Hi SimeonManier! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9485-9_18, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Audrey M. Shuey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wellesley (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) 13:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SimeonManier. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((help me)) on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although you've been around for a year, I thought a welcome wouldn't do any harm. Thanks for the reversion of vandalism on Jaguar Land Rover. You reverted the IP before I did! Anyway, happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. SimeonManier (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! SpinnerLaserz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep telling you multiple times, if you want to create articles for Vietnamese weapons, create separate respective articles signifying the Vietnamese weapons. No one is stopping you from creating them. What I object to is that you stop inserting content and haphazardly renaming articles related to Vietnamese related weapons into articles related to Chinese weapons. SimeonManier (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

East Asian tea ceremony

added a link pointing to Angang

Hoa people

added a link pointing to Cholon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hoa people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chợ Lớn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hoa people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chợ Lớn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Japanese restauranteurs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my previous mistake. I realized there was another suitable category to put in its place. So its A-OK if the page is deleted. SimeonManier (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bamboo network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Praeger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you tone down your Han chauvinist edits or we are going to have to start a discussion on WP:ANI. Also note that slapping multiple shortcuts in edit summaries and talk page responses such as accusing others without merit of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" or "WP:NOTCENSORED" does indeed constitute as disruptive editing termed WP:LAWYERING. Your tone on Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar (1, 2) was a disgrace and your continued defensive and chauvinist behavior will ultimately not end for you. 175.197.208.211 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And since when did I ever recall you as being part of the current discourse that I'm embroiled with JordanKSM? What's the disgrace if you can't find a good reason to revert and cogently counter-argue that my additions to the article are fallacious? Am I wrong or do you believe that my additions actually have merit and fall within the parameters of Wikipedia guidelines & valid Wikipedia policy criterions. My claims with regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines and policies towards other WP:DISRUPTIVE editors and certainly emotionally whimsical IP editors like you are not what you derisively characterize as "accusations." Just because an article includes certain kinds of information that you don't like, or you derisively smear as"Han Chauvinist" isn't on grounds enough for something to be deleted and censored. Tell me, who's the disgraceful one when my opponent is the one yelling out endless ad-hominem attacks at me instead of rationally trying to refute and counter-argue why my additions should be deleted. It's obvious that JordanKSM can't accept the bitter truth with regard to the economic affairs in Burma involving the Overseas Chinese. What is the ultimate end for you at WP:ANI if you keep hurling baseless "Han Chauvinist" ad-hominem attacks in addition to failing to cogently refute why my reverts & additions to the article are fallacious. Am I wrong or do you believe that my additions are actually legitimate and fall within the parameters of Wikipedia guidelines & valid Wikipedia policy criterion, including WP:LAWYERING. My claims with regards to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines and policies towards other WP:DISRUPTIVE editors and certainly emotionally whimsical IP editors like you are not what you derisively characterize as "accusations." Just because an article includes certain kinds of information that you don't like, or you derisively smear as "Han Chauvinist" isn't on grounds enough for something to be deleted and censored. Every debate has an end, it's only a question of who the winner will be and whose argument will prevail. What is there to discuss if disruptive editors like you have qualms with dealing with well-verified phenomena substantiated by reliable academic/scholarly sourcing. Hurling your emotionally-laden "Han Chauvinist" ad-hominem attacks at me instead of trying to rationally refute why my additions were fallacious isn't going to cut it or going to make me change my mind with regards to what I previously added. No one asked for your input as you should really learn not to barge into uninvited conversations where your presence is unneeded (especially when your input of endless ad-hominem attacks directed at me serves nothing of value to the current discourse being disputed) and to stop meddling in matters that are of no concern to you or else we'll see who really needs a serious discussion at WP:ANI. SimeonManier (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sock of User:Backendgaming. JordanKSM (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, when you don't even have the credible evidence to back up your fallacious assertions? Who's the real WP:SOCKPUPPET here given the fact that you've been blocked and verified by CheckUser as a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Stress_theorist and a suspected sockpuppet of User:SSH remoteserver. Your emotionally-charged reactionary butthurt response is typically illustrative of an editor who has not only been exposed a fraudster, but also as someone who doesn't have a credible argument to expostulate, let alone maintain. Good luck spending your time in the Wikipedia gulag, as you're going to need it since you have a lot to think about, given your long record reflective of being the petulant fraudster of peddling your biased and bloated Pro-Burmese manufactured assertions while constantly having displayed yourself on Wikipedia as the fraudulent rule-breaker that you really are. Now that you yourself have been blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET at this point in your editing phase, it certainly sucks to be you. Fraudulence doesn't look on you when it has been a colossal blemish given your editing history and sullied editing reputation. SimeonManier (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bamboo network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your undiscussed move of this page back to it's original location and reverted your deletion of items from the article. This article was explicitly moved to Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States as the result of a page move discussion. You cannot move it without obtaining consensus on the talk page as it's clear the consensus was for the previous title. If you wish this to be moved, you'll need to obtain consensus on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 23:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert was invalid since I did remove factual inaccuracies surrounding that page. East Asians and Southeast Asians are two distinct peoples, cultures, and geographical regions. They are hardly the same and rarely (if not any) commonalities that would lead you to think that they should bound and discussed in the same article. Specificity as the term "Eastern" is a more broader and general term encompassing Continental Asia as an entire gestalt, not just East Asia as a stand-alone region in this article's context. Nonetheless, my previous move ended being restored so your input is longer necessary. SimeonManier (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lu Zhengyao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMBA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let us talk about information about economic influence of Hoa people. Their dominance are long gone and their influence was faint, no one in Vietnam today know who is Kinh or Hoa, and most of the Hoa business hub have Chữ Hán written on their billboard. What is your opinion? LordChimera (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not merely an opinion, but well-documented facts established by multiple academic sources as per the edits that I made. Why is it wrong to show the truth that the Hoa have economically hamstrung the Kinh on the economic food chain for centuries? Why don't you think rationally for a bit while you continued running off and talking out of the both sides your mouth before you haphazardly accuse me of contravening a Wikipedia guideline that I didn't even commit without producing any compelling evidence (in which I did) that even remotely corroborates it. It's your unwillingness and resistance amongst the slew of other IP vandals towards accepting the reality that I find puzzling since the previous assertions regarding Hoa economic dominance are corroborated by scholars such as Amy Chua in World on Fire and Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations. Facts are facts as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, & WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:REMOVECITE & WP:REFREMOVAL guidelines. You don't get to decide what gets put up or taken down based on your desired emotional-laden expectations. The citations that I added (in which you somehow accuse me of re-writing to fit an alleged particular narrative, which is patently false) report the truth as it is (instead of spreading ignorance, error, and misrepresentation) that underlies these differences in economic outcomes rather than to misleadingly serve a particular ideological and emotionally-driven narrative undergirded by wishful thinking pushed by anonymous IPs such as the likes of yourself. SimeonManier (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't you the one who is rewriting the source from the citations? Because it doesn't match with anything you're editing in. Simply a case of disruptive editing, especially removing sourced passages amd excerpts and adding in WP:VANDALISM edits which don't match or reflect the source material?

