User talk:Casualfoodie

Casualfoodie, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Casualfoodie! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page General Sherman incident, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't actually copy exactly. Most of what I wrote was very altered actually, but it's difficult to find another wording for "respecting sovereignty" or "need to demonstrate American power over what he considered to be a weaker nation". Ironically the first complaint for such info was that the information written was "unverified" or "uncited". Despite the information was admittingly close to what the provided sources had written. I got no issues in abiding by Wikipedia copyright rules of course as long as there is no pretext here to go delete the said information permanently as that's not necessary since one can easily rewrite those paragraphs with essential info in a way that doesn't risk breaking copyright rules. I will try to amend and sort out my errors near end of today or on the weekends. Casualfoodie (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I just find it really strange that not only do you delete the information from the National Interest article. You also delete the revision from log History so nobody can know exactly what I wrote. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Sherman_incident&direction=prev&oldid=1018006047 Casualfoodie (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casualfoodie (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for calling it suspicious..I wasn't aware of the rules to hide the edits from log and wrongfully accused you of crossing the line. I have since rewritten the paragraph and hope that it passed your copyright rules. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018074450 Casualfoodie (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hemiauchenia. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Traditional Chinese Medicine seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia The current intro doesn't need to have a critique that's already covered in the criticism section. Let the readers decide for themselves whether it's pseudoscience or has real benefits.

Traditional Chinese medicine ultimately has practises that have been used for centuries. Certain practises like accupuncture appear to have an effect on serotonin levels and being a form of neurotransmitter release method but still learning. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304746836_The_effects_of_acupuncture_on_serotonin_metabolism

It's very plausible that the Chinese accidentally came across herbs like ginseng and ginger and realised the health benefits and write about the sensations of warmth and benefits to the organs. To write off an entire discipline in the introduction as being harmful or useless. That is wrong as how would you know?

Casualfoodie (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless my edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018108246 Was appropriate and neutral before you quickly reverted it..My edits was simply to let the criticism stay in the critique section.. which is already there btw..but as we have no proof that Tai Chi, ginseng, etc are useless - its appropriate to let the introduction actually go introduce the entire discipline first. That it is an ancient Chinese Medical system that comprises of many different branches. I think that's an appropriate intro. Not the one we currently have now. The criticism of the discipline can already easily be found in the critique section. I don't see Yoga despite it can also easily be called quack science due to lack of quality studies supporting it's concepts of chi, facing the same treatment. I feel there is sinophobic bias given the difference. Why should an entire ancient discipline that involves Tai Chi, accupuncture, Herbal drinks, etc be written off as useless and likely ineffective in the introduction? How would you know it's ineffective if there's no research confirming that?

Also I noticed there's a lack of info on the supporting evidence for some of the disciplines like Tai Chi which actually has many studies showing overall positive outcomes. Wh

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/the-health-benefits-of-tai-chi/

Hence that intro is not appropriate as it contradicts the fact that certain parts of TCM can be helpful and TCM is a large practise.. unless you got evidence that Tai Chi is useless, that intro is just borderline ignorance. Casualfoodie (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Traditional Chinese medicine 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue to harass other editors, you may be blocked from editing. We have a strict policy against legal threats as seen at WP:NLT, which you clearly violated with this edit summary. Kb03 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kb03 Wikipedia arbitration courts are legal actions? No they are not. I don't believe you guys are editing in good faith. Hence I feel that the Wikipedia arbitration should intervene.

The intro I had issues with, states;

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China. It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[1]

I wrote in edits that changed it to;

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China. There has been limited quality research on the field and has been described by a Nature opinion piece as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.

I think my edits were backed by facts and gave fair decent context unlike yours..you guys are the ones reverting my edits and not making your case on talk page. I have however addressed it on talk page and anyone impartial can see my edits were neutral and necessary. I AM not afraid to take it to arbitration as I done nothing wrong. Casualfoodie (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Edit summaries are supposed to be that - SHORT explanations of what was changed. Rationale for the changes is better placed on the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Casualfoodie reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring takes two to tango but my edits were factual and necessary. Just inconveniently mentions the context and facts that you clearly go out of your way to hide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018137300

And you guys do make the worst reasoning for reverting my edits. And not fairly talk it out on talk page.

Ie. I made another unrelated edit and with a solid reliable source and relevant info.

