Hello, Mys 721tx! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! RP459 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please provide the total same page of chinese and translate it into English and compare with the article of International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization wikipedia English.

please don't abuse your wiki authority to resolve personal feelings just because I appeal your decision on wikipedia Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny Young (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.116 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonid Telyatnikov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You !voted delete at WP:Articles for deletion/TANCREDI with the rationale "cross-wiki spamming". Could you expand on that please? The detailed information you may be able to provide could help the reviewing admin in his or her decision. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the ((prod)) tag from St. Stephen's High School - Bradshaw, MD, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Stephen's High School - Bradshaw, MD, which overrides the need for a ((prod)) tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Centaur (rocket stage) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ))

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to make the article more neutral by taking out all the adjective comments. Please let me know how to edit the article from now on.Jimlive2011 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Jimlive2011 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about actually read what being said on the templates you deleted again and again? -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I will leave in your good hand. I already sent you the permission of the photos from Hou Chun-ming. Let me know whether it meets WIKI's approval.Jimlive2011 (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Autosomal chromosome epigenetic silencing to cure Down syndrome may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• prior to X chromosome inactivation (XCI). Prior to differentiation, both X chromosomes produce [[Tsix (gene)|TSIX] (the antisense partner to XIST), but not XIST. TSIX expression has been shown to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mys721tx, How are you doing! My name is kevin21th. I have learned the letter from you. Thank for your help. In fact I am not an experienced editor for Wikipedia. I am a mathematician. 2004 I had published the article ‘Combinatorial Distribution and its Application to resolve the First Passage Problem for n step random walk’ in journal MATHEMATICS IN PRACTICE AND THEORY. I hope more peoples , ordinary university students even senior high school students can learn about the C-Distribution and L-Distribution. I consider these distributions are useful to science and technology. Since I am the author of related theory, so I think if I edit the C-Distribution and L-Distribution in Wikipedia may be better than another one do it. I think even though my work seemed contain more mathematics formula but it is easy to understand for ordinary people. If you considered something was improperly , you can cut out what you like for the page. I am glad you contact with me.

Nice to know you.

WENCHENG LIU

July 10, 2015 Westminster California — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin21th (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Editor, could you tell me the reason that you have reverted the item "Dew computing" to its previous version? Ywangupeica (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spam. -Mys_721tx (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you judge it is a spam? I checked the definition of spam in Wikipedia: "unsolicited or undesired electronic messages". I am writing an article about this new area. How can it be unsolicited or undesired electronic messages? Where was I wrong? Which rules I have violated? Please tell me. Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are citing yourself in an article you have strong conflict of interest. -Mys_721tx (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Editor: Whoever am I, I am writing in a neutral point of view. If you think a sentence, or a point, or sentences are not accurate, or bias to someone, you may point it out. Please. Ywangupeica (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ywangupeica, you should cut down your own citations and remove your own website (http://www.clouddew.com/) with excessive description like " (submitted in July 2013, accepted in August 2014 and available online in January 2015) and a website (http://www.clouddew.com/, operated by "Dew Computing Research Group") ". The sentence "The term Dew was associated with Cloud Computing for the first time in an article[1]" would be enough. I see you have included four citations of yourself. But only two are acceptable namely "Cloud-dew architecture". International Journal of Cloud Computing (Inderscience Publishers) and Cloud-dew architecture: realizing the potential of distributed database systems in unreliable networks." The other two are only published as a comment on the Dew Computing Research website and should not be included on Wikipedia. And you should not put so many citations together after the first word "Dew Computing". It is meaningless. Citations should be used together with meaningful explanations in the paragraph. I hope my comment will help you in rewriting your article in a more neutral and encyclopedic way. Cerevisae (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have implemented all Cerevisae's comments. For the article about the definition, it is really important. Otherwise, this concept is not clear. Can I keep this one? Thanks. Ywangupeica (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Ywangupeica (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	thx XD :D IGGGGAFX (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mys 721tx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you please comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thatwhoiswise and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Xu. The zh.wiki version is created by Wj887. Timmyshin (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus to change the ref style:

• Ie adding of "
• Changing lower case cite journal to "Cite journal"
• Using the rp template

