User talk:PalaceGuard008

Welcome to my talk page*. Please leave a message by pressing the "+" button above.

I will generally respond on your talk page, unless:

  1. you ask me to respond elsewhere (e.g. article talk pages), or
  2. you are an anon user, in which case I will respond here.

As indicated by the template above, I will be away from Wikipedia periodically for days at a time.

Archived talk page content is linked at right. Each archive contains 30 threads. User talk:Sumple links to older archives. Each archive there contained 40 threads.

*Persona non grata

The following persons are personae non grata on my user page and user talk page. Where permitted by policy and practice, any edits by them will be reverted on sight:

Question about Chinese characters

PalaceGuard,

Please see the left side of en:File:Jiming Temple's Horizontal inscribed board.Nanjing.jpg The characters are 乙丑?月 - what is the month character which I do not know?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Luxury Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exposé (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


St James' Church

The fact that you haven't heard the name of one of Australia's best known 19th century photographers doesn't make him non-notable. As for Greg Bierne, he is an artist, not a casual snapshot photographer. Amandajm (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my talk page Amandajm (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that. Thank you for expanding the section. With the photo reduced to thumbnail size, it looks tolerable. Amandajm (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boat Festival

You previously voted against a move back to Dragon Boat Festival from an editor's bold move to "Duanwu Festival" because a "more precise, official name is preferred in the case of competing English names" and because "'Dragon Boat Festival' often means a specific dragon boating competition, rather than the festival itself".

With respect, the second of those points is simply untrue, as sourced at the talk page by others and now myself. Part of those sources (just added by me) address your first point: there aren't really "competing" English names (DBF is far and away more common) and DBF is the official English usage of the central government of the PRC, of its branches (even in locales like Beijing where there are no races), and of its English-language media organs.

That may not change your personal distaste for it but, for what it's worth, links to my sources and discussion are here if they might cause you to reconsider your previous vote and establish a better, more accurate consensus over there. — LlywelynII 10:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constitution of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to King & Wood Mallesons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <br>Zhang Dongqing<br>([[Communist Party of China|Party]] Head Branch Secretary)<ref>井冈山干部学院 (Jinggang Mountain Cadre Academy (2011). [http://www.celaj.gov.cn/html/shnews/ssnews/2011/0407/2683.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central National Security Commission, when did it become a party organ?

When did it become a party organ? --TIAYN (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

calling for discussion

In this edit you redirected National_Security_Committee to National_Security_Council. The edit summary you used was, sorry, worthless.

I found this a very strange edit, one that really does require a much fuller explanation.

Practically all the instances where an article contained a link to National Security Committee the context is that it was some kind of secret police -- like the Gestapo, not a committee of senior advisors, like the United States National Security Council.

I agree with User:Materialscientist, whose first edit summary said "National Security Committee is too general and should become a disambig page."

If you provide an explanation, please put it on Talk:National Security Committee. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaolongbao

From your continuation of his edit war, I presume you're the same person as the URL editor at xiaolongbao?

