propaganda victim. When you use CE it might stand for Creating Error. More evidence that you are wasting people's time. So it looks like wiki would be much better off without you. Aaabbb11 (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Its time you realised the standard of your edits isn't good. You have had plenty of warnings in the past. Aaabbb11 (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you please GO AWAY!

STSC (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• These are clearly concerted harassments from the FG followers who constantly resisted any balanced input from other editors. STSC (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User 'Marvin 2009' himself has been blocked. STSC (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. sst✈^(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, a dirty trick attempt to silent other editors against the pro-British-HK POV. STSC (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Haminoon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 610 Office without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- haminoon (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you would love to hear this, Falun Gong is stripped off its GA title, thanks to BullRangifer and SNUGGUMS. Thank you for your input on Talk:Falun Gong.

Zebrasandrobots (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to calm it down with the anti-Japanese sentiment. We get it. You think they were idiots in WW2. I share that sentiment. But this is wikipedia, where we try to be neutral and not push our opinions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not my opinion, it's Wiki policy. STSC (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Which wikipedia policy is it to removed relevant content, based on reliable sources? I must have missed that one. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You may read the discussions earlier in the article's Talk page. STSC (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. That's my biggest problem on wikipedia. I see something I don't agree with and change it - then I look at the talk page and find that it's been discussed for months before my changes. I think I can contribute in a better way, via the talk page than I can via reverting people. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of former comfort women: Revision history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User Phoenix7777 obviously did not follow the BRD himself. STSC (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)