User talk:Joker Twins

Hello everyone, my account name is Joker Twins, just means the two most value poker cards which can be most value double–the two Jokers.

Welcome!

Hi Joker Twins! 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! Longhair\^talk 01:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Monarchy of New Zealand, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop your disruptive edits or you will be blocked Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I clarify my edit in Monarchy of New Zealand#List of monarchs, as I said in the edit summaries again and again. There is no any independent page called "List of New Zealand monarchs", so remove it. I sincerely ask every rollbackers: The sentence after my edit is so fluent and accurate, without any problem or mistake. Why you revert my edit again and again without any proper reasons? It is just my normal edit, instead of vandalization. Roger 8 Roger, please stop your slander, and then apologize to me.--Joker Twins (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, create an article called 'List of New Zealand monarchs'. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: But until now "List of New Zealand monarchs" is still only a redirect page to the page Monarchy of New Zealand, thus I remove it from Monarchy of New Zealand#List of monarchs. I am eager to know your opinion. Please see the sentence after my edit, like "Listed are the monarchs who have reigned over whole New Zealand since 1840, including the period during the existence of the Colony of New Zealand from 1840 to 1907; then the period since the establishment of the Dominion of New Zealand in 1907, after that New Zealand gradually gets its full sovereignty. Originally, these monarchs reigned in their right as British sovereigns", what's the problem and mistake of the sentence after my edit on earth? Why it is accused of "making bo sense" and then reverted?--Joker Twins (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've got List of Canadian monarchs, List of British monarchs, etc So why not make the redirect List of New Zealand monarchs into an article. List of Australian monarchs should also be made into an article. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: However "List of New Zealand monarchs" is still only a redirect page to the page Monarchy of New Zealand. If the page "List of New Zealand monarchs" is independent, it may should remain in Monarchy of New Zealand#List of monarchs.--Joker Twins (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you're unblocked, I'll support your changing the re-direct into its own article. Indeed, this should be done for all the commonwealth realms, which don't have a separate list for their monarchs, even if Elizabeth II is their only monarch. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Thanks a lot! An article should be splited when it is too long. Otherwise, it is unnecessary to split an article.--Joker Twins (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joker_Twins reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: ). Thank you. CMD (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Monarchy of New Zealand. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I have some questions for you: I have edits in Monarchy of New Zealand#List of monarchs, like: "Listed are the monarchs who have reigned over whole New Zealand since 1840, including the period during the existence of the Colony of New Zealand from 1840 to 1907; then the period since the establishment of the Dominion of New Zealand in 1907, after that New Zealand gradually gets its full sovereignty. Originally, these monarchs reigned in their right as British sovereigns", which is so fluent and accurate without any problem or mistake. But the rollbackers like LJ Holden, Roger 8 Roger, Peter Ormond and RandomCanadian revert my edit again and again without any proper reason. They insist on slander, accuse me of making no sense, vandalizing and disrupting, but without any proper reason and enough evidence to prove their accuse. What's the problem and mistake with my edit, do I record the wrong information to broke the article on propose? Obviously I don't, and the rollbackers can never indicate clearly. Thus, the rollbackers are disrupting, not me.

My edit in the page Dominion of New Zealand makes the Dominion of New Zealand as the current polity, just because the Dominion of New Zealand and the dominion status of New Zealand still continues and exists since 1907, instead of end by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 (the law gave the Dominion of New Zealand more sovereignty, instead of the end of the Dominion of New Zealand). However, the rollbackers LJ Holden, Vif12vf and RandomCanadian insist on the original research that the Dominion of New Zealand ended by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947. They can't give their enough and proper evidence to prove their opinions, however they insist on revert my edit which based on historic fact. Thus, the rollbackers are disrupting again, not me.