A) Announce yourself as such, rather than run afoul of WP:SOCKPUPPET &c. by pretending to be two people. B) review WP:3RR and the editing process. It is the URL editor's edits which have run aground and he (=you?) need to take the discussion to the talk page before edit warring over their continued inclusion. — LlywelynII 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not saying you have to agree (it's pretty common on the internet for people to simply dig in their heels and snort) and I'm not the WP:OWNER of the page or anything, but hopefully my comments there have been helpful and will contribute to improving your use of English. There absolutely is not a one-to-one correspondence that goes 包子 = (steamed) bun, 点心 = dim sim = snack, 饺子 = dumpling (or vice versa). If I'm a little over-protective of the page, it's precisely because I think it's unhelpful to reinforce Chinglish. Some baozi are rice buns but some are dumplings; 点心 means dim sum, snack, or dessert in different places but none of those are synonyms; and jiaozis are just one kind of Chinese dumpling, not the only possible meaning of "dumpling".
If you truly and completely disagree (presumably since Chinese English teachers universally do translate those terms one-to-one), the way to go about 'fixing' my 'mistakes' is to use Google (or better yet Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google ngram) to establish the WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH usage; use (ideally) the real Oxford English Dictionary to establish the "proper" English usage; and find published WP:RS and include inline WP:CITEs to back up your points. That makes it much harder for terrible people like me to remove your clearly superior work. ; ) Bonus points if you could take the time to use {{lang|zh|汉字}} around your characters; follow WP:MOS-ZH by not including them where you're linking through;* and using {{nowrap}} to keep the characters from text wrapping (works fine in Chinese but very unhelpful when glossing it in English). I try to include {{linktext}} for things and places (not individual people) but that can be mafan since 9 times out of 10 you'll have to create a new article at wiktionary for your link.
Hopefully, though, we can just move on to improving the entry, by providing more sources (use the {{zh icon}} for Chinese-language ones), the name of the "inventor", more details, more (sourced) varieties, etc. — LlywelynII 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*What that means is that we don't want too many Chinese characters in our running text but we do want people to be able to find the characters if they're looking. So it's (obviously) wrong to write something like [[周朝]] (Zhou Dynasty) but it's also wrong to write [[Zhou Dynasty]] (周朝) or even [[Zhou dynasty]] {{nowrap|({{lang|zh|周朝}})}}... because the Zhou dynasty article already provides the Chinese characters if a curious editor clicks through the link to go find it. BUT it's completely correct to include the characters in a sentence like
...Gua Guagua's friend Xing Mingming (姓名名) was the chancellor of Shenmeshenme Commandery (什么什么郡, p Shénmeshénme Jùn) during the early Tang dynasty...
Since there are no pages for those topics, it's actually very helpful to have the characters (and sometimes the tonal pinyin) for those names. You could use {{linktext}} and create a Wiktionary entry or even start a short page for Shenmeshenme Commandery and move the Chinese text there and put {{China-hist-stub}} at the bottom, but obviously that's above and beyond the call of duty and no one minds if you don't bother to. (Apologies if you've been here long enough you already know all of this, just made an honest mistake with a few terms at XLB, and now find it offensive for me to talk about basic stuff. It's meant well.) — LlywelynII 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaoyang District. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Citysuper (supermarket)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Citysuper (supermarket), PalaceGuard008!

Wikipedia editor Deepanshu1707 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi, This Article 'citysuper (supermarket)' does not have any issue. Nice work

To reply, leave a comment on Deepanshu1707's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citysuper, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wheelock and Shizuoka. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinet department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australia–China relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Latham. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaku (ritual baton), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jin dynasty and Mandarin. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence of the week

For your contribution: "Was there some sort of pan-Balkan-Nordic-Arabian movement in the early 20th century?" -- you win my Sentence of the Week award! Thanks for the laugh, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC) ：Haha, thanks SemanticMantis :) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justin Yifu Lin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yilan County. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mei Quong Tart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious if you an opinion to my response on the refdesk

Hi. I wrote a response to the supposedly "dumb question" on the humanities refdesk, about governmental succession. It's currently the last answer. Curious if you have anything to reply to my views, as to whether I am correct or not. Probably best to reply there, not here, but if the question is archived by the time you get a chance to respond, you can respond here. I am curious as to whether I am right. 110.140.47.200 (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PalaceGuard008. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Spry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equity. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bankstown Central Shopping Centre, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Bankstown Central Shopping Centre. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:BURDEN . Dates and statistics in particular need to be cited. These require citations, otherwise they may be original research. Instead of arguing for its inclusion, you find it hard to find actual sources? LibStar (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might need to restate WP:BURDEN. The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. quite simple really. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not bad faith to remove content that is uncited and not verified. It would be bad faith to remove cited material. Wikipedia is worse when there in unverified material that is left there for long periods. In the time spent arguing here, you could have found sources instead you want to go over and over a discussion that completely ignores why WP:BURDEN exists. Can you please read it carefully and follow its instructions for editors find to actual sources for material that is uncited and wishing to be restored. Please do not post on my page again, as your time could be better spent finding sources LibStar (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar:, I have removed your comment posted in the thread below. Your input there was unwanted. You are invited to discuss content issues on the article talk page. I have tried multiple times to explain to you why gratuitous removal of content when you have no genuine issue with the factual accuracy of the statement is editing in bad faith. You don't seem to understand it and, going by your above comment, you also don't want to understand the point - i.e. you have consciously decided to be a disruptive editor. I don't care about your decision to be a disruptive editor in general, but in this incidence you have been asked to discuss the content issues on the article talk page, and that's where you should engage. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE your edit warring is a clear example of disruptive editing, especially when you have subsequently found sources. You have chosen to consistently defend your actions which has in fact led to your block. And consistently accuse me of bad faith when your continual reversing of edits was in fact bad faith. WP:KETTLE . You consistently fail to understand WP:BURDEN . LibStar (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
calling someone "a disruptive editor in general " is a personal attack. You really need to WP:LETGO and move on. LibStar (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by the admin below you need to stop blaming others. LibStar (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling out someone's disruptive behaviour is not a "personal attack". Yet again you have a twisted interpretation of policy. WP:BURDEN is about resolving disputes between editors who, in good faith, have a difference of opinion on the veracity of a statement. You have shown that you have no genuine issue - or even interest - with the statements here. Instead, you fetishise the cite tag and just go around slapping it everywhere - including, in this particular instance, on statements that are clearly referenced just in a preceding paragraph - and then delete the content. That is disruptive editing. You need to stop doing it. Where another editor calls out one of your indiscriminant cite tags and you have a genuine issue with the statement, you should seek consensus on the talk page. You can start learning to do this in this instance by engaging on the article talk page, instead of just repeating "no I'm not, no I'm not" on my talk page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to point out poorly cited material as I see fit. And will not challenge someone that puts in or restores material provided that is adequately sourced.

