User talk:Rethliopuks

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rethliopuks. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 09:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Tianjin explosions

(Copied from my edit summary)

All three sources given state that it was "Tianjin TV". Stop adding Beijing News' "explanation" and stop adding "Satellite" to make it fit better. No RS has printed any of that BS

Wikipedia isn't here to serve the propaganda purposes of your masters in Beijing. See WP:Primary Source. Thank you zzz (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have your talk page on my WP:watchlist so if you wish to reply you should do so here. zzz (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, though if you check, the source from iFeng states clearly that it is the "Satellite Channel" (a Channel belonging to Tianjin TV) and not just "Tianjin TV", so I thought it was like "people thought that candidates were too unorthodox" versus "people thought that Trump and Sanders were too unorthodox" where both are correct but clarification is better the part concerning the regulation, worded just as "television channels", was factually incorrect. Also, if you check, the source is not really "explaining" anything in the sense that it sees a phenomenon presented to it and seeks for the underlying cause; it is stating a clause of a regulation that was an explicit part of the facts and that explicitly took part in shaping multiple rather significant events (e.g. Tianjin news not live reporting; journalists fully ready waiting in situ for permission to transmit data to TJTV to broadcast; journalists dispatched by Tianjin media transmitting data to CCTV only; CCTV which is in Beijing, whose reporters only arrived 4a.m., reporting live instead; public uproar that Tianjin Satellite Channel (the only Tianjin channel accessible nationwide) should be doing that; later reports recycling data from the night but back then no such was publicly available when no regulations/censoring directed to the explosions even existed).

Now don't mistake me; I don't think the source is entirely factual either since every person from Tianjin tells me that no local Television did live report (the source claims that they did, and ), but I think it has this truth in it, so I cited it. And as much as truth is concerned and nothing more is involved, it is good; or you can just dismiss that and think that all sources must contain no content error entirely to be acceptable for Wikipedia.

By just citing WP:Primary Source, are you suggesting that I did "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source [my]self", that it is an exceptional claim and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or actually that WP:SOURCE and it is not a reliable source? And WP:GF please, thank you very much. (sᴍıʟᴇ) Rethliopuks (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed - I was just a little shocked to see myself mentioned in an edit summary before my first cup of coffee. No, by citing primary source I am saying that Beijing News, in controversial/sensitive matters concerning the public image of the CCP, cannot be seen as anything other than a primary source - it is inconceivable that they would do anything other than defend the official line. Since the article was accurately reporting what all other sources said, I can't see why to muddy the waters with their propaganda. (That's not to say that they absolutely can't be trusted on anything.) It's just that I find it hard to swallow anything that is printed in the officially sanctioned Chinese press that puts the CCP in a better light. The part about regulations is now gone, for the reason you stated. Do you think the section, as it stands, is inaccurate? zzz (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rethliopuks. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rethliopuks. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shenzhen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQL^{Query me!} 19:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Data !!!

Hello Rethliopuks, I noticed you push on the data side of the Wuhan epidemic. Would you be ok to move these data tables into templates space ? Such as {{2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus China data by province}}, by example ? It would isolate the data, ease maintenance, and it would be as easy (simplier) to include in the articles. I did it for {{2019_coronavirus_pandemic_data}} and I'am quite happy of it. The template gets improved and updated by several users now, and a discussion is taking place. Yug (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course! Thank you for your kind offer. Rethliopuks (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, as a new wikipedian editor, if you ever have conflict wirh other wikipedians : sit back, ask the rational and explanaitions and be ready to listen it, call me over. I may help bridge both side ;) Yug (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan News

Taiwan News is a credible news source...and just because a report is single-source does not make that inappropriate, especially if it's a time-sensitive piece of data, such as inadvertent data releases (that are subsequently withdrawn); happens all the time. Please stop deleting the Tencent story on the 2019-nCoV timeline. It stands as-is...and credibly so. --2600:1700:80:5AD0:5528:57EE:F835:719 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am worried because the content is straightforward to fabricate. You can do it yourself by editing the source code of the webpage from your end. It is an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence. That was not to say that Taiwan news wasn't a credible source, but rather that the claim is so substantial yet based on so shaky grounds that it should require more credible sources to back up. If you read closely, the Taiwan news article never seemed to suggest that they verified the data as authentic -- in substance merely relaying what circulated on the Internet. Hence we should be cautious and at least cite a credible source which claims to have verified its evidence. Rethliopuks (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Source of data for province-level cases of coronavirus?

I do not see any source of data for province-level cases. I see a cited source for total cases, but that does include only a few provinces. (For example, where are the data from guandong province from? Not in the cited page.) I cannot verify those independently. ----221.121.29.157 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I do have all the sources but was worried that adding 100 sources every three days would clunk up the page. I can certainly add them all back if you want, although it would take me a while. Also, even if I were to add the sources, I'd plan to list them separately from the table as the tallying can be absolute pain; I'm using excel for all the summations and subtractions, and it's just orders of magnitude easier to just copy and paste rows. What do you think? Rethliopuks (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Hi, Rethliopuks! I just wanted to say that your last contribution here on the article Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020 was great :)

I believe we need more content coming directly from original sources in chinese and you have been doing a terrific job. Keep up the good work! Have a nice day! :) FranciscoMMartins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 ! thanks for the good work. Mentor recomendations : always ask around to understand better the wikipedia rules and practices :), and make some friends to call over if you see something fishy. Yug (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus China cases chart

I assume you did not intend to, but your edits changing the colours of the chart bars were incorrect. As explained in the description (citing CNN), from 10 to 18 Feb China included clinically diagnosed cases in their count even if they were not lab-tested. From 19 Feb onwards, China reverted to counting only lab-tested cases, but did not subtract the non-lab-tested cases counted during 10 to 18 Feb. And from 16 Feb onwards there is to my knowledge no data for total lab-tested cases. Hence we cannot label any of the numbers from 16 Feb onwards as "lab-tested". We could estimate that the total lab-tested cases reached ≈54000 as of 19 Feb, which would imply that it would reach ≈57000 as of 23 Feb, leaving ≈20000 clinically diagnosed cases included in the published count. If you know any reliable sources with data on lab-tested cases, let me know and we can work it into the chart. Thanks! 202.166.16.132 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@202.166.16.132: Hubei initially subtracted all the CD cases not testing positive for its data of 19 Feb and reverted the change later. This should give you the number and I believe it was 426. All the cases since 19 Feb are tested ones plus the restored handful of hundred cases in Hubei. I absolutely meant to change the colours; I just didn't find the time/energy to insert the 426 number and source + explanation at the time. Rethliopuks (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't think that I did not read that. That 426 was only relevant to 19 Feb. I don't understand why you insist on your reading when the CNN article explicitly supports what I said:

Tu Yuanchao, deputy director of Hubei Health Committee, said at a press conference that the provincial government has banned the practice of reducing the number of already confirmed cases. Tu said that all the cases that were confirmed but then retroactively dismissed as they no longer fitted the reporting requirements would be added back to the total tally. "These adjustments in numbers have attracted huge public attention, caused some doubts about the data. As a result, Ying Yong, secretary of the provincial Party committee, attached great importance to this issue. He explicitly ordered that no subtraction be allowed for already-confirmed cases and all subtractions be added back," Tu said.

I tell you what, you find some reliable source that explicitly states the number of lab-tested cases, and we will follow that. 202.166.16.132 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)