Yet you guys revert it with bad Faith reasoning and bias

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018196260

Why should I listen to that? Instead I reported you guys bad edits to arbitration board already and we will see who is in the wrong. Casualfoodie (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie Also one last thing. You had mentioned there is no consensus for the change and why you reverted. WHY should there be a consensus to state that the specific claims in the intro was made by Nature opinion piece? That is not even a drastic edit that demands a consensus since everyone can clearly agree that people should know who is saying that. Otherwise it would seem like multiple scholars are saying it instead of really just that guy in particular..

Like I wrote to you already on talk before yet you completely ignored my question

it's not like we can say for a solid fact here that conclusive research has proven that merdian points are fake', that is rather the point. Meridian points are not falsifiable, which is exactly what makes this field 'fraught with pseudoscience', as the Nature piece says. - MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And what's wrong in specifying that it was a Nature opinion piece that stated it was "fraught with pseudoscience"? I am not even suggesting that we delete that claim But making it clear to readers who said that particular phrase. Casualfoodie (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Why can't the intro mention that it was a nature opinion piece that made those specific claims? Or the fact that there's indeed currently a lack of quality research on the field? Those things are both true and should be mentioned. Casualfoodie (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Casualfoodie (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of quality research into fringe claims is exactly what makes them fringe claims. When the claim becomes WP:MAINSTREAM, that's when the quality research starts to come. Further, the question as to when to attribute versus WP:ASSERT is one that is resolved by reliable sources. If the most reliable sources agree with an evaluation, Wikipedia tends to report it rather plainly instead of trying to couch it as, y'know, just, like, your opinion, man. Hope this makes sense. jps (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol mate, respectively this is the reason why we butt heads. I don't know why you bring up an irrelevant topic in this particular section here as if that's what we are edit warring about. In regards to my edit warring, do take a closer look at my actual disputed edits.

I had issues with the intro where it states

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is a branch of traditional medicine in China. It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[1]

That's the first two sentences..I feel that at the very least, people should know who is actually saying that - "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action."

It's not from a group of scholars but just one guy with an opinion piece.. Hence I feel the sentence should be edited to specify that. I wasn't trying to add in false information or unsourced info..

I wanted to change the intro to;

It has been described by a Nature Opinion piece as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[1]

None of my disputed edits was trying to add in unsourced info or false info. Just wanted to makes it clear that it came from a specific person and not a group of scholars.

And if you read the research on TCM, the consistent message is that there's currently limited quality research to conclusively confirmed the effectiveness. So I felt that such context is important for the public to know and hence I added in this edit. AND we both agree that limited quality research overall is lacking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018137300

I want to know why it's even wrong to add those edit? If it is wrong. I wanted to add in context that overall there is currently limited quality research on the entire field. The public should know that. Also the public should know who is actually saying "fraught with pseudoscience"..is it a group of scholars or just one person? It is One person btw and should be clarified as such.

But nonetheless despite what I think is right. I indeed edit warred and had broke the rules. So I am accepting of my 31 hour ban and not challenging it.

Casualfoodie (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also lastly in regards to your reply, I was actually wrong in part when I said there is limited studies on TCM. That's not entirely true to a degree. I learnt yesterday that when it comes to specifically accupuncture, (a core TCM discipline). Alot has now changed in terms of research. And why it pays to keep an open mind as modern research continues to unravel the answers. I leave you with what I had learned yesterday and hope that you at least also keep an open mind given the past research.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/08/study-reveals-acupuncture-affects-disease-course/

It is easy to ridicule a 2000-year-old treatment that can seem closer to magic than to science. Indeed, from the 1970s to around 2005, the skeptic’s point of view was understandable, because the scientific evidence to show that acupuncture worked, and why, was weak, and clinical trials were small and of poor quality.

But things have changed since then. A lot.

Thanks to the development of valid placebo controls (for example, a retractable “sham” device that looks like an acupuncture needle but does not penetrate the skin), and the publication of several large and well-designed clinical trials in the last decade, we have the start of a solid foundation for truly understanding the effectiveness of acupuncture.

How do we know if acupuncture really works for pain?