Your comment above seems to indicate that you do not use your block period to WP:CHILL to reduce your frustration. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Bankstown Central Shopping Centre

See my comment at the noticeboard. Since you broke 3RR, an admin would be justified in blocking your account. You might avoid this if you will reply and agree to make no more edits at this article until consensus is reached on the talk page. If you try to solve this but can't come to agreement between the two of you, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

I have gone ahead with the block since you didn't accept my offer. I was hoping you would "agree to make no more edits at this article until consensus is reached on the talk page." The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, I did not think it is appropriate to "agree to make no more edits at this article until consensus is reached on the talk page", given that User:LibStar seems to have stopped discussing but also stopped blanking, which means (i) it seems impossible to achieve consensus in the positive sense; and (ii) on the assumption that User:LibStar is indicating acquiescence to the current version, uncontested, constructive edits can now go in, including to resolve some of the very issues that User:LibStar was complaining about. I'm not going to appeal the block, as 3RR is there for a reason and I don't think it's unfair to cop a 24-hour block for the technical breach. However, if you have any thoughts on how one should proceed in the situation where the other disputant has stopped discussing but also stopped reverting, I would be grateful for them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most people who show up at AN3 think that their own reverts are fully justified and that the other party is the one at fault. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to everyone. At first glance, it looks like you have been removing 'citation needed' tags but without supplying a citation. The question of whether statements are adequately sourced is one that should be worked out on the talk page. When you are the person adding the information, *you* are the one expected to supply adequate sources. When you open a WP:Request for comment it is advertised in other places and it can bring in editors who are new to the dispute. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard can also be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful. To be clear, I was not adding content to the page, I was objecting to unjustified mass blanking - e.g. of statements that were clearly referenced in another paragraph. But I appreciate that hardly matters as far as the dispute resolution process is concerned. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from St. Ignatius Cathedral into St. Francis Xavier Church (Shanghai). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:, thanks for your message. In this particular case, the content in question was written by me (diff), so as copyright owner it is up to me to determine whether I wish to attribute myself, and certainly it would be inappropriate for me to attribute my licensee(s). Your edit at St. Francis Xavier Church (Shanghai) was inconsistent with my rights, so I have reverted it and then restored my text. Apologies if this seems aggressive, but as an intellectual property lawyer it is important to me that my intellectual property rights, including the right not to attribute myself or my licensees, are not eroded, and the edit was not directed at you personally by any means. As a side note, I have also undone your change of "cathedra" to "cathedral": the two are different, please see cathedra for more information. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Annexation#Tibet

I think it would be a good idea if you were to archive any section older than a year.

I saw that you made this edit to List of annexations since World War II so you might like to comment on Talk:Annexation#Tibet -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I remember you from your Sumple years when I was working on the article Qiandao Lake Incident (under a different user name). Anyway, I am feeling nostalgic these days and just want to say hi to another old-timer. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 11:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Alex Shih: Hey, thanks for dropping by. It makes me nostalgic too to think how much (real) life has changed since those days, for me - and no doubt for you too. Anyway, nice to see a familiar face (so to speak) from the past! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PalaceGuard008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. This is a corporate IP, not an open proxy. @KrakatoaKatie: PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid we can't do anything about a block on an IP address unless you tell us what IP address it is. Please post a new unblock request giving us that information, which will be given in the message you see when you try to edit. Alternatively, if for any reason you prefer not to make your IP address publicly visible, you can request an unblock through the Unblock Ticket Request System. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Autoblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

PalaceGuard008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. IP reported to be blocked is: 165.225.80.0/22. PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 6:33 am, July 26, 2017, Wednesday (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

