User talk:Zhenqinli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Zhenqinli! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Runcorn 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

== Category:Systems ==

Thank you for your contribution to Category:Systems in the past. There is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your contribution and vote. See also below! — Jonathan Bowen 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Category:Projects by type

Thank you too for your contribution to the Category:Project management category. This now links to Category:Projects by type for examples of projects in different domains. However, there is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you again for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Systems and Category:Systems appeal

Many thanks for your support re Category:Systems. Following the deletion, Mdd has initiated a Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. If you would like to participate and support it, do add your name under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Systems#Participants.

In addition, I'm trying for an appeal for Category:Systems — see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_20#Category:Systems — we can see what happens anyway, but do add to the discussion! Procedure and following guidelines seems to be important for success, so do read the guidelines on overcategorization and add comments in the light of this if you wish. Best regards, Jonathan Bowen 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jin Jing

Please don't add your own interpretation to articles as you did to Jin Jing. If the source is reliable, and the Globe & Mail as Canada's newspaper of record is a reliable source according to WP:RS, you just can't change the meaning by inserting into the text that it is all speculation. If that would be an ok thing to do every single sentence in the wikipedia would start with according to the speculation of .... If you have reason to assume that it is really speculation you should have no problem finding a source that says so. Preferably not a mouthpiece of the CCP, though. Cheers, Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, so is Geoffrey York, author of the Globe & Mail's OPINION piece. But I would like to remind you that there is a difference between facts and opinions. As far as facts are concerned, Mr. York did not provide factual support for the statement that "Initially the state media of China censored reports on the torch protest and the incident involving Jin Jing, but soon found it more convenient to report on the protest and portray China as the victim, thus appealing to patriotic sentiments". I hope you would do a better job in checking the original source for factual reports, rather than opinions. If you only find the latter, please state it explicitly. Thanks. --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should check the source - this is not an opion piece as it is simply not in the opinion section of the Globe & Mail, you can easily check that. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I did check the source. The article, with the full title of "BEIJING'S OLYMPIC TROUBLES: COMMUNISTS FRAME THE ISSUE AS US-AGAINST-THEM; China spins protests abroad to buttress support at home", was not labeled as in opinion section. But as I stated earlier, it did not contain much factual reporting, and none regarding the statement that "Initially the state media of China censored reports on the torch protest and the incident involving Jin Jing, but soon found it more convenient to report on the protest and portray China as the victim, thus appealing to patriotic sentiments". If something looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, what do you call it? --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Zhenqinli. The section of torch relay needs to be improved. There are several sentences talking about the attack by protesters. I think that part needs to be smoothed. Thanks!--Jingandteller (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Jin Jing. 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. Yunfeng (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice for yourself, as I am not interested in the POV push as in your example. Thank you. --Zhenqinli (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding cat for JinJing

Thanks for all the effort, but you and i can not deny the fact that they can easily find sources that labeled a big "propaganda" tag to this incident. I basically can not find any that explicitly argue that it is not. So unless we have sources to dispute it, i would suggest to settle down, for a while. thanks. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the concern. I will continue to edit within Wikipedia guidelines and try to separate opinions from facts, when I find time. I have to say that watching the performance of "Do What I Say, Not What I Do" is not necessarily a bad experience.  :) --Zhenqinli (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand that "Do what i say, Not What i do" refers to double standards (or not?). I guess i just don't get the hidden meaning. Do you mind explaining a bit more?(Cowboybebop98 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] 3R Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jin_Jing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oiboy77 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, talking about Law & Order by someone who himself appears to be engaged in an edit war. I am eager to see how convincing is your POV push. :) --Zhenqinli (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The blocking appears to be based on one-sided misrepresentation of the relevant facts. The allegation that there was a "consensus" or "conclusion" on the talk page about using the controversial category is not true: I myself was one of the first to oppose the use of the category. Wikipedia allows for WP:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)" This was clearly what I was doing. I myself would not mind not to edit Wikipedia for the next 24 hours (or longer), but I think such blocking would reflect poorly on Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and encourage POV push and lobbying activities similar to what User:Oiboy77 have done in the last 24 hours. Zhenqinli (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The reverts were about whether Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China should be added to Jin Jing. That's not "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". First, because it is presumably meant to signify that she's been the subject of propaganda, which is not really a statement about her personal characteristics. Second, the article quotes several respected newspapers as asserting that she was made the subject of propaganda; the category is thus adequately sourced for BLP purposes. Therefore, your violation of the 3RR rule was unjustified. — Sandstein (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I don't think being "presumably meant to signify that she's been the subject of propaganda" is a sufficient reason to apply the controversial category to a living person -- any living person (not just Jin Jing). Presumed by whom? The readers of Wikipedia? As of now, I have lost confidence in the English Wikipedia appeal process, and will stop editing English Wikipedia for at least the next week, as a gesture of protest. --Zhenqinli (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The BLP exception to 3RR

A block you received for 3RR is being used as an example in a discussion at WT:BLP. You may wish to contribute your insights. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)