Special:Diff//1145029896 and past frequent edits from Hoa People and the citations from Googlebooks that don't match anything that you rewrote into the article.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] 49.190.240.37 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing the source from the citations? Why don't you take a more thorough look at the citations that I added to back up my assertions even if I did? How are my assertions (that you accuse me of re-writing on top of being "WP:DISRUPTIVE") not reflective of the sources being presented within the Hoa people article. Here's some food for thought, facts and statistical abstractions are stubborn things. If its WP:VANDALISM, you're the one who is choosing to either ignorantly or intentionally misrepresenting my edits to fit a certain agenda that you wish to promote. And by the way, is it the fault of the Hoa if the native Kinh majority cannot socioeconomically get ahead and compete against them by operating on the same socioeconomic level? Stop pointing to the socioeconomic failures of one particular ethno-racial group by fallaciously scapegoating, vilifying, and denigrating the successes of another by mudslinging your emotion-laden ad-hominems, epithets, and excuse-making just so you can ostensibly claim that there is some cosmic phenomena of "Han chauvinism" trying to socioeconomically keep the host Kinh majority down. In which there isn't any credible evidence to buttress your egregious allegations by pointing to my modifications and somehow scandalously impute nefarious motives on me as if I'm biased editing in favor of one ethno-racial group in a positive light pitted against an underdog. Just so as to portray the host Kinh majority in a negative light by using scholarly facts and statistical datasets to make them look other group look bad by clearly indicating their lower socioeconomic position against the backdrop of Hoa economic dominance. It palpably shows your intellectual deficits and that you also don't have a convincing argument coupled with the corresponding evidence to put forth as your venomous characterizations, horrendous tirades, and execrable diatribes are not only low-bar, but it maligns your image while reflecting badly on your reputation as a Wikipedia editor overall.