  • It is generally accepted that an administrator who has declined an unblock request should not then decline another unblock request for the same block, so that the blocked editor gets an independent review. I am therefore leaving your latest unblock request open, but I am posting a comment about the block, both to clarify things for you and to help whatever administrator reviews the request.
  • Having seen the unblock request at User talk:165.225.81.6 I thought it was pretty certain that was the block you were referring to. I have posted a message to that talk page explaining the situation, but for convenience I am also repeating it here:
This IP address is used by Zscaler to provide internet access indirectly through a proxy, which has the effect of hiding the user's local IP address. Whether this is an "open proxy" depends on how one interprets the word "open", but it certainly has the effect of an anonymizing proxy, which is not permitted for editing Wikipedia unless there are special circumstances which justify making an exception. In the absence of such special circumstances you will just have to edit without connecting through the Zscaler connection. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Using Zscaler is not optional on my machine as it is work equipment. The position you refer to basically means that people cannot edit if their companies choose to use Zscaler. There are thousands of people affected at my work alone. I can see the counterargument would be, "just buy your own computer and edit with that", which is certainly an arguable position too, but I don't think it is consistent with Wikipedia's goals to block thousands of people, including established editors, because of their companies' choice of service providers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A further option is to edit from an internet café or equivalent. I understand your point, but the counterpoint can be made that it is not reasonable to expect Wikipedia to vary their position to encompass your Company's choice of internet contact.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to give you an IPBE if you're required to use this connection at work. Would you like me to evaluate you for that? Katietalk 23:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Katie, yes that would seem to be a good solution, thank you. If there is anything I need to provide to make a case for it, please let me know. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the recent edit warring, but I've granted you a one-year IPBE. At the end of that period, you'll have to apply again. Katietalk 16:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help, many thanks. Will watch out re editwarring. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20th century Chinese warships edits

Hello PalaceGuard008, I want to ask you about the recent article moves to several articles on Chinese warships. While I do not disagree with your edits, many of them were helpful, I can't help but feel the articles are messy and somewhat arbitrary. We now have a big mess of Wade-Giles and Pinyin mixed in together when the Wikipedia policy so far with Chinese warships is to favour pinyin names, for example the Qing era Chinese ironclad Dingyuan and Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan rather than Ting Yuen and Chen Yuen, even if at the time the Wade-Giles spelling was more common. Now though, there is a Chinese cruiser Chao Ho in Wade-Giles but her sister ship, Chinese cruiser Ying Rui in Pinyin. This seems to go against the general Wikipedia consensus and seems clunky and unintuitive. It could be argued that Ying Rui could be changed to the Wade-Giles Ying Swei or Chao Ho back to the Pinyin Zhao He but not both different romanizations at once? Semi-Lobster (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 userpages

Instead of trolling my talkpage (FYI, you're persona non grata on my userspace, so don't bother posting there again), you have 2 options. Either re-direct your old talkpage to your new talkpage OR stop editing the old talkpage of an account you abandoned. After talking to Bish, I'm no longer gonna bother removing your pathetic personal attack against her from your current talkpage, but you don't get to maintain 2 separate talkpages/userspace (nobody does) and determine who gets to post on them and who doesn't. I'm giving you 24 hours to either re-direct your old talkpage here or voluntarily remove the personal attack from User talk:Sumple. Stop making Wikipedia a battleground.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How strange that you don't want me posting on your talk page but you are happy to post here. Conflicting signals much? Your post is full of logical holes - if you can edit a given page, so can I, and in the absence of consensus you should leave it in the state it was in before you edited. So leave User talk:Sumple well alone. As to the merits of your complaint, I've said it once and I've said it again, go get a dictionary or a textbook. You obviously don't understand the meaning of persona non grata. If you believe it is a personal attack on User:Bishonen to say she is persona non grata on this or another page, you should alert her to your concern and see what she would like to do. Perhaps you can also inform her of the different conflict resolution options available to her. Given that your edit has been repeatedly reverted, you obviously don't have any support for your views from the community and so you yourself should leave the page well alone in its pre-existing state. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I had completely forgotten about this, but a perusal of the history of User talk:Sumple shows that this is a fight you have periodically picked since 2008 and last in 2011. The text in question doesn't even concern you. You are feigning indignation on behalf of someone who doesn't even care - it's disingenuous and it's transparent and you know it, and I'm frankly astounded that you are persisting almost 10 years later. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pot meets kettle? Geogre blocked you more than 10 YEARS AGO and he left the project EIGHT YEARS AGO, yet you still insist on keeping him on a "blacklist". Talk about petty. It's pretty clear you're the one with an axe to grind and couldn't let go. Look, I'm not gonna insist that you remove Bish and Geogre on your CURRENT talkpage because Bish is too magnanimous to be on your petty level, but User talk:Sumple is no longer your talkpage and you don't get to maintain 2 separate userspaces, much less make public proclamation about who are not welcomed on an supposedly "abandoned" talkpage. It's as simple as that. Btw the "natural state" of the Sumple talkpage doesn't have the personal attack because you yourself blanked the page [1], which was your final act before abandoning that account. But then an IP address re-inserted the personal attack [2]. I'm going to remove the attack again, but you're free to seek community consensus on AN/I on this matter. I doubt it would end well for you.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, I'd like to see you convince AN/I of your warped reading of "persona non grata". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PalaceGuard008. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed: Sheshan Basilica Pilgrimage

