User talk:Waikiki lwt

Welcome[edit]

Welcome...

Hello, Waikiki lwt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Ocaasi

Again, welcome! Ocaasi ^c 06:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chinese protests[edit]

I have some serious issues regarding the edits you are making to the article. In essence, you seem to be introducing quite a bit of material which appears to violate WP:NPOV.Your comment above indicates that particular bias. I believe you have already been reverted once, yet you persist without further discussion. This is unacceptable. Please discuss your changes. BTW using edit summaries does not constitute 'discussion'. Thank you. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

I note that you accused me of vandalism, yet you engage in the same lack of discussion that you accuse me of. Your edit does not have consensus, and you would be well advised to stop insisting that it stick. Please do not conflate a content dispute with vandalism, and please stop trying to make a political point with your edits. Your increasingly aggressive actions in manipulating the editorial content of this encyclopaedia to your own political ends risk getting you blocked. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are crossing the Bright Red Line. This is your final warning. Any further disruption from you will not be tolerated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As promised, I have filed a case against your edit warring. And before you go any further, perhaps I ought to alert you about the rules concerning canvassing. Happy editing. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, I have just created a page move request. Hopefully, this should obviate your need to go out canvassing for votes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents 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/China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents 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. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Good candidate for another new article:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhBShGlZjI&feature=related

Civilization: Is the West History - Pt1. (Competition) Arilang ^talk 06:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zhu Yufu[edit]

The article Zhu Yufu has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Oddbodz (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Zhu Yufu[edit]

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. When I checked your article it did seem like it was important and thats why I didn't tag it for CSD (Speedy Deletion). The reason that I tagged it for Proposed Deletion after 10 days is because Wikipedia's policy on Biographys of Living Persons states that any article about a person must have indepentdent sorces (such as a newspaper). Otherwise we would have articles about alsorts of people who havn't really done that much. So that your article dosn't get deleated you will need to find sorces to verify this person (such as the international news you say he was in). When I tagged the article no souces where on it however I can see that it has now been sorced with a couple of refrences. I have found a refrence in British newspaper:The Telegraph and will add that to your article as soon as I can. However, to help even more you will need to find extra sorces. Thank you for getting in touch and I hope that this will help. If not, just message me on my talk page. All the best and welcome once again to Wikipedia. Oddbodz (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oddbodz, thanks a lot. Now it is clear to me. Since the first two sources were there from the very beginning, at least I have done nothing wrong. Good to have people around taking care of good documentation with references. Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

......[edit]

Don't do that. What on earth are you doing? If you're new to WP like you have said, you can at least ask other people. Adding this line is standard procedure. If you're new to the AfD process, have a browse through AfD documentation. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Li Shuangde for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Li Shuangde 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/Li Shuangde 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. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chen Wei (dissident) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chen Wei (dissident) 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/Chen Wei (dissident) 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. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ding Mao for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ding Mao 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/Ding Mao 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. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable edit summaries[edit]

This kind of edit summary is entirely unacceptable. Avoid making personal attacks. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from starting another edit war - if there is a disagreement, engage in discussion. There is no justification for you to make any further reverts. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for this edit, accusations of "vandalism" are entirely uncalled for. I suggest reading on what WP:VANDALISM is before making rash comments like so. And you write as if you weren't the one who started the "Edit warring"...?
As for this edit summary, haha, very funny. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copypasta[edit]

Copypasting my earlier edit from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents here, so that there is no excuse for unwarranted reverting:

Just happened to be brought to my attention: many of the citations used are problematic. First of all, pages from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website cannot be considered WP:RS as it is not a WP:NPOV website; activist websites have never been accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia, unless detailing on the activists themselves (for example, it is justifiable to cite Amnesty International within an article about Amnesty International); Chinageeks is a blog, which is certainly not a WP:RS; most if not all of the links to boxun.com are 404 links that lead to non-existant pages; "Google groups thread" is a self-published site, and is not a reliable source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong[edit]

You are invited to participate in discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

What's been going on needs to stop. I've just filed at WP:ANI. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crackdown on dissidents wsj references[edit]

Apparantly, you have to subscribe to read the full wsj article. You can't do that per WP:PAYWALL since everybody has to have access to the feature. I was going to ask you to give a screenshot or something, but that would violate the wsj policies (i.e. i have to pay). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlqq2144 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can I quote the paper newspaper source then? I think it is WP:RS. Thanks for your advice! — Waikiki_lwt ^{Talk | contribs | email} 06:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]