Your baseless tirade is a prime illustration that shows that you don't have a sound counter-argument to back up your unconvincing accusations against me, which is indicative of nothing than a seething bitterness when it comes to the fact that the Kinh Vietnamese are not as economically prosperous as their Hoa counterparts. In which you are taking out that resentment by expressed through your emotional-laden diatribes patently rooted in your own insecurities, grievances, and acrimony. Well, nobody said that the tenets of free market capitalism (which champions freedom) were about complete fairness in terms of economic outcomes. The Hoa community is under no obligation to accommodate your grievances and insecurity, nor should they feel any pity for you, due to the lack of economic success on part of their Kinh Vietnamese counterparts. Why should I or the Hoa community for that matter be faulted, let alone unfairly scapegoated with your cheap and tacky retorts for the socioeconomic failures of other ethnic groups such as the Kinh if they aren't able to get ahead for themselves given their inability to match the high socioeconomic levels that the Hoa indefatigably earned for themselves? As if the Hoa somehow owe the Kinh something and the Kinh have some of sort of grievance to be fairly compensated and repaid in which the Hoa are somehow liable for in order to fulfill some kind of moral obligation due to their socioeconomic success. Believe me, the Hoa don't owe the Kinh a single đồng as result of their socioeconomic success because the Hoa rightfully deserved every single đồng by fashioning their hard-earned money with their own two hands and blood, sweat, toil, and tears. Since the Hoa earned every penny they have, why can't the Kinh go out and earn their own đồng for themselves instead of unfairly scapegoating the Hoa for their own socioeconomic failures in the wake of some cosmic grievance that the Hoa are somehow beholden by the Kinh and liable for and obligated to pay up just to close out and ameliorate the socioeconomic disparities between the two groups? It's no wonder that you're a first-class joke posing as a legitimate Wikipedia editor when your only and biggest retorting rebuttal is just raw emotion-laden ad-hominems. Simpletons like you who act out of their own personal emotions and expectations rather than facts and rationality are contemptible editors who only give Wikipedia a bad name. SimeonManier (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Thai Chinese, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How nice of you to leave a rant on my talk page. Now let's talk about how your edits purposefully revise excerpts and information from citations.

Your edits from Hoa people and others show that you yourself removed entire passages and tweaked pre existing information that reflects pro-Chinese chauvinism despite citation not including it.

Aren't you the one who is disrespecting the Chinese sources which you deliberately rewrote and added your own nuances of Chinese superiority?

Special:Diff//1145029896 and past frequent edits from Hoa people and the citations from Googlebooks that don't match anything that you rewrote into the article.

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] 49.190.240.37 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, woe is me, I'm ranting about my edits again because they must have hurt the fragile feelings when the uncomfortable facts eventually say otherwise and run contrary to a particular worldview. Well, excuse me, it's called the stating the facts and reality as they are per the sources that I used. If the factual reality on the ground as per the sources stated in the article isn't to your liking, then I guess you can shove your emotional-laden accusations, expectations, and myopically idealistic wishful thinking where it doesn't shine. And last time I checked, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedic platform whose non-profit service is to logically explain and rationally inform, not to conform, satisfy, and appeal to your own emotional whims and desired expectations. You're only here to make a statement based on grievance, resentment, and insecurity or to promote a certain narrative, not a rational counter-argument as to my contributions are incorrect because so far you failed to demonstrate as how my facts are wrong? So just on the basis of that and that alone, how can I take your reply seriously as a neophyte Wikipedia editor, especially one that is without any established and credible reputation?

Do you even know what the word "chauvinist" means? A chauvinist believes that his or her ethno-racial group is the best and/or prioritizes his group first as a way to dominate or reign supreme over others. Not only do you fail to understand this meaning, but you also fail to respect my right to peacefully and voluntarily edit any Wikipedia article that I wish to edit, regardless if its associated with the Han Chinese or anything to do with China because it is my private right as a fellow free human being and Wikipedian to do so. My previous edits and personal sentiments never even hinted about promoting the Han Chinese as being the "best" or prioritizing them over other ethno-racial groups, as I've only advocated for objective facts based on incontrovertible evidence and presented through robust and reliable material and statistical data examined and analyzed by respected US scholars. To call me a "Han chauvinist" is wrong both semantically, factually, and morally since I'm not trying to make edits to remotely postulate that Han Chinese are somehow the "best" nor do I prioritize them as a premier group that should reign supreme over others. And I'm clear about that, both in terms of my personal sentiments and reflective with regards to my past editing history as well.