On the current Wikipedia page for "Sheshan Basilica" it seems as if your edit added in some information of particular interest:

On June 12, 2007 you added: "Traditionally, many of the Catholics in the area were fishermen, who would make the pilgrimage by boat. This tradition continues among local Catholics, with the result that the creeks around She Shan are often crowded with boats in May." (Source)

This phrase persists to current iterations of the page, yet without any citation. Were these facts sourced from your personal experience, or from the anecdotes of someone else? While scholars note that early pilgrims traveled by boat, this is the only online source proposing that boat travel continues to be a part of contemporary pilgrimage to this site. Further citation would be much appreciated!

130.132.173.35 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@130.132.173.35: - from memory this section of the write-up was based on a Chinese language source, I am not sure now whether it was one of the books I consulted or an online source. Apologies for the lack of reference - this was a long time ago and I was not the most disciplined on referencing back then. Googling just now, I found this article in Chinese which mentions that, after services resumed at the basilica in the 1980s, every May the creeks near the hill would be crowded with the boats of pilgrims. The article is about a doctor working for the church, who would visit the fishing families on their boats. The doctor in question retired in 1998, so this does not provide evidence that the practice continues now in 2019, but it does show that it was still happening in the 1980s-90s. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PalaceGuard008. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Cunard Line you included material copied from British Eagle. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese takeout" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinese takeout. Since you had some involvement with the Chinese takeout redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Region(s) of Sydney for Epping

I see that you have been involved in related debates, so thought you might be interested to know that I have started a general discussion with the aim of settling a consensus at Talk:Epping, New South Wales#Region(s) of Sydney for Epping. If you wish to contribute, please do so there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Sydney

I can see you have interest in the regions of Sydney and I can see you were also involved in the injustice that happened involved the Eastern Suburbs Sydney page and the consequential removal of the South-Eastern Sydney page all thanks to one biased editor who manipulated the entire debate called Dacyevillain who has gotten away with their tyranny.

Just thought you'd like to know the editor Dacyevillain has gone around changing suburb articles in Bayside Council like the individual articles for Botany, Banksmeadow, Hillsdale, Daceyville, Pagewood, Eastgardens etc which originally were described as 'Southern Suburbs' or 'South-Eastern Suburbs' to now saying 'Eastern Suburbs' purely because they're being allowed to get away with it even though no reliable nor government sources refer to these suburbs as 'Eastern Suburbs' in any way.

I'm one of the people in the community who argued that South-Eastern Sydney should not have been deleted however it seems anyone just using an IP address in the debate was dismissed with Dacyevillain attempting to say anyone who disagreed with them was one person. I'm reaching out because I can see in over a year that has past not much has been done to correct the errors and misinformation that has been occurring thanks to Dacyevillain's edits. Some nonsense edits I can see Dacyevillain has made in the last year are attempting to say on the Daceyville sububr page that there's a light rail station in Daceyvillain called 'The Juniors' which is in Kingsford, not Daceyville and unrelated to this topic attempted to say film director James Cameron has 5 kids when any google search will clearly show he has 4. Eastern Suburbs aside this editor should be monitored full stop for their contributions. 2405:6E00:2ED:BEF6:BF38:CA1F:AC9D:71BD (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PalaceGuard008, FWIW, there is some context here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daceyvillain. The short version is that 2405:6E00:2ED:BEF6:BF38:CA1F:AC9D:71BD (and their many other sock puppet accounts and roaming IPs) has been banned on multiple occasions from editing Wikipedia, after they resorted to vandalism and harassment due to their original research edits being reverted. Sorry that they have dragged you into this. cc-ing @LibStar Daceyvillain (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]