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The addition of quote marks and the cases change are from ProveIt. Feel free to revert the changes if necessary.-Mys_721tx (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review the article again, remove the red box if the wording is now sufficient and suggest further improvements if needed. --Explosivo (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mys 721tx. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For correcting image errors in the People's Armed Police rank charts. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Type 003 aircraft carrier. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Madrenergic^talk 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You removed this content as "not supported by source". As you read Chinese, and I don't, could I trouble you to summarize the what the source says? Does it make any mention of "English-speaking Chinese state media using 'Chinese Navy' instead of PLAN' since 2008"? Does it mention the "Chinese Navy" at all? Could you postulate why that comment, with that source, was added? Thanks (meanwhile, I will see if I can find the editor that originally added it) - wolf 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Added note: That comment has been there since the article was created in June 2012. The cite was added shortly after by the same editor; Chen Guangming. I could ask him about it, but he hasn't edited since October 2017 and he was not particularly active on talk pages anyway, so I doubt I would get a response. I could ask for another translator, but I'm hoping for an impartial response from you, despite our opposition on the page move. Thank again - wolf 21:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is the archive for the report, which is in English; See for yourself. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er, from what I read there, the edit was corrected and supported by the source. That is a report from the Chinese gov't, they refer to the "Chinwse Navy" twice, and use the prefix CNS. "People's Liberation Army Navy" is not mentioned once. I think you should self-revert and restore that edit. - wolf 01:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The report is from Xinhua News Agency and the MoD merely reproduced it on their own website. It is in no way official. The assertion that PLAN is no longer used is not in the report and is synthesized by whoever added it. It is an original research which WP:SYN explicitly prohibits. It should not be restored.

Speaking of official name, PLA Navy is the official translation published by the MoD. -Mys_721tx (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree it does not specifically say that, but it is still a worthwhile cite to add to that article. Worded differently, but still worthy. And the fact remains the agency writing the report used "Chinese Navy" (twice!) along with "CNS" several times. This report was published/re-published by the official Gov't/MoD site, and "Chinese Navy" was not redacted or changed. Nor is there "People's Liberation Army Navy" anywhere in they report. Aside from the initial reason the cite was added, it also has information about a CN/PLAN vessel. It should be re-added in some manner. - wolf 02:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a statement is not explicitly included in the source, you may not add it in the article. In this case, although the source use CNS prefix, it does not include any interpretation or explanation of why to use such prefix. Unless you can provide source that supports it, the interpretation that the term People's Liberation Army Navy, that Chinese Navy was not redacted or changed, etc are your own. Doing so constitutes original research, which is against WP:OR. Do not restore such statement in any manner unless you can provide source for that interpretation. -Mys_721tx (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A) That is why I said it would be need to be re-worded.
• B) The prefix is not the main issue here, the name used for the Navy is. But the fact remains that the prefix was used.
• C) I dont need a source, it is a fact that "Chinese Navy" is the cite and not "People's Liberation Army Navy". The gov't or MoD could've redacted or changed that, but they didn't. What do I need to prove? It's right there.
• D) I'm not "SYNTH-esizing" anything, as I'm only addressing what is in the cite, not what is isn't.
• E) I only said that there is worthwhile info in the cite that should be added to the article, and that info only. Not what was written before. No original research. Info based on that cite alone as that cite still has worth. - wolf 06:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To point out that "People's Liberation Army Navy" is not used is an interpretation of fact, which is not a part of that report. Doing so is synthesizing from primary source. The only statement I can think of can be derived from the report is that "once Xinhua News Agency reported People's Liberation Army Navy as the Chinese Navy." For that, I can list at least ten other reports on the MoD website states the contrary. I do not see what relevance this one-off report could have. -Mys_721tx (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day, I have reviewed Wikipedia’s Terms of Use and I have come to terms with my errors in my publishing (thanks), however I do not understand the context of the word ‘just’ used before ‘Ali’ in the Sunni point of view section, on the Amir al-Mu'minin page. Please inform me or rectify, thanks! (Please note that I understand all other redoes except for this!) IanBrick (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I can edit out the “just?” IanBrick (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	BadCOP_everywhere
	I shall be working on other domain. You have fun pretending to be a bad cop for now. see you in a week ... LairdUnlimited 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

....not a good habit. 91.10.20.171 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mys 721tx. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mys 721tx. I am Mys-tified as to why you are so intent on tagging the article on 1995 Spoils of War symposium. In your third comment to me, you suggest that the article is suffering from "puffery language such as 'award-winning' and 'ground-breaking.'" Is this what you mean by the article's "tone"? The symposium was indeed "ground-breaking," and changed the field of art history, as indicated by the press coverage of the symposium and reviews of the publication. Please let me know if you would like me to forward to you a list of the articles. I could perhaps think of another word to use if I put my mind to it. I am also not sure why you think the "sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations." The citations are very precise indeed. In a short article such as this, it was not advisable to include a large number of references (and the style is for endnotes and not inline citations). I am thinking about expanding the article but have not yet had the time. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E. S. V. Leigh (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of refs for you now, Mys 721tx. Enjoy:)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of generals of the People's Republic of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liu Zhen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed a fact tag and wiki-linked to an entire article on the Treaty of Shimonoseki with references on the topic. If you want to move the appropriate references to the article on irridentism please do so but there is no need to add a fact tag to that sentence given the wiki-linked article. The Potsdam Declaration is not the the Treaty of Shimonoseki and the article you gave in your edit explanation mentions China only twice and Taiwan not at all. Please discuss on the talk page if you disagree with that sentence and the reliable references that support it instead of undoing.