And it's also quite the bold reply coming from you, being the unestablished anonymous IP editor that you are. I'm sorry to hear that on-the-job training on Wikipedia had to be so tough for you even though I expected that you'd reply to my "rant" on an emotionally-charged whim. Why do I say that? It's because intellectually decimating you by tearing apart your puny, inadequately substantiated, and fragile rebuttal of no substance that is expressed in such poorly written and infantile manner while playing you out as the idealistic amateur that you are on Wikipedia would be a decent warm-up for me before I resume with my usual editing activities. And you wouldn't know the difference between a "rant" and constructive feedback if you took a wrong turn, even if it's on Wikipedia. And how eloquent of you to neurotically rattle your ticked off butt-hurt garbled rambling that you try to masquerade as a so-called counter-argument any different when you falsely try to accuse me of cutting, editing, and even twisting the words of others to fit a "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" worldview on top of myopic "nuances of Chinese superiority?" Based on your previous editing history and rebuttal, I see that you are acting on your misguided feelings which is evidently seen in your frangible rebuttal. This on top of your other modifications that you have made on Wikipedia are clearly shaped and motivated by your own emotionally-laden inculcations, which is not only reflective of an editor with a frail argument and a bone to pick against the modifications of others. But also signifies the editing contributions perspicuously reflective of a linguistically impaired rookie editor, given the apparent intellectual deficits that are evidently seen in your superficially-induced editing patterns (many of which have since been reverted) of the lowest common denominator. Though my edits seem openly vocal and controversially explicit regarding Overseas Chinese economic dominance but I adhere to maintaining Wikipedia standards of integrity as per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH by showing the facts and truth. Since you characterize my reply to you as a "rant", I would like to ask you how your congenital name-calling in accusing me of being a "Han chauvinist" and piercing in random links that ostensibly demonizes me and proves me of my "pro-Chinese chauvinism" bias any different from what you are accusing me of? But how utterly rude of me to forget my basic etiquette in regards to my "rant" when it comes to dealing with the slew of obvious signs of tendentious editing made by anonymous and unestablished IP users such as the likes of yourself. On top of your false accusations, I would like to ask you and explain how your previous reply containing the hodgepodge of ad-hominem fallacies, name-calling, and non-sequiturs to me any different from your characterization of my "rant" on your talk page. Rationally speaking, why don't you take the time to look my reply and try to locate the illogical conclusions, fallacies, and inconsistencies that I made instead of haphazardly mislabeling and misconstruing it as a so-called "rant" wrapped up as a some purposeful revision rooted in a deep-seated bias of "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" that you falsely accuse me of?

With regards as to whether you agree with my changes or not, I supply such [[facts not to get in touch with your flimsy feelings or to impress upon you with some compelling specific knowledge. Regardless of how harsh and uncomfortable the facts may sound to you, but I use statistical evidence compiled by respected scholars to unequivocally convey and corroborate what the reality of economic life is in contemporary Vietnam as it is in other Southeast Asian economies where the Overseas Chinese have had a significant commercial presence over the last 500 years. Your empty claims of falsely accusing me of "disrespecting the Chinese sources" by "deliberating re-writing" according to my so-called "nuances of Chinese superiority" is completely inaccurate. You also accuse me of making "edits purposefully revise excerpts and information from citations." This is not only false on top of being an empty claim, since it is also a fallacious imputation coming from you considering the fact that I never used a single Chinese or did I ever use a Chinese-based source (ALL of which by the way are derived from Western scholarly sources and written by respected U.S. or Western-oriented academics such as the likes of Amy Chua, Yos Santasombat, and Yuri Slezkine which are not even Chinese-based (but Western or Western-oriented) or "disrespecting the Chinese sources" as you wishfully purport to make it out to be) or even the citations to substantiate my assertions and corroborate the edits that I made with regards to the article nor did I "re-write" nor misrepresent the information taken from the such so-called Chinese sources by "adding my own nuances of Chinese superiority." Moreover, why don't you check the sources that I supplied with my edits more thoroughly because you allegedly accuse me of making edits that "reflects pro-Chinese chauvinism despite citation not including it." The edited statements that I make and represent are accurately and respectfully reflective as written per the sources present them in the trade and industry section of Hoa people. And where have I done that exactly as per my previous edits other than haphazardly slap-dashing a couple of weak vituperative ad-hominem based fallacies in the cited links that you provided in spite of the factual data that is empirical, pragmatic, and realistic that I used to back up my edits, of which seem to be harsh and brutally uncomfortable for you contend with, yet are true. Your emotionally-charged antics of trying to accusing me of nefarious motives rooted in so-called "pro-Chinese chauvinism" is tied to an assertion that I'm making which appears to be brutally controversial and may ruffle some feathers, yet are nonetheless are rational, logical, and rooted in reason as corroborated by the objective supporting empirical data-sets and robust statistical evidence taken from various academic sources researched based on the scholars that I previously aforementioned. So just by playing the "Han Chauvinist" card in accusing and demonizing me of "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" while adding my own "nuances of Chinese superiority" is simply another ad-hominem-loaded ploy of signifying your own intellectual laziness and weakness since you cannot counter my logical-based edits that are buttressed by reliable empiricism and robustly factual scholarly data grounded in realism and practicality.

