MinYinChao

Your edits to Wales and England

I have reverted your change to England, but left your reversion of the change to Wales to leave the status quo in place for both article. This has been a very controversial area (with one failed mediation) and there are multiple citations in favour of different wordings. The Wales page had mediation at the moment which looks to have a change of being agreed. Once that is the case it will implemented there, and we can try it on England to. --Snowded (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• If there are multiple citations in favour of differing wordings, should we not attempt to show this in the text? And what is a mediation? MinYinChao (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this page, Wales, Scotland, The United Kingdom and Constituent Countries you will see many many discussions on this. It went to mediation (check your help on Wikipedia) and was unresolved for all countries. On Wales a mediator has been brought it (see the talk page) who has proposed a solution that I think will gain acceptance. Be aware that this is a massively controversial area, abounding with edit wars and sock puppets. If you hang on a couple of days I think you will see a compromise at least on Wales and England, possibly Scotland. I have put this page on watch so reply here, no need to post on my talk page. --Snowded (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop directly editing pages on what are controversial issues. Also given prior history on these pages (I note you are a recent editor) would you please state now for the record if you have ever edited the Wikipedia under any other name? --Snowded (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • If you disagree and want to exhibit a bias, then Wikipedia is not the place, and you have no right to tell me to go away from an article. And Wikipedia has always been called under that name for as far as I am aware. MinYinChao (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires edits to reach agreement on controversial issues and this is done under the talk page not through edit wars. Please do not make accusations of bias when you have no basis for it. Note the mediation in place on Wales and also prior discussions and show respect for other editors. Please respond to my question on your prior history (if any) as an editor --Snowded (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Wikipedia has always been called Wikipedia has it not? MinYinChao (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to England

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at England. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm concerned you are a sockpuppet of a banned user. Can you confirm you are unrelated to User:Wikipéire and User:Malarious? If you edit war again, I will not only block you, but seek to verify your connection with the aforementioned accounts. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not have more than one Wikipedia account if that is what you are asking. I hardly consider this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England&diff=prev&oldid=225835953 edit from Malarious, which replaces 'Constituent country' with 'Country' to fit with what I did, since I did the exact opposite - please actually think about what you are suggesting. And if you care to check, Wikipeire has been blocked, so how could I possibly be them? On another note, I would like to ask how it is that Wikipeire was allowed an accent in their name? As when I tried putting some Hanja in my name when making my account, it told me only regular letters could be used, yet that user seems to have been allowed not to. MinYinChao (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour and edit style is very similar to a whole set of sock puppets on these pages over the last few months, something that several of us have noticed. Hence the questions as there has been more than enough disruption. You also seem to be avoiding questions (another common feature). So a very simple question. Have you ever edited at any time in the past, the Wikipedia under any other name or IP? If yes, please list them. If No then please state it now for the record. Failure to answer would I think justify a checkuser --Snowded (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not like your tone at all, and require a greater degree of standards of behaviour when someone is addressing me. If you care to check, I have answered all questions directed at me so far. If the wording I have given is not what you wanted, then try rewording your question. Don't bother messaging me again until you have something useful to say. MinYinChao (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The other day, I created this User:kkjchangkumiang, since I could not remember what the name of my original account was, but after creating it, realised to check the edit history of one of the pages I had edited to remember the name of this account. Now please go tire someone else with your annoyance. MinYinChao (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You have avoided answer the question about any PAST accounts. --Snowded (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it was not you that asked me that. You asked me something about editing Wikipedia while it was called something else, and did not clarify when I questioned about this, so if anything, it is you who has not answered the questions. JZA48 was the one who asked me that, and I responded with "I do not have more than one Wikipedia account if that is what you are asking", so please try reading next time. MinYinChao (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read it very carefully and I am afraid I did ask you but you may have misinterpreted. I will repeat it with different wording. Have you at any time in the PAST edited the Wikipedia USING anyother name or IP? --Snowded (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but if what JZA48 says is correct, and you can verify this, then why don't you just do that anyway? It would save any doubt. MinYinChao (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking for you to put it on record that you have never edited under any other names. Its all I wanted so thank you for doing that. --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A gentle reminder

Dear new user (account created on 21:06, 26 May 2008), although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, your recent edits in Wikipedia, did not appear to conform with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