Individual large-scale clinical studies have consistently demonstrated that acupuncture provided better pain relief compared with usual care. However, most studies also showed little difference between real and sham (fake) acupuncture. In order to address this concern, a 2012 meta-analysis combined data from roughly 18,000 individual patients in 23 high-quality randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for common pain conditions. This analysis conclusively demonstrated that acupuncture is superior to sham for low back pain, headache, and osteoarthritis, and improvements seen were similar to that of other widely used non-opiate pain relievers.

Source https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-for-headache-2018012513146 Casualfoodie (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the fifth time by my counting you have posted this blogpost as your ace in the hole. It is not as convincing as you seem to think it is. I and others have responded to why this source is problematic over on the TCM page. Good luck! jps (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Traditional Chinese medicine) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I's very important that you come to understand that whether your editorial position is correct or not is entirely irrelevant to this block. We do not allow edit warring here, period. I've gone pretty light here, you are blocked from one specific page where you were causing problems for just over one day. That should give you plenty of time to read and understand the edit warring policy so you can avoid being blocked again in the future. I'd also refer you to this excellent advice you got only yesterday: "What's important is that you listen when someone tells you that there's a problem with what you're doing, and that you don't assume they're trying to stop you for nefarious purposes." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 01:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General advice

I have tagged one of the sources you added and reverted some text that was added in the lead of an article and cited a blog (the lead should be a summary of the article's content/body and blogs are rarely acceptable as a source). I commented on an article talk page with more details.

Considering the block for edit warring and the multiple long posts at the CTM article's talk page, it's important to remember that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. There is no time line, contributors are expected to be volunteers. Edit warring must be avoided by everyone no matter the quality of the edits. WP:BRD is a good way to approach WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ER explains what is considered edit warring. The above block is short so you should be able to edit again soon (I think that it also could easily have been avoided). I have nothing to add in relation to copyright as other editors have already helped.

Finally, in relation to pseudoscientific topics, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy is not about presenting a false balance (WP:GEVAL); per the WP:PSCI policy such topics must be clearly described as such. As others have pointed out, WP:MEDRS is expected to support biomedical claims, but WP:PARITY also allows more common sources to be used and support criticism. —Paleo Neonate – 01:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must have stalked my edit history by going that way far back as I didn't even realise you were talking about Opium history and the Korean expedition. Next time, be more specific. You were referring to opium history and reverted my edit questionably. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018086806

I was on Korean expedition and clicked on Opium history link and read the intro.. There is nothing in the intro that talks about how the British had flooding the Chinese market with a very strong form of Bengali opium imports and exchanging it with silver.. that's like one of the most significant parts of China opium history that no historian can deny. The current intro seems more like statistics of opium and does not even talk about who it was even exporting it in large amounts..

If I took your advice that lead should be a summary of the article's content/body and blogs. Then what's the reason for deleting the information?

My very short paragraph summed up a significant amount of history completely missing in the intro.. why did you delete it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1018086806

British imported Bengali or indian grown Opium that was different from the Chinese opium. It was much stronger and consequently, Chinese began to smoke or and get high. It was the British who started the addiction with their imports.

The Chinese emperor was alarmed by the addiction rates and the vast amounts of silver pouring to the British. So they banned it but the British began smuggling it in. When the Chinese confiscated their dope and destroyed it. It created an opium war which the Chinese lost and was forced to lift the ban and keep the opium trade Alive. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-first-and-second-opium-wars-195276

That's like one of the most significant parts of Opium history. And Hence there should be at least one minimum mention on who was exporting it to China the most as the current article has absolutely ZERO info on that in the intro. Instead just heaps of info about China importing it and that's all. That is a very flawed intro.

It's clear that Wikipedia has a long way to go. Look at the Opium war articles and then compare them to Britannica. They are too different from one another in drastic ways because the current Wikipedia article is such a revisionist version. When other scholars are saying that the wars are due to British greed and opium profits, it's just sad to see editors trying to keep up an ignorant narrative alive despite britiannica contradicts it. And fyi, the national interest source was more accurate and straight on Opium wars without revisionist editing and did not deserve to be deleted by you. Maybe not now, but sometime close to the end of year. I would address your reverting of my edit and the Opium war articles as they are clearly flawed. Unfortunately I am busy with certain priorities (Wikipedia editing is just a hobby and not my top priority) but will get back to you on this as I honestly don't agree at all with your reverting of my edits and will address it fully in time.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/opium-war-conflict-changed-china-forever-180182