Why don't you take a look at my edits more thoroughly and stop rushing to hasty conclusions before you start running your own emotional-laden accusations by accusing me of "Pro-Chinese Chauvinism" or adding my own "nuances of Chinese superiority." You think your emotionally-charged ad-hominems and grievance-driven fallacies somehow morally disqualifies me from getting the facts out into the open, especially when they don't fit your emotional whims and desired expectations? Just because I state something that places the Hoa in a higher position in those socioeconomic respects, in which there are certain contextual parameters that is empirically true doesn't mean I'm implying my own "nuances of Chinese superiority" or to emanate any redolence, aura, whiff, or sense of "Pro-Chinese Chauvinism" of any sort in the article that is reflective of me being an apparent "Chinese supremacist." I certainly didn't make such edits out of some alleged nefarious motive of "pro-Chinese chauvinism," yet nonetheless if you were more open-minded and not let emotionally-charged expectations get in the way of your rationality, you have to recognize the serious differences in economic outcomes between that of the Hoa and the native Kinh majority in Vietnam today. In addition, I would also like to ask you what is "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" about that regarding my edits with respect to describing the prevailing economic reality in Vietnam today? The facts seem brutally harsh in corroborating the prevailing economic realities and glaring differences in economic outcomes with respect to the economic predominance that the Hoa presides over, but seeing how emotionally fragile and resistant you seem to be when it comes to your reception of them as based on what I checked according to your faulty misinterpretations and false accusations, the cited material that I provided corroborates the statements that are line based on the edits that I made without any of hinting "nuances of Chinese superiority." You also may accuse me of "purposefully revising excerpts and information from citations" just to fit a particular "nuanced Chinese supremacist" narrative but I corroborate my revisions not only intended for encyclopedic effect and emphasis, but I can back them such revisions by corroborating them with the corresponding reliable and robust facts of pertinence. Furthermore, that also doesn't change the underlying relevant facts and compelling statistical evidence that I also backed up my edits with as a way of informing and convincing others, coincidentally which happens to be brutal and uncomfortable for the fragile likes of you to emotionally contend with, let alone emotionally process and accept. I guess its really intellectually tedious and overwhelming for anonymous IP editors of the likes of you to go through the sourced material one by one to thoroughly fact check my edits, but why not go ahead and put in the work while you're at it if you're really that bold enough to try and prove me wrong otherwise without peppering me with such an emotionally-charged rebuttal containing numerous vituperative ad-hominem fallacies, name-calling, and non-sequiturs. From the looks of your rebuttal, not only do you put words in my mouth. But your absurdly predictable antics of imputing nefarious motives rooted in "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" guided by "nuances of Chinese superiority" without even delineating let alone including the corresponding sources that I corroborate them with on me is also astonishing, considering the fact that I never used a single Chinese-based source to back up the edits that I made over the last 2 years within the respective Hoa people article. Besides blindly bashing another editor without an iota of rationality, you're deploying ad-hominems common of an intellectual cyberslacker who all too often like my other Wikipedia detractors simply want to silence, punish, and suppress other editors with regards to edits that they find disagreeable or if it fit fails to fit a certain conventional narrative. I fundamentally disagree with your misconstrued asseverations that if you criticize another editor's contributions and if it happens to run contrary to what is conventionally accepted and expected, it is somehow is akin to imputations of "nuanced Chinese superiority" or "Pro-Chinese chauvinism."