• Lacking edit summary: This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you amend or delete any content; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit i.e. likely vandals, trolls or sockpuppets.
• Do ensure that the tone or style of your edits is appropriate for Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
• Lacking consensus. If you feel very strongly that your edits are suitable for inclusion, bring it up at the article talk page for further discussion, but do not revert your edits again. Doing so with a lack of consensus is seen as disruptive editing, and you may be blocked.
• Assume good faith. When others cast doubt on their own good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than edit warring or attacking editors. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point nor receive a positive response; they hurt the Wikipedia community (everyone here are volunteers), and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

Kindly note the highlighted guidelines in order to avoid any unnecessary disputes or frustration and use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to experiment. Thank you -- Aldwinteo (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Britic

I am not going to warn you again. Capitalisation has nothing to do with how names etc are capitalised. Please read WP:MOS, Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Mixed_or_non-capitalization, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) before continuing with this edit war. The encyclopedia is written in English, and thus the word English is always capitalised. Again, as the encyclopedia is written in English, titles and the beginning of sentences are also capitalised. Trademarks, and stylistic preferences do not come into it. iPhone, eBay etc are not capitalised as IPhone and EBay because the second letter is capitalised because the first letter is pronounced as a separate entity. Please read the links I have provided fully. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you cared to read those links, you would see they do not back up the point you are making. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported and may be blocked again. MinYinChao (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do. The encyclopedia is written in English, the word English is capitalised. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "English" is not the word in question. The word in question is "britic", a synthesized alphabet. MinYinChao (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you reverting my capitalisation of the word English in the first sentence? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Use the preview system

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to BRitic, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK :) MinYinChao (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BRitic

An article that you have been involved in editing, BRitic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRitic. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this comment [[1]]

Interesting that you have been blocked for edit warring, and yet you continued to do it despite warnings. Yet you somehow think you are stil correct regarding the name capitalization, even though it was settled in opposition of your contributions? Oh, and note, that on the links you gave, they actually backed up our argument. MinYinChao (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to assume good faith is quite astounding. Yes I have been blocked for edit warring, I do not hide that, if you did a little research you will find out it was through trying to combat a disruptive user (User:USEDfan and his socks) that I was blocked. Furthermore, it takes more than one person to edit war, and you were equally at fault, so we'll have less of the edit warring accusations please. Also, you will find that the links I provided supported my position that the name should be capitalised. It was only after another user pointed out that infact the second letter is capitalised that a lowercase b could be used, and I do not contest that, as it is in line with guidelines. Perhaps you should read WP:AGF and be a little less aggressive/accusatory in future?Nouse4aname (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You would not have been blocked unless the reviewing admin decided you were guilty. So you were guilty. Fullstop.

Secondly, no, not just that. The link you gave me itself, actually said that in certain circumstances, such as in mathematical equations, where for example 'n' may mean something different from 'N', that it is permittable to act accordingly with the name title. Since britic is a case like this, it would also have allowed it. MinYinChao (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was guilty of edit warring. Get over it! I do not deny that at all. So now you are trying to suggest that britic is not English but maths? That's just confusing...Nouse4aname (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Taking at face value the biographical data on your page, I think it is reasonable to expect someone with four years of study (and I assume a qualification) in linguistics to come up with other citations for the Britic page. If you can't the it casts severe doubt on either (i) the qualification or (ii) the notability of Britic. If you want this one to stay in place you are going to have to do some work on citations rather than arguing for the sufficiency of a limited set. At the moment by guess would be that any normal admin would delete the page on the basis of the evidence so far. --Snowded (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flexi-vegetarianism

Copied from my talk page:

"Do not move this page without gathering consensus, especially considering the POV-pushing motive of such a change. MinYinChao (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)"

But you moved it from flexitarianism to flexi-vegetarianism in the first place without gathering consensus [2]. Please explain. nirvana2013 (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana2013. It seems to me that the term “flexi-vegetarianism” is not well enough sourced to be even mentioned in the article, much less to have that term as the article title. MinYinChao, you were the one who moved the article without consensus [3] (July 18), so the edit summary when you repeated this article move [4] (July 31) is rather disingenuous. --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BRitic

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is BRitic. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRitic (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)