Casualfoodie (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. DO NOT leave all caps demands on other users' talkpages when they have made good edits. If I tell you to take it to talk, DO NOT come shout at me, saying I'm edit warring when I have never interacted with you before, and then tell me to take it to talk. Kingsif (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I wrote on your page was NOT to edit war and discuss on talk page. That's not an attackCasualfoodie (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is when you use ALLCAPS and when you appear to be assuming bad faith that someone will edit war the very first time they have ever interacting with you and give a very good reason for undoing your edit. Now, stop editing since you cannot seem to write a complete sentence, let alone one that makes sense, and are also WP:SOURCEHIJACKING all over the place. If you have this many issues with editing, ALL of your proposed changes should go through discussion first. Kingsif (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the past edits was not aimed at you. But the editors who wrote that in and nowhere did they ever write that Morale's accusations of US covert meddling was validated by many sources. Instead, they added a sentence that Morales claims of lithium theft was nonsensical and added a source validating that. And that's it. Why is there double standards? Why is there extra sentences to validate that Morales was wrong yet ZERO sentences about Morale's being right OAS claims being completely false? I have also added a chapter to talk page, suggesting that media and scholar reactions need to be added in as they are arguably a huge part of the topic. Casualfoodie (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit it was copyright. I clearly used original words. Not a single phrase was even close to copyright Casualfoodie (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Overlapping text is highlighted in bold:

After being sworn into office in 2006, the leader nationalized Bolivia's oil and gas industries [...] He controversially redistributed 134 million acres of land from state or private ownership to Indigenous families [...] Morales redirected that money into schools, hospitals and infrastructure. Starting in 2006, for example, approximately 4,500 educational facilities were built with funds from the nationalized hydrocarbon industry and commodities boom.

— How Evo Morales Made Bolivia A Better Place ... Before He Fled The Country, NPR

After being sworn into office in 2006, Morales nationalized Bolivia's oil and gas industries and controversially redistributed 134 million acres of land from state or private ownership towards Indigenous families. With the income from nationalized hydrocarbon industry and the commodities boom. Morales funneled that money into schools, hospitals, and infrastructure and from 2006, approximately 4,500 educational facilites were built.

— Part of your addition to Evo Morales

Please summarize information from sources in your own words. DanCherek (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is just narrow cherrpicking. I wrote a lot more than that and 80 percent were definitely unique. Why don't you show the entire original paragraph I wrote. And let's check it. Casualfoodie (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to cherrypick a few phrases and ignore the fact that I added in lots of original writing in between. But some phrases can't be substituted. Like (nationalized hydrocarbon industry and the commodities boom) and (schools, hospitals, and infrastructure) and (2006, approximately 4,500 educational facilites were built.) However I admit that (controversially redistributed 134 million acres of land from state or private ownership to Indigenous families ) could had been changed better.

But to delete all of it, is insane. I wrote 2 separate sections in 2 whole different areas. I know there is zero copyright when I wrote about the world bank and instead of quoting a scholar. I summarised what he wrote. That entire paragraph definitely had zero copyright and you should not delete EVERYTHING. Casualfoodie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways it doesn't matter. Tomorrow I am going to re-add every single info back in. And a whole lot more. That is a solid promise. And I am going to post every paragraph here, so i can prove at least vast majority of them have 98% original words with only minimal levels of copyright. Today it was 80 percent original yet that apparently can be termed copyright. So will not repeat that again. Casualfoodie (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.....

"Morale's brand of 'Pragmatic Socialism' was a program that was one of many among the Pink Tide that swept throughout the Latin American continent in the 2000s, where a number of populist leaders rose to power with socialist and social democratic leftist leanings. Morales was opposed to neoliberal policies of austerity and privatization and after coming into office in 2006, his administration nationalised the oil and gas sector. Using the funds derived from the nationalised natural gas and oil businesses, his administration invested heavily in basic sanitation, agriculture, education, water resources, transportation and health with the strategic goal to tackle the structural causes of poverty. By 2014, Morales’ anti-poverty programs won him wide support as the country saw poverty reduced by 25%, extreme poverty reduced by 43%, social spending being increased by over 45% and the real minimum wage being increased by 87.7%. According to CEPR in Washington in regards to Bolivia's economy during Morale's governance, “Bolivia has grown much faster over the last eight years than in any period over the past three and a half decades"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/evo-morales-reelected-socialism-doesnt-damage-economies-bolivia