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you edited my article 24sata (Croatia) and you left a message on my board. I'm FilipVuceSimun. Currently, I'm trying to update 24sata wiki page because the old one was outdated and very old with lots of wrong info. 24sata are the media powerhouse from my country, and their previous page was last edited 10 years ago, and since then, a lot has changed. 24sata have grown into the biggest media house in the whole region. I think you made a mistake by deleting my edit. Thank you.

--FilipVuceSimun (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain on the Talk page of Betty and Barney Hill why you placed an "unreliable sources" tag? Unless it's clear what your concerns are, they can't be responded to. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page PLA. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

[1] per WP:MOSDAB links at the beginning are preferred Widefox; talk 10:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mys 721tx! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

• Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
• Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

• Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
• Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

• Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

• Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

• Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

• and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm so sorry about the misunderstand before, I'm definitely not spamming intentionally, I just want to create a simple school introduction. If my content contain any inappropriated texts, please let me know and I'll delete them immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbaoo (talk • contribs) 06:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really sorry my editing on the page letting you believe I was advertising. many information on the old page about this school is now out-of-dated and some were very incorrect, I simply wanted to adding some up-to-dated information to this page, so more people can know the current situation about it in greater detail. If you have feel any content on the page is highly inappropriate, please do let me know, so I can correct it immediately. Sorry for bothering you time.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked the reliable reference check list you provided.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia

The Euro Asian Times is not listed as unreliable, thus should be accepted. BoeingEngineer (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rawn Associates. Hi, I noticed you made a couple edits to an article I've recently nominated for deletion at AfD. Just thought I'd let you know in case you had views. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please avoid using things like "15 years ago" in articles unless you're planning on updating these on an annual basis. Mkdw ^talk 04:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to also note that in edits like this you changed several things to things that were incorrect or grammatically incorrect. Mkdw ^talk 04:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As indicated in the edit summary, the revision you reverted to contains potential cross-wiki COI edits, where a single author has clearly been given undue weight. Reverting to the old revision grammatical mistakes is incidental. In Religious education, a long-term vandal has also been doing similar things. Mys_721tx (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't seem like you understand the difference between conflict of interest and CITESPAM which are different policies and mean different things. How does someone have a COI with respect to the topic sheng nu, for example? Mkdw ^talk 04:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excessively citing oneself is a form of COI. Mys_721tx (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)These are the authors of the citations you removed: Deborah Lee, Sushma Subramanian, Yating Yu, Mark Nartey, and Mark Jacobson from several sources. You also introduced several grammatical errors. Unless you have evidence that this person has a conflict of interest, and I caution you on WP:OUTING, I suggest you report these things to WP:COIN instead of mixing in you reverts with other changes which ultimately introduced errors and removed other valid sources. Some of which had been there and reviewed during its good article review and don't meet the criteria for CITESPAM "should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia". Mkdw ^talk 05:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the case of sheng nu and guang gun, Godblesshealth has only cited the work of Yating Yu. Yu's publication have been cited in academic journal total of ~30 times if we includes all the self-reference. In the case of religious education, Jason Metcalfe with total number of citations of 2. Either case does not appear to warrant the weight either editors given. Furthermore, those observations are from edits alone. I failed to see how these are even remotely close to OUTING. Lastly, I would ask you to show me where I have removed the references to Deborah Lee, Sushma Subramanian, Mark Nartey, and Mark Jacobson. I do not appreciate this accusation. -05:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Mys_721tx (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First link I provided. Also, no one has accused you of outing. I asked you to provide evidence, which edits are hardly conclusive, and cautioned you to not provide evidence that would out the individual. Again, this is a recurring issue about knowing the difference. If you’re unaware that you removed other citations that were needed is worrying. You should be fully aware of the changes you are making to any article. Mkdw ^talk 05:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides Mark Nartey, which is a co-author with Yu in one article, all of the authors you mentioned are in both revisions. I hope you can take some time and go over the highlighted texts in that diff. Mys_721tx (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very troubling that you’re unaware you removed several other citations of articles written by other authors than the one or two you felt had a COI. Very worrying. Mkdw ^talk 05:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By searching the rendered HTML, Special:PermaLink/1118903737 has 3 Deborah Lee, 3 Sushma Subramanian, and 1 Mark Jacobson. Special:PermaLink/1117362025 has 3 Deborah Lee, 3 Sushma Subramanian, and 1 Mark Jacobson. I would not be as hasty to question competence. Mys_721tx (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This only proves my point if you still don’t know you removed their citations from certain places in the article with your changes. The fact that their articles are used elsewhere is unrelated. CIR also means not adding incomprehensible text or creating a huge amount of clean up work. Mkdw ^talk 05:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is becoming a circular and pointless conversation. In summary, don’t replace dates with relative time phrases that requires continuous updating. Don’t make grammatically incorrect changes like you did when you changed woman to women, or many to any. If you have a COI concern, COIN is a suitable place to report these problems. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 05:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(summoned from #wikipedia-en on IRC) @Mkdw, I also can't find where any of the citations you're talking about were removed. Deborah Lee and others have had archive links removed, but that isn't the same thing as removing the entire citation (could still be problematic if the archives were perfectly good, but I haven't checked). Enterprisey (talk!) 06:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Enterprisey: Sorry that you were dragged into this pointless argument. Yes, the archive links are all functional and serve as important verifiable references to the article. Example. This is just ‘’one’’ of the handful of other issues I tried to address with this editor. At this point I’ve done all the cleanup. I’m not planning on wading into their other edit wars with other editors as this just crossed my path on a narrow band of articles I watch. Also worth noting this editor is venue shopping as they’ve also gone to 3O. Mkdw ^talk 06:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You made no mention of archive links until a third editor pointed out that none of the citations has ever been entirely removed. This omission makes your charge of incompetence comes across as very hypocritical. Immediately labeling going to the one noticeboard you have explicitly suggested as venue shopping is also not very helpful. I concede that I am under the impression that IABot will eventually fix the link rots and was not paying attention to that. Perhaps a more precise characterization of the problem could be helpful. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And there’s the further doubling down. Venue shopping is going to multiple places like going to 3O and then immediately going to IRC for the same problem. Hence the notice below from 3O. So again you’ve taken that to just mean COIN when it’s quite obvious you’ve raised this one point in several places. It’s examples like this that further evidence you don’t understand a lot of the policies on Wikipedia and how wikilawyering is proving unproductive amid a list of problems where you continue take no responsibility. This wasn’t a bot that should have cleaned up after you, or removing whole sections including their citations (which that discussion at COIN is not supporting your mass removals), or the date style problems introduced, the numerous grammatical and spelling errors, or removing citation information. Competence is required is being brought up here because you’ve continued to exhaustively argue the point when your “contributions” to these articles are a net negative. I started this conversation politely drawing your attention to a few correctable problems, to which no thanks or at the bare minimum acknowledgements were volunteered (and still haven’t). Instead you’ve now backtracked and changed the goal posts to say you weren’t explicitly told “archive link”, as if that does anything but further my concerns that if it needs to be that specific, you shouldn’t be making any changes to citation if you don’t understand how they work. As if by the same logic on the grammatical errors you would need to be educated on the specific cases before you’ll accept any responsibility. You cannot reasonably expect other editors to provide that type of supervision to you or understand it would to be that far simplified or explained to you the problems being introduced. CIR requires a base level of understanding of some of these things to edit without overly taxing other editors to educate or clean up after you. Overall, I’m still not convinced you understand the problems you’ve introduced and I maintain my concerns that you’ll continue to degrade and damage other articles if these explanations have failed to reach you. If your feelings are hurt over this, I can’t have sympathy for the way you’ve avoided responsibility for your own editing, one of the most basic requirements for all editors. The initial attempts to inform you of these problems were rebuffed, ignored, or deflected. All of which are not appropriate. Between myself, Drmies, and now Enterprisey, that makes three administrators, all of whom are either current or former Arbitrators, who have now spent their time discussing this with you. Sadly to seemingly very little progress, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong on this last sentiment. Mkdw ^talk 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my very first reply to you, I stated that "reverting to the old revision grammatical mistakes is incidental", what I meant is that it was not my intention to reintroduce the grammar mistake. Nor has I ever disputed with you on this through out this discussion. If you are looking for an acknowledgment, here it is. It would be a giant leap to go from the the perceived lack of acknowledgement to requiring grammatical clarifications ad nauseam. Mys_721tx (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot agree with your points more. This guy gets used to revert others' edits regardless of if there were any improvements made, whether in Chinese or English Wikipedia. If you revert it back, you get blocked (in Chinese Wikipedia where this guy acts as an administrator). Gnb093 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion, however since being listed there a third editor has commented, meaning a third opinion is no longer needed; 3O is intended for discussions between only two editors. If further outside resolution is needed, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Godblesshealth has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mkdw ^talk 04:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]