User talk:星枢

Welcome!

Hi 星枢! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Megaman en m (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hangul, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hangul, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Hangul, you may be blocked from editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you have retreated again. It's not my fault that you can't understand the Korean literature. I'm not suitable to add references to the article when correcting the wording errors of the paragraphs without references 星枢 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And? References are not optional, even if the paragraph is already unreferenced. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it carefully, and I think that according to the requirements of the rules, as long as I guarantee that my editor has references, it is no problem. I don't need to add references that have nothing to do with my changes. My references have proved that the previous text is wrong. In the 15th century, Korean occasionally used ㅸ. Do you agree? If you don't object, I'll edit it. 星枢 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. I disagree with your edit so you need to follow WP:BRD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, is this literature convincing enough? If you still don't agree, I will give up. https://mblogthumb-phinf.pstatic.net/20120504_193/veero_1336096447123eNYum_JPEG/blog_010.jpg?type=w420 星枢 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what that image has to do with what we are discussing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. AINH (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Taiwan People's Party, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided references as well as detailed explanations, you may not agree with my explanations, but that doesn't mean I didn't explain them adequately. 星枢 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had yet to provide any valid references to support it other than your own WP:OR. Even the link you provided acknowledged that different scholars classified them as "populist". I had already given multiple sources, including academic ones. AINH (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really couldn't find many direct rebuttals, as the party's controversy over populism doesn't seem to have received widespread attention. However, the party's ideology clearly contradicts the core definition of populism, for example, populism always assumes that a part of the people is more "good", which is mutually exclusive with the party's ideology of civic nationalism. 星枢 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I believe that if I can prove that the party's ideology is civic nationalism, I can indirectly prove that the party is not populist, and so references to the party being civic nationalist can also provide some support for my argument. 星枢 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the references you provided, I think it's more likely that they are misconceptions due to lack of knowledge. (One of the papers I can't view because I don't have access to it) 星枢 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>"However, the party's ideology clearly contradicts the core definition of populism"

That is YOUR original research, which isn't accepted on Wikipedia. You need reliable sources to back up any claims. I had already listed multiple sources backing my claim, including academic journals. AINH (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a description of their core philosophy from the party's official website, which gives an idea of the party's ideology.

https://www.tpp.org.tw/about 星枢 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you think does NOT matter on Wikipedia. You need sources to back EVERYTHING up. AINH (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have in fact provided references (though only one direct reference). With both of us having references, I don't think it's the number of references that's important, but rather figuring out whether the party's ideology is or isn't populist through logical reasoning and clarifying the definition of populism. 星枢 (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the references you provided again and realized that in those references, there is no explanation as to why Ko belongs to the category of populist politicians, but rather skips the step of argumentation and just throws out the point. 星枢 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some western observers have their own inherent positions and do not necessarily understand Taiwanese politics, and may not be very reliable. 星枢 (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Democratic Progressive Party—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Taiwan People's Party. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse your authority, just because you have a lot of edits doesn't mean you're right, if you want to ban me from making edits please give a better reason, the same goes for rolling back my edits. 星枢 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My editing clearly does not meet the definition of disruptive editing. Please do not consider differing opinions as disruptive editing. Thank you. 星枢 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I don't think you have a good understanding of Taiwan and Taiwanese politics. Perhaps you should try to familiarize yourself with the points I have made in the editing history. It's possible that you might change your perspective. 星枢 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello 星枢! Your additions to Polymarket have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 星枢 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Taiwan People's Party) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I had a dispute with another user, but I did not violate the editing rules of Wikipedia. ①The reason for my ban was an editing dispute regarding whether the Taiwan People's Party is a populist party. ②For each of my edits, I provided reasons such as, "The main point of this argument is not whether Ko is a populist politician (although I still don't think so), but whether the party is a populist political party, and there is no evidence or reference to prove this." ③The user I was in a dispute with provided some reference materials in the original version, but even if these references were completely accurate (which I don't believe), they could only identify the party's chairman as a populist figure, but they couldn't prove that the party itself is a populist party. Additionally, I provided reference materials to counter this viewpoint. ④Furthermore, my edits were based on the consensus of the Chinese Wikipedia and were not my personal unilateral judgments. ⑤It is worth noting that the user I had an editing dispute with strongly supports the opposing party of the Taiwan People's Party on the Chinese Wikipedia homepage, raising doubts about their editing motivations. ⑥In the future, instead of unilaterally changing the state of the article, I will submit it for community discussion to seek consensus. ⑦Based on the above reasons, I believe that the ban on my editing is unreasonable and I hope to receive prompt attention from the administrators. 星枢 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked from editing a single article out of the millions on Wikipedia, a block proportional to the need to prevent the disruption that you caused. You are completely free to edit the rest of the project; you haven't provided a reason as to why you need to urgently edit the single article that you are blocked from. Since you say you will submit changes for discussion to reach a consensus, I see no need to take action here. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Because I need to make edits in the talk section. Furthermore, I believe that disruption and controversy are different, and I have provided ample reasons. How can it be considered as disruption? My edits should not be assumed to be incorrect just because I have made fewer edits, leading to a decision to prohibit me from editing. 星枢 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You are free to edit the talk page. The block is only from the article itself, you are not blocked from the talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]