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/economics-socialism-bolivia-evo/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-election-idUSKCN0I21MD20141013

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Bolivias-Social-Spending-Has-Doubled-Under-Morales-in-11-Years-20170120-0011.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-14/bolivian-president-evo-morales-wins-third-term-in-a-landslide/5811214 Casualfoodie (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this edit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039271463

It seems like you have issues as you don't like that info showed. My edit wasn't even wrong and yet you first deleted the whole thing simply based on the Article not saying 'ridicule'. Despite criticise and 'ridicule' is pretty much the same thing.

And I see the other new account guy who is the one Edit warring and also emotionally claims Taiwan is an independent country. I don't see you warning him. I wonder why of the double standard. You two are not arguing in good faith. Casualfoodie (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well he or she is wrong lmao 😂

They gave me a link https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/sports/olympics/rio-medals-standings-results.html

Saying that America has always used the total medal tally count. His own link shows that he is wrong. And now he is backtracking because he realised he made a mistake.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039275343 Casualfoodie (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... That doesn’t actually matter when it comes to edit warring, even if you’re completely right and the other person is completely wrong its still edit warring. “But I was right” is not among the valid exceptions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the guy added in his original research that (most) US media uses Total medal count without any sources saying that, which is frowned upon. NYT was an outlet that used the standard method. Same as CBS in 2016. However sometimes media uses total medals but not exclusively. They don't all decide to use total medals yet they were criticised for having an unusual consensus on medal ranking. It is controversial because they never all used total medal count before and why social Media accused them of team usa bias. https://www.cbssports.com/olympics/news/2016-rio-olympics-medal-tracker/

You don't see me Edit warring and correcting that despite he really should not use original research. Also fyi, China generally says they came second in the medal tally.

The one time they make a joke and show a different medal tally. The US and Australian media presents it as if it's the general consensus in china to say they came first. That is not accurate since you can Google their media articles and it constantly says they came second.. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230873.shtml Casualfoodie (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't see me Edit warring” but I do see you edit warring... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had since left his edits alone on that page. Even tho he later added infactual (original research) and his given sources doesn't even back his original research at all. And I don't see you fixing his excessively bad edits despite you completely undid my edits and arbitrarily stated my source did not have the word "ridicule". I wonder why of the double standards.

I actually remember you now. Your edit history are like everywhere on China hawkish topics going back years. I myself wrote on the Falun Gong Talk page 2 months back and you were there too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Bias Casualfoodie (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference would be that the current edits are not OR, they do appear to be reflected in the sources. I understand that you feel that those sources do a poor job of describing the situation, but you can’t get anywhere by attempting to directly refute those sources you need to find WP:RS which do or give what you feel is a more detailed description. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully you're wrong. Please give me a source that claims that most US media uses the total medal count tally? There is no source claiming that. I looked at his sources and NONE said that. It is his original research to claim that.

And also how can he possibly know that (most) US media uses those methods? Nobody even measure that and he just made un backed claims.

I can revert his edit with sound reasoning but chose not to engage further. So this discussion is over as you don't have to worry. I have no intention to revert his edits. Casualfoodie (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Hello. You repeatedly tried to equate China's blatant inclusion of two independent NOCs into their medal tally to claim victory at the Olympics with American long-standing tradition of counting overall medals. Unlike the Chinese state media, American news agencies do not pursue a goal of putting the United States on the top by any means possible, and some social media users' opinions cannot change that. You tried to question that and I provided sources, including the one for the 2016 Olympics where NYT actually put China above Great Britain based on total medals (GB had more golds). You lost that argument and yet I removed the section because I don’t want biased users like you attacking that page and edit-warring. If it means that China's insecure behavior is left without a mention, so be it. Tanovschi (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/sports/olympics/rio-medals-standings-results.html

Look at your own source. It proves you wrong. In 2016, NYT used the conventional method and ranked Britian higher than China.. Despite China had more total medals than Britian. Your own source contradicts you to be the liar or accidental liar here. Not me.