It is so glaringly obvious that while you put words in my mouth on top of your faulty accusations guided by your wishful thinking certainly makes you emotionally recoil when the sourced material doesn't fit your foolishly-concocted idealistic thinking. All the statements that you accuse me of "purposefully revising" that I added and edited are in line as respectfully based on the facts as provided in the cited pre-existing academic material and scholarly excerpts derived from reliable Western sources that are accurately represented and well-substantiated with regards to the pertinent trade and industry section as written and confirmed by the original authors and respected academics such as the likes of Amy Chua, Yos Santasombat, and Yuri Slezkine themselves. None of the cited material that I added or tweaked for that matter was "re-written" nor was it reflected with the ulterior intent of purposefully promoting and propagating "nuances of Chinese superiority" drenched in "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" or misrepresented to fit a particularly "nuanced" ideological "Chinese supremacist" worldview that you falsely accuse me of. My unbiased edits clearly represent and reflect what the original excerpts had intended and presented and the considering the fact that I never used a single Chinese source to support my revisions when it's blatantly obvious that the problem lies in your own deep-rooted insecurities and desire of wanting to nefariously demonize me and accuse me of "nuances of Chinese superiority" or "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" that I am somehow guilty and shameful of propagating. Therefore, it is a big mistake to imply and impute irrationally sinister motives on me where I'm adding factual content (which you find objectionable) that are well substantiated by robust academic scholarly sources, does not mean my changes should be disqualified, invalid, and nor should it be removed or censored just because you derisively characterize it to be a consequence of me allegedly being a "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" or writing from a "nuanced Chinese supremacist" worldview. After all, the purpose of the article serves not only to inform readers, but to also get at the objective facts based on incontrovertible evidence and presented through robust and reliable material and statistical data examined and analyzed by respected US scholars (as opposed to the emotion, expectation, or rhetoric) and report the truth as it is (instead of spreading ignorance, error, and misrepresentation) that underlies these differences in economic outcomes rather than to misleadingly serve a particular ideological and emotionally-driven narrative undergirded by wishful thinking pushed by anonymous IPs such as the likes of yourself.

Nonetheless, I don't mind the questioning of the reliability of the sources that I substantiated my edits with. But I do have a problem when anonymous IPs delete the cited additions of others and remove cited sources without any rational explanation other than exhibiting obvious tendencies of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by repeatedly removing reliable sources and deleting the pertinent cited additions posted by either me or other editors. And based on the editing history on the Hoa people going back to the start of January 2022, I only previously removed entire passages and tweaked pre-existing information when the edits made by anonymous IP users (many of whom were presumably Vietnamese-based IPs who only rattled off incoherent tirades in Vietnamese in their futile efforts to discredit the validity of my additions instead of rationally questioning them and the reliability of the sources) who themselves failed to provide their own set reliable sources or simply wrote uncited manufactured nonsense to corroborate and substantiate their rationale. And unfortunately on the other hand, it was these same IPs (and not me that you falsely accuse me of by the way) that removed reliably well-sourced information which in concurrence contravened WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH and WP:REFREMOVAL guidelines. With regards to your false accusations, none of your previous pieces of evidence you supplied to me are compelling enough to substantiate that my edits (in which you accuse me of "removing entire passages and tweaking pre existing information" in which I have never done and flat out deny) remotely reflect any iota of so-called "pro-Chinese chauvinism" or "nuances of Chinese superiority" other than slandering me with a hodgepodge of vituperative ad-hominem fallacies, name-calling, and non-sequiturs. As I said before, not only do you put words in my mouth by falsely imputing other Wikipedia Editors like me of harboring nefarious motives rooted in "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" because the reliably and robust well-cited scholarly-backed material isn't congruent with your wishful thinking, and as per my previous reply you misconstrued a "rant," you have still not provided a single piece of rivetingly constructive input that cogently contradicts the reliably robust sources (none of which happen to be Chinese by the way) that I put forward over the course of last and much of this year. If you want a colorblind and equitable Wikipedia that is fair to all sides of the argument, you can criticize other people's edits or you can question my edits, but you can question my edits in a way that is not framed and perceived as an imputed accusation of "nuanced Chinese superiority" or "Pro-Chinese chauvinism," both of which I outright deny.

