User talk:STSC/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:STSC. 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 2

Archive 3

Hong Kong

Greetings STSC! I'd like to address a few issues we are currently engaged in on the Hong Kong page. I believe you did not have a single clue of what Edward93 and I were going on about on the Hong Kong page. He kept changing the order of the official languages and spoken languages on that page but they were fine where they were and I see no point in altering their positions. If you look at his edits, you can see he is new and has completed little to no edits on wikipedia. You however reverted my post which was to revert Edward93's unnecessary change to the page, which he had attempted for 3 times. I ask that you Assume good faith and I demand a formal apology from you for wrongly-accusing me of vandalising the page. You said I have been warned but I was in no way breaching the rules of editing on wikipedia nor do you have the rights to warn me.Feel free to discuss and have a nice day. Regards. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Whaling in Japan

You are correct and I appreciate you pointing out the section V in the Court ruling instead of just reverting it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

About the necessity for the linkages in Comfort women

I have written my opinion about the necessity for the linkages at Talk:Comfort women#About the necessity for the linkages. So please read them and let me know your opinion.NiceDay (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words

Please read up on what a Weasle word is. The mere appearance of terms like "some" or "it is believed" does not necessarily imply that someone is using weasel words for obfuscation purposes. Here's what the Manual of Style has to say about this:

"However, the examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source."

Suggest more caution in future. Repeatedly applying ill-advised tags to articles may be construed by some people as a form of disruptive editing. TheBlueCanoe 10:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just to let you know that I've been around WP just as long as you have, and don't enter into contentious situations without knowing that WP policy and WP:MOS, WP:BRD, etc., etc., supports my POV.

Now, there is absolutely NO need for things to get nasty - given that you've been around as long as I have, I assume that (like me) there isn't much you haven't seen. So how about we have a sensible discussion rather than an edit war? You never know, you may find that I agree with you! (Sincerely - I lost interest in edit warring some years ago). In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(P.S. I sort of apologise for my "full frontal attack" - sadly, like many, I have discovered that making an initially polite and respectful approach gets squashed under single-minded steam-rollers; to my detriment I've discovered that, on WP, one needs to start with the heavy artillery before others pay attention and engage in sensible debate - nothing personal ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC) )

P.S.

It would be useful to know which time-zone you are most active in, in order that one might be able to guess when you might be likely to respond to postings on your talk page ... Pdfpdf (talk)

P.P.S.

(Awaiting your response.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

P.P.P.S.

(Still awaiting your response.) My guess is UTC. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the common names ...

Jeez, it's hard to argue/disagree with you when you go to the bother of explaining yourself ... Pdfpdf (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, STSC, I sincerely apologize for making that comparison which may nonetheless reflect certain potential truth. It has been a long time since I last used such mean, debasing words that even I feel surprised for spitting them out. I have reverted those meaningless insulting arguments on the Hong Kong talk page, and I promise you that I will never edit wikipedia, so that we will never cross paths again. May you live happily (Personal attack removed) forever. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring (October)

Your recent editing history at 2014 Hong Kong protests shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

zzz (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion" served on user Signedzzz

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. STSC (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:STSC (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] [13]

Comments: User Signedzzz seems to be owning the page by reverting and removing the edits that are not to his/her liking. Within a 24 hr period from 4/10 to 5/10, he/she had made more than 10 reverts. STSC (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions block

User Signedzzz has been blocked for edit warring. STSC (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests#Requested move about recent incidents. You can comment there. --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests

Hi, i'm pcfan500. I reverted your edit to 2014 HK protest, because I think that you removed too much information. I understand WP:NOTNEWS but I really believe that this information is useful. Feel free to restore your edit, as I do not want an edit war. Tell me if you have any questions. Thanks! pcfan500 (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusations against you

Are you related somehow to government of People's Republic of China? There are accusations against you, especially in talk pages. --George Ho (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Still, someone assumes that you are implicitly breaking WP:NOTADVOCACY, even when a person does not know that policy well. I hope you get along with other users as I am doing now. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

If you are interested, we are discussing the naming of Hong Kong people. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)