Visaliaw

May 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Democracy in China, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Democracy in China, you may be blocked from editing. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page about this. I agree with it.Visaliaw (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Engage in the talk page and use edit summaries. The talk page section that you refer to was about the section that was entirely unreferenced (see the state of the article then), and that’s what the complaints were about. Based on that discussion, the section was later rewritten with reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There was another complaint about "including Taiwan in this article about China is not neutral point of view". Also I added a template "For current state of democracy in the Republic of China, see Elections in Taiwan." while removing, which you might not have noticed.--Visaliaw (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To my understanding, Taiwan is often included general topics on “China” due to the views of the PRC, the Pan-Blue Coalition, and naming of the ROC, while it is excluded when specifically talking about Mainland China. Since this article includes pre-1949 ROC history, it’s a little complicated. I’ll open a new discussion about the scope in the article.

Yes, I noticed the template. It’s relevant regardless of whether the post-1949 subsection is there though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Taiwan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a final warning for reinstating your contested edits. There is no consensus for your edits and arguably a local consensus against your edits. Just because editors have stopped responding to you after they express their disagreement, does not mean that you suddenly have consensus for your edits. You have been told this repeatedly at Talk:Taiwan. Stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ythlev (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus at the talk page for your edit, and you have been warned multiple times before.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

DRN vs RfC

Thanks for finally deciding to use dispute resolution. As I recommended before though, a request for comment may be the easier option than the dispute resolution noticeboard to determine consensus.

Should you still choose to use the dispute resolution noticeboard instead of a request for comment though, I won’t object. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)