You are skating on thin ice with your flawed claim (that is quite frankly built on quicksand), since its so astonishing that you would have the audacity to allege that my edits are motivated by "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" or sprinkled with "nuances of Chinese superiority," which would be a lot more credible if your poorly written and sparsely substantiated rebuttal wasn't based on grievance, resentment, and insecurity against one editor. Therefore, I am not motivated by any hidden nefarious "Pro-Chinese Chauvinist" agenda based on the words that you put in my mouth on top of the bogus claims that you're falsely accusing me of promoting and embedding within my edits. My ulterior motivating objective is to inform others by bringing well-established scholarly academic research into light and not to cater to what you expect, feel, desire, or think on any given day. My edits appeal to logic and reason rather than the emotions, concerns, fears, expectations, and the desires of others. Whereas you on the other hand falsely imputing me of invidious motives rooted in pre-conceived "Pro-Chinese chauvinism" or "nuances of Chinese superiority" is absurdly artificial and invidiously inessential in addition to name-calling and demonizing me of twisting the facts to fit a so-called desired "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" (which I flat out deny by the way) worldview that you accuse me of. And not wanting to reiterate myself again, I would like to ask you what is "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" regarding my edits of describing the prevailing economic reality in Vietnam and the clout that the Hoa preside over their Kinh majority counterparts today? Though I also don't want to repeat myself again as per my last reply to you, I would also like to mention that based on your own previous editing history, your own tendentious editing signs not only egregiously transgress WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH guidelines. And based on your own editing history, which consists of a sizable deletion of previously cited additions added on to the Hoa people page that were rooted in reliable and robust academic sources invariably contravenes WP:IDONTLIKEIT, & WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:REMOVECITE & WP:REFREMOVAL regulations, which is not only beneath the conduct of any Wikipedia editor. But it is also akin to the editing behaviour violated by the hodgepodge of anonymous IP users and vandals that I previously aforementioned in one of the former paragraphs over the course of the previous year and a half where I had no other choice but to step in and clean up as result of the errors they began to spread. And based on on your endless slew of vituperative ad-hominem fallacies, name-calling, and non-sequiturs, your futile reply amounts to nothing meaningful other than signifying your intellectual laziness and weakness since you cannot rationally present a convincing logical counterargument as to why my edits (which are buttressed by reliable and robust scholarly factual data by the way) were incorrect. Henceforth, based on your own editing history and your emotionally-laced rebuttal isn't going to make me change my own viewpoints at all regarding the current status-quo of article nor will it convince me to alter my previous edits otherwise because the facts backed by reliably robust and well-researched excerpts and scholarly material compiled by respected US academics that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources on Wikipedia, of which simply don't matter to you when it doesn't fit your myopically idealistic wishful thinking. Well, I guess that previous statement is too "Pro-Chinese chauvinist" for you to mentally confront and digest as well, since your salty rambling amounts to nothing more than a useless emotionally-charged reactionary response rooted in your own deeply-entrenched grievances, insecurities, and resentment that is not grounded in any riveting facts and truth to back up any credible counterargument that you are propagating that holds water. And especially a poorly written one at that is based on grievance, resentment, and insecurity coming from an unestablished IP user such as the likes of you, that's pretty low-bar. And after all, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedic platform whose non-profit service is to logically explain and rationally inform, not to conform, satisfy, and appeal to your own emotional whims and desired expectations. SimeonManier (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC) SimeonManier (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:English masons indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add philosopher and politician as his profession. It is clearly stated in the text that Han Yu is not generally considered a philosopher even if he has influence on philosophy, and no government officials were ever considered politicians at that time. You won't find any source that states that they were politicians. Hzh (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Understood. SimeonManier (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Han Chinese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Canadian sportspeople has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean tea culture has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wang Yi (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European people.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Lex Fridman. I have trimmed it a bit. I don't think you need to inject words like "ultimately" into the sentence as the WP:MOS is clear on encylopediac language. See MOS:INSTRUCT for similar examples. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake and thanks for the trimming so my previous edits adhere to Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone and wording standards. Perhaps I went a little overboard with the wording emphasis. My apologies. SimeonManier (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – just something to learn from. Best to write things in a disinterested style/tone. Manual of style guideline can help. Also refer to WP:WORDSTOWATCH if you are unsure. Many thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yuan-Pern Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taiwanese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited PPB Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Applied mathematicians by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Girls (Jennifer Lopez song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afterparty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made a change to an article on CMOC Group Limited stating that is a state-owned mining company but you didn't provide a source. It is more than 50% owned by a combination of Cathay Fortune Corporation, a private equity firm, and CATL, which is also not state-owned (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N31X1ZS/ and CATL). The remainder of CMOC Group Limited's ownership is via public float on the Shanghai and Hong Kong exchanges. I've removed your change subject to you including a citation to a reliable source. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dsj421 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Israeli orators requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just get it deleted because it was a definitely a mistake on my part. Cheers. SimeonManier (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British currency traders has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Ruby da Sleeze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ni Hao.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