Casualfoodie (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an aberration. Didn't notice it. You can have ESPN https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/london2012/results They clearly counter total medals in 2016. Tanovschi (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/olympics/rio-2016-olympic-medal-count/ Clearly total medals. Tanovschi (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S I added your edits in. There seems no reason to not add in China's wrongful medal counting. Tho having said that, they have always recognized Taiwan as their own so not really that new.

And here is your edit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039274902 You can be more polite. Despite the fact you were wrong there..China is NOT ranking higher than GB. You should apologise. Casualfoodie (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for picking an incorrect NYT table. But as I said, most American sources counted total medals in 2016. ESPN, WaPO, NBC Olympics (https://www.nbcolympics.com/medals) and others. Tanovschi (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added NYT switching from total medals in 2012 to gold medals in 2016 to keep it fair and balanced. You can take it from here and add whatever you want but please don’t argue with the fact that most American sources have always counted total medals first. Thank you. Tanovschi (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, I don't agree with your edits still. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039282118

It is (original research) to claim that US media have always mostly used total medal count. Without giving any source to actually say that. That isn't appropriate on Wikipedia.. However I am not going to challenge your Edit.. There are lots of things I don't agree with on Wikipedia but life is too short to waste it on edit warring for prolonged periods. So let's agree to disagree. I am not challenging your edits for that page.

And fyi, China generally says they came second in the medal tally on their state media.

The one time they make a joke and show a different medal tally. The sensationalised US and Australian tabloid media spin it as if it's the only consensus in china to say they came first. That is not even true since you can go search up their media articles today and it clearly says they came second..if you were fair, you would edit yourself to say that NOT all Chinese media claims that. It's just a single article saying otherwise. There are many other articles like the one below that contradicts the ignorant claim that China only counts medals from Taiwan and Hong Kong. But let the bs roll. 😑

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230873.shtml Casualfoodie (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Times is China state-owned media, so it isn't surprising. FobTown (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's not surprising that they put 38 golds and said Team China won second. Because that was a serious article.. Not some one off casual humor weibo social media post. It disproves your source as being false for claiming that single state media was only and narrowly claiming they came first. I have friends in China and Singapore who shared it around and laughing. They don't take it seriously tho it is still Petty behaviour to joke about such things. However the western tabloid grossly over hyped and spun a joke played on social media and misrepresented it. The Global times article proves them wrong. Casualfoodie (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. 阿pp (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casualfoodie, you can make an unblock request if you wish or even discuss the block, but you are not permitted to have other discussions on this Talk page while you are blocked, and certainly not to attack people (I reverted that one).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, I am can edit my own talk page. Just not Wikipedia articles or talk..and I apologize for occasionally using slang.. Saying "ass' is just something I do too often. But I will be mindful of it. Casualfoodie (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Your recent editing history at China at the 2020 Summer Olympics 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at China at the 2020 Summer Olympics.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

An indefinite ban isn't helpful. I do respect the rules but occasionally slow on what is accepted. That is not to excuse my actions but just explaining myself here and my mindset on why i did it and why you can trust i won't be repeating.

2 weeks ago approx, Fob House was also reverting other people's edits constantly and I was simply the one who reverted his reverts of other people's edits. That was what got both him and me banned the first time. Ironically after our ban expired, FobHouse then first reverted my edits after his ban expired.

And he wasn't banned at all by you so i got the wrong idea on what was permissible.. he wasn't banned after reverting my edits soon after his ban expired and so i copied him, thinking that it was fine.. he has been here for years... So i didn't think i was doing anything against the rules but NOW I realised that what he and I was doing, is wrong.

My first ban was for reverting more than 3 times. I didn't do that same mistake today and had zero intentions of breaking that rule today.

I did make a discussion on Talk and gave reasoning tho. But i can see that instead of reverting at all, I should had instead just focused on discussing it on Talk and the proper channels first exclusively with absolutely zero reverting at all. I know this now.

And I apologize for breaking another rule out of unfamiliarity. But an indefinite ban for me copying FOBHOUSE (who doesn't get banned at all). Is actually unfair. The rule I broke was ambiguous. Technically one can revert an article edit multiple times over days. Who decides what is excessive? I know the (no more than 3 revert rule) but the other one is not clearly defined.