In addition, the rollbacker Chipmunkdavis only accuses me of 3RR, but ignores the disrupting edits of other rollbackers on propose, which is so unfair. Thus, please you, the administrator tell me, why can the rollbackers revert my edit (my edit makes the sentence fluent and accurate and bases on historic fact) so randomly without any proper reasons? I am blocked for 3RR, why aren't these rollbackers blocked for their disrupting edit and slander? Why you blocked me only with the report of Chipmunkdavis so quickly, instead of basing on both the report of Chipmunkdavis and my clarification, which is convenient to detect the case clearly and make fair decision?--Joker Twins (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LJ Holden, Roger 8 Roger, Peter Ormond, RandomCanadian, Vif12vf, and Chipmunkdavis: Please indicate the problem and mistake of my edit (for example, record the wrong information to broke the article on propose) to prove your accuse (such as making no sense, vandalizing and disrupting) and the necessity and proper reasons to reversion. Otherwise, you may seem to make disrupting and unreasonable edit randomly, and slander me on propose, thus should apologize to me to prove my innocence.--Joker Twins (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this is a collaborative project and when fellow editors disagree with you, you should heed their concerns. Edit-warring inhibits this, so it is justifiably not tolerated. See WP:NOTTHEM for the rest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Thank you. I am eager to to know the further reason you revert my edit? My edit in Monarchy of New Zealand#List of monarchs, like: "Listed are the monarchs who have reigned over whole New Zealand since 1840, including the period during the existence of the Colony of New Zealand from 1840 to 1907; then the period since the establishment of the Dominion of New Zealand in 1907, after that New Zealand gradually gets its full sovereignty. Originally, these monarchs reigned in their right as British sovereigns", what's the problem and mistake of the sentence after my edit on earth? Why it is accused of "making bo sense" and then reverted? And my edit in the page Dominion of New Zealand makes the Dominion of New Zealand as current polity, just bacause just because the Dominion of New Zealand and the dominion status of New Zealand still continues and exists since 1907, instead of end by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 (the law gave the Dominion of New Zealand more sovereignty, instead of the end of the Dominion of New Zealand). What's the problem and mistake the historic fact I mentioned above? Why you revert my edit to support the Dominion of New Zealand ended by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947? Please show your reliable source, otherwise you are doing original research.--Joker Twins (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joker Twins: no-one has slandered you. I've asked politely a number of times that you discuss the changes you're making on the talk page. My main issue with your edits on the Monarchy of New Zealand article is that the sentence you've used doesn't make any sense. If we could discuss it we might be able to find something that does. --LJ Holden 23:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LJ Holden: Please clarify what's the meaning of "making no sense" you said. Until now you still avoid to explain your accuse, which may seem to slander because of without any clear and proper reason to support your accuse. I can also accuse your revert of "making no sense", just because you can only say "making no sense" without any further explanation, which is so unreasonable, unacceptable and disrupts my normal edit.--Joker Twins (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The place to have that discussion is on the article’s talk page; not here. The time to have the discussion is after your block expires; not now. Ideally, you would have initiated the discussion instead of edit warring. That’s why you got blocked. Schwede 66 18:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Your logic is unreasonable and unacceptable. Users can also talk about how to edit articles in the users' talk pages, also can in anytime. The rollbackers slander me as "making no sense", "vandalization" and "disrupting edit" without any proper reason or evidence to support, either can't indicate the mistake and problem of my edit (for example, record the wrong information to broke the article on propose), but they revert my normal edit again and again. Why block me, instead of the rollbackers?--Joker Twins (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Twins, your persistent accusations of slander and repetition of meaningless defenses to your conduct are disruptive. I have therefore revoked Talk page access. While I'm here, I will also warn you that if this type of behavior continues after your block expires, you risk being blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people?

I noticed that your username, "Joker Twins", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is implying shared use. Wikipedia's policy is that usernames should not be shared between more than one individual. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Jay (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: I applied for my account in Chinese Wikipedia in 2020 and received by Chinese Wikipedia administrator Tigerzeng. My account name just means the two Jokers in the poker cards, in other words, Joker means the one piece of poker cards, instead of the person's name. I don't know why do you think my account name implys there are two persons, but every Chinese Wikipedia administrators and most English administrators don't? I believe it is just your own misunderstanding.--Joker Twins (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I did search for "joker twins" to see if there is a popular meaning or usage, and I did not find any. I am not aware that the jokers in the card are called joker twins. Also, I am not judging other administrators. Jay (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: I decide to use this account name just because the two Jokers are the most value and can be most value double in the poker cards. Now please tell me if my account name can keep.--Joker Twins (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You may want to create your user page User:Joker Twins and mention about the poker cards. Typically, everyone looks at the user page first to know more about the editor. Jay (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1941 in Russia into 1941 in the Soviet Union. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state in Hong Kong moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of heads of state in Hong Kong, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of heads of state in Hong Kong

Hello, Joker Twins. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of heads of state in Hong Kong, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of heads of state in Hong Kong

Hello, Joker Twins. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of heads of state in Hong Kong".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hi Joker Twins! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Qing dynasty several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Qing dynasty, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Remsense诉 17:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]