James S. C. Chao

added a link pointing to East Asian name

Tang dynasty painting

added a link pointing to East Asian art

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this essay about information style and tone. Some of your edits, such as this and this and this and this, add effusive and redundant words. Flowery writing is not encyclopedic. Many of the changes in these edits do not make the content more understandable to readers and are not improvements. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truncating my words doesn't make previous my edits sound less "flowery." I'm still confused as to why you find my wording emphasis and specificity to be equated with WP:PUFFERY? ? SimeonManier (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the before-and-after on Arnold's article:

Schwarzenegger made millions of dollars by investing in a variety of real estate holding companies both within the United States and around the world.

Capitalizing on the evergreen profits that he made coupled with the wealth of experience that he gained throughout his years in real estate investing, Schwarzenegger would later go on to make millions of dollars by investing in a variety of real estate holding companies both within the United States and around the world.

The original is a neutral, objective summary. Your edit bloats the sentence without adding any actual information. That style of writing might be appropriate for a magazine profile, but not an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So as your constructive logic suits, the addition of more descriptive details via my edits makes it "bloated" while your revised truncation's makes the article somehow more objectively neutral and "encyclopedia-friendly?" according to you? Give me a break, I guess I'm being punished for too being excessive for paying attention to minor details that are really puffed up as your "objective neutrality" requires. SimeonManier (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Thank you for your recent contributions to the article on Honorary Whites, but I must express my disagreement with your decision to revert my edit. I apologize if my edits have led you to believe that I am attempting to sow confusion regarding modern Taiwanese identity, as that was not my intention.

In my opinion, this article falls under the category of "Historical Definitions of Race," and should therefore be approached through the historical lens of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

It's important to clarify that the "Chinese" referred to in this article does not pertain to people from the People's Republic of China (PRC) as we know it today. In fact, the PRC is entirely excluded from this apartheid-era policy. Instead, it refers to the ethnic group, irrespective of nationality. This distinction is crucial to understanding the context of the article.

Given this context, I find the decision to separate Taiwanese into a distinct category from "Chinese" to be confusing and unnecessary. It also supports the conflation of the "Chinese" identity of an ethnic Chinese with a nationalistic definition, which I view as an intrusion of modern politics into a historical article.

As such, I propose renaming the "Chinese" category to "Ethnic Chinese" and placing "Chinese South Africans," "Hong Kongers," and "Taiwanese" within the same category, as they share a common ethnic identity. This, I believe, will better reflect the ethnic focus of the policy and the article, while establishing a clear distinction from the modern political context.

I am open to discussing the proposed changes further and would appreciate your feedback.

Thank you. 118.200.212.158 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose you should take it upon yourself to make the distinction who is Chinese, Taiwanese, and Hong Konger because if you imply by the term "ethnic Chinese" and by that I presume you the Han Chinese, even though both Taiwan and Hong Kong have Han majorities despite operating in different and separate entities. Yet when using the term "Chinese South Africans", I think Wikipedia readers would automatically assume that it mean the Han Chinese from China. Nonetheless I suppose renaming the category or partitioning into subsections (which is what I have previously done) could be two possibilities to deal with this issue, but I suggest you be cognizant of the current geopolitical situation surrounding Taiwan and China or the relations between Mainland and Hong Kong, even the political nuances pertaining the relations between the three entities are far more complex and beyond the scope of this current conversation, especially when it comes to establishing a clear distinction between the political context of modern South Africa. SimeonManier (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James S. C. Chao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Asian name.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]