My last honest mistake was not realising that even if your edits don't exceed 3 times. You are still edit warring. But i was thinking that if FOBHOUSE was doin it (reverting a few times after a ban). It's not wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041136613

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041415159

Seems like he is not banned which is my point. Amateur editors can be slow and accidentally break rules. I didn't think I was truly breaking rules at that time but the message of practical reality is received and now I am more experienced to not repeat..A virtual permanent ban doesn't give me any fair chance to Learn from my mistakes and prove that I can do better and not trying to deliberate break the exact same rules.

Lastly the block is completely unnecessary since you won't even have issues with me on that particular topic as I already had decided after seeing HAEB revert my edits to not go challenge it further (this was before i even got blocked).

Again I apologize for doing those 3 reverts after my ban expired. If you unblock me within this week, i can then solemnly promise you won't see me getting into trouble on any Olympic Page for this whole year to indefinite. As I honesty don't care that much on those pages. I was simply doing what i thought was right. If however I violate that promise to myself after you unblock me, then it would be fair to go ban me forever. As there is no reasonable excuses.

I don't really have major plans to edit in the next days but was going to add in a few constructive edits to some commerce topics soon this week. I ask for understanding and a reasonable fair chance to at least prove that promise if I am unbanned. I know I made a mistake in doing 3 reverts within one week after my ban. There is no way I will repeat that ever again.

Casualfoodie (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned. (blocks and bans are different here) Any unblock request you make should only discuss your actions, and not those of others. I think as part of being unblocked you will need to describe how to handle an editing dispute without edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2021 (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.

@Bbb23 Shouldn't Wikipedia be equal and not discriminate with bias? What makes me an Edit warrer but not when others do the same? there is no clear rule explicitly saying you cannot revert 3 times.

Fobtown and I were both blocked a month ago for exceeding 3 reverts. Then after our ban expired, he reverted all my edits which i eventually reverted back. Then he reverted all my edits again but I reverted that back. Neither of us break the 3RR rule. But only I alone get blocked. What exactly makes my actions deemed as excessive edit warring and threat to the page, but not the China hawk editors that does the reverting first. Seems more like blatant double standards which makes me motivated to not repeat the same mistake to avoid others in thinking they can block edits they emotionally disagree with. I like to know what is the line that makes his actions acceptable but not if I copy him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041136613

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041415159

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041416685

Also why is it fine for editors to constantly get a blind eye whenever they smear people like me? The China Hawks are calling me "50 cent" but unlike the China Hawks, i seem to be the only one here to get blocked despite they were the ones reverting all my edits first in equal amounts and it seems my unblock request is constantly ignored despite it's been well over a week. Where is the equal treatment or do China Hawks completely get away with edit warring and attacking other people's character.

And if you gave me a 48 hour block. I would have learned that lesson that even 3 reverts in one day, can be deemed as Edit warring. I am still a new editor. And I wouldn't do it again. An indefinite block is unnecessary and disportionate when others get zero blocks for reverting too. I haven't 'disrupted' that page for the past week outside my account so that is more evidence that this block is unnecessary and that I had well cooled off. Why am I still blocked? Below is the other Edit warrer that equally reverted all my edits and is now attacking my character. I want to report and ask equal treatment. Or is it okay now to accuse others of being 50 cent or another editor despite they are wrong?

Thanks for your help on China at the 2020 Summer Olympics, it is interesting that 阿pp hasn't resurfaced since 19 August 2021, while Casualfoodie has been indefinitely blocked. Have noticed that both editors have attempted to blank the disputed content in question (censorship?), later justifying the removal with state-owned media sources, is this a sign of the 50 Cent Party? Have had a similar problem on the Sun Yang page. FobTown (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HaeB#Invitation_to_join_back_discussion

Casualfoodie (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't received a single response to my last unblock request for almost 2 weeks now so making a new unblock request in case the last request wasn't delivered right. But I haven't 'disrupted' that page for the past week outside my account so that is evidence enough that this block is unnecessary and that I had well cooled off and willing to edit within rules. I already apologized for my actions in the unblock request and promised not to do it again (which btw is my first ever block for reverting 3 times in 1 day but not breaking the 3RR rule). And I mentioned that in future edit disputes, I will take it to the Talk page or noticeboard if needed, and not revert back and forth in the future.

My reverts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041414168

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041414937

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1041416685 Casualfoodie (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What is your relationship to User:MangoTareeface9? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:29, 5 October 2021 (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.