Huayu-Huayu

Please wait

Why Hainan Province category when all the others are just the province name?[1] Please stop while we discuss this. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Hainan cannot be put under Hainan? Hainan in English Wikipedia is a mess! Huayu-Huayu (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• See http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%B7%E5%8D%97%E7%9C%81 海南省 -> Hǎinán Shěng -> Hainan Province. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I guess that makes sense. I didn't even know about the Hainan (disambiguation) page. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hainan

If you wish to split off a separate Hainan Island article, please discuss at Talk:Hainan. GotR ^Talk 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Guangdong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Guandong

Hainan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spratly Island

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan

Please stop doing this. There is no such thing as "Taiwan Islands". Some of them are disputed and its not politically correct. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the topic and not here! Huayu-Huayu (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Dr. Blofeld with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Bruvtakesover with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Jim1138 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jim1138. Jim1138 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Please take your issues to talk:Taiwan. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Appreciated thankyou. But it really doesn't help things if you leave snarky messages implying I am retarded and continously drilling me messages. I am always wary of editors who are newbies but run around on here like they've been here as long as I have. Given that Taiwan Prefecture did exist, I am assuming that you are working in good faith. Yes Taiwan does have islands but politicially they are not known as the Taiwan Islands like Ryukyu Islands, Solomon Islands etc. Islands of Taiwan would seem to make sense. Your edits to the main Taiwan article were disputed because most of us in the "west" regard Taiwan as the country and as there are islands within its jurisdiction the distinction "island of Taiwan" needed to be made. Although officially "Republic of China" is preferred for the country as a whole. I have no objections to you developing content, providing you add sources. Snake Alley needs expansion!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Stick around long enough and avoid getting in my bad books and I'll show you how to make full book citations within seconds using a tool!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an IQ of 149, hence the "duh" this guy is thick comments seemed even more off. The likeihood is that your fellow users are equally intelligent so please don't patronise them and act as if you are intellectually superior!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For citations look in http://books.google.com (google books). Paste the url of a book which picks up information and then paste the url into http://reftag.appspot.com/ . Load and copy the full citation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

We often assume that a brand-new editor who makes a lot of controversial changes is probably a sock. I've read the discussion at WP:ANI#"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China" discussions and I urge you to start showing some interest in consensus. Any more reverts of contested articles while the ANI is open might lead to a block for disruption. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Taiwan island group

Hello,

I have nominated Taiwan island group, an article you have created, for deletion because I do not think it is a well-defined geographical term with significant usage. Please consider participating in the discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group. Thank you. wctaiwan (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hainan categories you created

I have started a discussion here: Talk:Hainan#Possibly_unneeded_categories Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. CityOfSilver 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories deleted

Hello, Anna Frodesiak nominated the Hainan Province categories for deletion, I confirmed there were no members and deleted them. However if this is still controversial talk it out at Talk:Hainan. And I do not mind if they get created and used. Somewhere else I saw a discussion on Hainan Island categories, so I had thought that there was a discussion on this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Hainan#Possibly unneeded categories's talk page. 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summaries...

... and other recent history may be under discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Getting_a_little_out_of_control SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

A few pieces of advice:

• everything you do on Wikipedia is traced back to you. Don't ask for evidence when it's right beneath your nose
• incivility and personal attacks (including suggestions intellectual disability or drunkenness) are not permitted
• take the time to learn from people, and not treat them like you're in any way superior

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The links you were wondering about

Regarding this: No. I drank the right amount. :) The links I am referring to are Hainan Island and Hainan Province -- the dozens of changes you made to Hainan-related articles where you changed Hainan to either Hainan Island or Hainan Province. As you can see, I went through all of them and returned them to the way they were before. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So, where are the first two dozens of "link changes" that I made? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Check your contribs. Or, check my contribs from around 05:07, 24 January 2012 to 04:04, 24 January 2012. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You made the claim that dozens of such changes exist, so it is up to you to provide the evidence. Otherwise I regard it as a fake story. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see around 30 or so edits that I made undoing your changes in categories or links from Hainan to either Hainan Island or Hainan Province. I'm not going to copy zillions of diffs and paste them here. You can look for yourself. It's not that difficult. Oh, and please be polite. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"the dozens of changes you made to Hainan-related articles where you changed Hainan to either Hainan Island or Hainan Province" - where are the first two dozens. I didn't ask for zillions. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find them. After all, you made them. Go to your contribs, click 500, and take a look. They are right there. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page with my contributions, listed in chunks of 500 (there is only one chunk as of now) and I couldn't find two dozens of the changes as you claim. So I regard your story as fake until you provide the diffs. That I made them is only a claim by you. Show the sources. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really testing my patience, and I'm having a tough time assuming good faith here. You made these edits, yet you ask for diffs. This sounds like wikilawyering and obfuscation to me.

Here's the list: Click this link. See edits from 18:54, 15 January 2012, starting with this, all the way back to 18:44, 14 January 2012, with this edit. There are around 30. There's your evidence. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The 500-list I had seen before. Thanks for the two article diffs, that you call first and last. You made the Dongfang article less precise by removing the reference to Hainan Island. I do not assume anymore you made a fake story. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange edits

These edits/edit summaries seem to contradict each other: [2][3][4] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I think I've figured it out. Perhaps you are simply not aware of the "history" feature. You ask me to find "evidence" as though it is impossible to find. You challenge others to find statements that you made, as though they are lost in the past. This is a completely transparent environment. We can all see perfectly well what's happened. Click the "history" tab. That may clear things up for you. Happier editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A new beginning

Hello my friend. Let's put all this behind us. You make good edits. I can see them. Just because the Hainan edits were contested, it doesn't mean that we don't like you or don't value you. We welcome you into the community with open arms. All we ask is that you act in a collegial fashion, and are civil.

Please understand that I normally don't revert and delete so bodly. But, splitting a whole province article into two different names, making new categories, and editing numerous article to reflect that change, definitely needed consensus. I posted my concern at Hainan talk and waited 3 days. Nobody spoke up, so I acted. Actually, I was a bit surprised that nobody spoke up considering the quick appearance of the "opposes" when the question was formally posed. :)

If you still wish to pursue the Hainan matter, you are welcome to discuss it. Who knows? You may win the community over. But that's the way it works here. We try not to fight. The correct avenue is to present your case, and get consensus.

So, I hope we can move forward, and I hope you stay and work with the community to improve the encyclopedia. You are needed and welcome here. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 20:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back?

Just writing to say, your 2-week block has expired, and you are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia in a civil manner. Deryck C. 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Taiwanese archipelago for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taiwanese archipelago is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwanese archipelago until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Taiwan island group

Category:Taiwan island group, which you created, has been nominated for merger into Category:Islands of Taiwan. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)